[TheClimate.Vote] June 8, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Jun 8 11:35:20 EDT 2017
/June 8, 2017
/
ExxonMobil's Shareholder Vote Is a Tipping Point for Climate Issues
<https://hbr.org/2017/06/exxonmobils-shareholder-vote-is-a-tipping-point-for-climate-issues>
We call this the "Trump climate trap," and it is a real danger. But
another major action last week points in the opposite direction and
leaves us more optimistic.
We witnessed a monumental event in a shareholder resolution calling on
ExxonMobil, the world's biggest publicly listed energy company, to
disclose the impact on its business under a 2-degree scenario. (That
means a world in which we have at least a 50% chance of limiting
temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.)
Despite the company's board recommendation that investors to vote
against the proposal, a striking 62.2% of the votes were in favor,
providing a strong signal that climate change is an important financial
risk and that shareholders want to know more about what companies are
doing to transform their operations and products to remain competitive
in a low-carbon world.
The success of the proposal requesting increased disclosure by
ExxonMobil suggests that we have reached a tipping point within the
investment community in the recognition of climate risks. Just a year
ago a similar resolution at Exxon's annual meeting received support from
investors holding only 38.1% of shares. In very little time, the
recognition that our economy will have to transform to decrease carbon
emissions has gone from a minority view among Exxon shareholders to a
majority view.
https://hbr.org/2017/06/exxonmobils-shareholder-vote-is-a-tipping-point-for-climate-issues
This Marine Biologist Has a Message for*Climate Change *Deniers:
'Get Over It'
<http://time.com/4808959/climate-change-sylvia-earle-oceans-week/>
Famed marine biologist Sylvia Earle issued an urgent call for humans to
protect the world's oceans and the planet more broadly in the face of
climate change at the launch of Oceans Week.
"We must take care of the ocean. We must take care of the natural world
from the skies above to the depths below," Earle tells TIME following a
panel at the Explorers Club in New York City. "We must take care of the
living earth as if our lives depend on it. Because they do."
"Do what you can do, or at least, don't get in the way"
http://time.com/4808959/climate-change-sylvia-earle-oceans-week/
*(RAND) The Big Bet: Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement
<https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/06/the-big-bet-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement.html>*
America's formal withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement could have
far-reaching consequences for U.S. global leadership on many issues, not
just on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Read more »
The risks and rewards of the president's decision with respect to global
leadership are highly asymmetric: ...
With yesterday's decision, President Trump took a step towards the "Come
Home, America" option, at least in regards to the issue of climate
change, but in such a way as to reduce its benefits and accentuate its
risks. At its best, this "Come Home, America" climate change option
makes sense if the impacts of climate change prove small and the world
makes little progress in replacing fossil fuels. In addition, this
decision makes sense if other countries are willing to pursue bilateral
deals on climate change with the U.S. None of these bets appear likely
at present.
The decision, however, could cause the U.S. and its citizens damage if
climate change proves significant; if the green energy revolution
continues to pick up steam; and if the rest of the world recommits
itself, under Chinese and/or European leadership to the Paris agreement.
The decision carries significant economic risks, the largest being a
hugely consequential bet that climate change will not prove to be
severe, at least not for the U.S. It also assumes that the U.S. will
benefit from a bilateral approach, that it can negotiate new agreements,
that climate change will be small, that fossil fuels are the energy of
the future, and that the withdrawal will unravel global emission
reduction efforts. The Trump administration is rolling the dice in a
game that the U.S. cannot control.
The economic case for withdrawing from the Paris agreement is also not
well supported by the evidence. This decision seems based entirely on
the near-term savings from not reducing the nation's greenhouse gas
emissions, while ignoring the long-term costs and associated risks
https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/06/the-big-bet-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement.html
*
**EP14 <http://evidencesquared.com/ep14/>**: Oren Cass and scientific
consensus <http://evidencesquared.com/ep14/>*
In our new podcast episode, John Cook and Peter Jacobs interview Oren
Cass, after Oren and John exchanged articles in the National Review.
Peter geeks out about the 2012 Presidential election (Oren was part of
the Romney campaign) then they have a vigorous debate about the best way
to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change.
John Cook and Peter Jacobs interview Oren Cass, after Oren and John
exchanged articles in the National Review. Peter geeks out about the
2012 Presidential election (Oren was part of the Romney campaign) then
they have a vigorous debate about the best way to communicate the
scientific consensus on climate change.
http://evidencesquared.com/ep14
Climate change prediction: *Erring on the side of least drama*?
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215>
Abstract
Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of
anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists
of "alarmism": of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human
impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests
that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of
the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies
showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from
increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted,
particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working
Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction
of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest,
therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the
reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on
the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this
tendency "erring on the side of least drama (ESLD)." We explore some
cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion
and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and
suggest some possible causes of this directional bias, including
adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism,
rationality, dispassion, and moderation. We conclude with suggestions
for further work to identify and explore ESLD
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html
*Climate change progress at Trump's EPA is grinding to a halt, workers
reveal
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/06/climate-change-work-trump-epa>*
.. projects that mention climate change have been 'de-emphasized and
halted' as EPA tears up key planks of emissions-lowering agenda
Current and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees have
described how work on climate change is grinding to a halt at the
agency, with programs being scrapped and fears that staff may be
reassigned away from climate-related tasks.
The Trump administration is tearing up key planks of Barack Obama's
emissions-lowering agenda, with the president withdrawing the US from
the Paris climate agreement last week and tasking the EPA with rewriting
the clean power plan, which aims to curb greenhouse gases from
coal-fired power plants.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/06/climate-change-work-trump-epa
Scott Pruitt Wants Some Kind of Strange Climate Change Showdown
<http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-wants-some-kind-of-strange-climate-change-1795908916>
"'What do we know? What don't we know? What risk does it pose to health
in the United States and the world, with respect to this issue of CO2?'
The American people need to have that type of honest, open discussion,
and it's something that we hope to help provide as part of our leadership."
Because the scientific community has come together on the issue and
almost uniformly agrees that climate change is occurring and is caused
by humans, this debate is more about having the "red team" poke at the
scientific conclusions of the "blue team." "It could reveal the current
consensus as weaker than claimed," Koonin wrote. "Alternatively, the
consensus could emerge strengthened if Red Team criticisms were
countered effectively."
David Titley, a climate scientist at Penn State University, dismissed
Koonin's idea because "science already has a red team: peer review."
When you hear the statistic that 97% of peer-reviewed studies agreed
that climate change is real, understand that the figure is coming from
this peer-reviewed study that examined the abstracts of 11,944 papers.
There has been some debate about whether or not this constitutes
"consensus" or whether or not scientific consensus is even good for
science. But know that scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate
change is real. When a paper espouses climate change denial and makes it
through peer-review, there's usually something shady going on.
Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, told the Washington Post back in March, "The
notion that we would need to create an entirely different new approach,
in particular for the specific question around global warming, is
unfounded and ridiculous and simply intended to promote the notion of a
lack of consensus about the core findings, which in fact is a false notion."
Frumhoff is right on the money. Debate is fine. Scientists should keep
doing research and publishing that research. And, hey look, they are.
Any climate change denier has the opportunity to use scientific methods
and present their research. This kind of debate wouldn't really advance
public understanding of science. It would give a big megaphone to a tiny
contingent, and when the detailed rebuttals come in, many Americans
would not understand the technicalities. They'd just know that one guy
sounded smart and he said climate change isn't real. And who would be
the ultimate judge of the debate's winner? Scott Pruitt, of course.
http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-wants-some-kind-of-strange-climate-change-1795908916
Canada's Strategy on*Climate Change*: Work With American States
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/canada/canadas-strategy-on-climate-change-work-with-american-states.html>
In discussions with state and local officials, emission reduction
programs are a particular focus. And in this area, California will play
a special role.
While Canada has a large automotive industry, the cars and trucks it
produces are overwhelmingly exported to the United States. That makes
setting unique emissions or fuel economy standards for the Canadian
market economically unviable. But California, one of the world's most
important car markets, has long been ahead of the United States
government on emissions rules. Canada now plans to work closely with the
state as it again effectively becomes the American vehicle emissions
regulator.
"There's certainly no question that California is a world leader and is
leading the United States on vehicle emissions," said Mr. Garneau,
Canada's transport minister.
Mr. Garneau said he anticipated that a group of experts he just gathered
to recommend zero-emission vehicle rules for Canada would closely watch
California's decisions.
Coming directly after the president's speech, the meeting between the
mayor and Mr. Garneau centered on the role of transit in reducing
emissions, as well as trade issues.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/canada/canadas-strategy-on-climate-change-work-with-american-states.html
*
**(video) Some Paleoclimate Perspectives: Dr Alex Thomas
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl08NSgQ5nc>*
1:04:01 Fundamental Paleoclimatology - published June 7, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl08NSgQ5nc
*This Day in Climate History June 8, 1990
<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8177663.html> - from D.R. Tucker*
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology hosts a global-warming
debate between climate scientist Stephen Schneider and climate
denier Dick Lindzen. Reporting on the debate the next day, the
Boston Globe notes:
"A long-anticipated showdown at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology yesterday between two prominent voices in the
global-warming debate brought little agreement about the reliability
of current predictions for the rate and magnitude of climate change.
But despite the seriousness of the topic, the event did provide a
theatrical and sometimes humorous presentation of the arguments on
either side.
"Underscoring the range of scientific opinion on the issue, the
organizers put MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen on one side and
climate researcher Stephen Schneider of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research on the other side of a table divided down the
middle. Schneider, who believes there is a better-than-even chance
of 'unprecedentedly fast climate change' in the next century, sat at
the red end in front of a palm tree, while Lindzen, one the most
vocal skeptics, commanded the blue extreme before a scraggly spruce.
The moderator straddled the border.
"These models are made up of equations that are meant to represent
the important physical processes -- such as motion and heat
transport in the atmosphere -- that work together to create weather
and climate. Based on the work of five climate modeling teams in the
United States and Britain and forecasts of energy use, scientists
have projected that the earth's average temperature will rise
between 3 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next
century. While such a temperature rise might not sound like much,
climate researchers say that such a sharp rise in global temperature
in such a short time almost certainly would cause major shifts in
climate."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8177663.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/20170608/bee3a8f7/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list