[TheClimate.Vote] August 8, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Aug 8 09:40:54 EDT 2017
/August 8, 2017/
*
Shareholders launch 'world-first' lawsuit against Commonwealth Bank over
climate change risks
<http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/shareholders-launch-worldfirst-lawsuit-against-commonwealth-bank-over-climate-change-risks/news-story/db39d5d2f712be35e7d760069d9e3237>
*TWO shareholders have lodged a world-first lawsuit against the
Commonwealth Bank because it failed to mention climate change risk in
its annual report last year.
Lawyers from Environmental Justice Australia today filed proceedings in
the Federal Court on behalf of shareholders Guy and Kim Abrahams, with
the case expected to test how companies should disclose information
about climate change risks in their annual report.
The claim alleges that by not disclosing the risks posed to its
business, the bank failed to give a true and fair view of its financial
position and performance, as required by the Corporations Act.
The shareholders also claim the 2016 directors' report did not
adequately inform investors of climate change risks.
They want an injunction to stop the bank making the same mistake in
future annual reports.*
*http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/shareholders-launch-worldfirst-lawsuit-against-commonwealth-bank-over-climate-change-risks/news-story/db39d5d2f712be35e7d760069d9e3237*
Commonwealth Bank shareholders sue over 'inadequate' disclosure of
climate change risks
<https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/commonwealth-bank-shareholders-sue-over-inadequate-disclosure-of-climate-change-risks>
*https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/commonwealth-bank-shareholders-sue-over-inadequate-disclosure-of-climate-change-risks*
**Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html>
By LISA FRIEDMAN
*WASHINGTON - The average temperature in the United States has risen
rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the
warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate
change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.
The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not
yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects
of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by
President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human
contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to
predict the effects is limited.
"Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere
to the depths of the oceans," a draft of the report states. A copy of it
was obtained by The New York Times.
The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of
thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in
the air. "Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities,
especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily
responsible for recent observed climate change," they wrote.
The report was completed this year and is a special science section of
the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every
four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft
report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump
administration to release it.
The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still feel at
least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of
warming over this century compared with today. The projected actual
rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius....
Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is
possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The field
known as "attribution science" has advanced rapidly in response to
increasing risks from climate change....
Additionally, the government scientists wrote that surface, air and
ground temperatures in Alaska and the Arctic are rising at a
frighteningly fast rate - twice as fast as the global average...
"It is very likely that the accelerated rate of Arctic warming will have
a significant consequence for the United States due to accelerating land
and sea ice melting that is driving changes in the ocean including sea
level rise threatening our coastal communities," the report says...
Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
*DOCUMENT:*
*Read the Draft of the Climate Change Report
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html>*
A draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet
been made public but was obtained by The New York Times, concludes that
Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. The
report was completed this year and is part of the National Climate
Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
Download original draft PDF
<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf>
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf
*US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails
reveal
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails>*
Exclusive: series of emails show staff at Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service...
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid
using the term climate change in their work, with the officials
instructed to reference "weather extremes" instead.
A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees
farmers' land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration
has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees
around climate change.
A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists
terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace
them. "Climate change" is in the "avoid" category, to be replaced by
"weather extremes". Instead of "climate change adaption", staff are
asked to use "resilience to weather extremes".
The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with
the term "reduce greenhouse gases" blacklisted in favor of "build soil
organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency". Meanwhile, "sequester
carbon" is ruled out and replaced by "build soil organic matter".
In her email to staff, dated 16 February this year, Moebius-Clune said
the new language was given to her staff and suggests it be passed on.
She writes that "we won't change the modeling, just how we talk about it
- there are a lot of benefits to putting carbon back in the sail [sic],
climate mitigation is just one of them", and that a colleague from
USDA's public affairs team gave advice to "tamp down on discretionary
messaging right now".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
*(study) Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 trillon per year
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year>*
*A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil
fuels*
Fossil fuels have two major problems that paint a dim picture for their
future energy dominance. These problems are inter-related but still
should be discussed separately. First, they cause climate change. We
know that, we've known it for decades, and we know that continued use of
fossil fuels will cause enormous worldwide economic and social consequences.
Second, fossil fuels are expensive. Much of their costs are hidden,
however, as subsidies. If people knew how large their subsidies were,
there would be a backlash against them from so-called financial
conservatives.
A study was just published in the journal World Development that
quantifies the amount of subsidies directed toward fossil fuels
globally, and the results are shocking. The authors work at the IMF and
are well-skilled to quantify the subsidies discussed in the paper.
Let's give the final numbers and then back up to dig into the details.
The subsidies were $4.9 tn in 2013 and they rose to $5.3 tn just two
years later. According to the authors, these subsidies are important
because first, they promote fossil fuel use which damages the
environment. Second, these are fiscally costly. Third, the subsidies
discourage investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy that
compete with the subsidized fossil fuels. Finally, subsidies are very
inefficient means to support low-income households.
With these truths made plain, why haven't subsidies been eliminated?
The answer to that is a bit complicated. Part of the answer to this
question is that people do not fully appreciate the costs of fossil
fuels to the rest of us. Often we think of them as all gain with no pain.
So what is a subsidy anyway? Well, that too isn't black and white.
Typically, people on the street think of a subsidy as a direct financial
cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below the
opportunity cost of the product (fossil fuel in this case)...
Interested readers are directed to the paper for further details, but
the results are what surprised me. Pre-tax (the narrow view of
subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013. But
the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8 times
larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous values of
5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013. ..
There are two key takeaway messages. First, fossil fuel subsidies are
enormous and they are costs that we all pay, in one form or another.
Second, the subsidies persist in part because we don't fully appreciate
their size. These two facts, taken together, further strengthen the case
to be made for clean and renewable energy. Clean energy sources do not
suffer from the environmental costs that plague fossil fuels.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year
*How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867>*
- Fossil fuel *subsidies are large, amounting to 6.5% of global GDP in
2015.*
- *Mispricing *from a domestic perspective accounts for the bulk of the
subsidy.
- *Coal subsidies *account for the largest part (about half) of global
subsidies.
- In absolute terms, subsidies are *highly concentrated in a few large
countries*.
- The environmental, fiscal, and welfare *gains from subsidy reform are
substantial.*
*Summary*
This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and
environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a broad
notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs
plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.
Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3
trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for
global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution
46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general
consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8
trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia,
the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion).
Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013
by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue
of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867
*(report) A Responsibility to Prepare: Governing in an Age of
Unprecedented Risk and Foresight
<https://climateandsecurity.org/responsibilitytoprepare/>*
by Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia for Climate and Security August
7, 2017
*Summary: *The world in the 21st century is characterized by both
unprecedented risks and unprecedented foresight. Climate change,
population shifts and cyber-threats are rapidly increasing the scale and
complexity of risks to international security, while technological
developments are increasing our capacity to foresee those risks. This
world of high consequence risks, which can be better modeled and
anticipated than in the past, underscores a clear responsibility for the
international community: A "Responsibility to Prepare." This
responsibility, which builds on hard-won lessons of the Responsibility
to Protect (R2P) framework for preventing and responding to mass
atrocities, requires a reform of existing governance institutions to
ensure that critical, nontraditional risks to international security,
such as climate change, are anticipated, analyzed and addressed
systematically, robustly and rapidly by intergovernmental security
institutions and the security establishments of nations that participate
in that system...
A Responsibility to Prepare agenda should be developed and adopted by
all nations, while adhering to the overarching principle of
"climate-proofing" security institutions at the international, regional
and national levels. That climate-proofing would include mainstreaming,
integrating, institutionalizing and elevating attention to climate and
security issues at these bodies, as well as establishing rapid response
mechanisms, and developing contingencies for potential unintended
consequences...
Such an agenda - focused as it is on reforming security institutions -
would ensure that critical nontraditional challenges, such as climate
change, are appropriately managed as global security risks, rather than
as niche concerns. A practical fulfillment of the goals and principles
articulated in this Responsibility to Prepare framework would increase
the likelihood of more stable governance in the face of rapid but
foreseeable change...
*CONCLUSION*
The destructive Thirty Years' War compelled European monarchs to
establish a nation-state system at Westphalia in 1648. The globally
devastating First and Second World Wars ultimately precipitated the
creation of an international order centered on the United Nations, and
its enforcement arm, the UN Security Council - a system designed to
protect the sovereignty of states against external aggression and
decrease the likelihood of conflict between states.40 This is the world
order we are still living in today...
However, given the rapid rate of climatic change and the increasing
stress on global security that is likely to follow, this order will have
to adapt - and adapt quickly. The difference between today and major
global disruptions of the past is that we can spot impending disasters
earlier and more easily. Though the risks are unprecedented, our
foresight is unprecedented as well. Technological developments have
given us climate models, and predictive tools, that enhance our ability
to anticipate and mitigate risks. We need to better utilize those tools,
and better integrate them into international, regional and national
security institutions in order to manage this new world...
However, the window of opportunity to strengthen global governance in a
significantly altered geostrategic environment is narrowing. Stalled or
delayed actions may result in diminishing returns, and, in the
worst-case scenarios, difficult and potentially inhumane choices in the
face of continued strains on natural resources and political will. This
scenario is preventable.
Whether or not the response to climate risks from the international
security community will be commensurate to the threat remains to be
seen. However, in the 21st century we cannot lean on the excuse that we
did not see the threat coming. We do see it coming, and that foresight
makes the Responsibility to Prepare an ironclad one.
https://climateandsecurity.org/responsibilitytoprepare/
Full report PDF full report
<https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf>.
<https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf>
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf
*(ABC video news) Tulsa storms leave dozens injured as floods submerge
parts of Kansas City and New Orleans
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-storms-leave-dozens-injured-floods-submerge-parts/story?id=49063583>*
A series of powerful storms, which included a confirmed tornado, tore
through Tulsa, Oklahoma overnight, damaging businesses and leaving at
least 26 people injured, according to a local hospital.
The National Weather Service (NWS) of Tulsa issued warnings overnight of
thunderstorms, flash flooding, and a possible tornado in the area.
Photos released by the Tulsa Fire Department show parts of the city
shrouded in darkness with businesses and street signs mangled.
Meanwhile, flash flooding submerged parts of Kansas City and New Orleans
in water this weekend.
Four to six inches of rain were reported across parts of Kansas City,
where highway I-35 had to be shut down.
Photos posted on social media by The Missouri Department of Public
Safety show vehicles submerged up to the windows in water.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-storms-leave-dozens-injured-floods-submerge-parts/story?id=49063583
*Maxine Waters: #RussiaGate about Arctic Oil and Gas
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CplLWZC6rmE>*
video from ABC The Political VIEW
greenmanbucket Published on Aug 6, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CplLWZC6rmE
*'Lucifer' heat wave keeps parts of EU in red alert
<http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/lucifer-heat-wave-keeps-parts-eu-red-alert/>*
A taste of worse to follow in coming decades
ROME: Swaths of southern Europe sweltered Saturday in a heatwave that
has claimed several lives, cost billions in crop damage and is,
scientists warned, a foretaste of worse to follow in coming decades. At
least five deaths in Italy and Romania have been attributed to the
extreme conditions since the heatwave set in around the start of August.
Unusually high, sometimes unprecedented temperatures are being recorded
across an area spanning much of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and
Portugal), southern France, Italy, the Balkans and Hungary. Thermometer
mercury has regularly risen above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees
Farenheit) across the affected areas, exacerbating the impact of an
extended drought and the lingering impact of a July heatwave which
sparked wildfires that claimed 60 lives in Portugal.
Hospital admissions have spiked 15-20 percent in Italy, where at least
three people have died. Italians longing for the beach have dubbed the
hot spell "Lucifero", or Lucifer, after the biblical archangel said to
have been condemned forever to the flames of hell. The latest victim was
a woman whose car was swept away overnight by an avalanche of water and
mud as humid conditions near the Alpine ski resort of Cortina d'Ampezzo
broke into torrential rain. That tragedy follows the deaths on Thursday
of two pensioners, a 79-year-old woman and an 82-year-old man, who were
caught up in wildfires in, respectively, the central region of Abruzzo
and near Matera in the south of the country.
Scientists meanwhile warned that deaths due to extreme weather in Europe
could increase fifty-fold from an estimated 3,000 per year recently to
152,000 by the end of this century - if global warming is not reined in.
Southern Europe will suffer most and heatwaves would account for 99
percent of the deaths, according to research conducted for the European
Commission and published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/lucifer-heat-wave-keeps-parts-eu-red-alert/
*This Day in Climate History August 8, 2005
<http://c-spanvideo.org/program/USEnergyPolicy7>- from D.R. Tucker*
August 8, 2005: President George W. Bush signs the pro-fracking Energy
Policy Act into law. Six days later, Mark Hertsgaard discusses the
legislation on Air America's "EcoTalk with Betsy Rosenberg."
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/USEnergyPolicy7
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=64861
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/ecotalkblog/2005/08/americas_energy.html
/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////You are encouraged to forward this email /
. *** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20170808/262154b2/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list