[TheClimate.Vote] April 7, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sat Apr 7 10:21:08 EDT 2018
/April 7, 2018/
[Risk message]
*Mark Carney warns of climate change threat to financial system
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/06/mark-carney-warns-climate-change-threat-financial-system>*
Bank of England governor says firms must acknowledge risks to avoid
'catastrophic impact'
The governor of theBank of England
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/bankofenglandgovernor>has warned
of the "catastrophic impact" climate change could have for the financial
system unless firms do more to disclose their vulnerabilities.
Telling banks and insurers they would need to provide more information
about the risks they might face from climate change,Mark Carney
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/mark-carney>said failure to do so
would have damaging effects for financial stability.
He said the finance industry could be forced into making rapid
adjustments if they did not gradually expose where their climate change
risks might lie, which he said could trigger steep losses.
The governor warned of a "climate Minsky moment", referring to the work
of the economistHyman Minsky
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/22/comment.business>,
whose analysis was used to show how banks overreached themselves before
the 2008 financial crisis.
"Given the uncertainties around climate, not everyone will agree on the
timing or scale of the adjustments required … [but] the right
information allows sceptics and evangelists alike to back their
convictions with their capital," Carney said.
Speaking at a summit of central bank governors in Amsterdam, Carney said
there were growing opportunities for firms to finance the transition to
a low carbon economy. He said new technology investments and long-term
infrastructure projects would need to be financed at roughly quadruple
the current rate.
His intervention comes as Threadneedle Street ramps up its assessment of
how well insurers are identifying, measuring and mitigating
weather-related risks this year.Insurers were exposed to steep
losses<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/12/hurricane-harvey-irma-damages-insurance-claims-hiscox-natural-disasters>by
extreme weather events, such asHurricane Harvey
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hurricane-harvey>, in the US last
year...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/06/mark-carney-warns-climate-change-threat-financial-system
[used to be 37 inches per year, but since 2014 it's 44 and last year it
was 47 inches]
*Seattle Thinks It Knows Rain. Climate Change Begs to Differ.
<https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/04/seattle-thinks-it-knows-rain-climate-change-begs-to-differ/557291/>*
A city known for precipitation may be unprepared for the flooding that
climate change has in store...
Thunderstorms and downpours are historically rare in Seattle, which
actually receives less annual rainfall than Miami. Most of its
precipitation comes in the form of an inescapable drizzle. More of a
mist, really. The city's stormwater infrastructure is built with these
steady, low volumes in mind.
However, a recent study found a significant rise in the number of heavy
rains in recent decades, and climate models predict an increase in both
the frequency and intensity of what officials call extreme weather
events: deadly deluges that, within 24 hours, are capable of
overwhelming water drainage infrastructure to cause flooding and send
raw sewage into nearby waterways....
...a worst-case-scenario, 1,000-year-event in which an atmospheric river
loaded with moisture slides in off the Pacific and stalls above Seattle
for a week.
The impacts to the city and especially to its surrounding rivers, which
could see 25 inches of rain, would be catastrophic, he said-and "we are
very much due."
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/04/seattle-thinks-it-knows-rain-climate-change-begs-to-differ/557291/
[Is there hope?]
*Climate Change's Best Hope
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-best-hope.html>*
By Ana Aceves - 4.04.18 NOVA Video promo for April 18th show
The one thing Katherine Hayhoe wishes we did about climate change.
*Katherine Hayhoe:* I think one of the biggest questions we all have
when it comes to climate change is: is there hope?
People often ask me well what can I do, I am just one person how
could I make a difference?
If there is one thing that I wish everybody would do is talk about it.
I am suggesting that we talk about why it matters. What do I care
about passionately that is being affected by a changing climate?
Does it relate to my kids, does it relate to something I love doing
like birding or fishing or even hunting? Does it relate to the
economy or national security or the community or the place where I live?
Let's talk about what it means to us and then let's also talk about
solutions because there are amazing solutions.
*Onscreen:* Energy-efficient homes, wind, solar, smarter building
codes, planting trees, nuclear, electric cars, eat less meat,
carbon-capture, biofuel
*Hayhoe:* When it comes to climate change we feel as if it is this
giant boulder standing dead still and nobody is trying to push that
boulder uphill to fix the problem.
The reality is that that giant boulder is already starting to roll.
It's got hundreds, thousands, even millions of hands we just need a
few more hands to get it rolling faster, but it is moving in the
right direction.
When we look at what is happening with people, that's where I find hope.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-best-hope.html*
*/[NOVA, with controversy,
<http://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/ombudsman/2016/12/21/the-climate-is-changing-will-nova/>
receives considerable support
<https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor>
from //the David H Koch Fund for Science
<https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations>//]/*
*- - - - -
[Hint: Koch influence]
*Why White Evangelicals Don't Care About Climate Change
<https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05/why-white-evangelicals-dont-care-about-climate-change/>*
The evangelical community has been coming in for a lot of criticism in
recent months, much of it from religious leaders and conservatives. They
seem to be unmoved by the president's constant berating of Muslims,
people of color, refugees, Jews, gays, and any others who are not
typically associated with the evangelical community. Actually, make that
the white evangelical community, more than 80% of whom voted for Donald
Trump...
The appeal of Donald Trump to white evangelicals was the subject of a
recent op-ed piece by Michael Gerson, a Republican and a conservative
who is a regular contributor to the Washington Post. Under the title
Trump Evangelicals Have Sold Their Soul, Gerson writes, "The problem
with Trumpism is not only the transparent excuses it offers (and
requires others to accept) for shoddy and offensive behavior. As I argue
in the Atlantic , the deeper issue is the distinctly non-Christian
substance of President Trump's values. His unapologetic materialism. His
tribalism and hatred for "the other." His strength-worship and contempt
for 'losers,"' which smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ." Gerson's
article in the Atlantic is hard hitting, detailed, and well worth reading...
*Behind The Pulpit? The Koch Brothers*
No one begrudges anyone the ability to practice their religious beliefs
in any way they see fit. It's built right into the Constitution. What is
objectionable is when someone tries to cram their religion down someone
else's throat. What most people don't realize is that the rights
protected by the first ten amendments carry with them an implied right
from speech, religion, guns, and so forth. Just as you have the right of
free speech, so do I have the right not to be forced to listen to what
you have to say.
Scratch the evangelicals who are parading around the corridors of power
in Washington, DC, these days and you will find many of them are backed
by the Koch Brothers. No one knows if either one of those old crocks
attends church on a regular basis, but they have latched on to the
evangelical movement and embraced it in a cynical attempt to solidify
their political power.
- - - - -
*The Cornwall Alliance*
Using funding from Koch Brothers front organizations like the Heritage
Society and the Heartland Institute, the hard-line conservatives have
banded together in what is called the Cornwall Alliance, formerly known
as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. In 2013, it published a
manifesto called Resisting The Green Dragon. In it, the group says,
"False prophets promise salvation if only we will destroy the means of
maintaining our civilization. No more carbon, they say, or the world
will end and blessings will cease. Pagans of all stripes now offer their
rival views of salvation, all of which lead to death."..
The organization that would eventually become the Cornwall Alliance
began in 1999 as a project of the Acton Institute, which has received
millions from Donors Capital, Donors Trust, the National Christian
Foundation, and private foundations controlled by the Koch, DeVos, and
Bradley families. (See chart)
<https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/Splinter-Evangelical-network-graphic-570x442.png>
...
A Koch funded video message:
*Resisting the Green Dragon full promo <https://youtu.be/vAA2sLtzXJM>*
CornwallAlliance
Published on Oct 15, 2010
What's so wrong about environmentalism? Certainly caring for the earth
is a mandate from God. The problem is when the earth becomes God - a
danger that is becoming all too prevalent in today's society.
Resisting the Green Dragon is a 12-part series designed to inform and
motivate the church regarding this important - and surprisingly
far-reaching - issue.
www.ResistingTheGreenDragon.com
https://youtu.be/vAA2sLtzXJM
...
This article is not meant to demonize white evangelicals. It is intended
to demonize the Koch Brothers and their ilk. It is meant to promote a
discussion, one that gets us talking to each other rather than past each
other. Beliefs are hard things to argue against, but if we refuse to
listen to each other, there is no hope of preventing the United States
from becoming a Kochtocracy.
The most delicious irony of all would be if the Koch Brothers turn out
to be the Anitchrist evangelicals fear. Wouldn't a real Antichrist dress
himself up in the trappings of a true Christian to seduce the faithful?
Food for thought...
more at:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05/why-white-evangelicals-dont-care-about-climate-change/
- - - - - -
[for example]
*How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God
<https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298>*Those
billions are paying off. Not only have the people who funded Cornwall
successfully stopped the government from pursuing policies that might
make the lives of people who are living with the consequences of climate
change a little bit better, but under the Trump administration their
lackeys are actively working to dismantle what little progress has been
made. When Drollinger teaches that God's covenant with Noah means that
the consequences of climate change not only will not but in fact cannot
be as devastating as scientists believe, he echoes a lengthy essay
published by the Cornwall Alliance in 2009 that lays out the same
argument. Typical of the organization's style, it appears to the casual
observer like any policy paper drawn up at one of D.C.'s many think
tanks and nonprofits; in reality, the document blends quotations from
scripture with pseudo-scientific data-citing, for example, the
Mercer-funded Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. During Pruitt's
confirmation hearing, Republican Sen. John Barrasso favorably cited
Beisner and the Cornwall Alliance's support for the Oklahoma attorney
general.
- - -
"A guy who has given full-throated defenses of coal has told me
privately, 'Coal is dead. We know that. We're just trying to figure out
how to move on.' Meanwhile he keeps on talking about coal," Rep. Inglis
told me. "Members of Congress are afraid of the people they represent,
but they're terrified of the activists within their own party, because
that's who takes you out in a primary."...
more at:
https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298
[Taxes push change] *
Carbon taxes could make significant dent in climate change, study finds
<http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406>*
Several different carbon-pricing approaches would help reduce emissions,
and some would be fair as well, researchers report.
David L. Chandler - MIT News Office
Putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the use of
fossil fuels, coupled with returning the generated revenue to the public
in one form or another, can be an effective way to curb emissions of
greenhouse gases. That's one of the conclusions of an extensive analysis
of several versions of such proposals, carried out by researchers at MIT
and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
What's more, depending on the exact mechanism chosen, such a tax can
also be fair and not hurt low-income households, the researchers report.
The analysis was part of a multigroup effort to apply sophisticated
modeling tools to assess the impacts of various proposed carbon-pricing
schemes. Eleven research teams at different institutions carried out the
research using a common set of starting assumptions and policies. While
significant details differed, all the studies agreed that carbon taxes
can be effective and, if properly designed, need not be regressive.
- - - -
The actual Paris agreements involved a range of different targets by
different nations, but overall, Reilly said, the carbon-pricing scheme
is predicted to exceed the targets for emissions reductions for 2030 and
2050, "so that's a healthy reduction." But even at the lowest end of the
policies they studied, with a $25-per-ton initial tax," that "would be
adequate to meet the U.S. pledge in Paris" for 2030. But the rate of
increase is important, the study says: "Five percent a year is
sufficient. One percent a year is not."
Reilly says "all these tax scenarios at worst meet U.S. commitments for
2030, and the $50 tax is well exceeding it." Many experts say the Paris
Agreement alone will not be sufficient to curb catastrophic consequences
of global climate change, but this single measure would go a long way
toward reducing that impact, Reilly says.
more at:
http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406
[whines and murmurs]
*Four More Oil Giants Acknowledge Climate Consensus to Federal Judge
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/06/chevron-exxon-bp-shell-climate-consensus-liability/>*
By Amy Westervelt
The four oil companies that did not speak at a U.S. District Court
judge'sclimate tutorial
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/>two
weeks ago filed the responses the judge had ordered during that hearing.
All four filed similar statements this week, all reflecting a general
acceptance of the climate change assessments by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
The tutorial had been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup
to educate him as he considers theclimate liability cases
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/09/20/san-francisco-oakland-lawsuit-climate-change-bp-exxon-shell/>filed
against the five major oil companies by the cities of Oakland and San
Francisco. Four companies remained silent that day: Shell,
ConocoPhillips, BP and ExxonMobil. Only Chevron attorney Ted Boutrous
spoke and Alsup told the other attorneys,"You can't get away with
sitting there in silence and then saying later, 'Oh, he [Boutrous]
doesn't speak for us.'"
The four oil companies said in their responses that because they had
already moved to have the case dismissed, that justified their lack of
participation in the tutorial. Shell also referenced its separate motion
to dismiss on the basis that it is a foreign company. But the companies'
responses also called Boutrous' reliance on IPCC reports "an
appropriate source of information for the Court to consider to further
its understanding of the timeline and science surrounding climate change."
Exxon,having lost its suit
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/29/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-ny-mass-schneiderman-healey/>challenging
the fraud probes by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York,
filed a slightly different response than the others, affirming some but
not all of Boutrous' presentation. In its statements for the court,
Exxon placed the responsibility for inaction on carbon emissions at the
feet of the government, not the fossil fuel industry.
While Exxon called the IPCC reports a useful scientific reference, the
company said it doesn't agree with every IPCC statement, and that the
science is not relevant to the company's motion to dismiss. That motion
argues that federal law preempts the state law the plaintiffs originally
cited in the lawsuit, and that previous climate change tort cases, such
asKivalina v. ExxonMobil
<http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2012/09/26/9th-circuit-affirms-dismissal-in-kivalina-v-exxonmobil/>,
ruled that federal common law cannot be used to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.
Meanwhile, the case's plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, taking
a cue from Alsup's jurisdictional ruling that kept the cases in federal
court instead of California court, where they had been originally filed.
They added federal common law claims, as well as additional information
on climate impacts, what defendants knew about the causes and
consequences of climate change (and when). They included information
from scientist Richard Heede's Carbon Majors report
<http://carbonmajors.org/>, which pinpointed the major sources of
anthropogenic CO2 and methane emissions since the 1850s, indicating how
much of the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is attributable to each
company.
"Defendants are collectively responsible, through their production,
marketing, and sale of fossil fuels, for over 11 percent of all the
carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources that has
accumulated in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution," the new complaint reads.
Because four of the companies based their motions to dismiss on lack of
jurisdiction (only Chevron has an active refinery in California), the
plaintiffs added additional detail linking the defendants' emissions to
global sea level rise as well as the rising of San Francisco Bay.
Alsup has also ordered the defendants to respond to four additional
questions regarding their motions to dismiss. He also scheduled a
hearing on those motions for May 24.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/06/chevron-exxon-bp-shell-climate-consensus-liability/
- - - - -
[background]
*In Climate Tutorial, Oil Industry Doubles Down on Science Uncertainty
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/>*
By Amy Westervelt
In aclimate science tutorial
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/15/california-climate-liability-judge-william-alsup/>
in San Francisco on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup
<http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wha> pushed both defendants and plaintiffs
in the San Francisco and Oakland climate liability cases to answer
dozens of questions about the state of climate science. But the
five-hour hearing all boiled down to one fundamental question: At what
point was it clear man-made CO2 emissions were putting the climate on a
path toward destruction?
It was the concept of scientific certainty, more so than the science
itself, that Alsup seemed to be probing. He asked questions ranging from
why various ice ages happened to which are the best renewable energy
sources to whether we should have chosen to rely more on nuclear energy
back in the 1950s.
Predictably, the defendants argued that the science on the causes and
impacts of climate change has been too uncertain to lay the blame at
their feet. The plaintiffs relied on three scientific experts who
described the data from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and even more recent science and how climate models from
as far back as the 1950s mapped out impacts the world is seeing today...
more at:
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/
- - - - -
[Shell was briefed years ago]
*Documents show Shell grappled with climate change years ago
<https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060078213>*
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
Climatewire: Thursday, April 5, 2018
Two decades ago, a group of researchers envisioned a violent storm
ripping through the East Coast with such force that it would transform
young people into climate activists, spark lawsuits and cause government
leaders to turn on fossil fuel companies.
They were only off by two years. They also worked for Shell Oil Co.
In 1998, Shell researchers wrote an internal memo
<https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf> about
future scenarios that could harm their business. They determined that
"only a crisis can lead to a large-scale change in this world,"
according to the memo, recently uncovered
<https://decorrespondent.nl/5563/shellknew-in-deze-interne-documenten-kun-je-zelf-lezen-wat-shell-sinds-1986-weet-over-klimaatverandering/613092667-fad068b1>
by De Correspondent with a trove of company documents.
The scenario planning process was based on climate science, political
realities and economic projections. It suggested that a major storm on
the East Coast in 2010 could turn public opinion against Shell and other
oil and gas conglomerates, while pushing governments toward strict
environmental regulations and investments in renewable energy...
- - - -
Like other energy companies, Shell also has been a member of lobbying
and trade groups that promote climate skepticism and oppose climate
policy, including in recent years. The company was part of the American
Legislative Exchange Council, a group that raised doubt about mainstream
climate science, until 2015. Shell rescinded its membership because of
the organization's position on climate science. In the 1990s, as world
leaders were crafting some of the first international climate
agreements, Shell joined the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group
that battled against climate policy. Shell also backed the American
Petroleum Institute, which had a coordinated campaign in the 1990s to
sow public doubt about climate change....
- - - -
"The threat of climate change remains the environmental concern with by
far the greatest significance for the fossil fuel industry, having major
business implications," researchers wrote in a 1994 company report
<https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_04.pdf> titled
"The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect."
The documents show that Shell was unwilling to position itself to
address the risks it was grappling with internally and instead chose
to embrace uncertainty in science, said Peter Frumhoff, director of
science and policy and chief climate scientist at the Union of
Concerned Scientists. He said the solution Shell has drawn on is
that the world needs more oil and gas, not that the findings laid
out in the internal documents require additional investments into
other forms of energy.
"There is still a reluctance, even to this day, to lay out a plan to
say, 'Here's what we're going to do to get to net zero emissions,
because we know it's necessary and we want policies in place that
support that,'" Frumhoff said. "So they're still hedging their bets,
despite the fact that they knew more than 40 years ago of the serious
risks and internally recognized the need for action in a precautionary
sense that is obviously a hell of a lot more urgent today."
more at: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060078213
- - - -
[read the 1988 Shell memo]
*1988 Group Scenarios - summary
<https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf>*
https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf
[Lamar Smith dominated]
*The War on Science Is Over.
<https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won>
The Republicans Won.
<https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won>*
New Republic
How the Trump administration made Texas Congressman Lamar Smith's dreams
come true
By EMILY ATKIN
Like many of his peers in the GOP, the Texas congressman has long
distrusted the scientific evidence that humans are causing climate
change. And ever since he became chairman of the House Science Committee
in 2013, he's used his position to try to undermine that science, as
well as the science ... And ever since he became chairman of the House
Science Committee in 2013, he's used his position to try to undermine
that science, as well as the science behind air pollution-namely by
pushing two bills that would radically change how the Environmental
Protection Agency is allowed to use science and receive scientific
advice to craft regulations...
The most consequential sign of Smith's victory came last month, when EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt sat down with a reporter for the conservative
Daily Caller News Foundation* to announce significant changes to the way
the agency uses science. No longer would the EPA use scientific research
that includes confidential data to develop rules intended to protect
human health and the environment. "We need to make sure their data and
methodology are published as part of the record," Pruitt said.
"Otherwise, it's not transparent. It's not objectively measured, and
that's important."
- - - - - -
When Pruitt implements this policy, he'll be disqualifying "the main
body of science that EPA has historically used" to justify limiting air
pollutants, said David Baron, the managing attorney for Earthjustice, a
nonprofit environmental law organization. That body of science, for
instance, supports the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which restricts
the amount of mercury and other heavy metals that coal plants can emit.
It also supports the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which
control emissions of soot, ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and lead. And the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature
regulation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, is backed by science about
the health impacts of particulate matter.
- - - - - -
Even with a Democratic wave in 2018, reversing the damage done by the
Trump administration will prove difficult for as long as he's president.
That's why environmentalists are putting their hopes in the legal
system-but also fearing the worst. If the courts uphold the EPA's
rationale for repealing and replacing pollution regulations, "it could
be devastating," Baron said. The impacts of even a few years of weakened
air pollution regulations would fall disproportionately on low-income
and minority communities, leading to premature deaths-at least according
to the scientific literature that Pruitt wants the EPA to
ignore....Though Pruitt's plan has not yet been implemented, Baron says
its eventual impact cannot be overstated. "It's going to make it
extremely difficult for EPA to do its job of protecting people from
dangerous air pollutants," he said.
What is clear is that the war on science has been won, and its opponents
must now wage a war of their own. They need their own Lamar Smith.
https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won
[Opinion]
*Will the Kids Save Us From Climate Change?
<https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/will-kids-save-us-climate-change>*
Today's young people are finally realizing just how much power their
voices actually wield. These millennial climate activists have every
intention of using it.
March 23, 2018 Jeff Turrentine
It's long been a favorite pastime of American adults to fret over the
character and fortitude of the next generation, those teens and early
twentysomethings who will one day assume the mantle of our nation's
leadership. Until recently, the chief gripe against our current cohort
of young people was that they were self-absorbed: too dazzled by their
selfies and Instagram feeds to look beyond themselves at the world's
problems.
But the events of the last month have changed the way we look at young
people. In the aftermath of the Parkland school shootings, we've
witnessed the youth-led #NeverAgain movement blossom-a movement that may
well end up leading to the kinds of cultural and policy shifts many gun
control advocates have been trying to achieve for decades. From the
standpoint of public visibility, there probably hasn't been a better
time to be an outspoken young activist since the late 1960s.
Today's kids have capital, and they're spending it with increasing
sophistication on a range of causes across the progressive sphere. The
Sunrise Movement, for example, is a small but rapidly growing grassroots
organization made up almost entirely of these energized teens and
twentysomethings. If we're lucky, it will continue to expand until it
has met its stated goal of "building an army of young people to make
climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting
influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders
who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people."
Since forming the group two years ago, Sunrise members have been busy
blending social media–friendly climate activism with the far less
visible work involved in getting climate-conscious leaders into public
office. One day might find them loudly protesting an event sponsored by
oil and gas lobbyists inside the Trump International Hotel in
Washington, D.C., or filling a time capsule with messages of hope and
concern about the climate in New York City's Washington Square Park as
camera crews from MTV and other media outlets look on. The next day
might find them organizing in any one of the five states (New York,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida) that they've currently
designated as their battlegrounds, toward their ultimate goal of
replacing incumbents beholden to the fossil fuel industry with leaders
who have promised to make climate action a priority.
Yet another important aspect of their work involves outreach to other
young people, going into high schools and leading discussions on climate
change that emphasize, in the words of volunteer Ben Bristol, how
"climate is a justice issue, something that affects people, places, and
communities."
I meet Bristol, 23, in a Brooklyn coffee shop on his day off. By his
estimation, he tells me, he's connected with more than a thousand
students in the Northeast over the past four weeks, making the case for
climate action as a form of socially responsible rebellion against a
corrupt elite-a message that definitely resonates with his teenage
audiences. "Kids are already suspicious of the establishment," he says.
"They have strong opinions and rebellious streaks."
By framing the fight for the planet as a battle between underdogs and
moneyed special interests, Bristol and his fellow Sunrise "speakers," as
they're known, are able to tap into reservoirs of youthful passion and
energy, turning students into student activists. "When you're a high
schooler, environmentalism too often just means recycling programs and
classroom lessons on sustainability," he says. But teenagers are growing
more aware of their collective power, and they desperately want to be a
part of the solution. "The chance to think about that problem - and
themselves - in political terms is new for them. Even for students who
study politics or history or government, activism isn't really a
dimension of their curriculum."
A typical event at a high school might begin with an overview of current
science on climate change, move into a discussion of how students are
seeing and experiencing climate change within their community, then
segue into a lesson on how fossil fuel companies exert their influence
over lawmakers through campaign contributions. "We talk about how a few
people with an incredible amount of wealth are able to block action, how
they profit at the expense of our health and safety," says Bristol. "And
then we get to the part about Sunrise, what we're doing. And that's when
we get to say to these kids: 'This is why we have to take over.'"
In acknowledgement of how social justice initiatives are continuing to
intersect in the Trump era, the Sunrise Movement pitches itself to
students as an entry point into activism more generally. Those about to
graduate from high school are encouraged to sign up for the
organization's Sunrise Semester, which gives budding activists the
opportunity to work in battleground states while "getting the skills and
resources they'll need to become an organizer and a force for change in
whatever community they may end up serving down the road," Bristol says.
"We're empowering young people to be leaders," he says. To which the
only response can be: Thank God. If we're going to make it through the
Anthropocene alive, we're going to need all the help we can get.
onEarth provides reporting and analysis about environmental science,
policy, and culture.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/will-kids-save-us-climate-change
- - - - - - -
[Youth vanguard]
*Sunrise Movement <https://www.sunrisemovement.org/who-we-are>*
Sunrise is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good
jobs in the process.
We're building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent
priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel
executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the
health and wellbeing of all people.
We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate
crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in
classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone
has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us - if we unite by
the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our
democracy.
We are not looking to the right or left. We look forward. Together, we
will change this country and this world, sure as the sun rises each morning.
*SUNRISE PRINCIPLES*
These are guidelines of our movement which we all commit to uphold. Any
action that does not embody these principles is not a Sunrise action.
*We are a movement to stop climate change and create millions of
good-paying jobs in the process. *We unite to make climate change an
urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of
fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand
up for the health and wellbeing of all people.
*We grow our power through talking to our communities.* We talk to
our neighbors, families, religious leaders, classmates, and
teachers, in order to spread our word. Our strength and work is
rooted in our local communities, and we are always growing in number.
*We are Americans from all walks of life*. We are of many colors and
creeds, from the plains, mountains, and coasts. A wealthy few want
to divide us, but we value each other in our differences and we are
united in a shared fight to make real the promise of a society that
works for all of us.
*We are nonviolent in word and deed.* Remaining nonviolent allows us
to win the hearts of the public and welcomes the most people to
participate. We need maximum participation in order to achieve our
goals.
*We tell our stories and we honor each other's stories.* We all have
something to lose to climate change, and something to gain in coming
together. We tell our individual stories to connect with each other
and understand the many different ways this crisis impacts us.
*We ask for help and we give what we can*. We all have something to
offer to the movement. Some of us give time through volunteering
anywhere from 1 to 50 hours per week. Some of us give money. Some of
us donate housing or meeting space. We invite our community into the
movement by asking for the help we need.
*We take initiative*. Any group of 3 people can take action in the
name of Sunrise. We ask for advice - not permission - from each
other to make this happen. To make decisions, we ask ourselves,
"does this bring us closer to our goal?" If yes, we simply do the
work that is exciting and makes sense.
*We embrace experimentation and we learn together.* We welcome
imperfection, share innovations, and learn through honest mistakes
followed by honest conversations that help us move forward together.
If we see something we don't like, we contribute with something we
do like, modeling an alternative.
*We take care of ourselves, each other, and our shared home.* We
maintain our health of body, mind, spirit, and environment to the
best of our ability so that we can maintain a strong movement
together. We respect that for each of us this looks different.
*We stand with other movements for change*. Stopping climate change
requires winning and holding power at every level of government.
This is a huge job and we can't do it alone. When it makes sense, we
work with other movements who share our values and are also working
to win political power.
*We shine bright. *There are hard and sad days, to be sure. This
isn't easy work. But we strive to bring a spirit of positivity and
hope to everything we do. Changing the world is a fulfilling and
joyful process, and we let that show.
https://www.sunrisemovement.org/principles
[Justice for the future in Columbia]
*Colombian Court Orders Government to Stop Deforestation, Protect Climate
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/colombia-amazon-climate-change-deforestation/>*By
Ucilia Wang
An appeals court in Colombia on Thursday reversed a lower court decision
and ruled that the country's government, from the president to local
municipalities, must create and implement plans within five months to
stop deforestation in the Amazon.
The court, in 4-3 ruling, also said
<https://www.dejusticia.org/en/en-fallo-historico-corte-suprema-concede-tutela-de-cambio-climatico-y-generaciones-futuras/>
that the Amazon enjoys legal rights and protection under the law, an
unusual but not unprecedented concept. Colombia's Constitutional Court
ruled last year that the heavily polluted Atrato River in northwestern
Columbia has rights
<https://news.mongabay.com/2017/05/colombias-constitutional-court-grants-rights-to-the-atrato-river-and-orders-the-government-to-clean-up-its-waters/>
to protection and conservation. With that opinion, the court ordered the
government to clean up the river, which was contaminated by mercury mining.
"We were thrilled with the result. The ruling was beautifully written,
and it's refreshing and novel on the importance of nature, not only for
humans but also its intrinsic value. And it recognizes the rights of the
future generations," said Camila Bustos, a researcher with Dejusticia,
the advocacy group that brought the Amazon case. It was filed on behalf
of 25 young people, ages 7 to 26, in January.
The young plaintiffs asked the court
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/02/01/colombia-government-protect-climate-amazon/>to
protect their constitutional rights to life, a healthy environment, and
food and water by ordering the government to honor its commitment to
tackling climate change, including stopping the country's worsening
deforestation....
more at:
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/colombia-amazon-climate-change-deforestation/
*This Day in Climate History - April 7, 1998
<http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/07/global.warming/> - from D.R. Tucker*
April 7, 1998: Fourteen years before Superstorm Sandy, CNN notes:
"Global warming and resulting rising sea levels have the potential
to put much of New York City and other low-lying areas at risk of
severe flooding, according to a study conducted by Columbia
University researchers.
"Subways, airports and low-lying coastal areas could experience
flooding if global warming produces more violent storms and higher
sea levels, as expected, said Vivien Gornitz, associate research
scientist at Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research."
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/07/global.warming/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** 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/20180407/59cf2ce5/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list