Trump-Appointed Judge Halts Biden Rule Capping Credit Card Fees
"The U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," one advocate said of the ruling.
A woman holds a handful of credit cards.
(Photo: michael_swan/flickr/cc
OLIVIA ROSANE
May 12, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
A Trump-appointed judge on Friday delivered a win for big banks when he granted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a temporary injunction halting a Biden administration rule that would cap credit card fees at $8.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule, which would have gone into effect May 14, could save U.S. consumers more than $10 billion each year. The decision to pause its implementation, issued by U.S. District of the Northern District of Texas Judge Mark Pittman, will cost ordinary Americans around $27 million each day it is in effect.
"In their latest in a stack of lawsuits designed to pad record corporate profits at the expense of everyone else, the U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," Liz Zelnick, the director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US, said in a statement.
"It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."
The CFPB issued the rule on March 5 as part of the Biden administration's commitment to crack down on "junk fees." However, the Chamber of Commerce and other banking trade associations—including the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association—quickly sued to block it. The executives of Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase sit on the boards of the groups behind the suit, according toThe Washington Post.
"Banks make billions in profits charging excessive late fees," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Saturday in response to the ruling. "Now a single Trump-appointed judge sided with bank lobbyists to block the Biden administration's new rule capping these junk fees."
Accountable.US also criticized the fact that the suit was before Pittman at all, arguing that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed the suit in Texas federal court so that it would end up under the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 19 Republican-appointed justices out of a total of 26. The chamber has filed nearly two-thirds of its lawsuits since 2017 with courts covered by the 5th Circuit.
"The U.S. Chamber and the big banks they represent have corrupted our judicial system by venue shopping in courtrooms of least resistance, going out of their way to avoid having their lawsuit heard by a fair and neutral federal judge," Zelnick said. "It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."
The 5th Circuit's treatment of the case has also come under fire, as Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett has not recused himself despite the fact that he owns tens of thousands of dollars in Citigroup shares. While Willett has argued that Citigroup is not a party to the case, it belongs to trade groups that are, and any ruling on credit card fees would significantly impact the bank. Collectively, all the judges on the 5th Circuit have invested as much as $745,000 in credit card or credit issuing companies, according to the most recent publicly available information.
Donald Sherman, Gabe Lezra, and Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel of Citizens for Ethics in Washington wrote: "Judge Willett's refusal to recuse, and the lack of transparency about the rationale, reinforces the need for more judicial ethics reform to ensure that everyday Americans and government agencies have a level playing field when they go into court against corporate interests."
Sanders Warns 'Unjustifiably High' Prices of Weight Loss Drugs Could Bankrupt US Health System
"There is no rational reason, other than greed, for Novo Nordisk to charge Americans struggling with obesity $1,349 for Wegovy when this exact same product can be purchased for just $186 in Denmark," said the senator.
A person uses Ozempic on November 2, 2023, in Madrid, Spain.
(Photo: Ricardo Rubio/Europa Press via Getty Images)
JULIA CONLEY
May 15, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Releasing the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's findings on the prices of weight loss drugs in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday ramped up pressure on a Danish pharmaceutical company to lower the "outrageously high" prices of Ozempic and Wegovy, warning that the current pricing could bankrupt the country's healthcare system.
As chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading an investigation into Novo Nordisk's weight loss drug pricing, and the report published Wednesday is the result of modeling his staff completed to show how the medications' exorbitant prices could impact prescription drug pricing across the United States.
The committee found that if half of all U.S. adults with obesity took Wegovy and other diabetes drugs that have recently been approved for weight loss, it could cost $411 billion per year. In 2022, Americans spent $406 billion on all retail prescription drugs.
Medicare and Medicaid would spend an estimated $166 billion per year on the medications if half of the programs' patients used them, rivaling the $175 billion the programs spent on prescription drugs in 2022.
"Today's report makes it crystal clear: The outrageously high price of Wegovy and other weight loss drugs have the potential to bankrupt Medicare and our entire health care system," said Sanders.
The projected costs are a far cry from what patients in Denmark and other European countries would pay for the same drugs.
Americans currently pay $969 per month for Ozempic and $1,349 per month for Wegovy. While the two drugs have the same active ingredient, the former is typically used to treat Type 2 diabetes and the latter is for weight loss and management.
Ozempic costs just $155 in Canada, $71 in France and $59 in Germany. Danish patients pay just $186 per month for Wegovy, while the medication costs $137 in Germany and $92 in the U.K.
Sanders' report says that Novo Nordisk's prices are "especially egregious" considering the fact that the company could make a profit off manufacturing them for less than $5 per month.
"The unjustifiably high prices of these weight loss drugs could also cause a massive spike in prescription drug spending that could lead to an historic increase in premiums for Medicare and everyone who has health insurance," said the senator. "There is no rational reason, other than greed, for Novo Nordisk to charge Americans struggling with obesity $1,349 for Wegovy when this same exact product can be purchased for just $186 in Denmark."
The report cites the North Carolina state health plan's decision last month to end coverage for Wegovy and similar medications.
The plan administrators "estimated that continuing coverage for Wegovy at its current price would require them to double insurance premiums. Faced with impossible choices, the health plan eliminated coverage," reads the report.
The reason nearly 20,000 teachers and other state employees in North Carolina lost access to the drugs, the report emphasizes, "was not because there were not enough drugs to meet demand, but because Novo Nordisk refused to lower prices to make those drugs widely available."
Thirty-five state Medicaid programs do not cover the medications at all, the HELP Committee noted, due to the price.
"As important as these drugs are, they will not do any good for the millions of patients who cannot afford them," reads the report. "Further, if the prices for these products are not substantially reduced, they have the potential to bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid, and our entire healthcare system."
The committee found that if Novo Nordisk made the U.S. price of Wegovy equal to what Danish patients pay, the healthcare system could pay for new weight loss drugs for 100% of adults with obesity annually for less than what it costs to cover just 25% of those patients at the current drug prices.
The healthcare system would save up to $317 billion per year, according to the committee's modeling.
The report was released days after Sanders appealed to the Danish government in the pages of one of the country's largest newspapers, Politiken, calling on officials to force Novo Nordisk to lower U.S. prices
"As many Danes may know, I have long admired the welfare system that has been built up in Denmark," wrote Sanders. "When I was a candidate for the presidency, I often pointed out that the United States could learn a lot from Denmark in terms of access to healthcare and education, as well as respect for the environment and workers' rights. There is a reason why Denmark is considered one of the happiest places on Earth in international surveys. The Danish people should be proud of what you have managed to achieve."
"So now I want to appeal to the people of Denmark and the charitable foundation that owns this hugely profitable company," he continued. "Help the American people do something about the epidemic of obesity and diabetes we are facing."
Pelle Dragsted, a member of Danish Parliament for the Red-Green Alliance and a democratic socialist, applauded Sanders' op-ed.
"Healthcare is a human right," said Dragsted on Monday. "Having an illness should never be the ruin of anyone. Our message to Novo Nordisk is clear: Choose basic decency and social responsibility over profit—lower your prices in the U.S."
'Jail Time Should Seriously Be Considered,' Pocan Says of Big Oil Price Fixing
"I would recommend 'Orange Is the New Black,'" said the Wisconsin Democrat. "We're feeling it at the pumps and clearly this kind of behavior, we know, isn't isolated."
U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) speaks at the Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on March 22, 2023.
(Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
JESSICA CORBETT
May 15, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
As Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan appeared before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Wednesday, Congressman Mark Pocan highlighted recent FTC action against fossil fuel industry price fixing and urged criminal consequences.
"I just did a little napkin math," Pocan (D-Wis.) said. If collusion led to a $0.40-0.60 increase in the price for a gallon of gas for a vehicle, "for the average person filling their tank, that's $8 or $10 a week," he explained. "That's $500 a year of added cost."
If half of the residents in Pocan's congressional district have a car, "that's $175 million a year," he said. If that figure is applied across all 435 districts, it translates to billions of dollars "that we're being gouged because of someone like this who's trying to price collude," he continued, referring to Scott Sheffield, the founder and longtime CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources.
The FTC earlier this month barred Sheffield from serving on the board of directors of or as an adviser to ExxonMobil, which just acquired Pioneer, due to his alleged collusion with the representatives of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and OPEC+.
While welcoming the FTC's move, Pocan noted that "if you commit theft, the average sentence... in the United States is 23 months" and the multibillion-dollar profit that fossil fuel giants make from price gouging "is more than grand larceny theft."
"What else can we do to these oil companies that are ripping us off?" the congressman asked Khan, an appointee of President Joe Biden with "a pro-working families record."
The FTC chair responded that "price fixing and output reduction in a coordinated way can be criminal violations of the antitrust laws. As enforcers we can't specifically speak to what we're referring and what we're not, but as a general matter, it's been a priority of mine to make sure we are referring more criminal candidates to the Justice Department, because we need to make sure companies and executives aren't just treating fines as a cost of doing business and that they take seriously the rule of law."
Referencing a television show that takes place in federal prison, Pocan told her that "I would recommend 'Orange Is the New Black,' if we need to, to make a point. It would be helpful because we're feeling it at the pumps and clearly this kind of behavior, we know, isn't isolated."
Sharing a video of his remarks on social media, Pocan declared: "Unacceptable! A slap on the wrist isn't enough. I think jail time should seriously be considered."
As the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) pointed out, Pocan wasn't the only lawmaker to reference the recent price fixing revelations during the Wednesday hearing; he was joined by Reps. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.).
"Finally it's being noticed!" said AELP's Matt Stoller, who has written about the alleged collusion. "Dem House members get it!"
Stoller wasn't alone in welcoming the discussion in Congress—after days of limited attention on the issue among national figures.
"This illegal oil corporation price fixing conspiracy cost Americans as much as $2,100. Per year," saidMore Perfect Union, sharing a video of Pocan and citingThe American Prospect.
The Ohio AFL-CIO stressed: "Greedflation is not inflation. Pass it on."
Noting that Sheffield is getting a $68 million "golden parachute on his way out," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich argued Wednesday: "That money (and more) should be refunded to the American people. Not sent to his bank account."
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens similarly said last week that "the Department of Justice should criminally prosecute Scott Sheffield and Congress should tax back the industry's windfall profits and issue every American a refund."
'Which Side Are You On?' Mountain Valley Pipeline Foes Block Road to Fracking Projec
"I see no choice but to rebel against these systems in any small way I can," said a campaigner. "To choose to fight on the side of the mountains, the rivers, the critters, and the people. Against the extraction, empires, and all death-making institutions."
Campaigners block access to the Mountain Valley Pipeline easement in Roanoke County, Virginia on May 16, 2024.
(Photo: Appalachians Against Pipelines)
JULIA CONLEY
May 16, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Decrying both the environmental harms and the U.S. fossil fuel industry's support of Israel's assault on Palestinian rights, a pipeline opponent on Thursday morning locked themself to two barrels in the middle of a road on Poor Mountain in Roanoke County, Virginia, blocking access to the Mountain Valley Pipeline easement.
The campaigner, who was supported by other demonstrators in the road, was identified by Appalachians Against Pipelines as Mullein. The protest took place close to where environmental protectors spent more than two and a half years holding the Yellow Finch Tree Sit protest, stopping the destruction of the last remaining trees in the MVP's path.
Mullein said they were driven to block the road by "the interlocking systems of colonization and capitalism," in light of Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza, for which MVP would provide support.
"Today, as I sit in the road on so-called Poor Mountain, it is the day after Nakba Day," said Mullein, referring to the anniversary of more than 700,000 Palestinians' forced displacement when Israel declared statehood. "Today, through this ongoing genocide, Palestinians have been resisting colonization for over 76 years. MVP claims that this pipeline would supply fracked gas to various U.S. military locations including the Pentagon and the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, which is operated by BAE systems, a weapons company supplying weapons to 'Israel' during their genocidal campaign."
"The destruction of land and lifeways is interconnected, from Turtle Island to Palestine," said Mullein, using the Indigenous name for North America. "As a settler here, these systems have disconnected me from land, from others, from myself.
Appalachians Against Pipelines reported that the blockade went on for seven hours. Mullein was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors, with their bail set at $2,000.
The protest comes a week ahead of a deadline for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to grant MVP permission to place the pipeline in service, despite a recent citation by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for over a dozen violations. The fracked gas pipeline would stretch across at least 300 miles of the Appalachian region, and has been opposed by local and national environmental justice groups.
"I'm sitting locked to two barrels today because I see no choice but to rebel against these systems in any small way I can," said Mullein. "To choose to fight on the side of the mountains, the rivers, the critters, and the people. Against the extraction, empires, and all death-making institutions. Which side are you on?"
200+ Groups to Congress: Stop 'Zombie' Funding for Fossil Fuels on Public Lands
"It's past time our leaders take this simple step and stop funding activities that are completely at odds with protecting our climate," one advocate said.
A gas driling rig sits in an area of southeastern Utah managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
(Photo: Richer Images/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images)
OLIVIA ROSANE
May 15, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
More than 200 environmental and climate advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday demanding that lawmakers stop funding the extraction of fossil fuels on public lands and waters.
The letter argues that Congress' annual approval of taxpayer funds to subsidize oil and gas drilling and coal mining "undermine" the international agreement reached at the United Nations COP28 climate conference last year on the need for "transitioning away from fossil fuels."
"Congress has coddled the fossil fuel industry for decades, scarring millions of acres of public lands in the process," Ashley Nunes, public lands policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "It's past time our leaders take this simple step and stop funding activities that are completely at odds with protecting our climate."
"Every year that Congress keeps supporting status quo drilling on public lands and offshore waters is a missed opportunity that locks us into a hotter and more dangerous future."
The Center for Biological Diversity was one of 234 groups behind the letter, which was addressed to Senate Appropriations Chair Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Appropriations Vice Chair Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), House Appropriations Chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and House Appropriations Ranking Member Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). Specifically, the letter asks that the lawmakers "zero out funding for all fossil fuel extraction on public lands and offshore waters" in the Department of the Interior's budget for the coming fiscal year.
"Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, year after year, and regardless of the which political party retains control of Congress, Congress continues to direct the Department of the Interior to authorize fossil fuel extraction on our public lands and oceans," the letter states. "This zombie funding continues despite its harmful and lasting impacts to tribal nations, frontline communities, and other groups, as well as its harm to public health, public lands, the climate, and wildlife populations."
The FY 2024 budget, for example, directed more than $160 million toward fossil fuel management on public lands and waters. The amount earmarked for oil and gas management on public lands alone jumped by almost 90% from 2016 to 2023, from $59.7 million to $112.9 million.
Despite calling the climate crisis an "existential threat," U.S. President Joe Biden has approved almost 10,000 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in three years, a similar rate to his predecessors and more in his first two years than former President Donald Trump. Under Biden's watch, the U.S. became the leading producer of oil both in the world and in human history. The groups who signed the letter attributed this in part to Congress' "status quo funding" of fossil fuel programs on public lands.
The letter comes as humanity just sweltered through its hottest year on record, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels made a record jump, and a vast majority of top climate scientists recently surveyed said they predicted 2.5°C of warming by 2100, largely because of a lack of "political will" to phase out fossil fuels and embrace the renewable energy transition.
Indeed, the latest Production Gap analysis concludes that governments' plans through 2030 would produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels that would be compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
"Climate scientists around the world are pleading for change, but Congress continues to let fossil fuel polluters run wild on our public lands," Nunes said. "Every year that Congress keeps supporting status quo drilling on public lands and offshore waters is a missed opportunity that locks us into a hotter and more dangerous future."
In particular, the green groups made the following recommendations for FY2025:Ending Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funding for new oil and gas approvals;
Ending BLM funding for new coal leases and permits;
Ending Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) funding for all new oil and gas exploration, production, and drilling leases;
Ending the provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that requires Interior to put up at least 2 million acres of land and 60 million of water annually for oil and gas leasing before it can install any new wind and solar;
Putting $80 million toward BLM renewable energy programs; and
Putting $80 million toward BOEM renewable energy programs.
"Congress must end business as usual funding of fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters," the letter concludes. "If Congress fails to change course, it will simply be impossible to limit warming to below 1.5°C and ensure a livable planet for future generations."
Thirsty in Paradise: Water Crises Are a Growing Problem Across the Caribbean Islands
By Farah NibbsMay 16, 2024
Source: The Conversation
Drought in St. Martin | Photo: Mark Yokoyama
In the popular imagination, the Caribbean is paradise, an exotic place to escape to. But behind the images of balmy beaches and lush hotel grounds lies a crisis, the likes of which its residents have never experienced.
Caribbean islands are in a water crisis, and their governments have warned that water scarcity may become the new norm.
Within the past five years, every island in the region has experienced some sort of water scarcity. For example, Trinidad is experiencing its worst drought in recent memory, and residents are under water restrictions through at least the end of June 2024, with fines for anyone who violates the rules.
Dominica, considered the nature island of the Caribbean for its mountain rain forests, is seeing a significant decrease in freshwater resources and increasingly frequent water shortages. In Grenada, known as the spice isle, drought has affected water systems throughout the island.
Jamaica is also facing water restrictions and has had to resort to water shutoffs in recent years, limiting water availability to a few hours per day in some areas. St. Vincent and St. Kitts have had to ration water. Barbados has experienced several water bans in recent years.
In fact, recent data shows that the Caribbean is one of the most water-stressed regions in the world.
I study the intersection of critical infrastructure and disasters, particularly in the Caribbean. Safe water is essential for all human activity and public health. That’s why it is important to understand the root causes of the water crises and to find effective, affordable ways to improve water supply systems.
3 reasons water demand is outstripping supply
Changing precipitation patterns and droughts are straining Caribbean water supplies, but water demand has also been outstripping supply for a number of reasons.
1. Rapid urbanization and industrialization
The Caribbean is one of the most rapidly urbanizing regions in the world. About three-quarters of its population lives in cities, and that percentage is rising, adding pressure on public water systems.
At the same time, increased industrialization and commercialization of agriculture have degraded water quality and in some cases encroached on sensitive water catchment areas, affecting the soil’s capacity to retain water.
A plane lands in Sint Maarten. Visitors’ water needs come first on many islands that depend on tourism. Richie Diesterheft/Flickr, CC BY-SA
This competing demand for limited fresh water has reduced stream flows and led to water being drawn down from sensitive sources. In Dennery North, a major farming community in St. Lucia, water shortages have left residents collecting water from rivers and other sources for their homes and farms.
Unregulated extraction of groundwater can also worsen the problem. Many islands depend on groundwater.
For example, 90% of water supply in Barbados comes from groundwater, while in Jamaica it is 84%. However, increasing demand and changes in annual rainfall patterns are affecting the ability of aquifers or groundwater to recharge. As a result, supply isn’t keeping up with demand. This is a huge problem for the island of Utila, located off the coast of Honduras, where the current rate of aquifer recharge is only 2.5% annually. For comparison, Barbados has a recharge rate of 15% to 30% of annual rainfall.
2. Water-intensive tourism industry
It’s no secret that the Caribbean is a popular tourist destination, and tourist economies depend on vast quantities of water.
Even during water rationing, water is diverted to hotels and other tourist-dependent sites first. That can leave local residents without water for hours or days at a time and facing fines if they violate use restrictions.
Tourism not only increases the consumption of water but also the pollution of water resources. Building golf courses to attract more tourists further increases tourism’s water demand and runoff.
3. Weak water infrastructure governance
Another problem water systems face is weak governance that leads to excessive loss of treated water before it even reaches the customer.
A well-performing water utility will usually have water losses – known as nonrevenue water – below 30%. In the Caribbean, the average nonrevenue water is 46%, with some as high as 75%.
The reasons range from lack of appropriate management practices to metering inaccuracies, leaks and theft.
Climate change and extreme weather worsen water insecurity
These troubled water systems can struggle on good days. Worsening extreme weather, such as hurricanes and flooding, can damage infrastructure, leading to long outages and expensive repairs.
The Caribbean is the second-most disaster-prone region in the world. The islands face frequent earthquakes, landslides, devastating hurricanes and other destructive storms. As global temperatures and sea levels rise, the risk of extreme weather and storm surge causing erosion, flooding and saltwater contamination increases.
Three months after Hurricane Maria hit in 2017, well over 14% of the Caribbean population was still without potable water. Hurricane Dorian in 2019 left Grand Bahama Utility Co. and the country’s Water and Sewerage Corp. with U$54 million in damages. A year after Dorian, WSC was “still working on restoring operations to pre-Hurricane Dorian levels.”
How hybrid rainwater harvesting can help
Improving water access in the Caribbean means working on all of those challenges. Better governance and investment can help reduce water loss from theft and leaks. Government and social pressure and educating tourists can help reduce waste at hotels and resorts.
There are also ways to increase water supply. One involves being more strategic about how the islands use a practice the region has relied on for centuries: rainwater harvesting.
Rainwater harvesting involves capturing rainwater, often from where it runs off rooftops, and storing it for future use. It can replace irrigation, or the water can be treated for household uses.
An example of a rainwater harvesting tank. Penny Mayes via Wikimedia, CC BY
Right now, rainwater harvesting is not managed as part of the islands’ centralized water management system. Instead, households bear the cost to finance, build and maintain their own systems. Finding technical support can be difficult, leaving households to contend with seasonal variations in water quantity and quality. That makes risks to drinking water safety difficult to identify.
If rainwater harvesting were instead combined with central water systems in a managed hybrid water model, I believe that could help expand safe rainwater harvesting and address water issues in the region.
It’s a relatively new concept, and integrating decentralized sources can be complex, including requiring separate pipes, but it has potential to reduce water stress. Decentralized sources, such as rainwater harvesting, groundwater or recycled gray water, could serve as backup water sources during shortages or provide water for nonpotable purposes, such as flushing toilets or irrigation, to reduce demand for treated water.
Engineers in Australia are weighing the potential of hybrid water systems to help face the challenges of delivering secure, safe and sustainable water in the future.
Fulfilling a human right in the islands
The World Health Organization has declared that access to a sufficient, safe and reliable water supply is a fundamental human right, and that to accomplish this, water suppliers have a responsibility to provide adequate quantities of potable water.
Hybrid water systems could help ensure water safety and security for island communities and improve the water systems’ resilience amid the human and environmental pressures facing the Caribbean.
Farah Nibbs
Dr. Farah Nibbs is an Assistant Professor of Emergency and Disaster Health Systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Her research has focused on sustainable and affordable water supplies for small island developing states and remote rural communities.
Capitalism, climate change and workers’ health: Notes on a research agenda Climate change is producing health challenges. It has therefore contributed to an enhanced scholarly attention to public health. This article presents some basic ideas about how capitalism, workers’ health and climate change are inter-connected. It explains: a) the impacts of the production of capitalist wealth on workers’ health, and b) how these impacts are mediated by climate change, which is also a product of capitalism. Building on Friedrich Engels, the article introduces the concept of “eco-social murder” to explore the ways in which the ecological character of capitalism is killing and harming workers.
Capitalism produces a lot of wealth, including the development of new technologies. Karl Marx admired capitalism for this in the Communist Manifesto and elsewhere.1 But it is also a society where workers’ health is severely compromised relative to the opportunities available to escape from avoidable illnesses and deaths. There have been significant improvements in health conditions, as demonstrated by a massive increase in longevity, thanks to the capitalist development of science and technology aided by the state and thanks to workers’ struggle for better health. Yet, capitalism produces conditions for illnesses and deaths too. In Capital 1, Marx (1887) says: “the capitalist mode of production…has seized the vital power of the people by the very root” (ibid.: 181, italics added).2 In our time, the scope of this idea from Marx, along with Friedrich Engels’ idea of social murder, can be broadened to include the impacts of climate change.
Engels (1845), Marx’s co-writer, independently wrote about workers’ health.3 He has deservingly received much attention for his work on workers’ health and, especially, for his concept of social murder. This concept refers to avoidable deaths of workers caused by the operation of the capitalist economic system and the capitalist state policy. Social murder is an “early and an unnatural death” caused by the people’s deprivation of necessaries of life. It is “one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet”. Social murder is social and a murder because it is the capitalist society that forces people “through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues” and society knows that people will suffer and die and yet does nothing to stop this. The capitalist society commits this murder “daily and hourly” by placing common people “under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long” and it “undermines the vital force of …workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them to the grave before their time” (Engels, 1845:84).
The idea of social murder has relevance in the context of climate change, which contributes to workers’ illnesses often causing death. So what Engels calls social murder should be called eco-social murder.
The health impacts of climate change on the population have been the subject of a large amount of literature.4 However, the impacts of climate change on workers have not received the serious attention through the theoretically informed empirical work that it deserves. This is a significant intellectual neglect, in part because workers’ health challenges caused by global warming are not exactly those of the general population. The workplace experience of people is an important determinant of health.
In this article, by building on Marx’s Capital 1, I discuss the idea that capitalism has adverse impacts on workers’ health.5 I also show that these impacts are mediated by climate change which is also a product of capitalism’s private property and profit maximization principles. So health challenges of workers — including social murder, or eco-social murder — in capitalism are caused by “direct” impacts of the capitalist labour market and workplace dynamics, and by “indirect” impacts of capitalism (transformation of the environment, including climate change). This approach constitutes a class dimensions of health approach (Das, 2023; 2024), which, in the current age of climate change, must be broadened to include a class-ecological dimensions of health approach.
Impacts of capitalism on workers’ health in an age of climate change
Value of labour power, employment precarity and low income
Labouring individuals, as part of nature, have “natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing” which “vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of [their] country” (Marx, 1887: 121). These natural wants also vary over time: for example, with climate change resulting in extremely high or extremely cold temperatures, people need energy for cooling or heating, respectively. So, people’s energy needs must be met for them to return to work daily with a healthy body and mind. “If the owner of labour-power works to-day, to-morrow [they] must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards health and strength” (ibid.: 121). But in reality, the value of labour power does not include all the social-ecological needs, or if it does, wages fall below the value of labour power. The situation where wages fall below the value of labour power is called “super-exploitation”.6 Super-exploitation is bound to make people fall ill because they find it difficult to access the financial resources needed for good health (e.g. medicine, hospital facility and doctor’s advice) which are available only/mainly as commodities.
By producing extreme weather events, heat waves, floods, etc climate change is increasing the cost of housing, food, healthcare, etc. The nominal wages conventionally paid do not cover the increased costs of reproduction (for example, cooling devices at home, costs of illness caused by climate change which has become a grave problem in the last 50 years or so). This situation impacts workers’ ability to lead a healthy life.
One’s annual income determines one’s ability to obtain the financial resources needed for good health. Annual income is normally a function of a) wages per hour and b) employment (hours worked in a year). There is no guarantee that one’s wage covers all the necessary costs of reproduction as we have seen. Nor is employment guaranteed. Whether or not one gets hired depends on capital’s need for a worker and on capital’s economic ability to hire. Climate change adversely impacts employment opportunities.7 By weakening profitability in sectors affected by climate change, the latter is reducing employment-generating capacity of employers. Disruption of supply chains caused by climate disasters can make many businesses unviable, so they may not be able to hire people. When individuals experience illnesses (for example heat-related illness or infectious diseases) due to climate change, they are less likely to be hired and be able to work. Adverse impacts of extreme weather events are weakening economic viability of small-scale producers (peasants, fishermen/fisherwomen) as well who are joining the urban reserve army and precarious labour market, a process that puts downward pressure on wages.
All in all, when people’s wages are inadequate and/or when they are un- or under-employed, they are bound to be in poverty. Poverty is an important determinant of health. And poverty — which is being exacerbated by consequences of climate change — is the inevitable effect of capitalist production (Das and Mishra, 2023).8
‘Absolute and relative’ overwork
For some workers, unemployment and under-employment is a curse, with its health implications. For others, having to work excessively long hours is a problem and has health implications too.
It is not the normal maintenance of the labour-power which is to determine the limits of the working day; it is the greatest possible daily expenditure of labour-power, no matter how diseased, compulsory, and painful it may be, which is to determine the limits of the labourers’ period of repose. (Marx, 1887: 179)
Both tendencies — overwork and under-employment/unemployment — coexist in capitalism. Just as wages are expected to be enough to pay for the normal expenses, the length of the working day should be reasonable to ensure that the worker gets enough rest. In reality, workers are forced to work longer than their body-mind complex can normally tolerate. Long working days ruin workers’ physical and mental/spiritual health. By excessively extending the working day, capitalism subjects workers to “the premature exhaustion and death of this labour power itself” (Marx, 1887: 179; italics added). This problem — the problem of physical harm to the working bodies including exhaustion and workplace-caused mortality, etc — is compounded by the impacts of climate change on health, that is, by the fact that when workers working outdoor have to work long hours, they are exposed to excessive atmospheric heat and to an air that contains harmful gases that are released when fossil fuels are burnt. So they experience ill-health.
The impacts of climate change produced by capitalism on workers’ health proves a more general point: “Capital cares nothing for the length of life of labour-power” (Marx, 1887: 179; italics added), unless “under compulsion from society” (ibid.: 181), that is, government regulation, which is difficult in times of neoliberalism. When temperatures are very high during the working day, workers need more rest in part to cope with exhaustion and to avoid peak heat hours, and there is a need to reduce the length of the working day. Capitalism will not normally allow this, however.
When the working day is excessively prolonged, when the temperatures are high and when there are not enough rest breaks, wages — that is, the price of labour-power — may fall below its value for an interesting reason. Thus the law of equal exchange may be violated in the sense that the expenses that workers need to incur to deal with the extra wear and tear and exhaustion caused by excessive heat (or indeed excessively low temperatures without availability of heat) are not included in the normal price of labour power. This results in “The price of labour-power and the degree of its exploitation ceas[ing] to be commensurable quantities” (Marx, 1887: 371). And, precisely because of the violation of the law of equal exchange, the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole are threatened. This is because more value (a greater quantity of resources in their commodity form) needs to be commonly spent to reproduce a healthy working class — to replenish the used-up forces — to be made available for work. If workers are ill and die prematurely, there is an additional cost to capital as-a-whole, and yet capital does not prevent workers from experiencing the health effects of climate change. Why?
One reason, obviously, is that the longer the workers work, other things being constant, the more is the surplus value and therefore profit. If workers take a lot of rest for their body to cool down or to avoid heat exhaustion, capital suffers a loss. In pursuit of a value greater than the value of labour power, capitalists make workers work very long hours at the cost of their own health. But capital is indifferent towards workers’ health: “in its blind unrestrainable passion, its were-wolf hunger for surplus labour, capital oversteps … physical maximum bounds of the working day” (Marx, 1887: 179; italics added). Another reason is that driven by the competitive pressure to reduce the cost of production, every capitalist is forced to extract as much work as possible from their workers, even if they work under extremely adverse climatic conditions. This tendency, in many cases, is expressed in the form of excessive overwork which ruins workers’ health. So bad health due to excessive overwork — that is, overwork relative to the physical, including, climatic conditions of work — when temperatures are very high is to be explained at the level of capital as a whole and in terms of the competitive interests of individual capitalists.
Physical conditions in the despotic capitalist workplace
An important aspect of capitalist society is its “hidden abode of production” (Marx, 1887: 123): the workplace where surplus labour is produced and appropriated. The physical conditions of the workplace — or, “the material conditions under which factory labour is carried on” (ibid.: 1887: 286) — are often characterized by “unhealthiness and unpleasantness” (ibid.: 170). In some workplaces, “Every organ of sense is injured in an equal degree by artificial elevation of the temperature, by the dust laden atmosphere, [etc.]” (ibid.: 286). Consider how workers in textile industries work in factories without air-conditioning, and especially in summer times in tropical climates. Consider also how harmful the conditions of capitalist workplace are when the workplace is outdoors when temperatures are much above the body temperature of 37oC.
Workers engaged in strenuous outdoor activities are particularly vulnerable to heat stress as well as infectious diseases. In some cases, heat strokes can cause death (Yang et al, 2018).9 In the US, extreme heat is one of the three main causes of death and injury in the workplace, contributing to between 600 and 2000 deaths a year, along with 170,000 injuries (Baker, 2023).10 As well, adverse impacts of climate change on workers’ health cause low productivity and dent companies’ profit, which in turn may affect workers’ chances of employment.
The health impacts of extremely high temperatures are especially severe for construction workers. They often engage in physically demanding tasks outdoors, increasing their susceptibility to dehydration and heat stress (Acharya, et al, 2018).11 Adverse impacts of climate change on construction workers’ health cause low productivity as indicated by the fact that, for example, construction activities involving physical work take, on average, 36% longer to execute during extreme heat (Bleasby, 2023).12 Construction workers are indeed at an elevated risk of heat stress, due to the strenuous nature of the work, high temperature work condition, and a changing climate (Acharya, et al, op.cit.). Other outdoor workers — for example workers engaged in sanitation, parks and nature conservation, eco-tourism, refuse collection, fire-fighting, farming and mining, and infrastructural work (such as fixing damaged electricity lines) — suffer in similar ways.
The health impacts of climate change on workers can be especially serious in the urban landscape: indeed, health impacts are compounded — if not created — by rapid urbanization and consequent high population density, and climate-sensitive urban built environments where heat accumulates preventing atmospheric cooling leading to urban heat islands.
It is through the despotic control that during the working day capital seeks to fill all potential pores by making workers work every single minute. Capital “steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight” (Marx, 1887:179). One could say that capital steals the time required for rest to cope with heat exhaustion. On the whole, in the workplace, most workers have little control over the conditions of their work. “Every kind of capitalist production ... has this in common, that it is not the workman that employs the instruments of labour, but the instruments of labour that employ the workman” (ibid.: p. 286).
This lack of control must have some impact on workers’ mental and physical health. Workers have no control over speed of work, rest hours, etc. in this time of global warming.
An interim summary
Marx’s discussion on the political economy of health centres on wage-labour and production of value. If a worker does not produce surplus value, they are not needed or hired by capital, so they are denied access to the required means of subsistence, including food and healthcare. Climate change, by causing massive destruction of capitalist wealth, is contributing to weaker economies and lowering the ability of capital to employ people. Even if people are hired, they may not receive adequate compensation, one that covers additional expenses that need to be met because of climate change. If one does not have adequate income from wage-work because of low wages and/or under- or unemployment, one does not have the money to meet basic needs such as health. Clearly, health is an important part of the value of labour power and of the process of the production of value. Therefore, health is an important part of Marx’s political economy and indeed of his class theory as such (Das, 2017, op. cit.).
And, health has an ecological dimension. Climate change impacts workers’ health in diverse ways. Among other things, as we have seen, it causes extremely high temperatures, including heat waves and urban heat islands, which lead to health challenges (e.g. heat exhaustion) for workers who work outdoors.13 This happens globally — in countries that are tropical and temperate, poorer and richer — although there are important differences.
Towards a research agenda
There is a limit to what can be said about the world at a theoretical level. Theoretical reflections must be supplemented by theoretically-informed empirical research. It is important to examine the health impacts of climate change in an urban context as well as in rural areas, where farm and mining workers work. It is useful to compare the impact of climate change on the health of outdoor workers in the less developed and more developed worlds. An international comparative perspective would allow one to examine if the level of economic development matters when it comes to health impacts of climate change and how they are sought to be mitigated.
There is a need to understand how the impacts of climate change on people’s health are not direct but mediated by specific economic-political processes. These are: companies’ need to maintain an average level of profit; state’s “duty” to maintain a conducive business environment by promoting labour productivity; and state protection of workers’ health prompted by workers’ own agency demanding the latter. It is important to examine in particular:What health issues do (outdoor) workers face due to high temperatures during the working day? How do they explain the health challenges their face?
What are the state policies (and employers’ voluntary actions) to mitigate the health impacts of high temperatures, and to what extent do they actually meet workers’ health needs?
How have workers’ climate awareness and class consciousness, as well as their action through unions or civil society associations, influenced state’s and employers’ responses to workers’ health challenges?
What constraints do the state and employers face in helping workers cope with the health consequences of climate change, and why? What limits are there to the improvements of workers’ health conditions in capitalism that are impacted by climate change, and why?
Research asking the types of questions suggested above will contribute to the understanding of the social and ecological dimensions of public health, from a global perspective. It will show how the character of the workplace itself and economic conditions of workers are an important social dimension of public health in the age of climate change.14 More specifically, such research will shed light on the ways in which the impact of the capitalist economy on workers’ health is mediated by climate change, which is also largely a product of the market economy. This research will shed light on the climate-sensitive nature of the capitalist workplace, not only as a site where profit is made but also one where workers experience health challenges. Such research will also support workers’ organizations by providing vital intellectual resources to fight for “a social-ecological wage” that is automatically adjusted to inflation, and that covers the need for a sustainable environment, including a cooler planet and other needs such as food, shelter and healthcare, as a part of their fight for a democratic society beyond the rule of capital that subordinates working people and nature.15
Raju J Das is Professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Research, York University. https://rajudas.info.yorku.ca1
See Das (2022:218-219) on this point: Das, R. (2022). On the communist manifesto: ideas for the newly radicalizing public. World Review of Political Economy, 13(2), 209–244. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48687800
2
Marx K. 1887. Capital, vol. 1. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
3
Engels, F. (1845) The conditions of the English working class. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/condition-working-class-england.pdf
4
See the collection of articles in: Levy, B and Patz, J. (eds) 2015. Climate Change and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University press.
5
In doing so, I draw on Das, R. J. (2023). Capital, Capitalism and Health. Critical Sociology, 49(3), 395-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205221083503
6
See, Das, R.J. 2017. Marxist class theory for a skeptical world. Brill: Leiden/Boston (p. 269; 294; 302; 311; 347; 366; 386-88).
7
Newman, F. and Humphrys, E. 2020. Critical Sociology, Vol. 46(4-5) 557–572
8
Das, R. and Mishra, D., Eds. 2023. Global Poverty: Rethinking Causality. Leiden: Brill.
9
Yang Xia, Yuan Li, Dabo Guan, David Mendoza Tinoco, Jiangjiang Xia, Zhongwei Yan, Jun Yang, Qiyong Liu, Hong Huo, Assessment of the economic impacts of heat waves: A case study of Nanjing, China, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 171, pp. 811-819.
10
Baker, A. 2023. Extreme heat is endangering America’s workers – and its economy. Time. https://time.com/6299091/extreme-heat-us-workers-economy/.
11
Acharya P., Boggess, B., and Zhang K. Assessing Heat Stress and Health among Construction Workers in a Changing Climate: A Review. International Journal of Environmental Research on Public Health. 2018 Feb 1;15(2):247.
12
Bleasby, J. 2023. Climate and Construction: Extreme heat increases worker safety risk and reduces productivity https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/resource/2023/09/climate-and-construction-extreme-heat-increases-worker-safety-risk-and-reduces-productivity
13
Habibi, M, Ghahria, A., Karimi, M, Golbabaeif. 2016. The Past and Future Trends of Heat Stress Based On Wet Bulb Globe Temperature Index in Outdoor Environment of Tehran City, Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 45(6):787-794.
14
Flynn, M. 2021. Global capitalism as a societal determinant of health: A conceptual framework. Social Science & Medicine.;268:113530. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113530.
15
For details on ecological social wage, see Das, R. J. 2018. “A Marxist Perspective on Sustainability: Brief Reflections on Ecological Sustainability and Social Inequality.” Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal. https://links.org.au/marxist-perspective-sustainability-brief-reflections-ecological-sustainability-and-social Such a fight for a social-ecological wage must be connected to a fight for a social-ecologically remunerative price for peasants and other such small-scale producers who also experience health and other challenges because of climate change caused by capitalism, which means that there is a need for an alliance between workers and small-scale producers, especially in the South. On this topic, see: Das, R. J. 2023. ‘On the worker-peasant alliance in India (and other countries of the Global South)’. Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal. https://links.org.au/worker-peasant-alliance-india-and-other-countries-global-south
House Democrat Probes Trump's $1 Billion 'Quid Pro Quo' Deal With Big Oil
Rep. Jamie Raskin expressed concern that some firms, "which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), speaks outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on January 5, 2024.
(Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
JESSICA CORBETT
May 14, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
A top U.S. House Democrat announced Tuesday that he is demanding answers from fossil fuel executives after Washington Post reporting revealed last week that former Republican President Donald Trump recently told industry leaders he would gut climate regulations if they raised $1 billion for his 2024 presidential campaign.
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, on Monday wrote to the heads of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and eight companies: Cheniere Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, Continental Resources, EQT Corporation, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, and Venture Global LNG.
Raskin's letters note that the executives "appear to have attended" Trump's fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago in Florida last month and "media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions."
"Mr. Trump's unvarnished quid pro quo offer is especially troubling evidence in light of recent accounts that the 'U.S. oil industry is drawing up ready-to-sign executive orders for Donald Trump aimed at pushing natural gas exports, cutting drilling costs, and increasing offshore oil leases in case he wins a second term,'" he wrote, citing Politico. "These preparatory actions suggest that certain oil and gas companies, which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."
Raskin also highlighted findings from a January Oversight Committee Democrats staff report, which shows that "when Mr. Trump was in office, he accepted at least $7.8 million from kings, princes, and foreign states, including the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, in blatant violation of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, and rendered a sequence of foreign policy favors to his patrons."
The congressman—and constitutional scholar—asked the executives to respond to questions and document requests by May 27. He is seeking the names of employees who attended the April 11 fundraiser, copies of materials distributed during the event, descriptions of all policy proposals and related campaign contributions discussed, and draft executive orders or policy paperwork prepared by members of the companies.
"The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time,'" Raskin explained. "The requested information is needed to investigate and legislate on matters related to presidential and presidential-candidate ethics and to continue to address the major ethics crisis created by Donald Trump's efforts to profit off the presidency."
As Raskin released the letters on Tuesday, Media Matters for America's Allison Fisher pointed out that "unfortunately, over a four-day period, TV news broadcast and cable networks—with the exception of MSNBC—did not cover Trump's proposition to oil executives."
However, Trump has made his policy plans clear. Even before the fundraiser, he publicly pledged to "drill, baby, drill" if he beats Democratic President Joe Biden in November. One March analysis found that a second Trump term would lead to the release of 4 billion more tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide—the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan—by 2030 than if Biden were reelected.
The letters aren't the first time Raskin has taken aim at the fossil fuel industry this month. At the beginning of May, he testified before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee about a nearly three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction," which he said "undermines the efforts we need to mobilize our people and government to save our climate, our habitat, and our species."
"Unless the deception ends, and until the industry is held accountable," the congressman warned, "we are unlikely ever to be able to muster the national political will to effectively tackle climate change."
Cable News Refused to Report Trump's Bombshell Quid Pro Quo Offer to Big Oil Execs
"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," one political insider said.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media during an election night event at Mar-a-Lago on November -8, 2022 in Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
OLIVIA ROSANE
May 15, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Major cable news networks Fox News Channel, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC all failed to cover former President Donald Trump's promise to Big Oil executives that he would reverse President Joe Biden's climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, according to an analysis published by Media Matters for America late Tuesday.
When the news first broke, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote, "You won't read a more important story today." Yet, in the four days after the story broke, it only received 48 minutes of cable airtime—all on MSNBC.
"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," Jesse Lee, a former Biden communications adviser, posted on social media in response to the report. "If gas prices go up soon, these same networks that ignored Trump's $1 billion oil bribe will cover it constantly—and crucify Biden."
"He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."
The story of Trump's quid pro quo offer to fossil fuel executives was first reported by The Washington Post on May 9. It detailed a dinner the former president hosted at Mar-a-Lago in April attended by leaders of oil and gas firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. During the dinner, Trump told the executives that a $1 billion donation would be a "deal" for the industry "because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him."
To assess how cable covered—or didn't cover—the story, Media Matters for America looked at the transcripts from May 9 to May 12 for CNN; Fox News Channel; MSNBC; ABC's "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight," and "This Week;" CBS' "Mornings," "Evening News," and "Face the Nation;" and NBC's "Today," "Nightly News," and "Meet the Press." They searched the transcripts for the words "Trump," "former president," or "Mar-a-Lago" close to the words "oil," "donor," "executive," "billion," "industry," "fossil," or "fuel," as well as any version of the words "environment" or "CEO."
Only the MSNBC transcripts turned up any results. These included:Just over 18 minutes—or nearly 40% of the total—on "Velshi" on May 11, featuring interviews with climate activist Bill McKibben, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, and The Atlantic's David A. Graham.
A discussion on the May 9 edition of "Alex Wagner Tonight" between host Wagner and guests former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
An interview on the May 10 edition of "All in With Chris Hayes" with New York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman.
An exchange on the May 11 edition of "Alex Witt Reports" between host Witt and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker.
An interview on the May 12 edition of "Ayman" with Princeton University sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele and New York Times columnist and analyst Michelle Goldberg.
Mentions on "The ReidOut" and "The Weekend."
Several of the MSNBC interviews did highlight the importance of the story—which has prompted an investigation by a top House Democrat.
McKibben told Ali Velshi that "in a very real sense this is the most important climate election ever."
Others focused on the blatant corruption of the exchange. Graham noted that it was particularly brazen.
"He is making it clear what the quid pro quo is without any kind of pretense. It's just right here, 'You give me money; I'll do what you want me to do,'" Graham told Velshi.
Rhodes called it "basic pay-to-play corruption," adding, "He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."
There were also comments on what the news said about the fossil fuel executives themselves.
"These are the same executives who, in the wake of January 6, said, 'We're not going to support people who undermined our democracy,'" Bookbinder pointed out. "And there they are, these couple of years later, meeting with Donald Trump, courting his support, hearing his offer—his demands—that they give a billion dollars to his campaign."
Baker told Witt: "I think it's going to confirm for a lot of people who are already suspicious of the fossil fuel industry that they have, over the years, bought off Washington writ large. That's been a longtime conviction on the part of people who think that the energy industry has too much power."
"It's going to cause a lot of cynicism, obviously, especially if Donald Trump were to win and then to try to roll back some of these climate initiatives," Baker continued. "People will make the assumption—and it will have some obvious evidence to back it up—that he is doing so in exchange for large contributions from an industry that's affected by it."
They will, that is, if they caught the 48 minutes of reporting the story received.
