I took a CO2 detector on a flight: It showed me when I was most likely exposed to COVID


Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY
Sun, June 12, 2022, 

DENVER — On seat 10D, my eyes flicker between my fellow passengers crammed in the aisle and the carbon dioxide detector balanced on my knee.

I can't help but shudder a little every time someone coughs or sneezes as they board, and the numbers on the detector climb steadily, from about 800 parts per million to more than 1,600 ppm.

Experts say that the level of carbon dioxide in indoor air is an easy proxy for potential COIVD-19 exposure, and now that masks are voluntary on planes and international arrivals no longer have to test, I wanted to see what my potential risk was.

Outdoor air typically has less than 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, and although the levels of CO2 on my plane never reach anything near what's considered even mildly unhealthy, the numbers suggest I'm being exposed to coronavirus. I can't help but touch my mask for reassurance.

Aboard one of the last masked flights: Here's how crew, passengers found out masks weren't required

International travel: US to drop COVID testing requirement for international flyers Sunday

USA TODAY reporter Trevor Hughes on a United Express 

flight to Dulles International Airport on April 18, 2022.

I'm wearing a mask on this flight to visit my elderly parents in Vermont. The last time I visited, I was on one of the last mandatory masked flights, and I've taken several flights since then, sometimes masked, sometimes not.

Nationally, about 300 people a day are dying from COVID still. While rapid tests are now widely available, they only measure whether you're infected. There's no way to know about the people around you – especially when many people don't seem to care whether they're infected or not, or what the consequences could be for my parents or other at-risk communities.

That's where the CO2 detector comes in. I bought a $140 KOPUO tester from Amazon, which an expert later tells me is one of the cheapest but still accurate detectors. Cheaper ones use a different measuring system that can be inaccurate if there's a lot of hand sanitizer being used around it.

Why measure CO2?

An area with high CO2 levels may put you at higher risk for infection, while a space with low CO2 levels can be considered safer, says University of Colorado-Boulder Prof. Jose-Luis Jimenez.

Jimenez is an expert on how particles and gases move around a room, and he's tested lots of inexpensive CO2 detectors and found that many are remarkably accurate compared to laboratory-grade equipment.

"It's the only thing that we have found that approximates having this information," Jimenez said. "It's not perfect, because everyone exhales carbon dioxide, but not every who exhales has COVID."

Jimenez and his colleagues found that in a library, if an influx of people makes CO2 levels double from 800 ppm to 1,600, COVID transmission risk triples. And if CO2 levels in a gym drop from 2,800 ppm to 1,000, the risk of COVID-19 transmission drops 75%.

There are of course caveats to his models, particularly when it comes to masks, airplanes and HEPA filters. HEPA stands for "high-efficiency particulate air" and most large airplanes made by Boeing and Airbus have them installed. HEPA filters are effective at removing dust, pollen, bacteria and virus particles from the air, but they don't remove carbon dioxide because it's a dissolved gas with far smaller molecules.

Are filters enough to prevent COVID on airplanes?: Airlines say mask mandates aren't needed anymore

Multiple studies conducted by the federal government, airlines, aircraft manufacturers and other researchers have concluded air travel poses a relatively low risk of COIVD infection, in large part because the HEPA filters remove virus particles. But that's only relevant when the aircraft is pumping air through the filters. Airbus says its systems completely replace cabin air every 2-3 minutes while flying.

Measuring CO2 levels on my flight, at the airport

My measurements show CO2 levels skyrocketed during boarding of my Airbus A319 headed to Vermont, but remained virtually unchanged on my flight back to Denver. That indicates the pilot or ground crew were doing something different at boarding that kept the air fresher, even though both flights were similarly full and I was seated in almost the same place on both directions.

United Airlines did not respond to a request for comment on its specific policies but sent a statement saying, in part, "There is always fresh air on the aircraft. The primary HEPA benefits are when airborne, because significant outdoor air is circulated through the cabin and jet bridge on the ground anyway."

In the Denver International Airport terminal, the CO2 levels remained relatively consistent at about 800 ppm, and I felt comfortable removing my mask to wolf down some McDonald's hash browns. The levels hit about 1,000 ppm on the airport train to the concourse, but sitting at the gate I was actually more concerned with how few men had washed their hands after using the restroom. That thought also made me shudder.

Aboard the plane, CO2 levels hit 1,520 ppm when flight attendants closed the boarding door, rose to about 1,800 when the pilot appeared to turn on a different ventilation system, dropped to about 1,600 as we taxied to the runway, and then jumped back to 1,900 as we approached the end of the runway for takeoff.

The levels began dropping immediately as the engines spooled up, and then leveled off around 1,200 as the seatbelt sign came off at 28,000 feet.

Watching the monitor, the levels rose back up to 1,550 as the flight attendants (one masked, one not) distributed cookies and then stayed at about that level until we landed. After getting off the plane in Burlington, the CO2 level was about 1,000 in the terminal, and I finally removed by mask.

Risk assessment

Returning home on Monday, the CO2 in the airport was about 400 ppm, which is the same level it was outside. The Burlington airport is far smaller than Denver's, and fewer people were wearing masks, including me. The CO2 levels for the return flight topped out at about 1,000 ppm as the boarding door closed, and it dropped to about 850 at takeoff and remained there until we touched down in Denver.

Riding the train back from the concourse to the terminal, the CO2 level touched 650, significantly lower than my outbound ride. Given those lower levels, I felt reassured that leaving my mask off was a safe bet.

Jimenez said my behavior follows what's known as a "budget of risk" – by using data, I adjusted my responses. Jimenez said he still wears N-95 masks on planes and tries to eat beforehand if it's a short flight, but otherwise has to take it off when eating onboard. He said carrying around a CO2 detector has helped him make informed decisions about possible COVID exposure.

"We are all being forced to do that," he said of the constant decisions about risk. "We don't want to live like monks."

For me, the detector is an easy form of reassurance about my relative risks: Indoor areas with high levels of CO2 will prompt me to wear a mask, while areas with lower levels mean I can skip it.

Going forward, the proof will be in the pudding, as my parents like to say. And in this case, it means yet another negative COVID-19 test result upon my return to Denver.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: COVID on planes: What I learned by measuring CO2 levels on my flight

The U.S. Oil And Gas Industry Has A Methane Problem


By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
Sat, June 11, 2022

New studies show that several oil and gas firms in the U.S. have been underreporting methane leaks in their operations in the Permian Basin. As Biden pushes his ‘Build Back Better’ framework - aimed at combatting climate change, and his Bipartisan Infrastructure Law - aimed at improving aging infrastructure, this latest report reveals significant weaknesses in the U.S. energy sector.

There is no secret that America’s aging and inadequate energy infrastructure is a huge weakness for the sector. Just last year, there were huge energy provision failures in the face of a severe Texas storm. And in California, residents must deal with grid failures annually, as temperatures soar. But the need to fix widespread energy infrastructure failings may be even more urgent than originally thought, as inefficiencies in private oil operations have led to severe methane leaks, which could hinder the government’s aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. and international partners are aiming to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent by 2030. However, America’s ongoing reliance on fossil fuels and inefficiencies in infrastructure are making this task seem monumental. A report released this month shows that the methane emissions in the Permian Basin from big oil and gas firm operations “are likely significantly higher than official data” reported to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The new report suggests “A very significant proportion of methane emissions appear to be caused by a small number of super-emitting leaks.” The writer of the report, Science Committee Chairwoman Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, stated that the U.S. will likely fail to meet its methane emissions reduction goals without a “swift and large-scale decline in oil and gas sector methane leaks.”

In 2021, Biden announced a wide array of policies aimed at cutting methane emissions from fossil fuel operations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also proposed rules to establish better standards for old wells, which would require oil and gas firms to carry out more regular and rigorous leak monitoring, as well as making firms introduce carbon capture technologies into their oil operations. But the report highlights that out of the ten companies reviewed, nine had no internal definition of a ‘super-emitting leak’. Two of the operators believe that existing technologies cannot provide an accurate assessment of the leaks.

The operators in question are Chevron, ExxonMobil, Admiral Permian Resources Operating, Ameredev II, ConocoPhillips, Coterra Energy, Devon Energy, Mewbourne Oil, Occidental Petroleum and Pioneer Natural Resources. A spokesperson from the lobbying group American Petroleum Institute defended the companies’ monitoring mechanisms, stating “This industry is committed to tackling the challenge of emissions reductions head-on while continuing to deliver affordable, reliable energy. We support accuracy and transparency in reporting GHG emissions and are continuously improving emissions reporting, including the accelerated deployment of cost-effective direct measurement options.”

However, the report revealed that, in 2020, a super-emitting leak from one of the firms was equivalent to over 80 percent of the methane emissions the company had reported to the EPA from its Permian Basin oil and gas operations that year. This means that the severity of leaks is likely underreported.

Beyond the report, 21 oil wells were recently found to be leaking methane in California. Many of the wells are apparently leaking 50,000 parts per million of methane or more – an amount at which the colorless, odorless gas can explode if ignited. California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) has now temporarily plugged several of the leaks.

California's top oil regulator, Uduak-Joe Ntuk, has since been accused of lying about the severity of the leaks near Bakersfield. The regulator told the public that the leaks were small and not a concern, which has since been found to be false.

California has, this month, vowed to invest $300 million in the plugging of methane leaks in response to a government push to reduce emissions. Two-thirds of the funds will contribute to plugging idle and leaking wells, while the other third will be spent on methane-detecting satellites – to track global methane leaks from fossil fuel operations, landfills, and agriculture.

The announcement comes following California’s pledge to cut methane emissions by 40 percent by the end of the decade. Methane is much more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide – around 84 times more in its first two decades – although it stays in the atmosphere for less time.

While California is responding to government calls to reduce methane emissions across its oil and gas operations, its regulators may be understanding the severity of some of the major leaks in the state. In addition, the recent report on super-emitting leaks suggests that major oil and gas companies are likely underreporting their methane emissions, hindering the U.S. aim to greatly reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

Analysis-Kurdish tensions stymie Iraqi region's gas export ambitions

Amina Ismail and Maha El Dahan
Mon, June 13, 2022,


General view of Sulaymaniyah city

By Amina Ismail and Maha El Dahan

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq (Reuters) - The prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masrour Barzani, has been touting the autonomous region's gas export capabilities as an alternative to Russian supply, but division between the region's two main parties suggest the plan is, for now, a pipe dream.

While his political party is selling the project as part of a solution to Europe's gas woes, its regional partner has effectively blocked it after complaining that it has been sidelined from negotiations with companies and potential buyers.

And Kurdistan does not even have enough gas to supply its own needs, with power blackouts a daily phenomenon.

Barzani's ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) has long tussled for influence with its junior coalition partner in government, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by the Talabani clan.

Those tensions have escalated in recent months, both because of the gas row and after the KDP put forward its own candidate for the Iraqi presidency - a position traditionally held by Kurds from the PUK under a power-sharing arrangement.

Five Kurdish officials from both sides said senior officials from the parties barely talked for months, not even discussing security and elections scheduled for October. Recent meetings had now touched on those issues but had still yielded few results, Western diplomats said.

That leaves Kurdish gas export plans stranded for now, dealing a blow to the region's aspirations to boost energy revenues and offering small relief to global markets desperate to diversify supplies.

The impasse could also undermine stability in Iraq's north, where both ruling families have their own security forces.

Widespread economic hardship among young Kurds was one of the main factors behind the migrant crisis on Belarus' borders in late 2021 and early 2022.

"If we are a coalition government, we should decide things together," PUK President Bafel Talabani told Reuters.

The KDP did not respond to requests for comment on the row. But the Kurdistan Regional Government, which is led by the KDP, said it wanted to use oil and gas resources to benefit all.

Both sides need to agree. Two of the biggest gas fields in Iraq, Khor Mor and Chemchemal, produce around 450 million cubic feet of gas a day and lie in PUK territory.

To get gas to markets outside Iraq, the easiest route is north to Turkey, through land controlled by the KDP.

NO BREAKTHROUGH

Pearl Consortium, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi-listed Dana Gas and its affiliate Crescent Petroleum, has the rights to exploit the two fields. It plans to more than double production to up to 1 billion cubic feet per day in the next few years, enough to cover domestic needs.

With 15 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves, output could potentially ramp up to 1.5 billion cubic feet a day, leaving a sizeable quantity for exports.

Last year, the KDP-led Kurdish government signed a contract with domestic energy company KAR Group to extend a gas pipeline from the fields to the regional capital Erbil and the northern city of Dohuk, close to the Turkish border.

Once the pipeline reaches Dohuk, it could easily be extended a few more kilometres (miles) to Turkey, paving the way for gas exports to Europe.

But Talabani complained that the KDP excluded his party from talks and there was no tendering process or transparency about how KAR was awarded the pipeline construction contract.

A senior KAR official said it signed a contract with the regional Ministry of Natural Resources in December 2021 to upgrade and extend the gas pipeline network to Dohuk.

It referred questions about the process to the ministry, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The PUK has blocked even the first phase of expansion intended to serve the domestic market by preventing technicians from entering gas fields in areas under their control.

Further undermining the export plans is Iran, which has considerable sway over its neighbour. Some analysts said it was opposed to a project that could undermine its influence in the region.

Iran's foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

Last month, Kurdish president and cousin of Masrour Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani, visited Sulaimaniya and met top PUK officials, the first senior meeting involving both sides in months. There were a few more meetings following the visit in which the leaders discussed security and the parliamentary elections set for Oct. 1.

'BAD MARRIAGE'

Talk of exports comes despite the fact that Kurdistan is struggling to produce enough electricity.

Of Kurdistan's 13 power stations, five are gas powered and are only working at about 50% to 70% capacity because of shortages. Power blackouts are commonplace, meaning domestic expansion would likely be the immediate priority.

And as for exports, no deal has been inked with Turkey yet, according to Kurdish officials.

The Turkish government did not respond when asked for comment.

But Barzani's trips overseas, including to neighbouring Istanbul where the gas issue was raised, have irked the PUK, according to three officials, one of whom described the relationship between the two Kurdish parties as a "very bad marriage."

When the mayor of PUK-controlled Chemchemal province was told in January that the government had awarded KAR group a contract to extend the domestic pipeline network, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said it was the first time the PUK was officially informed.

As a result the PUK blocked it, indicating that the party wanted an equal say in all matters concerning gas in an attempt to avoid what it considers to be the mistakes of the past.

Kurdistan began direct oil sales to world markets in mid-2015 after accusing the central government in Baghdad of depriving the region of funds to pay state and army salaries, even though it had been instrumental in defeating Islamic State.

Most of the Kurdistan government's revenue comes from those oil exports, which the PUK says are unfairly distributed among the provinces by the KDP-controlled administration.

The KDP did not respond to a request for comment on the issue.

"Gas won't go out of Kurdistan the way the oil has, with that level of mismanagement and lack of transparency - over my dead body," Talabani said.

(Amina Ismail reported from Sulaimaniya and Erbil and Maha El Dahan reported from Dubai; Additional reporting by Ali Sultan in Sulaimaniya; Editing by Mike Collett-White and Edmund Blair)

 The US dollar and oil prices are breaking from their historical trade link. 

An economist explains why this signals a 'double whammy' for global markets.

Phil Rosen

Sat, June 11, 2022

Comstock/Getty Images

• A strong US dollar has historically put downward pressure on oil prices, but that hasn't been happening lately.

• The US dollar has strengthened to a 20-year high, while crude prices have skyrocketed.

• "It's a double whammy for everyone outside the US," an economist told Insider.

A strong US dollar has historically put downward pressure on oil prices as contracts for the commodity are typically priced in the greenback. But that hasn't been happening lately.

This year, the dollar has strengthened roughly 8.5% to a 20-year high against the world's other major currencies, as the Federal Reserve winds down the easy-money era and tightens policy.

At the same time, crude prices have surged 62% in 2022 as Russian supplies disappear from the market, global stockpiles shrink, and demand ramps up amid the rebound from COVID restrictions and the start of the summer travel season.

"It's a double whammy for everyone outside the US," Aleksandar Tomic, economist and associate dean at Boston College, told Insider. "Other countries have to pay even more for barrels [of crude] because they are dealing with the rising dollar and rising oil prices. The US is dealing with just the rising prices."

The last time oil prices were this high in 2008, the dollar had plunged to a record-low against major US trading partners as the Fed was cutting interest rates during the financial crisis. The weaker dollar helped cushion the sticker shock from oil in other countries.

But the strength of the dollar today is making crude barrels more expensive when gauged in local currencies. Goldman Sachs analysts put the price of Brent crude at the equivalent of $150 per barrel — above the 2008 peak of $147.50.

And in certain individual currencies, the premium over 2008 levels is even steeper. When priced in the Indian rupee, oil is 46.7% above the 2008 peak, and in the South African rand, it's 62.5% higher, according to Bloomberg data.

Meanwhile, some countries have looked to alternatives to the dollar. In March, Saudi Arabia entered talks with China to price an oil deal using China's yuan. While Beijing also has political incentives to weaken the primacy of the US currency, a deal in a currency other than dollars between the world's top oil exporter and the world's biggest oil importer would mark a dramatic pivot away from 50 years of precedence.

Within the US, the strength of the dollar is less consequential, as its fluctuation primarily plays out across global markets and for other countries, Tomic explained. At the moment, other countries are paying more for crude because their currencies have not strengthened at the same rate as the US dollar.

"The dollar's strength is making it more difficult for people outside the US because of that double whammy," Tomic said. "It isn't something we will see relief on quickly."

Shell Is Looking To Shake Up The Energy Game In Texas

Sun, June 12, 2022, 

For years now, we have seen a growing divide between oil supermajors in Europe and the United States, as Big Oil has split into two factions on opposite sides of the Atlantic over what to do in response to climate change and increasing global calls for decarbonization. As climate activists grow louder and policymakers ramp up the pressure on the fossil fuels sector to clean up its act, European companies have rushed to diversify their portfolios and rebrand themselves as Big Energy. Meanwhile, in the U.S. Big Oil has stood its ground and doubled down on oil and gas, instead investing in schemes such as carbon capture, carbon offsetting, and biofuels.

The approach in the United States has been criticized as insufficient to meet global climate goals at best and greenwashing at worst. Environmentalists point out that strategies such as carbon capture and offsetting do not discourage the extraction of fossil fuels at a time when we should be doing everything we can to keep them in the ground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading global body reporting on the science of global warming, has said that avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will require “immediate and deep” cuts in emissions in all countries.

On the other side of the argument, Big Oil in the United States points to the massive potential economic fallout and decline in energy security and independence that may come with a swift transition to green energy. And what of the massive infrastructure costs and all of the jobs that will be displaced? As it stands, the U.S. is extremely reliant on the fossil fuels industry, and breaking that dependence will inevitably cause serious growing pains. A recent study found that “between 2015 and 2020, fossil fuels generated roughly $138 billion each year for US localities, states, tribes, and the federal government.” That’s a lot to lose.

But while Big Oil has been dragging its feet on the renewable revolution on this side of the pond, European supermajors have seen the writing on the wall, and have made enormous advances in the field of clean energy that threatens to bury any competition from the U.S. once renewables become the norm and oil and gas slowly but surely become overshadowed and then obsolete.

Already, Europe is moving into the United States and setting up shop, in none other than Texas, the oil and gas heartland. Shell announced this week that it will begin selling electricity generated from renewable sources directly to residents and businesses in the Lone Star State. In doing so, the company will increase consumer access to the state’s already abundant supply of wind and solar power, and offer them incentives to move over to their team. “It’s a significant, serious move but also not a surprise,” Michael Webber, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, told the New York Times. “They can see the future as well as anyone, and they are not in denial about climate change.”

Shell’s play is one of the first in what is going to be a seriously competitive market to sell clean electricity to U.S. consumers, in what is going to be an exploding market with huge growth opportunities. The supermajor will likely be directly competing with Big Tech companies like Tesla, Google, and Apple, which have been at the forefront of the charge toward clean energy development in the U.S. “The irony is it should be coming from existing utilities, but generally speaking they have been very resistant,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, managing director at the Climate Policy Lab at the Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

In fact, Shell noted that one of the reasons that it is prioritizing Texas as its first market is that “more than 26 million of the state’s nearly 29 million residents were served by a single grid operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas [ERCOT].” In fact, more opportunities to buy more energy outside of ERCOT can’t come fast enough, as Texas is staring down the barrel of potentially massive energy shortages during summer heat waves.

Climate advocates and skeptics alike can agree on one thing: becoming competitive with Europe will be essential to the future security of the United States economy. The U.S. energy sector has already lost valuable time investing in infrastructure and technology to stay relevant in a changing global energy sector. Oil prices may be high now, but fossil fuels are a fickle friend. On a long enough timeline, clean energy investing is a no-brainer. Just ask Shell.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

Why Is The UK Sending Gasoline To America As Prices Explode?

Editor OilPrice.com

Sat, June 11, 2022

The UK shipped 1.85 million barrels of gasoline and gasoline blending components to the United States in May, the highest monthly exports of those products since December 2021, Bloomberg News' Julian Lee reports, citing data from shipping analytics company Vortexa.

On the face of it, the flow of gasoline from the UK to the U.S. looks counterintuitive to market forces as UK gasoline prices are $3 a gallon higher than the gasoline prices in America.

But gasoline in the UK is taxed much more than the levies on gasoline in the U.S., that's why British drivers pay much higher prices at the pump, as do most other motorists across Europe.

If taxes are left out of the equation, it actually makes sense for UK exports of gasoline and blending components to flow to the United States, Bloomberg's Lee notes.

Regardless of how much various taxes weigh on the final price consumers pay and the specifics of the different markets, gasoline prices in the UK and the U.S., and in many other countries, are breaking records these days. That's because crude oil prices are at $120 per barrel, global refining capacity has shrunk since COVID, and the Russian war in Ukraine and the subsequent Western sanctions on Russia are upending trade flows of crude and refined products.

Gasoline prices in the UK—where total taxes on gasoline account for an average 46% of the retail price, per the UK's motoring organization RAC—saw this week the highest daily price jump in 17 years. The average UK gasoline price this week was the equivalent of more than $8.60 per U.S. gallon.

Records continued to be broken in the following days until the average cost of filling a 55-liter family car passed the £100 ($125) mark, the first time in history that drivers are paying triple digits for a full tank.

The UK government cut fuel duty by the equivalent of $0.062 per liter in March, but wholesale gasoline costs have already jumped fivefold that amount since then, RAC fuel spokesperson Simon Williams said on Thursday.

Related: OPEC+ Fails To Meet Output Target Once Again

"A further duty cut or a temporary reduction in VAT would go a long way towards helping drivers, especially those on lower incomes who have no choice other than to drive," Williams added.

Even at $8.63 per gallon gasoline, the UK is not the most expensive fuel market in Europe. Drivers in the Netherlands and Sweden pay more than $9 a gallon, while gasoline prices in Finland, Denmark, and Norway—traditionally the most expensive markets in Europe—are now paying more than $10 per gallon, according to GlobalPetrolPrices.com.

That's no consolation for U.S. drivers, who are now paying a national average of $5 per gallon, for the first time ever, and there is no immediate relief for the pain at the pump in sight. Gasoline demand is rising despite record-high prices while gasoline stocks dropped again, per the latest EIA weekly inventory report.

Gasoline inventories decreased by 800,000 barrels last week and are now about 10% below the five-year average for this time of year, the EIA said on Wednesday. At 416.8 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are about 15% below the five-year average for this time of year.

"This dynamic between decreased supply and increased demand is contributing to rising prices at the pump. This coupled with increasing crude oil prices means that the price of gas will likely remain elevated for the near future," AAA said in a Thursday comment on the soaring gasoline prices.

The sky-high prices are a serious threat to Democrats in the mid-term elections in November, as Americans will vote with gasoline prices in mind, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll found earlier this month. Gasoline prices will be an extremely important issue in the mid-terms for 48 percent of Americans—the highest percentage an issue has garnered for being "extremely important." Another 26 percent of Americans see gasoline prices as a "very important" election issue, the poll showed.

President Biden's various efforts to tame soaring gasoline prices haven't dented pump prices, and there isn't much a president—even the American president—can do to lower gasoline prices in a free market when crude oil prices are at $120 per barrel amid upended global oil trade flows.

This week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said she didn't expect gasoline prices to fall anytime soon, but she didn't expect a recession either.

"I know people are very upset and rightly so about inflation, but there's nothing to suggest that a ... recession is in the works."

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Democrat: Biden’s solar plan ‘builds a bridge’ for U.S. manufacturing — but there's more work to be done

Akiko Fujita

·Anchor/Reporter

Sun, June 12, 2022, 

President Biden signed an executive order on June 6 that invoked the Defense Production Act to accelerate domestic production of solar parts.

The action, taken in conjunction with a two-year pause on additional solar tariffs from 4 southeast Asian countries, signaled the administration’s public commitment to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign imports in a market dominated by the Chinese.

"What the president's plan does is it keeps the jobs that we already have in the U.S., in U.S. manufacturing of things like racking and tracking, inverters, all of those trade jobs installing existing panels, and the installers who do rooftop solar," Senator Martin Heinrich (D, NM), a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, told Yahoo Finance Live (video above). "And then it builds a bridge to more U.S. manufacturing of actual panels."

At the same time, Heinrich added, it is unrealistic to build out the U.S. clean energy infrastructure without a reliance on Chinese imports given America’s current footprint in the space.

"A huge amount of the existing jobs in creating utility scale projects, as well as creating distributed rooftop projects, couldn't exist over the course of the next couple of years [without imported parts],” he said. “We need to about triple our domestic capacity to really have the kind of impact that we want. And the president's plan does that."

U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) speaks during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 11, 2022. REUTERS/Sarah Silbiger

The president’s plan specifically puts the U.S. on track to triple domestic solar manufacturing capacity by 2024, according to the White House. That would bring the total capacity for clean solar energy to 22.5 gigawatts — enough to power more than 3.3 million homes.

Working against the plan are the inherent challenges that come with an ambitious clean energy buildout, given the limited existing capacity to manufacture in the U.S.

'You can't ask people who are working in those fields to just wait two years'

In March, the Commerce Department launched an investigation into Chinese solar companies accused of circumventing U.S. tariffs by routing parts intended for America to four Southeast Asian Countries.

And while officials have yet to find evidence of violations, the potential for additional tariffs on parts from countries that control roughly 80% of solar modules used in the U.S. brought many existing projects to a standstill.

Within weeks, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) said more than 300 domestic solar projects had been canceled or delayed, with some companies considering layoffs. The trade group also slashed its annual installation forecast by nearly 50 percent.

“You can't ask people who are working in those fields to just wait two years to start working in their jobs again," Heinrich said, referring to the two year pause. "They need to be continually building capacity for the next two years, which is why the two-year waiver is so important."

A new floating solar panel system is deployed on Big Muddy Lake at Camp Mackall as the U.S. Army hosts a ribbon-cutting event to unveil the solar energy system on June 10, 2022 at Camp Mackall in Aberdeen, North Carolina. (Photo by Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images)

The U.S. has collected anti-dumping and countervailing duties on solar imports from China since 2012 — when the Obama administration first imposed tariffs — after concluding that Chinese firms benefited from generous government subsidies and were selling at prices well below the cost of production. China currently controls more than half of the world’s polycrystalline silicon, which is a critical supply used in solar panels.

China’s stronghold on the industry has gotten renewed scrutiny because of where its solar components are manufactured: Roughly 80% of China’s polycrystalline silicon supply is produced in the northwest region of Xinjiang, the industrial hub where the U.S. has accused Beijing of committing “genocide and crimes against humanity” in its treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minority groups.

Heinrich suggested that the best solution lies in following through with the Biden administration's plan.

“Rather than pitting one set of jobs against another domestically in the U.S., what the president really said is: We're going to come up with a plan to make sure we have both.” Heinrich said. “So much of our inflation has been tied to fossil fuel commodity prices. And so the faster we can make this transition to clean energy, the more we ease inflationary pressures there as well.”

Akiko Fujita is an anchor and reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @AkikoFujita

Asian American journalist says she was denied anchor promotion for being the ‘wrong minority’

Carl Samson
Fri, June 10, 2022,

An Asian American journalist who previously worked at Kansas-based Fox 4 (WDAF-TV) is reportedly suing the station’s parent company over her former news director’s alleged refusal to promote her for being the “wrong minority.”

Megan Murphy, better known as Megan Dillard, started working for Fox 4 in 2014 under a three-year contract, according to the suit. In 2017, she signed a new three-year deal when the station promoted her to news anchor.

In 2019, Murphy expressed interest in the lead evening anchor position when the journalist occupying the role, an African American woman only identified in the suit as “D.R.,” announced her departure. However, Sean McNamara, who became news director in December of the same year, allegedly refused to consider Murphy for the job.

The lawsuit, according to KCUR, alleged that McNamara denied Murphy the opportunity because “she was not Black/African American, which Defendant considered to be the ‘right’ minority.” The position reportedly remained open until August 2020 when the station hired Christel Bell, who is African American.

Murphy, who now works as director of public relations for the Independence School District, left Fox 4 in 2019 ahead of her contract’s expiration. She said the station’s discriminatory actions “left her with no choice but to resign.”

Murphy is suing Texas-based Nexstar Media Group, the parent company which owns Fox 4. She is seeking unspecified damages under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law against intentional racial discrimination.

NextShark has reached out to Murphy and Nexstar for comment.

The 13th Amendment's fatal flaw created modern-day convict slavery


Kwasi Konadu, Professor in Africana & Latin American Studies, Colgate University

Clifford C. Campbell, Visiting Lecturer, Dartmouth College

THE CONVERSATION
Sun, June 12, 2022, 

In this rare photograph taken in 2000, prisoners at the Ferguson Unit in Texas are seen working in the prison's cotton fields. Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

The 13th Amendment is having a moment of reckoning. Considered one of the crowning achievements of American democracy, the Civil War-era constitutional amendment set “free” an estimated 4 million enslaved people and seemed to demonstrate American claims to equality and freedom. But the amendment did not apply to those convicted of a crime.

And one group of people are disproportionately, though not solely, criminalized – descendants of formerly enslaved people.

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,” the amendment reads, “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

In other words, slavery still exists in America, but the only people whose labor can be enslaved are those convicted of a crime.

To some lawmakers and human rights advocates, that exception is a blight on democracy and the very idea of freedom – even for those convicted of a crime. As scholars of slavery and the histories of African America, our research shows the 13th Amendment’s exception clause reinvented slave labor and involuntary servitude behind prison walls.

Free labor

Since the late 1700s, U.S. states have used the labor of convicts, a predominantly white institution that came to include people of African ancestry. Convict slavery and chattel slavery co-existed. In Virginia, the state that had the largest number of enslaved Africans, inmates were declared “civilly dead” and “slaves of the State.”

It wasn’t until the early 1900s that states ended convict-leasing, the practice whereby wealthy farms or industrial business owners paid state prisons to use inmates to work on railroads and highways and in coal mines. In Georgia, for example, the end of convict-leasing in 1907 caused severe economic blows to several industries, including brick and mining companies and coal mines. Without access to cheap labor, many collapsed or suffered severe losses.

African American convicts working in the fields in a chain gang, 1903. 

Photo by: Photo 12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Today, the United States has the largest prison population in the world, with an estimated 2.2 million incarcerated people. For many of them, the 13th amendment’s exception has become a rule of forced labor. Over 20 states still include the exception clause in their own state constitutions. Thirty-eight states have programs in which for-profit companies have factories in their prisons. Prisoners perform everything from picking cotton to manufacturing goods to fighting forest fires.

In a 2015 story, “American Slavery, Reinvented,” The Atlantic magazine described the consequences of refusing to work. “With few exceptions,” wrote the story’s author, Whitney Benns, “inmates are required to work if cleared by medical professionals at the prison. Punishments for refusing to do so include solitary confinement, loss of earned good time, and revocation of family visitation.”

In some cases, inmates are paid less than a penny an hour. And many who served their sentences leave prison in debt, having worked without the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act or the National Labor Relations Act.

In Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana and Texas, penal plantations exist where predominantly Black men pick cotton and other crops under the watchful eyes of typically armed white men on horseback. Some of the largest cotton production prisons are in Arkansas, helping to make the United States “the third-largest producer of cotton globally,” behind China and India.

Ironically, many of the prisons, like Louisiana State Penitentiary, or “Angola,” are located on former slave plantations.

Modern-day convict slavery

Late in 2021, on the 156th anniversary of ratification of the 13th Amendment of Dec. 6, 1865, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, introduced a bill to eliminate the exception. Known as the Abolition Amendment, the resolution would “prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime.”

“America was founded on beautiful principles of equality and justice and horrific realities of slavery and white supremacy,” Merkley said in a statement, “and if we are ever going to fully deliver on the principles, we have to directly confront the realities.”

Based on our research, those realities are steeped in the mythology that America is a “land of the free.” While many believe it is the freest country in the world, the nation ranks 23rd among countries that uphold personal, civil and economic freedoms, according the Human Freedom Index, co-published by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

For U.S. analysts who examine the nation’s constitutional pledges and its actions, the country is less free than often assumed.

Over time, those realities demonstrate a conflict in U.S. history, illustrated by the 13th Amendment. Some states approved the amendment in 1865. Others, like Delaware, Mississippi and New Jersey, rejected it. Free labor was at stake. America embraced the idea of freedom, but it was economically powered by slave labor. Today, the net result is that America is a nation with “4 percent of the planet’s population but 22 percent of its imprisoned,” according to Bryan Stevenson writing in The New York Times Magazine.

Some readers might be puzzled by our discussion of “slavery” in modern life. The Slavery Convention was an international treaty created in 1926, and it defined slavery as “the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership is exercised.” The “right of ownership” includes buying, selling, using, profiting, transferring or destroying that person. This legal definition of slavery has been upheld by international courts since 1926.

The U.S. government ratified this treaty in 1929. But in doing so it opposed “forced or compulsory labour except as punishment for crime of which the person concerned has been duly convicted,” according to the treaty. The wording of the U.S. government’s opposition is the same as the 13th Amendment. Sixty-four years after passing that amendment, the U.S. government affirmed the use of prisons for forced labor or convict slavery.

It is, then, unlikely the Abolition Amendment will become law despite the authority to do so granted by the second section of the 13th Amendment. A constitutional amendment would have to pass both the House and Senate by a two-thirds majority, then be ratified by three-quarters (or 38) of the 50 state legislatures.

Inmate firefighters prepare to put out flames in Simi Valley, California, on October 30, 2019. 

Photo by Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

Interest by lawmakers in abolishing modern-day slavery is nothing new.

Back in 2015, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 13th Amendment’s passage. He praised the amendment for “the protections it restored and the lives it liberated,” but then conceded work still needed to be done to fully abolish all forms of slavery.

The interest in the 13th Amendment has also been widespread throughout popular culture. Films, books, activists and prisoners across the United States have for some time linked that amendment to what legal scholar Andrea Armstrong calls “prison-created slavery.”

But given the political realities and economic imperatives at play, free prison labor will persist in America for the foreseeable future, leaving in serious doubt the idea of American freedom – and abundant evidence of modern-day convict slavery.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Kwasi Konadu, Colgate University and Clifford C. Campbell, Dartmouth College.

Read more:

US prisoners’ strike is reminder how commonplace inmate labor is – and that it may run afoul of the law

Exploiting black labor after the abolition of slavery

States are putting prisoners to work manufacturing coronavirus supplies

India destroys houses of several Muslim figures after religious riots

Sun, June 12, 2022

Officials have ordered the demolition of houses of Muslims accused of prompting riots

Security forces in India have demolished the homes of several Muslim figures allegedly linked to riots triggered by derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed.

The property owners in Uttar Pradesh were told to vacate their homes beforehand.

Muslims have been protesting after anti-Islamic comments made by two leading members of the governing BJP.

Police have arrested more than 300 people in connection with the unrest.

The remarks were made by BJP spokeswoman Nupur Sharma during a TV debate in May. The BBC is not repeating Ms Sharma's remarks as they are offensive in nature.

• Who is Nupur Sharma?

The comments incensed Indian Muslims and outraged more than a dozen Islamic nations. The head of the party's Delhi media unit, Naveen Kumar Jindal, was also expelled for sharing a screenshot of her offensive comment in a tweet.

Their comments - especially Ms Sharma's - led to protests in some states.

The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh state, Yogi Adityanath, then ordered the demolition of any illegal establishments and homes of people accused of involvement in riots there last week, the BJP's state spokesperson said.

One house demolished was that of a politician named Javed Ahmed, prominent English-language newspaper Hindustan Times said. His daughter, Afreen Fatima, is a prominent Muslim rights activist.

Properties of two more people accused of throwing stones after Friday prayers were also demolished in the state.

Mrityunjay Kumar, Yogi Adityanath's media adviser, tweeted a photo of a bulldozer demolishing a building and said: "Unruly elements remember, every Friday is followed by a Saturday."

There has been widespread condemnation of the demolition.

Critics say Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal's comments reflect the deep religious polarisation that the country has been witnessing over the past few years.

Hate speech and attacks against Muslims have risen sharply since the BJP came to power in 2014.