[TheClimate.Vote] June 3, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News

[Richard Pauli]

*June 3, 2017*

*Trump's Insulting Paris Accord Withdrawal 
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/angela-merkel-and-the-insult-of-trumps-paris-climate-accord-withdrawal>*
By Amy Davidson
Angela Merkel seems to have had it with Trump, his flashy contempt for 
the climate deal, and his disrespect of his fellow world leaders.
"The time in which we could fully rely on others is a bit in the past," 
Merkel said. "I have experienced that in the past several days. And, 
because of that, I can say now that we Europeans truly have to take our 
fate into our own hands-naturally, in friendship with the United States 
of America, in friendship with Great Britain, as good neighbors wherever 
that may work, with Russia and other countries." It was striking that 
America was just another name on the list. Merkel continued, "But we 
must understand that we must fight for our future, as Europeans, for our 
own fate-and that I will gladly do with you." The "you" there was the 
Germans in the tent.
On this, she was speaking to the German mainstream. Her opponent in the 
September elections, Martin Schulz, the leader of the more 
left-of-center Social Democratic Party, gave a speech at a Party 
gathering in a far less measured tone, in which he directly called 
Trump's treatment of "our Chancellor" unacceptable, indeed unbearable. 
He later called Trump "a destroyer of all Western values such as we have 
never before experienced in this form."..
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/angela-merkel-and-the-insult-of-trumps-paris-climate-accord-withdrawal

*Are we over reacting to US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on 
climate? 
<https://theconversation.com/are-we-overreacting-to-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-78741>*
Nives Dolsak, University of Washington; Aseem Prakash, University of 
Washington
The Trump administration has already sought to reverse several Obama-era 
climate change policies. Pro-environment people should now focus on 
threats to state climate actions.
https://theconversation.com/are-we-overreacting-to-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-78741

*(video) Mitigate, Adapt, or Suffer. Connecting Global Change to Local 
Impacts and Solutions - May 17, 2017 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4>*
Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on 
developing and applying high-resolution climate projections to 
understand what climate change means for people and the natural 
environment.
Katharine spoke at the Climate Change Science Institute at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. Her presentation touched on the science and policy 
of climate change, the kind of impacts we may see globally and locally, 
what options and information we have to be prepared for these changes, 
and ways that non-scientists can effectively to discuss these issues 
with the general public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4


    A giant crack in Antarctic ice is 'days or weeks' from breaking off
    a Delaware-size iceberg
    <http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-giant-iceberg-breaking-off-2017-6>

- A giant crack in one of Antarctica's largest ice shelves is about to 
break off a Delaware-size block of ice.
- The crack in the ice shelf, called Larsen C, has forked toward the 
Southern Ocean and is growing rapidly.
- Scientists think a glacier behind the ice block could destabilize 
after the calving event.
An Antarctic ice shelf that has existed for thousands of years is about 
to shed a 1,000-foot-thick block of ice that's roughly the size of Delaware.
New satellite images show that an enormous crack or rift in the Larsen C 
ice shelf has suddenly forked and accelerated toward the Southern Ocean. 
Scientists can't say exactly when the rift will snap off the block, 
which makes up about 10% of Larsen C's total area. However, Dan McGrath, 
a scientist with the US Geological Survey, says it won't be long.
http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-giant-iceberg-breaking-off-2017-6

*Why Abandoning Paris Is a Disaster for America 
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/01/why-abandoning-paris-climate-agreement-is-bad-for-america-trump/>*
...how Trump's rejection of the global climate change agreement is a 
monumental blunder.
... But the decision to remove the United States from the 
long-negotiated, hard-fought, international agreement is no sideshow. 
This is about what's in the best interests of American prosperity and 
security.
The president's justifications for leaving the agreement are also just 
plain wrong.
First, contrary to the president's assertions, America's hands are not 
tied and its sovereignty is not compromised by the Paris climate pact. 
The Paris agreement is an accord, not a treaty, which means it's 
voluntary. The genius (and reality) of the Paris agreement is that it 
requires no particular policies at all - nor are the emissions targets 
that countries committed to legally binding.
The second big lie is that the Paris agreement will be a job killer. In 
fact, it will help the United States capture more 21st-century jobs...
*The Trump administration is hastening catastrophic effects of climate 
change.* Scientists and economists now state with confidence that the 
failure to act to arrest and mitigate global climate change will have 
devastating global consequences, including for young Americans alive 
today and for their children and grandchildren. ..
Heading off the worst effects of climate change requires global action: 
Action by one country alone, no matter how powerful, cannot address the 
threat. But our country, one of the world's two largest carbon emitters, 
does have significant power to improve not just our own climate, but the 
world's - and Trump's decision takes us in the wrong direction. That's 
especially tragic in light of the signature achievement of the Paris 
Agreement, which was to get every country on board; now China and India 
have made the same commitments the United States and other highly 
developed countries have. It binds us all together through a political 
agreement - but the strength of that agreement depends on all of us 
meeting our nationally determined responsibilities.
*Trump is abdicating U.S. leadership and inviting China to fill the 
void.* It will give Chinese and other countries' companies a leg up in 
the growing and competitive green economy, putting U.S. companies at a 
serious disadvantage.
*Withdrawing from Paris will damage U.S. standing in the world. *Pulling 
out of Paris will call into question the word of the United States and 
weaken our ability to call on other countries to work with us on other 
global threats, such as global terrorism and global pandemics
*Pulling out of Paris means Republicans own climate catastrophes. *Just 
as President Barack Obama bequeathed to the Trump/Paul Ryan/Mitch 
McConnell team a workable framework for ensuring health care coverage, 
President Trump inherited a workable framework for global climate 
action. The Republicans have chosen to pour sand in the gas tank of 
Obamacare, using the levers of government to attempt to make the 
Affordable Care Act fail even as they themselves fail to deliver a real 
alternative.
*Trump's pulling out of Paris means that the rest of us are called upon 
to do more - and we will.* Even as the White House abandons the pact, 
there are plenty of ways for Americans to advance its goals. Many state 
and local governments are already tackling energy efficiency and 
emissions reductions. California, the sixth-largest economy in the 
world, will not abandon its emission standards.....
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/01/why-abandoning-paris-climate-agreement-is-bad-for-america-trump/

*Donald Trump's "Screw You" to the World 
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world>*
By John Cassidy
The President represented the Paris Agreement as the work of scheming 
foreigners, conspiring against the United States...
This was Trumpism in its full glory-the world as a conspiracy against 
its sole superpower, a country that accounts for a quarter of global 
G.D.P. and about forty per cent of global personal wealth. "At what 
point does America get demeaned?" Trump demanded, his voice rising. "At 
what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"
The answer is that the laughing stopped a good while back. What once 
seemed like a punch line-Donald Trump in the White House-is now an 
everyday reality that the rest of the world is trying to deal with. 
After this latest display of nihilism, it only seems more alarming.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world

*Here are the 17 executives who met with Trump for his first business 
advisory council, 
<http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-on-trump-business-advisory-council-2017-2/>* 
Business Insider, Feb 3, 2017

*Elon Musk Quits Trump's Advisory Councils After President Pulls US From 
Paris Accord 
<https://www.buzzfeed.com/priya/musk-quits-trumps-advisory-councils-after-paris>**,* 
Buzzfeed, June 1, 2017.
*
**Disney CEO Bob Iger quits Trump advisory team as 'matter of principle' 
<http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/media/disney-ceo-bob-iger-trump-advisory-board/>**,* 
CNN Money, June 2, 2017
*
**White House debate on Paris was never about climate change 
<http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/white-house-debate-paris-never-climate-change/>*
The wrangling between Trump's advisors was always about how best to burn 
more fossil fuels
By Graham Readfearn
As United States President Donald Trump was deliberating his country's 
future in the Paris climate deal, there were two internal camps 
marshalling their arguments.
But the wrangling in the White House was not a debate about climate 
change. It was over how best to burn more fossil fuels.
In one corner were the fossil fuel apologists, the climate science 
denialists and the network of conservative think tanks that have used 
conflicted cash to keep their arguments flowing.
For them, leaving the United Nations pact would help the US regain a 
competitive advantage and put their economic prosperity first. The costs 
of climate change impacts were never factored, because for them, they do 
not exist.
In the other corner, there were groups who, on the face of it, seemed 
unlikely bedfellows.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/white-house-debate-paris-never-climate-change/


    A Farm Journalist Tells Farmers What They'd Rather Not Hear
    About*Climate Change*
    <http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/02/531223294/a-farm-journalist-tells-farmers-what-theyd-rather-not-hear-about-climate-change>

When President Trump announced this week that he was taking the United 
States out of the Paris climate agreement, there were swift and vocal 
reactions from many industries -- but most of the organizations that 
represent American agriculture were silent.
*Do you see attitudes in farm country changing at all?*
Slowly and surely, I think. Part of the challenge that farmers have 
right now is the fact that even if the administration tells us that 
we're not going to do anything differently, there's a push down the 
supply chain to lower emissions. It starts at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is 
telling food suppliers that I want lower emissions, and lower fertilizer 
use on corn acreage, it's getting back to the farmer. You've got 
companies like Cargill and Unilever that have made these commitments to 
lower emissions and lower water use. So farmers are going to be asked to 
make these changes, but nobody is going to be paying them more for it. 
And this is what's lost when you don't have a policy.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/02/531223294/a-farm-journalist-tells-farmers-what-theyd-rather-not-hear-about-climate-change


    How to Watch Today's Sean Spicer Shitshow, With Special Guest Scott
    Pruitt From the EPA
    <http://gizmodo.com/how-to-watch-todays-sean-spicer-shitshow-with-special-1795759717>

The briefing is streaming on YouTube and on Facebook and is scheduled to 
start at 1:30pm Eastern, 10:30am Pacific time. And while the Larsen C 
Ice Shelf in Antarctica doesn't have an official time zone, a crack in 
it has grown 11 miles in just six days andit's about to break off 
completely 
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/06/01/massive-iceberg-break-off-antarctica-crack-expands-11-miles/102385980/>. 
So let's just call that o'shit o'clock.
*(video) Press Briefing with Press Secretary Sean Spicer and 
Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmMOUzbN3w>*
White House Press Briefings are conducted most weekdays from the James 
S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the West Wing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmMOUzbN3w
http://gizmodo.com/how-to-watch-todays-sean-spicer-shitshow-with-special-1795759717

*(Sarcasm) Calling Earth a "Loser," Trump Vows to Make Better Deal with 
New Planet 
<http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet>*
Andy Borowitz
"Earth is a terrible, very bad planet," he told the White House press 
corps. "It's maybe the worst planet in the solar system, and it's far 
from the biggest."
Trump blasted former President Barack Obama for signing deals that 
committed the United States to remain on the planet Earth indefinitely. 
"Obama is almost as big a loser as Earth," Trump said. "If Obama was a 
planet, guess what planet he'd be? That's right: Earth."
When asked which planet he would make a new deal with, Trump offered few 
specifics, saying only, "The solar system has millions of terrific 
planets, and they're all better than Earth, which is a sick, failing loser."
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet


<http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9>*This 
Day in Climate History June 3, 1977 
<http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9><http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9>-  
from D.R. Tucker*
*Climate Peril May Force Limits On Coal and Oil, Carter Aide Says
* In the New York Times, *Walter Sullivan *reports:
To avoid accumulation in the air of sufficient carbon dioxide to cause 
major climate changes, it may ultimately be necessary to restrict the 
burning of coal and other fossil fuels, according to Dr. William D. 
Nordhaus of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
This would limit the dependence on coal that, under present policy, is 
to replace rapid expansion of nuclear energy.
Dr. Nordhaus, who is on leave from his post as professor of economics at 
Yale University, told this week's spring meeting of the American 
Geophysical Union in Washington that by early in the next century, the 
burning of coal, oil and as might have to be curtailed by taxation or 
rationing.
He said he was speaking as an individual and not presenting a Government 
policy. He has been investigating the climatic and economic implications 
of carbon dioxide accumulation, having also worked on the problem at the 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis near Vienna.

He cited estimates that if the trend toward heavy use of fossil fuels 
continued, by early in the next century the level of carbon dioxide in 
the atmosphere will have doubled. This, it has been proposed, could make 
the worldwide climate warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years..
Dr. Nordhaus's argument was based in part on calculations by Dr. Wallace 
S. Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont‐Doherty Geological 
Observatory, who also presented a report. Each ton of coal or other 
fossil fuel burned, he said, produces three tons of carbon dioxide.
*
**Gas Acts Like Greenhouse Glass*
In the atmosphere carbon dioxide acts much like the glass of a 
greenhouse. It readily permits the passage of sunlight, warming the 
earth, but it inhibits the escape of heat into space as infrared radiation.
While carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by absorption into 
the oceans and incorporation into trees and other plants, these 
processes have been unable to keep pace with the addition of the gas 
from smokestacks, automobile exhaust and other sources.
If, as now seems likely, the development of nuclear energy is slowed in 
favor of heavier coal consumption, a more rapid rise in atmospheric 
carbon dioxide must be expected. While there is still muchuncertainty as 
to how much of an increase could occur without major influences on 
climate, Dr. Nordhaus proposed that within 40 years severe restraints 
might become necessary.
He cited Dr. Broecker's estimate that by 1985 to 1990, there will have 
been a 20 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, leading to a 
mean global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit. This would still be 
within the range of naturally occurring changes over the last 100,000 
years, Dr. Nordhaus said.
In that period, which included the last ice age, the fluctuations 
remained within 10 degrees, but the current climate is near the upper 
(warmer) limit of that range. Dr. Nordhaus referred to an analysis by 
Dr. Syukuro Manabe and R. T. Wetherald at Princeton University's Fluid 
Dynamics Laboratory, which predicted a rise of almost six degrees if the 
carbon dioxide doubles.

*Serious Consequence Feared*
This would exceed the fluctuations of the last 100,000 years, deduced 
from analysis of ocean sediments and cores from ice sheet drill holes, 
and could have serious consequences. Dr. Nordhaus also noted that the 
Princeton studies indicated a far more marked warming in the polar 
regions than near the Equator.
In the long run, as noted by Dr. Broecker, this could melt polar ice, 
raising sea levels enough to flood many coastal cities and food 
producing areas.
To limit the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air to an increase of 
100 per cent, he suggested an escalating tax schedule that would impose 
14 cents a ton of released gas in 1980, increasing to $87.15 a ton by 2100.
This would force energy consumers to shift to other sources, such as 
nuclear energy, which he termed presently “the only proven large‐scale 
and low‐cost alternative.” The shift from carbon‐based fuels would not 
reach major proportions until about 40 years hence.
By then energy sources now at an early stage of development, such as 
solar power and atomic fusion, might be able to contribute electric 
power and noncarbon fuels.

Since the United States contributes 10 to 20 percent of the carbon 
dioxide, any solution must be international, Dr. Nordhaus said. It will 
be “expensive, but not unthinkable,” he added.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////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/20170603/38d8c454/attachment.html>