[TheClimate.Vote] May 1, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue May 1 09:57:43 EDT 2018
/May 1, 2018/
[COP 23 Conference Bonn]
ENV / Daily Coverage for the Bonn Climate Change Conference - April/May
2018
<http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb48-env/monday-30-apr-2018/?autoplay>
http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb48-env/monday-30-apr-2018/?autoplay
On Monday, 30 April 2018, the main issues for consideration were the
Paris Agreement Work Programme and the Talanoa Dialogue. Participants
shared their expectations for the meeting.
Produced by Asheline Appleton and filmed/edited by Felipe Ruiz.
You can find our written reports and photographs for the Bonn Climate
Change Conference - April/May 2018 at: enb.iisd.org/climate/sb48/
[new work for lawyers]
*The Fighting Has Begun Over Who Owns Land Drowned by Climate Change*
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-04-25/fight-grows-over-who-owns-real-estate-drowned-by-climate-change>
America's coastal cities are preparing for legal battles over real
estate that slips into the ocean.
One April morning in 2016, Daryl Carpenter, a charter boat captain out
of Grand Isle, La., took some clients to catch redfish on a marsh pond
that didn't use to exist. Coastal erosion and rising seas are submerging
a football field's worth of Louisiana land every hour, creating and
expanding ponds and lakes such as the one onto which Carpenter had
piloted his 24-foot vessel.
Suddenly, another boat pulled up beside Carpenter's. "You're
trespassing," the other driver declared, before chasing him and his
clients down the bayou. The sheriff's office later threatened to arrest
Carpenter if he ever returned to the pond. There was just one problem:
Under Louisiana state law, any waterways that are accessible by boat are
supposed to be public property, argued Carpenter - even what was
previously unnavigable swampland...
Carpenter's suit reflects a legal and political dilemma that's beginning
to reverberate around the country: *As seas rise and coasts wash away,
who owns the land that goes underwater?*
more at:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-04-25/fight-grows-over-who-owns-real-estate-drowned-by-climate-change
[risk, research and reconnaissance]
*U.S.-U.K. science armada to target vulnerable Antarctic ice sheet
<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/us-uk-science-armada-target-vulnerable-antarctic-ice-sheet>*
By Paul VoosenApr. 30, 2018 , 6:00 AM
An armada of 100 scientists will soon be descending on West Antarctica,
and understanding the future of global sea levels might depend on what
they find. Today, after several years of planning, the U.S. and U.K.
science agencies announced the details of a joint $50 million (or more)
plan to study the Thwaites glacier, the Antarctic ice sheet most at risk
of near-term melting.
The International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration plans to deploy six
teams to the remote ice sheet, where they will study it using a host of
tools, including instrument-carrying seals and earth-sensing
seismographs. The researchers will concentrate their work in the
Antarctic summers of 2019-20 and 2020-21. An additional two teams will
channel the findings of the field teams into global models....
- - - - -
Over the past decade, thanks to a variety of satellite and aircraft
observations and modeling insights - including signs that the glacier's
ice has started thinning and flowing faster toward the ocean -
scientists have been paying special attention to Thwaites. It is, they
believe, the Antarctic ice sheet most at risk of accelerated melting in
the next century, making it the wild card in projections of sea level
rise. But its remote location, 1600 kilometers from the nearest research
station, has made it inaccessible to scientists seeking to understand
these risks up close.
Thwaites, a 182,000-square-kilometer glacier in the Amundsen Sea, acts
as a plug, blocking the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet from
flowing into the ocean. Melt from the glacier already accounts for 4% of
modern sea level rise, an amount that has doubled since the 1990s.
Scientists are concerned that if it retreats, it could become unstable,
making the collapse of the ice sheet irreversible and ultimately
increasing sea levels by 3.3 meters over the span of centuries or millennia.
"It could contribute to sea level in our lifetimes in a large way, in a
scale of a meter of sea level rise," says Sridhar Anandakrishnan, a
glacial seismologist at Pennsylvania State University in State College
who is co-leading one Thwaites project. "Which is just an unthinkable
possibility."
More at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/us-uk-science-armada-target-vulnerable-antarctic-ice-sheet
- [I thought you'd never ask]
"In 30 years, the grounds of Mar-a-Lago could be under at least a foot
of water for 210 days
<https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/07/donald-trump-maralago-climate-change/>a
year because of tidal flooding along the Intracoastal water way, with
the water rising past some of the cottages and bungalows, the analysis
by Coastal Risk Consulting found."
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/07/donald-trump-maralago-climate-change/
-[precise measure of Mar-a-lago ]
1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480, USA
Altitude: 5m | 16ft
26.6770665, -80.03698020000002
https://elevationmap.net/1100-s-ocean-blvd-palm-beach-fl-33480-usa
[Australians have a good question,]
*Climate Change: The fiduciary responsibility of politicians &
bureaucrats
<https://reneweconomy.com.au/climate-change-fiduciary-responsibility-politicians-bureaucrats-59891/>*
By Ian Dunlop on 26 April 2018
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
<https://reneweconomy.com.au/climate-change-fiduciary-responsibility-politicians-bureaucrats-59891/#>
"Fiduciary: a person to whom power is entrusted for the benefit of another"
"Power is reposed in members of Parliament by the public for exercise
in the interests of the public and not primarily for the interests of
members or the parties to which they belong. The cry 'whatever it takes'
is not consistent with the performance of fiduciary duty"
Sir Gerard Brennan AC, KBE, QC
Part 1.
After three decades of global inaction, none more so than in Australia,
human-induced climate change is now an existential risk to humanity.
- - - - - -
The fact that many Ministers and parliamentarians are climate deniers
for ideological or party political reasons, does not absolve them of the
fiduciary responsibility to set aside their personal prejudices and to
act in the public interest with integrity, fairness and accountability.
This requires them to understand the latest climate science and to act
accordingly. It is not acceptable for those in positions of public
trust to dismiss these warnings in the cavalier manner which has
typified the last few years. Particularly when the risk is existential...
- - - -
If more coal is used by 2040 than in previous history, humanity will
become extinct. These are consequences the IEA does not discuss.
Such ministerial naivety is laughable, but it highlights a serious
governance failure. As with company directors, it is incumbent upon
ministers to understand these issues, in particular the risks to which
the Australian community is exposed by their decisions.
The only possible justification for Minister Canavan's view is that he
does not believe climate change is even a problem, let alone accept the
need to rapidly reduce emissions. Further, he has no understanding of
the implications of his proposed action.
Whatever the Minister's personal position, or the views of those who
voted for him, given the overwhelming science and evidence confirming
the urgency to address climate change, such ignorance is unacceptable
and a fundamental breach of his fiduciary responsibility to the nation...
- - - - -
Many argue that current failures are the nature of politics and we
should expect little else. But when the key issues are existential, that
is to consign democracy to the dustbin of history and to accept
increasing social chaos.
In contrast to earlier eras, the concepts of fiduciary responsibility,
public interest and public trust, are clearly not understood by the
incumbency, from the Prime Minister down. This has to be corrected.
A Federal Parliament with any degree of such responsibility, would
recognise that climate change poses an unprecedented threat to
Australia's future prosperity, requiring emergency action.
To those prepared to honour this obligation, there is ample information
before parliament to warrant that conclusion.
In the public interest, parliamentarians would set aside party political
differences, adopting a bipartisan approach to structuring such action,
with the bureaucracy in full support.
That is highly unlikely, so there remains legal action. Around the world
the seriousness of the climate threat, and the inaction of governments,
is prompting communities to take this step, with increasing success.
The same will happen in Australia, absent an outburst of commonsense
within the political class.
Ian Dunlop was formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry
executive, chair of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the
Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is a Member of the Club of
Rome
More at:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/climate-change-fiduciary-responsibility-politicians-bureaucrats-59891/
[Not very difficult math]
*The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/26/the-missing-maths-the-human-cost-of-fossil-fuels>*
We should account for the costs of disease and death from fossil fuel
pollution in climate change policies
While the climate policy world is littered with numbers, three of them
have dominated recent discourse: 2, 1000, and 66.
At the 2015U.N. climate summit in Paris
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/dec/14/the-paris-agreement-signals-that-deniers-have-lost-the-climate-wars>,
world leaders agreed to limit global warming below2degreesC
<http://theconversation.com/why-is-climate-changes-2-degrees-celsius-of-warming-limit-so-important-82058>to
avoid catastrophic impacts of human-caused climate change. The science
consequently dictates that, for a 50% chance of staying below 2degreesC,
around1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
<https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf>(or
300 billion tonnes of carbon) can be emitted between now and 2050, and
close to zero thereafter. We're currently emitting 36 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide per year. However, the potential greenhouse gas emissions
contained in known, extractable fossil fuel reserves are around three
times higher than this carbon budget, meaning that66%
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says>must
be kept in the ground.
The debate du jour thus centers on which emissions reduction pathway is
most optimal for staying below 2degreesC. The calculus of many
policymakers, economists, fossil fuel companies, and indeed scientists,
is that the most economical way to stay below 2degreesC is to delay most
emissions reductions for decades to come, and then to play catch up by
relying heavily on as-yet technically and economically
unviablenegative-emissions technologies
<http://smartstones.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kevin-Anderson-2016.10.13-the-Trouble-with-Negative-Emissions-Science-2016.pdf>.
However, a crucial number has been neglected in this mainstream
calculation: 6.1 million*.*
Each year,6.1 million lives
<http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/over-7-billion-people-face-unsafe-air-state-global-air-2018>are
lost prematurely due to air pollution. Though most acutely and visibly
hampering megacities of the developing world, air pollution is a growing
public health emergency that affects almost all of us in our daily
lives, whether or not we are aware of it. TheHealth Effects Institute
<http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/over-7-billion-people-face-unsafe-air-state-global-air-2018>estimates
that only 5% of the global population are lucky enough to live in areas
with air pollution levels below safe guidelines. Thoughrecent studies
<https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/u-s-seniors-air-pollution-premature-death/>suggest
there may in fact be no risk-free level of air pollution
- - - - -
Why is this number relevant to climate policy? Because one common
culprit is responsible for the majority of both climate change and air
pollution:fuel combustion
<http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2817%2932345-0.pdf?__hstc=140923309.98c96f79079b931c19c54fa3102964c0.1509979610958.1509979610958.1509979610958.1&__hssc=140923309.3.1509979610959&__hsfp=2586996578>.
Burning coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass - for everyday uses ranging
from electricity, heating, cooking, to transportation - releases
hundreds of gases and particles, some of which disrupt the climate
system or are harmful to human health, or both. Climate change could
alsoworsen air quality
<https://health2016.globalchange.gov/air-quality-impacts>in the future.
Decades of research have revealed that air pollution is associated with
a wide range ofdiseases and disorders
<http://www.who.int/airpollution/en/>, including asthma, cancer, heart
disease, stroke, and premature birth. There is alsoemerging evidence
<https://theconversation.com/air-pollution-may-be-damaging-childrens-brains-before-they-are-even-born-39409>that
pollution from coal combustion and motor vehicles can cause development
delays, reduced IQ, and autism in children. The societal and economic
costs of air pollution aremultifold
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29295510>. There are costs to the
affected individuals, to their families and to society in terms of
direct medical costs, costs to healthcare systems, productivity losses,
and lower economic growth (not to mention costs resulting from damages
to ecosystems).
Yet almost none of these costs stemming from our fossil fuel reliance
are included in the majority of cost-benefit analyses of climate
mitigation strategies. Arecent study
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196%2818%2930029-9/fulltext>estimates
that thehealth co-benefits
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/23/pruitt-promised-polluters-epa-will-value-their-profits-over-american-lives>from
air pollution reductions would outweigh the mitigation costs of staying
below 2degreesC by 140-250% globally. Historical evidence paints a
similar picture. TheEPA estimates
<https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study>that
the U.S. Clean Air Amendments cost $65bn to implement, but will have
yielded a benefit of almost $2tn by 2020 in avoided health costs.
Manypublic health
<http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/pollution-and-health>expert groups
<http://www.lung.org/get-involved/become-an-advocate/public-policy-position-energy.html>have
underscored the enormous opportunity for leaders worldwide to design
policies and initiatives that will simultaneously tackle climate change
and air pollution. Examples include replacing the most carbon-intensive
and polluting sources such as coal and heavy-duty diesel with
lower-emission or renewable alternatives,ending fossil fuel subsidies
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year>,
redesigning urban spaces to make it easier and safer to commute by foot,
bicycle, and public transportation, and transitioning to a more circular
and sustainable economy. While the climatic mitigation effects of such
measures are long-term and dispersed globally, the health benefits are
immediate and local.
For too long, the enormous toll of disease and deaths from fossil fuel
pollution has been neglected in climate change policies and
underappreciated by the public. But public health data makes it clear
that not all 2degreesC scenarios are created equal. The lives and
well-being ofhundreds of millions of us
<https://thinkprogress.org/climate-action-could-save-over-150-million-lives-2e741962eae8/>-
especially our children - could be at stake. We would be remiss to
ignore it.
/Dr. Ploy Achakulwisut is a Postdoctoral Scientist at the George
Washington University Milken Institute School of PublicHealth
<https://www.theguardian.com/society/health>. She has a PhD in
Atmospheric Science from Harvard University./
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/26/the-missing-maths-the-human-cost-of-fossil-fuels
[heat increases violence]
*Global warming is making us lose our cool
<https://www.rappler.com/science-nature/ideas/science-solitaire/200787-global-warming-making-us-lose-cool>*
Maria Isabel Garcia
There seems to be something about rising temperatures that contributes
to the ascent of human tempers
We are losing our minds because of climate change.
We are no strangers to the losses brought about by climate change:
landscapes that drastically change, animals that could not cope and have
become endangered or extinct, coasts that have been eaten up by rising
sea levels, croplands that have been scorched by draught or drowned in
floods. And it is not only natural capital we are losing - we are also
being cut off from the anchors of meaning, because we humans have
cultivated meaning that are tied to the natural environment. No matter
how much you love the internet, all culture is still anchored in place,
in the natural world. Human-caused climate change is altering the
natural world at rates so much faster than natural systems can say the
ecological equivalent of "What the %*&%!$?" and cope to restore
themselves. But it gets worse: science has also found that the loss has
crept in even more intimately into our humanity. We seem to lose it when
climates warm up.
By "losing our minds," I specifically mean that we all generally lose
our cool because of climate change. We become hot-headed and thus,
violent. I wish I were making this up, but a study
<http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/07/31/science.1235367>
I came across looked at a lot of data across centuries and found that
higher temperatures indeed caused more violence.
The review looked at 60 studies found in various fields like
archaeology, economics, psychology, and criminology that probed what
climate and violence had to do with each other. It studied cases across
history - from as far back as 10,000 BCE up to the present - in many
different parts of the world and what the review found was really
disheartening: apart from the things known to cause eruptions of
violence (like massive unrest, discrimination, revenge, and grievances
of many kinds) hotter, wetter climate also upped the ante for violence.
And this was not only violence among groups (civil wars, riots, and
ethnic violence) but also personal violence (murder, assault, rape and
domestic violence) as well as collapse of institutions and
civilizations. This is probably enough for you to revisit records of
personal family histories as well as the recorded rise and fall of the
great powers, and to think about higher temperatures as a major factor
behind any violence. What was remarkably scary was that the review saw a
pattern wherein extreme climate conditions led to a rise in violence
regardless of a nation's wealth, geography, and period in time. There
seems to be something about rising temperatures that contributes to the
ascent of human tempers.
This is not to say that our hot tempers are only triggered by rising
temperatures. That is too simplistic. Humans have multiple triggers that
act on each other like a Rube Goldberg machine. Scientists who did the
research posed that one reason for the violence may have to do with the
impact of hotter temperatures on crop yields. This strikes at the heart
of sectors whose literal and metaphorical guts are sustained by
agriculture - press this button hard, and you get an uprising. We did a
related study on this many years ago when we were trying to uncover
links of environmental degradation to civil strife. The pathways we
found were similar: people's lifelines are anchored on land, and so if
the land won't yield sustenance, the tendency to find blame or simply
erupt out of desperation is a lot more likely.
Hunger is definitely a reliable path to anger. There are very few things
that could cause tempers to flare more than food issues. This BBC
article explored the prospects of food supply with climate change, and
the verdict from the studies cited is clear: yields go down after
30degreesC. This is very true of the major crops on which the world is
so dependent: corn, wheat, rice, and soy. Crops cannot naturally cope
with temperatures that are rising so fast. This is why genetic
engineering - if done carefully and with an eye toward possible dangers
and effects in other parts of the ecosystem - could be part of the
solution, while we also get our act together in transforming the way we
consume, heating the planet in the process.
The BBC article also pointed out how traditional sources of food will
shift and most likely will not be as accessible as before. This will
cause major increases in the prices of many food items, and will disrupt
sources of sustenance for populations. Imagining this, it would not be a
stretch to see how climate change can cause violence among neighbors,
countries, or regions.
The earlier study on hotter temperatures and violence drew their
conclusions from data that showed a less than 1degreesC rise in history.
We are looking at 2degreesC by 2050. The scientists involved in the
study said that this increases the risk of civil war in many countries
by 50%!
Climate change is the plague of our time. It strips us of our land,
water, and food. It also affects our sense of safety, our sense of place
and, now we know, even our sense of peace. What more does science have
to show that we are losing so we can get our act together in arresting
the fast rise in global temperatures? 'Til we have nothing left to
surrender? - Rappler.com
Maria Isabel Garcia is a science writer.
https://www.rappler.com/science-nature/ideas/science-solitaire/200787-global-warming-making-us-lose-cool
- [Research Article]
*Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict
<http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/07/31/science.1235367>*
Solomon M. Hsiang, Marshall Burke, Edward Miguel
Abstract
A rapidly growing body of research examines whether human conflict
can be affected by climatic changes. Drawing from archaeology,
criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and
psychology, we assemble and analyze the 60 most rigorous
quantitative studies and document, for the first time, a remarkable
convergence of results. We find strong causal evidence linking
climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and
temporal scales and across all major regions of the world. The
magnitude of climate's influence is substantial: for each 1 standard
deviation change in climate toward warmer temperatures or more
extreme rainfall, median estimates indicate that the frequency of
interpersonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup
conflict rises 14%. Because locations throughout the inhabited world
are expected to warm 2 to 4σ by 2050, amplified rates of human
conflict could represent a large and critical impact of
anthropogenic climate change.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/07/31/science.1235367
[Superb video, very current, with a few quibbles over terms]
*"Climate change: past, present and future" with Prof Sir David Hendry"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919MEnyRzKA>*
Oxford Martin School, Streamed live April 30, 2018
The talk draws on findings from applying novel empirical approaches to
understanding climate change and its impacts in the past, present, and
future.
The talk will highlight the impact major 'natural' changes in global
climate have had on the five largest mass extinctions over the last 500
million years, and will explain modelling of recent CO2 emissions and
concentrations which confirm the impact of human activity, with a focus
on UK CO2 emissions over the period 1860 - 2016. The role of major
policy interventions which have reduced the UK's per capita annual
emissions below any level since 1860 when the UK was the 'workshop of
the world' will be investigated.
Professor Sir David Hendry, INET Oxford and Climate Econometrics, will
illustrate how to investigate the costs of 'mis-forecasting' extreme
climate events by studying the economic impacts of inaccuracies in
hurricane forecasts and will discuss empirical evidence on local climate
impacts of emissions and what influences climate-change scepticism.
Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford
www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk*
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919MEnyRzKA
[awareness of the future]
*No future for egoists - that's what their brain says!
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180425120245.htm>*
Researchers analysed the cerebral activity of egotistical people,
discovering that they do not think about the future if it seems too far
off to concern them
Some people are worried about the future consequences of climate change,
while others consider them too remote to have an impact on their
well-being. Researchers at the University of Geneva (UNIGE),
Switzerland, examined how these differences are reflected in our brains.
With the help of neuro-imaging, the scientists found that people deemed
"egotistical" do not use the area of the brain that enables us to look
into and imagine the distant future. In "altruistic" individuals, on the
other hand, the same area is alive with activity. The research results,
published in the journal Cognitive, Affective & Behavioural
Neuroscience, may help psychologists devise exercises that put this
specific area of the brain to work. These could be used to improve
people's ability to project themselves into the future and raise their
awareness of, for example, the effects of climate change.
The concerns experienced by human beings are built on their values,
which determine whether individuals prioritize their personal well-being
or put themselves on an equal footing with their peers. In order to
encourage as many people as possible to adopt "sustainable" behaviour,
it is thus necessary that they feel the consequences of climate change
are relevant to them. Some individuals - who are more self-centred - do
not worry about the consequences, believing that these potential
disasters are too far off.
"We wondered what magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could teach us about
how the brain processes information about the future impact of climate
change, and how this mechanism differs depending on the
self-centeredness of the individual," says Tobias Brosch, professor in
the Psychology Section at UNIGE's Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences (FPSE).
Are egoists only afraid of what directly concerns them?
The UNIGE psychologists turned to the report drawn up by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where they identified
predictions about the outcomes of climate change, such as a reduction in
drinking water supplies, an increase in border conflicts and a spike in
natural disasters. They then assigned a year in the future to each of
these effects, stating when it would come to pass.
Brosch's team invited a panel of participants to complete a standardized
questionnaire to measure the value hierarchies, marking the selfish or
altruistic tendencies of each individual. One by one, the participants
underwent an MRI before being shown the dated consequences of the
events; they then had to answer two questions on a scale of 1 to 8: Is
it serious? Are you afraid?
"The first result we obtained was that for people with egotistical
tendencies, the near future is much more worrying than the distant
future, which will only come about after they are dead. In altruistic
people, this difference disappears, since they see the seriousness as
being the same," explains Brosch.
Selfishness makes the brain lazy
The psychologists then focused on the activity in the ventromedial
pre-frontal cortex (vmPFC), an area of the brain above the eyes that is
used when thinking about the future and trying to visualize it. "We
found that with altruistic people, this cerebral zone is activated more
forcefully when the subject is confronted with the consequences of a
distant future as compared to the near future. By contrast, in an
egotistical person, there is no increase in activity between a
consequence in the near future and one in the distant future," says Brosch.
This particular region of the brain is mainly used for projecting
oneself into the distant future. The absence of heightened activity in a
self-centred person indicates the absence of projection and the fact
that the individual does not feel concerned by what will happen after
his or her death. Why, then, should such people adopt sustainable forms
of behaviour?
Set your projection capabilities to work
These outcomes, which can be applied to areas other than climate change,
demonstrate the importance of being able to think about the distant
future in order to adapt one's behaviour to the future constraints of
the world. "We could imagine a psychological training that would work on
this brain area using projection exercises," suggests Brosch. "In
particular, we could use virtual reality, which would make the
tomorrow's world visible to everyone, bringing human beings closer to
the consequences of their actions."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180425120245.htm
[Book blurb - looking back to look forward]
*The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire (The
Princeton History of the Ancient World)
<https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Rome-Climate-Disease-Princeton/dp/0691166838/ref=sr_1_1>*
A sweeping new history of how climate change and disease helped bring
down the Roman Empire
Here is the monumental retelling of one of the most consequential
chapters of human history: the fall of the Roman Empire. The Fate of
Rome is the first book to examine the catastrophic role that climate
change and infectious diseases played in the collapse of Rome's power -
a story of nature's triumph over human ambition.
Interweaving a grand historical narrative with cutting-edge climate
science and genetic discoveries, Kyle Harper traces how the fate of Rome
was decided not just by emperors, soldiers, and barbarians but also by
volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, climate instability, and devastating
viruses and bacteria. He takes readers from Rome's pinnacle in the
second century, when the empire seemed an invincible superpower, to its
unraveling by the seventh century, when Rome was politically fragmented
and materially depleted. Harper describes how the Romans were resilient
in the face of enormous environmental stress, until the besieged empire
could no longer withstand the combined challenges of a "little ice age"
and recurrent outbreaks of bubonic plague.
A poignant reflection on humanity's intimate relationship with the
environment, The Fate of Rome provides a sweeping account of how one of
history's greatest civilizations encountered and endured, yet ultimately
succumbed to the cumulative burden of nature's violence. The example of
Rome is a timely reminder that climate change and germ evolution have
shaped the world we inhabit - in ways that are surprising and profound.
https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Rome-Climate-Disease-Princeton/dp/0691166838/ref=sr_1_1
[humor on the lunacy of "raw" water]
*A Deep Dive into the "Raw Water" Craze | The Daily Show
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJJeFDk8Ok>*
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah Published on Apr 23, 2018
Desi Lydic investigates the dubious health benefits of "raw water" with
the help of Live Water CEO Mukhande Singh and food safety expert Marion
Nestle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJJeFDk8Ok
- - - -
[More on raw water]
*Stephen Colbert's 'Go Fund Yourself': Raw Water
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T961Wk-2YXg>*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T961Wk-2YXg
*This Day in Climate History - May 1, 1998
<http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?slug=2748308&date=19980501>-
from D.R. Tucker*
May 1, 1998: The AP reports on a bogus petition allegedly claiming that
15,000 scientists reject the evidence of human-caused climate change.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?slug=2748308&date=19980501
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
/------------------------------------------
//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/20180501/95c9f95d/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list