[TheClimate.Vote] December 6, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/December 6, 2017/

*California communities under siege from wind-driven fires 
<http://m.startribune.com/southern-california-fire-forces-evacuation-of-over-400-homes/461988293/?section=nation>*
Fires are not typical in Southern California this time of year but can 
break out when dry vegetation and too little rain combine with the Santa 
Ana winds. Hardly any measurable rain has fallen in the region over the 
past six months.
Like the deadly October fires in Napa and Sonoma counties, the new 
blazes were in areas more suburban than rural.
Fires in those settings are likely to become more frequent as climate 
change makes fire season a year-round threat and will put greater 
pressure on local budgets, said Char Miller, a professor of 
environmental analysis at Pomona College who has written extensively 
about wildfires.
"There are going to be far greater numbers that are going to be 
evacuated, as we're seeing now," Miller said. "These fires are not just 
fast and furious, but they're really expensive to fight."
http://m.startribune.com/southern-california-fire-forces-evacuation-of-over-400-homes/461988293/?section=nation

*'Out of control' Southern California fire explodes as growing blazes 
force tens of thousands to flee 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/out-of-control-southern-california-brush-fire-grows-from-50-to-25000-acres-in-7-hours/>*
VENTURA, Calif.  -  Ferocious fires tore through Southern California on 
Tuesday, burning massive stretches of land in a matter of hours and 
forcing tens of thousands of people from their homes.
As firefighters in Ventura County grappled with an explosive blaze 
northwest of downtown Los Angeles, others across the region confronted 
additional fires that popped up during the day and forced additional 
evacuations. Authorities issued ominous warnings of more dangers to come 
during a "multi-day event" across the area, as weather forecasters said 
the region faces "extreme fire danger" through at least Thursday due to 
intense Santa Ana winds and low humidity that could cause the fires to 
grow rapidly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/out-of-control-southern-california-brush-fire-grows-from-50-to-25000-acres-in-7-hours/

*Extreme Holiday-Season Fire Threat Puts Southern California on Edge 
<https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/extreme-weeklong-fire-threat-puts-southern-california-edge>*
.."Everything I've read (and experienced) points to RH (relative 
humidity) as the more critical factor, and temperature as influential 
largely through RH," Pyne told me in an email. "A fire burns so hot that 
a few degrees of ambient temperature won't make much difference. But 
fuel moisture - particularly in the 'fine fuels,' like dead grass, pine 
needles, and fine branches on shrubs - translates immediately into how 
well the landscape will burn.
"Such fuels can respond within a few hours to changes in RH, which is 
why most fires die down at night, and can even go out, and why a rise in 
RH can dampen burning even in the absence of rain."
Between October 1 and December 3, downtown Los Angeles averages 1.90" of 
rain, and San Diego averages 1.70" (based on the 1981-2010 
climatological period)
*-As of Sunday, Dec. 3, downtown Los Angeles had picked up 0.11" of rain 
for the water year starting October 1.* That's the 14th driest start to 
the water year in 141 years of recordkeeping in downtown LA.
*-San Diego received just 0.02" last month, putting it in the top-ten 
driest Novembers in data going back to 1850.* Given that October saw 
only a trace of rain, the water-year total (Oct. 1 to present) is also 
0.02", which puts this year in a tie with 1962 for fourth-driest water 
year in records going all the way back to 1850.
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/extreme-weeklong-fire-threat-puts-southern-california-edge


*Air pollution harm to unborn babies may be global health catastrophe, 
warn doctors 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/05/air-pollution-harm-to-unborn-babies-may-be-global-health-catastrophe-warn-doctors>*
New UK research links toxic air to low birth weight that can cause 
lifelong damage to health, raising fears that millions of babies 
worldwide are being harmed
The study analysed all live births in Greater London over four years – 
over 540,000 in total – and determined the link between the air 
pollution experienced by the mother and low birth weight, defined as 
less than 2.5kg (5.5lbs). The scientists found a 15% increase in risk of 
low birth weight for every additional 5 micrograms per cubic metre 
(microgram/m3) of fine particle pollution.
The average exposure of pregnant women in London to fine particle 
pollution is 15microgram/m3, well below UK legal limits but 5 
microgram/m3 higher than the WHO guideline. Cutting pollution to that 
guideline would prevent 300-350 babies a year being born with low 
weight, the researchers estimated. “The UK legal limit is not safe and 
is not protecting our pregnant women and their babies,” said Toledano.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/05/air-pollution-harm-to-unborn-babies-may-be-global-health-catastrophe-warn-doctors


[Austin 350.org - a great speech by US House candidate Derrick Crowe]
(video) (Rep. Lamar Smith is retiring) Derrick Crowe is running for the 
seat. <https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM>
https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM 32 mins *
**Derrick Crowe "State of the Climate"* <https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM>
/"This is the best, purest, most calm and tremendously positive speech 
I've heard.   Vote for Derrick Crowe.   Before you do, listen to him 
talk, listen again.   Elect and promote and support and help get his 
word out."/


[Chicago TV video WG9]
*Obama addresses mayors' summit on climate change in Chicago 
<http://wgntv.com/2017/12/05/obama-to-address-mayors-summit-on-climate-change-in-chicago-today/>*
CHICAGO - Former President Barack Obama says cities, states and 
nonprofit groups have emerged as "the new face of leadership" on climate 
change.
He briefly spoke Tuesday to a summit of mayors from around the world 
gathered in Chicago to address concerns about climate change since 
President Donald Trump rejected the Paris climate accord. The mayors 
signed a charter that echoes portions of the 2015 Paris agreement.
Obama didn't mention Trump by name, saying only that the U.S. was in an 
"unusual" position as the sole country to reject the Paris agreement.
Trump announced earlier this year that the U.S. would pull out of the 
Paris accord, which involves nations setting benchmarks to reduce 
emissions of heat-trapping gases. The U.S. won't technically back out 
until 2020 because of legal technicalities.
Mayors from more than 50 cities attended the summit, which began Monday 
evening.
Mexico City Mayor Angel Mancera says in a statement that his sprawling 
capital of about 9 million is committed to combating climate change 
through programs such as ensuring all residents have access to 
alternative transportation like walking and cycling, as a matter of land 
use policy. Mancera says the city is trying to accelerate a transition 
to soot-free engines and procure zero-emissions buses by 2025 with an 
overall zero-emissions goal for most of the city by 2030.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee says rising water levels and affordable 
housing are concerns for his city.
http://wgntv.com/2017/12/05/obama-to-address-mayors-summit-on-climate-change-in-chicago-today/
-
[Chicago mayors climate summit]
*(video 12:51) Former President Obama speaks at climate summit 
<https://youtu.be/BgSViSgZjIc>*
CBS News
Published on Dec 5, 2017
Former President Barack Obama spoke in Chicago Tuesday about the need to 
push forward against climate change, despite the current 
administration's opposition. Watch his remarks at the North American 
Climate Summit.
https://youtu.be/BgSViSgZjIc


[NYTimes]
*U.S. Quits Migration Pact, Saying It Infringes on Sovereignty 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/world/americas/united-nations-migration-pact.html?_r=0>*
By RICK GLADSTONE
The Trump administration has quit participating in talks on a proposed 
United Nations agreement to improve ways of handling global flows of 
migrants and refugees, describing it as a subversion of American 
sovereignty.
The administration's decision to renounce the talks on the agreement, 
the Global Compact on Migration, was announced in a statement Saturday 
night by the United States Mission to the United Nations, surprising 
migrant-rights advocates who called it shortsighted and counterproductive.
Many said the decision appeared to reinforce what they called an 
atmosphere of renewed American isolationism and exceptionalism at the 
United Nations in the first year of the Trump White House.
Trump administration officials said the decision was not an American 
repudiation of cooperation with other countries but a rightful defense 
of the government's power to determine who can enter the United States....
Migrant-rights advocates expressed a mix of shock and bafflement at the 
Trump administration's announcement, asserting that nothing proposed in 
the Global Compact would be mandatory. Some said the absence of the 
United States from the agreement could worsen the problems.
"An unwillingness even to negotiate international principles for safe, 
regular and orderly migration is a head-in-the-sand denial of a basic 
reality of human history," said Bill Frelick, the refugee rights program 
coordinator at Human Rights Watch.
"Simplistic solutions like walls will not solve the complex problem of 
unsafe, irregular, disorderly migration, demonstrating a callous 
disregard for the lives of migrants and jaw-dropping irresponsibility 
toward the community of nations," Mr. Frelick said...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/world/americas/united-nations-migration-pact.html?_r=0


*We have met the climate champions, and they are young 
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/we-have-met-the-climate-champions-and-they-are-young/>*
Posted on December 5, 2017 | Leave a comment
Chloe Maxmin began climate activism at the age of 12. She formed a 
Climate Action Club in high school. Later, as a college student, she 
co-founded Divest Harvard, to persuade Harvard University to divest its 
endowment from fossil fuels. And she founded First Here, Then Everywhere 
for youth climate activists.
I am not the hope of this world. She is.
We, the old, are already suffering from man-made climate change. When 
the streets of Miami flood on a sunny day, when a heat wave destroys 
your wheat crop, when heavy rain literally washes your home away, we pay 
a heavy price. For far too long, we have ignored the warnings from the 
vast (yes, vast) majority of scientists, especially climate scientists. 
Now we pay, and we have ourselves to blame.
The young also suffer. Some of them, the very young, are among the most 
vulnerable. The consequences of man-made climate change are going to get 
worse, a lot worse. We, the old, won't live to see the worst. They, the 
young, will. And it's not their fault. It's ours.
Those of us who do what we can to help, have made a difference already. 
We have helped to show the way. But our efforts have been inadequate, 
and now the U.S. government that we elected is the biggest obstacle in 
the world. It's our fault.
We "adults" need to do more, especially in the voting booth. Make 
climate the #1 issue, above all others. Do it for yourself, do it for 
your kids. Do it for everybody's kids.
There's one more thing we need to do. Help them, the young, continue and 
win their struggle. When they really get moving, the power of their 
passion will be unstoppable. When the youth climate activist movement 
comes down the road in your town, either help them along, or get out of 
the way. We can't stop them. Thank God.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/we-have-met-the-climate-champions-and-they-are-young/
-
*FIRST HERE, THEN EVERYWHERE <https://firstheretheneverywhere.org/>*
  About First Here, Then Everywhere:
First Here, Then Everywhere is an online hub founded by Chloe Maxmin to 
highlight youth activism around the world.  Today's youth are often 
represented as future leaders. And therefore our voices are not given 
the space and validation that they deserve right now. But we are the 
leaders of today because we understand that our lives–now and in the 
future–are intertwined with the climate crisis. We also understand that 
we are not defined by crisis but rather by the opportunities to rise up 
and stand up for all that we love.
https://firstheretheneverywhere.org/
-
*Six reasons why protest is so important for democracy 
<https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest/six-reasons-why-protest-is-so-important>*
RICHARD NORMAN 4 December 2017
This listicle is part of Right to Protest, a partnership project with 
human rights organisations CELS and INCLO, with support from the ACLU, 
examining the power of protest and its fundamental role in democratic 
society.
*1. People realise that they are not alone*
One way in which the establishment maintains its power is by creating a 
dominant discourse from which dissidents' views are excluded. If people 
think differently, they may feel isolated, marginalised and powerless. 
Public demonstrations and marches empower people by showing them that 
there are thousands of people who think the same things.
*2. By protesting, we alter the agenda and start a debate*
Those in power may try to ignore us, but if there are enough protesters 
then they will feel the need to come up with reasons why all of the 
protesters are wrong. That is when the debate begins and argument 
becomes possible.
*3. In an electoral democracy, protest provides an essential voice for 
minority groups*
The classic theorists of representational government recognised that 
universal suffrage and majority voting threaten to impose the 'tyranny 
of the majority' and override the rights of minorities. Protests are a 
vital corrective to majority rule.
*4. Sometimes we win!*
If there are enough protesters, the policies of those in power may 
become unworkable. When the UK government introduce the flat-rate Poll 
Tax in 1990, huge numbers of people protested and refused to pay the 
tax. It became clear that prosecuting everyone who refused would be 
impossible, chaos threatened, and the government abolished the tax.
*5. Sometimes we win in ways we had not intended or planned*
Political events are unpredictable. The protests against nuclear cruise 
missiles at Greenham Common in the UK in the 1980s appeared to have 
failed when the missiles were installed, but the protests had forced the 
US and UK governments into saying that they had to deploy the missiles 
only because the Soviet Union was doing the same. When Mikhail Gorbachev 
came to power in the Soviet Union and said that he was willing to make 
an agreement to withdraw all the missiles, the Western governments could 
not go back on what they had said. The missiles were withdrawn, and 
Greenham Common is now public parkland.
*6. Sometimes we win but it takes a generation or more*
At the time it may feel that it's going nowhere; that those in power are 
stuck in a certain mindset and cannot change their thinking. But then a 
new generation may come along, unencumbered by past thinking, and see 
that the views of the protesters were just common sense. Think of the 
huge turnaround in attitudes to gay people over a couple of generations.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest/six-reasons-why-protest-is-so-important
See also: https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/paul-hoggett-rosemary-randall/sustainable-activism-managing-hope-and-despair-in-socia
https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri


*Carbon Capture Is Essential To Limiting Global Warming, But No One 
Knows How To Do It Or How Much It Will Cost 
<https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/04/carbon-capture-essential-limiting-global-warming-no-one-knows-much-will-cost/>*
December 4th, 2017 by Steve Hanley
If conservatives are pissed off about global warming, their heads are 
likely to explode when they find out that even reducing carbon emissions 
to zero  -  which has almost no likelihood of happening -  won't be 
enough to keep the earth from dangerously overheating. Even a 2 degree 
Celsius rise in average global temperatures will result in catastrophic 
changes, including more powerful storms, rising sea levels, famine and 
drought. Some climate scientists are predicting double that amount of 
warming  -  or more.
While we focus our attention on electric cars and renewable energy, and 
celebrate advances in both, the truth is that humanity must not only 
figure out how to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but also 
how to remove much of what is already there. The technology for doing so 
does not exist today and even if it did, the cost of implementing it 
would be enormous. We are digging our graves with every drop of fossil 
fuel we burn, but don't know how to stop.
Glen Peters is a climate researcher at the Cicero Center for Climate 
Research in Oslo. He has been the leader of the Global Climate Project, 
which provides data to scientists worldwide, since 2001 and was one of 
the most cited researchers in the scientific community in 2016. Peters 
is not especially optimistic about the future. He thinks the goal of the 
Paris climate accords to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C is all 
well and good, but doesn't believe it is technically, economically, or 
politically possible.
He tells Norway's VG News, "There are media reports of images showing 
wind turbines and solar panels. It is good and good, but meeting the 
goals in the Paris agreement requires so-called negative emissions  -   
removing much of the CO₂ that has already been released. The subject is 
little talked about, but politicians will eventually come to understand 
what a huge task it is."
Huge is hardly the right word. Peters says we need to be removing ten 
billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year by 2050  
-  about 25% of current emissions. It would require a whole new industry 
many times larger than the fossil fuel industry to capture the carbon 
dioxide, compress it, and transport it safely to storage areas. Several 
new carbon capture facilities would need to be brought online every week 
for decades to make it all work.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/04/carbon-capture-essential-limiting-global-warming-no-one-knows-much-will-cost/


*Credit Warning Could Spur Cities to Consider Climate Liability Suits 
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/12/04/moodys-credit-climate-liability-lawsuits/>*
By Bobby Magill
Moody's warned states and city governments in a report published last 
week that they may see their credit ratings tumble if they fail to begin 
adapting to rising seas, climbing temperatures and other effects of 
climate change. With both their coastlines and credit ratings 
threatened, the report may inspire more local governments to consider 
who or what might be liable for their exposure to the ravages of global 
warming.
Already, the California cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Imperial 
Beach, and San Mateo and Marin counties have sued ExxonMobil, BP and 
other major fossil fuel companies for their responsibility for climate 
impacts already damaging their communities, including rising seas and 
more damaging extreme weather.
"Moody's now appears to confirm what others have long suspected: state 
and local governments will suffer if their residents and taxpayers have 
to pay the full costs of protecting roads, homes, businesses and other 
infrastructure from the impacts of climate change," said Vic Sher, a 
partner in the law firm involved in three of those communities' 
lawsuits. "The lawsuits filed by Marin and San Mateo Counties, the City 
of Imperial Beach, and others, are about making sure that these 
communities have the resources to meet these challenges, and assuring 
that the companies that caused the problem pay their fair share of those 
costs."
"Climate shocks," or catastrophic extreme weather events such as a 
hurricane intensified by climate change that immediately wipes out 
infrastructure and washes away a city's tax base, may factor into its 
credit rating, Moody's said.
"While we anticipate states and municipalities will adopt mitigation 
strategies for these events, costs to employ them could also become an 
ongoing credit challenge," Moody's Vice President Michael Wertz said in 
a statement.
The goal of liability lawsuits is for the courts to require major oil 
companies to pay some portion of the cost of protecting infrastructure 
and private property from global warming's impacts.
Oakland and San Francisco by themselves have $49 billion in public and 
private property sitting within 6 feet of today's sea level. Research 
shows that seas may rise about 10 feet by the end of the century, 
causing catastrophic damage as the ocean inundates the coastline.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/12/04/moodys-credit-climate-liability-lawsuits/


LAW
*Government seeks scientists' doubts for climate court battle 
<https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067949>*
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
Climatewire: Monday, December 4, 2017
Justice Department lawyers are quietly courting climate scientists for a 
simmering legal fight that could have massive implications for 
government global warming policies.
In recent months, Department of Justice officials have met with Ken 
Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist in the Department of Global Ecology 
at the Carnegie Institution for Science, as well as Judith Curry, a 
professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of 
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences who has broken with many of her 
colleagues in the field by questioning the extent of humanity's role in 
climate change.
The Justice Department officials questioned the scientists about the 
level of certainty in climate science, possibly in an effort to help 
formulate a legal argument that would maintain that climate change is 
not enough of a dire threat to require immediate government action. The 
case has the potential to be one of the first Trump administration legal 
showdowns over climate science. For now, the department is casting a 
wide net, consulting with climate scientists, environmental law experts 
and economists, according to the researchers.
A children's climate change case, known as Juliana v. United States, was 
filed in 2015 by 21 young plaintiffs who claimed their constitutional 
rights had been violated by government inaction on climate change. 
Earlier this year, just days before Trump took office, the Obama 
administration Justice Department argued that there is no widespread 
belief among scientists that the world's climate becomes dangerous after 
passing the 350-parts-per-million mark for atmospheric carbon dioxide, a 
key metric in the case. Scientists have noted that the current level of 
CO2, which is about 410 ppm, has not been seen in at least 800,000 years.
Where the Trump administration will take the argument, if the case 
should proceed to trial, remains an open question. Trump and many top 
Cabinet officials have rejected the mainstream scientific consensus that 
humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace.
Phil Gregory, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, compared the case 
to the famous Scopes monkey trial of 1925, when a high school teacher 
fought for the right to teach human evolution in public schools. The 
difference now, he said, is that this case would be a showdown on 
climate science in a courtroom.
Ultimately, the case could have even broader implications than an 
upcoming "red team" climate debate exercise planned by U.S. EPA 
Administrator Scott Pruitt because it could yield future government 
action on climate change, according to Gregory. He said his plaintiffs 
have extensive evidence that glacial melt, coral reef destruction and 
rising temperatures pose a grave threat to future generations.
"What we're going to have is the youth of America and their climate 
scientists," he said. "The Trump administration can bring on any 
scientist it wants, and we can have that debate based on evidence in a 
courtroom, so it's better than the Scopes trial, because in the Scopes 
trial, it wasn't limited to scientific evidence; they talked about the 
Bible and waved that around."
The next step in the case is oral arguments on Dec. 11 before the 9th 
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The government, through 
a writ of mandamus, wants a review of a 2016 decision by a lower court 
not to throw the case out. If the government is not granted that review, 
the case could eventually head to trial and climate science could become 
a central part of a legal argument.
Trump has dismissed climate change as a hoax, and chose a number of 
Cabinet secretaries who question basic climate science. If the case 
proceeds to trial, however, government lawyers would be forced to argue 
that climate change does not pose an immediate threat, something 
mainstream climate science long ago determined is endangering humanity. 
There has been a significant focus from both critics and supporters of 
the Trump administration on whether Pruitt will challenge the 
endangerment finding, the legal undergirding of EPA's climate rules.
Taking on the endangerment finding would be a major legal fight, 
requiring the creation of a mountain of alternative research to 
challenge the significant body of peer-reviewed science that shows 
humans are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace.
'Put the science on trial'
A few months ago, Justice Department lawyers went out to lunch with 
Caldeira, he told E&E News.
They asked if he would take the lead on assembling government witnesses 
for the case. He said the lawyers are career officials, holdovers from 
the Obama administration. The lawyers told Caldeira they thought the 
case was weak, but that proving climate change poses an irreversible 
harm to humanity would benefit the plaintiffs, he said. Their position 
was that energy policy is something for the legislative branch to 
grapple with, not the executive branch, he said.
The Justice Department likely reached out to Caldeira because he has 
been critical of the case, because he does not think the courts are the 
place to resolve climate policy. He said he would have worked with the 
Obama Justice Department because he feels a duty as a scientist to 
ensure that the best available research is used.
But he declined the Justice Department's request for help, he said, 
because he is concerned that his work would be distorted for political 
means by the Trump administration.
"Since so much science is publicly funded, scientists have some 
responsibility to help have good science considered by the judicial 
process," he said. "Things are terribly clouded because we have such an 
awful president and such an awful administration, even efforts to try to 
get good science into the process could result in negative consequences."
Caldeira is also concerned that if reputable scientists don't 
participate in the case, the Justice Department could use contrarian 
researchers to weaken established science.
"You could easily imagine the Trump administration arranging things to 
not having the best available science presented, but having a perverted 
view of science presented," he said. "So I think there is a conflict if 
all good scientists refuse to participate because they don't want to 
collude with the Trump administration, then that leaves only the hacks, 
and it's likely that the government's case will be buttressed by hack 
science."
A Justice Department spokesman declined comment. However, it appears the 
department is still talking to researchers.
Curry said last week that she was still interested in helping the 
government with the case, but only if it took place in a nonpartisan 
manner. Curry has broken from many in mainstream climate science by 
casting doubt on the belief that humans are the primary driver of 
climate change. She has also published a significant amount of 
peer-reviewed research in major scientific journals, including on the 
Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped the region.
"I'm prepared to give my best expert advice in a nonpartisan way; they 
may not like some of it," she said. "You just have to give it your best, 
deepest, most honest shot of explaining what's what, what we don't know."
The plaintiffs in the case have already submitted an expert review by 
scientists, economists and other experts in the field that clearly shows 
the threat climate change poses to future generations, said Gregory, the 
co-counsel representing the plaintiffs. The government has not submitted 
a report that would challenge established climate science, and lawyers 
have essentially argued that producing such a report would be too 
burdensome, he said.
*"Our position all along has been to put the science on trial, and we 
want for them to bring in recognized scientists and let those 
individuals submit reports and testify before the courts; that's exactly 
what we think should happen," he said. "Obviously what's occurring now 
in our climate should not be decided by politicians, but should be 
dictated by the best available science."*
Twitter: @scottpwaldman Email: swaldman at eenews.net
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067949


[Dave Roberts - Vox]
*Does hope inspire more action on climate change than fear? We don't 
know. 
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/5/16732772/emotion-climate-change-communication>*
On climate change communications, the science really isn't settled.
Back in July, journalist David Wallace-Wells published a piece in New 
York magazine called "The Uninhabitable Earth 
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html>," 
a nightmarish guided tour of the worst-case scenarios for global 
warming. The piece proved incredibly popular - it is the most-read story 
in the magazine's history 
<http://nymag.com/nymag/letters/comments-2017-07-24/> - but it also 
ignited heated debate among those who think, talk, and write about 
climate change for a living.
The debate revolved around two distinct issues, though they were often 
conflated or confused.
The first has to do with the role of emotion in climate change 
communication - specifically, whether Wallace-Wells's story was too 
scary, or too pessimistic, in a way that would only serve to demotivate 
or paralyze readers. The second has to do with the role of climate 
scientists in refereeing public climate debates - specifically, whether 
their authority extends to matters of tone, emphasis, and intent.
I wrote a piece on all this 
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism> 
in July, and though the debate left me distinctly unsatisfied, I planned 
to drop it there. However, there's a new commentary in Nature Climate 
Change <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0021-9> that 
addresses the first issue (and can thereby help illuminate the second), 
so I'm going to try one last time for some clarity on this.
To make a long story short: We don't know much of anything about how 
messages affect people, so everybody's better off just doing the best 
they can.
*Emotions in climate communications: it's complicated*
The Nature Climate Change article is called "Reassessing emotion in 
climate change communication," and it's by Daniel Chapman, Brian Lickel, 
and Ezra Markowitz, psychological and environmental researchers at 
University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Their basic point that, in the 
debate around Wallace-Wells's piece and similar previous debates, people 
have characterized the role of emotion rather too crudely...
Most important, when attempting to trace the links between emotional 
experiences and action, is the element of time. What matters in an 
overall assessment of someone's disposition toward climate change is not 
their raw feelings in the immediate aftermath of an emotionally 
significant experience (living through a hurricane, say, or reading a 
scary magazine story), but how those responses are reinforced and 
strengthened (or not) over the course of the following days and years.
Any affective response will fade without reinforcement. It is not 
cleverness that matters most in communication, but repetition. Emotional 
experiences and messages need to be repeated over and over again before 
they stick.
"The immediate responses and longer-term consequences of an emotionally 
evocative event," the authors write, "may or may not be aligned, and may 
even differ dramatically...
... broad uncertainty suggests humility - a humility advocates have not 
always displayed. For instance, the authors cite a Washington Post op-ed 
by climate scientist Michael Mann, Susan Joy Hassol, and Tom Toles that 
claims "the most motivating emotions are worry, interest and hope. 
Importantly, fear does not motivate, and appealing to it is often 
counter-productive as it tends to distance people from the problem, 
leading them to disengage, doubt and even dismiss it." (In support, they 
link to a single survey.)
Such categorical claims, Chapman, Lickel, and Markowitz write, exceed 
what the evidence can bear. Even in meta-analytic studies on 
communication in other fields, there are conflicting conclusions about 
the role of fear. There's still not much evidence to draw directly from 
climate communication, and what there is contains ambiguous and 
contradictory findings.
"The current evidence base and dominant approaches to studying emotion 
in climate change communication," they write, "do not support 
definitive, simplistic, and overly broad assertions about the effect of 
specific emotions on climate change responses.

The effects of a scary climate change story on a committed climate 
change activist will be different than the effects on a conservative. 
They might both feel the rudimentary feeling-state of "fear" in the wake 
of the story, but that tells us very little about how they will process 
it or how those feelings might be reinforced or meliorated by subsequent 
messages or tribal signals.
What we can say for sure is that there's unlikely to be any all-purpose 
emotional recipe that will satisfy all customers.

If you read the detailed, annotated version 
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html> 
of the piece that Wallace-Wells subsequently published, which traces 
virtually every sentence back to a specific paper or interview with a 
scientist, you will recognize how ludicrous that judgment is.
The bunk of the critique was simple disagreement about whether 
Wallace-Wells should have written the piece he did - a piece he states 
up front is an explication of worst-case scenarios. Of course it's not 
"realistic"; that's not what worst-case means. Of course it emphasizes 
low-probability, high-impact outcomes; that is what worst-case means.
These kinds of critiques amount to scientists advising a journalist what 
information to present, what to emphasize, and what impressions and 
emotions to produce in readers.
These simply aren't matters of hard climate science. They are matters of 
rhetoric and communication, subjects on which training in the physical 
sciences confers no special authority.

All citizens have a right to speak. I talk about that stuff all the 
time, and all I've got is a Masters in philosophy. The more the merrier.
But climate scientists, however confident and vocal they may be in their 
judgments about communications, should be careful not to smuggle 
subjective judgments under the banner of "scientific critique." Their 
authority on climate science is not fungible; it does not translate to 
other domains. One is not a "science denier" if one disagrees with the 
rhetorical or policy judgments of climate scientists.
Passing subjective judgments about communications off as hard science 
only makes it more difficult for the public to identify who can be 
trusted. It is not ultimately up to scientists how people communicate.

What I take from the social science of climate-change communications is 
that no one knows much of anything about what kinds of messages and 
messengers have what kinds of long-term effects on behavior. At the very 
least, these remain deeply subjective judgments.
Given that, it seems the wise course of action on climate communications 
is to encourage diversity, experimentation, and most of all, a spirit of 
charity and the assumption of good faith toward others who are 
attempting to tell the same story in different ways.

On climate comms, I think people are better off trusting the ancient art 
of Knowing Your Audience. Do what you're good at; speak to people you 
think you might be able to reach. David Wallace-Wells was good at 
reaching millions of casual magazine readers. Climate scientist 
Katharine Hayhoe 
<https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-katharine-hayhoe> 
is out talking to evangelicals and conservatives. Her fellow climate 
scientist Michael Mann is delivering facts to Bill Maher's audience 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ2cCPRS-Q8> (no mean feat). Bill 
McKibben is writing evocative, terrifying essays 
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bill-mckibben-winning-slowly-is-the-same-as-losing-w512967>. 
Al Gore is doing his 24 Hours of Reality thing. Reporters at E&E and the 
New York Times climate desk are staying on top of breaking news. 
Analysts at places like Carbon Brief <https://www.carbonbrief.org/> are 
bringing the numbers and charts. Young activists are connecting climate 
change to economic justice and urbanism. I'm writing wonky explainers on 
clean energy. (And this is all just in the US, of course.)

The climate-o-sphere is full of people telling this big story in a bunch 
of different ways, emphasizing different things, bringing different 
levels of fear, hope, or dispassion to the task.

So, yes, scientific accuracy is important. But we should also remember 
that humans are complicated and diverse and need all sorts of 
narratives, images, facts, tropes, and other forms of group 
reinforcement to really get something this big. It's a lot to take in, 
especially if, like most people, you don't think like a scientist...
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/5/16732772/emotion-climate-change-communication

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
Send email to subscribe <a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22> 
to this mailing. /

        *** 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/20171206/19e0ba29/attachment.html>