[TheClimate.Vote] March 12, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Mon Mar 12 09:32:36 EDT 2018
/March 12, 2018
/
[Ooops, may happen again]
*Standing Rock: Dakota Access Pipeline Leak Technology Can't Detect All
Spills
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032018/dakota-access-oil-pipeline-leak-detection-technology-standing-rock-water-safety-energy-transfer-partners>*
The Standing Rock Tribe argues in a report that thousands of barrels of
oil a day could leak into the Missouri River and not be detected by the
company's equipment.
By Phil McKenna
Nine months after oil starting flowing through the Dakota Access
pipeline, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe continues to fight the
controversial project, which passes under the Missouri River just
upstream from their water supply.
[$now falls]
*Snow as currency: The economic impact of changing snow levels on
Colorado ski towns*
<http://theenergymix.com/2018/03/09/colorado-ski-operators-lose-billions-to-warmer-drier-winters/>
Climate change could devastate the economies of ski towns in the Rockies
and anywhere else where "snow is currency," according to a new report by
the Colorado-based climate advocacy non-profit, Protect Our Winters (POW).
In a study that compared snow levels with spending habits from 2001 to
2016, POW found that "a low-snow year can cost the ski resort industry
more than $1 billion and 17,400 jobs, compared to an average season,"
reports Outside magazine.
Read more in today's issue of The Energy Mix:
http://theenergymix.com/2018/03/09/colorado-ski-operators-lose-billions-to-warmer-drier-winters/
[future]
*Climate change is a disaster foretold, just like the first world war
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/climate-change-is-a-disaster-foretold-just-like-the-first-world-war>
*Jeff Sparrow
The warnings about an unfolding climate catastrophe are getting more
desperate, yet the march to destruction continues
"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit
again in our life-time."
The mournful remark supposedly made by foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey
at dusk on 3 August 1914 referred to Britain's imminent entry into the
first world war. But the sentiment captures something of our own moment,
in the midst of an intensifying campaign against nature...
According to theWorld Wildlife Fund's 2016 Living Planet Report
<http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/>, over
the last four decadesthe international animal population was reduced by
nearly 60%.
<http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/the-mass-extinction-event-going-unnoticed-as-the-planets-biodiversity-dwindles/news-story/63c0ba483308cb4d73ef8d0a230459ab>Morethan
a billion fewer birds
<https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/report-finds-north-american-skies-quieter-by-15-billion-fewer-birds/article31876053/>inhabit
North America today compared to 40 years ago. In Britain, certain iconic
species (grey partridges, tree sparrows, etc) havefallen by 90%.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/turtle-doves-nearing-uk-extinction-farming-practices/>In
Germany,flying insects have declined by 76% over the past 27 years
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809>.Almost
half of Borneo's orangutans died or were removed between 1999 and 2015
<https://eventregistry.org/event/eng-3778104>.Elephant numbers have
dropped by 62% in a decade
<http://worldelephantday.org/about/elephants>, with on average one adult
killed by poachers every 15 minutes.
We inherited a planet of beauty and wonders - and we're saying goodbye
to all that.
The cultural historian Paul Fussell once identified the catastrophe of
the first world war with the distinctive sensibility of modernity,
noting how 20th century history had "domesticate[d] the fantastic and
normalize[d] the unspeakable."
Consider, then, the work of climate change.
In February, for instance, scientists recordedtemperatures 35 degrees
above the historical average in Siberia
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises>,
a phenomenon thatapparently corresponded with the unprecedented cold
snap across Europe
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/climate/polar-vortex-europe-cold.html>.
As concentrated CO2 intensifies extreme events, a new and diabolical
weather will, we're told, become the norm for a generation already
accustomising itself to such everyday atrocities as abouteight million
tons of plastics
<http://web.unep.org/environmentassembly/estimated-8-million-tons-plastic-waste-enter-world%E2%80%99s-oceans-each-year-0>are
washed into the ocean each year...
The appeals to humanity and reason did not move states jostling for
trade and commercial advantages. For the people of Europe, the arms race
was disastrous; for specific governments, it made perfect sense, for
those who did not compete risked falling behind.
The same might be said today.
From a global perspective, the necessity to abandon fossil fuels cannot
be denied. But for individual economies, change risks undermining
comparative advantages.
If we don't sell coal,says Malcolm Turnbull
<https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/27/malcolm-turnbull-coal-export-ban-would-make-no-difference-to-emissions>,
our competitors will - which was, of course precisely the logic of the
British fleet expansion in 1908.
The Guardian view on snow and ice: it's too cold here but too warm in
the Arctic
Read more
The devastation of the first world war eventually engendered a wave of
revolt from a populace appalled at the carnage their politicians had
wrought.
Climate change
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change>has not yet
spurred an equivalent of the mutinies in France or the revolution in
Petrograd or the uprising in Berlin.
Yet Labor's appalling equivocation over the Adani mine - a piece of
environmental vandalism for which there can be no justification -
illustrates the urgency with which we need a new and different type of
politics.
The stakes could not be higher. Lamps are going out all over the natural
world … and no one will ever see them lit again.
•Jeff Sparrow is a Guardian Australia columnist
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/climate-change-is-a-disaster-foretold-just-like-the-first-world-war
[perceptual bias]
*Why some conservatives are blind to climate change
<https://theconversation.com/why-some-conservatives-are-blind-to-climate-change-91549>*
Do you see what I see?
In the face of the evidence, how can we explain this division?
As psychology researchers, we wondered whether some people are just
blind to cues of climate risk.
When we're confronted by visually crowded settings, we tend to notice
emotional words and tune out others. For example, if you were presented
a series of words appearing one after another in quick succession - 10
words per second - you would struggle to name all of them. But you would
be more likely to catch a word like "danger" than a neutral one.
We set up exactly that kind of scenario in our study. We recruited
university students, as well as people in shopping malls in the
Vancouver area and in Kamloops, B.C. Then we showed each of them a rapid
sequence of words and asked them to pick out two targets, such as a set
of digits (555555555) and a word in green font, in the sequence.
Due to limits in our visual system, once the first target has appeared,
people are unable to "see" the second target if it appears too soon
after the first. This phenomenon is called the attentional blink. It's
as if the mind blinks after the first target, preventing you from seeing
the second.
But things change when emotional words are used. Previous research has
shown that if the second target is emotionally arousing, then people are
better able to see it than if it is neutral - compare the words murder
and keyboard, for example...
When we modified the test to measure people's attention to climate
change, we found people who are concerned about climate change are
better at seeing climate-related words, such as carbon, right after the
first target than those who are less concerned.
We also asked participants about their political orientation, income,
education, religion, profession, experience with natural disasters and
whether they owned a home near sea level...
When we analyzed the data, we found a pattern: Conservatives who were
less concerned about climate change were less likely to see
climate-related words than liberals who were worried about the issue.
Now that we know people's political orientation affects their visual
attention to climate change, this raises a possible feedback loop, where
concerned liberals readily tune their attention to news headlines about
climate change and become even more concerned.
But unconcerned conservatives may be more blind to the same headlines
about climate change and therefore become more entrenched in their
disbelief.
The visual blindness can further deepen the denial of the real risks of
climate change such as flooding, hurricanes, drought and heatwaves, and
consequently a lack of action to mitigate climate change.
If we're to be successful communicating the risks of climate change to
conservatives, we may need to go about it in a different way.
Communications about climate change must tailor the climate-related
information to the audience, especially those who are conservative or
unconcerned.
We can do this by using messages that align with people's political
ideologies and personal values.
For example, we can frame climate change action as protecting our nation
against climate catastrophes, advancing economic and technological
development and creating a more caring and considerate society, which is
an effective message to engage climate deniers. Framing environmentalism
as a form of patriotism can be successful, particularly if the appeal is
seen as coming from one's in-group.
It's always hard to get someone's attention, but if the messaging is in
line with their personal values and motivations, they will take notice.
https://theconversation.com/why-some-conservatives-are-blind-to-climate-change-91549
[Science of denial]
Political orientation and climate concern shape visual attention to
climate change <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-018-2147-9>
Abstract
Despite the scientific consensus, there is widespread public
controversy about climate change. Previous explanations focused on
interpretations hampered by political bias or insufficient knowledge
of climate facts. We propose that public views of climate change may
also be related to an attentional bias at a more basic level of
cognitive processing. We hypothesized that selective visual
attention towards or away from climate-related information would be
associated with climate concern. To test prioritization of
climate-related stimuli under conditions of limited attention, we
asked participants to identify climate-related and neutral words
within a rapid stream of stimuli. Undergraduate students attended to
climate-related words more readily than neutral words. This
attentional prioritization correlated with self-rated climate
concern. We then examined this relationship in a more diverse
community sample. Principal component analysis of survey data in the
community sample revealed a component indexing a relationship
between climate concern and political orientation. That component
was correlated with the degree of selective inattention to
climate-related words. Our findings suggest that climate-related
communications may be most effective if tailored in a manner
accounting for how attentional priorities differ between
audiences-particularly those with different political orientations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-018-2147-9
[Ethics of Climate Change 2013]
*Ethics and Climate Change: It's wrong to wreck the world
<https://youtu.be/2a7SSLYKbqQ>*
If your house is on fire what is the best thing to do?
I'd put out the darn fire and do it fast because there are people in
there about seven
billion of them and there are animals in there and there are plants
but what do we do well?
We debate about whether it was lightning or arson that started that
fire human caused or natural.
We attack the credibility of the people who call in the alarm?
We saw a jobs program for the firefighters.
and this is the one that really gets me:
We commissioned a number of studies about adapting to life in a
burnt-up house
We are moving so quickly to adaptation, there are jobs in adaptation.
It's empowering to think about how we can
adapt to all this. But we're not done putting out the fire so let's
work on that first
https://youtu.be/2a7SSLYKbqQ
[Audacity and Hubris]
*Yes, Exxon Is Accusing Local Governments of Misleading Investors on
Climate Change
<https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/10/exxon-accuses-california-cities-misleading-investors-climate-change>*
By Justin Mikulka • March 10, 2018
In January, ExxonMobilfiled a legal petition
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4345487-Exxon-Texas-Petition-Jan-2018.html> seeking
to depose more than a dozen city and county government officials in
California,claiming that the municipal officials
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article203207749.html>are
defrauding investors by not fully disclosing the risks posed by
climate change.
You read that right. Exxon is legally challenging cities and
counties for not talking up the risks of climate change/enough/to the
investors who purchase municipal bonds for those localities...
Exxon is responding to the municipalities which havefiled
lawsuits<https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-oil-climatesuits/california-cities-sue-big-oil-firms-over-climate-change-idUSKCN1BV2QM>seeking
to hold Exxon and other oil companies accountable for the damages to
their cities from sea level rise. Exxon's legal petition
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4345487-Exxon-Texas-Petition-Jan-2018.html> is
calling those lawsuits a "conspiracy" because - according to its
petition - "A collection of special interests and opportunistic
politicians are abusing law enforcement authority and legal process to
impose their viewpoint on climate change."
The oil giant goes on to say: "ExxonMobil finds itself directly in that
conspiracy's crosshairs. Even though it has long acknowledged the risks
presented by climate change …"
According to its legal filing, Exxon just wants to be able to talk about
climate change but claims its First Amendment rights are being taken
away by the lawsuits the various municipalities have filed:
"Through abusive law enforcement tactics and litigation in California,
Respondents and others are attempting to stifle ExxonMobil's exercise,
in Texas, of its First Amendment right to participate in the national
dialogue about climate change and climate policy."
How the lawsuits have stifled Exxon's free speech is not clear from the
legal document, but law experts say it certainly looks like an attempt
to intimidate anyone considering holding Exxon and the industry
accountable for the impacts of climate change.
"It's an aggressive move,"Howard Erichson,
<https://www.fordham.edu/info/23129/howard_m_erichson>a law professor at
Fordham with expertise in the procedure and ethics of complex
litigation, explained toBloomberg
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/exxon-sues-the-suers-in-fierce-bid-to-defeat-climate-lawsuits>.
"Does Exxon really need these depositions or is Exxon seeking the
depositions to harass mayors and city attorneys into dropping
their lawsuits?"
Exxon's claim that these municipalities are misleading investors on
climate change is interesting because that is - of course - exactly what
Exxon has been accused ofin multiple lawsuits
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-exxon/new-york-prosecutor-says-exxon-misled-investors-on-climate-change-idUSKBN18T1XK>and
in the national dialogue over climate liability...
In an interesting turn of events, Exxon is using the tactic of accusing
its opponents of what it appears to be guilty of when it comes to
climate risks...
Because even though Exxon fails to mention the company's exposure to
climate liability to its investors, the possibility remains that
international efforts to address climate change could seriously cut into
Exxon's profits. It should be expected that as the impacts of climate
change continue to intensify, Exxon's attacks on those looking to hold
them accountable will ramp up as well.
*https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/10/exxon-accuses-california-cities-misleading-investors-climate-change*
[On the other hand - 1985 CSPAN video]
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzBhJvu_eYU> /(long duration,
important, historical - bookmark and save)/
*From 1985: Warnings from Carl Sagan and Al Gore [and others]
<https://climatecrocks.com/2018/03/11/from-1985-warnings-from-carl-sagan-and-al-gore/>*
by greenman3610
Climate deniers will have a hard time explaining these to their
grandchildren, the kids who are now woke to the disasters they've been
served by blindness and greed. Astounding find by ClimateState.
YouTube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzBhJvu_eYU> Carl Sagan,
Al Gore Climate Warning 1985 +2m SLR +5 degrees C by 2100
December 10, 1985 - A group of senators and scientists today called for
national and international action to avert a predicted warming of the
earth's climate resulting from a buildup of carbon dioxide and other
man-made gases in the atmosphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzBhJvu_eYU
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/03/11/from-1985-warnings-from-carl-sagan-and-al-gore/
*This Day in Climate History - March 12, 2017
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/business/energy-environment/electric-cars-hybrid-tax-credits.html>
- from D.R. Tucker*
The New York Times reports:
"Today, the economic incentives that have helped electric vehicles
gain a toehold in America are under attack, state by state. In some
states, there is a move to repeal tax credits for battery-powered
vehicles or to let them expire. And in at least nine states,
including liberal-leaning ones like Illinois and
conservative-leaning ones like Indiana, lawmakers have introduced
bills that would levy new fees on those who own electric cars.
"The state actions could put the business of electric vehicles,
already rocky, on even more precarious footing. That is particularly
true as gas prices stay low, and as the Trump administration appears
set to give the nascent market much less of a hand.
"In coming days, the Trump administration is widely expected to roll
back stringent federal regulations on vehicle emissions, one of the
biggest environmental legacies of President Barack Obama. The
changes would give American carmakers less incentive to produce more
battery-powered cars. There are also concerns among advocates of
electric cars over the fate of a $7,500 federal tax credit on the
vehicles, a major catalyst for sales.
"But while the battle in Washington gets much of the attention, the
most direct attack against electric vehicles, and in some cases
hybrid vehicles, is quietly being waged at the state level.
In Colorado, a bill that would end income tax credits for owners of
electric and alternative-fuel vehicles is working its way through
the legislature. In Utah, lawmakers voted this month against
extending the state’s tax credit for electric cars.
"The measure in Colorado has been backed publicly by Americans for
Prosperity, an advocacy group founded by the conservative
billionaire brothers David H. and Charles G. Koch, whose wealth is
founded on their petrochemicals empire.
"A handful of other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania and
Tennessee, have already let their incentives expire. That has
brought down to 16 the number of states that offer financial support
for buyers of electric vehicles. That number once approached 25."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/business/energy-environment/electric-cars-hybrid-tax-credits.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180312/56340e59/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list