Awaiting a Reprieve…

Tags

Jessica Intermill, Line 3, MN PUC, Treaty People Gathering

If you ever wondered what it’s like, to live as an abutter to the Line 3 project in Northern Minnesota, here’s my take.

---

It feels every day as if I awaken on Death Row awaiting an answer. However, the answer is not for my own execution nor for something quick and (hopefully) painless.

No, the waiting I have is to see if we will be given a reprieve to the continued building of a Tar Sands Pipeline at the End of the World.

A friend that encourages… by Heidi

There was an injection of hope in a recent piece by Jessica Intermill entitled “When the Public Interest Isn’t: Minnesota’s approval of a new Line 3“. This week, I’ll dive into her piece and a bit of other good news.

Published in Bench & Bar of Minnesota, the official publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association, the piece lays out exactly how the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission FAILED to heed the public voice – even stifled it to the greatest degree it could, despite huge public outcry on the Line 3 project’s risks.

This is only Part 1 in a 2-part series so I anxiously await the second half of her critique. From the article: “This is the first installment of a two-part article exploring structural bias and racism within the law in the context of the Line 3 oil pipeline expansion. Part 1 examines the agency approval process and the role of the public in that process. Part 2 explores the racialized impact of that facially neutral approval in the context of Minnesota’s legal history.“

---

Enbridge has a history of trouble with their pipelines – from the Alberta Clipper (here’s a more detailed piece) to the current long-time opposition on Line 3. [Not to mention all those pesky spills…]

Now, it seems the entire world may be pushing back as we see global decisions in opposition to the continuation of Big Oil’s consumption of our carbon budget. And that could spur their many opponents across the U.S., especially across the Northern Midwest as Enbridge faces pushback from Minnesota through Wisconsin to Michigan. Citizens are speaking up across the region… on a national platform.

The tides seem to be turning as, just this past week, we saw Exxon get slapped with reality…

Market reality has finally collided with the most important U.S. energy company. Yesterday, Exxon Mobil shareholders elected at least two of the dissident directors proposed by the activist hedge fund Engine No. 1. Investors have lost patience with the basic business assumption that oil and gas will rule forever. But investor confidence in corporate boards is eroding on other contentious public policies issues as well. Boards should take note.

Exxon’s Shareholder Revolt Is a Warning for Boards Everywhere by Heidi Welsh 5-27-21

…and Royal Dutch Shell lose their case in the Netherlands.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC must slash its greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels, The Hague District Court ruled in a decision that could reverberate around the world.

“This is a turning point in history,” Roger Cox, a lawyer for the nonprofit Friends of the Earth Netherlands, said in a statement after the decision. “This case is unique because it is the first time a judge has ordered a large polluting corporation to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement. This ruling may also have major consequences for other big polluters.”

Court Orders Shell to Slash Emissions in Historic Ruling By Maxine Joselow, E&E News on May 27, 2021

Among the most far-reaching aspects of this ruling is the court’s order for how Shell must account for its emissions, …(taking) account of what are known in climate parlance as Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Shell must consider the emissions of its parent company, all its global subsidiaries, all its suppliers, and all its customers across the entire chain of its enterprise everywhere that it operates throughout the globe.

That would include, for example, the climate-harming emissions released when it … builds a pipeline… and when its consumers burn its gasoline in their cars, trucks, or airplanes. When every one of these sources is considered, the court said, Shell’s global emissions must decline by nearly 50 percent over 2019 levels in just nine years. …

The ruling will also likely increase the risk calculation that investors, policymakers, financiers, and others apply to fossil-fuel activities… The individual responsibility component, argues lawyer Roger Cox, may also increase the likelihood that individual corporate executives and board members are held liable for a company’s harmful activities, further increasing the risks associated with fossil fuels.

Others see a clear pathway to U.S. climate litigation. Calling the court’s decision “earth-shaking”, Kathy Mulvey of the Union of Concerned Scientists notes… The essence of the Dutch court’s ruling, she says, is that “if you dig it up and sell it and profit from it, you’re responsible for it.”

Dr. Geoffrey Supran, research fellow at Harvard University, agrees. In an email, he called the “individual responsibility” aspect of the ruling “a game-changer,” which “legally and rhetorically inverts Big Oil’s decades-long propaganda campaign” to switch responsibility for the climate crisis from themselves to individual consumers.

“It is precisely this sort of corporate accountability, for the climate damages caused by Big Oil’s products, that dozens of cities, counties, and states are seeking in U.S. climate litigation. So, in my view, this Shell verdict provides powerful precedent,” Supran argues.

The Shell case now joins a burgeoning international body of law conferring the basic and fundamental human right to survive the climate crisis and hold fossil-fuel companies accountable for causing it. Critical to this broad and increasingly successful movement was the decades-long struggle of Indigenous peoples to secure the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which confirms rights not only to their lands but also the natural resources found on and within it.

A Court Ruled Shell Is Liable for Its Contributions to Climate Change. What Happens Now? by Antonia Juhasz 5/27/21

---

So let’s hope those globally turning tides will bring us a verdict soon that stop the Line 3 project from any further devastation. I’m especially concerned as we see evidence of high Covid cases in Alberta pipeliners and we watch anxiously as the India variant makes its way around the world. That, however, is a topic for another day.

The Intermill piece rekindles hope that at least some in the Minnesota judiciary comprehend the reasons why the Enbridge project is such a gross negligence of the public. She opens with an overview of perhaps the most horrific of days in this process – the “gun to our head” day, as is how the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioners explained their fear causing them to support granting Enbridge’s order.

Jessica then goes on to explain the history of the Public Utilities Commission:

Since its beginning, the PUC’s predecessor agencies prioritized expansion of cheap utilities—often over public opposition. 

One of the earliest “public interests” that Minnesota courts identified was railroad expansion. That interest was so strong that it displaced otherwise ordinary landowner remedies like ejectment.⁹ 

The PUC traces its origin to this interest. Its ancestral predecessor was established by 1871 legislation that began with rail safety inspections, but just three years later turned to railroad-rate oversight. An 1885 law continued to focus on rate discrimination without any countervailing concern that utility expansion could undermine other public interests. But even then, contemporary critics noted that expansion of utilities like railroads prioritized the interests of capital over people. A 1907 political cartoon showed railroad baron J. J. Hill demur at the “timid creature” while the railroad industry knocked “the public” off its feet.

The PUC’s interest in utilities – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21

In turning to Line 3, Intermill notes several reasons for denying the project including, 1) the greenhouse gas concerns for the project, 2) the infringement on Indigenous population in Minnesota, and 3) even the Minnesota Department of Commerce’s own opposition to the project, which concluded:

“in light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built.”

Minnesota Department of Commerce opinion 9/11/2017

Not only did the PUC FAIL to recognize the Department of Commerce (currently suing the PUC in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, alongside other opposition parties), they also failed to heed the Administrative Law Judge assigned to oversee and review the public input on the project.

[The ALJ] conducted 16 hearings across the state attended by about 5,500 people, building a record of public comment from 724 speakers that was over 2,600 pages long. In each city, she held separate hearings in the afternoons and evenings to accommodate the schedules of people who work both days and nights. After the three-month process, she completed a 300-plus-page report that included more than 40 pages summarizing public comments concerning the new Line 3. …

“The importance of these economic benefits to northern Minnesota are not insubstantial,” the ALJ found, but rather “would exist with respect to any infrastructure project of this magnitude.”¹⁶ Thinking past Line 3 to build a renewable-energy infrastructure with union-protected prevailing-wage jobs would satisfy the public interest in economic development and water quality. But only Line 3 was on the table.

Of 72,249 written public comments submitted, 68,244 opposed a new Line 3.¹⁷ The ALJ recommended against Enbridge’s request because it did not “minimize[] the impacts on human settlement, the natural environment, the economics within the route, the State’s natural resources, and the cumulative potential effects of future pipeline construction.” She favored a “true replacement” in the existing trench.

The public’s interest in Line 3 – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21 (my emphasis)

While ALJ O’Reilly noted there was public interest in construction, it didn’t equal an endorsement of Line 3. YES, people up here are desperate for jobs but could we get some for the 21st century instead of the 19th? It’s time to END investment in the energy of the past, especially as more investment there simply hastens our demise!

Jessica next explains how the PUC denied the public a voice, as had previously been done historically in rural Minnesota.

The PUC’s embedded bias toward utility expansion has long blinded it to the interests of any larger public. In the 1970s, electrical co-ops sought to build a 430-mile-long high-voltage line through 476 farm properties in west-central Minnesota. Powerline opposition, described in scholarship by the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, was broad.¹⁹ 

The law was, conceivably, in the farmers’ favor. The 1971 Minnesota Environmental Rights Act applied to the project and declared the state’s policy “to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of human beings[.]”²⁰ A law requiring that the agency’s power plant and transmission siting decisions consider and “comport with the public interest” also applied to the project.²¹

More than 60 percent of all Minnesotans and 70 percent of rural Minnesotans opposed the line.²² The Minnesota Energy Agency, the agency then designated to review applications for certificates of need, approved it anyway.  

So it was for the new Line 3. 

…The PUC staff took (the ALJ’s) 400-page report and ground it—and 55 other documents—into 46 pages of “staff briefing papers” that recommended granting Enbridge the certificate of need and its preferred expansion route.²³ 

The staff briefing did not include any discussion of the extensive public comment on the case. But it did note that “the Commission need not engage in the exercise of reviewing the ALJ Report” itself since “[t]he Commission traditionally leaves it to staff to ensure that the final written order identifies the parts of an ALJ Report that have been adopted, with or without modification, and the parts [that] have not been adopted.”²⁴ 

That filtered record moved forward to the five PUC commissioners who sat on the dais in June 2018 to decide whether to grant the certificate of need and route permit. 

The PUC’s interest in the public – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21 (my emphasis)

While the PUC voted 5-0 that day in favor, their oppression of the public voice was more than clear:

1. The PUC, despite large public interest, failed to secure a large-enough venue, “leaving only around 70 “general admission” seats for the public who had submitted tens of thousands of comments.”
2. These seats, available on a first-come, first-serve basis, required earlier and earlier arrivals for anyone interested in securing one. [You can guess who this favors… those of means and those paid to be there.]
3. Rules for the seats were ever-changing with some allowing restroom breaks, while, for others, a restroom break meant forfeiting your seat.
4. The prohibitions on water bottles for these meetings, “which would often stretch for hours and sometimes the whole day”, were especially frustrating. [And remind one of newly enacted (though not likely to stand constitutional review?) voter laws in Georgia that prohibit one from bringing water or food to those in line awaiting a chance to vote. I’m sensing a pattern…]
5. Of notable interest was the fact that Enbridge was allowed 10 tickets while to “Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and White Earth Nation—two different parties, both of whom the ALJ had allowed to intervene to defend their separate interests—a total of five tickets to share between the two.”
6. As the public clamored to be let into the meeting, “seats reserved for the parties went unoccupied.”

Though the public didn’t really have a voice anyway. In fact, the attendance enforcement by the PUC got so bad that at one point the intervening parties could not get into the meeting themselves!

After opening statements, though, the commissioners directed the hearing, posing their own questions to the parties they wanted to hear from, and making their own statements into the record. The public could not comment at the hearing and parties could not rebut or cross-examine the testimony of other parties. …

Tensions escalated when, at PUC staff direction, St. Paul police removed two individuals with party badges from the building “because they were holding more than one ticket at a time.”³⁰ Here too, the “rule” purportedly violated was not contained in any notice. PUC staff nonetheless refused to let the party representatives return. 

Unsure who to contact to get their clients back into the building, the affected parties docketed a letter addressing the commissioners they appeared before.³¹ When the chair reopened the meeting the following day, she acknowledged the filing but said the commission would not address it because it was not the subject of the hearing. One intervenor responded with “an irregular oral objection[.]”³² When the chair began to call the docket, counsel for the Sierra Club interrupted, pleading, “I am in this room as a contract attorney without a client.”³³ The meeting recessed.

The PUC’s interest in the public – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21

Throughout all this time and up unto this unanimous decision, the public had still NEVER HAD THE DIRECT RIGHT OF CONFRONTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS.

The fight was not over. In fact, it was becoming clearer all the time how egregious the Public Utilities Commission had been in dismissing the public.

Minnesota’s Office of the Legislative Auditor issued a report detailing the PUC’s public-participation processes in general, and the Line 3 processes in particular.³⁹ It wasn’t pretty. …

The legislative auditor concluded its report with a punch list of concrete recommendations to improve the PUC’s public-participation process.⁴² 

Reviewing courts, too, must also be alert to biases that can hide behind, and skew, agency decisionmaking. “PUC officials told [the legislative auditor] the Line 3 case was an anomaly and that the agency’s practices, which they believe generally work well, should not be judged on this one case alone.”⁴³ Various courts, though, are reviewing this case.⁴⁴ A self-confessed anomaly can all too easily cross into an abuse of discretion.

Last year, the PUC revisited its approval of Line 3 to consider a revised EIS. It held the first—and only—public hearing that allowed citizens to speak directly to the commissioners about whether to approve Line 3. Again, most public commenters opposed the project.”

Toward a broader public interest – by Jessica Intermill 5/26/21 (my emphasis)

FINALLY! The public was given a voice. And once they were given that voice, CHANGE HAPPENED.

The Public Utilities Commission’s vote this time was NOT Unanimous. While he stood alone, Commissioner Matt Schuerger HAD listened to the people… and likely read more of the record that newest Commissioner Valerie Means claimed to have read – though she claimed to have read the whole thing! [FFS]

Commissioner Schuerger voted against Line 3 three times, concluding that the revised EIS was inadequate, that Enbridge had not proven its case for a certificate of need, and that Enbridge’s preferred route was not in Minnesota’s interest.”

Our Friend Commissioner Matt Schuerger!!

We’ll see what Ms. Intermill brings with Part 2. Meanwhile…

---

Advocacy groups have also requested intervention from the Biden administration to prevent construction from moving forward.

“We’ve tried everything up to this point, now we’re calling on the people to stand with us because the process failed us,” said Dawn Goodwin, co-founder of the Resilient Indigenous Sisters Engaging (RISE) coalition and a member of the Indigenous Environmental Network. “We’ve discovered that the process was never made to work in our favor. … We’ve called on people to come and stand and learn what it means to be treaty people.”

Protests expected in northern Minnesota as Enbridge presses to complete Line 3 by Dana Ferguson 5/28/21

Perhaps you will find your voice? Maybe you will answer Gaagigeyaashiik’s call and join the Treaty People’s Gathering June 5th through 8th?

It’s gonna take more than just a few of us… to bring the change needed to save our species.

[Though I’d argue perhaps we aren’t worth saving… if this is how we manage things.]

Advertisement

Army Corps of Engineers Apathy and DAPL Avarice

Tags

Boasberg, Cheyenne River, DAPL, Pipeline, Sioux Tribes, Standing Rock

Today’s blog is my layman’s summary of my reading of the recent decision by Judge Boasberg denying the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes’ joint request for injunction to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline. It’s a complicated and interesting read and I’ve done my best to summarize what his Order says.

And it’s not exactly bad news!! Just, sadly, more evidence of how our Courts are not geared to make decisions that common sense would dictate. Boasberg seems to give damning testimony to the irresponsible actions of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which I found to salve the wounds of his lawful refusal for relief to the Tribes.

I start with his Opinion, which I recommend reading in full. This guy writes with a concise beauty that I enjoyed reading. [Note that the page numbers all reference the 5-21-21 Order, unless otherwise noted.]

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Just like the Dakota Access Pipeline, which meanders over hill and dale before carrying its crude oil underneath Lake Oahe — a large reservoir on the Missouri River between North and South Dakota — the current litigation has wound its way through myriad twists and turns. Last year, in a hard-earned victory for the American Indian Tribe Plaintiffs whose reservations lie nearby, this Court found that Defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] had violated federal law by failing to produce an Environmental Impact Statement before granting Defendant-Intervenor Dakota Access, LLP an easement to run the pipeline under Lake Oahe. The Court subsequently vacated that easement and ordered the pipeline emptied of oil until the Corps could complete the federally mandated EIS.

Wasting no time, both Dakota Access and the Government promptly appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In a partial win for the Tribes, the Court of Appeals affirmed the two central elements of this Court’s rulings — specifically, that the Corps should have prepared an EIS and that the easement was properly vacated in the interim. The Circuit thus confirmed that the pipeline was, in legal speak, an unlawful encroachment on federal land.

It was there, however, that the Tribes ran out of luck. Prior to the cessation of any oil flow, the Circuit stayed and eventually reversed the aspect of this Court’s order shutting down the pipeline, reasoning that it had not made the necessary findings for what was essentially injunctive relief. In other words, although vacatur of the easement rendered the pipeline an encroachment on federal property, vacatur could not itself bring about the stoppage of oil. For that to occur, the Court of Appeals clarified, this Court needed to conduct an additional, distinct inquiry, a component of which requires the Tribes to demonstrate that — among other things — they will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an order closing the pipeline.

As a result, for all of the headlines and controversy that this litigation has spawned, its tangible consequences for the pipeline itself have been few. Even though this Court vacated the easement for DAPL to cross beneath Lake Oahe, and even though the D.C. Circuit affirmed such vacatur, the pipeline has maintained operations as if none of these developments had occurred. Those seeking an explanation for the persistence of this surprising state of affairs over the past ten-odd months need look no further than the Defendant in this case: the Corps.

Ever since this Court’s vacatur order in July 2020, and across two presidential administrations, the Corps has conspicuously declined to adopt a conclusive position regarding the pipeline’s continued operation, despite repeated prodding from this Court and the Court of Appeals to do so. On the one hand, the agency has refrained from exercising its enforcement powers to halt Dakota Access’s use of the pipeline, notwithstanding its status as an unlawful encroachment. At the same time, however, neither has the Corps affirmatively authorized the pipeline’s occupation of the area underneath Lake Oahe per the process contemplated in its internal procedures. Its chosen course has instead been — and continues to be — one of inaction. Such indecision, it is important to note, does not stem from a lack of time. Nor from a lack of attention. Whatever the reason, the practical consequences of the Corps’ stasis on this question of heightened political controversy are manifest: the continued flow of oil through a pipeline that lacks the necessary federal authorization to cross a key waterway of agricultural, industrial, and religious importance to several Indian Tribes.

Those Tribes thus find themselves forced to return to this Court to seek what they have so far been unable to obtain from the Government: an order halting pipeline operations until the Corps completes its new EIS. Before the Court may grant them such relief, however, binding caselaw requires that the Tribes make an evidentiary showing far beyond anything the Corps needs to itself shut down DAPL. As previously mentioned, they must demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury from the action they seek to enjoin — to wit, the pipeline’s operation. For the reasons articulated in this Opinion, Plaintiffs have not cleared that daunting hurdle.

The Court acknowledges the Tribes’ plight, as well as their understandable frustration with a political process in which they all too often seem to come up just short. If they are to win their desired relief, however, it must come from that process, as judges may travel only as far as the law takes them and no further. Here, the law is clear, and it instructs that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction.

Judge Boasberg Order 5-21-21

The decision by the USACE, that an EIS was not necessary for this project, all the Courts agree was a violation of NEPA. The Courts also agree that the Dakota Access pipeline is currently operating upon an illegal easement. So what went wrong? The historical review of the case is laid out clearly.

Judge Boasberg ordered the pipeline to be vacated within 30 days while the issue was remanded:

“Although it acknowledged that “at least some immediate harm to the North Dakota oil industry should be expected from a DAPL shutdown,” the Court determined that the “seriousness of the Corps’ NEPA error, the impossibility of a simple fix, the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates” collectively outweighed such negative economic effects.”

Pg 6 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Acknowledging that the pipeline now constituted an encroachment, the agency (USACE) explained that its “general policy is to require removal of encroachments and restoration of the premises.” … That outcome was not inevitable, though, as another option available to the Corps — called an “outgrant” — would authorize Dakota Access to use the government-controlled property as it did prior to vacatur, thus effectively issuing it another easement. As the agency admitted, however, that process was subject to the strictures of NEPA, the very statute under which this Court had ordered the preparation of an EIS before any such easement could be granted.

The Corps additionally maintained — without citing any authority — that it was under no obligation “to take any particular action to cure an encroachment within a specified time period” or even “to ultimately cure the encroachment at all.” … It estimated that it would make an “initial decision” as to a potential enforcement action against the pipeline by early October 2020, though it emphasized that it retained the “enforcement discretion to adapt its enforcement recommendations based on new information” at any time.”

Pg 7 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

The judge goes on to discuss the absurdity of the USACE response to these concerns. His utter frustration and disbelief with this USACE situation seems to rage from the page. He cries out against the audacity of the USACE in their dereliction of duty. He notes, “October, meanwhile, came and went without any word from the Corps regarding its promised “initial decision” as to a potential enforcement action.” (Page 8)

On January 26, 2021, the DC Circuit Court “affirmed this Court’s top-line conclusions that: 1) the Corps’ decision not to prepare an EIS violated NEPA, and 2) the easement should be vacated pending such statement’s completion.” (Page 9)

The DC Circuit held that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA) by issuing an easement allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to transport crude oil through federally owned land at the Lake Oahe crossing site without preparing an environmental impact statement despite substantial criticisms from the Tribes.

The court rejected the Corps’ and Dakota Access’ contention that the district court applied the wrong standard by relying on National Parks Conservation Association v. Semonite, 916 F.3d at 1083, which emphasized the important role played by entities other than the federal government. The court explained that the Tribes’ unique role and their government-to-government relationship with the United States demand that their criticisms be treated with appropriate solicitude. The court concluded that several serious scientific disputes in this case means that the effects of the Corps’ easement decision are likely to be “highly controversial.” The court also noted that, although the risk of a pipeline leak may be low, that risk is sufficient that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision to approve the pipeline’s placement, and its potential consequences are therefore properly considered. The court affirmed the district court’s order vacating the easement while the Corps prepares an environmental impact statement. However, the court reversed the district court’s order to the extent it directed that the pipeline be shut down and emptied of oil.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 20-5197 (D.C. Cir. 2021)

Wow. I was with them until that last line… which I cannot seem to make sense. Their rationalization?

“With or without oil flowing,”accordingly, “the pipeline will remain an encroachment, leaving the precise consequences of vacatur uncertain.” (Page 9)

And, rather than making the simple and agreeable decision to shut down the flow of oil – you know, the stuff that risks a spill… as an empty pipeline does not risk a spill – the DC Circuit Court said, “(Judge Boasberg’s) Court “could not order the pipeline to be shut down without . . . required making the findings necessary for injunctive relief” under the traditional four-factor test.” (Page 9)

While the DC Circuit Court tossed this back to the USACE, they would soon submit a 60-day request for continuance, with the change, in January 2021, to a new administration…

When the long-awaited hearing finally arrived on April 9, 2021, however, the Corps — despite the instruction from both the Court of Appeals and this Court, as well as its own continuance request — had surprisingly little to say about the pipeline’s encroachment status. Indeed, far from issuing the contemplated “prompt[]” determination as to how it would “enforce its property rights,”… the Corps’ decision appeared to be that it would make no decision at all. According to Government counsel, “[T]he Corps is in a [sic] essentially continuous process of evaluating the status of the encroachment and what steps are best to take.” … While the agency would “continue[] monitor[ing]” the pipeline and could “take an enforcement action at any time,” it had “no . . . enforcement action to announce” at present nor any “timeline” for such potential action moving forward. … At one point, the Corps seemed to acknowledge the possibility that it might not even decide how to enforce its property rights prior to completion of the judicially mandated EIS (currently estimated for March 2022).”

Pg 10-11 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Well, imagine that. The Army Corps can just lazily do nothing and it doesn’t seem a damn thing we can do?

Judge Boasberg notes that while he “ordered the Corps to clarify its position on whether an injunction should issue. … The agency’s response was less than decisive.” He closes the background section with what I felt was a telling statement: “With this long procedural history in tow, the Court is finally prepared to rule on the Tribes’ request for an injunction.” (Page 11)

Boasberg goes on to explain some of the legal details on a threshold argument and on what is required to prove an irreparable harm. In order to pass that test, a plaintiff must convince the Court:

1. that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
2. that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
3. that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted;
4. that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Boasberg further clarifies:

1. The Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies.” (Page 13)
2. “Because [plaintiff] has made no showing of irreparable injury here, that alone is sufficient for us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting [plaintiff’s] request.” (Id.)
3. “[T]he injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.” (Id.)
4. A mere “possibility” of future harm is insufficient. (Page 14)
5. …a court, rather, requires affirmative “proof” of likelihood and imminence. (Id.)
6. Additionally, “the movant must show that the alleged harm will directly result from the action which [it] seeks to enjoin.” (Id.)

Three “kinds of injuries, each of which they claim independently qualifies as imminent irreparable harm and entitles them to permanent injunctive relief” were submitted by the Tribes. The Judge deals with the first at length and the others with greater “dispatch”. (Page 15)

---

Threat of Damaging Oil Spill

Plaintiffs’ principal claim of irreparable injury derives from the threat of an oil spill underneath Lake Oahe. … That reservoir, as previously mentioned, provides the Tribes with water for drinking, industry, and sacred practices. In order
for them to realize any harm from a pipeline leak, however, a series of contingent events must occur: 1) a spill under Lake Oahe; 2) of sufficiently large size; 3) the oil from which rises 92 feet from the pipeline to the bottom of the lake; and 4) which cannot be sufficiently mitigated or contained either before or upon entering the lake. See DA Opp. at 11. Simply itemizing that causal chain suggests the fundamental problem with Plaintiffs’ irreparable-harm argument: they have not established, as they must, that any of the chain’s individual components — let alone the feared end result — is “likely,” as opposed to merely “possibl[e].” …Without such showing, of course, they cannot demonstrate the probability of a damaging DAPL spill at Lake Oahe sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.”

Pg 15 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Boasberg goes on to review that previous court findings concur that the risk of a spill at this site is low and that, due to the age of the pipeline, the “Plaintiffs’ own experts” agree that the chances for spill were higher at start-up. He also notes that the suggestion of concern at the DAPL proposed expansion to double its throughput is not an imminent concern. (Page 17) Boasberg mentions a prior ruling on a case of similar circumstance: “Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, found such assertions insufficient to establish irreparable harm because the plaintiffs ‘have not shown that a damaging oil spill is likely to occur.'” (Page 19) He concludes that, while the filing did “win the Tribes a remand for preparation of an EIS under NEPA on the ground that such issues made the easement approval “highly controversial,” … it does little to establish a likelihood that the Tribes will suffer imminent, irremediable harm at Lake Oahe from the pipeline’s continued operation.” (Page 20) As well, he notes the “Court of Appeals has since made clear that this Court may only order an oil stoppage upon finding that (among other things) the Tribes will likely experience irreparable harm absent such relief. The prior vacatur holding has little relevance to that question.” (Page 21) He notes also:

Although the potential injury may be significant, the Tribe must show that it is probable to occur in the absence of the preliminary injunction it now seeks. . . . This is the burden the law imposes for this form of relief. The Court must faithfully and fairly apply that standard in all cases, regardless of how high the stakes or how worthy the cause.”

Page 22 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Over the next few pages of the Order, Boasberg goes on to make clear that the Court is not able on the submitted evidence to determine or calculate the likelihood of an imminent or irreparable spill and that “the law requires the Tribes to make a “clear showing” that such harm is at least “likely” in the absence of an injunction. … All they have shown, rather, is a mere “possibility” of injury — and a fairly minimal one at that. This cannot get them over the hump. No matter the stakes and no matter the cause, courts may not grant the “extraordinary remedy” of an injunction “based only on a possibility of irreparable harm.” (Page 24)

Other Claimed Harms

Apart from the risk of a damaging oil spill, the Tribes assert two other harms that require somewhat less discussion. They maintain that they are irreparably injured by “the ongoing trauma of the government’s refusal to comply with the law,” as well as the “undermining [of] the Tribes’ sovereign governmental role to protect their members and respond to potential disasters.”

Pg 24 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

While Boasberg finds “Neither tack finds the wind,” it seems to me there could be ample argument for these harms. His case is based on the fact that “The problem with both is simple: they depend on the same remote threat of a pipeline spill that the Court has just found insufficient to constitute irreparable injury.” (Page 24)

While the Tribes arguments focused on arguments based on emotional distress that results from a fear of a spill – which, having a low probability of occurring, cannot justify a reasonable concern in this case. Even when the Tribe “claim that “allowing the pipeline to continue operating despite a serious NEPA violation is part of a pattern” of “‘historic trauma’” experienced by “‘every Tribal member,’” one deriving from the government’s “continued refusal to respect the rights of the Tribes throughout the nation’s history” and its “prioritizing non-Indians” at the expense of Tribal members,” Boasburg argues that this “does not qualify as irreparable harm within the context of this case. … [as it] cannot be meaningfully disentangled from the remote threat of an oil spill at Lake Oahe.” (Page 26-27)

The Court does not deny that shameful past. On the contrary, it fully acknowledges and appreciates the “tragic history of the Great Sioux Nation’s repeated dispossessions at the hands of a hungry and expanding early America,” along with the persistent “threat that new injury will compound old.”

Pg 26 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Plaintiffs’ second claimed harm founders for similar reasons as the first. According to the Tribes, “[T]he Corps’ NEPA violations have undermined [their] sovereign governmental role to protect their citizens, respond to disasters, and mitigate harm.” … It soon becomes clear, however, that these governance-based harms are once again derivative of the same speculative spill-risk harms handled above.

Pg 27 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

One final aspect I find a bit confounding. On page 28, Boasberg notes: “Finally, DAPL itself does not implicate any “loss of sovereignty over Tribal land,” … as the Lake Oahe segment traverses only federal property.” Here I’d argue that ALL LANDS are Tribal lands, though I’m sure there is some legalese that refutes this as well, making my argument illegitimate. [With laws written by the colonizers, those same folks who brought to you deceptive and relentless treaty negotiations, it seems the Tribes are given no option save to declare war on a foreign nation?]

Boasberg redeems himself to me – and places the blame for this situation fully in the hands of the USACE – in this summary of his conclusion that he must deny the relief sought:

It does not reach that conclusion lightly. Fully aware of the unshakable indignities visited upon the Tribes across generations, the Court, as it has throughout this litigation, scrutinizes the record with care. It likewise acknowledges the quandary in which Plaintiffs find themselves and the undeniable frustration that comes with it — namely, having achieved (and successfully defended on appeal) the vacatur of a key pipeline easement, they must now turn around and make an even steeper showing to obtain the injunctive relief necessary to stop the flow of oil.

The Court closes this analysis where it began: with the Corps. Plaintiffs, no doubt, will wish that the Court’s Opinion today had come out differently. Simply by ruling, however, the Court has at least given them something the Corps has not: a decision. Notwithstanding repeated instruction from this Court and the D.C. Circuit to “decide promptly” and “in the first instance” how it “will enforce its property rights” vis-à-vis the pipeline’s encroaching on federal land at Lake Oahe, the Corps has not yet issued any determination on the matter at all — more than ten months since the invalidation of the underlying easement. … Much like the Circuit, this Court presently “ha[s] no occasion to consider” whether, by way of such inaction, the Corps has effectively granted “a de facto outgrant without engaging in the NEPA analysis that the Corps concedes such an action requires.” Id. For now, it suffices to note that by ducking the controversy surrounding the Oahe crossing, the Corps actively tolerates DAPL’s continued operation underneath a key federal waterway that it lacks the necessary authorization to traverse. That, of course, is a political decision outside this Court’s area of inquiry. Whether the Corps formally acknowledges such decision or not, this is the outcome it now owns.”

Pg 29 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

---

So we can all cross our fingers and hope for the best!

I should include also, the Judge’s mention of the Tribes’ request for clarification on the 408 Permit “(which the Tribes now maintain “indisputably relied on the invalidated environmental assessment” and thus cannot stand.”) (Page 30) In this instance, the Tribes failed “to explain why vacatur of the Section 408 permit would yield that result, as a “Section 408 permit, rather — much like the MLA easement — simply denotes the Corps’ approval of Dakota Access’s plans to site the pipeline on federal property,” and potential vacatur of said permit also would not bring a shutdown of operations. (Page 30-31)

It’s clear to me that the Judge seems to believe the US Army Corps of Engineers has violated NEPA, however, as the DC District Court ordered against the shut down of the line and that his court had no capacity to do so without proof of imminent and irreparable harms, which he could not do with the information provided, his hands are tied.

I truly believe it broke his heart to write this Order.

There is still a possible option. President Biden could ask the USACE to uphold their Treaty responsibilities and do what is right, honor the voices of the Native Peoples asking for relief. Give them relief, if only until the Corps can complete the EIS. It’s the right thing to do.

In Early February, 33 Democrats wrote to Biden, urging him to close down the pipeline, stopping it from transporting crude oil between North Dakota and Illinois.

“By shutting down this illegal pipeline, you can continue to show your administration values the environment and the rights of Indigenous communities more than the profits of outdated fossil fuel industries,” they wrote….

In a statement, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) focused on Biden’s infrastructure proposal, claiming that it has a “major oversight: it neither acknowledges nor strengthens tribal sovereignty.”

“Congress and the Biden administration must know that recovery cannot take place until Tribal nations are the ones making the decisions about projects that impact their peoples and their lands,” IEN stated. 

The future of the Dakota Access Pipeline hangs in the balance (photo credit)

Coronaruption Part Deux

Tags

Breakthrough, Breakthrough case, CDC, Covid, COVID-19, P1, P1.617.2, SARS-CoV-2, vaccinated, Vaccine, variants

The CDC updated their Breakthrough Case Data as of 5/10/21… giving a HUGE a drop from their 4/26 report of 9245 breakthrough infections to only 1359 cases!! How, you ask? 

Well, one reason is that the CDC chose to CHANGE how they count a vaccinated person as a positive Case… They must show positivity by 28 CT vs. 35 CT for unvaccinated people… AND the CDC are now ONLY reporting those folks who are hospitalized or die from Coronavirus after being vaccinated.

So, viola! We makea a buncha cases a-go away, yah?!? [BTW, this sounds so good when I use my shitty French… and then Italian accents to say it – with a huge batch of sarcasm thrown in! Just seemed appropriate to throw in a little Mario and Luigi… for this video game we call life.]

While the number at the top is down, the death and infection numbers for May 10th showed a HUGE increase in the number of people dying and being hospitalized after vaccination. We saw a 36% increase the number of hospitalized and a 68% increase in the number of dead. Even though the figures are NOW only for 65+, instead of previously reported 60 year-old and up vaccinated folks. Hmmm….

So next time they update, it could be even scarier? (You can read how this compares the jumps this week to those previously reported.)

Yet they’re still (media, politicians, late night hosts, big pharma, your aunt Mary) all pushing vaccines as the cure all? I mean, if it means we don’t need masks anymore, it’s for sure a cure, right!?! Even if not enough of us have the vaccines for herd immunity? It’s like science is a non-thing these days…

I continue to stress:

Wearing a Mask prevents the level of infection that enters your body if you are exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Whether you’re unvaccinated OR… vaccinated and feeling bulletproof – if you run into the B117 or P1 or B1.617.2, or whatever other variant that might arise, you’re gonna have less chance for a BIG EXPOSURE (which, spoiler alert, is what helps the virus take you into a hospital or casket).

Jamism – Mid-May, 2021 (actually, it’s been a long-time quote… just updated for the various new strains here)

Mask Up, Motherfuckers. PLEASE.

If we do… then we can cull the unscientific from our midst and possibly get a chance at saving the planet for human habitation? 🤫[Shhhhh…]

It’s just a thought…

5/18/21 update: as usual, a day later, Chris says it far better than me.

Peak Prosperity’s Dr. Chris 5/18/21

Cheap, Safe, and Effective = Un-American?

Tags

AIIMS, CDC, COVID-19, Ivermectin

New evidence shows significant protection, not only from getting COVID… but also of being a carrier!

Contrary to your initial thought? It’s not via vaccines (as those have not yet been proven to prevent one from carrying the virus and spreading it).

Ironically, it’s a cheap and readily available drug that has been used safely for decades… and even the WHO lists it as an ESSENTIAL MEDICATION! (listed as an essential anti-infective (as both an intestinal anthelminthic and as an antifilarial) and as the ONLY medicine listed for ectoparasitic infections – thanks, Japan!)

What is it? Ivermectin.

The bigger question is: WHY HASN’T THE U.S. used it (or even really studied it…)?

Perhaps it’s the cost? The cost of treating a 70 kg person (154#) is about 0.3 cents. Not $.03… not 3 cents, but 1/3 of a fucking penny per treatment! That’s practically free.

With no money-making incentive, ‘Murica has apparently found it not worth a look-see. That is because, as we’ve all known for a long time, American Health Care isn’t about Caring for Health, it’s about Driving up Wealth! (Mainly for those who already have plenty…)

I’m sorry I didn’t find this sooner to get it to MDH…
as if they would have listened to me…
which they haven’t…
as how many Health Care Workers in MN have died???

So, what did India find?

Prophylactic role of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers [I’ll agree with all but the last two words… as vaccines remain unproven. This is one of MANY MANY studies of Ivermectin that show promising results. The tweets at this link will lead you to many of them.]

Bottom Line?

The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 85% lower in those taking two-dose ivermectin at the end of 30 days

Thank GOD vaccines are only experimentally approved… As you can’t force people to get an experimental drug?

And many are NOT getting vaccinated, while being endlessly shamed by family, favorite comedians, doctors, late night hosts – though I LOVED THIS take, and the mainstream media in general.

Vaccinate NOW! is the new peer pressure. I mean what’s the difference between telling someone to take an unproven vaccine… versus telling them to take a pill to which you have no idea how your body will react? But, hey, this world is fucked, so let’s party!?!

On doctors, I personally find it hard to trust the Doc who helped make this virus more infective… Though at least this one recognizes the futility of shaming, as well as it’s actual effect: creating the thing you are trying to avoid? Even my boy Atul Gawande is pushing vaccines… perhaps he isn’t familiar yet with the Ivermectin research?

Meanwhile, the CDC reduced the amount of cycles for a “reportable” Covid case – but only on vaccinated people? [I looked for a LONG time but found nothing on CT cycles required for regular test reporting to the CDC… though the normal value globally is 35-40 cycles. Fauci recommended 35 cycles last year.*] And what is their rationale? It seems only to reduce workload, not to increase understanding… You lemme know what you think? Seems the CDC isn’t too interested in addressing questions…

CDC required CT count for vaccinated lower than normal?

Here’s something to ponder…
Apparently, it’s A-OK for American men to use Viagra for erectile dysfunction (a drug originally developed for hypertension – and, if you have heart conditions, beware using it… as a friend of mine who suffered a heart attack instead of an orgasm will tell you… But where are the mass-media warnings there???)… [During the heart clinical trials, researchers discovered that the drug was more effective at inducing erections than treating angina.]
Yet it’s not recommended to use Ivermectin to prevent Covid because it also treats for parasitic worms??? Meanwhile, most of our military are routinely given anti-parasitics as they live in close quarters.

A Better Question?
Why is an anti-parasitic effective against an airborne virus that really looks a lot like TB and HIV had a baby?

It’s sad to think of all those we’ve lost as America discouraged use – or even study – of an effective and safe treatment for COVID. We’re approaching a million dead here in America now… and we could have avoided it… and all the mask fights?… if we’d only thought outside the (money-making) box.

We’re not doing it on Coronavirus OR the global climate crisis… so, enjoy the time we have left! Below is the data from Dr. John Campbell’s presentation of the AIIMS Study.

---

Background

• Healthcare workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to getting infected withSARS-CoV-2
• Preventing HCWs from getting infected is a priority to maintain healthcare services
• The therapeutic and preventive role of ivermectin in COVID-19 is being investigated
• Based on promising results of in vitro studies of oral ivermectin, this study to look at prophylactic role of oral ivermectin

Methods

• Prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar
• Two-doses of oral ivermectin, 300 μg/kg at a gap of 72 hours
• Primary outcome, COVID-19 infection in the month following
• 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study
  • Ivermectin uptake n = 2, 384 (67.5%)
  • Non uptake, n = 1147 (32.5%)

Results:

• 331 participants, developed symptoms
  • 131 in takers (6%)
  • 200 from non takers (15%)
• Testing positive, 201 (COVID carrier potential)
  • Ivermectin takers, 2%
  • Non takers, 11.7%

Implications for transmission:

• HCWs who had taken two-doses (Single dose did not reach significance) Significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease during the following month was 0.18
• Adjusted Relative Risk 0.17
• 1.8% reported adverse events, mild and self-limiting

Conclusion and relevance:

• Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs  reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.
• Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

AIIMS Director, Gitanjali Batmanabane:

• Earlier, at least 20 to 25 HCWs were getting infected with the virus daily.
• After the workers started taking ivermectin, the number of infection has come down to one or two per day

Critique:

• The safety of the drug has been established by its large-scale use in the last four decades for various indications such as onchocerciasis, scabies, head lice, and other parasitic infestations

---

Good Luck, Everybody!

*Update 5-11-21: UMN reports PCR CT count of positivity = 35.

Coronaruption?

By that title, I refer both to the corruption associated with the pandemic as well as the possible eruption of disease we are potentially about to see in the U.S. You know, like India is seeing now?

Much of this blog is a consolidation of recent data and expressed ideas in my daily FB posted COVID updates. I’m simply trying to wrap my mind around what I’m reading and digest it into what it might mean going forward. It’s all just my speculation on the interpretation I have of the data I access, presented to you for comment, feedback, idea generation, something to share (or simply to laugh at…), as the case may be.

So what’s happening of late?

I’m noticing that while MN continues to push vaccinations, we seem to have peaked on folks getting them. What this means for disease spread is far from sure, as becomes clearer below.

MN Vaccination data for COVID-19 – Looks promising by Month… but not by Week, for vaccination proponents.

While some may be surprised to see this trend of Minnesota vaccine figures waning, you can count me NOT shocked. With the complete failure by the government to be honest about the data and transparent about the backrooms deals, all while we see continued actions of white supremacy throughout agencies and in the legislatures and courts… I’m surprised as many people TRUST the vaccines as do.

Though I get the calculation of risks that lead many to secure them, I’m not sure these folks all have access to vaccine data (or personal experience) that might change their minds, were they only aware of it. I’m simply operating on the precautionary principle and I realize my privilege of being a hermit in the woods is a big part of what allows me to do so. I also realize it means that folks who choose to only associate in person with vaccinated people will be out of my life physically… for a while at least. Which was something I was pretty geared for since… well, really over a year ago, so… sad but not unexpected.

There are many with valid concerns regarding these “emergency use” vaccines. We have turned our entire global population into a human experiment… with unknown repercussions to come. Already coming, in fact.

No surprise, I guess, as humans have long decided about asbestos, farming with chemicals, PFAS, and other bows down to human science (without regard for natural repercussions), which have brought similar problems… Simply something I’d hope we can all consider as we each make our own decisions about whether or not to be vaccinated. Let’s be less judgmental and more compassionate perhaps? Not so all-knowingly confident… as we lack real data to hold such confidence?

While Minnesota seems to be banking on a downward trend in figures as they happily vaccinate more of their citizens, I’m afraid their planning figures for PPE may be a bit short, if instead we continue to see hospitalizations rise. As can be seen in the tables, Minnesota is banking on supplies lasting for at least another 52 days. However, I see a couple problems with their data that might indicate a less than fully prepared plan.

First, let’s talk about the basis of their plan. As of April 2nd (nice they didn’t use April Fool’s Day but…) our managers are banking on the PPE levels in this graphic. We’re looking at 114 days worth of face masks, 105 days of face shields, 124 days of gloves, 156 of gowns, and 290 of N95 respirators. Those figures are based on a baseline usage from August 2020. They even halve those figures – if we happen to get to 2X baseline usage, which is how we get to “at least” 52 days (with the limiting factor being face shields). Note that we have ZERO days on hand awaiting delivery for face masks, gowns and N95 respirators while we have 3 days of face shields and 12 days worth of gloves awaiting delivery.

Days-on-hand of Critical Care Supplies MDH

On the whole, this seems a really great plan, eh? Well-thought out with a doubling of the baseline usage to – we assume – conservatively estimate the planning and, possibly facilitating ordering plans as well? Well, if August is a good baseline of usage, this makes sense. Let’s see if it does.

In August 2020, we were seeing an average of 10.2 ICU and 41.7 hospitalizations each day. So, if we were at even 20 ICUs and 83 hospitalizations, we’d be in good shape using this as a basis, right? However, if we get back up to November usage figures of 39.3 ICUs and 230.9 hospitalizations, we’d be at 3.9X and 5.5X the usage of August. So definitely underestimating our needs. Currently, we’re averaging ICUs of 1.7X and hospitalizations of 2.3X August 2020 figures (17.4 ICUs & 95.4 hospitalizations daily for April 2021). If trends continue for less hospitalizations, Minnesota will be ok.

However, if things take off – as we’ve seen in India – and if Minnesota returns to November levels of hospitalizations, we’d see a less rosy picture. If we halve the prepared supplies again, (to simulate an immediate uptick to a 4X rate of use), Minnesotans are looking at less than a month’s supply on face masks & shields, just about a month’s supply on gloves and gowns, and about a 2.5 month supply on N95 respirators. With almost nothing in the pipeline awaiting delivery. Yet, if we see that happen, perhaps there are no plans that might be sufficient.

And how are our Minnesota hospitals doing to remain prepared? Well, not as good as one might hope.

MN maintains 101 ICU beds and 702 hospital beds over May Day weekend.

Staffing capacities show more than 60% of hospitals are unable to maintain expected capacities for ICU or regular bed support.

Staffed ICU/Non-ICU Availability MDH

With the many variants, I’m not sure that MN is taking a proper precautionary approach… especially with many vaccinated still finding themselves infected… and even in some cases dying. While some call it propaganda, this information on vaccine development, testing, and concerns has been enlightening. I find the “propaganda” of mainstream news, alt-media, and even late night hosts poo-pooing the use of Ivermectin to be just as concerning… though I’m guessing some (having been indoctrinated by the mainstream media narrative over long months) will simply think me “crazy” for it. Even the NIH is re-considering Ivermectin FFS.

I’m more into digesting the science, examining data, looking at how cells and viruses function than simply listening to talking heads (paid to please their sponsors) and believing what they have to say. Especially when the data is so readily saying the opposite of what those talking heads are implying? It’s not just 6 people with blood clots, folks.

As of April 20, the CDC had reported a total of 7,157 cases of COVID-19 among fully vaccinated people and 88 deaths. However, as of April 26th, that rose to 9,245 cases and 132 deaths – an increase of 29% in cases in less than a week and 50% increase in deaths. Additionally, the CDC figures on April 13th were 5800 cases with 74 dead – meaning we’ve seen a 59% increase in cases and 78% increase in deaths for vaccinated folks in less than two weeks. Not good trends…

Something to watch closely as it appears to affect women at a higher rate. I’m wondering what the stats are on people of color, though those are not broken out in the CDC reporting.

CDC Data as of 4/26/21

The data on vaccination by race is an interesting review for MN. [scroll down for the state-by-state table] From what I can tell in a quick review, Minnesota has vaccinated more whites proportionately than other races (perhaps to be expected in a white supremacy focused society), though Asians seem to get a fair swing at accessibility. Regardless, death counts appear best for Asians, worst for whites (my guess would be that this is due to complacency and obesity… regardless of accessibility to health care) and, of course, there is NO DATA for the Indigenous to this land. FFS.

Overall, things are tentative from my perspective. And if Tim Walz and his administration still plan to allow a bunch of pipeliners to return from out-of-state in coming weeks, I’d say we better prepare for the worst.