Get ready to pay more for tomatoes, as California growers reel from extreme weather

Get ready to pay more for tomatoes, as California growers reel from extreme weather

 

Tomato sauce is feeling the squeeze and ketchup can’t catch up.

California grows more than 90 percent of Americans’ canned tomatoes and a third of the world’s. Ongoing drought in the state has hurt the planting and harvesting of many summer crops, but water-hungry “processing tomatoes” are caught up in a particularly treacherous swirl (a “tormado”?) of problems that experts say will spur prices to surge far more than they already have.

The drought threatens to imperil some of Americans’ favorite ingredients – pizza sauce, marinara, tomato paste, stewed tomatoes and ketchup all hang in the balance. And this comes not long after a bizarre, and completely unrelated, shortage of pizza sauce and individual ketchup packets during the height of the food-delivery-crazed pandemic.

This also comes on top of already steep increases in the price of fruits and vegetables, which have been rising since the coronavirus pandemic was declared last year.

For tomatoes, higher prices could start taking hold soon if not already, said Wells Fargo’s chief agricultural economist Michael Swanson.

“If you’re a producer or a canner and see these problems coming, why would you not raise prices now in anticipation?” he said, adding that consumers don’t see the price tag for a lot of the processed tomatoes consumed away from home. “It’s embedded in the menu board – but it is one more reason prices at Chipotle and Pizza Hut will go up.”

In a normal year, Aaron Barcellos, a farmer in Firebaugh, Calif., grows 2,200 acres of processing tomatoes. This year he’s decided to drop to 900 acres on his farm, which is on the border of Merced and Fresno counties. He’s left the remaining acres unplanted, choosing to focus all of his precious water on almonds, pistachios and olives grown on trellises – crops that command higher prices and represent already-significant sunken costs.

“We get eight inches of rain in a normal year. Last year we got 4 1/2 inches,” he said. “We got zero percent of our water allocation, which forced us to buy a lot of expensive water, and it doesn’t make sense to put it on tomatoes.”

He said many growers have made the decision to use their limited water on permanent crops – trees and things like grape vines – choosing to forgo planting annuals like tomatoes, onions and garlic, or even letting crops already planted wither in the desert-like conditions.

This year’s shortage of processing tomatoes has been a long time in the making. Farmers already had been planting fewer tomatoes. From 2015 to 2019, fewer countries were importing American tomatoes, partly because the dollar was strong, which made U.S. canned tomato products more expensive. This created an oversupply of California tomatoes, said Rob Neenan, chief executive of the California League of Food Producers.

Processors cut back their orders and farmers grew fewer acres. At the same time, partly because of a trade war, a global shortage of steel sheets used to make cans for food production caused can prices to soar. Major processing plants in Williams, Lemoore and Stockton, Calif., closed, citing higher production expenses, leaving fewer places for growers to sell. Inventory at the beginning of 2020 was low and supplies had tightened up worldwide.

And then the pandemic hit. Cue the tomato hoarding.

Frank Muller, a multigenerational tomato grower and president of M Three Ranches in Woodland, Calif., in Yolo County, euphemistically describes the market last year as “disrupted.”

Early in the pandemic, gallon cans of tomatoes sat unwanted on restaurant distributor shelves, hurting those who sold to the restaurant industry and other food-service sectors – this included caterers, event arenas and corporate cafeterias, all shuttered in the spring of 2020. Meanwhile, retail sales at grocery stores – from 5-ounce cans of paste to 28-ounce cans of diced – went nuts.

“If you were just selling to food service, they didn’t want all those tomatoes last year when restaurants closed. But if you were in retail, you were in hog heaven,” he said, going on to describe the huge uptick in pandemic pizza delivery, which used up all those gallon cans, followed by a ketchup shortage when curbside pickups and food delivery services grabbed all those little packets.

On top of the chaos of the supply problem, there’s still the threat of the coronavirus: Thousands of farmworkers throughout California have gotten sick on the job. Outbreaks still occur, despite robust vaccination pushes.

Muller said there were very few infections among his farmworkers – his tomatoes are mechanically picked. Now he’s also worried about worker shortages.

“We made it through last year, but here we are, and the workforce is still not returning because of enhanced unemployment benefits, and that has affected seasonal processing plants,” Muller said.

All these problems are leading to fewer tomatoes. Processors reined in their estimate of how many tons of tomatoes they would contract for this year, dropping it by more than a million tons, and now even that looks overly hopeful. Muller said this is the first year processors didn’t get all the tomato tonnage they wanted from farmers. “This year will be some of lowest inventory levels that we’ve ever seen,” he said.

Prices were already on the rise. In April, processing tomatoes worldwide were 7% more expensive than during three previous seasons, according to the World Processing Tomato Council. And before this summer’s heat wave struck, the California Tomato Growers Association had negotiated a price on behalf of farmers with the tomato processors that is 5.6% higher than last growing season, because, as Muller says, farmers’ expenses are rising: “Supplies, fuel, drip tape, anything with steel, you name it, it’s going up.”

“Tomato processors have very expensive facilities that can only do one thing. If they don’t want to be out of business, they will have to bid up tomatoes rather than leave facilities idle,” said Swanson, the agricultural economist.

Those price increases are expected to be passed along to the big companies that contract with processors, agricultural experts say. Companies that have deep ties to tomatoes have yet to signal price increases. Kraft Heinz declined to comment about pricing for this story, as did Campbell Soup, which is a grower as well as a processor and uses about 2 billion pounds of tomatoes annually for its iconic soup, V8 beverages and Prego and Pace sauces.

James Sherwood of the Morning Star Company, one of the largest tomato processors, said it’s hard to predict how high prices could go. He said higher prices are not just due to the drought but also increasing costs for fertilizer, labor and natural gas. And next year looks even grimmer.

“We have lower inventories right now and a water crisis,” Sherwood said, “and for next year, there are farmers making decisions about crops based on their allocation of water. The reservoirs are tremendously, historically low right now and that’s concerning.”

But a lot of these business decisions were made before the recent blistering, record heat wave. Fresno County, the top producer of tomatoes, saw a long stretch of triple-digit temperatures. Yolo, Kings, Merced and San Joaquin are the next largest in terms of tomato production, and all five are in the “exceptional drought” category, the highest level on the U.S. drought map. Severe drought conditions have enveloped nearly all of California’s landmass, with the state’s rain and snowfall well below average and its network of reservoirs holding much less water than usual.

Muller said in a typical year he has allocated three or four feet of water for every acre of farmland that needs irrigation. This year he got a smidgen of one foot, just 3.6 inches of water per acre. Much less rain than usual, as well as much less irrigation water than usual, means growers must turn to groundwater, which is more expensive, to save their crops.

“In Yolo County, we have relatively stable groundwater and replenishment of the aquifer. It’s like having money in the bank, so we’re pumping water out of the ground like a withdrawal,” he said. “We’re just keeping our fingers crossed that the water table will maintain itself. That’s caused a whole new level of concern.”

Greg Pruett, chief executive of Ingomar Packing Company in Los Banos, a partnership of four growers, says the situation is going to be significantly worse next year, because while there were reasonable reservoir levels going into this growing season, that will be entirely depleted by growers turning to groundwater.

On Friday, California’s State Water Resources Control Board released an order that would cut farmers off from turning to rivers and streams in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds, removing yet another source of water in an extreme drought year.

“Growers will have the worst water situation ever by the end of this growing season,” Pruett said. “The cost increases this year – in water, cans, all the other ingredients, labor, transportation – all those things add up to major cost inflation. And that pales in comparison to what’s going to happen next year.”

Bottom line, he says: If the drought continues and the water table dips significantly, many growers may not plant tomatoes next year.

First water cuts in US West supply to hammer Arizona farmers

First water cuts in US West supply to hammer Arizona farmers

CASA GRANDE, Ariz. (AP) — A harvester rumbles through the fields in the early morning light, mowing down rows of corn and chopping up ears, husks and stalks into mulch for feed at a local dairy.

The cows won’t get their salad next year, at least not from this farm. There won’t be enough water to plant the corn crop.

Climate change, drought and high demand are expected to force the first-ever mandatory cuts to a water supply that 40 million people across the American West depend on — the Colorado River. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s projection next week will spare cities and tribes but hit Arizona farmers hard.

They knew this was coming. They have left fields unplanted, laser leveled the land, lined canals, installed drip irrigation, experimented with drought-resistant crops and found other ways to use water more efficiently.

Still, the cutbacks in Colorado River supply next year will be a blow for agriculture in Pinal County, Arizona’s top producer of cotton, barley and livestock. Dairies largely rely on local farms for feed and will have to search farther out for supply, and the local economy will take a hit.

The cuts are coming earlier than expected as a drought has intensified and reservoirs dipped to historic lows across the West. Scientists blame climate change for the warmer, more arid conditions over the past 30 years.

 

Standing next to a dry field, his boots kicking up dust, farmer Will Thelander said “more and more of the farm is going to look like this next year because we won’t have the water to keep things growing everywhere we want.”

His father, Dan, tried to steer his kids away from farming, not because water would be scarce but because development was expected to swallow farms between Phoenix and Tucson where their family grows alfalfa, corn for cows, and cotton, some destined for overseas markets.

“It was fun just keeping the family business going, working with my dad,” said Thelander, a 34-year-old, fourth-generation farmer whose office is a dusty pickup truck.

Thelander manages almost half of the 6,000 acres his family farms under Tempe Farming Co., much of it devoted to corn for cows. He’s not planning on growing that crop next year, opting for others that will be more profitable on less land.

He didn’t plant anything on 400 acres this year to cut down on water use. Farmers’ Colorado River water comes by way of Lake Mead, which sits on the Arizona-Nevada border and serves as a barometer for water deliveries to Arizona, Nevada, California and Mexico, in the river’s lower basin.

The nation’s largest reservoir already has hit the level that triggers mandatory shortages — 1,075 feet (328 meters) above sea level. The Bureau of Reclamation will issue the official projection for 2022 water deliveries Monday, giving users time to plan for what’s to come.

Arizona is expected to lose 512,000 acre-feet of water, about one-fifth of the state’s Colorado River supply but less than 8% of its total water. Nevada will lose 21,000 acre-feet, and Mexico will lose 80,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot is enough water to supply one to two households a year.

The cuts will be most deeply felt in Arizona, which entered into an agreement in 1968 for junior rights to Colorado River water in exchange for U.S. funding to build a 336-mile (540-kilometer) canal to send the water through the desert to major cities.

Agriculture won’t end in Pinal County, but the cuts to farmers will force more of them to rely on groundwater that’s already overpumped.

Hardly anyone expects a more than 20-year megadrought to improve. Models show the Colorado River will shrink even more in coming years because of climate change, leading to additional cuts that could ultimately affect home taps.

The river carries melted snow from the Rocky Mountains and other tributaries through seven Western states, providing drinking water, nourishment for crops and habitat for plants and animals. Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the river’s two largest reservoirs, are popular for recreation and their dams produce hydropower for the region.

“It’s such a significant river,” said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “It used to be called the Nile of the West, which is almost impossible to believe these days.”

Arizona has positioned itself to weather the cuts by storing water underground and in Lake Mead and through conservation. It’s also trying to secure other water sources. Among the options are importing groundwater to metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson from other parts of the state, leasing more water from tribes, creating a more robust supply of recycled water and desalinating water from the Sea of Cortez in Mexico.

“They all work together,” said Ted Cooke, general manager of the Central Arizona Project, which manages the canal system that carries river water. “Some of them are more near term, some of them are farther away, some of them are more costly than others, but all of those things need to be done.”

Under a drought contingency plan that Western states signed in 2019, some of the water that farmers will lose will be replaced by other sources next year. Arizona, the Central Arizona Project, environmental groups and others have kicked in millions of dollars to soften the blow to farmers and improve groundwater infrastructure.

The Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District, where Thelander farms, plans to have nine wells complete by year’s end.

District President Bryan Hartman said it won’t pump anywhere near what it used to and will be looking for other sources, likely turning to cities and tribes with higher priority water rights.

The next few months will be critical to planning for a future with less water.

“Growers will be asking, ‘How much water are we going to get, how many acre-feet, what are the flows going to be,’ and that will determine the cropping pattern,” said Hartman, himself a farmer.

Paul “Paco” Ollerton, 66, who largely grows feed for animals, will plant 25% to 35% less land next year.

He thought he was done with farming back in 2005 when he sold his land, partly because he knew water would be hard to get.

“I just finally woke up one day and thought, the secretary of the Interior one day is going to say, ‘It’s more important for you to flush your toilet and have water to brush your teeth with than farm,’” Ollerton said.

Too young to retire, he leased back the land and has farmed across Pinal County.

One of his farms along a stretch of interstate leading to San Diego uses drip irrigation that makes water use more efficient and crops more productive, he said. Making the rounds in his cotton fields, he flushes the system’s valves with Aggie, a yellow lab who rides in the backseat of his pickup truck.

His two children talk about being farmers, but he doesn’t promote the long hours or uncertainty. Three generations of farming likely ends with him.

For Thelander, he’s considered getting out of farming and starting a trucking business. But he also sees hope in guayule, a drought-resistant shrub that could be used in the production of rubber. His family’s farm is participating in research for a tire manufacturer to see if it can be used on a large scale.

“This is my Hail Mary, trying to save farming for myself,” Thelander said.

96,000 Fish Die in Chlorine Leak at Norwegian Fish Farm

96,000 Fish Die in Chlorine Leak at Norwegian Fish Farm

Olivia Rosane                        August 12, 2021

​A fish farm in Norway.
A fish farm in Norway. franckreporter / Getty Images

 

Nearly 100,000 fish have died after one of the world’s largest salmon farming companies released 4,000 gallons of chlorine into a Norwegian fjord on Tuesday.

Grieg Seafood, which is headquartered in Norway, said that the leak occurred in one of their fish slaughterhouses in the town of Alta in the Norwegian Arctic, as The Independent reported.

“This is very sad,” harvesting plant manager Stine Torheim said in a statement. “Our focus is now first and foremost on cleaning up. We will get all facts about this incident on the table, to ensure that it will not happen again.”

The company said that the leak did not harm any employees or other people. Further, police spokesperson Stein Hugo Jorergensen told Norwegian broadcaster NRK that no toxic chlorine gas had been released on land, according to The Independent. However, the leak did kill 96,000 fish in holding pens at the time.

In addition to contaminating the fjord, the chlorine also flowed into the Atlantic Ocean, Norwegian police said on Twitter, as The Independent reported.

“The emergency services are working on site to get an overview of the incident,” the police said.

The company said it did not yet know how the leak might impact the environment of the fjord, but had contracted an assessment from Akvaplan Niva. In general, chlorine tends to dilute and break down rapidly once it enters water.

“According to what we know today, the leak had a short-term, acute impact on organisms that were in the water around the harvesting plant when the incident occurred,” the company said. “The environmental assessment, which is expected to take a few days, will provide a full answer.”

The company uses chlorine in its day-to-day operations to disinfect the water used for processing at the plant. It said that it would cooperate with authorities as they investigate the cause of the leak. In the meantime, it is conducting a cleanup of the pens, removing dead fish. It said it expected the process to take a few days.

Grieg Seafood provides more than 25,000 tons of salmon to North America and Asia every year, according to CBS News. Approximately 430 tons were lost in the leak, the company said, which Norwegian media company Intrafish estimated to be worth around $3.4 million, CBS News reported. Grieg Seafood said that, while the financial consequences of the incident were still unclear, the fish had been insured.

China cities declare ‘red alerts’ as flood death toll hits 21

Reuters

China cities declare ‘red alerts’ as flood death toll hits 21

China regularly experiences flooding during its wet summer months, but authorities have warned that extreme weather is now becoming more frequent as a result of climate change.

Source: Reuters        August 13, 2021

NBC News Video:    blob:https://www.nbcnews.com/45cb5e0c-882a-401e-a6e1-06a99cb7529e

 

The deaths were recorded in the township of Liulin, part of the city of Suizhou in the north of the province. More than 2,700 houses and shops suffered flood damage and power, transportation and communications were also disrupted, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Rescue crews have been dispatched to the worst affected areas, including the cities of Suizhou, Xiangyang and Xiaogan, China’s Ministry of Emergency Management said. The city of Yicheng also saw a record 400 millimeters of rain on Thursday.

According to the official China News Service, as many as 774 reservoirs in Hubei had exceeded their flood warning levels by Thursday evening.

Extreme weather in the province has caused widespread power cuts and has damaged more than 3,600 houses and 8,110 hectares of crops. Total losses were estimated at 108 million yuan ($16.67 million), the official China Daily said on Friday, citing the province’s emergency management bureau.

China regularly experiences flooding during its wet summer months, but authorities have warned that extreme weather is now becoming more frequent as a result of climate change.

Watch: Stranded flood victims in Zhengzhou, China, rescued by rafts and heavy machinery

July 22, 2021

Around 80,000 were evacuated in the southwestern province of Sichuan last weekend and record rainfall in Henan last month caused floods that killed more than 300 people.

 

The China Meteorological Administration warned that heavy rainstorms were likely to continue until next week, with regions along the Yangtze river vulnerable to flooding.

State weather forecasters also issued a geological disaster warning late on Thursday, saying areas at risk include the central provinces of Hubei, Hunan, Henan and Anhui, Chongqing, Sichuan and Guizhou in the southwest as well as Zhejiang on the eastern coast.

China’s Port Shutdown Raises Fears of Closures Worldwide

China’s Port Shutdown Raises Fears of Closures Worldwide

 

China’s Port Shutdown Raises Fears of Closures Worldwide

 

(Bloomberg) — Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks trade and supply chains disrupted by the pandemic. Sign up here.

A Covid outbreak that has partially shut one of the world’s busiest container ports is heightening concerns that the rapid spread of the delta variant will lead to a repeat of last year’s shipping nightmares.

The Port of Los Angeles, which saw its volumes dip because of a June Covid outbreak at the Yantian port in China, is bracing for another potential decline because of the latest shutdown at the Ningbo-Zhoushan port in China, a spokesman said. Anton Posner, chief executive officer of supply-chain management company Mercury Resources, said that many companies chartering ships are already adding Covid contract clauses as insurance so they won’t have to pay for stranded ships.

Read More: China Partly Shuts World’s Third-Busiest Port, Risking Trade

It seemed as if things were just starting to calm down, “and we’re now into delta delays,” Emmanouil Xidias, partner at Ifchor North America LLC, said in a phone interview. “You’re going to have a secondary hit.”

The shutdown at Ningbo-Zhoushan is raising fears that ports around the world will soon face the same kind of outbreaks and Covid restrictions that slowed the flows of everything from perishable food to electronics last year as the pandemic took hold. Infections are threatening to spread at docks just as the world’s shipping system is already struggling to handle unprecedented demand with economies reopening and manufacturing picking up.

Ningbo-Zhoushan Port said in a statement late Thursday that all other terminals aside from Meishan have been operating normally. The port is actively negotiating with shipping companies, directing them to other terminals, and releasing information on a real-time data platform, it said.

To minimize the impact, it’s also adjusting the operating time of other terminals to make sure clients can clear their shipments. A spokesman for the port said there were no further updates when contacted Friday.

Company Reactions

Some ships that docked at the Meishan terminal before the closure are suspending cargo operations until the terminal re-opens, according to a notice sent by shipping line CMA CGM SA to shippers.

Other vessels which usually call at the Meishan terminal will stop at the Beilun terminal instead, according to a statement Thursday from A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S. One of the company’s ships will skip Ningbo next week, it said.

“We are working on contingency plans in order to mitigate the likely impact on our vessel schedules and cargo operations,” Orient Overseas Container Line, a subsidiary of Orient Overseas International Ltd. container subsidiary said via email.

Ningbo city is still considered a low risk virus area, according to the city’s health commission, although flights to and from the capital Beijing have been canceled.

Authorities in Ningbo said the port worker was fully vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine and had the second dose on March 17. The worker was asymptomatic as of Thursday afternoon. He was infected with the delta strain, genetic sequencing showed, and epidemiological investigation shows the worker had come into close contact with sailors of foreign cargo ships.

The Baltic Dry Index that serves as a global benchmark for bulk shipping prices is up more than 10% since a month ago as the delta variant began to spread rapidly. While there haven’t been significant effects on U.S. ports, the problems in China could hurt companies that rely on container exports from the nation.

Container prices also have soared, with the benchmark cost of shipping a container from Shanghai to Los Angeles up more than 220% over the past year to $10,322 this week.

Covid may have begun with Chinese scientist collecting bat samples, says WHO investigator

Covid may have begun with Chinese scientist collecting bat samples, says WHO investigator

Field workers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology hunt for bats  - Chinese Academy of Sciences
Field workers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology hunt for bats – Chinese Academy of Sciences

 

A Chinese scientist may have started the pandemic after being infected with coronavirus while collecting bat samples, the head of the World Health Organization’s investigation has said.

In a documentary released this week by the Danish television channel TV2, Dr Peter Embarek said it was a “likely hypothesis” that a lab employee could have picked up the virus while working in the field.

Scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were known to be working on bat coronavirus at labs in the city, but China has been uncooperative in providing details of their research.

Dr Embarek said WHO investigators were forced to conclude that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely” in their official report to avoid further arguments with the Chinese.

He said the team had come to an “impasse” with China, which would only allow a lab leak scenario to be included in the report if there were no recommendations to look further.

“My counterpart agreed we could mention (the lab leak scenario) in the report under the condition that we wouldn’t recommend specific studies of that hypothesis. We would just leave it there.”

Asked whether the Chinese would have agreed to the report without the scenario being labelled “extremely unlikely”, Dr Embarek said: “That would have probably demanded further discussion and arguments for and against I didn’t think it was worth it.”

However, Dr Embarek said it was possible that a lab employee may have been infected in the field.

“We consider that hypothesis a likely one,” he added.

Chinese pressure

Pressure is growing on China to release documentation of work at laboratories in Wuhan and allow a thorough investigation.

A report into the lab leak scenario, which was commissioned by Joe Biden, is expected to report at the end of August, and last month the WHO called for an in-depth audit, a request that the Chinese had rejected.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, co-chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said the international community urgently needed to identify how the virus outbreak erupted.

“There’s no question now that this process needs to be undertaken by the WHO. They need to come clean, as China needs to come clean, about the origins of the virus,” he said.

‘Arrogant refusal to accept the origins of the virus’

Sir Iain said millions of people had lost their lives on account of the “terrible and arrogant refusal to accept that the origins of the virus” may be linked to the Wuhan lab.

Dr Embarek, pictured below, also told the documentary team that he was concerned about a second lab, the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had moved premises to just a third of a mile from the Wuhan wet market where the outbreak first emerged.

Peter Ben Embarek - Hector Retamal/AFP
Peter Ben Embarek – Hector Retamal/AFP

 

“There are other labs in Wuhan that are interesting, such as CDC, which also worked with bats,” he said.

“What is more concerning to me is the other lab that is next to the market, because they were also handling coronaviruses, without potentially having the same level of expertise or safety …

“When we were being shown around I thought it all looked new. I asked how old the lab was and they said, ‘We moved on 2 December’.

“That’s when it all started. We know that when you move a lab it disturbs all the procedures. You have to move the virus collection and the samples. That’s why that period of time and that lab are interesting.”

Lab leak theory persists

Experts in Britain said it was “plausible” that a lab employee could have brought the virus back to Wuhan, which would also fit with genetic studies showing it had jumped from an animal.

Dr Jonathan Stoye, group leader of the Retrovirus-Host Interactions Laboratory at The Francis Crick Institute, said: “It sounds entirely plausible to me

“My feeling when I read the original WHO report was there was no grounds for calling it extremely unlikely so it was always slightly strange.

“I have been saying for a while that this isn’t solved, the lab link is still there and we need to know more. The question is how we go about getting more.

“To my mind, there is no evidence of manipulation of the virus, but we know these investigators have been collecting bat samples, so they could have carried something back.”

Genetic studies support both a lab leak scenario and a wild infection

Ravi Gupta, professor of microbiology at the University of Cambridge, said that current genetic studies supported both a lab leak scenario and a wild infection

“The genetics are consistent with the lab leak/field work infection scenario described by the WHO mission lead, and also consistent with infection from the wild in general by a non-lab worker,” he said.

However, other researchers said the comments did little to move the investigation forward.

“There are many possible ways the virus was transmitted to humans,” said Prof David Robertson, head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow,

“Peter was just referring to something that was possible. As we’ve no evidence for this, or any link to a lab-leak, it remains just speculation.”

Inconvenient truth: Droughts shrink hydropower, pose risk to global push to clean energy

Inconvenient truth: Droughts shrink hydropower, pose risk to global push to clean energy

Hoover Dam reservoir sinks to record low, in sign of extreme Western U.S. drought.
SACRAMENTO, Calif./BRASILIA/SHANGHAI (Reuters) – Severe droughts are drying up rivers and reservoirs vital for the production of zero-emissions hydropower in several countries around the globe, in some cases leading governments to rely more heavily on fossil fuels.

The emerging problems with hydropower production in places like the United States, China and Brazil represent what scientists and energy experts say is going to be a long-term issue for the industry as climate change https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/once-in-50-year-heat-waves-now-happening-every-decade-un-climate-report-2021-08-09 triggers more erratic weather and makes water access less reliable.

They also could pose a threat to international ambitions to fight global warming by hindering one of the leading forms of existing clean power. Hydropower is the world’s top source of clean energy and makes up close to 16% of world electricity generation, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

This year, climate-driven droughts have triggered the biggest disruptions in hydropower generation in decades in places like the western United States and Brazil. China is still recovering from the effects of last year’s severe drought on hydro production in Yunnan province in the southwestern part of the country.

Elsewhere, too much water is the problem.

Last year in Malawi, for example, flooding and debris from megastorms forced two power stations to go offline, reducing hydropower capacity from 320 megawatts (MW) to 50 MW, according to the IEA.

Those effects have forced power grid operators to rely more heavily on thermal power plants, often fired by natural gas or coal, and to ask businesses to curtail electricity use to prevent outages, according to Reuters interviews with grid operators and regulators.

“When we’re talking about hydropower we’re really talking about making sure we have enough water to get electricity,” said Kristen Averyt, a research professor focusing on climate resilience at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. “What does that hydro generation get replaced with?”

SHUTDOWN AT LAKE OROVILLE

In California, the State Water Project was forced to shut down a 750-MW hydroelectric power plant at Lake Oroville this month for the first time since it was built in 1967 because of low water levels. In good years, the plant can power half a million homes.

Power facilities at Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir in the federal government’s Central Valley Project in California, were also generating about 30% less power than usual this summer, said Cary Fox, a team leader for the Bureau of Reclamation’s operations in the state.

The lake usually provides about 710 MW during the summer, but in July was producing only 500 MW, Fox said.

At the huge 2,000 MW Hoover Dam on the Colorado River at the border of Nevada and Arizona, production was also down by about 25% last month, the agency said.

One megawatt can power up to 1,000 U.S. homes.

Tight power supplies in California, driven in part by low hydropower production, led Governor Gavin Newsom to issue an order on July 30 allowing industrial power consumers to run on diesel generators and engines that emit more greenhouse gases. [

The order also allowed ships at port to use diesel generators instead of plugging into the grid, and lifted restrictions on the amount of fuel natural gas plants can use to generate power.

Environmentalists have criticized the move, saying it will worsen air quality in California and undermine the state’s efforts to fight climate change.

Tim Welch, director of hydropower research at the U.S. Department of Energy, said the department is researching ways that dams can more efficiently store water during rainy periods so it can be reserved for use during droughts.

Hydropower plants in the United States are capable of producing about 80 gigawatts (GW) of energy, about 7% of total energy production, Welch said.

DROUGHT IN BRAZIL

In Brazil, where hydroelectric power is the top source of electricity at 61%, drought recently cut water flows into hydro dams to a 91-year low, the country’s mines and energy minister said.

To offset the drop in hydropower, the country is seeking to activate thermoelectric plants, mainly powered by natural gas, threatening to drive up greenhouse gas emissions. In July, sector regulator Aneel raised the most expensive electricity rate by 52%, due to the drought crisis.

Severe weather events like the current drought will become increasingly frequent with climate change, and Brazilians will need to change their attitudes about water, said José Marengo, a climatologist at the government’s disaster monitoring center.

“People always thought that water is unlimited, but it really isn’t,” Marengo said.

Brazil Mines and Energy Minister Bento Albuquerque said in an online briefing with reporters that a boom in the construction of power lines to reroute electricity to where it is needed and diversification away from hydro to solar and wind will help the country deal with such events in the future, and prevent the need for water rationing.

Even so, Brazil will remain reliant on hydropower for years. By 2030, the energy ministry predicts 49% of electricity will come from hydro. The country is also maintaining plans to build more hydro plants, exploring potential cross-border dam projects with Bolivia, Guyana and Argentina, as well as building 2 GW worth of small dams domestically.

DAMS – SAVE THE PLANET OR HARM IT?

Last year’s drought in China’s Yunnan province slashed hydro power generation by nearly 30% during the first five months of 2020, according to official data. Output this year remains curtailed by around 10%.

Yunnan usually accounts for roughly a quarter of China’s total hydro generation, and the province is home to several aluminum smelting businesses that require vast quantities of power to operate. The province restricted metal producers’ power use earlier this year, forcing some smelting capacity to be temporarily shut.

More disruptions are expected.

A recent study by researchers in Nanjing looked at the potential impact of climate change and rising temperatures on hydropower generation in Yunnan. Their models showed decreases in rain and snowfall during the October-April drought season and increases in the summer rainy season.

To even out the variability, the researchers proposed more storage capacity – more dams and reservoirs.

But the diversions could worsen droughts elsewhere, according to experts. China’s giant reservoirs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mekong-river-idUSKCN21V0U7 on the upper reaches of the Mekong River in Yunnan have already been blamed https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mekong-river-idUSKBN2AC0K0 for reducing downstream flows – affecting water access in Thailand, Cambodia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mekong-river-cambodia-idUSKBN2B002T and Myanmar.

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, California, Jake Spring in Brasilia, David Stanway in Shanghai; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Former ambassador to Afghanistan blames Taliban surge on Trump ‘delegitimizing’ Afghan government

Yahoo – News

Former ambassador to Afghanistan blames Taliban surge on Trump ‘delegitimizing’ Afghan government

Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker appeared Thursday on Anderson Cooper 360, where he blamed former President Trump for the Taliban’s recent surge in the country. Trump had planned to meet with Taliban leaders and the Afghan president at Camp David in 2019. After the meeting was canceled, a U.S. representative for Afghanistan met with Taliban leaders in Qatar in February 2020, where both sides signed a peace agreement. It’s at that meeting that Crocker believes the current situation in Afghanistan was born. Not only were there no representatives from the Afghan government present at the meeting, but Afghanistan was asked to make certain concessions to the Taliban.

“In my view, we bear a major responsibility for this. Began under President Trump when he authorized negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban without the Afghan government in the room. That was a key Taliban demand. We acceded to it, and it was a huge demoralizing factor for the Afghan government and its security forces,” Crocker said. “We pressed them to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Eventually they did it, and watched them go back into the fight against the people who released them. So this is a year and a half worth of demoralization.”

Crocker, who was appointed to his position by President George W. Bush, believes the U.S. pulling troops out of the country, which was part of the 2020 agreement, means the end for Afghan forces.

“Now this abrupt withdrawal on our part, I think, solidifies it,” Crocker said. “So it’s like any complex phenomenon. There are a number of reasons for the collapse, I think, of the Afghan forces, but we cannot ignore that we had a central role in delegitimizing them and their government.”

As the Taliban continues to capture major cities with seemingly little to no resistance, Crocker reiterated that the failure can be traced back to the supposed peace agreement.

“We were a major backer, of course, of the state and of its security forces. Symbolism counts, and the symbol of the U.S. military affecting a complete and final withdrawal was devastating,” Crocker said. “And again, it didn’t happen overnight. This demoralization process, if you will, began the first day we sat down with the Taliban and excluded the Afghan government.”

Former Ambassador to Afghanistan says Trump is responsible for ‘demoralizing’ Afghan forces

Former Ambassador to Afghanistan says Trump is responsible for ‘demoralizing’ Afghan forces

On Anderson Cooper 360 Thursday, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, blamed former President Trump for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been surging through the country, capturing cities with seemingly little to no resistance from Afghan forces as the U.S. pulls troops out. Crocker believes Afghan forces were demoralized when a U.S. representative met with Taliban leaders in early 2020 without representation from the Afghan government.

“In my view, we bear a major responsibility for this. Began under President Trump when he authorized negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban without the Afghan government in the room. That was a key Taliban demand. We acceded to it, and it was a huge demoralizing factor for the Afghan government and its security forces,” Crocker said. “We pressed them to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Eventually they did it, and watched them go back into the fight against the people who released them. So this is a year and a half worth of demoralization.”

Donald’s Plot Against America

Donald’s Plot Against America

Now, he and his GOP enablers are peddling the Second Big Lie: that January 6 was just legitimate protest. It’s the crucial ingredient in convincing America to return them—and him—to power.

Win McNamee / Getty Images

I felt as though I had stumbled across a crime scene so violent that I couldn’t process it, let alone synthesize the images in front of me. The parts remained stubbornly separate, and there was no way to grasp the meaning of the whole.

In the early afternoon of January 6, while the mob was still swarming the stairs of the Capitol, I was asked in an interview what I thought of the unfolding situation. I watched the crowd that had been stoked that morning by my uncle, and by Republicans like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Mo Brooks, with their Confederate flags, their MAGA hats, and their Camp Auschwitz shirts; I watched the smoke (the origin of which I couldn’t yet discern) drift through the air, and I heard their shouts of grievance and anger. It looked like a scene from a failed country whose government had just been toppled, a banana republic; but it was the United States of America, my country, our country, and, knowing who was responsible for the chaos here, the first word that came to my mind was “tawdry.”

Of course, it was so much more than that—so much more dangerous and serious than that, as we would eventually find out. At around 2:15, while Republicans Cruz and Paul Gosar were objecting to the legitimate results of the election, the insurrectionists breached the Capitol, Congress was adjourned, and frantic attempts were made to get the vice president and all of the senators and representatives to safety.

Two hours later, the Georgia Senate race was called for Jon Ossoff. It mattered, certainly; it meant that the Democrats would control the Senate. But there was no room for celebration. After four years of Donald’s incessant attacks and ineptitude, we were already exhausted. Joe Biden’s victory was supposed to have offered us some reprieve, but having given Donald room to promote his Big Lie, elected Republicans had now granted him the opportunity to incite an insurrection. So there would be no respite from the madness, from Donald’s particular blend of mendacity, cruelty, and destructiveness. There would be no celebrating.

Mary Trump

PHOTOGRAPH BY DINA LITOVSKY/REDUX FOR THE NEW REPUBLIC

That horrific day—which we now know General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to as a “Reichstag moment”—was bracketed by Donald’s incendiary speech given just before noon and a video released two hours after the Capitol had been breached that added more fuel to the fire. The speech itself was full of grievances—lies about the “landslide election” that had been stolen from him, threats to Mike Pence, whom he led the crowd to believe had the power to overturn the results of the election, fabulations about people voting as Santa Claus and Democrats’ taking down statues of Jefferson and Lincoln, and calls to action demanding that the crowd force Congress to “do the right thing.” In the 62 second video, Donald says the word peace three times, presumably because somebody convinced him he had to distance himself from the role he played in stoking the mob’s violence; but, because he can never help himself in these instances, he kept hammering away at what was supposedly stolen from them. The video sickened me just as the “apology” video he recorded after the Access Hollywood tape was released had sickened me. I feared the same result—that there would be no consequences.

That night, after I was finally able to turn off the news, the only two things I knew with absolute certainty were: one, that for the first time in our nation’s history there had not been a peaceful transfer of power, because my uncle, who could not accept his resounding defeat and the humiliation that came with it, had attempted to inspire a coup; and two, the next two weeks before Joe Biden’s inauguration would be the most dangerous this country had ever lived through.

On November 7, after Joe Biden was declared the winner, Donald began peddling the Big Lie—massive voter fraud and cheating by Democrats had turned Donald’s landslide victory into a loss. The phrase “the Big Lie,” coined by Adolf Hitler, describes the technique of saying something so outrageously false that people will believe it simply because they think nobody would have the audacity to lie so brazenly. This has been a specialty of Donald’s since, as a teenager, he had to convince his father everything he did was always the biggest, the greatest, and the best. Back then, his lies protected him from his father’s wrath. The Big Lie about the election protected him from having to face the deep narcissistic wound he’d suffered after losing to Biden. In addition, it kept his base riled up—keeping them afraid of what a Biden administration planned to take away from them (or force upon them) and enraged by what he claimed had been stolen from them.

In Donald’s January 6 video, the Second Big Lie was born. By telling them that they are loved and special, he transformed the violent anti-American mob into patriots who had merely been trying to save their country from the Democratic Party’s treasonous attempt to steal the election from him—and therefore from them. We’ve seen how this has become a strategy for almost every single Republican politician as well. Despite the testimony given by D.C. police officers Daniel Hodges and Michael Fanone, Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, and Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell in front of the House select committee on July 27, which was impossible for any empathetic human being to watch without feeling a visceral rage and profound sadness, this will continue to be the Republican strategy. They know that if midterm voters still remember the truth about January 6, they’re in trouble. The insurrection of January 6 should have been a wake-up call. It looks, instead, to have been a dress rehearsal.

In the mind-bogglingly long and destabilizing year since the publication of my first book, Too Much and Never Enough, America’s weaknesses and structural deficiencies have been laid bare because one man, Donald John Trump, did something none of his predecessors would have dreamed of doing—through his destruction of norms, he actively set out to undermine and dismantle the very institutions that were designed, in part, to protect us from leaders like him. Keeping him in check required a functioning legislative branch and Cabinet secretaries, like the attorney general or the head of health and human services—who were willing to act with some independence—to put country over party. But having shown himself incapable of building anything, Donald has always been expert at tearing things down. In this endeavor, he has had plenty of sycophants, enablers, and users, just as he has throughout his life. And Republicans saw a way to make the most of it.

As a politician, Donald has benefited greatly from his rabid base of supporters. He embodies their fear and gives expression to their grievance. He doesn’t just give them permission to indulge in their white supremacy; he champions it. He makes them feel good about their prejudices. Following him by denying the virus or claiming immunity from it is another way for them to feel superior. It’s bizarre, because in the process they are putting themselves and those they love at risk, but it is similar to the function lynching has historically served for white people. Lynchings are not only about showing the power of the aggressor but also about demonstrating the other person’s weakness and total subservience. That makes sense in the context of what white supremacists and white supremacy were trying to accomplish, because, in an incurably racist society, the power so clearly belonged to the one race, and the vulnerabilities so clearly belonged to the other. The response to Covid—the denialism and disdain for science—functions the same way, but in this case, whether they acknowledge the reality and the risk or not, the denialists are victims, too. These are devout (for lack of a better word) Republicans. If the people they’ve voted for, at every level of government, equate mask-wearing with being liberal or claim that worrying about catching a deadly virus somehow makes you weak, you will follow their lead. Donald took it a step further. In order to demonstrate their allegiance and support, it was no longer enough for them to attend a rally. They had to do so in the middle of a deadly pandemic without social distancing or wearing a mask

That’s the part that is confounding. But it demonstrates how deeply it matters to them that they, at least in their own minds, maintain a position of superiority over those they consider less-than—particularly Black Americans and immigrants—and stay connected to a man who, through a mesmerizing dance of his followers’ micro-concessions and his own micro-aggressions against them, keeps them in thrall. That their children are dying or their parents and friends are dying isn’t beside the point—it is the point.

It’s impossible to understand the appeal Donald has for his followers if we try to do so from the perspective of people who value honor, decency, empathy, and kindness in their leaders. It isn’t that they see things in Donald that aren’t there. They identify with what is—the brazenness of his lies, his ability to commit crimes with impunity, his bottomless sense of grievance, his monumental insecurity, his bullying, and, perhaps most intriguing, the fact that he is an inveterate failure who keeps being allowed to succeed. Donald is their proxy and their representative. And their ardor has only seemed to grow since his loss. We need only look at data from North Carolina Senate candidate Ted Budd’s campaign to see how complete this identification is. When Republican primary voters were told that Budd had been endorsed by Donald, there was a 45-point net swing in his favor, skyrocketing him to a 19-point lead over his primary opponent. The idea that any other one-term president (George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter) would have had the same kind of influence is laughable. On the other hand, though, neither one of them would have tried.

By the same token, elected Republicans, Donald’s chief enablers, see Donald as a means of perpetuating their own power. But they aren’t just putting up with the worst of him simply because they see him as a means to an end. He is them. They value his mendacity and his name-calling and his autocracy because these work for them as well.

Republicans counter truth with absurdity, rendering the truth inoperable. Now a party of fascists, they call Democrats socialist communist Marxists, which is effective in part because it is so nonsensical and in part because they are never asked to define the terms. They cover up their massive (and successful) efforts at voter suppression with wild claims of widespread voter fraud, which essentially doesn’t exist—31 incidents in over a billion votes cast, a number so vanishingly small as to have no meaning.

The main mechanism by which they can successfully carry out these sleights of hand is fear. Whether it’s drug dealers from Mexico or caravans from Central America or Democratic presidents coming for your guns, abolishing religion, or letting gay people get married, they need to keep their voters afraid.

Mr. Lockwood, the frame-narrator of Wuthering Heights, describes a feverish nightmare in which, during a blizzard, he sees a child outside his window begging to be let in. He is so undone by the appearance of this wraith that he drags its wrist across the broken pane of glass, until its blood soaks his bedsheets. “Terror made me cruel,” he says. Fear is a deeply unpleasant emotion, and Republicans have become expert at stoking it, on the one hand, and transforming it into anger on the other. This state of affairs makes it much easier for their followers to become comfortable with the cruelty of their leaders—whether of policy or of action—as long as it is directed at groups they’ve been told they should fear. It also makes it easier for the Republican rank and file to be comfortable with their own cruelty—it feels better than fear, and it allows them to delude themselves into thinking they have some measure of control, because they have been granted permission by the powers that be to express their cruelty with impunity.

Elected Republicans have become Donald’s greatest enablers since his father, Fred. For all of their professed reluctance and half-hearted attempts to keep Donald at arm’s length, almost every single elected Republican at every level of government, either tacitly or enthusiastically, very quickly came to support his breaches—against decency, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Kevin McCarthy went from being one of Donald’s critics in the immediate aftermath of January 6 to pretending that creating a commission to find out what happened on that day was somehow a partisan witch hunt. Elise Stefanik intuited that going all in with Donald would be her best chance for advancement. The number three Republican in Congress, Liz Cheney, had the audacity to stand up against the Big Lie, for which she was removed from her leadership position and replaced by Stefanik.

The most dangerous Republican enabler by far is, of course, Mitch McConnell, who saw an opportunity that even he probably never dared hope for: The guy in the Oval Office wouldn’t just sign off on every aspect of the Republicans’ agenda, he would push the envelope—of decorum, of autocracy—so far that the system itself could be used to create permanent minority rule. Donald showed his party (and yes, it is his party) the limits of pretending to care about good governance or play by the rules. He also showed them the utility of not just stoking racism and hatred of the Other—in the form of immigrants, Democrats, and even epidemiologists—but championing those who espoused them.

McConnell is the greatest traitor to this country since Robert E. Lee (with the difference that McConnell has been trying to take our country down from within). He has always been expert at using existing rules and procedures in ways they weren’t intended to be used, and yet—whether it was denying Merrick Garland a hearing, pushing through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, or ending the filibuster as it applied to Supreme Court nominees but employing it to block legislation that would expand voting rights—his anti-democratic maneuvers have been performed within the bounds of the system. The fact that he’s misusing the system outlined in the Constitution isn’t an exoneration of him, however; it’s a condemnation of the Constitution’s limitations. The definition of treason in the Constitution is so narrow (levying war against the country or giving aid and comfort to the enemy) that a case could never be made against him. It would be difficult, however, to find anybody in modern times who has so undermined our democracy.

This destruction of norms by Donald and other Republicans in the executive and legislative branches has happened so quickly, and has been so thorough, that it’s clear the seeds of it must have been planted a long time ago. It was possible for Donald, the weakest man I have ever known, to exploit the weaknesses in the system not because he introduced them, but because they were there for him to exploit in the first place.

These situations are not the result of four years or even four decades of poor governance—although the worsening of the problem has certainly accelerated since Ronald Reagan’s disastrous presidency. The combination of “trickle-down” economics, his devastating handling of the AIDS crisis, and the intensification of the “War on Drugs,” with all of its racist implications, accelerated the divide between Americans along economic, cultural, and racial dimensions. But we really need to go back to this country’s inception to understand how we got here and to assess how we can possibly repair the extensive damage. With Joe Biden’s election, we did indeed snatch democracy from the jaws of autocracy—a rarity in human history. But as the insurrection of January 6 made clear, we are not out of the woods yet—far from it.

I contend that we have arrived at this fraught political moment in which it feels that everything is at stake because of our long history of, on the one hand, failing to hold powerful white men accountable and, on the other, the normalization of white supremacy. How else do we grapple with the fact that we Americans appear so spectacularly vulnerable to corrupt and incompetent leaders? How else do we understand the breathtaking extent to which the federal government, because of the cynicism, selfishness, and opportunism of one man, proved incapable of managing the crises of Covid and the ensuing economic fallout? How else do we explain the effectiveness of Donald’s strategy of race-based division? And how do we avoid acknowledging that supporting him or even accepting him meant that institutionalized racism was not only not a deal breaker, it was an effective political strategy?

American terrorists, January 6, 2021

ASHLEY GILBERTSON/VII/REDU​X

The initial response of Donald’s administration to the pandemic was driven by his inability to take it seriously. Once the virus had undeniably taken hold here, Donald hung on to the fact that it had originated in China, which allowed him to make it about the Other from the outset. In spring of 2020, when Covid was spreading almost exclusively in blue states, and later, when it became clear that Black Americans were being disproportionately affected, it was easier for him to dismiss the danger. Even when it became clear that no one was safe, he made the case that Americans had to choose between combating the virus and saving the economy, squandering what could have been an extraordinarily unifying moment for this country. But Donald has no interest in unity. He thrives on division and chaos—much of it racially driven. We saw this in the way he exploited the backlash against Barack Obama’s presidency, thereby giving his base permission to express their racism even more openly and proudly.

The Republicans haven’t lost their way. They have, instead, found it. And it has led them straight toward unabashed white supremacy and fascism. This is nothing new. We saw what happened after the Civil War. The traitors of the Confederacy were given a pass by the North, and the promise to grant freedmen and women their 40 acres was largely reneged in the interest of reestablishing “national unity.” Because of the enormity of the North’s postbellum failures and the terrorist tactics employed by the re-empowered Southern Redeemers—those believers in the Lost Cause, who are the direct ancestors of those who sullied the Capitol Rotunda with their Confederate flags—the Black vote in the South was all but eliminated. The large majority of the electorate of the Southern slave states remained racist and reactionary, allowing the South to continue as a closed, fascist state for another century.

Only the Democrats and the media can save democracy from fascism. But the Democrats are split between the activists who understand the stakes, and the institutionalists who keep following a rule book the Republicans lit on fire a long time ago. On the one side, the progressives and pragmatists, senators like Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, and Amy Klobuchar, seem to understand the urgency of the problem—American democracy can’t survive if we fail to realize that the United States Senate is currently operating under the tyranny of the minority. On the other side, institutionalists like Joe Manchin and Dianne Feinstein cling to the idea that maintaining long-standing mechanisms like the filibuster, which is not in the Constitution and impedes the Senate’s ability to act democratically, is more important than enacting legislation that would, on the one hand, help the American people in substantive ways while bolstering Biden’s presidency and, on the other, prevent the Republican Party from turning this country into an apartheid state. It remains to be seen whether President Biden himself, who understands the workings of the body in which he served for almost 40 years, will be able to transcend his own institutionalist leanings. His July 13 speech on voting rights was a powerful repudiation of Republican voter suppression—but he didn’t mention the filibuster once.

 

What happens next also depends on how the media portray what’s currently going on. In 2016, the media lent Donald’s run a gravitas and seriousness it hadn’t earned. The Senate’s failure to convict him of impeachment the first time around was a crucial moment, as it allowed Donald to campaign for the 2020 election as if he were a legitimate candidate—but this time with all of the attendant powers of incumbency, including the massive bullhorn. By asking him questions they would ask any other candidate, the media didn’t just confer upon him legitimacy, they erased the fact that he was a traitor to his country who had been impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after seeking the help of a foreign power (for the second time) in undermining his political opponent. Anybody who was paying attention knew the trial Republicans put on was a sham, a shabby bit of political theater, the outcome of which was a foregone conclusion. “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind,” said Senator Lindsey Graham before the trial even began. “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Since the election was called for Joe Biden, the media have done reasonably well calling the Big Lie what it is, and yet Republicans who lie about the Big Lie continue to be given a platform. There are propaganda outlets, led by Fox News, that amplify the lies of the Republican Party while distorting (or ignoring) facts. Many in the mainstream media, however, act as if journalistic neutrality means giving both sides equal time no matter the content of their message.

The Republicans continue to think that Donald is somebody whom they need. While it’s true that Trumpism, so-called, doesn’t scale, and that only Donald can carry the mantle of Trumpism, the fact that it’s not a winning formula (after all, Republicans, largely thanks to Donald, lost the House, the Senate, and the White House) is completely irrelevant. They continue to embrace Donald because they need him to keep the Big Lie alive in order to maintain the support of the base, so they can advance their voter-suppression legislation while continuing to cast doubt on the last election by pushing for audits in states, like Arizona, where the popular voter margin was narrow.

Every undemocratic facet of our system—from the filibuster to the Electoral College to voter suppression to failing to make the District of Columbia a state—favors Republicans. They have no incentive to change anything. Tens of millions of voters may be effectively disenfranchised by their legislation and faux-audits, but their voters are not. The endgame is to make it impossible for people who would vote against them to vote at all. In a country of changing demographics and increasing openness to diversity, at a time when elected Republicans are on the wrong side of almost every issue—gun safety, taxes, voting rights—they know the only way for them to cling to power is to cheat, and if there is one skill the de facto leader of their party has, it’s his ability to cheat his way out of—or into—just about anything.

Trumpism doesn’t need to scale. Republicans just need to keep that 35 percent so riled up that the base seems bigger than it is while they quietly make sure the rest of us don’t have a voice.

The stakes are incredibly high in every election going forward. The 2020 election was more important than 2016, and 2022 will be more important than 2020. We can’t discount the pernicious influence of white supremacy, which is not just an extremist movement. It’s not just the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers. It is the mainstream of the Republican Party, and we don’t need to qualify it.

Not only can’t Republicans give up their white supremacy, it turns out they don’t have to. It has been and continues to be a winning strategy. Donald got 62 million votes in 2016 and 74 million votes in 2020. Though Biden’s win was decisive, Republicans overall beat expectations, picking up seats in the House and becoming a minority in the Senate that, because of the filibuster, functionally leaves them with an enormous amount of leverage. We desperately needed a total repudiation of Donald and his Republican enablers. We did not get one.

It’s a tragedy, but it comes from having for decades convinced their electorate to vote against its own economic self-interest in the name of racial superiority. Their attitudes in this matter are positional. The question for them isn’t just “Am I doing well?” but “Am I doing better than?” And we all know who it is they need to be outperforming. As long as that is what matters to them, they will double down on white supremacy and hatred of the other side while maintaining their ability to do so through gerrymandering and voter suppression. That’s all they’ve got.

On July 6, President Biden tweeted, “Six months ago today, insurrectionists carried out a violent and deadly assault on our Capitol. It was a test of whether our democracy could survive. Half a year later we can declare unequivocally that democracy did prevail. Now, it falls on all of us to protect and preserve it.”

This well-intentioned statement misses the mark. The danger hasn’t passed—in fact, as Republicans continue their almost universal support for the first Big Lie, while using it to promote hundreds of sweeping voter-suppression laws in almost every state, they are now lining up behind the Second Big Lie, which is that the insurrection of January 6 was an inside job perpetrated by the FBI, or that the violent attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power with the intention of hunting down the speaker of the House and hanging the vice president was a fun-filled protest carried out by wonderful real Americans like Ashli Babbitt, the latest martyr to their cause. Now, those who participated (and their supporters) are being told that it is they who have been wronged, it is they who are the patriots, and only they whose voices deserve to be heard.

Republicans have made it clear that going forward they will embrace whichever version of the Second Big Lie is most useful in the moment—causing the kind of cognitive dissonance they have become quite comfortable with. It’s absurd—but it’s also effective with enough of their voters that we can’t dismiss it, just as we can’t dismiss Donald. It’s exhausting. And it’s infuriating. But we look away at our peril. Democrats need to accept that there is no longer anything to hope for from their Republican colleagues. For all intents and purposes, we currently live in a country with only one functioning political party that is working to make the lives of all Americans better, only one party that believes in democracy.

Democrats must stop squandering their advantage as they waste time waiting for Republicans to feel shame. They have none. Over the four years Donald was in the Oval Office, there were any number of opportunities for Republicans to break with a man who, at every turn, undermined everything they claimed to have stood for—law and order, the military, moral conservatism, fiscal responsibility, and small government. And yet they never did.

January 6 should have been a wake-up call for all of us, Republicans in particular. Initially at least, some of them had been scared enough by a mob intent on committing violence against any member of Congress they came across to recognize that the monster they’d deluded themselves into thinking they controlled could not, after all, be tamed. Instead, they have followed Donald’s lead. Less than six months after the fact, Georgia Representative Andrew Clyde claimed the insurrection was a “bold-faced lie” and nothing more than “a normal tourist visit,” despite the fact that there is a photo of him rushing to help barricade the door against the mob. Donald continues to double down on his claim that these were peaceful people and actually said “there was such love at that rally.” There has been no pushback from Republican leadership. There can’t be. They know that any investigation into what happened that day is a losing proposition for them—either because they’ve been covering it over or because they’re guilty of sedition. They also know that the 2022 election will turn in part on how many Americans they can convince of the Second Big Lie: that the insurrection never happened.

And as far as the 2024 presidential election is concerned, I initially thought Donald wouldn’t run. Even if he managed to convince himself that he had won but the Democrats had somehow stolen the victory from him, his defeat was so resounding, I believed that, although he might pretend to run as a way to raise money and keep the spotlight on himself, he would never put himself in that position again. Now I’m not so sure. As has been the case since my grandfather discovered that his second son could be of use to him, everything has broken his way. In this case, almost the entire Republican Party has backed not one but two Big Lies that benefit him. If enough people buy into the Second Big Lie, if enough of those voter-suppression laws pass and Republicans make significant gains in Congress and state legislatures in 2022, Donald might begin to think that a win in 2024 would be a sure thing for him, and he might make the decision to run after all. And if he were to win … there would be no coming back from that.