Can't find Purell or other hand sanitizers? 
Here's how to make it at home with rubbing alcohol

Kelly Tyko USA TODAY

Corrections & Clarifications: A photo and video on an earlier version of this story used rubbing alcohol with a lower than recommended percentage of alcohol in it. 

The CDC advises 60% alcohol in hand sanitizer so it is recommended to use 99% isopropyl alcohol.

If you're not prepared to fork over big bucks for a small bottle of hand sanitizer, there's another option beyond good old-fashioned hand-washing with soap and water.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says hand-washing with soap and water is the best way to clean your hands, but when that's not an option, the agency recommends using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol.

Along with face masks and sanitizing wipes, alcohol-based sanitizing gel has been one of the most in-demand items as coronavirus fears have sparked panic buying that has left store shelves bare. That panic buying has brought complaints of price gouging, with a two-pack of Purell 12-ounce bottles selling for a marked-up $149.

For a price comparison, during back-to-school shopping this summer, 8-ounce bottles of Purell, a popular item on teachers' wish lists, cost less than $2 after sales and coupons.

Now, shoppers are going the do-it-yourself route and making batches of homemade hand sanitizer withitems that most people have at home.

How to prepare for coronavirus: The shopping list for your own home quarantine kit

During a press briefing of the Coronavirus Task Force, CDC Director Robert Redfield advised the American public to vigorously wash hands with soap and water for 20 seconds.

“If they want to use the hand sanitizers, that’s another option,” Redfield said. “But I don’t want people to think that it’s inferior to what we've recommended for decades.”

Preventing coronavirus: Wash hands

According to the CDC, this is how to properly clean your hands.

With an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:

• Put product on hands and rub hands together
• Cover all surfaces until hands feel dry
• This should take around 20 seconds

With soap and water:

• Wet your hands with warm water. Use liquid soap if possible. Apply a nickel- or quarter-sized amount of soap to your hands.
• Rub your hands together until the soap forms a lather and then rub all over the top of your hands, in between your fingers and the area around and under the fingernails.
• Continue rubbing your hands for at least 15 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing the “Happy Birthday” song twice.
• Rinse your hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel if possible. Then use your paper towel to turn off the faucet and to open the door if needed.

Do-it-yourself hand sanitizer recipes:  rubbing alcohol

There are multiple recipes circulating about how to make your own sanitizer. One posted on ThoughtCo.com by chemistry expert Anne Marie Helmenstine, requires two ingredients: isopropyl alcohol (99% rubbing alcohol) and aloe vera gel.

The ThoughtCo recipe calls for two-thirds of a cup of rubbing alcohol or ethanol and a third-cup of aloe vera gel. According to the reference site, essential oils can also be added to it.

Dr. David Agus, a professor of medicine and engineering at University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, said it’s “definitely OK" and a "great idea" to make your own hand sanitizer.

“The bottom line is most of these are 70% of alcohol or higher,” Agus said, adding there’s no magic number. “The virus isn't going to say, 'Hey, you're 59% alcohol, therefore I'm going to be alive.' As long as you're in that range, I think you're doing OK. This virus has what we call an 'envelope' on it, and the envelope is very sensitive to alcohol, which kills the virus.”


DO NOT USE VODKA USE ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL

There are also widely circulated recipes using vodka as the main ingredient, including one posted on Good Housekeeping magazine's website.

Two biology professors from Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois, say consumers should pay attention to the percentage of alcohol present when using vodka.

Tanya Crum, an assistant professor, and Jayashree Sarathy, an associate professor, told USA TODAY that the concentration of ethanol in 80 proof vodka is only 40% and is "not concentrated enough to kill viruses." They suggest 180 proof spirits, which have 90% ethanol.

Agus, who specializes in treating patients with advanced cancer, recommends making a recipe with isopropyl alcohol or ethanol alcohol over vodka. But if you have to use vodka, he also suggests 180 proof or a higher percentage of alcohol “have some benefit.”

When will hand sanitizer be restocked?

Purell, the best-selling hand sanitizer, is pumping up production and stores say they are talking to suppliers to restock.

Purell says it has seen higher demand from health care facilities in addition to stores. It is adding more shifts and having employees work overtime at the two Ohio facilities where most Purell is made, said Samantha Williams, a spokeswoman for its parent company Gojo Industries.

Walmart, the world's largest retailer, has seen higher demand for cleaning supplies and other items, similar to when shoppers start preparing for a hurricane. The retailer says it is working with suppliers to restock those items, including hand sanitizer.

Coronavirus 'panic buying':Here's why we all need to calm down

Toilet paper, bottled water, face masks:Coronavirus fears empty store shelves as shoppers stock up
Preventing coronavirus: Wash hands
Contributing: Associated Press

HOW TO WASH YOUR HANDS

Preventing coronavirus: Wash hands

According to the CDC, this is how to properly clean your hands.

With an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:

• Put product on hands and rub hands together
• Cover all surfaces until hands feel dry
• This should take around 20 seconds

With soap and water:

• Wet your hands with warm water. Use liquid soap if possible. Apply a nickel- or quarter-sized amount of soap to your hands.
• Rub your hands together until the soap forms a lather and then rub all over the top of your hands, in between your fingers and the area around and under the fingernails.
• Continue rubbing your hands for at least 15 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing the “Happy Birthday” song twice.
• Rinse your hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel if possible. Then use your paper towel to turn off the faucet and to open the door if needed.

Democrats Propose Emergency Paid Sick Days To Address Coronavirus

March 6, 2020

Sen. Patty Murray introduced a bill in the Senate to guarantee workers two weeks of leave during a public health emergency. (Photo: Bill Clark via Getty Images)More

Members of Congress introduced a bill Friday that would assure U.S. workers can take paid sick leave, if needed, during the coronavirus outbreak.

The legislation proposed by Democrats would require employers to grant workers 14 paid sick days to be used in the event of a public health emergency. Workers would separately accrue up to seven sick days over the course of a year under the bill, which was introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in the Senate and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in the House.

There is no federal law currently guaranteeing workers paid sick leave, although many cities and states have implemented their own. The lack of a national standard has drawn perhaps unprecedented attention in recent weeks as the new coronavirus reached U.S. shores and infected at least 200 people as of Friday. More than 100,000 cases and 3,000 deaths have been confirmed worldwide.

Public health experts and employers in the U.S. have advised workers to stay home if they exhibit symptoms of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. But that guidance has put workers who lack paid sick leave in a jam: either stay home and forgo each day’s pay, or clock in and potentially sicken colleagues or customers.

A little less than three-quarters of private sector workers have access to paid sick leave, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A large share of the 27% who don’t have it are clustered in lower-wage service sectors like retail and food service, where workers interact not only with their colleagues but with the public.

Higher-paid white-collar workers are far more likely to enjoy sick leave, including 94% of those in management, business and financial occupations.

Backers of a paid sick leave mandate have often argued that it’s a matter of public health and social justice. But the coronavirus scare has brought forth a strong macroeconomic argument as well: If millions of workers suddenly aren’t collecting paychecks, it could wreak even more damage on the economy. Global supply lines have already tightened up and stock markets have tumbled.

Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO labor federation, said Friday that paid sick leave could help keep commerce flowing if the outbreak in the U.S. worsens.

“It would help insulate the economy from a real bad downturn,” he said.

Under the Democratic proposal, workers would be eligible to use the two weeks’ worth of emergency sick days when their workplace or their child’s school is closed, or when they or a family member has been quarantined because of an outbreak. The standard seven days could be used whenever necessary.

The emergency legislation builds on a proposal that Democrats have been introducing for years without success. Despite the popularity of sick leave requirements among the general public ― including most Republicans ― GOP lawmakers have long refused to join with Democrats to make sure everyone has access to sick leave.

Friday’s bill stands a strong chance of passing in the Democratic-controlled House but is likely to hit a wall in the GOP-controlled Senate, where the Republican majority isn’t keen on employer mandates.

“Mitch McConnell hasn’t shown much proclivity to do things that are good for workers,” Trumka said of the Senate majority leader. But given the economic concerns over coronavirus, “he might be interested in doing that.”

If the legislation comes to a floor vote in the House soon, it could put Republicans in a position where they are voting against a popular proposal during a public health emergency. Murray urged her colleagues in both chambers to pass the bill “without delay.”

“Workers want to do the right thing for themselves, their families, and their communities,” she said in a statement. “So especially in the middle of public health crises like this, staying home sick shouldn’t have to mean losing a paycheck or a job.”

DeLauro said stronger access to sick leave would put the U.S. on par with other developed nations and make the public safer.

“The lack of paid sick days could make coronavirus harder to contain in the United States,” she warned.

The University of Washington became the first U.S. college to close classrooms on Friday, and other schools may follow suit. Airlines have already been hit hard as travelers bail on flights, and large employers like IBM and Facebook have told employees at certain offices to stay home.

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an $8.3 billion emergency spending package to combat the virus. More than a third of that money will support vaccine research and development. Other funds will go toward medical supplies, preparedness and prevention. The federal government has been harshly criticized over its lack of readiness to fight an outbreak, with testing kits in short supply and conflicting statements between high-level members of the Trump administration and public health officials.

Beyond the spending package, worker groups and public health advocates have been urging federal agencies to do more to combat the spread of the virus. In addition to a sick leave law, labor unions have been urging the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency standard for infectious disease, so that employers have clear guidelines they are required to follow during an outbreak.

Trumka said the AFL-CIO sent a petition to OSHA on Friday, calling on the agency to implement a standard that was developed before Trump took office but then shelved. He noted that health care and service workers are most likely to contract the virus through their jobs. OSHA did not respond to HuffPost when asked earlier this week whether it would institute a new regulation to deal with COVID-19.

“Most employers are just flatfooted right now,” Trumka said. “And they’re not getting much guidance or help from the federal government.”

US Supreme Court divided in 1st big abortion case of Trump era

The Canadian Press March 4, 2020

WASHINGTON — A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Wednesday with its first major abortion case of the Trump era, leaving Chief Justice John Roberts as the likely deciding vote.

Roberts did not say enough to tip his hand in an hour of spirited arguments at the high court.

The court's election-year look at a Louisiana dispute could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights. A decision should come by late June.

The outcome could have huge consequences at a time when several states have passed laws, being challenged in the courts, that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks.

The justices are weighing a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. A federal judge found that just one of Louisiana's three abortion clinics would remain open if the law is allowed to take effect. The federal appeals court in New Orleans, though, upheld the law, setting up the Supreme Court case.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, as she had before, that “among medical procedures, first trimester abortion is among the safest, far safer than childbirth." The abortion clinic in Shreveport at the heart of the case reported transferring just four patients to a hospital out of roughly 70,000 it has treated over 23 years, Justice Elena Kagan noted.

Justice Samuel Alito said the clinic had once had its license suspended, in 2010.

Perhaps the biggest question is whether the court will overrule a 2016 decision in which it struck down a similar law in Texas. Since then, Donald Trump was elected president and he appointed two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who have shifted the court to the right. Even with those two additions to the court, Roberts almost certainly holds the deciding vote.



When the justices temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect a year ago, Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices to put it on hold. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were among the four conservatives who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Those preliminary votes do not bind the justices when they undertake a thorough review of an issue, but they often signal how a case will come out.

In more than 14 years as chief justice, Roberts has generally voted to uphold abortion restrictions, including in the Texas case four years ago.

It is for now unclear whether Roberts' outlook on the Louisiana case has been affected by his new role as the court's swing justice since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement, his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and his respect for a prior decision of the court, even one he disagreed with.

One possible outcome is that Roberts and the other conservative justices could find a way to allow Louisiana to enforce the law, without overruling the decision from 2016 in which the court struck down a similar law in Texas. One avenue raised by lawyers for the state and the Trump administration is that the doctors didn't try hard enough to work out arrangements with the hospitals, even though the trial court found that doctors failed to secure admitting privileges at 15 hospitals over an 18-month period.

That result would be a defeat for abortion rights advocates who have argued that the laws are virtually indistinguishable. But it would allow Roberts something of a middle ground between taking a big step to limit abortion access and reaffirming the court's abortion rulings.



Roberts asked the same question, in slightly different form, to each of the three lawyers who argued before the court. The court in the Texas case found there was no benefit to the women the law was ostensibly intended to help and struck it down as an “undue burden” on women's right to an abortion in violation of the Constitution.

“I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places, but as far as the benefits of the law, that's going to be the same in each state, isn't it?" Roberts asked Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill.

The Louisiana and Texas situations are not identical, Murrill told the court. “The laws are different, the facts are different, the regulatory structures are different," Murrill said.

Roberts' inquiry seemed to dovetail with questions from Kavanaugh, whose interest was in discerning whether admitting privileges laws would still impose an “”undue burden" in a state that made it easy for abortion providers to get them.

“Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose, in your view?" Kavanaugh asked lawyer Julie Rikelman, representing the Shreveport clinic.

Rikelman replied: “No, Your Honor. The medical consensus against these laws is clear."

The court also has agreed to review whether abortion providers have the right to go into court to represent the interests of women seeking abortions. A ruling in favour of the state's argument that the providers lack the right to sue in these circumstances, known as third-party standing, would be a devastating blow to abortion rights advocates since doctors and clinics, not individual women who want abortions, file most challenges to abortion restrictions.

But apart from Alito, the justices did not seem especially interested in resolving the case on the standing issue.

Outside the court, protesters on both sides filled the sidewalks just as they have for earlier high court cases on abortion.

Inside, Justice Stephen Breyer sought to capture searing debate over the issue. “I understand there are good arguments on both sides. Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it's wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong," Breyer said, though he left little doubt he would vote in favour of abortion rights.

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ Problem Wasn’t Only Chris Matthews (Analysis)

Brian Steinberg March 4, 2020

It’s fair to say MSNBC had a “Hardball” problem. Perhaps it wasn’t just the one everyone was talking about.

Chris Matthews’ growing series of on-air gaffes in the midst of intensifying coverage of the 2020 campaign made keeping him on the air difficult for MSNBC executives, as did a litany of troubling stories about his behavior toward female guests on set and behind the scenes. Yet the show itself, based on a concept that worked in the late 1990s, was also becoming outdated.

More from Variety
Chris Matthews Departs MSNBC's 'Hardball' Amid Controversy

Matthews had a long tenure as a top political insider, working as a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and chief of staff for the very influential Tip O’Neill when he was the Speaker of the House. But he gained early momentum in TV as an occasional panelist on :”The McLaughlin Group,” whose host, John McLaughlin, helped blaze a trail for programming led by a moderator who wasn’t afraid to butt in; who made nicknames for his panelists part of the show; and who viewed political discussion as a sort of combat theater for Beltway aficionados.

Chris Matthews carried on many of those traditions. On “Hardball,” his pugnacious enthusiasm for politics often got the better of him, prompting him to interrupt his guests, or at the very least, talk over them as they tried to respond to his questions and provocations. This wasn’t some persona he played on air. Matthews had a palpable love for talking about the political game, and often could not stop himself from chatting endlessly about it. Some interviews with him could turn into monologues.

And while “The McLaughlin Group” recently returned without its titular host, who passed away in 2016, “Hardball” continued in much the same way it had over the years since Matthews got his own show on the now-defunct “America’s Talking,” the cable network that was eventually transformed into MSNBC.

That isn’t the format MSNBC has been most enthusiastic about in recent years. Behind the scenes, executives at the network and in the upper echelons at NBCUniversal have kept an eye on both Brian Williams’ “The 11th Hour” and Nicolle Wallace’s “Deadline: The White House.” Both shows keep the “salon” concept of a host juggling multiple guests burnished by “McLaughlin” and “Hardball,”, but with a significant twist: Wallace and Williams make their contributors the stars of the segments, praising their credentials and their proximity to the swirl around whatever topic might be under discussion.

Williams gives considerable time to telling viewers about his guests’ backgrounds, the details of which are printed upon cards he carries with him to his anchor desk. Wallace takes so much pride in her bookings that she spends precious time after her broadcasts tweeting out clips from her program and thanking the guest at the center of each one.

There may be other reasons to put “Hardball” in the shed. In 2019, the show ranked third in the key audience demographic favored by advertisers, people between 25 and 54. According to Nielsen, “Hardball’s” tally in the category fell below that of time-slot rivals “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Fox News Channel and “Erin Burnett Outfront” on CNN.

Guessing who might eventually take over the “Hardball” slot is easy. Anyone who likes can take a look at the MSNBC daytime schedule and throw their favorite anchor into the mix.

But there is some reason to consider Wallace, whose 4 p.m. ratings in the demo were tied with those of time-slot competitor Jake Tapper in 2019, but who had a bigger overall audience than either CNN’s Tapper or her other rival, Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto (Cavuto had better numbers in the 25-to-54 audience). MSNBC executives have mulled the idea of expanding her “White House” to two hours, and a rejiggering of the schedule could use Matthews’ hour to do that (providing Wallace wants to work a later schedule).

There has been some press speculation about MSNBC weekend host Joy Reid taking the role, and that is certainly possible, as Reid has filled in for many of the network’s primetime hosts. But Reid’s “A.M. Joy” is one of MSNBC’s best-performing shows on weekends, where the network is placing more emphasis on programming in an effort to beat CNN in the demo.

MSNBC has also been in early talks with former Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith about a potential role, and Matthews’ departure would seem to provide an opening the two might find worth discussing. Smith’s non-compete with Fox News is expected to come to an end in June or July. MSNBC is at present expected to fill the 7 p.m. hour with various anchors.

No matter who ends up with the slot, it’s a fair bet the “Hardball” format won’t continue with them. Like “Crossfire,” the long-running CNN staple that pit blue versus red for more than two decades, the show had its moment in the sun. If an anchor should emerge who can take an aggressive stance like Matthews and bring the audience along once again, well, perhaps MSNBC will take another swing.

Chris Matthews Departs MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ Amid Controversy
 
Brian Steinberg Senior TV Editor VARIETY

CREDIT: LARRY MARANO/SHUTTERSTOCK

Chris Matthews is abruptly stepping down from MSNBC’s “Hardball” amid scrutiny of recent on-air remarks as well as speculation about behind-the-scenes behavior.

The veteran anchor and political operative said on his program Monday night that he was leaving the cable-news outlet, putting an end to a long-running show that was featured on three different networks and part of the news landscape since 1994. Monday’s broadcast is Matthews’ last, and a rotating group of anchors is expected to lead the hour until MSNBC executives come up with more definitive plans.

”Let me start with my headline tonight: I’m retiring,” said Matthews, opening his first and final segment on the program. He added: “After conversations with MSNBC, I’ve decided tonight will be my last ‘Hardball.’ Let me tell you why: The younger generations out there are ready to take the reins.” He suggested younger people were bringing “better standards than we grew up with – fair standards” to the workplace, and acknowledged he had in the past addressed women in an outdated manner. “For making such comments in the past, I’m sorry,” he said.

In less than two minutes, he signed off and handed over the hour to MSNBC anchor Steve Kornacki, who seemed taken aback by the assignment.

Matthews had been under close watch by critics, apologizing last week after making an awkward comparison on air between Senator Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Nevada caucuses and the Nazis’ World War II takeover of France. The remark prompted public outrage from Sanders aides, and fanned complaints about MSNBC’s coverage of his campaign. “I’m sorry for comparing anything from that tragic era in which so many suffered, especially the Jewish people, to an electoral result of which you were the well-deserved winner,” Matthews said in an on-air mea culpa to the politician.

Adding to the recent spotlight: a female journalist last week wrote an account in GQ alleging Matthews made inappropriate remarks to her while she was getting ready to appear on this show. That resurfaced reports that Matthews had been reprimanded in 1999 after a similar incident that resulted in a settlement to an employee, as well as claims that Matthews treated female politicians less respectfully.

Some of the recent attention sped up discussions that had been taking place between the anchor and MSNBC about when he would retire, according to a person familiar with the matter, resulting in a sooner-than-expected departure. Matthews is not expected to host any sort of special program looking back at his years on the air.

“Hardball” occupies valuable real estate. At 7 p.m., it funnels viewers into MSNBC’s primetime lineup, where advertising costs more and the cable-news networks fight with one another for the medium’s biggest audiences. MSNBC has in recent months contemplated a shift of some of its late-afternoon programs, and the absence of “Hardball” on its schedule could help those plans gain traction. One option executives have considered is expanding Nicolle Wallace’s program “Deadline: White House” to two hours from one. Her show currently airs at 4 p.m. , followed by Chuck Todd’s “MTP Daily” and “The Beat with Ari Melber.” MSNBC has also been in recent discussions with former Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith, who is believed to want to return to the news business with a show that would rely heavily on no-nonsense reporting.

He built a cable-news franchise in an era when there were fewer of them, and maintained it for more than two decades. “Hardball” relied on Matthews’ long years spent in Washington, where he worked his way up from being a staffer for various Democratic candidates to a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and chief of staff to Tip O’Neill, the durable Speaker of the House for a decade. The show relied on its host’s penchant for being pugnacious, though not enough on most nights to distract from discussions of the political cycle. “Let’s play Hardball,” Matthews would say each night to open the proceedings.

“Hardball” got its start on the cable network once known as “America’s Talking” in 1994.” It was based on the host’s first book, “Hardball: How Politics Is Played Told by One Who Knows the Game,” which was released in 1988. “Hardball” would move to CNBC in 1997, and then to MSNBC in 1999, where it has stayed for more than 20 years. For a time, Matthews was parodied regular on “Saturday Night Live,” with cast member Darrell Hammond impersonating him frequently.

Matthews had a definite love for the scrum, mixing it up with journalists and politicians, even as the recent news cycle swirling around President Donald Trump, stoked to new speeds by social media, has forced cable news into faster, more aggressive programming. “People are getting home. They are hearing about it. They want the full story,” the host told Variety in 2017. The feeling, he says, “is a great rush.”

---30---

Trump Plans to Fight Ruling Risking Refinery Biofuel Waivers

Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Mario Parker and Jennifer Jacobs Bloomberg March 5, 2020


(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump has decided to defend in court the U.S. government’s power to broadly waive biofuel requirements for many oil refineries.

The decision to appeal a federal court ruling imperiling those exemptions follows an intervention by Attorney General Bill Barr and an intense pressure campaign by oil-state senators, including Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican. The plan was described by five people familiar with the matter who asked for anonymity before a formal announcement.

At issue is a January decision by a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver invalidating waivers exempting three refineries from requirements to blend biofuel into gasoline and diesel. Federal law authorizes those waivers for small refineries facing an economic hardship.

Yet the judges said the law also limits that relief to refineries getting “extensions” of previous waivers and pointed out that none of the three refineries at issue had “consistently received an exemption” in previous years.

The appeal plan would mark a reversal for the White House, where top officials as recently as a week and a half ago had planned to accept the ruling and apply it nationwide. That approach would have meant just a handful of U.S. refineries -- no more than seven -- would be eligible for the exemptions.

Previous Trump administration decisions on biofuel policy have been upended amid fierce lobbying.

But this move would be a victory for oil companies and their allies on Capitol Hill, who argued the waivers are essential to preserve the economic health of refineries and blue-collar jobs at the facilities. They have raised the specter of layoffs and plant closures in Wyoming, Texas and the political battleground state of Pennsylvania -- warning the White House in recent days that if the administration didn’t fight the ruling, there could be repercussions for the president on Election Day in November.

Oil industry advocates argued to administration officials that the court’s interpretation defies federal law that says refineries may seek relief “at any time,” conflicts with longstanding EPA practice and is at odds with a separate ruling by the 4th Circuit.

The Trump administration has until the end of Monday to appeal the ruling en banc -- asking the full 10th Circuit to consider the case. Even without the administration joining in, refiners involved in the case are expected to seek a rehearing.

An appeal would be a blow to producers of corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel, who have complained the Trump administration too freely handed out the waivers and undermined a 15-year-old federal law mandating the use of those plant-based alternatives. Biofuel allies have also warned Trump of political fallout -- in farm states, such as Iowa.

Nine biofuel and agriculture advocacy groups, including the Renewable Fuels Association and National Biodiesel Board, warned an appeal “would be viewed as a stunning betrayal of America’s rural workers and farmers.”

“We cannot stress enough how important this decision is to the future of the rural economy and to President Trump’s relationship with leaders and voters across the heartland,” the organizations said in a joint statement Thursday night.

---30---

SEE

 https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=BIOFUELS

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=BIOFUEL

Gen X denied a mortgage more than any other generation, study shows

Sarah Paynter Reporter Yahoo Finance March 5, 2020

Gen Xers may not be able to take advantage of the historically low mortgage rates: Applicants who are 40 to 54 years old are being denied home loans more than any other age group.

Mortgage lenders are denying Gen X applicants because of their low credit scores and high debt-to-income ratios, according to a new report released Thursday by the National Association of Realtors, which compiled responses from 5,870 homebuyers, between the ages of 22 and 94, from July 2018 to June 2019.

“Generation X has a higher share of denied mortgages because they are most likely to have sold a distressed house or have been underwater during the recession, plus they may have taken on more debt from their children’s student loans,” said Jessica Lautz, vice president of demographics and behavior insights for the National Association of Realtors.


LOAN DENIED CONCEPT

Mortgage lenders denied 7% of Gen Xers’ applications, compared to a 5% average denial rate across all other age groups. Last year, 6% of Gen Xers were denied loans compared to a 4% average denial across all applicants.

Great Recession aftermath

A quarter of Gen Xers’ mortgages were denied because of their high debt-to-income ratios, and 25% were because of their low credit scores, the study shows. Debt and credit score concerns are leftover from impacts of the Great Recession over a decade ago, said Lautz.

Gen Xers are more likely to have lost money on their house in the Great Recession, said Lautz. The study found that 15% of Gen Xers have sold a distressed property since becoming a homeowner, the highest of any age group, compared to an average of 9% among all buyers.

Plus, many have taken on loans, including student loans for their children. Credit card debt was the biggest burden on Gen Xers, followed by student loan debt. As a consequence, debt has delayed Gen Xers’ homebuying plans an average of five years, compared to the average four-year deferral across all generations.

“While there are a lot of myths about how each generation acts, Generation X does behave differently,” said Lautz. “They face different family pressures.”

THE GEN X'ERS I KNOW BOUGHT THEIR HOMES EARLY WHEN THEY STARTED FAMILIES WHICH MEANS BY NOW THEY ARE CLOSE TOHAVING PAID OFF THEIR MORTGAGES. 

MILLENNIAL'S I KNOW HAVE HAD A HARDER TIME OF IT.

Exxon, Shell Face Uphill Legal Battle Over Soured Nigerian Deal

William Clowes Bloomberg March 5, 2020

(Bloomberg) -- Oil majors including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are facing uphill battles to convince U.S. courts to enforce multi-billion dollar arbitration awards they secured against Nigeria’s state oil company.

The companies accused the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. of taking more crude than it was entitled to under four deals that were signed in 1993 to incentivise them to develop deep offshore blocks. Those projects today account for about 30% of the country’s 2 million barrels of daily output.

Independent arbitration tribunals seated in Nigeria sided with the companies and awarded them damages. But the NNPC successfully challenged the awards in the Nigerian courts, which ruled the disagreements were either tax disputes and not subject to arbitration, or the tribunals had no right to impose the penalties.

In September last year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit filed by Exxon and Shell units that aimed at enforcing a 2011 arbitration ruling requiring NNPC to pay them $1.8 billion for a contractual breach. Judge William Pauley noted that the companies had multiple appeals pending in Nigeria.

‘No Justice’

The companies have appealed the U.S. judgment, saying the Nigerian courts denied them due process by annulling the award and they are now owed $2.7 billion with accrued interest.

The case was filed in the U.S. because Nigeria’s courts have never ordered NNPC to pay monetary damages to a foreign plaintiff over two decades and lack “the political independence to render impartial judgments in a high-value dispute,” the companies said in a court filing. It could take at least a decade for Nigeria’s Supreme Court to adjudicate in the appeals process, “which renders the prospect of justice so illusory as to amount to no justice at all,” they said.

Umar Gwandu, a spokesman for Justice Minister Abubakar Malami, didn’t respond to a request for comment. NNPC must file its response to the U.S. appeal by April 10.

The companies “face a formidable challenge” to persuade a U.S. judge to reinstate damages already set aside by a Nigerian court, said Tafadzwa Pasipanodya, a Washington-based partner in Foley Hoag LLP’s international litigation and arbitration department.

Separate tribunals in Nigeria instructed NNPC to pay a Shell-led consortium $1.4 billion in damages in 2013, and Eni SpA more than $500 million the following year, while Chevron Corp. and Equinor ASA secured a $1 billion award in 2015. Those awards were also set aside by the local courts.

Chevron and Equinor initiated their own proceedings in the Southern District of New York in March 2018 to enforce their award, with oral argument scheduled to be heard on April 20. Eni approached the same court in mid-2017, but suspended its legal action in November while Nigeria’s Federal High Court considers the matter.

While U.S. courts can enforce arbitration awards made and subsequently overturned in other countries, they “apply a strong presumption in favor of following the foreign court’s ruling,” according to Jonathan Blackman, New York-based senior counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

The parties must show the decisions of the Nigerian judiciary were “repugnant to basic U.S. principles of justice and fairness or due process,” he said. “This is a difficult -- but not impossible -- standard to meet.”

Industry Support

The case brought by Exxon and Shell meets that threshold, according to the American Petroleum Institute, which filed a brief in support of the companies’ appeal. The conduct of Nigeria’s courts “runs contrary to central concepts of justice in the United States,” it said.

Spokesmen for Exxon, Chevron and Equinor said their companies don’t comment on ongoing litigation. Representatives of Shell, Eni and NNPC didn’t respond to requests for comment.

There is an example of an arbitration decision that went against Nigeria being enforced in the U.K., which threatens to put further strain on the nation’s already stretched finances.

In September, a British judge ruled that Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. can collect on a compensation award for losses incurred on an aborted gas-processing project in Nigeria -- a claim that now stands at $9.6 billion, or more than a quarter of the nation’s foreign reserves. Nigeria’s government, which is appealing that ruling, alleges the company paid bribes to secure the contract. P&ID denies any wrongdoing.

---30---

Exxon CEO Calls Rivals’ Climate Goals a ‘Beauty Competition’

Kevin Crowley Bloomberg March 5, 2020


(Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. dismissed long-term pledges by some of its Big Oil rivals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as nothing more than a “beauty competition” that would do little to halt climate change.

Energy companies need to focus on global, systemic efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, rather than just replacing their own emissions-heavy assets with cleaner ones to make themselves look good, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in New York on Thursday.

“Individual companies setting targets and then selling assets to another company so that their portfolio has a different carbon intensity has not solved the problem for the world,” Woods said at Exxon’s analyst day. Exxon is focused on “taking steps to solve the problem for society as a whole and not try and get into a beauty competition.”

READ: BP Sets Bold Agenda for Big Oil With Plan to Eliminate CO2

Woods’ remarks, which echo those made by Chevron Corp. CEO Mike Wirth earlier this week, underscore the divide between U.S. and European oil explorers in their approach to addressing climate change. Both American companies see oil and gas demand growing for decades and refuse to compete in a crowded market for renewables where they have little expertise.

Much-derided plastic even came in for some praise, with Exxon Senior Vice President Jack Williams arguing that it’s “a net benefit to society and to the environment.”

READ: Plastic Beats the Alternatives for the Environment, Exxon Says

By contrast Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Repsol SA and Eni SpA have pledged to make large reductions in carbon emissions over the long term, while last month BP Plc went a step further with a target to become carbon neutral by 2050.

Companies changing their production mix “doesn’t change the demand” for oil and gas, Woods said. “If you don’t have a viable alternative set, all you’re doing is moving out from one company or one country to someplace else. It doesn’t solve the problem.”

Exxon sees world demand for oil and gas growing substantially out to 2040, even under the goals of the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Renewables such as wind and solar won’t be enough to meet demand growth on their own, according to Exxon.

In any case, it remains to be seen whether oil giants can generate big profits by producing carbon-free energy. Solar, wind and battery storage projects haven’t shown they can fund the huge dividends that underpins the industry’s investment case.

To underscore his point, Woods said that global emissions have risen 4% since the Paris Agreement was signed four years ago and energy demand is up 6%.

For the energy industry to truly address climate change, Woods believes major technological breakthroughs are needed in the fields of carbon capture, alternative fuels in transport and re-thinking industrial processes. The company is investing in all of these fields but admits that progress will take time.

Exxon is also taking steps to reduce emissions from its own operations including reducing methane emissions and gas flaring.

---30---

French Greens Are Eating Away at Core of Macron’s Coalition

WILL FRANCE TURN AUBERGINES 

Ania Nussbaum Bloomberg March 5, 2020

(Bloomberg) -- Emmanuel Macron struck an unusually humble tone as he stared down at the shrinking glacier on the slopes of Mont Blanc.

“Such rapid melting,” he said. “It’s dizzying.” On the trip to the French Alps, he also walked through a tunnel that leads deep inside the ice and lunched with local politicians and scientists. Macron said he wanted to see the impact of climate change for himself.

But there was also a political dimension to the highly publicized Feb. 13 visit: A green revolution is picking up steam in France and Macron’s political survival -- already uncertain because of widespread anger over his reform plans -- could depend on winning environmental voters.

The fragmentation of mainstream parties has upended traditional politics across Europe, and given Green groups an opening. In Austria, the right-wing People’s party turned to the Greens to form a coalition and the environmental faction in Germany has surged to within reach of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party. Two rounds of mayoral elections starting March 15 will give an indication of how the French president’s defenses are holding up.

“You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of the municipal elections,” says Christophe Bouillaud, a political science professor at Sciences Po Grenoble. “For decades they’ve played a role in measuring the popularity of the incumbent government and structuring the opposition parties.”

Governments are watching for an indication of Macron’s prospects for securing another term in 2022.

Party Tensions

Macron blew up France’s two-party system when he swept to power nearly three years ago by promising a new kind of politics. Facing the far-right Marine Le Pen in the run-off meant that he had the progressive vote in the bag. He was lauded for sparring with U.S. President Donald Trump over climate change and vowing to “make the planet great again,” but he’s failed to live up to the hype.

Today, tensions within Macron’s En Marche party have been laid bare by public feuds and defections. Strikes against inequality and plans to overhaul a pension system may have subsided, but anger is palpable. About two thirds of voters don’t think he’s a good president, according to a Odoxa-CGI poll published Feb. 25.

With the Socialists and the right still languishing, the Greens are laying claim to the center ground that Macron carved out for himself.

David Belliard, who’s running for mayor in Paris for the Green party, says that’s a pragmatic approach. “I am the open green,” he told reporters Thursday. “I am open to right-wing people joining the movement if they share our ideas. I am open because it is an emergency situation.”

The party only ever had a few ministers in the previous socialist government and didn’t field a candidate in the 2017 presidential ballot. In May, it doubled its share of the vote in European parliamentary elections, coming third with 13%.

Credible, Consistent

It’s the first political force among 18-to-34-year-old voters and is polling first or second in several cities including Bordeaux, Lyon and Grenoble -- the only large city held by a Green mayor. Macron by contrast wasn’t able to present a candidate in half the country’s big cities.

The Greens are critical of nuclear energy, want to expand public transport over cars, ban pesticides, support urban and organic agriculture and favor local economy. While other parties embrace many of these ideas, The Greens say they’re the most credible and consistent advocates.

They lack a powerful leader, but one could emerge after the municipal elections.

The contest will be watched especially closely in Paris. As the country’s capital and most populous city a win here can make up for losses elsewhere, and the prestigious mayoral job has often been a springboard for the presidency.

So far, current mayor, leftist and environmentally friendly Anne Hildago, is polling ahead of En Marche’s Agnes Buzyn who only entered the race last month after Macron’s preferred candidate, Benjamin Griveaux, dropped out because of a sex tape.

The Greens “can be close to the left, but not only,” says Belliard, 41, when discussing his candidacy. He says he advocates an “economy that’s not predatory” and wants to “move away from over-consumption.” He doesn’t want voters to think of the Greens as people “who look for water kilometers away and wash themselves once a month.”

Alternative Choice

The move to the center may not go down well with the Green’s base, especially in cities like Strasbourg or Besancon where they are emerging as the leaders of potential left-wing coalitions. But Belliard is optimistic. “If the Greens come out of these elections stronger, it will give us momentum to build an alternative choice in the presidential elections,” he said.

For Macron, the problem is persuading voters of his sincerity. His own environment minister resigned in 2018, accusing the government of not doing enough. His attempt to increase taxes on fossil fuels has crumbled and the expansion of renewables is still slow. Macron’s one big achievement, the closure of the country’s oldest nuclear plant, started under Francois Hollande.

“There’s not much to get your teeth into,” according to Bruno Cautres, political scientist at Cevipof.

It looks like voters agree. One fifth of those who backed the Greens in the EU elections had voted for Macron in 2017. The Odoxa-CGI poll meanwhile shows the president’s popularity declined by 3 percentage points after his Mont Blanc appearance, with the sharpest drop among Green sympathizers.

“The environment is a topic of concern in French society and Emmanuel Macron is essentially campaigning to be the Green presidential candidate,” Cautres says. “But if protecting the environment is so essential, you may as well put a Green in as head state.”

---30---