In a recent article, We Have A Lawless Oligarchy; Not A Democracy! I cited "Controlling the Dangerous Classes" by Randall Sheldon 2018 which points out:
Perhaps nowhere is this better illustrated on a daily basis--sometimes for all to see--than in our system of justice. Because those who create laws and those who interpret laws are drawn largely from the wealthiest class, it comes as no surprise that those brought into the criminal justice system will be those drawn largely from the lowest social classes. On any given day, in courtrooms all over the country, we have essentially one class passing judgment on another class. Our system is fundamentally a system influenced by class (and race). p.19
Sheldon focuses primarily on the justice system, showing that laws are often overwhelmingly made to favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor, and when it comes to enforcing them it's biased even more in favor of the wealthy. There are many other sources showing that this doesn't just apply to the court system or criminal activity, but it applies to virtually all major institutions, especially the most powerful ones. This includes wealthy people that profit from polluting the environment, even when it kills the poor, wealthy people taking absurd amounts of profits from for profit health insurance, or other forms of insurance, while poor people die due to lack of health care, since money is being diverted to non-productive purposes, wealthy people profiting off of weapons of war in wars based on lies, wealthy people profiting from a rigged economy while withholding educational material about how to reduce crime and save money at the same time, and much more.
This includes civil courts that are heavily biased in favor of the wealthy on many different subjects, although the evidence for various subjects are often scattered in a large number of low profile books or studies that get virtually no media promotion, so most people never hear about it, unless grassroots activists spread the word, without help from mainstream media. One example is lead poisoning, which Sheldon mantions briefly in his book saying it's not considered murder, even though the industry was kowingly and intentionally profiting by promoting a deadly product. Harriet Washington goes into much more detail on this subject in "A Terrible Thing To Waste'' 2019 as demonstrated in the following excerpts, which show the lead industry, including GM, the DuPonts, Sherwin-Williams and various other corporations were promoting lead and covering up evidence showing they knew how deadly it was:
Approximately 60,000 industrial chemicals commonly used in the United States have never been tested for their effects on humans. In our country, safety tests are undertaken only when a chemical is suspected to be harmful. But even then definitive findings are elusive, and it sometimes takes years or even decades of expensive research for them to emerge. Meanwhile, the standard of proof demanded by the industries that use and disseminate these chemicals is sometimes so high that masses of people suffer their effects in the time it takes to sufficiently prove their harmfulness. In the case of lead alone, the Environmental Defense Fund has noted that thousands of children were poisoned (at a cost of $50 billion to the nation) while we awaited "sufficient" proof to take action.
... The European Union, for instance, requires safety tests before any new industrial chemical is unleashed into the ground, atmosphere, and neighboring communities. It subscribes to the precautionary principle. In plain English, it is "better safe than sorry."
Because we have ignored this precept, lead poisoning has cost our country a staggering $50 billion. But it also has cost our nation something far more precious: 23 million lost IQ points every year. p.9
As early as the 1880s, scientists realized that lead plumbing was poisoning our water; like that of the Romans before us. By the 1920s many cities and towns passed statues that banned or sharply restricted the use of lead pipes, but the lead industry, notably the Lead Industries Association (LIA), pushed back. The LIA's vigorous "educational" campaign sought to rehabilitate lead's image, muddying the waters by extolling the supposed virtues of lead over other building materials. It published flooding guides and dispatched expert lecturers to tutor architects, water authorities, plumbers, and federal officials in the science of how to repair and "safely" install lead pipes. All the while LIA staff published books and papers and gave lectures to architects and water authorities that downplayed leads dangers.11
Over the succeeding decades, the hazard was gradually forgotten, an early exercise in industry's skill in manufacturing doubt regarding environmental poisoning. p.68
So, in yet another example of industrial greed trumping public safety concerns, GM chose to use lead as an anti-knock additive in a 4:1 mix of gas to TEL, despite the fact that lead was costlier, less readily available, and, as GM knew from the beginning, "very poisonous."
It was March 1922 when, as Kevin Drum writes, "Pierre du Pont wrote to his brother Irenee du Pont, the Du Pont company chairman, that TEL is 'a colorless liquid of sweetish odor, very poisonous if absorbed through the skin, resulting in lead poisoning almost immediately.'" 17
...
Despite the 1922 caveat by Du Pont, the companies later denied—repeatedly—knowing that leaded gasoline was poisonous. p.69-70
As early as 1900, a Sherwin-Williams newsletter declared that lead was a "deadly cumulative poison." 21
In 1904, Sherwin-Williams's own in-house magazine described lead as "poisonous in a large degree, both for workmen and for the inhabitants of a house."
By 1912, the company National Lead reported to shareholders that women and children were forbidden from working on its lead products because of the devastating effects—all while the company continued to manufacture lead-based goods for home use, including children's toys.
By 1955, the LIA health and safety director Manfred Bowditch wrote an internal memo, lamenting, "With us, childhood lead poisoning is common enough to constitute perhaps my major 'headache.'" 22
So the poisonous nature of lead paint was well known from the beginning. Safe, lead-free alternatives like ethanol and unleaded house paint were also available from the beginning. But the LIA's aggressively deceptive marketing efforts in the early twentieth century made lead paint popular among homeowners and landlords.
....
The lead industry's response? Rather than pull lead-based paint from the market in favor of safe alternatives, firms more aggressively touted lead paint as a healthy wall covering. Because it was easy to wash, it was specifically recommended for children's rooms. Lead pigment maker National Lead Industries, the same company that wouldn't allow women and children workers in their lead paint factories due to safety concerns, ran a National Geographic ad in 1923 that claimed, "Lead helps to guard your health." The following year, an advertisement by Sherwin-Williams boasted that after her home received a coat of lead paint, "Cousin Susie says her health improved instantly." 23
In the 1990s, tobacco companies came under fire when Philip Morris sought to woo customers ... with Joe Camel p.72-3
Eliminating lead from gas resulted in quantifiable and dramatic health gains. The amount of lead in Americans' blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. 27 Fewer children fell into coma and death from lead inhalation, and as Kevin Drum of Mother Jones points out, the nation's IQs even rose in the aftermath of lead's banishment from gas. 28 p.74
But the most precious resource lost in the long decades of research required for absolute proof of a chemical's harmfulness is health: the lives of the people who are sickened, killed, or hobbled by lowering intelligence during the long, expensive search for the ever-higher standards of proof demanded by the industry and its scientists. "Its scientists" refers not only to those in its employ, but to those whose work it funds, because a wealth of studies show that industry-funded research, even that published in top-tier journals, tends to find results that buttress the interests of the industry that pays for them. 33 Doubt was and is more than a scientific question: it is often a profitable stance as well. p.77
In 1989, the (Needleman's) plan's price tag of $10 billion was rejected as far too expensive, although Needleman noted at the time that no one decried Congress's plan to spend $11.6 billion to build new prisons. 66 Since then, our government has spent far more than that amount dealing piecemeal with some of the aftereffects of lead poisoning, and that doesn't include the cost of defending lawsuits against property owners and unethical, shortsighted plans of institutions like KKI. Even so, lead has still not been eradicated, and two of every three poisoned children in Baltimore are living in the same pre-1950 rental homes that Needleman's plan sought to abate.
But Needleman's findings were a key component in the 1974-1978 bans on lead in gas and paint, and his participation in various legal cases on behalf of poisoning victims made him an industry target. Accusations against him culminated in scientific misconduct charges brought before the federal Office for Scientific Integrity, and later, before his own institution, the University of Pittsburgh.
He was exonerated in both cases.
In a 2005 interview, Rosner and Markowitz wrote, "Dr. Needleman was asked whether the attack on his credibility was meant to scare off other researchers looking into environmental toxins. 'If this is what happens to me, what is going to happen to someone who doesn't have tenure?' he replied." 67 p.95-6
Bullard explained to me that "funders simply don't fund studies of race and environmental exposure, so they don't get done." When the epidemiology of race as a driver of environmental exposure rarely enters the canon, race as a risk factor becomes invisible. p.119
One of the biggest problems is that when corporations do something like this it's almost always considered a civil, not criminal, if it's addressed at all, and in many of these problems there may be a statute of limitations preventing them from being accountable at all. There's no statute of limitations on murder, negligent mass murder or other similar charges which should apply, but as Sheldon pointed out, they simply decline to consider this negligent mass murder even though there clearly seems to be evidence indicating that's what it should be considered, and that these corporations knowingly and intentionally covered it up, and in some cases, including when Sherwin-Williams advertised its health benefits even though they clearly knew it was a deadly poison! They clearly knew they were promoting dangerous products, just like the tobacco industry, and like the tobacco industry they financed pseudo-scientific research to cover it up, and when a good credible researcher exposed their fraud they used their money to smear honest researchers.
The tobacco industry demonized Jeffrey Wigand for exposing their corrupt secrets just like the lead industry demonized Herbert Needleman, and this shows how badly corporations are corrupting science. This also applies to how the oil industry covered up their knowledge of Climate Change and promoted false science to deny it, and many other environmental poisons, by many industries as well as the military. In many cases wealthy industries are buying up enormous amounts of propaganda ads, they make with profits that are poisoning people, to convince people they're actually a credible source for science, protecting the environment and health, when they're doing the opposite, and the truth is relegated to lower profile news stories, often from alternative media or non-fiction books that get no promotion from traditional media.
Herbert Needleman's plan to save lives and protect the environment, costing $10 billion, was clearly much less expensive, at the time, than ignoring the problem; and the people who balked at paying it caused much more expenses that the government had to pay, so rather than saving money they wound up driving expenses way up, and it's still uncertain how many billions more the government, the victims, or other organizations ultimately had to pay, but there's little doubt that it's much higher than it would have been if they had accepted his plan; and that's not counting the health effects to the victims, which is far worse than the financial expenses, although rich people don't seem to take into consideration the suffering of the poor. There's also little or no doubt that if they had stopped using lead over a hundred years ago then the financial savings would almost certainly have been much higher, perhaps going into hundreds of billions of dollars, for everyone involved, except those profiting from selling lead and covering up the dangers, and, once again, the health damages that would have been prevented are far more important than financial expenses. And the same principles go for hundreds if not thousands of other examples about many other forms of deadly pollution, most of which are related to other chemicals. Apparently California finally sued Sherwin-Williams and several other companies for their deceptive advertising within the past ten years and they were ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, but this is still only a fraction of the money Needleman said is needed, as well as a fraction of their profits over a hundred years, and to the best of my knowledge, they're still appealing it, so they may not even pay that. It's still an example of way too little way too late, even if the amount isn't overturned.
Harriet Washington also discusses a case where a child was poisoned intentionally with lead in a Baltimore experiment carried out by the Kennedy-Krieger Institute which was settled but the amount wasn't disclosed, and there's more cases pending. Plaintiffs often demand non-disclosure agreements, presumably to prevent other victims from knowing how much they can get or that they have a case at all; there's no way of knowing whether many of these non-disclosure agreements are used to hide evidence of their wrongdoing. She also discusses Anniston Alabama where Johnnie Cochran forced Monsanto, Solutia, Pfizer, at least one other corporation and the Army to stop polluting the area; but as is often the case, it was way too little way too late, and when the case was finally resolved the victims got a pittance in restitution, although the total settlements sounded very large, one of $600 million and another for $300 million; but a large portion of that went to the lawyers or other legal expenses; $50 million was reserved for a health clinic for the victims, but that ran out of money in 2017 and closed, since the rest was divided among so many people the average adult only got $9,000 and the average child only $2,000, which is pathetically low since they'll have to deal with the health effects for the rest of their lives, assuming the polution doesn't kill them sooner, which in some cases it did. She compares this to another case in Japan, where they may have gotten a better deal with a $1 billion settlement, but each of those victims only got $20,000 which is still pathetically low, and there must be hundreds if not thousands of pollution cases where the victims never got anything at all!
One possible reason for the low payments might be the fact that Solutia, one of the leading defendants went bankrupt as a result of the large number of lawsuits they faced, either from Anniston or over half a dozen more lawsuits from other cities they polluted across the country. This isn't an entirely isolated incident, since many of the riskiest activities polluting many parts of the world are subsidiaries of other large companies, in this case Monsanto, to limit the liability of the bigger more profitable company. In some cases they may not be directly owned by the large companies they do business with, which protects the bigger more profitable companies even more, and when the smaller companies get sued they may just go bankrupt, leaving the plaintiffs with little or nothing, or in some cases, perhaps, forcing them to settle for much lower payments than they deserve, since the alternative may be trying to get money out of a bankrupt company that no longer has any resources. In this case the fact that the plaintiffs got so little may be a major reason why Solutia was eventually able to emerge from bankruptcy. This may be even worse in third world countries including the Bhopal gas tragedy when over half a million people were exposed to poisonous gas and about 8,000 people died within two weeks of the disaster with another 8,000 dying over a longer period of time, yet Union Carbide India Limited and their parent company Union Carbide, which is a huge multibillion dollar company didn't even have to pay half a billion dollars for this disaster, and few criminal penalties. The United States refused to take either the civil or criminal cases; and India only filed criminal cases against a handful of the people responsible with no more than two years jail sentences, which is far more than most pollution related deaths get, but the damage was much worse as well. And furthermore, if the victim happens to be wealthy or famous they're much more likely to get a larger settlement, although wealthy or famous people are rarely forced to live in heavily polluted areas, like poor people. One example of this was Tracy Morgan, who was hit by a Walmart truck years ago; and Walmart is notorious for fighting lawsuits tooth and nail, yet they settled for an undisclosed amount within a year, and Tracy Morgan praised them, implying it was a large amount, although he declined to say how much; then shortly after the settlement, Walmart sued the insurance company to cover their share of the lawsuit, which they didn't consent to. This lawsuit was almost certainly settled without disclosure, but the clear implication is the insurance company thought it was way to high, and Walmart only settled it so quickly for a high amount to get it out of the news and protect their reputation, which they would never do for a poor person.
Even when it comes to the same types of crimes that working class or poor people are often charged with, wealthy people aren't held to the same standards as the rest of us, including two infamous members of the Du Pont family, Robert Richards IV and John Du Pont. Richard's mother was a member of the Du Pont family and his father was from another wealthy family in the Delaware area and he was investigated for molesting his three year old daughter, which he eventually admitted, but he only got probation from a prosecutor and judge that were both well known for being tough on crime, but apparently only when the defendant is poor. According to How A Du Pont Heir Avoided Jail Time For A Heinous Crime 06/14/2019 and Wikipedia: Trial and sentencing of Robert H. Richards IV Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden said that the "defendant will not fare well" in prison and thus the eight-year sentence was suspended. Of course anyone familiar with get tough on Crime policies, which dominate the courts, knows that no judge, especially a stern one, which Jurden was supposed to be, would ever say anything like this about a poor or middle class defendant, and there's little or no chance that the eight year sentence would be suspended for anyone else, and a strong chance it would be much higher. This is especially true since it eventually came out that he was also implicated in mosting his older son as well, yet no charges were made on that. And the prosecutor was Beau Biden, son of the current president, who was also famous for being tough on crime, like his father. This is common in the family, since his brother Hunter Biden tested positive for cocaine, which is why he was discharged from the military and he was also implicated in many other crimes.
While this was being reported in the media in the Delaware area there was little or no national coverage of it, except on the internet, and there were few reminders of an even more famous case that happened about ten or so years earlier when John Du Pont was charged with murder for killing a wrestler, in a case that shocked the country, because most of the history of his previous crimes and mental illness may not have been previously reported. In this case it may seem if they came closer to giving him a fair sentance, since he was given thirteen to thirty years, which is still low for a murder charge, but harsher than most punishments for the wealthy; however, if many of his previous crimes had been reported sooner and he was charged for them, there's little or no chance the murder would have happened at all, since he probably should have been in jail or a mental asylum before it happened. According to A LIFE IN PIECES; For du Pont Heir, Question Was Control 02/04/1996 there were many more violent crimes committed by John Du Pont, including numerous assaults and gun threats. In one case, he allegedly tried to push his newly wed wife into a fireplace and threatened to shoot her and said "You know what they do with Russian spies? They shoot them." She left him and filed for divorce before their first anniversary, and she sued him for the abuse she allegedly received at his hands. This case and numerous other with other people were settled, this time for an "undisclosed amount." The media reports that I found don't say anything about non-disclosure agreements, but these are very common, and my best guess is that there were non-disclosure agreements for this and several other cases, which may have been the only reason he was able to maintain a good reputation and stay out of jail before the murder. The result was that he probably had a good reputation as a philanthropist and sports enthusiast among other things, solely because his money covered up the truth. There also appears to be more lawsuits for Robert Richards IV as well, and we have no way of knowing what else might have been covered up for both these people, and perhaps many other wealthy people that use their money to cover up their crimes.
This is just a small fraction of the brazen double standard for wealthy people, and, at times it may have been much worse including many activities that were often refered to as "labor wars" between the Civil War and World War II, perhaps one of the most famous was John D. Rockefeller Sent the National Guard to Kill American Families 08/27/2020, which describes the Ludlow Massacre, where estimates of the people murdered range from almost two dozen to just over five dozen, even if the higher estimate is true, it's still not the worst labor massacre according to Wikipedia: List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes which includes at least one or two massacres higher than the larger estimate for Ludlow and a dozen massacres higher than the lower estimates. The government has virtually always taken the side of wealthy corporations, especially before FDR took office, and even after that, if there was ever legal intervention the police or national guard, both of whom often killed workers before FDR, have never taken the side the side of workers, if they were called in it is always to stop union workers, and, at best, if anyone takes the side of worker it's as a civil matter, not criminal, and even then the deck is stacked against workers. And there's many other examples where wealthy people routinely get treated much better in courts of law fro traditional crimes, as I pointed out in Illusion Of Justice For Sale which provides dozens of examples where wealthy people were given a slap on the wrist, which the rest of us could never get, and other people added a long of additional examples in What are some ridiculously low sentences given for serious crimes? 2022 which adds many more examples, mostly with enough details that they can be confirmed independently, but one exception where a female teacher rapes a fourteen year old student and gets probation, which I couldn't find a name for, but when I searched for it I found half a dozen more with shockingly low sentances, and, no doubt a search for teachers charged with raping thirteen, fifteen year old students or other ages will turn up more. In almost all these cases wealth or political connections are a major factor, but in most, if not all exceptions, race may be a major factor. But environmental damage or other white collar crimes may actually be worse than these, although they get much less media attention.
Robert Bullard also reported on another one of the most outrageous examples of corporations profiting off the pollution disabling or killing many people in several other small towns or cities, including Alsen Louisiana, in Dumping in Dixie. In this case a wealthy local landowner was able to sue and get half a million dollars for pollution that killed his cows, but it took fifteen more years before they were willing to acknowledge that the pollution was also killing or poisoning people. In this case the average plaintiff only recieved $3,000 each. The defendant was Rollins Environmental Services, which apparently made a large amount of money disposing of hazardous waste in wealthy areas or from wealthy corporations and dumping, or burning it in areas where poor minorities lived. Once again the wealthy profit from polluting the poor. This is one of hundreds if not thousands more cancer clusters or massive pollution sites around the country or the world including over a dozen more small towns, and both Baton Rouge and New Orleans, which are also populated primarily by African Americans, in the Louisiana area called "Cancer Alley." The few cities researched by Robert Bullard, Harriet Washington, and numerous other researchers, including The Love Canal in NY, another Cancer Cluster uncovered with the help of Erin Brockovitch, the Woburn Mass. Cancer Cluster reported on in "Civil Action" 1996 by Jonathan Harr, and a movie by the same name starring John Travolta, and many more are only a fraction of the clusters of negligent mass homicide by corporations, and they're all treated as civil actions, not criminal.
To the best of my knowledge there's no comprehensive list of all the environmental disasters zones in the United States, let alone the world, although if you look up some lists of environmental disasters there are quite a few, but the common ground on various lists, including some I listed below, is often very small, and many of the worst disasters, including the ones I mentioned already aren't on many if any of these lists. There have been numerous studies on how many people die each year because of pollution of one kind or another, which are almost never reported in a high profile manner, but can be found with Google searches. Until a few years ago many of these studies claimed there are between four and seven million premature deaths every year; more recently studies show that there are between eight and eleven million people dying every year as a result of pollution and well over 100,000 of them are in the United States. There's little discussion about who's responsible for all these deaths or efforts to prevent them, often implying we're all equally responsible, which is false. The vast majority of the benefits from pollution goes to the wealthiest people, including those profiting from energy or chemical companies, and politicians and judges that let them get away with just about anything. This is clearer when you consider that while they let corporations profit from pollution they often criminalize protesters that are trying to prevent; and there are numerous polls showing the majority of the public wants much more protection for the environment, as well as Medicare for All, and economic policies that aren't rigged in favor of the wealthy. There's also an enormous amount of good science showing that even though the media doesn't provide good educational material about the environment or many other fiscal subjects the public supports the same positions supported by good scientific research; but instead of imposing these good policies politicians routinely take the sides of campaign donors as indicated with the following polls when compared to the politicians actions:
70% support Medicare for All & 89% of Democrats;
63% (another poll puts it at 67%) support a $15 minimum wage (these were old polls, so updated one might support a higher wage);
81% support a Green New Deal, with 61% supporting efforts to end Climate Change;
72% (another poll puts this at 76%) support expanding Social Security;
75% support immigration, with 81% supporting a pathway to citizenship, and presumably not so they can be exploited for virtual slave labor;
86% support only using the military as a last resort;
76% support higher taxes on the wealthy, with 59% supporting a 70% Top Marginal Rate and 67% support taxing corporations more;
77% support campaign finance reform;
83% (another poll puts this at 86%) support net neutrality;
57% support breaking up big banks;
65% support reforming racists incarceration system;
64% support guaranteed jobs program;
60% support tuition free college;
90% support universal childcare;
68% support capping interest rates;
63% support curbing wealth inequality;
58% support strict Wall Street Regulation;
70% of Americans say arms sales make us less safe
and 83% oppose outsourcing.
(Sources for these polls were listed here Polls With Citations: Americans Want Bernie's New Deal For All 07/26/2019 or on the bottom of this article, Bernie Sanders Has informed Grassroots Support; Others Have Media Propaganda! with one additional poll, Poll: 83% of Americans dislike work outsourcing 07/16/2012; with another poll showing that 69% of Americans believe that outsourcing hurts the country — and only 17% think it helps the economy. 58% of respondents in the ELA poll believe that companies outsourcing work that could be done by Americans to offshore contractors should be penalized by the US government. and 70% of Americans Say Arms Sales Make Us Less Safe. We're the World's Top Dealer.)
I first started citing these studies several years ago; but there are probably updated version of each which, can be found with a Google search, that shows popular support for most if not all of these policies continues to be strong including protection of the environment or the Green New Deal, although caution should be used to see that the polls are done well. Almost all of these polls show continued support for protection of the environment, but one more recent poll shows smaller support, and another one, which was poorly done shows opposition to the Green New Deal, but this poll probably exaggerates the cost of the Green New Deal and definitely doesn't adequately explain the much higher cost of doing nothing. There should be no doubt that protecting the environment before corporations destroy it for profit is far less expensive than repairing it after the fact. There are many more studies showing this, in addition to Herbert Needleman's plan to remove lead. A look at the most polluted cities globally also adds to this evidence. We have plenty of polluted cities, almost all in poor and minority areas, within the United States, but it's even worse in the third world. The majority of the most polluted cities in the world are in India or China, with a few in Pakistan or Bangladesh; most of the rest are in other third world countries sending their own natural resources to the United States or other wealthy countries.
Globally the wealthy get the vast majority of the benefits from economic activity, while the poor do almost all the menial labor and get stuck with the pollution or many other economic problems, including high crime, war, lack of healthcare and more; and on one occasion Lawrence Summers even admitted that they were dumping pollution in poor countries for the benefit of the wealth, although when his memo was leaked, he quickly tried to walk it back and claim he didn't mean it, as explained in The Summers Memo at Whirled Bank which points out that Summers signed a memo that said, among other things, "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." The environmental community was, of course outraged, and, not surprisingly, when this memo was leaked to the public they tried to walk it back.
Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment Jose Lutzenburger quickly wrote a letter justifiably saying how outraged he was, but he was fired shortly after, and Summers went on to get several high profile jobs with powerful organizations and still appears as a so-called expert economist on traditional media, often advising presidents or other powerful people. Several organizations tried to justify his memo saying it was taken out of context or that it was a satirical idea of what not to do including the Cato Institute or others cited by Wikipedia however, if this was satirical or out of context, as they tried to claim, then surely he would have acted to reduce pollution either before, or especially after writing the memo and reverse the process, yet of course, he did no such thing nor has the rest of the economic or political elites; instead they turned his memo into a joke at his Confirmation hearing where the following exchange takes place, with many Democratic Senators, who are supposed to be much better on protecting the environment that Republicans praising him in the following exchange:
And then, to make matters worse, once poor people are stuck in heavily polluted areas, or if they have other unrelated health care issues they often can't get reasonable health care at an affordable price due to our for profit healthcare and insurance system. In the worst cases, this should literally be considered a death sentence given to people for the crime of being born into a poor family; first they're subject to devastating pollution then they're denied early, or perhaps, any health care, inevitably leading to preventable fatal diseases. And, once again there are scientific studies showing it's far less expensive to save lives with Medicare for All, or another form of Single-Payer health care, and polls showing a large majority of the public support this. One article says Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study 02/18/2020 and another one, 22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money 02/24/2020 shows that it's not just one study saying this. This clearly indicates that we have research showing how to save an enormous number of lives, and a large majority of the public supports it, even though the political establishment and media claim it's not politically viable. The only reason it's not politically viable is because campaign donors oppose it and corrupt politicians are serving their interests.
But at least older retired people are getting Medicare, and it's saving or prolonging thousands of lives, at least for now; however the political establishment is trying to privatize it, and they're having more success than the majority of the public who want Medicare for All, even though the public opposes this, as explained in The Medicare Advantage scam and beyond 09/29/2020 and several other articles about the subject, some listed below. There are at least half a dozen multi millionaire celebrities, including Joe Namith, William Shatner, George Foreman, Jimmie Walker, and others, relentlessly promoting this even though they already have more money than they could ever spend, and this article cites a study showing that those choosing the wrong "Medicare Advantage plan have a much higher risk of dying." Joe Namith is already worth 25 million, William Shatner is worth 100 million, George Foreman is worth at least 200 million and some estimates put it at 300 million, and Jimmie Walker is worth a measly one or two million, but even this is far more than a retired person needs to live in comfort, yet they're determined to help scam gullible older people, and can't possibly be earning the money they make to deceive people. They could, of course, argue that to the best of their knowledge they really are giving people as good a deal as they claim in the ads, but if they don't know it's an obvious scam it's only because they don't ant to; it's not hard to realize the more insurance companies spend on deceptive ads, lobbying or obscene CEO pay among other avoidable expenses, the less they have for health care, which is obviously why people falling for this scam often die younger.
Have these celebrities, or businessmen that hire them no shame?
Do we really want to worship celebrities helping with these scams? Or entrust our government with the businessmen or politicians they finance?
How do you avoid the conclusion that politicians and businessmen are knowingly and intentionally withholding health care to increase profits, even though they know it will cost lives? Why isn't this considered negligent mass-murder? Could the only reason they don't consider this negligent mass-murder be because the wealthy control the media, the insurance companies, the political establishment and other powerful insitutions?
And, as I've pointed out in several previous articles, there's also an enormous amount of research showing the most effective ways of reducing crime, including violent crime or murder; and most European or other wealthy countries have already shown they work and their murder rates are a fraction of ours. Yet the media refuses to report on the best research and the political establishment refuses to base policy decisions on this research, often doing the opposite of what researchers recommend leading to higher rates of violence, especially in abandoned inner cities with little or no educational or economic opportunities. Why isn't this considered negligent mass murder?
And, if you consider the truth about foreign policy going back at least to World War II, if not much earlier, that's not just negligent mass murder, it's intentional mass murder over and over again, although traditional media rarely reports on the truth, and on the rare occassions when they do they distort it to try to make it seem like we invade other countries or overthrow their governments to defend democracy, when they're obviously doing the opposite. If some people are accustomed to getting their news from traditional media they might not be aware of an enormous amount of history that has often been distorted or ignored, including the fact that Ho Chi Minh was our ally during World War II and he led the Vietnamese to help defeat Japan, doing far more than the French Colonialists in that area who were defeated by Japan. Then on September 2 1945 they signed their own Declaration of Independence declaring that they wanted to govern themselves, and Ho Chi Minh had far more popular support than the French Colonialists or any of the puppet governments installed by the United States without consent of the Vietnamese people.
Furthermore, the claim that they were all Communists was always exaggerated, although some of them were, but at times they indicated they would be willing to negotiate a policy of Neutrality between the United States and the USSR. Yet our government first supported the French attempt to re-Colonize the Vietnamese people, then divided it against the consent of the Vietnamese people, rigged at least one obviously fake election, then canceled elections they knew they would lose, before eventually invading and killing at least two million Vietnamese, not to defend democracy, but to prevent it.
There were also dozens of times where the CIA or United States military overthrew democratic governments and installed tyrants, many that were documented by William Blum in "Killing Hope," or many other books that get little or no promotion from traditional media, including a few of the most famous ones, which the United States eventually admitted to, like the coups against Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. These three coups demonstrate a pattern of behavior for our government which has been repeated over and over again; while they were happening they spun the truth, often denying the CIA was involved and blamed their opposition, and tried to portray those reporting the truth as conspiracy theorists, even though there was evidence to support their claims and the government's denial was a bunch of obvious lies, then years if not decades later they admitted to participating in these coups, but implied or stated it was old news, and that now they're defending democracy, while similar conspiracy theories, with evidence, are coming out about additional coups by the CIA. More recent coups like the one in 2009 in Honduras or the one in 2019 in Bolivia are still in the denial stage, and mainstream media is trying to portray those reporting the truth as a conspiracy theorist.
Then, to add insult to injury our govermnent routinely portrays many of their victims as criminals as Aviva Chomsky helps to pointout in "Central America's Forgotten History" 2021, where she explains that the people the media and politicians refer to as "illegal aliens" are actually refugees from many of the coups or wars our country have started in the past, or the highly corrupt and tyrannical governments still in power, in most cases, even when the wars have ended or the original coup plotters have been removed from power. Aviva Chomsky focuses primarily on four Central American countries, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras, and shows how the United States government intervened in each of these countries and it lead to highly dysfunctional governments that set the stage for high rates of violence; and even though William Blum's book doesn't directly link intervention by the CIA or other agencies acting for our government tio high rates of crime, he does show the intervention, in most cases, was similar to the cases discussed by Chomsky. Of the four countries covered by Chomsky, Nicaragua is the one that was most sucessful at resisting CIA intervention, overthrowing Somoza in the seventies, holding power through the eighties while they had to resist terrorist attacks from the Contras, then when they did have elections, which Danial Ortega lost in 1990, and regained the presidency in 2007. Nicaragua still has high murder rates, but the other three which suffered much more as a result of CIA intervention have three to five times higher murder rates. Cuba, which is the only country more sucessful at resisting intervention from the CIA than Nicaragua, has the fourth lowest murder rate in the Caribean, South America, and Central America, far lower than the vast majority of countries suffering from CIA or US military intervention, and even lower than our own murder rates, which are worse than all wealthy countries with reasonably good functioning governments.
According to Wikipedia's List of countries by intentional homicide rate the United States has the fifty-ninth highest murder rate in the world out of one hundred-ninety-five; and as I've reported on in numerous articles, this is because they ignore the best research about how to prevent violence even though it's proven to be far more effective, and save money at the same time. Of the fifty-eight countries with higher murder rates, over two-thirds of them are in Central America, South America or the Caribean, virtually all, if not all, of which had to resist intervention from the United States or had tyranical governments installed working with American corporations to maximize profits no matter how many social problems they cause. At least half of the remaining countries, if not almost all of them, also had to put up with massive intervention from the CIA or US military, although you won't find the best research on this in media controlled by large Wall Street corporations.
On top of that many of these third world countries are getting the majority of the polution in the world, often even worse than the poorer areas of the United States previously mentioned, and the wealthy countries are taking all their natural resources, with little or no compensation to the majority of the people, although it's quite common for tyrants ruling over these countries to get wealthy while oppressing their people. Lawrence Summer's claims that he supported a "sustainable economy" was an obvious lie when he said it and is even more obvious now, assuming people don't rely on traditional media, which ignores all the best research and distorts the research they do report on. According to one article, Which Countries Destroy the Environment the Most (and Least)? 05/01/2017 people began using more natural resources that the planet could reproduce starting in 1970, and it's been getting worse every year since. This actually underestimates the amount of environmental damage, since mining or other forms of extracting natural resources routinely destroyys or pollutes more naturaral resources than they extract, and one of the most extreme examples of this is water, as pointed out by Maude Barlow in her books, Blue Gold 2002/2017, Blue Covenant 2007/1009, Blue Future 2014 and several other books, where she explains how corporations are profiting from the destruction of our freshwater supply, which is only a small fraction of the water on the planet since most water is salty, either through other forms of mining or energy extraction, including oil or gas, which often contaminates water supplies, or extremely wasteful extraction of water for bottled water purposes, which can be done much more efficiently by repairing plumbing systems, some of which are polluted, by lead or other reasons. Diamonds, gold, rubies and other forms of jewelry, which serve no practical purpose should also be obvious examples of things we can stop mining; even Harry Oppenheimer, the former head of the De Beers diamond cartel admitted the reason people buy them and pay so much for them is "vanity" and the perception of value for these products is based on advertising hype, and egotism, not because they they actually improve the quality of life. When you consider the environmental damage, financing of wars based on lies, or high crime related to these shallow products they actually do far more harm than good. And of course there are many more things that we don't really need, yet our economic system is constantly trying to convince people to buy incredibly useless stuff!
It's widely known that the wealthy countries use far more natural resources than third world countries, yet the majority of the public rarely ever thinks about it, partly because the media pays so little attention to it, but there are some obscure articles that you can find if you look for them including Use It and Lose It: The Outsize Effect of U.S. Consumption on the Environment 09/14/2012 which explains that "'A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,' reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China."
There should be no doubt that we can't go on destroying the planet faster than it can repair itself forever, and if we don't even try to repair the damage that it will be destroyed even sooner; and even with the Democrats in power, at best, all they're doing is being more effective at pretending to try to solve problems without actually doing it. There have been many claims, including the ones the "Squad" ran on during the 2018 campaign that there's a point of no return where the escalation of the destruction of the environment will be irreversible, and they may be right, although I hope the estimate the "Squad" provided in 2018, which was that we have to act within ten to twelve years, almost half of which is gone, isn't true, because there's little indication that we're doing anything to reverse course, and the "Squad" is now defending Biden and looking the other way even though Biden is only reversing a handful of Trump's policies and escalating the drilling process or other excessive uses of resources in other ways.
There should be no doubt that it's a matter of time before we destroy the planet, although I certainly hope we have more time than the "Squad" claimed, but even if we do, the sooner we start repairing the damage done the better for everyone. But we're continuing to do the exact opposite, with fake environmentalists like the "Squad" trying to convince the public we're making progress even though destructive corporations continue to be subsidized instead of fined or jailed, and they often even fine or jail those that are trying to protect the environment instead. One of the most brazen examples is Jessica Reznicek who was sentenced to eight years in jail and fined 3.2 million dollars in a clear attempt to keep her destitute for life, and intimidate anyone that interferes with the oil companies trying to maximize short term profits from long term destruction of the environment which will be much harder to repair, if not impossible than anything Rexicek has done. Even if some people disagree with her tactics, the damage she did was miniscule compared to many things done by the Oil companies, including routine spills all over the country, and occasional disasters that are much worse, like the Exxon Valdez and Deep Horizons oil spills or explosions and many more. The media refuses to report on the vast majority of disasters, and when they do, they only cover them as isolated issues without letting the majority of the public know how extensive it is, but some sources like Jumping Jack Flash Maintain an Extensive list of Fires And Explosions that is enormous, even if a large portion of them are relatively small compared to the biggest disasters, but for example, tractor trailers that explode or spill destroying the environment literally happen every day several times per day with well over a thousand, if not over two thousand, tractor trailers exploding every year, and more than a thousand boats exploding each year as well, plus who knows how many other house explosions or other types of explosions. Yet nothing is being done to report this let alone slow it down, and when large corporations are responsible they're practically never held accountable, or if they are, it's almost always a civil case with fines or legal settlements far lower than their profits so they have no incentive to reduce the damage!
To add insult to injury they're constantly spending part of those large profits on propaganda ads to convince the public they're protecting the environment, while others are trying to portray environmentalists as extremists.
The following are some additional sources or related articles:
Pollution Accounts for One in Six Deaths Worldwide 05/19/2022
Environment damage behind 1 in 4 global deaths, disease: UN 03/13/2019
Record number of environmental activists murdered 09/13/2021
The heir, the judge and the homeless mom: America's prison bias for the 1% 04/02/2014
Labor Wars in the U.S.
Wikipedia: Union violence in the United States
Wikipedia: List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes
John D. Rockefeller Sent the National Guard to Kill American Families 08/27/2020
Two Men Are Shot in Kentucky In Incident Laid to Mine Strike 08/25/1974
WORKERS' Coachella ower July 1975 WIN. A court in Harlan County, Kentucky has found Billy Carroll. Bruner not guilty of murdering Lawrence Jones last August. Bruner is a foreman for the Eastover .
The Battle of Cripple Creek
Florida Teacher, Tom Miller Privett, 72, who Raped 14-Year-Old Student, gets a 2 Year Sentence 12/03/2021
Former Middle School Teacher, Marka Bodine, Receives 2-Month Sentence for 3 Years of Sexually Abusing a Student in Texas 04/2/2022
Calif. Teacher, Krystal Jackson, 39, Charged with Rape for Allegedly Having Sex with Student, 14, During Private Meetings 09/06/2021
Teacher Who Admitted Raping 14-Year-Old Student Gets 30 Days In Jail, Judge Rules Girl Was "Older Than Her Years" 08/27/2013 A Montana judge ordered 30 days in jail for Stacey Dean Rambold, (male) 54, a teacher who raped a high school freshman who later killed herself.
What are some ridiculously low sentences given for serious crimes? 2022 Susan Cummings, a wealthy heiress of a billionaire arms dealer.
THE REAL REASON DOMINIQUE DUNNE'S MURDERER SERVED LESS THAN 4 YEARS IN PRISON 12/29/2021
The Old Ray Blanton Pardon Scandal Just Flared Into a Supernova 06/10/2021
Teacher Monica Elizabeth Young jailed for raping 14yo boy at Western Sydney school 07/07/2021
Wikipedia: Mary Kay Letourneau
How A Du Pont Heir Avoided Jail Time For A Heinous Crime 06/14/2019 “I have concerns about this, because arguably, you should be [in jail] for what you did,” Jurden said during the sentencing. “But I think you have significant treatment needs that have to be addressed, and you have very strong family support. So unlike many unfortunate people who come before me, you are lucky in that regard, and I hope you appreciate that.”
Wikipedia: Trial and sentencing of Robert H. Richards IV Instead of serving out his eight-year prison sentence, the sentencing order signed by Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden said that the "defendant will not fare well" in prison and thus the eight-year sentence was suspended.[5][7][9][10] Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O'Neill expressed surprise that Jurden would use such a rationale to avoid sending Richards to prison.[5][7]
A LIFE IN PIECES; For du Pont Heir, Question Was Control 02/04/1996
No Holds Barred: The Strange Life of John E. Du Pont 1996 by Carol Turkington
From Heiress To Felon: How Clare Bronfman Wound Up In ‘Cult-Like’ Group Nxivm 05/31/2019
Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study 02/18/2020
22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money 02/24/2020
A New Congressional Budget Office Study Shows That Medicare for All Would Save Hundreds of Billions of Dollars Annually 12/29/2020
Cutting Carbon Emissions Sooner Could Save 153 Million Lives 03/26/2018
Thousands of lives could be saved by lowering air pollution levels Sept. 2020 If the U.S. adopted global guidelines for air pollution, the lives of 143,000 older adults could be saved over one decade, a recent study finds.
30,000-plus U.S. lives could be saved by reducing air pollution levels below current standard 07/24/2019
New Study Finds California’s Zero-Emission Cars Standards Could Save Lives, Reduce Pollution, Save Californians Money 05/04/2021
How the oil industry pumped Americans full of fake news 02/07/2020
How to spot the tricks Big Oil uses to subvert action on climate change 02/01/2021
How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation 01/08/2020
Wikipedia: Herbert Needleman
Wikipedia: List of environmental lawsuits
"Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children" David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz 2013
Joe Biden Policy & Voting Part One: January 16, 2020: Joe Biden blatantly lies about his record of trying to cut social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He then accuses the Sanders campaign of "doctoring" a video of him, which is NOT true. Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for almost 40 years, despite his campaign’s efforts to discredit fellow primary front-runner Bernie Sanders, who rightfully pointed out his record 07/15/2022
Amazon Joins The Medicare Privatization Spree 07/22/2022
Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not to Worry About Democrats Pushing “Medicare for All” 02/05/2019
Pharma & Insurance Gave $43M To The 130 House Democrats Not Backing Medicare For All 03/07/2019
As it Works to Stifle Primary Challengers, DCCC Takes More Money from Corporate Lobbyists 04/03/2019
Reject the cruelty of Medicare Advantage, NYC 06/16/2022
Biden Hikes Medicare Prices And Funnels Profits to Private Insurers 06/01/2022
How Many Seniors Live in Poverty? 11/19/2018
Medicare Advantage in 2021: Enrollment Update and Key Trends 06/21/2021
Seniors’ Medicare Benefits Are Being Privatized Without Consent 03/24/2022
The Growth in Share of Medicare Advantage Spending 04/07/2022
Medicare premium increase is not due to inflation, despite Fla. senator’s claim 11/27/2021
Joe Biden: It Would Be an Insult to My Dead Son for Everyone to Have Healthcare 08/27/2019
Medicare Advantage Plans Often Deny Needed Care, Federal Report Finds 04/28/2022 Investigators urged increased oversight of the program, saying that insurers deny tens of thousands of authorization requests annually.
Major Insurers Are Scamming Billions from Medicare, Whistle-Blowers Say 04/12/2022
Trump Created A Program To Privatize Medicare Without Patients' Consent. Biden Is Keeping It Going. 01/28/2022
Medicare Privatization Scheme Faced Legal Questions About Profiteering 12/14/2021
Medicare Advantage Is a For-Profit Scam. Time to End It. 09/08/2021
In New York City, Retirees Brace for Switch to Privatized Health Care 08/19/2021
The Medicare Advantage scam and beyond 09/29/2020 What Namath does not tell you is that if you choose the wrong Medicare Advantage plan, you might face inappropriate denials of care, along with other administrative and financial barriers to care. Indeed, new research finds that the wrong choice of Medicare Advantage plan might literally kill you. // After studying mortality rates in hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans with 15 million enrollees over five years, the researchers determined that people who choose the wrong Medicare Advantage plan have a much higher risk of dying. Put differently, your choice of health insurer affects how long you will live, along with other health outcomes.
Unions for Single Payer Health Care: Beyond the Medicare Advantage Scam 09/14/2020
Beware the Medicare Coverage Helpline 11/25/2020
Truth In Advertising.org: Medicare Coverage Helpline 06/29/2017
Should You Buy a Medicare Plan from Joe Namath? 04/01/2020
Goldman Sachs Says Curing Diseases Is Bad Business For Pharma 12/22/2018
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’ 04/11/2018
James Hansen "Storms of my Grandchildren" [PDF] - Free
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed 2011 by Jared Diamond
Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality 3rd Edition by Robert D. Bullard
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism 2008 by Naomi Klein
Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It (Politics of the Living) Paperback – March 16, 2021 by Derrick Jensen
The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History Hardcover – January 1, 2014 by Elizabeth Kolbert
The Radium Girls: The Dark Story of America's Shining Women (Harrowing Historical Nonfiction Bestseller About a Courageous Fight for Justice) 2018 by Kate Moore
Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility 2014 by Dorceta Taylor
Poisoning the Pacific The US Military's Secret Dumping of Plutonium, Chemical Weapons, and Agent Orange JON MITCHELL
Merchants Of Doubt How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway
The Best Climate Books of 2021, recommended by Sarah Dry
13 MUST-READ BOOKS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 08/27/2019
15 Must-Read Environmental Books 04/16/2022
Best Environmental Books by Sara Goddard
11 Must-Read Books About the Environment for Adults and Kids 09/15/2021
Toxic sites in Louisiana: 15 of the state's most polluted places 02/16/2017
Welcome to “Cancer Alley,” Where Toxic Air Is About to Get Worse 10/30/2019
Wikipedia: List of cancer clusters
Most Polluted Cities in the USA
Rankings: 25 Most Polluted Cities in the World in 2022
Here are some of the world's worst cities for air quality 03/21/2017
15 Most Polluted Cities in the World 03/26/2022
The most 50 polluted cities in the world, ranked 08/23/2019
The Most Polluted Major Cities in America
12 cities with the worst tap water in the US 03/17/2020
Cities With the Worst Public Water Ratings 04/13/2021
The 11 cities most likely to run out of drinking water - like Cape Town 02/11/2018
Wikipedia: Bhopal disaster
Dumping in Dixie Robert Bullard reviewed by Suzanne Harrington
The Family Behind Orkin Pest Control Has Connections to Massive Accounting Fraud 01/04/2012 In May 1997, Rollins Environmental, Inc. ("Rollins"), the largest hazardous waste incineration company in North America, acquired Laidlaw's hazardous and industrial waste division and changed its name to LES.
Targeted: Counterterrorism Measures Take Aim at Environmental Activists 11/28/2019
Green Scare: How a Movement That Never Killed Anyone Became the FBI’s No. 1 Domestic Terrorism Threat 03/23/2019
Whatever Happened to 'Eco-Terrorism'? 01/26/2015 The FBI once called radical environmental activists the “number one domestic terror threat,” but crimes of “eco-terrorism” are practically non-existent now.
Iran Accused Of Eco-Terrorism As Oil Spill Washes Up On Israeli Beaches 03/04/2021
Climate activist's fight against 'terrorism' sentence could impact the future of protests 04/28/2022
Cambodian environmentalists charged with terrorism 06/18/2021
Revealed: how the FBI targeted environmental activists in domestic terror investigations 09/24/2019
Report: Cuba turns over suspected ‘domestic terrorist’ to US 08/11/2018
Wikipedia: Jessica Reznicek
Pollution's fatal threat gains urgency after 9 million died in one year 05/17/2022
Air Pollution Kills Far More People Than Covid Ever Will 03/10/2021 More than 10 million people die every year from a problem that doesn’t receive the attention it should.
Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? 07/08/2022
Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide 02/09/2021 New research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.
100,000 Americans Die from Air Pollution, Study Finds 04/08/2019
Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate 06/23/2020
Poll: Most Americans say prioritize the environment over economic growth 04/11/2022 Fifty-three percent of respondents said protecting the environment should take precedence over economic growth, while 42 percent said the reverse. Majorities also supported six pillars of the climate agenda. 89 percent backed tax credits for "Americans who install clean energy systems, like solar power, in their homes." 75 percent said businesses should be offered tax incentives to "promote their use of wind, solar and nuclear power." 71 percent supported higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. 62 percent were in favor of "strict limits on the release of methane in the production of natural gas." 61 percent favored tax credits for individuals who buy electric vehicles. And, finally, 59 percent supported using federal funds to construct electric vehicle charging stations.
Most voters concerned over climate impact of Supreme Court EPA ruling: poll 06/30/2022
Voters Overwhelmingly Support the Green New Deal 04/19/2021
NATIONAL SURVEY: Poll finds majority of Americans oppose The Green New Deal Feb. 2019 This poll is based on incomplete edcuation of those participating and includes false or exagerated claims they used to make decisions.
Use It and Lose It: The Outsize Effect of U.S. Consumption on the Environment 09/14/2012 It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
Which Countries Destroy the Environment the Most (and Least)? 05/01/2017 In 1970, people first used more environmental resources than the world could produce. The gap between demand and nature’s ability to meet that demand has grown steadily since then. Each year we live in ecological deficit–taking more than can be replenished–we draw down the world’s reserves of natural resources.
TOP 10 Countries with Most Natural Resources in the World 02/02/2016
This map shows which countries are most dependent on natural resources 08/11/2014
Sherwin-Williams - Supreme Court of the United States 07/16/2018
Lead Paint Trial: Did Industry Promote Product Knowing Of Its Toxic Dangers? 07/18/2013
Sherwin-Williams in trouble over century-old ads for lead paint 09/02/2018
Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map 10/20/2020 Which countries have experimented with basic income — and what were the results?
How Basic Income Prevents Violence 03/08/2022
Study Finds That Universal Basic Income Decreases Crime Rates By An Incredible 42%! 04/13/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment