[TheClimate.Vote] December 15, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/December 15, 2018/

[Ringing in the latest from Wallace-Wells]
*You, Too, Are in Denial of Climate Change 
<http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-not-climate-action.html>*
By David Wallace-Wells
*You, too, are in denial.*

We all are, nearly every single one of us as individuals, even those of 
us who are following the bad news that suggests "the climate change 
problem is starting to look too big to solve"; every nation, almost none 
of them meeting their climate commitments, and most (not just the United 
States) publicly downplaying the threat; and even many of the alliances 
and organizations, like the IPCC, endeavoring to solve the crisis. At 
the moment, negotiations at the organization's COP24 conference, meant 
to formalize the commitments made in the Paris accords two years ago, 
are "a huge mess," perhaps poised to collapse. Last month, scientists 
warned that we had only about 12 years to cut global emissions in half 
and that doing so would require a worldwide mobilization on the scale of 
that for World War II. The U.N. secretary general has warned that we 
have only about a year to get started. Instead, on Election Day, voters 
in deep-blue Washington rejected a modest carbon tax and those in 
crunchy Colorado rejected a slowdown of oil and gas projects. In France 
-- conservative America's cartoon of unchecked left-wing-ism -- the 
worst protests in 50 years were provoked by a proposal to increase the 
gasoline tax. If communities like these won't take action on climate, 
who, in the next dozen years, will?

But perhaps it should not be surprising that, even in many of the 
world's most progressive places, even in the moment of acknowledged 
environmental crisis, a sort of climate NIMBYism prevails. The cost of 
inaction is sort of unthinkable -- annual deadly heat waves and 
widespread famine, tens of millions of climate refugees, global coastal 
flooding, and disasters that will cost double the world's present-day 
wealth. And so we choose, most of the time, not to think about it. This 
is denial, too, whatever you check on a survey about whether you 
"believe" the climate is changing.

But denialism comes in many forms. The most florid, and morally 
grotesque, is that powered by profits -- the oil companies pushing for 
rollback of emissions standards beyond even what car manufacturers want, 
the American politicians and lobbyists paid by them to cynically stall 
action and muddy our understanding of the science, as they did a few 
weeks ago, just after the release of the National Climate Assessment's 
"Black Friday" report.

That hard-core, bought-and-paid-for denialism is pernicious for many 
reasons -- in fact, it may help explain why so few Americans believe 
"most scientists think global warming is happening." According to the 
most recent Yale Climate Opinion Survey, just 49 percent do. But that is 
a kind of meta-misperception -- it reflects what Americans think 
scientists think, not what we think is actually going on with the 
climate. And what is perhaps most remarkable about that same study is 
that many more Americans believe climate change is happening than 
believe scientists believe it: 70 percent say global warming is real, 
and ongoing, versus just 14 percent who say it isn't. Among other 
reasons, this is remarkable is that it suggests a significant number of 
respondents believe that climate change is real without thinking that 
most scientists agree. But 14 percent is also a very small number of 
true deniers -- it is a considerably smaller number than Americans who 
believe the sun revolves around the Earth. There are some Americans who 
believe that warming is real but not caused by humans, but only 32 
percent, according to Yale, disbelieve in anthropogenic warming. That is 
about as many Americans who believe in Bigfoot. (Though if the Kochs got 
behind him, it's possible he could get to the White House, too.)

One way of looking at that data is to say that we are, despite what we 
hear in the media, overwhelmingly a nation of climate-change believers, 
not deniers -- and, in fact, a nation genuinely concerned about it. In 
other words, as Osita Nwanevu put it a few weeks ago, "denial is mostly 
a distraction at this point." ("Those still unconvinced mostly cannot or 
do not want to be convinced," he added, meaning, "It's time to stop 
framing persuasion as the primary task here.")

Another is that even those of us who believe in warming, and believe it 
is a problem, do not believe enough in it. The flat-Earth equivalents, 
those 14 percent, are simply not a large-enough constituency to matter 
-- when not being elevated so dramatically by fossil-fuel money, like 
puppets buoyed up by oil fumes. But the rest of us are only moderately 
worried, perhaps in part because we imagine the worst impacts of climate 
change will hit elsewhere. Forty-one percent of Americans believe 
climate change "will harm me personally" -- actually quite a high 
number, in absolute terms, but considerably lower than the 62 percent 
who believe it will harm those in the developing world or the 70 percent 
who believe it will harm future generations. But thinking climate change 
will only hit elsewhere, or only in the future, pummeling others but 
sparing you -- these are delusions, too, ones powered by many of the 
same coping mechanisms that give rise to outright denialism.

What are those coping mechanisms? Why can't we see the threat right in 
front of us? The most immediate answer is obvious: It's fucking scary. 
For years now, researchers have known that "unrealistic optimism is a 
pervasive human trait," one that, whatever you know about how 
social-media addicts get used to bad news, leads us to discount scary 
information and embrace the sunnier stuff. And the generation of 
economists and behavioral psychologists who've spent the last few 
decades enumerating all of our cognitive biases have compiled a whole 
literature of problems with how we process the world, almost every 
single example of which distorts and distends our perception of a 
changing climate, typically by making us discount the threat.

There is, to start with, anchoring, which explains how we build mental 
models around as few as one or two initial examples, no matter how 
unrepresentative -- in the case of global warming, the world we know 
today, which is reassuringly temperate. There is the ambiguity effect, 
which suggests that most people are so uncomfortable contemplating 
uncertainty they will accept lesser outcomes in a bargain to avoid 
dealing with it. In theory, with climate, uncertainty should be an 
argument for action -- much of the ambiguity arises from the range of 
possible human inputs, a quite concrete prompt we choose to process 
instead as a riddle, which discourages us. There is anthropocentric 
thinking, by which we build our view of the universe outward from our 
own experience, a reflexive tendency that some especially ruthless 
environmentalists have derided as "human supremacy" and that surely 
shapes our ability to apprehend genuinely existential threats to the 
species -- a shortcoming that many climate scientists have mocked. "The 
planet will survive," they say. "It's the humans that may not."

These biases are just drawn from the A volume of the 
behavioral-economics literature -- and are just a sampling of that 
volume. Among the most destructive effects that appear later in the 
library are these: the bystander effect, or our tendency to wait for 
others to act rather than acting ourselves; confirmation bias, by which 
we seek evidence for what we already understand to be true rather than 
endure the cognitive pain of reconceptualizing our world; the default 
effect, or tendency to choose the present option over alternatives, 
which is related to the status quo bias, or preference for things as 
they are, however bad that is; and the endowment effect, or the instinct 
to demand more to give up something we have -- more than we actually 
value it (or had paid to acquire or establish it). We have an illusion 
of control, the behavioral economists tell us, and also suffer from 
overconfidence. We can't see anything but through cataracts of 
self-deception.

Except when the impacts hit us, personally -- or threaten to. By that 
perverse logic, the news is cooperating -- as is the climate, unleashing 
unprecedented punishments, seemingly each week. Which may be why one 
recent survey, conducted in the immediate aftermath of the IPCC's 
doomsday report, showed that 72 percent of Americans believe climate 
change should be a higher political priority. Sometimes, as unhappy as 
it is to look in the face of disaster, those disasters are overwhelming 
enough that they simply cannot be ignored anymore. Unfortunately, for 
all the talk on the environmental-left about denial, simple belief in 
climate change is not enough to move the needle. Already, Yale says, 70 
percent of Americans believe "environmental protection is more important 
than economic growth." Nudging that number up to 75 percent isn't the 
important thing; what's important is getting those 70 percent to feel 
their conviction fiercely, to elevate action on climate change to a 
first-order political priority by speaking loudly about it and to 
disempower, however we can, those forces conspiring to silence us. Even 
the ones in our own heads.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-not-climate-action.html


[Youth activism - every Friday is strike day]
*Climate Education is Screwed Up! <https://youtu.be/MXuzdoKs9pI>*
Published on Dec 13, 2018
https://ScientistsWarning.TV presents three young women from 
International Schule Berlin whose research project revealed just how 
screwed up climate education is in the developed world.  In a nutshell, 
in their survey of texts from different nations, the least effective 
'climate solutions' were presented the most often (recycling and 
changing light bulbs) and the most effective means of reducing emissions 
(having one less child) was never mentioned at all. In fact, all of the 
important solutions that would offend any established industry (eating a 
mostly plant-based diet, living without a car, avoiding flying) were 
mentioned seldom if ever.  In short, our youth are being trained for 
'Business-As-Usual' in a world that will be anything BUT usual.
https://youtu.be/MXuzdoKs9pI


[repeat post with text to follow along the video]
*School strike for climate - save the world by changing the rules 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A>*
TEDx Talks - Greta Thunberg - TEDxStockholm
Published on Dec 12, 2018
Greta Thunberg realized at a young age the lapse in what several climate 
experts were saying and in the actions that were being taken in society. 
The difference was so drastic in her opinion that she decided to take 
matters into her own hands. Greta is a 15-year-old Stockholm native who 
lives at home with her parents and sister Beata. She's a 9th grader in 
Stockholm who enjoys spending her spare time riding Icelandic horses, 
spending time with her families two dogs, Moses and Roxy. She loves 
animals and has a passion for books and science. At a young age, she 
became interested in the environment and convinced her family to adopt a 
sustainable lifestyle. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED 
conference format but independently organized by a local community. 
Transcript:

    When I was about 8 years old,
    I first heard about something called climate change or global warming.
    Apparently that was something humans had created by our way of living.
    I was told to turn off the lights to save energy and to recycle
    paper to save resources.
    I remember thinking that it was very strange that humans - who are
    an animal species among others,
    could be capable of changing the Earth's climate.
    Because if we were and if it was really happening,
    we wouldn't be talking about anything else.
    As soon as you turn on the TV, everything would be about that headline.
    Radio, newspapers, you would never read or hear about anything else,
    as if there was a world war going on but no one ever talked about it.
    If burning fossil fuels was so bad that it threatened our very
    existence, how could we just continue
    like before.
    Why were there no restrictions? Why wasn't it made illegal?
    To me that did not add up. It was too unreal.
    So when I was 11 I became ill. I fell into depression. I stopped
    talking and I stopped eating.
    In two months I lost about 10 kilos of weight.
    Later on I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome,OCD, and selective
    mutism.
    That basically means I only speak when I think is necessary. Now was
    one of those moments
    [Applause]
    For those of us who are on the spectrum, almost everything is black
    or white.
    We aren't very good at lying and we usually don't enjoy
    participating in the social game that the rest of you seem so fond of.
    I think in many ways that we autistic are the normal ones and the
    rest of the people are pretty strange.
    Especially when it comes to the sustainability crisis, where
    everyone keeps saying that
    climate change is an existential threat and the most important issue
    of all.
    And yet they just carry on like before.
    I don't understand that, because if the emissions have to stop, then
    we must stop the
    emissions.
    To me that is black or white. There are no gray areas when it comes
    to survival.
    Either we go on as I civilization we don't.
    We have to change.
    Rich countries like Sweden need to start reducing emissions by at
    least 15 percent every year.
    And that is so that we can stay below a two degree warming target.
    Yet as the IPCC have recently - demonstrated,  instead for 1.5
    degrees Celsius would significantly reduce the climate impacts.
    But we can only imagine what that means for reducing emissions.
    You would think the media and every one of our leaders would be
    talking about nothing else.
    But they never even mention it.
    Nor does anyone ever mention the greenhouse gases already
    locked in the system,
    nor that air pollution is hiding a warming,
    so that when we stop burning fossil fuels we
    already have an extra level of warming
    perhaps as high as 0.5 to 1 point 1 degrees Celsius.
    furthermore does hardly anyone speak about the fact that we are in
    the midst of the sixth mass extinction with up to 200 species going
    extinct every single day.
    That the extinction rate is today between 1000 and 10,000 times
    higher than what is seen as normal.
    Nor does hardly anyone ever speak about the aspect of equity or
    climate justice,
    clearly stated everywhere in the Paris Agreement which is absolutely
    necessary to make it work on a global scale.
    That means that rich countries need to get down to zero emissions
    within six to 12 years with today's emission speed.
    And that is so that people in poorer countries can have a chance to
    heighten their standard of living by building some of the
    infrastructure that we have already built such as roads schools
    hospitals clean drinking water electricity and so on.
    Because how can we expect countries like India or Nigeria to care
    about the climate crisis if we
    who already have everything don't care even a second about it or our
    actual commitments to the Paris agreement.
    So why are we not reducing our emissions?
    Why are they in fact still increasing?
    Are we knowingly causing a mass extinction?
    Are we evil? No, of course not.
    People keep doing what they do because the vast majority doesn't
    have a clue about the actual consequences of our everyday life
    And they don't know the rapid change is required.
    We all think we know, and we all think everybody knows
    But we don't because how could we if there really was a crisis and
    if this crisis was caused by our emissions you would at least see
    some signs
    Not just flooded cities tens of thousands of dead people.
    And whole nations level to piles of torn down buildings.
    You would see some restrictions but no, and no one talks about it.
    There are no emergency meetings. No headlines, no breaking news.
    No one is acting as if we were in a crisis.
    Even most climate scientists or green politicians keep on flying
    around the world eating meat and dairy.
    If I live to be 100, I will be alive in the year 2103.
    When you think about the future today, you don't think beyond the
    year 2050.
    By then, I will in the best case, not even have lived half of my life.
    What happens next, the year 2078 I will celebrate my 75th birthday.
    If I have children or grandchildren maybe they will spend that day
    with me.
    Maybe they will ask me about you the people who were around back
    back in 2018.
    Maybe they will ask why you didn't do anything while this still was
    time to act.
    What we do or don't do right now will affect my entire life and the
    lives of my children and grandchildren.
    What we do or don't do right now, me and my generation can't undo in
    the future.
    So when school started in August of this year I decided that this
    was enough.
    I set myself down on the ground outside the Swedish parliament
    I schools tried for the climate some people say that I should be in
    school instead.
    Some people say that I should study to become a climate scientist so
    that I can solve the climate crisis.
    But the climate crisis has already been solved.
    We already have all the facts and solutions.
    All we have to do is to wake up and change and why should I be
    studying for a future that soon will be no more?
    When no one is doing anything whatsoever to save that future.
    And what is the point of learning facts in the school system, when
    the most important facts given by the finest science of that same
    school system clearly means nothing to our politicians in our society.
    Some people say that Sweden is just a small country and that it
    doesn't matter what we do.
    But I think that if a few children can get headlines all over the
    world just by
    not coming to school for a few weeks, imagine what we could all do
    together if you wanted to.
    Now we're almost at the end of my talk,
    And this is where people usually people usually start talking about
    hope -- solar panels, wind power
    circular economy and so on. But I'm not going to do that.
    We've had 30 years of pep talking and selling positive ideas,
    And I'm sorry but it doesn't work. Because if it would have the
    emissions
    would have gone down by now. They haven't and yes, we do need hope -
    of course we do.
    But the one thing we need more than hope is action.
    Once we start to act hope is everywhere.
    So instead of looking for hope look for action.
    Then and only then hope will come.
    Today we use 100 million barrels of oil every single day.
    There are no politics to change that.
    There are no rules to keep that oil in the ground.
    So we can't save the world by playing by the rules, because the
    rules have to be changed
    Everything needs to change and it has to start today.
    [Applause] thank [Applause] you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A


[video discussion of science - kind of a big deal]
*2018 Fall Meeting Press Conference: New findings in carbon cycle 
science <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1pEkORYzSk>*
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published on Dec 12, 2018
Climate change is affecting the global carbon cycle. In this briefing, 
researchers will present new findings detailing present and future state 
of the global and the North American carbon cycle with a focus on 
carbon-climate dynamics in the atmosphere, oceans, land and soils. A key 
focus of the discussion will be on soil carbon, which is one of the 
largest pools. The management implications and carbon sequestration 
potential of soils in light of new findings will also be highlighted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1pEkORYzSk


[forth section in series]
*First Do No Harm <https://www.lionsroar.com/first-do-no-harm/>*
BY STEPHANIE KAZA - OCTOBER 10, 2018
Environmentalist Stephanie Kaza invites us to consider how Buddhist 
principles can help us nurse the planet back to health.
https://www.lionsroar.com/first-do-no-harm/
*Getting to Peace*
In his new book, Getting to Peace, William Ury, an internationally 
recognized leader in conflict negotiation, has laid out a number of 
principles for finding solutions that work to stabilize political 
conflicts at many levels. It seems to me that his work on "getting to 
peace" applies well to environmental issues, which often involve 
conflict between different parties and different points of view. Some 
people have said that we are now fighting World War Three--not the war 
against terrorism, but the assault against the environment. Pesticides, 
nuclear waste, toxic chemicals, clear-cutting--all these and more are 
direct attacks on living beings of many kinds.

In his book, Ury lays out a role for what he calls "the third side," a 
party outside the immediate conflict but with a vested interest in a 
peaceful outcome. This suggests a useful role for Buddhists concerned 
about the environment. The third side party can clarify differences, 
provide protection to threatened parties, and educate where knowledge is 
needed. Someone with Buddhist sensibilities can draw on the practices 
I've suggested--being with the suffering, cultivating systems mind, 
practicing non-harming--and help to stabilize an ongoing conflict. The 
third side plays an active part, engaging conflict but not taking sides. 
Ury describes ten specific third-side roles, all of which apply to 
environmental situations. I'd like to highlight three that seem 
particularly well suited for a Buddhist approach.

The bridge-builder works to prevent conflict by strengthening weak 
relationships in the human and ecological web. Very often environmental 
problems arise from user conflicts over a resource or a particular area. 
Round-table discussions that bring all the parties together can help 
coordinate and regulate user activities.

Where conflicts have escalated and relations are damaged, a Buddhist 
practitioner might be drawn to the role of healer. A third-side party 
with a commitment to compassionate action can be a valuable asset in 
moving a situation forward to resolution. The Buddhist practitioner 
skilled in relational thinking can analyze the causes and conditions of 
the conflict and work to heal brokenness and damage. This may take 
diplomacy, courage, and patience, depending on the degree of the injury. 
I can imagine bringing this healer role to your own neighborhood if 
people are angry over bird-hunting cats or chemical spraying. The healer 
helps conflicting parties understand each others' positions and find a 
better solution to the problems at hand.

When environmental conflict has become entrenched and resolution is not 
in sight, taking a third-side peacekeeping role requires more courage. I 
think of the massive gold mining operations in Indonesia, for example, 
where the military is well paid by the mining company to squelch local 
conflict. The history of assault on the land and people is so deeply 
ingrained that it will not be easy to resolve. Here a Buddhist 
practitioner might serve in the role of witness, making the public aware 
of what is happening to the plants and animals under attack. Bringing 
attention to the problem exposes harmful behavior, which can then 
generate public pressure for change. A Buddhist approach is not 
necessarily more effective than other approaches, but it may add less 
antagonism to the situation. Rather than further polarizing an already 
tense situation, the Buddhist can act compassionately toward all 
parties, bearing witness without accusation, reporting facts without 
condemnation.

To carry out such challenging environmental work, it is crucial to think 
of yourself as an active agent in Indra's Net. This is a vitally 
important part of the peacekeeping effort. Thich Nhat Hanh refers to 
this as "planting seeds of joy and peace." You actively choose to take 
up environmental work with a clear intention and joyful heart. Sensory 
contact with the natural world or quiet meditative practices renew the 
heart and establish an internal reference point of joy that is 
independent of changing circumstances. With this stabilized intention, 
the spiritually grounded environmentalist can be prepared for the long 
haul. In the ancient tradition of gathas, or meditation poems, the late 
Zen teacher Robert Aitken modeled such intention:

    Hearing the crickets at night
    I vow with all beings
    to find my place in the harmony
    crickets enjoy with the stars.

If you recite your own vow of intention, it can be an actual force of 
renewal in the universe, opening up new possibilities for peaceful 
relations.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama advocates a policy of kindness no matter how 
troubling the situation. This is practicing Buddhism with a small "b," 
taking up the everyday challenge of getting along peacefully with the 
environment. A policy of kindness toward trees, rivers, sky, and 
mountains means paying caring attention to all the relations that make 
up Indra's Net. As the Dalai Lama says, "When we talk about preservation 
of the environment, it is related to many other things. Ultimately, the 
decision must come from the human heart. The key point is to have a 
genuine sense of universal responsibility, based on love and compassion, 
and clear awareness."

Engaging environmental problems is not easy work. But if you work with 
these Buddhist principles--being with the suffering, cultivating systems 
thinking, reducing harm, and generating peace--the task seems more possible.

I haven't told you whether to get involved with climate protection or 
waste reduction. I haven't said whether population or consumption is 
causing more damage to the earth. There are many fine resources in print 
and online that take up just these questions. What I hope is that anyone 
working at any level, as a citizen or professional, as a parent or 
student, can take up these Buddhist approaches and put them to good use. 
The Buddha felt the true test of his teachings was whether they were 
actually helpful in everyday life. Those I've offered here are core to 
my environmental work. I hope they may be of good use to you in whatever 
piece of the caregiving you take on.
More at - https://www.lionsroar.com/first-do-no-harm/


[social political message animation]
*The Ostrich politic - Animation Short Film 2018 - GOBELINS 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HEN37zhcGA>*
GOBELINS
Published on Nov 15, 2018
Ostriches carry on their daily activities burying their heads, believing 
It's an Instinctive behavior. However, one day a research by 
phylogeneticist Dr. Kays proves otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HEN37zhcGA


*This Day in Climate History - December 15, 2010 
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/12/15/foxleaks-fox-boss-ordered-staff-to-cast-doubt-o/174317> 
- from D.R. Tucker*
December 15, 2010: Media Matters reports on a leaked memo that reveals 
the Fox News Channel's unfairness and imbalance with regard to climate 
science:

"In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox 
News official sent an email questioning the 'veracity of climate change 
data' and ordering the network's journalists to 'refrain from asserting 
that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without 
IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that 
critics have called into question.'

"The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, 
was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler 
accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological 
Organization announced that 2000-2009 was 'on track to be the warmest 
[decade] on record.'

"This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email 
sent by Sammon to Fox journalists at the peak of the health care reform 
debate, ordering them to avoid using the term 'public option' and 
instead use variations of 'government option.' That email echoed advice 
from a prominent Republican pollster on how to help turn public opinion 
against health care reform.

"Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have 
expressed concern about Sammon using his position to 'slant' Fox's 
supposedly neutral news coverage to the right."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/12/15/foxleaks-fox-boss-ordered-staff-to-cast-doubt-o/174317 

http://youtu.be/Kh0AmjHke1M
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.