News from the Teachers Retirement System in Illinois

SPRINGFIELD, IL – The Teachers’ Retirement System Board of Trustees today named R. Stanley Rupnik, an 18-year veteran of the System, as the new TRS Executive Director / Chief Investment Officer.

Rupnik has served as acting executive director since August of 2020 while retaining his previous role as CIO. He joined TRS from the private sector in April 2003 as director of investments and was named CIO in November of 2004. He previously served TRS as acting executive director between 2009 and 2011. His selection by the Board concludes a nationwide search for a new leader at TRS, which is the 40 ^th largest public pension system in the United States.

“We as a Board feel very comfortable with the way Stan has managed this wonderful institution,” said TRS Board President Devon Bruce. “You have done a great job in the last year and will continue to do so.”

 “I believe strongly in the staff we have at TRS,” Director Rupnik said. “The last year has been extremely challenging for them in a number of ways. Their professionalism and dedication in the face of rapidly changing circumstances has been inspiring. They are the reason I decided to pursue this position on a permanent basis.

“Our mission is vitally important to educators in every part of Illinois as well as to the overall economic health of the state,” he added. “I want to keep moving TRS forward.”

Service to the System’s 427,000 members remains the highest priority. An average of $586 million in benefits is distributed in full and on time every month. Each week, staff handles approximately 2,300 phone calls and 680 emails from members and schedules 160 one-on-one counseling appointments.

In recent months, assets in the TRS Investment Portfolio have reached record levels, taking advantage of a surging national economy that broke free of last year’s COVID-19 downturn. As of May 31, TRS managed assets totaling $62.2 billion – a record for the System and a 23.1 percent increase in assets in the last year. TRS held $50.5 billion at the end of May last year and closed fiscal year 2020 with $52.3 billion.

Through March 31 – the end of the January-March quarter for FY 2021 – the TRS portfolio recorded a positive 16.4 percent investment return, net of fees. For the 12-month period that ended in March, TRS performance was a positive 24.3 percent, net of fees.

 In the last five years, the total assets in the TRS portfolio managed by Minority and Women Business Enterprises has creased from $8.2 billion to $14.5 billion. In each of the last five years, TRS has exceeded its annual aspirational goal to have 20 percent of total assets managed by MWBE firms.  Currently, TRS commitments to MWBE firms total $14.5 billion, or 24.3 percent of the System’s total $59.5 billion portfolio.

Director Rupnik holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A native of Springfield, he lives in the Capitol City with his wife Kristen and their two daughters.

 

Vehicle Service Contract Plans Are Big Hassles and Bad Deals for Most Drivers (Consumer Checkbook)

 

Ads from CarShield featuring rapper-turned-actor Ice-T say that buying its vehicle service contracts can help you avoid thousands in auto repair bills. CarShield also hired ESPN’s Chris Berman to urge viewers not to “drive another second without protection.” Several other companies and car dealerships hawk these plans, also known as “extended warranties.” Even some AAA chapters and auto insurance companies such as Allstate and GEICO now sell this type of coverage.

Everywhere we turn, consumers encounter scads of annoying sales pitches for car repair plans. Buy a new or used vehicle from a dealership and the finance manager will try to persuade you to spend thousands on one. Your phone is likely inundated with robocalls selling coverage, often using deceptive and even illegal sales tactics. Your email and U.S. mail boxes get hit with official-looking statements warning that your ride’s manufacturer warranty has expired, or soon will, and you are facing a likely Carmageddon if you don’t buy their plans right now.

These companies promise to pay for repairs you might—but probably won’t—need. We advise against buying these kinds of mini insurance policies—home warranties, service contracts for electronics, trip protection, water-and-sewer line coverage, and so on. They are overpriced and highly profitable for the companies that sell and administer them and pay infrequent claims, but are usually awful deals for consumers.

While we advise against purchasing any type of service contract, our review of policies and the complaints filed against CarShield and dozens of other warranty sellers indicates their products are especially lousy buys. These companies commonly use misleading marketing to scare consumers into paying thousands for their products and then, if you actually need repairs, go to great lengths to avoid paying for them.

CarShield and dozens of other warranty sellers have been awarded “F” grades by the Better Business Bureau (BBB). They’ve generated thousands of consumer complaints—so many that the St. Louis-based BBB, which covers southern Illinois and southwest Missouri, where CarShield and many other marketers are headquartered, issued this warning:

“BBB advises consumers to use extreme caution when entering into an extended auto service contract for your vehicle. Consumers report to BBB they feel deceived by misleading advertising, which includes mailers, telephone sales representatives and radio and television commercials. Consumers also state they have difficulty canceling their policies and that requested repairs were not covered by policy administrators.”

Many complaints deal with the insufferable, often illegal robocalls and deceptive marketing mailings commonly used by these companies. Many others highlight what often happens when a customer’s car or truck actually needs to be fixed. All too often, consumers report that after making repair claims, plan administrators found sneaky fine-print reasons to deny their requests for compensation or to limit amounts they’ll pay. Maybe that’s what Chris Berman means when he proclaims that CarShield is “rumblin’ and tumblin’ all over that car repair bill.”

How They Work

Vehicle service contracts are big business, with $35 billion in retail sales in 2018, according to Colonnade Advisors, an investment banking firm. Prices for plans vary depending on the breadth of coverage; vehicle make, age, and mileage; and number of years (the longest terms are seven years or 100,000 miles). We found one plan priced at nearly $6,700 and short-term plans for around $2,500. But most of the plans we checked cost around $3,000 to $4,000.

Generally, the more you pay the broader your coverage. With some companies, paying more upfront lowers or eliminates per-repair deductibles, which are usually around $100. CarShield and most other sellers don’t actually provide the coverage. Instead, claims are handled by third-party “plan administrators”; if you need a repair, you contact the administrator and it decides whether or not to pay for it. Get a repair without first obtaining authorization and you likely won’t get reimbursed for it.

When CarShield responds to customer complaints filed with the BBB, it often points out that its plan administrator, not CarShield, makes claims decisions. The BBB maintains that companies should be responsible for the products they sell, even if their customers interact with a different corporate entity. CarShield is suing the St. Louis BBB, accusing it of being biased against the company and ignoring its efforts to respond to the bureau’s concerns.

In a response filed with the court, the BBB denied the allegations and said that while the company made some changes in its responses to complaints filed with the BBB, it has not addressed the bureau’s ongoing concerns about misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing, nor resolved an ongoing pattern of complaints.

Service contracts marketed by automakers through their dealership franchisees generally require that you use the dealers’ repair shops. That can be a drawback; our surveys indicate that, on average, car owners are more satisfied with repairs done by independent shops than by dealers. Third-party plans like those CarShield sells allow repairs at dealerships or independent shops.

Gotcha! Many Repairs Aren’t Covered

Wade through the fine print for these contracts, as we did for more than a dozen of them, and you’ll find so many excluded repairs that you’ll wonder if there’s anything left on your car that is covered. Common components usually excluded: brake shoes and rotors; clutches; fuel injectors; exhaust systems and catalytic converters; batteries; shocks and struts.

Did the hybrid battery pack fail in your Toyota Prius? Not even that automaker’s Extra Care Platinum Vehicle Service Agreement, Toyota’s most expensive plan, will cover your repair costs. Need to replace a heat shield, battery cable, or the transmission throw-out bearing on your Honda? How about an engine repair due to carbon buildup or overheating? Don’t expect the Honda Care vehicle service contract to cover any of that.

Has your car or truck developed a water leak? Expect to get soaked for that repair. You’ll also pay your own repair bills if a built-in navigation system loses its way or your entertainment system fails to entertain. Most contracts also exclude many non-mechanical parts, such as armrests, seat fabric, door handles, weather stripping, bumpers, and body panels.

Sometimes you can increase coverage by buying a premium plan, but even with such Cadillac coverage we often found long lists of excluded repairs. You’ll also be on the hook for the cost of diagnosing anything that turns out not to be covered. That can be expensive if, for instance, determining the problem requires a shop to tear down your engine or transmission.

Here’s another head-scratcher: Some plans exclude parts such as valve guides, piston rings, and transmission bands if the administrator concludes they failed due to your vehicle’s age or mileage, even with normal operation and use. Ditto if you have age- or mileage-related seepage from your vehicle’s seals and gaskets.

Some plans provide multiple details about what is covered but say little about possible parts and situations that aren’t, and telling the difference practically requires a degree in automotive engineering. “ANY PARTS NOT LISTED ABOVE ARE NOT COVERED,” says a sample contract supplied by American Auto Shield. Some companies list covered and non-covered parts and conditions, a more consumer-friendly approach.

But the contract, listing all these exclusions, often isn’t provided until after the plan is purchased, unless a customer asks to see it in advance or finds a sample on the company website, as we did. That leaves many customers relying on fast-talking salespeople, rosy brochures, and other marketing that fails to highlight all the complicated restrictions.

Oh, Your Repair Is Actually Covered? Well, Get Ready for More Roadblocks

Based on our review of complaints, it’s clear that car warranty plan administrators are passionate about denying claims. CarShield has generated the most complaints to the BBB of any vehicle service contract company we checked; in June 2021, it had racked up 1,850 complaints over the past three years, 1,150 of which were in the last 12 months.

As of June 2021, over the last three years the BBB had received more than 1,000 complaints against the American Auto Shield, a major CarShield plan administrator that also directly markets plans. Many complaints filed against CarShield and other warranty companies describe similar scenarios of denied reimbursement, sometimes even for repairs that should be covered. A big claims-denial strategy: Plan administrators decide a problem existed or was developing before coverage was purchased.

Similarly, plans often deny coverage when administrators conclude drivers failed to take action to avoid or limit damage, such as continuing to drive vehicles after hearing squeaks or rattles, or seeing warning lights. Administrators often also refuse to pay out when customers can’t provide receipts or other proof that they performed all required oil changes on time or otherwise followed the manufacturer’s maintenance recommendations. And—as if that’s not enough—upon sign-up, plans typically impose a waiting period of 30 days or 1,000 miles, during which no repairs are covered. Bernard McMillian of Burgaw, N.C., encountered an extended runaround when he tried using his CarShield coverage for the first time after two years as a customer.

At first, he said, the plan administrator, American Auto Shield, denied his claim for an engine repair on his 2011 Dodge Ram 1500, saying he couldn’t provide receipts for regular oil changes. After he ran around town to obtain them, the company demanded towing receipts to show that McMillian didn’t continue driving the truck after the problem had surfaced. Then he had to pay $900 to have a mechanic tear down the engine and take photographs of the parts that needed repair. Finally, after waiting more than two months, he said, the company agreed to pay for only part of the repair, leaving McMillian on the hook for the cost of replacing a damaged crankshaft.

“I am left having to pay $2,800 because of this useless product and have been without a drivable vehicle for two months while they come up with excuse after excuse for why they won’t honor their policies,” McMillian wrote in his 2020 complaint to the BBB. CarShield told the BBB that American Auto Shield rejected the claim because McMillian continued to drive the vehicle once the problem occurred, causing further damage. It said that if he wanted to pursue the case further, he should arbitrate it with the administrator, as his contract required. “That’s passing the buck,” said McMillian. He said he first purchased the service contract because CarShield commercials made it “sound like a winner to me.” Now he says his wife has to calm him down whenever he sees a CarShield ad on TV.

We found plenty of similar complaints against CarShield and other companies. One consumer who bought a policy offered by Endurance Warranty Services complained to the BBB that he waited for two months to get approval for an engine repair. At first, the company required use of parts that were so inferior that the repair shop refused to use them.

After that issue was resolved, the customer said, the company told the shop that it decided not to cover the repair because the damage apparently occurred during the 1,000-mile waiting period. In responding to the BBB complaint, the company said it had reached a resolution with the customer but didn’t provide details.

As of June 2021, the BBB gave Endurance Warranty Services a “C+” rating and issued an alert for its past advertising practices, including the use of aggressive, confusing, and intimidating mailings, some of which, the BBB said, were sent in envelopes resembling federal tax documents. Over the past three years, the BBB has received more than 775 complaints about the company, 340 of which were filed in the last 12 months.

Although far fewer complaints are filed about plans offered by automakers, some customers expressed frustration with them, too. After a Hyundai owner’s Santa Fe SUV developed leaks in its air conditioner hoses, the Hyundai Protection Plan refused to pay for the $700 repair, saying hoses were excluded from coverage. Checking the contract, the customer confirmed that hoses were indeed not listed among the many air conditioner parts that were eligible for payment if they failed.

However, the customer noted that when the dealer presented the plan, there was a checkmark next to “Climate Control System,” indicating it was covered. “How am I supposed to know what parts are making the A/C system and what [are] not?” the customer asked in a complaint to the BBB. The customer added that the way the contract was formulated and sold “requires a high level of mechanical knowledge about [the] car air conditioning system to even detect potential traps.”

But Wait, There’s More

As if all these aggravations aren’t enough, some plans limit the hourly amount they’ll pay to reimburse your mechanic. For example, unless you pony up an additional premium, the American Auto Shield contract we reviewed limits the payable labor rate to $100 per hour. In most major metro areas, shops’ labor rates are usually higher than that; in some regions, they average more than $140 per hour.

You also could wait weeks just to get a repair authorized. A common complaint we saw involved long delays while companies sent inspectors to assess whether a repair was eligible for reimbursement or requiring second opinions from other repair shops—yet more potential hurdles.

Deceptive and High-Pressure Marketing

As you might expect, the annoying ads, robocalls, and other marketing tactics used by warranty sellers don’t mention all the policy exclusions, claims denials, and other hassles. Instead, they use scare tactics, citing problems that cost thousands of dollars to repair, then providing a solution: Buy one of their plans to avoid disaster.

This misleading, aggressive marketing draws lots of complaints. Consumers—including some who don’t even own cars—are often deluged several times a week or daily with come-ons by companies warning them that their auto warranties have expired or soon will. The scary words “Final Notice” often get bandied about to suggest it’s their last chance to get in on a good thing.

Those who respond often end up being subjected to a tortuous, high-pressure sales pitch. A consumer in Allen, Texas, told the BBB that a representative of Motor Vehicle Services, another BBB F-rated company, “tried to scare and bully me into getting their extended warranty services, which I declined. He made it seem as though I was a criminal for not responding how he wanted me to.”

Some consumers complained that companies tried to mislead them into believing that they were associated with their carmakers or state motor vehicles departments. “The company stated the extended warranty was an absolute requirement of the motor vehicle [department],” said an Elkton, Md., woman who had been subjected to a sales pitch by Safeguard Auto Direct, yet another Missouri BBB F-rated company. “I thought I was talking to the Motor Vehicle Administration the entire phone call.”

A Denton, Texas, man told the BBB that within two months of buying a new Subaru, the Missouri-based Motor Vehicle Services sent three notices warning that his warranty was about to expire. “The whole notice or letter is geared to look like it came from Subaru,” the consumer said. “This could easily coerce someone that didn’t know better.”

Another frequent gripe came from those who purchased policies and then tried to cancel—in some cases because they had changed their minds, in others because they realized they had fallen for a misleading, high-pressure sales pitch. Many said they found it difficult to reach anyone and, when they did, were treated rudely or even had a company representative hang up on them, sometimes repeatedly.

“When I called Motor Vehicle Services to cancel the policy and get a refund, I was yelled at by three different men in their call center, being told I was letting my pride get in the way and that is why I did not want to continue with them,” a Sarasota, Fla., woman wrote the BBB. “They would not let me cancel the policy no matter how many times I asked.”

An Ann Arbor, Mich., customer of US Automotive Protection Services, another BBB F-rated company, had similar issues. “The sales representative continued to berate me for around 10 to 15 minutes, demanding that I consider how many people were out of work due to COVID and that I should not cancel,” he said.

Some said companies continued to bill—or try to bill—their credit or debit cards after they canceled.

Years ago, two principals of US Fidelis, a prominent failed service-contract marketer, were imprisoned after facing federal charges related to, among other things, engaging in some of the very behavior that customers now accuse other companies of employing today, including using deceptive marketing and failing to make required refunds to those who canceled their contracts. It was just one of several companies that sell and back vehicle warranties that have gone out of business over the years, stranding its policyholders.

Don’t Buy These Plans

There’s no point in paying thousands of dollars for coverage for repairs you likely won’t need and backed by companies that often refuse to pay out if you have a problem. Keep in mind that vehicles now come with longer manufacturers’ warranties and better reliability. Most owners will have few problems, which makes it even less likely that a vehicle service contract will be a good bet.

The risk of even expensive car repairs isn’t worth insuring against. When buying one of these plans, you’re betting that the cost of your vehicle’s repairs will exceed the price you pay for the coverage itself. The plan’s seller is betting the opposite—but it gets a lot of leeway in deciding when and how much to pay out for most repairs, which means it’s making a safer bet.

So it’s not surprising then that a survey by Consumer Reports of auto repair service contract customers found more than half never used their coverage; even those who did ended up paying hundreds of dollars more than they saved on repairs.

You’ll do better by planning on paying for repairs yourself. That’s also our advice if you’re thinking about purchasing other kinds of service contracts, whether for your home's HVAC systems or appliances, computer devices or smartphones, or water and sewer lines. Even if your vehicle needs a repair, you want to be in charge of decisions, not a company focused on holding down its own costs.

One final warning: Be careful when financing the purchase of a new or used car. The Federal Trade Commission warns that some dealers have been caught sneaking the costs of service contracts into loans or leases.

 

Scientists Find Toxic "Forever Chemicals" in More Than 100 Popular Make-Up Products Waterproof mascara and long-lasting lipsticks contained the highest levels of organic fluorine, an indicator of PFAS (Smithsonian)

 

Cosmetics designed to stay on longer or marketed as "wear-resistant," "long-lasting," and "waterproof" contained the highest levels of PFAS. (Deerstop Via Wikicommons under CC BY 2.0)

By Elizabeth Gamillo

SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
JUNE 22, 2021 3:03PM

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of manufactured chemicals containing 9,000 different compounds that have been around since the 1940s. PFAS do not break down and accumulate in the environment and human body over time. The substances persist for long periods of time, hence the nickname "forever chemicals." They are linked to severe health effects such as cancer, hormone disruptions, weakened immune systems, and low birth weights. The toxic chemicals are found in various everyday consumer products, including non-stick cookware, pizza boxes, stain repellants—and even cosmetics, according to a new study published last week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

More than half of all cosmetics tested in the study contained high levels of toxic Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), reports Mathew Daly for the Associated Press. The study is the first to screen cosmetics for the total amount of PFAS present in make-up.

University of Notre Dame researchers tested 231 frequently-used makeup products, including liquid foundation, concealer, blush, lipsticks, and mascara, reports Tom Perkins for the Guardian. Approximately 82 percent of waterproof mascaras, 63 percent of foundations, and 62 percent of liquid lipsticks contained at least 0.384 micrograms of fluorine per square centimeter of product spread out, reports Maria Temming for Science News. After analyzing 29 cosmetics containing the highest amounts of PFAS, these products were found to contain four chemicals that further break down into other highly toxic PFAS, such as perfluorooctanoic acid, which can cause cancer and low infant birth weights, per Science News.

"Moreover, the types of products that tested positive for high levels of fluorine—and thus likely to contain PFAS—are often used close to and around the eyes and lips," Whitney Bowe, a dermatologist at the Icahn School of Medicine, who was not part of the study, tells CNN's Sandee LaMotte.

Various products tested contained high levels of fluorine (Green Science Policy Institute)

The eyes, skin, and lips are vulnerable to absorption of the toxic chemicals. PFAS are absorbed through thin mucus membranes close to the mouth and tear ducts. Lipstick is more likely to be accidentally ingested, and wearers may consume up to several pounds of the cosmetic throughout their lives, explains study co-author Graham Peaslee, a physicist at the University of Notre Dame, in a statement. Besides direct exposure through makeup, PFAS can end up in drinking water after being washed off the skin, Science News reports.

PFAS are added to cosmetics to increase their long-term wearability and make skin appear shimmery and smooth, CNN reports. The compounds increase durability, product consistency and water resistance. Because PFAS do not breakdown in water, cosmetics designed to stay on longer or marketed as "wear-resistant," "long-lasting," and "waterproof" contained the highest levels of the chemicals, the Guardian reports. However, the researchers were unsure if cosmetic companies are aware that their products are infused with fluorine.

It's not clear whether the brands are actually saying 'Give us PFAS to use in our products or asking for a thickener, for example, or something functional without paying too much attention to what's in it," says study co-author Tom Bruton, a chemist at the Green Science Policy Institute, to the Guardian.

In 88 percent of all tested products, the label did not disclose PFAS to the consumer, making it almost impossible to avoid the toxins, reports CNN.

While half the makeup tested contained PFAS, the other half did not, which demonstrates that products can be manufactured without the chemicals, the Guardian reports.

Elizabeth Gamillo is a science journalist based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She has written for Science magazine as their 2018 AAAS Diverse Voices in Science Journalism Intern.

Teacher Layoffs Every Year Make No Sense by Fred Klonsky

 

The news that CPS was laying off 443 teachers this week hit me in the gut as it always does.

As a young teacher I was a victim of Reduction in Force every year for the first four years of my teaching career. Nobody said I was a bad teacher. They just said I was fired.

For a young teacher the first years are brutal anyway. This pandemic year? I can’t even imagine. And then be hit with a RIF (Reduction in Force) Notice. Widget. Cog in a wheel. Thing. Nobody. 

CPS says that they have no choice since they don’t know what the enrollment will look like in the Fall. But they also say that they will likely add 2,000 positions when schools open. This is likely true. So the layoffs make no sense.

It is also likely that the teachers who are let go have no guarantees that they will be among the 2,000 who are rehired. And I can tell you that being told you will likely be called back doesn’t make the feeling of being fired less painful. It was painful even the fourth time they let me go. Only to call me back again in August.

What kind of system treats its employees this way? Who fires people every year knowing they will likely ask them to return. And then fires them again. Brings them back. And fires them again.

The teachers union leaders complain each year but they never seem to want to challenge the basic assumption. They’d rather try to make points in their continuing battle with the mayor. Everything I read says there is a teacher shortage. Enrollment in college teacher prep programs is down 22%. Senior teachers are retiring and there’s fewer new teachers in the pipeline to replace them.

Where is the incentive to enter the teaching profession? It’s certainly isn’t the salary or the Tier 2 pension reductions or a sense of stability or empowerment. The assumption that needs to be challenged by our union leaders is why are we laying off any teachers at all? 

I say keep them all and find a place for them to do what they are trained to do: teach! What’s the worst that could happen?  A group of kids would have two professionally trained educators in a classroom available to them instead of one?

Imagine!

https://preaprez.wordpress.com/2021/06/23/teacher-layoffs-every-year-makes-no-sense/

Plastic and toxic chemical induced ocean acidification will cause a plankton crisis that will devastate humanity over the next 25 Years, unless we act now to stop the pollution

 

Plastic and toxic chemical induced ocean acidification will cause a plankton crisis that will devastate humanity over the next 25 Years, unless we act now to stop the pollution.

14 Pages Posted: 8 Jun 2021 Last revised: 23 Jun 2021

Howard Dryden

Goes Foundation

Diane Duncan

Clean Water Wave CIC

Date Written: June 5, 2021

Abstract

Planktonic plants and animals at the base of the marine food chain make all life on Earth possible. Without them the atmosphere would be toxic from carbon dioxide, we would have no oxygen and there would be no whales, birds or fish in the oceans.

Over the last 70 years, more than 50% of all marine life has been lost from the world’s oceans, and it continues to decline at rate of 1% year on year. Atmospheric carbon dioxide causes ocean acidification, and a loss of marine plants and animals accelerates the process.

A small increase in acidity caused by carbon dioxide dissolves magnesium calcite and aragonite, forms of calcium carbonate upon which 50% of all marine life including plankton and coral reefs are composed. Over the next 25 years, the pH will continue to drop from pH8.04 to pH7.95, and an estimated 80% to 90% of all marine life will be lost from the oceans. Even if the world achieves net zero by 2045, atmospheric carbon dioxide will still exceed 500ppm and the oceans will still drop to pH 7.95.

Based on current climate change policy of carbon mitigation, we will not be able to stop the loss of most marine life, which includes fish and the food supply for 3 billion people. In addition, we lose the life support system for the planet. This decline has gone largely unnoticed because most of the plants and animals in the oceans are under 1 mm in size and they are not closely monitored. By way of an example: Prochlorococcus, a cyanobacteria responsible for making 20% of our oxygen, was only discovered in the 1985.

Ocean acidification and climate change cannot adequately describe the loss of marine life. 30% of the ocean have high nutrient (nitrate) concentrations but zero or only low plant growth. If it is not the lack of nutrients or trace nutrients, responsible for the loss of marine life, then this just leaves aquatic environmental pollution as the last plausible explanation. The impact of chemical and micro-plastic pollution on planktonic marine life has been almost completed ignored by the scientific community, and as such industry and governments have not been alerted to the impending threat to the oceans.

This is potentially a good news story, because the solution will be to eliminate pollution from plastic and toxic chemicals or develop green alternatives that do not harm to the environment or humans. We still need to reduce carbon from the burning of fossil fuels, but the priority over the next 25 years should be to protect the oceans, because all life on earth depends upon marine life in the world’s oceans.

 

Keywords: ocean, acidification, marine, climate, change, extinction

JEL Classification: Q54, Q56

Suggested Citation:

Dryden, Howard and Duncan, Diane, Plastic and toxic chemical induced ocean acidification will cause a plankton crisis that will devastate humanity over the next 25 Years, unless we act now to stop the pollution. (June 5, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3860950 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860950

Download This Paper

 

Open PDF in Browser

52 References

1. D Boyce, M Lewis, B Worm

Global phytoplankton decline over the past century

Nature, volume 466, p. 591 - 597

Posted: 2010-07

Crossref

2. What are Phytoplankton?

Posted: 2010-07-16

3. Assessing the risks of ocean acidification -BIOACID: Biological Impacts of Ocean Acidification

Posted: 2021-02-25

4. A Mcquatters-Gollop, P Burkill, G Beaugrand, D Johns, J.-P Gattuso, M Edwards

Atlas of calcifying plankton: results from the continuous plankton recorder survey

Posted: 2010

"Although the modern religious right has propagated this antisocial gospel, they didn’t invent it" -Adam Lee

 

In the U.S., white evangelical Christianity and conservative politics have merged in an unholy symbiosis, and they’ve both been transformed. The Republican Party has become a vehicle for white supremacy in the guise of religious privilege, while at the same time, evangelicalism has been transmuted into an Ayn Rand gospel which denies that we have any moral obligations to each other.

To distract from real issues of justice, the devotees of this right-wing religion are stirring up fear of imaginary boogeymen, like “wokeness”. This term originally signified awareness of racial-justice issues, but – like “political correctness” in the 90s – it’s become a meaningless snarl word for anything and everything that conservatives hate. Another of these right-wing scarecrows is “cancel culture”, which has come to stand for the idea that anyone should face any consequences for expressing abhorrent opinions.

All these trends are on display in a tweet from Erick Erickson, the right-wing pundit and former CEO of RedState:

First of all: The word Erickson wants here is “soteriology“, which is defined as “the branch of theology dealing with salvation”, not “eschatology“, which is the theology of the end times, the apocalypse, and the final judgment.

Second: The idea that “wokeness” and “cancel culture” demand that dissenters be silenced, whereas Christians – by implicit contrast – respect the free speech of those they disagree with… this is sheer historical illiteracy. Christianity’s record on free speech is a long, tattered, bloodstained scroll. Over the centuries of its existence, it’s suppressed competing viewpoints on a far larger scale and more brutally than anything ever attempted by secularists.

Has Erickson heard of the Inquisition? Blasphemy laws? Bans and burnings of heretical literature? State constitutions that bar atheists from holding office? The Comstock Law? Christian bluenoses demanding that books which offend them be removed from libraries? Christian colleges that require students and professors to affirm lengthy doctrinal statements and forbid unapproved books, unapproved music, and unapproved student clubs?

But the third thing I have to point out, and the real reason I wanted to write this post, is this short but telling phrase:

Christian eschatology says you gain your salvation through a direct relationship with Christ, regardless of others… The only thing this can mean is that Christianity – at least in Erickson’s vision – is a religion for people who care only about themselves. All you have to do is say the magic words, and you’ve fulfilled the requirements that God set out. Securing your salvation is a solely individual matter and requires no consideration or concern for other people.

 

In fact, to judge from his phrasing, you should distrust anyone who claims that religion asks anything more of you. Anyone who tells you that you have a duty to repair injustice, to overthrow oppressive systems, to help the poor and downtrodden, to show generosity to the needy, to welcome the stranger, to expose the mighty who’ve abused their power… all those ideas are “woke”, anti-Christian, and to be rejected.

If it were only Erickson who thought this way, I wouldn’t have bothered to write this post. But this ideology isn’t just increasingly common, it’s the dominant strain of thought among the religious right.

For instance, this site (which attacks “social justice”, another conservative boogeyman) says, “The biblical exhortations to care for the poor are more individual than societal.” This site adds that the only legitimate role of a pastor is to preach “individual sin and salvation” rather than to criticize “supposedly structural racism”.

Now, you could say – and I have – that the Bible itself refutes this idea. In passages like Matthew chapter 25, the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, Jesus states that helping others isn’t an optional extra but a requirement for salvation (“as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me”). Another famous passage, from James chapter 2, says that faith without good works has no power to save anyone.

However, Christianity the belief system can’t be separated from those who practice it. Even if the Bible were the best book ever written, if millions of people have cited it as justification for acts of horror and bloodshed, we’d logically have to conclude that the Bible promotes evil. It would be absurd to argue that we should ignore the belief system as it’s actually practiced in favor of some purely theoretical version.

Although the modern religious right has propagated this antisocial gospel, they didn’t invent it. It’s an ancient and ugly idea making a comeback. For centuries, it was the creed of slavery.

For obvious reasons, the Christian slave owners of the antebellum era preached that Christianity tells us how to get to heaven, but says nothing about conditions in this world. They taught, as many Christians through history have taught, that this life is just a brief blip before another existence of infinitely greater importance. Salvation is the only thing that matters, and therefore suffering and injustice should be endured, not resisted. (And, to be fair, the Bible supports this idea as well.)

This idea survived the destruction of slavery, and it’s been used ever since to defend bigotry, plutocracy, and unjust hierarchy. Even if white male evangelicals have all the power and all the wealth, that’s unimportant in the grand scheme of things. The poor and the meek should keep their heads down, concentrate only on their own souls, and accept the world as it is without seeking to change it.

Fortunately, it’s not hard to recognize this self-serving propaganda for what it is. It’s a last-ditch effort to defend privilege by those who have no better argument than the naked assertion of “God said so.” Nonbelievers and progressive religious people both have solid grounds to reject this idea, and we can both agree that real justice requires a transformation of society, not just of individuals.

-Adam Lee, Patheos

Schumer Backs Sanders' Proposal to Include Dental, Hearing, and Vision Care in Medicare (Common Dreams)

 

"With the current Medicare platform, those three things are just left out, like it's no big deal," said the Democratic leader. "But it is a big deal and we should fix it."

JULIA CONLEY, STAFF WRITER

June 21, 2021

Following calls from progressives to include an expansion of Medicare in the infrastructure bill being negotiated in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced late Sunday his support for covering dental, vision, and hearing care under the popular 56-year-old program, backing a proposal long pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"With the current Medicare platform, those three things are just left out, like it's no big deal. But it is a big deal and we should fix it," Schumer told reporters at a news conference. 

Schumer's statement echoed recent remarks by Sanders, who last week tweeted, "I do not think it is too radical an idea to say that keeping teeth in your mouth should not be a luxury," and highlighted how the introduction of Medicare in 1965 ended earlier healthcare injustices in the United States.

"Now, in 2021, we can continue to fulfill the promise of Medicare," Sanders said.

Schumer's support for the more expansive vision for infrastructure—a plan that would be ushered through the reconciliation process in the Senate by Sanders, chair of the Budget Committee—comes days after more than 100 healthcare, faith, and labor groups called on the majority leader and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to include Medicare expansion in the American Families Plan, the Biden administration's infrastructure package.The progressive push for a bolder and much more comprehensive infrastructure plan stands in stark contrast to the paltry proposal put forth by a bipartisan group of centrist, more corporate-friendly Senators.

The organizations said by including robust drug price negotiation in the American Families Plan, lawmakers could reinvest savings in vision, dental, and hearing care for Medicare recipients.

"Let's keep expanding Medicare until it covers everyone for everything," said the advocacy group Healthcare Now, which supports Medicare for All, following Schumer's statement.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only about a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries have dental coverage, and their benefits "frequently come with additional premiums, cost sharing, and limits on the amount of coverage."

"If you talk to family medicine or primary care doctors, they will tell you with certainty that ignoring medical issues related to dental, vision and hearing often devolves into far more serious medical problems for people—especially seniors—that cost more to treat and are harder to remedy," said Schumer on Sunday.

The Democratic leader said lawmakers will have to "galvanize public support" for the proposal in order to pass a far-reaching infrastructure package including investments in healthcare, childcare, and education through reconciliation, which would allow Democrats to pass the package with a party-line vote if the entire caucus backs it. 

The National Poll of Healthy Aging last year found that 93% of senior citizens supported including dental coverage in Medicare. Meanwhile, according to the Senior Citizens League, 79% of older voters said in 2018 that all three types of healthcare should be included in the program.

The larger infrastructure plan favored by Sanders and other progressives also includes tax increases for the wealthiest Americans to pay for infrastructure spending and investments that would help working people, a proposal which is also popular with a majority of Americans.