[TheClimate.Vote] March 30, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Mar 30 10:51:19 EDT 2018
/March 30, 2018/
[Exxon loses in court]
*Federal Judge Dismisses Exxon Lawsuit Challenging State Climate Probes*
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/29/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-ny-mass-schneiderman-healey/>
By Karen Savage
A federal judge dismissed Exxon's lawsuit attempting to stop
investigations by two state attorneys general into potential climate
fraud by the company, which the company claimed are politically
motivated and in violation of its Constitutional rights.
Ruling that Exxon's allegations against Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman are
"implausible" and brought "on the basis of extremely thin allegations
and speculative inferences," U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni
dismissed the suit with prejudice on Thursday.
In the suit, Exxon claimed the investigations are an abuse of the AGs'
political positions and violated the oil giant's First, Fourth and
Fourteenth amendment rights. The case was first filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas in June 2016, but was
transferred to New York last year.
In Thursday's decision, Caproni called Exxon's allegations that the
investigations are politically motivated a "wild stretch of logic."
She wrote that the company's claims all centered around a single press
conference and a handful of meetings with climate activists. Caproni
said the company relied on a narrative that was "the result of
cherry-picking snippets from the transcript of the press conference."
To further illustrate her point, Caproni included the complete quotes
from Healey and Schneiderman in her ruling.
"Nothing that was said can fairly be read to constitute declaration of a
political vendetta against Exxon," wrote Caproni, who said Exxon's
arguments also fail "to tie the AGs to any improper motive, if it
exists" among activists.
Caproni said while Exxon says it shares Schneiderman's and Healey's
belief that climate change is real, that does not erase the possibility
that Exxon may have "sowed confusion" to fraudulently bolster its bottom
line.
She said the company's communications with outside groups are
potentially relevant, particularly if Exxon "knowingly helped
climate-change deniers craft a messaging strategy that was consistent
with Exxon's political desire to avoid regulations harmful to its
economic interests but inconsistent with its internal understanding of
climate change."
The ruling was welcome news for the attorneys general, who have expended
significant energy defending themselves from Exxon's legal pushback. At
one point the Texas federal judge nearly required Healey to submit to a
deposition by Exxon.
"Exxon has run a scorched earth campaign to avoid answering our basic
questions about the company's awareness of climate change," Healey said
in a statement. "Today, a federal judge has thoroughly rejected the
company's obstructionist and meritless arguments to block our
investigation. Massachusetts customers and investors deserve answers
from Exxon about what it has known about the impact of burning fossil
fuels on its business and the planet, and whether it hid this
information from the public." More at:
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/29/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-ny-mass-schneiderman-healey/
[PR industry opinion]
*EPA Pushes Misinformation on Climate Change
<http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/10414/2018-03-29/epa-pushes-misinformation-climate-change.html>*
Mar. 29, 2018 - By Kevin McCauley
Hey EPA chief, Scott Pruitt! The good guys won the "debate" on whether
humans contribute to global warming, which is not exactly "hot news."
In 2014, the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society
issued a report called "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes," which
stated: "Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by
human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing
observations with models and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of
climate change caused by different human and natural influences."
And how about: "All major climate changes, including natural ones, are
disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species,
population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and
ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster
than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human
societies and the natural world to adapt."
Wait, there's more: "Earth's lower atmosphere is becoming warmer and
moister as a result of human-emitted greenhouse gases. This gives the
potential for more energy for storms and certain severe weather events.
Consistent with theoretical expectations, heavy rainfalls and snowfall
events (which increase flooding) and heatwaves are generally becoming
more frequent."
Let's shift to EPA fantasyland, in which the emaciated federal
environmental watchdog ignores science and spreads misinformation about
the jury being out on global warming.
On March 27, EPA's public affairs shop distributed eight "talking
points" for guidance on global warming. Its purpose was to have its
communicators spread a consistent message. A consistent but flat out
wrong message.
Among talking point gems:
/+ Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The
ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that
impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate
and dialogue.//
//
//+ While there has been extensive research and a host of published
reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our
understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about
it./
And the whopper: "Administrator Pruitt encourages an open, transparent
debate on climate science."
The April 2 New Yorker profiles Pruitt as a man on a mission to please
Donald Trump, who, of course, says climate change is a hoax invented by
the Chinese to Keep America from Becoming Great Again.
In the short-term, Pruitt, who was Attorney General of Oklahoma, is
keeping on Trump's good guy list in the hope of succeeding Jeff
Sessions, once he is bounced from the AG job.
TNY reports Pruitt's longer-term goal is to succeed Trump as president
in 2024.
God help both us and Mother Earth.
http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/10414/2018-03-29/epa-pushes-misinformation-climate-change.html
[OK, time to check the science]
*AP FACT CHECK: Science contradicts EPA warming memo
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-fact-check-science-contradicts-epa-warming-memo-54106679>*
By SETH BORENSTEIN AND MICHAEL BIESECKER, ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - Mar 29, 2018
Climate scientists say an internal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
memo on how officials should talk to the public about global warming
doesn't reflect reality.
EPA's public affairs office put out "a set of talking points about
climate change" to help the agency have a consistent message, the
Huffington Post reported this week.
The Associated Press, which also obtained the memo, contacted 15 climate
scientists. They all said EPA wasn't accurately portraying the degree of
knowledge that researchers know about climate change and humanity's
role. For decades, scientists have being saying that the burning of
fossil fuels increases greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which
trap heat and change the planet's climate in many ways.
EPA defended the memo.
*THE MEMO*
"Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability
to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what
to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."
*THE SCIENCE*
"To say that 'human activity impacts our changing climate 'in some
manner', is analogous to saying the Germans were involved in WW II 'in
some manner'," David Titley, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania
State University and retired U.S. Navy admiral, said in an email.
The EPA memo contradicts a November 2017 federal science report, signed
off by 13 government agencies, including the EPA. That report says the
world has warmed 1.2 degrees (0.65 Celsius) since 1950 and that the
likely human contribution to this was between 92 and 123 percent.
It's more than 100 percent on one end, because some natural forces —
such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are
being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases, said study
co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech.
Hayhoe, one of the scientists who criticized the EPA memo, said the
debate now is more about whether humanity's role is merely close to 100
percent of the warming or if it is it much more and offsetting natural
cooling.
*THE MEMO*
"While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports
regarding climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding
of the role of human activity and what we can do about it."
*THE SCIENCE*
Two scientists, Jonathan Overpeck, dean of environmental science at the
University of Michigan, and Michael Oppenheimer at Princeton University
each described the idea of gaps in scientific knowledge as "flat out
wrong." Scientists said there are some details that aren't completely
known, but not gaps in knowledge about what is causing the problem and
humanity's role.
"Suggesting that there are gaps that remain in our understanding of the
role of human activity and possible solutions to the problem is false
equivalence at its finest," said Kathie Dello, an Oregon State
University climate scientist. "We know it's us and we know what we have
to do about it."
Asked to provide any sources for the agency's contention that the
contribution of man-made carbon emissions in climate change is
unsettled, EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones issued this statement:
"The talking points were developed by the Office of Public Affairs. The
Agency's work on climate adaptation continues under the leadership of
Dr. (Joel) Scheraga."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-fact-check-science-contradicts-epa-warming-memo-54106679
[Gaps need attention]
*Climate scientists debate a flaw in the Paris climate agreement
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/28/climate-scientists-debate-a-flaw-in-the-paris-climate-agreement>*
Ultimately the only thing that matters: we need to cut carbon pollution
as much as possible, as fast as possible
In September 2017, a team led by the University of Exeter's Richard
Millar published a paper in Nature Geoscience, which was widely reported
as suggesting that the Paris climate agreement's aspirational goal of
limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial
temperatures is still technically within our reach. Many other climate
scientists were skeptical of this result, and the journal recently
published a critique from a team led by the University of Edinburgh's
Andrew Schurer.
The debate lies in exactly how the Paris climate target is defined and
measured, which has not been precisely established. Millar's team used
the UK Met Office and Hadley Centre global surface temperature dataset
called HadCRUT4, which begins in 1850 and estimates global surface
temperatures have warmed about 0.9 degrees C since that time. The team
thus calculated the remaining carbon budget that will lead to an
additional 0.6 degrees C warming.
The three issues underlying the vague Paris target
But HadCRUT4 has some significant flaws. First, it only covers 84% of
Earth's surface. There are large gaps in its coverage, mainly in the
Arctic, Antarctica, and Africa, where temperature monitoring stations
are relatively scarce. And the Arctic is the fastest-warming part of the
planet, which means that HadCRUT4 somewhat underestimates global warming...
[video]
Coverage bias in the HadCUT4 temperature series and its impact o recent
temperature trends <https://youtu.be/GhJR3ywIijo>
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on
recent temperature trends.
Cowtan & Way (2013) https://youtu.be/GhJR3ywIijo
A second issue is that over the oceans, HadCRUT4 uses sea surface
temperatures, which haven't warmed quite as fast as air temperatures
directly above the ocean surface. There's also a third issue - what's
the start date from which we want to stay below 1.5 or 2 degrees C
warming? The starting point in HadCRUT4 is 1850, but another recent
study led by Schurer found that starting even earlier would add up to
0.2 degrees C to the warming we've already caused, and thus shrink the
remaining carbon budget.
Taken all together, these three issues could mean that we've already
warmed 0.2-0.3 degrees C more than estimated in the Millar study, which
would mean a significantly smaller carbon budget. Each additional 0.1
degrees C warming shrinks the remaining 2 degrees C carbon budget by
about 20%, so in that sense even one-tenth of a degree is important in
answering this question about our chances of meeting the Paris targets...
- - - - - - -
Tackling climate change boils down to risk management. Global
temperatures are likely already hotter than at any time in the history
of human civilization, and warming at a rate 20 to 50 times faster than
Earth's fastest natural climate changes. Climate contrarians like
Trump's EPA administrator Scott Pruitt often ask what's Earth's ideal
temperature - the answer is that an ideal climate is a stable one. Rapid
climate changes like the one humans are currently causing create
problems that are difficult for species to adapt to. We need to shift
away from dangerously rapid climate change to a stable climate as soon
as possible...
The ideal Paris target would thus have simply been "cut carbon pollution
as much as possible, as fast as possible." However, governments need a
concrete target on which to base their climate policies. "As much and as
fast as possible" is vague and subjective, while "an 80% carbon
pollution cut by 2050" is concrete, specific, and translates into policy...
The scientific debate over these few tenths of a degree of warming is in
some ways important and in other ways unimportant. It's unimportant
because climate scientists are trying to assess our chances of meeting
the Paris targets, but the 2 degrees C itself is somewhat arbitrary.
However, the Paris targets are important because they provide a concrete
goal that governments and policies can aim for. And each additional
tenth of a degree represents a greater risk that we'll trigger a
dangerous climate feedback, like a large release of methane from beneath
the permafrost or oceans, or the collapse of a major ice shelf...
The one point to take away from this debate is that no matter who's
right, we still need to cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as
fast as possible. Using the choices in the Millar paper would suggest
that we have a better chance of successfully meeting the Paris target,
but even if the international community decides they like those choices
best, it will still take everything we've got to stay below that
definition of 2 degrees C warming.
If governments decide that based on the Millar paper they have a larger
carbon budget and can thus afford to act less quickly, that would be an
incorrect and dangerous interpretation. Climate policies need to keep
progressing and improving at full steam ahead.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/28/climate-scientists-debate-a-flaw-in-the-paris-climate-agreement
MOVING UPSTREAM S1 • E11
*Why 'Deaths of Despair' May Be a Warning Sign for America | Moving
Upstream <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf-xcR8bdA>*
Wall Street Journal Published on Feb 27, 2018
Does a decades-long rise in suicide among white Americans signal an
emerging crisis for U.S. capitalism and democracy? Nobel prize-winning
economist Angus Deaton, and his wife, fellow Princeton Prof. Anne Case,
share their provocative theory with WSJ's Jason Bellini in this episode
of Moving Upstream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf-xcR8bdA
[Book Review]
*Holding the Un-grievable: A Psychoanalytic Approach to the
Environmental Crisis. Review of Climate Crisis, Psychoanalysis, and
Radical Ethics, by Donna M. Orange. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 148
pp. <https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/wAFQIKWrKaKhrWcTInaJ/full>*
Elizabeth Allured , Psy.D.
Pages 239-246 | Published online: Feb 2018
In the unfolding timeline of the deep history of Earth, our human epoch,
or the "Anthropocene," is a mere blink of the eye, the tiny dot of a
period punctuating the most recent sentence in an epic ballad. Yet, that
tiny dot, like a traumatic event in a childhood left unhealed, has
flowered into a paralyzing, cultural madness in which many of us are now
immersed. Donna Orange's book, Climate Crisis, Psychoanalysis, and
Radical Ethics, calls us to use our psychoanalytic sensibilities to
understand how our cultural ontology allowed us to at first blindly and
now, with eyes opening, engage in the dysfunctional process of suicide
via ecocide. It is scientific fact that we have only several years' time
to begin a process of radically reducing our carbon emissions for many
decades to come, to avoid the extinction of our species within a century
or two, or perhaps much sooner. Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life.
New York: Norton and Company...In her unique text, Orange sees a panic
about this fact as appropriate and necessary to lead to adequate action.
Orange steps out of the typical territory of psychoanalysis, and invites
us to deeply examine our unconscious and conscious beliefs about our
"rights" to own and use, however we see fit, the landscape and resources
of the earth. Orange ties the current environmental crisis to roots in
colonialism and chattel slavery. Most contemporary environmentalists do
not focus on causal effects from the 16th through the 19th centuries,
and instead place blame primarily on the steep rise in fossil fuel
consumption from the early 20th century onwards, and on our addiction to
lifestyles based on this. Orange turns the psychoanalytic lens to
explore the psychological underpinnings of our current environmental
crisis, focusing on Enlightenment egoism and Descartes's splitting of
the human mind from nature. These Western developments allowed
individuals to objectify a formerly contiguous and often deified nature,
setting the stage for the large-scale objectification and colonization
of land (and later, waters) and contents. Both slavery and colonization
rendered people and nature as a means to wealth acquisition...
- - - - - - -
An impediment to the appropriate sense of urgency regarding the current
environmental crisis is that it is difficult for many of us in the
developed world to look at the facts and feel that our own basic safety
is sufficiently threatened to warrant significant personal action. This
unconscious or dissociated understanding that, as Orange points out so
well, we ourselves are part of the problem, limits our imagination of
the impending catastrophe or of the coming decades, with more
environmental crises unfolding at a rapidly accelerating pace. Many
people feel a generalized helplessness amid culturally sanctioned
ecoblindness, and are unwilling to be a lone ethical actor in the
absence of a large-scale international effort...
- - - - - - - -
Orange reminds us in her groundbreaking and scholarly text, it is time
for us to turn our focus to the nonhuman environment if we are to save
ourselves from suicide. We experience both great longings for, and great
fears of, the nonhuman environment (Allured, 2012 Allured, E. (2012).
Lonely for the Other Mother: Nature and the Relational Fourth. In
Loneliness and Longing, Conscious and Unconscious Aspects. New York:
Routledge. [Google Scholar], 2014 Allured, E. (2014). Blind Spot in the
Analytic Lens: Our Failure to Address Environmental Uncertainty. In
Understanding and Coping with Failure: Psychoanalytic Perspectives. New
York: Routledge.
[Google Scholar]), which we aggress upon, at times mercilessly. Using
the analytic lens, widened to include a focus on our environmental
ground-of-being, we are uniquely positioned to help our patients and
ourselves know and come to terms with loving and destructive feelings
concerning the larger ecosystem, which sustains us all, but which can no
longer survive our current assaults.
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/wAFQIKWrKaKhrWcTInaJ/full
[Audio - Soundcloud Grief and Hope]
*Stephen Jenkinson - On Grief And Climate Change
<https://soundcloud.com/orphan-wisdom/orphan-wisdom-stephen-jenkinson-on-grief-and-climate-change>*
The following excerpt is from a longer talk recorded at Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, Canada. The topic of the evening was "Wisdom
Working for Climate Change." People of the world are unconsciously
mourning the devastating impact we are having on our planet. Stephen
Jenkinson answers the question "Is it too late to avoid catastrophe?"
https://soundcloud.com/orphan-wisdom/orphan-wisdom-stephen-jenkinson-on-grief-and-climate-change
*This Day in Climate History - March 30, 2015 - from D.R. Tucker*
March 30, 2015: The Washington Post connects the dots between New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie's ties to the Koch brothers and his state's
abandonment of clean-energy efforts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wind-power-or-hot-air-foes-question-christies-shift-on-clean-energy/2015/03/29/f8faf97e-d3e3-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.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/20180330/e9d2fd50/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list