[TheClimate.Vote] May 9, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed May 9 10:16:53 EDT 2018
/May 9, 2018/
[Most registered voters (*73%) think global warming is happenings*]
[A majority of registered voters*(59%) think global warming is caused
mostly by human activities*]
[A majority of registered voters *(63%) are worried about global warming*]
*Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
<http://climatecommunication.yale.edu>*
Today we are pleased to release *a new report on Politics & Global
Warming in the United States
<http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018>*.
We find that since Fall 2017, Republican registered voters have become
more convinced that human-caused global warming is happening, are more
worried, and are more supportive of several climate policies.
Among Republican registered voters, belief that global warming is
happening has increased 4 percentage points, while belief that it is
mostly human-caused has increased 9 percentage points since the Fall of
2017. Republicans are also more worried about global warming than they
were in the Fall (+5 points).
- - - - -
It appears that the "Trump Effect" - in which Republican opinions on
climate change declined after the 2016 election - has bottomed out.
Republican opinions have rebounded - in some cases to new record highs.
Republican support for strict carbon dioxide limits on existing
coal-fired power plants increased 9 points and support for requiring
fossil fuel companies to pay a revenue-neutral carbon tax rose 7 points
since Fall 2017.
- - - -
More broadly, public support for a variety of climate and clean energy
policies remains strong and bipartisan. Large majorities of registered
voters support:
Funding more research on renewable energy (87% support), including
94% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 79% of Republicans.
Generating renewable energy on public land (86% support), including
91% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 81% of Republicans.
Providing tax rebates to people who purchase energy-efficient
vehicles or solar panels (85% support), including 91% of Democrats,
82% of Independents, and 77% of Republicans (+6 points since Fall 2017).
Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (81% support), including
91% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans (+8
points since Fall 2017).
Few registered voters think the United States should use more coal (12%;
6% of Democrats, 14% of Independents, and 18% of Republicans) or oil in
the future (11%; 7% of Democrats, and 16% of both Independents and
Republicans).
By contrast, solid majorities of registered Democrats, Independents, and
Republicans say the United States should use more solar energy (80%; 84%
of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans) and wind
energy in the future (73%; 82% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and
62% of Republicans).
Regarding the 2018 Congressional election, 38% of registered voters say
a candidates' position on global warming will be very important when
they decide who they will vote for. When asked how important 28
different issues would be in determining who they vote for in the 2018
election, registered voters ranked global warming 15th overall. But
among liberal Democrats, global warming was voting issue #4, after
healthcare, gun policies, and environmental protection more generally.
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018
[Video reports from Bonn Conference]
*ENV / Bonn Climate Change Conference - April-May 2018 / Coverage for
Monday, 7 May 2018
<http://enb.iisd.org/2018/05/09/env-bonn-climate-change-conference-april-may-2018-coverage-for-tuesday-8-may-2018/>*
IISD Reporting Services is producing daily Earth Negotiations Videos
(ENV) from the Bonn Climate Change Conference - April/May 2018. Our
video team is reporting daily from the meeting, bringing you updates on
key issues, and insights through featured interviews with high-level
delegates and participants.
Produced by Asheline Appleton and filmed/edited by Felipe Ruiz.
IISD's video for Monday, 7 May 2018, is available at:
http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb48-env/monday-7-may-2018/?autoplay
You may find our written reports and photographs for this meeting at:
http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb48/
ENV / Daily Coverage for the Bonn Climate Change Conference - April/May
2018 / Coverage for Monday, 7 May 2018
http://enb.iisd.org/2018/05/09/env-bonn-climate-change-conference-april-may-2018-coverage-for-tuesday-8-may-2018/
*Record floods show world has changed and N.B. must adapt, scientists
say
<https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/record-floods-show-world-has-changed-and-n-b-must-adapt-scientists-say-1.3918250#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=GSEmail&_gsc=GLcw6dO>*
Michael Tutton, THE CANADIAN PRESS - Published Monday, May 7, 2018
New Brunswick's record-breaking floods are a jarring reminder climate
change is bringing a watery future that will wash away old patterns of
life and force many to higher ground permanently, say environmental
scientists and hydrologists.
"The reality is that people expect the world to be the way it was, but
it's not," said Louise Comeau, a professor at the University of New
Brunswick and member of a national panel on climate change adaptation.
When the waters recede, the provincial and federal governments must
frankly inform homeowners the future holds more of the same, says
hydrologist John Pomeroy, director of the global water futures program
at the University of Saskatchewan.
"Sometimes people, when they've been flooded out, it's a good time to
offer to buy them out and remove the homes from the dangerous location,"
Pomeroy said in an interview.
New Brunswick is suffering through record flooding, with rising waters
forcing the closure of the Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and
Fredericton and many people being forced out of their homes.
"The floods look like they're getting larger," said Pomeroy, who is
working on a fresh models for mapping future floods, in tandem with a
network of university scientists studying the nation's largest rivers.
The hydrologist says the public needs to understand historical levels of
water flow are no longer guides to the future.
Sudden temperature flips from frigid April snowstorms to 26 C, as
occurred during the spring runoffs in parts of New Brunswick, are a
feature of climate change that encourage flooding, he said.
The province's legislative committee on climate change cited computer
models predicting that by 2100, New Brunswick's mean annual temperature
will increase by as much as 5 C, while more intense rain and snow will
increase the amount of moisture hitting the ground.,,
- - - -
"New Brunswick seems to rush to address risk when it's happening, and
then, after the event subsides, the province relaxes and waits for its
next disaster."
Jason Thistlethwaite, an assistant professor at the University of
Waterloo's faculty of the environment, said in an interview part of the
problem is that municipalities set zoning regulations and collect
property tax revenue but it's Ottawa that is paying the lion's share of
disaster relief.
"It's good to produce the information (flood plain maps), but ultimately
it's hard for a municipality to impose development requirements when
their primary source of revenue is property taxes from new development,"
he said.
The province must move more quickly to create a common set of standards
on new development for all towns and cities to obey, he said.
The federal government must also refine its approach, he argues, tying
disaster relief funding to requirements that homeowners move out of
areas doomed to see repeated floods.
More at:
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/record-floods-show-world-has-changed-and-n-b-must-adapt-scientists-say-1.3918250#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=GSEmail&_gsc=GLcw6dO
*Trump's pick for top UN migration job gave misleading answers on tweets
critical of climate change
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/kfile-ken-isaacs-presser-answer/index.html>*
(CNN)
Ken Isaacs, the Trump administration's nominee to lead the United
Nations migration agency, told reporters Friday that he believes in
climate change and said a tweet questioning it was taken out of context.
However, a CNN KFile review of his tweets shows that Isaacs repeatedly
and forcefully cast doubt on climate science in the past.
In a news conference at the United Nations Friday, Isaacs, when asked
about climate denial in his tweets said, "The context that I made that
-- this is the last time I'm going to comment on the tweets, you know,
y'all can ask me questions all day long, but I've done deep in-depth
interviews on this. The context of the tweet was a conference that was
held in Paris about climate change and terrorism....
*Here's what Isaacs tweeted about climate change:*
InAugust 2015 <https://i.imgur.com/mtNXYsR.png>, Isaacs shared an
article that reported President Barack Obama's climate change agenda
as the most important issue on his agenda, along with the caption
"[T]his should scare us all!"
InDecember 2016 <https://i.imgur.com/Tf25BKF.png>, Isaacs retweeted
a post about air pollution in China and said that it was the issue
people should care about, not climate change, and, "This foul air
will kill millions before #climate ever changes."
InFebruary 2017 <https://i.imgur.com/tVQ1yF7.png>, Isaacs shared a
tweet from prominent climate change skeptic Steven Goddard and asked
him whether the ignorance of experts could be applied to those who
believe climate change is influenced by human activity.
InAugust 2017 <https://i.imgur.com/soSYTTb.png>, Isaacs shared a
tweet from Goddard that accused government scientists of lying about
the extent to which global warming had melted the polar ice caps and
sea ice.
Also inAugust 2017 <https://i.imgur.com/BwF2Q8N.png>, Isaacs
retweeted an account that said that climate change was "all a hoax"
going back to the 1970s when some media outlets speculated about a
coming ice age. The idea that there was widespread scientific belief
in the 1970s about a new ice age is common among climate change
skeptics, though in reality scientific concern over global cooling
was limited.
InSeptember 2017 <https://i.imgur.com/NQqqDwX.png>, Isaacs dismissed
scientific concern over climate change because meteorologists
weren't able to accurately predict the path of storms, tweeting:
"Scientists can't predict a path of visible storm yet certain of
manmade climate change"
Later inSeptember 2017 <https://i.imgur.com/wMG03E2.png>, Isaacs
responded to atweet
<https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/909917494034432000>from/Democracy
Now!/, again criticizing scientists for failing to predict the path
of hurricanes yet still raising alarms about climate change, saying:
"A crock! Meteorologists can not even predict the path of a
hurricane when they can see the thing and measure it. But scientist
(sic) read climate?"
InSeptember 2017 <https://i.imgur.com/5aqOrkI.png>, Isaacs shared a
Goddard tweet again, which said that "Global warming is an idiotic
superstition, and the people pushing it should be treated as the
morons which they are."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/kfile-ken-isaacs-presser-answer/index.html
[thar she blows!]
*North Atlantic right whales spotted in Marblehead waters
<http://northofboston.wickedlocal.com/news/20180508/north-atlantic-right-whales-spotted-in-marblehead-waters>*
Wicked Local North of Boston
By Mary Reines - mreines at wickedlocal.com
A pod of North Atlantic right whales were spotted feeding in Marblehead
waters, remarkably close to Devereux Beach, for a number of days at the
end of April and into May. On Friday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) representatives came to the beach to answer
questions about the large mammals, which by that point had moved north
to Gloucester.
"We were surprised that they hung out as long as they did," said NOAA
Public Affairs Specialist Kate Swails.
It's not the first time whales have been spotted on the North Shore.
Photographer Mark Garfinkel captured images of a lone right whale near
Swampscott and Nahant for the Boston Herald two years ago. Terri Tauro,
department administrator for the Marblehead Harbormaster, said she had
seen pilot whales (the largest of the oceanic dolphins) off Devereux
Beach two or three years ago.
Still, whales in Marblehead are rare.
"It is unusual," Tauro said.
For many locals, it was their first time seeing whales so close to home.
Marblehead resident J. Danielle Wehunt saw them when she brought her
young daughters to play at the beach last Wednesday. She had never seen
whales before and said the experience was "awe-inspiring."...
"They were doing little flips," Wehunt said. "It felt like they were
putting on a little show for us."
Lifelong 'Header Becca Kenneally saw a tail and some spouting off
Devereux Beach on the morning of May 2.
"I feel like it's a sacred brush with nature, and I hope they are OK,"
she wrote in an email. "I want them to thrive and live where they are
meant to."
- - - - -
As a precaution, all vessels and swimmers must stay at least 500 yards
away from a whale, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. Penalty fines
range from $500 to $1000, with a $750 harassment fee, according to NOAA
Fisheries Enforcement Officer Jason Berthiaume.
Since the whales left Marblehead, they are likely heading east, or north
toward Canadian waters, according to Mayo. They travel like this to feed
on mile-long patches of surface plankton on the top foot of the water,
enabling viewers to see the tops of their heads, tails and spouts.
"It's an opportunity to see one of the rarest large mammals on earth and
certainly the rarest of the large whales," he said. "People should enjoy
it."
http://northofboston.wickedlocal.com/news/20180508/north-atlantic-right-whales-spotted-in-marblehead-waters
[financial warning]
*Investors of $30 trillion think climate change not a hoax
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/08/investors-of-30-trillion-think-climate-change-not-a-hoax/>*
The Mercury News
By Mathew Carr | Bloomberg News
President Donald Trump may think climate change is a hoax, but investors
managing some $30 trillion of assets are increasingly prodding the
world's biggest polluters to come up with stronger green strategies.
HSBC Global Asset Management and Legal & General Group Plc are among the
250 wealth managers in a group known as the Climate Action 100+ that are
asking the companies they own to bring their investment programs in step
with the Paris Agreement on limiting global warming...
Investors Prod Climate Polluters As Trump Unpicks Paris Deal - Financial
Advisor Magazine
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/08/investors-of-30-trillion-think-climate-change-not-a-hoax/
[Video ANIMATION]
*Annihilation, Utopia, and Climate Change
<https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/559790/jeff-vandermeer>*
May 07, 2018 | 53 videos - Video by The Atlantic
"I'm not a fan of fiction that's totally hopeless," says Jeff
VanderMeer, author of Annihilation, in an interview with The Atlantic,
animated in the video above. "You find ways of documenting the world as
it is, [with its] beauty, and you wind up redefining utopia and
dystopia." VanderMeer goes on to explain how, in writing fiction about
climate change and environmental crises, he hopes to "push us out of our
complacency."
"We can't live the way we live now," he says, "but there are ways in
which we can live in a useful and interesting and comforting and
satisfying way within what's happening."
Video Jeff VanderMeer on 'Annihilation,' Utopia, and Climate Change
<Jeff%20VanderMeer%20on%20%27Annihilation,%27%20Utopia,%20and%20Climate%20Change>
https://youtu.be/fr7ERELf_EU
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/559790/jeff-vandermeer/
[Toasty warm Arctic in 2016]
*Extreme 2016 Arctic heat wave stoked by climate change and low sea ice
<https://mashable.com/2018/05/08/arctic-heat-wave-2016-climate-change/#m0VCQWY.GZqR>*
Just days before Christmas in 2016, the North Pole was 50 degrees above
its usual winter temperature. The top of the world was just above freezing.
Unusually warm air had smothered the Arctic throughout that year, and
now a recently published report, led by government scientists at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), found that it's
nearly impossible to explain the intensity of this warmth simply by
normal fluctuations in weather.
A heating event like this isn't natural, they argue - it's largely
human-induced, specifically by the greenhouse gases emitted by human
industry and trapped in the atmosphere...
- - - -
Arctic weather in 2016 may have often been abnormal or anomalous, but to
many scientists, it's becoming all too common.
"It is not only astonishing to see how large the warm anomaly in the
Arctic is from day to day compared with other regions on Earth," Jason
Briner, who researches global climate change at the University of
Buffalo and had no involvement in the research, said in an email.
"It is also remarkable how persistent the extreme warm weather is in the
Arctic. In fact, the warm weather events are so persistent that we can
no longer call it weather, but we have no choice but to call it a new
climate state."
https://mashable.com/2018/05/08/arctic-heat-wave-2016-climate-change/#m0VCQWY.GZqR
[Just Checking]
*ETHICS and CLIMATE: How to ask questions of opponents of climate change
policies to expose ethical problems with cost and scientific uncertainty
arguments
<https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/05/08/how-to-ask-questions-of-opponents-of-climate-change-policies-to-expose-ethical-problems-with-cost-and-scientific-uncertainty-arguments/>*
Most arguments against climate change laws and policies are based on
unacceptable costs or scientific uncertainty, arguments that hide or
ignore ethical problems with these arguments, Thia video explains how to
ask questions of those who oppose climate change policies on the basis
of cost or scientific uncertainty which questions are designed to expose
ethical problems with these arguments.
The list of questions referenced in the video follows:
Questions to be asked of those opposing government action on climate
change on the basis of cost to the economy, cost to specific industries,
or job destruction.
When you argue that governments should not adopt policies to reduce ghg
emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the basis that
climate policies will impose unacceptable costs on national economies,
destroy specific industries, or kill jobs:
Do you deny high-emitting nations not only have economic interests but
also duties and obligations to nations and people most vulnerable to
climate impacts to limit their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe
global emissions?
Do you deny that a high emitting nation needs to take responsibility for
the harms to human health and ecological systems on which life depends
which the nation is causing in other nations
Do you deny the applicability of the well-established international norm
that polluters should pay for consequences of their pollution?
Do you agree that a nation's climate change policy is implicitly a
position on how high atmospheric concentrations of ghgs should be
allowed to rise?
Do you agree that a national ghg emissions target must be understood as
implicitly a position on a global emissions reduction pathway necessary
to stabilize atmospheric ghg concentrations at safe levels?
Do you agree that no nation has a right kill other people or destroy the
ecological systems on which life depends simply because reducing ghg
emissions will impose costs on the high-emitting nation?
Do you agree that nations which emit ghgs at levels beyond their fair
share of safe global emissions have a duty to help pay for reasonable
adaptation needs and unavoidable damages of low-emitting vulnerable
countries and individuals who have done little to cause climate change?
Do you agree that the costs of inaction on climate change must be
considered by nations who refuse to reduce their ghg emissions to their
fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of cost to them?
Given that the United States has for over twenty-five years failed to
adequately respond to climate change because of alleged unacceptable
costs to it and that due to delay ghg emissions reductions now needed to
avoid potentially catastrophic climate change are much steeper and
costly than what would be required if the United States acted
twenty-five years ago, is it just for the United States to now defend
further inaction on climate change on the basis of cost
*Questions to be asked of those opposing national action on climate
change on the basis of scientific uncertainty.*
When you argue that nations such as the United States or states,
regional, or local governments, businesses, organizations, or
individuals that emit high levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) need not
reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emission
because of scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts:
On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the
United States Academy of Sciences and over a hundred of the most
prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those
with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American
Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American
Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the Royal
Society of the UK and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97
percent of scientists who actually do peer-reviewed research on climate
change which conclusions holds that the Earth is warming, that the
warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are
already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the
international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic
warming.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are some remaining
scientific uncertainties about climate change impacts, are you arguing
that no action of climate change should be taken until all scientific
uncertainties are resolved given that waiting to resolve uncertainties
before action is taken will virtually guarantee that it will too late to
prevent catastrophic human-induced climate change harms to people and
ecological systems around the world?
Given that waiting until uncertainties are resolved will make climate
change harms worse and the scale of reductions needed to prevent
dangerous climate change much more daunting, do you deny that those who
are most vulnerable to climate change's harshest potential impacts have
a right to participate in any decision about whether a nation should
wait to act to reduce the threat of climate change because of scientific
uncertainty?
Should a nation like the United States which has much higher historical
and per capita emissions than other nations be able to justify its
refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global
emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given that if the
mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly running out of time
to prevent warming above 2.0 degrees C, a temperature limit which if
exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear climate change.
If you claim that there is no evidence of human causation of climate
change are you aware that there are multiple "fingerprint" studies and
"attribution" studies which point to human causation of observed warming?
When you claim that the United States or other nations emitting high
levels of ghgs need not adopt climate change policies because adverse
climate change impacts have not yet been proven, are you claiming that
climate change skeptics have proven in peer reviewed scientific
literature that human-induced climate change will not create harsh
adverse impacts to the human health and the ecological systems of others
on which their life often depends and if so what is that proof?
If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer-reviewed
journals that human-induced warming is not a very serious threat to
human health and ecological systems, given that human-induced warming
could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits
to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult
it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those
responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to
demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?
Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) the United States in 1992 agreed under Article 3
of that treaty to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for
postponing climate change policies, do you believe the United States is
now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate
change on the basis of scientific uncertainty? Article 3 states:The
Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or
minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such
measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with
climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits
at the lowest possible cost. (UNFCCC, Art 3)
Do agree if a government is warned by some of the most prestigious
scientific institutions in the world that activities within its
jurisdiction are causing great harm to and gravely threatening hundreds
of millions of people outside their government's jurisdiction,
government officials who could take steps to assure that activities of
their citizens do not harm or threaten others should not be able escape
responsibility for preventing harm caused by simply declaring that they
are not scientists?
If a nation such as the United States which emits high-levels of ghgs
refuses to reduce its emissions to its fair share of safe global
emissions on the basis that is too much scientific uncertainty to
warrant action, if it turns out that human-induced climate change
actually seriously harms the health of tens of millions of others and
ecological systems on which their life depends, should the nation be
responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative
action had been taken earlier?
By Donald A. Brown
Scholar In Residence and Professor
Widener University Commonwealth Law School
dabrown57 at gmail.com
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/05/08/how-to-ask-questions-of-opponents-of-climate-change-policies-to-expose-ethical-problems-with-cost-and-scientific-uncertainty-arguments/
*This Day in Climate History - May 9, 2007
<http://grist.org/article/murdoch/> - from D.R. Tucker*
May 9, 2007: Grist.org reports on News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch's plans
to make his company carbon-neutral and conscious of climate risk, plans
that apparently did not involve ending the Fox News Channel's fixation
on attacking climate science.
http://grist.org/article/murdoch/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180509/40624f39/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list