[TheClimate.Vote] March 29, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Mar 29 10:47:06 EDT 2018
/March 29, 2018/
[Gallop Poll on Global Warming]
*Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts
<http://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx>*
by Megan Brenan and Lydia Saad
STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
- Partisan gaps across global-warming measures slightly wider than in 2017
- Democrats view global warming seriously; Republicans view it skeptically
- 69% of Republicans, 4% Democrats say global warming is exaggerated
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Americans' concerns about global warming are not much
different from the record-high levels they were at a year ago. However,
the views of some partisans have shifted, creating larger gaps than what
Gallup saw last year across all questions about global warming.
Partisan Divisions in Americans' Views of Global Warming
2017 2018
% %
Think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated
Republican 66 69
Independent 32 34
Democrat 10 4
Say most scientists believe global warming is occurring
Republican 53 42
Independent 71 65
Democrat 86 86
Believe effects of global warming have already begun
Republican 41 34
Independent 67 60
Democrat 73 82
Believe global warming is caused by human activities
Republican 40 35
Independent 70 62
Democrat 87 89
Worry a great deal/fair amount about global warming
Republican 36 33
Independent 67 62
Democrat 90 91
Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime
Republican 14 18
Independent 45 45
Democrat 58 67
GALLUP
In general, Democrats view global warming seriously, while Republicans
view it skeptically:
Ninety-one percent of Democrats and 33% of Republicans say they worry a
great deal or fair amount about global warming, but 67% of Republicans
worry only a little or not at all.
While 82% of Democrats think global warming has already begun to happen,
only 34% of Republicans agree. Rather, 57% of Republicans think it will
not happen in their lifetime (25%) or will "never happen" (32%).
About seven in 10 Republicans (69%) think the seriousness of global
warming is exaggerated in the news, 15% think it is generally correct
and 15% say it is generally underestimated. Democrats, however, are much
more likely to think the seriousness of global warming is underestimated
(64%) or correct (32%), and just 4% say it is exaggerated.
Eighty-six percent of Democrats versus 42% of Republicans think most
scientists believe global warming is occurring. The percentage of
Republicans who say most scientists believe this is down 11 percentage
points since last year.
Almost nine in 10 Democrats say increases in the Earth's temperature
over the last century are due to human activities more than natural
changes in the environment. Just 35% of Republicans agree, while 63%
attribute the temperature increases to natural environmental causes.
Four in five Republicans do not think global warming will pose a serious
threat to them in their lifetime; two-thirds of Democrats think it will.
- - - - - - - -
*Bottom Line*
The higher level of concern Americans have exhibited about global
warming since 2016, particularly in terms of worrying about the issue
and believing it is caused by human activity, is largely intact this year.
One reason for this stability is that Americans' views on the issue are
becomingly increasingly partisan and therefore entrenched. With Trump
reversing many of his predecessors' policies aimed at curbing global
warming, Democrats are feeling a greater sense of urgency about the
issue, while Republicans have either remained as skeptical as they had
been in the past or have become more so.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx
[Climate opinions]
*Partisan split on climate grows, even as U.S. fears are on the rise,
poll finds
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/28/partisan-split-on-climate-grows-even-as-u-s-fears-are-on-the-rise-poll-finds/?utm_term=.3910e5d0fc44>*
By Steven Mufson March 28
Fewer Republicans say they believe that there is a scientific consensus
on climate change or that the effects of global warming have already
begun, according to a new Gallup poll, which showed a widening partisan
gap near record levels.
The moves comes after a year in which President Trump, who has called
global warming a “hoax,” withdrew from the 2015 Paris climate accord and
removed climate change from a list of top national security threats.
As Republicans moved in one direction, Democrats have moved in the
other. An increasing number of Democrats believe that the effects of
global warming have already begun and that warming will pose a “serious
threat” in their lifetimes. As in earlier surveys, an overwhelming
portion of Democrats are worried about climate change and link it to
human activities.
Overall, 45 percent of those surveyed said global warming would pose a
serious threat in their lifetimes, the highest overall percentage
recorded since Gallup first asked the question in 1997. Despite partisan
divisions, majorities of Americans as a whole continue to believe by
wide margins that most scientists think global warming is taking place,
that it is caused by human activities and that its effects have begun.
But as it did last year, the Gallup poll painted sharp differences
between the two parties. Nine out of 10 Democrats worry about global
warming and believe it is caused by human activities. Only a third of
Republicans do. Seven in 10 Republicans think the seriousness of global
warming is “generally exaggerated,” while only 1 in 25 Democrats do...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/28/partisan-split-on-climate-grows-even-as-u-s-fears-are-on-the-rise-poll-finds/?utm_term=.3910e5d0fc44
[Polarize Americans]
Americans increasingly polarized on global warming, poll finds
By SARAH LYNCH - CBS NEWS March 28, 2018
Americans have grown increasingly polarized in their views on global
warming, according to a new poll. "In general, Democrats view global
warming seriously, while Republicans view it skeptically," says Gallup,
a research-based consulting company that conducted a survey this month
about the environment.
The poll found that 67 percent of Democrats think global warming will
pose a serious threat in their lifetime, compared to just 18 percent of
Republicans. It also found that 69 percent of Republicans "think the
seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated," while just 4
percent of Democrats share that belief. The poll was conducted from
March 1-8 among a random sample of 1,041 adults in the United States.
Melting ice, rising seas, longer droughts, stronger storms - Full
Climate Change Coverage
Eighty-two percent of Democrats believe global warming's effects have
already started, while only about one-third of Republicans agree. Also,
about a third of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount
about global warming, compared to a whopping 91 percent of Democrats.
"Americans' concerns about global warming are not much different from
the record-high levels they were at a year ago," Gallup says. "However,
the views of some partisans have shifted, creating larger gaps than what
Gallup saw last year across all questions about global warming."
The company points to various political developments that may have
helped fuel the divide, including President Trump's announcement last
year that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate accord.
[Another Senator stands up, speaks out] video 7:30 mins
*U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin Demands Action on Climate Change
<https://youtu.be/a7zgggaYHAQ>**
*https://youtu.be/a7zgggaYHAQ
[Sorry, warmer means colder]
*Warm Arctic Means Colder, Snowier Winters in Northeastern U.S., Study
Says
<https://news.rutgers.edu/news/warm-arctic-means-colder-snowier-winters-northeastern-us-study-says/20180309#.WruMkS749pg>*
Rutgers scholar Jennifer (Francis) says warming Arctic’s connection to
U.S. weather is “no coincidence”
By Ken Branson - March 13, 2018
Scientists from Rutgers University-New Brunswick and Atmospheric and
Environmental Research (AER) have linked the frequency of extreme winter
weather in the United States to Arctic temperatures.
Their research was published today in Nature Communications.
“Basically, this confirms the story I’ve been telling for a couple
of years now,” said study co-author Jennifer Francis, research
professor of marine and coastal sciences in Rutgers’ School of
Environmental and Biological Sciences. “Warm temperatures in the
Arctic cause the jet stream to take these wild swings, and when it
swings farther south, that causes cold air to reach farther south.
These swings tend to hang around for awhile, so the weather we have
in the eastern United States, whether it’s cold or warm, tends to
stay with us longer.”
The research is timely given the extreme winter of 2017-2018, including
record warm Arctic and low sea ice, record-breaking polar vortex
disruption, record-breaking cold and disruptive snowfalls in the United
States and Europe, severe “bomb cyclones” and costly nor’easters, said
Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at AER and lead author of
the study.
In their study, Cohen, Francis and AER’s Karl Pfeiffer found that severe
winter weather is two to four times more likely in the eastern United
States when the Arctic is abnormally warm than when the Arctic is
abnormally cold. Their findings also show that winters are colder in the
northern latitudes of Europe and Asia when the Arctic is warm.
Paradoxically, the study shows that severe winter weather in the western
United States is more likely when the Arctic is colder than normal.
The researchers found that when Arctic warming occurred near the
surface, the connection to severe winter weather was weak. When the
warming extended into the stratosphere, however, disruptions of the
stratospheric polar vortex were likely. These disruptions usually cause
severe winter weather in mid- to late winter and affect large
metropolitan centers of the northeastern United States.
“Five of the past six winters have brought persistent cold to the
eastern U.S. and warm, dry conditions to the West, while the Arctic has
been off-the-charts warm,” Francis said. “Our study suggests that this
is no coincidence. Exactly how much the Arctic contributed to the
severity or persistence of the pattern is still hard to pin down, but
it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated.”
https://news.rutgers.edu/news/warm-arctic-means-colder-snowier-winters-northeastern-us-study-says/20180309#.WruMkS749pg
[Second Part]
*Oyez Oyez the (Environmental) Courts are Now in Session (Part 2)
<http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-03-27/oyez-oyez-the-environmental-courts-are-now-in-session-part-2/>*
By Joel Stronberg on Mar 27, 2018 03:34 am
The growing number of legal cases is the result of the failure of the
legislative and executive branches to craft a stable framework of
environmental protections based upon the overwhelming preponderance of
scientific research that even the oil companies have come to accept.
The youthful plaintiffs in the Juliana case are seeking to establish
both the federal government's obligation to hold the nation's natural
resources in a public trust and their constitutional right to a healthy
environment.
The cities and counties suing Chevron, ExxonMobil and other of the major
oil companies are taking a primarily civil approach alleging the
defendants of tortuous acts against their communities and seeking
potentially billions of dollars in restitution. In both categories of
cases, climate-science is as much on trial as the actions of the defendants.
- - - -
ExxonMobil is not taking the nuisance suits lying down. Earlier this
year the oil giant filed a petition in the District Court of Tarrant
County, Texas for permission to take pre-suit depositions. The
information ExxonMobil hopes to get is proof that the states, cities,
and counties filing nuisance cases are abusing the legal process,
engaging in a civil conspiracy and violating the company's First
Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] right to participate in the
national dialogue about climate change and climate policy...
ExxonMobil is accusing these jurisdictions of much more than political
conspiracy. The company is alleging that these state and local
governments of investor fraud by not telling prospective bond purchasers
of the significant risks, e.g., loss of property due to rising sea
levels, increased infrastructure costs, etc., these jurisdictions face
because of climate change.
The oil company cites as the source of the fraud the irreconcilable
conflict between what these municipal governments alleged in their
respective complaints and what they disclosed to investors in their bond
offerings indicates that the allegations in the complaints are not
honestly held. Although ExxonMobil has asked the Texas court for
permission to depose the government officials in anticipation of a
possible lawsuit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has filed a
petition with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission urging it to
investigate the cities and counties suing Exxon for bond fraud.
CEI claims it has moved against the municipal governments independent of
ExxonMobil, i.e., based on its own research. However, the language in
the CEI petition mirrors that of Exxon's. Both, for instance, cite Santa
Cruz County's claims in court that it will face a 98 percent chance of a
'devastating three-foot-flood by 2050,' an assertion not included in the
county's bond prospectus.
It would not be surprising to discover some degree-likely greater than
lesser-of coordination between ExxonMobil, CEI, and a host of other
potential allies, including coal companies and other conservative think
tanks. As with defender suits, battle lines are being drawn.
The more significant danger in all of this is the possibility of a large
number of cases and conflicting legal rulings that can easily serve to
delay any final decisions for a decade or more. As mentioned in Part 1,
the courts are limited in what they can do and how quickly they can do
it-even if all accept that climate change is occurring mainly because of
human activities.
- - - - - -
The Juliana case has inspired other lawsuits in the U.S. and abroad. In
November 2017 a suit on behalf of the Clean Air Council (Pennsylvania)
and two children was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. Although inspired by the Oregon case, Clean
Air Council et al. v Donald Trump et al. targets the Trump
administration's unwinding the Obama administration regulations, i.e.,
Clean Power Plan (CPP), and other existing environmental protections in
contravention of the preponderance of scientific data.
According to the complaint:
Well-documented and observable impacts from the changes in Earth's
climate system highlight that the current level of atmospheric CO2
concentration has already taken our nation into a danger zone.
A global scientific consensus has formed around the conclusion that
there is no plausible alternative explanation for global warming
other than human influence.
Children are disproportionately impacted by climate change due to
their unique metabolism, physiology and developmental needs.
(emphasis added)
The United States Government has known for decades that climate
change presents a clear and present danger to the health and welfare
of its citizens and an immediate threat to the planet.
Since January 2017, the Federal Government has engaged in a war on
science by censoring scientific inquiry, attacking internationally
accepted facts and data, slashing the budget for programs intended
to protect the environment, and appointing climate change deniers to
key positions.
As a private citizen, candidate, and President, Defendant Trump has
repeatedly denied the existence of climate change….
The Pennsylvania plaintiffs, like those in the Juliana case, are
claiming a constitutional right to a sustainable environment and asking
the court to apply the public trust doctrine. Unlike the Oregon case,
the Clean Air Council plaintiffs have narrowed their requested relief to
the court's prohibiting the federal government from promulgating any
rollbacks that increase the life-threatening effects of climate change
based on junk science. (emphasis added) In the alternative, plaintiffs
are asking for any other relief the Court would deem just and proper
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-03-27/oyez-oyez-the-environmental-courts-are-now-in-session-part-2/
[start about 16 minutes in]
*7th Symposium on the Impacts of an Ice-Diminishing Arctic on Naval and
Maritime Operations <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmP8U9tJ6w>*
Originating in 2001, this biennial symposium focuses on naval and other
maritime operations in an "ice-free Arctic" and brings together experts
on arctic marine operations, the environment, science, policy, law, and
governance. High-level opening remarks are anticipated from members of
the Alaska Congressional Delegation, NOAA, Navy, USCG, USARC, industry,
and other representatives from the US, Arctic nations, and international
community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmP8U9tJ6w
[2011 threat or opportunity? ]
*Dr Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey, on future climate change
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbpPU7GV94>*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbpPU7GV94
University of Cambridge Judge Business School
Published on Dec 16, 2011
Dr Emily Shuckburgh spoke at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Centre for
Risk Studies in December 2011 on the subject of future-proof decisions
and recommendations.
Dr Shuckburgh leads the Open Oceans research group at the British
Antarctic Survey, which is focused on understanding the role of the
polar oceans in the global climate system. She is also a fellow of
Darwin College, Cambridge. She is a climate scientist who has worked at
Ecole Normal Superieure in Paris and at MIT, as well as at the
University of Cambridge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbpPU7GV94
- - - - -
[2017 - planetary heath check]
*"How to conduct a planetary health check"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuCI1M0XI3M>*
Dr Emily Shuckburgh | TEDxLeicester
Published on Dec 15, 2017
Dr Emily Shuckburgh is a climate scientist and deputy head of the Polar
Oceans team at BAS, which is focused on understanding the role of the
polar oceans in the global climate system. Her personal research
concerns investigating the dynamics of the atmosphere, oceans and
climate, using theoretical approaches, observational data and numerical
modelling. She is a fellow of University of Cambridge Darwin College and
the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. The latter is
dedicated to working with leaders from business and governments on
critical global challenges of the 21st century such as climate change,
water scarcity and food security. She has also worked at Ecole Normale
Superieure in Paris and at MIT in Boston. She is a fellow of the Royal
Meteorological Society, co-Chair of their Climate Science Communications
Group and has acted as an advisor to the UK Government. In 2016 she was
awarded an OBE for services to science and the public communication of
science. Dr Emily Shuckburgh is a climate scientist and deputy head of
the Polar Oceans team at BAS, which is focused on understanding the role
of the polar oceans in the global climate system. Her personal research
concerns investigating the dynamics of the atmosphere, oceans and
climate, using theoretical approaches, observational data and numerical
modelling.
She is fellow of University of Cambridge Darwin College and the
Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. The latter is
dedicated to working with leaders from business and governments on
critical global challenges of the 21st century such as climate change,
water scarcity and food security. She has also worked at Ecole Normale
Superieure in Paris and at MIT in Boston.
She is a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, co-Chair of their
Climate Science Communications Group and has acted as an advisor to the
UK Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuCI1M0XI3M
*This Day in Climate History - March 29, 2017 - from D.R. Tucker*
In a Washington Post op-ed, John Podesta observes:
“Since taking office, Trump has taken steps to eliminate limits on
carbon pollution and increase America’s dependence on foreign oil,
including by moving to weaken vehicle efficiency standards and
import more Canadian tar-sands crude oil . His proposed budget
decimates scientific research, he selected an Environmental
Protection Agency administrator who denies climate science, and he
has just signed a broad executive order that will dismantle
environmental protections and cost taxpayers more than $40 billion.
Compounding these outrages, he has directed the government to
implement an accounting system that would exaggerate the benefits
and discount the costs of his actions.
“Make no mistake, the Trump administration’s rampage against the
environment presents an existential threat to the entire planet. But
we cannot give up hope that we can still avert the most severe
aspects of climate change.
“Winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes was not enough
for Hillary Clinton to win the White House, but those votes
nonetheless reflect the voices of a majority of Americans.
Public-opinion research consistently finds that most Americans
believe climate change is a major problem and support steps to cut
carbon pollution.
“What’s more, a study found that the counties that voted for Clinton
and progressive leadership in November generate nearly two-thirds of
U.S. economic activity. This is significant because moderate and
progressive leaders at the local and state levels can, as a result,
guide two-thirds of the U.S. economy into a clean-energy transformation.
“We are already seeing this in states such as California and New
York, which are establishing themselves as global climate leaders.
Mayors from both red and blue states, meanwhile, are continuing to
move aggressively to build clean-energy economies and deliver
climate solutions.
“Thanks to this leadership and innovation and entrepreneurship in
the private sector, America’s clean-energy economy is strong enough
to withstand a short-term change in policy. The Obama
administration’s focus on emissions reductions and clean energy will
not be easily reversed. U.S. net imports of foreign oil fell by more
than 50 percent from 2008 to 2016, emissions declined to their
lowest level since 1992, and the economy continued to grow.
“As much as Trump might try to ignore it, this shift toward clean
energy is a global one.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-on-a-rampage-to-endanger-the-planet-now-its-up-to-us-to-save-it/2017/03/28/62790e5a-13d3-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.f9e0aad051ce
/------------------------------------------
//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/20180329/0df06b1a/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list