[TheClimate.Vote] July 13, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Jul 13 10:48:34 EDT 2018
/July 13, 2018/
[Exxon backs away]
*Exxon Quits Koch-Backed Business Group After Climate Change Row
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-12/exxon-quits-koch-backed-business-group-after-climate-change-row>*
By Kevin Crowley and Ari Natter - July 12, 2018
- American Legislative Exchange Council has faced member exodus
- Oil giant disagreed with climate measures debated last year
Exxon Mobil Corp. quit the American Legislative Exchange Council, a
lobbying group bankrolled by fossil fuel companies, following a
disagreement over climate-change policy.
The oil giant won't be renewing its membership after it expired in June,
spokesman Scott Silvestri said by phone. Exxon had a public spat with
ALEC in December when some members backed by climate skeptics such as
the Heartland Institute moved to convince the federal government to drop
its claim that climate change is a risk to human health.
Exxon's departure comes amid a corporate exodus by the likes of Ford
Motor Co. and Expedia Group Inc. departed, largely in response to ALEC's
positions on climate rules, renewable energy and other issues.
Late last year, Exxon was among the companies that objected to a measure
debated by ALEC meant to encourage states to prod the Environmental
Protection Agency to rescind its Obama-era determination that climate
change requires regulation.
"The American Legislative Exchange Council values partnership with Exxon
Mobil and stakeholders across the business community," the group said in
an email on Thursday. "We have valued Exxon Mobil's work and leadership
with ALEC on STEM education, among other issues."...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-12/exxon-quits-koch-backed-business-group-after-climate-change-row
[California's political hotspot]
*A political firestorm is about to hit the Capitol: Who will pay for
wildfire damages?
<https://calmatters.org/articles/a-political-firestorm-about-to-hit-the-capitol-who-will-pay-for-wildfire-damages/>*
The biggest fight will be over liability - who pays for billions of
dollars of damages from the loss of so many homes, businesses and lives?
Expect another battle over how much utilities like Pacific Gas &
Electric can pass liability costs onto their customers - and whether the
state should step in to help. The backdrop for the drama: The scientific
expectation that hotter, drier conditions brought on by climate change
make it likely that California will suffer more large, intense fires.
https://calmatters.org/articles/a-political-firestorm-about-to-hit-the-capitol-who-will-pay-for-wildfire-damages/
[Posted in VOX]
*The Netherlands contemplates the world's toughest climate law
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/6/17535720/netherlands-dutch-climate-law-paris-targets>*
A new Dutch proposal would put climate at the center of national politics.
By David Roberts
A coalition of seven Dutch political parties recently unveiled a climate
policy proposal that is breathtaking in its ambition. If it becomes law,
it will codify the most stringent targets for greenhouse gas reductions
of any country in the world...
It would be the world's eighth national climate law (after the UK,
Mexico, Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, and Sweden), but it boasts a
few features that make it particularly notable.
- - - - -
The proposal represents a degree of social and political consensus that
is almost unthinkable in the US - not only that climate change is "real"
(an absurd debate only the US is having), but that it's urgent and that
national policy should support the goals agreed to in Paris. Those goals
obligate developed countries like the Netherlands to virtually eliminate
carbon emissions by mid-century.
- - - -
If passed as proposed, the Dutch law would be the world's most
stringent, putting into statute the following targets:
49 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (relative to 1990 levels)
by 2030
95 percent reduction by 2050
100 percent carbon-neutral electricity by 2050
Under the bill, every year, the Dutch Parliament and the Cabinet will
discuss and debate the year's progress toward decarbonization goals.
With independent advice from the Council of State, they will adjust
programs as necessary to stay on track, in something analogous to a
yearly budgeting process.
Then, on the fourth Thursday of October - "Climate Day" - the government
will issue a public memorandum reviewing progress toward climate goals
and laying out plans for the year ahead...
- - - -
I get why Dutch climate campaigners want to keep the pressure on (that's
their job), but this seems a bit uncharitable. Since only the 2050
target is legally binding, it would be possible for Dutch politicians to
fritter and fail for the next 30 years, to do nothing but have annual
meetings to no effect, but to believe that will happen is to completely
dismiss the power of transparency and democratic accountability.
Politicians don't want to be seen as failing!
The bill will ensure that climate change is put in the spotlight every
year. And it contains an unambiguous long-term target, with required
adjustments every five years. If Dutch politicians do fail on climate
goals going forward, they won't be able to hide or downplay it. The
failure will be extremely public. That matters...
- - - - -
Alongside the UK, which also recently signaled that it might aim for a
zero-carbon goal, the Netherlands is going from laggard to leader on
climate at a dizzying pace.
I wasn't sure I'd live to see it, but it looks like a substantial bloc
of nations is forming that is taking climate change science seriously
and making policy around it. The more nations that put carbon neutrality
on record as the appropriate mid-century goal, the more difficult it
will become for other industrialized nations to justify planning otherwise.
Meanwhile, as countries across the world plot a course toward a
sustainable future, US policy falls farther and farther behind. America,
increasingly alone among nations, still clings, eyes shut tight, to the
dirty past.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/6/17535720/netherlands-dutch-climate-law-paris-targets
[China paying attention]
*China launches unprecedented judge training for environment cases
<https://www.clientearth.org/china-launches-unprecedented-judge-training-for-environment-cases/>*
News / 4 July 2018
China is this week strengthening enforcement of its environmental laws
with the largest ever training of environmental judges in Beijing.
The week-long set of seminars for over 300 judges was organised by the
Supreme People's Court and ClientEarth. Senior judges and environmental
experts from across the world are sharing environmental cases from their
jurisdictions.
Speakers include Erik Solheim, the Executive Director of UN Environment;
Laurent Fabius, former Prime Minister of France and chair of the Paris
Agreement on climate change; and James Thornton, CEO of ClientEarth. The
week-long training also features speakers from China's top court.
In recent years, China has established over 600 environmental courts at
all levels of the judiciary. These courts handle all kinds of
environmental disputes, including criminal cases such as wildlife
poaching or illegal logging, civil cases such as personal or
environmental damages from pollution, and administrative cases where
government is violating laws causing damage to the environment...
It is the decisions of these judges which must protect the
environment in the world's largest developing country. The
effectiveness of China's emerging system of environmental laws
ultimately depends on them."
https://www.clientearth.org/china-launches-unprecedented-judge-training-for-environment-cases/
[Meanwhile in the US - Science from SLATE]
*Brett Kavanaugh Has a Shaky Track Record on the Environment
<https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/trump-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-shaky-track-record-on-climate-change-air-pollution-and-the-epa.html>*
By SOFIE WERTHAN
Donald Trump announced his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme
Court on Monday night. Trump's presidency has already been a disaster
for the environment, and this move is likely to be no exception. As a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, Kavanaugh repeatedly wrote opinions that exposed his lack of
support for environmental protection, ruling multiple times against
Environmental Protection Agency attempts to regulate air pollution and
address climate change. In each case, Kavanaugh cited what he considered
to be overreach by the federal agency as justification.
Kavanaugh's record on the environment-as with many other fraught
political issues-is a subject of scrutiny because Justice Anthony
Kennedy had served as a crucial swing vote on environmental protections.
Most notably, Kennedy cast the deciding vote in the landmark 2007
Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that the EPA has
the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases as air
pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
• 2012: In a split ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia struck down a federal rule aimed at reducing air pollution
in downwind states caused by power plants, smokestacks, and
refineries in upwind states (known popularly as the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule). In the opinion, written by Judge Kavanaugh, the
court found that the EPA had overstepped its authority by improperly
requiring states "to reduce their emissions by more than their own
significant contribution to a downwind state's nonattainment."
• 2014: Judge Kavanaugh argued in a dissenting opinion that the EPA
must weigh monetary costs when deciding whether to regulate power
plant emissions. In the case, the appeals court affirmed the EPA's
emissions standards for mercury and other pollutants from power
plants, and the majority agreed that the EPA did not need to
consider the costs. Kavanaugh bristled at this decision, writing,
"In my view, it is unreasonable for EPA to exclude considerations of
costs in determining whether it is 'appropriate' to impose
significant new regulations on electric utilities."
• 2016: During oral arguments about the Clean Power Plan, President
Obama's signature climate change policy, Judge Kavanaugh
acknowledged that climate change is real, but suggested that it was
the job of legislators to come up with solutions, not the EPA or the
courts. "The policy is laudable," Kavanaugh said, referring to the
Clean Power Plan. "The earth is warming. Humans are contributing. I
understand the international impact and the problem of the commons."
But, he added, "Global warming isn't a blank check" for the
president to impose emissions regulations.
• 2017: In a 2-to-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia ruled against an Obama-era EPA regulation that aimed to
phase out hydrofluorocarbons, a type of potent greenhouse gas
commonly used for refrigeration and air conditioning. The court
ruled that the EPA cannot ban the substances under the Clean Air Act
provision meant to protect the ozone layer. "However much we might
sympathize or agree with EPA's policy objectives, EPA may act only
within the boundaries of its statutory authority," Judge Kavanaugh
wrote.
"Here, EPA exceeded that authority."
Kavanaugh's legal philosophy rested on the idea that the EPA's
expansive attempts to regulate pollution and combat climate change
go too far, unless there's an explicit go-ahead from Congress. This
philosophy is particularly worrisome when Congress currently seems
to have no interest in regulating pollution or combatting climate
change....
https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/trump-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-shaky-track-record-on-climate-change-air-pollution-and-the-epa.html
[Tampa Bay TImes report:]
*African woman tells UN that climate change is security risk
<http://www.tampabay.com/african-woman-tells-un-that-climate-change-is-security-risk-ap_world8056b03c4aaa4aaaa99787fcc9c5d3b6>*
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - An African woman whose people are nomads
constantly searching for food and water told Security Council members
Wednesday they must consider climate change as a security risk that is
fueling extremism, conflict and migration.
Hindou Ibrahim said in a speech to the council that climate change is
affecting the daily lives of people in the vast Sahel region who depend
on agriculture, fishing and livestock and are struggling to survive.
She said the scarcity of resources has fueled internal migration as well
as migration through Africa to Europe, sparked local conflicts that
become national and regional, and led to the growth of terrorist groups.
Ibrahim, an activist from Chad who co-chairs the International
Indigenous People Forum on Climate, which promotes U.N. action on
climate change, urged the council and the broader international
community to take action to help them cope.
"Solutions are there," she said. "Why not give them access to energy?
You can help them go to school. You can help them to get health (care).
You can help them to do another alternative in their life, and keep them
in peace and think about the future."
Ibrahim said nomadic pastoralists don't know there is a Security Council
where people think about peace around the world but they are living
climate change.
It is "deep humiliation" if a man in the nomadic community can't feed
his family because "his dignity is not respected," Ibrahim said. To
preserve their dignity, the options for nomadic men are grim: Either
stay home and join a terror group and fight and die, or leave and risk
dying in the sea...
http://www.tampabay.com/african-woman-tells-un-that-climate-change-is-security-risk-ap_world8056b03c4aaa4aaaa99787fcc9c5d3b6
[not surprising]
*Credit Downgrades Imminent for Cities Unprepared for Climate Impacts,
Study Says
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/12/credit-downgrades-climate-change/>*
By Jennifer Dorroh
Many U.S. coastal communities, unprepared for flooding and other effects
of global warming-driven sea level rise, are heading toward an imminent
downgrade of their credit unless they act quickly, a new report says.
The report warns that federal subsidies for rebuilding flooded
properties, coupled with the rollback of standards for that rebuilding,
create the illusion that cities and towns can continue to ignore flood
risks without financial consequences. But a reckoning is coming, says
"Credit Downgrade Threat as a Non-regulatory Driver for Flood Risk
Mitigation and Sea Level Rise Adaptation,"
<https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/73/> a white paper published
last month by the University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons.
The absence of clear market or government warnings about imminent risks
of climate change is leading many communities to squander what could be
their last chance at affordable credit to fund resilient infrastructure
projects, the report says.
John Miller, the paper's author and a water resources engineer who
studies the connection between credit ratings and climate change, said a
shift is coming soon. Even if U.S. policy and spending keep absorbing
the risk of rebuilding in flood zones in the short term, that is
unlikely to continue indefinitely as investors, underwriters and credit
ratings agencies are asking increasingly pointed questions about sea
level rise-related risks. That could quickly lead to credit downgrades.
"The rating companies are really being pushed by the investors to look
at the term of a bond. During the term of a bond, you have now changing
conditions that put more risk on the revenue based on property values,"
Miller said. "If you're issuing a 30 to 40-year bond, your investors are
already looking toward, say, 2050." By that time, more than 300,000
properties in the U.S. currently worth $136 billion could be rendered
unusable by routine flooding unless carbon emissions and rapid ice sheet
loss can be significantly cut.
The report urges municipal leaders to stop taking their cues from the
federal government when it comes to preparing for the effects of sea
level rise. Last year, President Donald Trump rescinded the Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard that had been signed by President Barack
Obama in 2015 setting new goals for mitigating flood risk.
- - --
To cities not inclined to prepare, Mahaney gives this advice: Look at
the science. When some local factions fought the zoning changes, the
city worked to educate its citizens about the risk of doing nothing.
"Without this intervention, there would be immense loss of property and
life by 2050," he said. "That made a strong point to counteract the
naysayers."
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/12/credit-downgrades-climate-change/
- - - -
[Download
<https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=mes_capstones>
the Whitepaper]
*Credit Downgrade Threat as a Non-regulatory Driver for Flood Risk
Mitigation and Sea Level Rise Adaptation
<https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/73/>*
John A. Miller, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
Federal policies and regulations with higher standards that respond to
flood risk and sea level rise are being rolled back by the current
administration. In that void, the threat of credit rating downgrades is
expected to be a developing non-regulatory driver to future risk
planning and adaptation. Several exposed communities have been
downgraded due, in part, to their lost tax base from major disasters. As
sea level rise manifests along the coasts, reducing property value,
impacts on revenue will present new challenges in servicing debt. Credit
rating agencies in the last few years have issued publications giving
some notice on how climate change is to be considered in municipal
credit ratings. Proactive communities, conducting planning and realizing
adaptation practices in the present are likely to be spared the need to
increase revenues to counter the higher borrowing costs that are
coincident with a bond rating downgrade, due to likely loss of taxable
properties, caused by sea level rise in the future. Municipalities that
do not engage now in addressing the threats associated with climate
change may have to increase taxes to offset the increased bond return
demanded by investors.
Download the paper
<https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=mes_capstones>
https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/73/
[UCD study]
*Grasslands more reliable carbon sink than trees
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709202909.htm>*
In wildfire-prone California, grasslands a less vulnerable carbon offset
than forests
Date: July 9, 2018
Source: University of California - Davis
Summary:
A study has found that increased drought and wildfire risk make
grasslands and rangelands a more reliable carbon sink than trees in
21st century California. As such, the study indicates they should be
given opportunities in the state's cap-and-and trade market, which
is designed to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
"Looking ahead, our model simulations show that grasslands store more
carbon than forests because they are impacted less by droughts and
wildfires," said lead author Pawlok Dass, a postdoctoral scholar in
Professor Benjamin Houlton's lab at UC Davis. "This doesn't even include
the potential benefits of good land management to help boost soil health
and increase carbon stocks in rangelands."
CARBON UP IN SMOKE
Unlike forests, grasslands sequester most of their carbon underground,
while forests store it mostly in woody biomass and leaves. When
wildfires cause trees to go up in flames, the burned carbon they
formerly stored is released back to the atmosphere. When fire burns
grasslands, however, the carbon fixed underground tends to stay in the
roots and soil, making them more adaptive to climate change.
"In a stable climate, trees store more carbon than grasslands," said
co-author Houlton, director of the John Muir Institute of the
Environment at UC Davis. "But in a vulnerable, warming, drought-likely
future, we could lose some of the most productive carbon sinks on the
planet. California is on the frontlines of the extreme weather changes
that are beginning to occur all over the world. We really need to start
thinking about the vulnerability of ecosystem carbon, and use this
information to de-risk our carbon investment and conservation strategies
in the 21st century."...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709202909.htm
[recent heatwave]
*Heatwave seems to make manmade climate change real for Americans
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/11/heatwave-climate-change-americans-survey>*
The record-breaking high temperatures across much of North America
appear to be shaping people's thinking, a survey finds
The warm temperatures that have scorched much of the US appear to be
influencing Americans' acceptance of climate science, with a new poll
finding a record level of public confidence that the world is warming
due to human activity.
A long-running survey of American attitudes to climate change has found
that 73% of people now think there is solid evidence of global warming.
A further 60% believe that this warming is due, at least in some part,
to human influences.
Both of these findings are record highs in a twice-yearly survey that
has been conducted by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College
since 2008. The latest poll was conducted during May, which was hotter
than any May recorded in the contiguous US in 124 years of record
keeping, according to the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration,
eclipsing the 1930s during the Dust Bowl era.
- - --
The survey found that while 90% of Democrats accept there is solid
evidence of climate change, only 50% of Republicans feel the same.
However, Borick said that messaging from those who deny or obfuscate
climate science has shifted away from outright rejection of temperature
data. While Donald Trump has previously called climate change "bullshit"
and a Chinese-inspired hoax, he has rarely spoken of the issue while
president apart from framing action to address it as economically costly.
"The talking points have turned more to the cost to mitigate climate
change rather than deny its existence," Borick said. "That said, if you
want one factor that influences your view on climate change, it's party
affiliation. Age, race and gender don't even come close."
- -
A string of warm days in New York City helped trigger a return to
smog-like conditions on 2 July, when the temperature in the city reached
95F (35C).
Researchers who flew a light aircraft taking measurements over a hazy
New York were astonished to find that the ozone concentration was 150
parts per billion. This far exceeds the Environmental Protection
Agency's eight-hour average ozone health standard of 70 parts per
billion. The high ozone readings have continued, with preliminary data
for Tuesday showing 85 parts per billion in New York.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/11/heatwave-climate-change-americans-survey
[Hell no, Shell Knew?]
*What #ShellKnew and How it Was Used to Stall International Climate
Change Negotiations
<http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/07/10/what-shellknew-and-how-it-was-used-stall-international-climate-change-negotiations>*
Read time: 7 mins
By Mat Hope - Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Shell, one of the world's largest oil companies, has gained privileged
access to theUNclimate change negotiations while pushing the same
unworkable solutions for almost 20 years, internal company documents reveal.
DeSmogUKhas previously reported on a tranche ofdocuments
<http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/04/internal-shell-oil-climate-documents-revealed>first
unearthed by Jelmer Mommers of/De Correspondent /published on/Climate
Files
<http://climateinvestigations.org/shell-oil-climate-documents/document-index/>/,
that revealShell knew <http://www.desmog.co.uk/shellknew>about thecauses
and impacts of climate change
<http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism>sinceat
least the 1980s
<http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s>.
Analysis of these documents, combined with new sources freshly uncovered
by DeSmogUK, shows that while Shell's understanding of the science
developed, its proposed solution to the problem has remained
remarkably static.
The sources also reveal how Shell uses trade associations to gain
privileged access to the annualUNFCCCclimate negotiations, despite the
organisations' professed independence.
For almost two decades, Shell has pushed the same proposal to tackle
climate change, which still hasn't come to fruition - a global carbon
market plus carbon capture and storage.
Asearly as 1992
<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4411094/Document6.pdf>,
Shell was calling for "market-based" solutions to ramping up renewables
and cutting carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector..
http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/07/10/what-shellknew-and-how-it-was-used-stall-international-climate-change-negotiations
[EPA juggernaut]
*EPA takes next step toward replacing Obama-era climate rule
<http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396298-trump-admin-moves-forward-on-replacing-obama-epa-climate-rule>*
By Timothy Cama - 07/10/18
The Trump administration is taking a big step forward in its effort to
replace the Obama administration's climate change rule for power plants
with a more industry-friendly alternative.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that on Monday it sent a
proposed rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to
the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The OMB review, an internal process that checks for compliance with
various laws and administration priorities, is the final step before the
rule can be released publicly and made available for public comment.
The EPA hasn't revealed the contents of the proposal. The Trump
administration in December requested public input on ideas for a
replacement.
The rule would replace the Clean Power Plan, the main pillar of former
President Obama's climate change agenda that sought a 32 percent cut in
carbon emissions from the country's power sector by 2030. States were
allowed to decide how best to accomplish that goal.
The Obama rule was put on hold by the Supreme Court in 2016 as a result
of litigation led in part by then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott
Pruitt. Pruitt went on to become EPA administrator before resigning last
week under the cloud of numerous scandals.
Pruitt and President Trump prioritized repealing the Clean Power Plan,
and Pruitt formally proposed undoing it last year, an action that has
not yet been made final.
Sources familiar with the EPA's deliberations say the agency wants to
write a regulation that focuses almost exclusively on making coal-fired
power plants more efficient. That would result in minimal reductions in
carbon emissions, and environmentalists say emissions could in turn
increase since coal plants would be cheaper to operate.
While Pruitt initially did not want to replace the Clean Power Plan,
industry leaders pushed him in that direction, arguing that doing so
would reduce the risk of climate-change lawsuits against companies, as
well as future lawsuits against the EPA for not regulating greenhouse gases.
Both Pruitt and current acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler have
expressed skepticism of the scientific consensus that the climate is
changing and that human activity is the primary cause.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396298-trump-admin-moves-forward-on-replacing-obama-epa-climate-rule
[text document]
*This Day in Climate History - July 13, 2003
<http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Symons.pdf?language=printer>
- from D.R. Tucker*
July 13, 2003: Former EPA Climate Policy Adviser Jeremy Symons recounts
the George W. Bush Administration's assault on climate science in a
Washington Post op-ed.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Symons.pdf?language=printer
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180713/24e7bb07/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list