[TheClimate.Vote] November 8, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Nov 8 08:26:49 EST 2018
/November 8, 2018/
[WHITE HOUSE History]
*Every president since JFK was warned about climate change
<https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060105233>*
Benjamin Hulac, E&E News reporter Climatewire: Tuesday, November 6, 2018
John F. Kennedy was warned about "climate control" in February 1961,
becoming perhaps the first American president to learn about people's
impact on planetary temperatures.
The warnings never stopped. Every president since then has been exposed
to similar scientific findings. Sometimes it was called "climatic
change," other times it was "air pollution."
The history of cautionary messages with the West Wing is documented in
hundreds of records submitted in Juliana v. United States, a court case
against the federal government. The files show an arc of steadily
improving climate science and a clearer picture of damages, even as
presidents diverged on how to address the problem...
See the document excerpts: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060105233
[Climate Liability News]
*Former Shell Employee Challenges Pension Fund Over Climate Risks
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/11/06/shell-pension-climate-change-risks/>*
By Ucilia Wang
A former Shell employee in the United Kingdom is challenging the
managers of the company's pension fund to prove they are protecting the
fund's beneficiaries by adequately managing climate risks in their
investment decisions.
Christoph Harwood, who worked for Shell for eight years during the 1980s
and '90s, said he has been trying for two years to get documents from
the Shell Contributory Pension Fund, a separate organization from the
oil company, that show whether the pension fund takes climate threats
seriously.
He now says he is considering filing a complaint to the Pension
Ombudsman, an independent agency set up by the government to resolve
disputes for pension fund members. The agency's decisions are legally
binding.
"The pension fund is exposed to investments in fossil fuels, and because
it's a fossil fuel company, there's another level of exposure. Those
risks need to be addressed," said Harwood, who worked in sales and
marketing and crafting long-term strategies at Shell.
"In the last 10 years I've been working in environmental finance, so I'm
aware of the impact of the low-carbon economy and the impact of climate
change on the broader economy. I want to the pension funds to take
climate change into account because it's a major risk," Harwood said.
Harwood said the Shell Contributory Pension Fund has been slow to
provide more than basic information, such as annual reports, and that
they don't explain the fund's approach to managing climate risks...
more at -
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/11/06/shell-pension-climate-change-risks/
[Important predictions]
*Climate Change May Increase Heat Waves, Coastal Damage, & Wildfires In
California
<https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/05/climate-change-may-increase-heat-waves-coastal-damage-wildfires-in-california/>*
November 5th, 2018 by Jake Richardson
The California Natural Resources Agency recently released a new
statewide climate change assessment.
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/ According to the report, climate
change impacts in California will increase in severity over the coming
decades. Rising temperatures will result in more heat waves, and by 2050
there might be an extra 11,000 heat-related deaths each year. It is
expected there will also be more wildfires. Rising ocean levels will
cause billions of dollars in damage to coastal areas. Heather Williams,
the Communications Director for CNRA, answered some questions for
CleanTechnica about the assessment.
*1. The article says billions in coastal damages will occur. Is that an
accurate figure, and what will be the primary forms of damage? *
Yes, that is fair to say based on the full oceans report here...
-
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/docs/20180827-OceanCoastSummary.PDF
The HERA tool uses a model developed in part with funding from
California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment allows users to explore
economic damages and other impacts from sea-level rise under different
scenarios.
*2. Could future wildfires be even worse than the recent ones?*
Climate change will make forests more susceptible to extreme
wildfires...The new wildfire model developed for the Fourth Assessment
predicts that future years may be much worse than 2017.
The full paper on this model can be found here.
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/techreports/docs/20180827-Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-014.pdf
*3. Could future droughts be worse too?*
Yes, with the projection of continued climate change and extreme
weather. The water supply from the snowpack by 2050 is anticipated to
decline to 2/3rds. This means that when droughts do occur there will
already be less water to rely on. Droughts would also be worse because
temps would be higher causing increased stress to vegetation, especially
agriculture more so than in the last drought California experienced in
2012 to 2016.
*4. The article also says there could be damage "…costing up to $50
billion a year by midcentury." What specific damage might occur?*
Page 97 of the statewide summary has a chart with some costs broken
out a few examples:
· Public Health concerns
· Roadways destroyed due to flooding
· Critical infrastructure due to sea level and flooding
· Commercial and residential property destroyed due to sea level and
flooding
· Increase of damages to property and the landscape from megafires
· Decrease in production of timberlands
· Water shortages.
*5. How many more heat waves might there be? *
Heat-Health Events (HHEs), which predict risk to populations vulnerable
to heat, will worsen drastically throughout the state: by mid-century,
the Central Valley is projected to experience average Heat-Health Events
that are two weeks longer, and HHEs could occur 4 to 10 times more often
in the Northern Sierra region. You can go to this site
<https://www.cal-heat.org/explore>to see particular areas and how they
would be affected. HHEs are more predictive for health impacts, but for
extreme heat thresholds (which also vary by location) you can also
explore the climate impacts with this viewer.
http://cal-adapt.org/tools/extreme-heat/
*6. The extra deaths that might occur, are they from heat waves?*
Yes - 2-3 times more heat related deaths by 2050. This does not include
deaths from other impacts exacerbated by climate change like inland
flooding, wildfire, worsened air quality, more extreme storms, and other
disasters. While heat waves are typically the most deadly natural
disaster events in the United States, the total public health impact of
these other events is unknown.
*7. It also says "sea level rise could exceed 9 feet." Wouldn't that
mean some parts of California's coast will be underwater?*
Yes. New research has found the potential for the rapid collapse of the
West Antarctic ice sheet, which could lead to catastrophic sea level
rise of over 10 feet by 2100. This area of research is developing
quickly, and it is still seen as unlikely; however, California is
developing robust guidance to evaluate and mitigate coastal hazards from
sea-level rise. A summary of this new research as it applies to
California is laid out inthis report
<http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf>.
Without implementation of protective measures, airports in major urban
areas such as San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego will be susceptible
to major flooding from a combination of sea-level rise and storm surge
by 2040-2080. San Francisco airport is already at risk of flooding from
storm surge. Highways would also be susceptible to sea level rise and
Cal Trans is currently conducting climate vulnerability assessment to
address these and other impacts.
*8. Does drought in forests make trees more vulnerable to insect
infestations?*
Yes, when trees are drought stressed they are unable to produce sap or
pitch to fend of attacks of invasive pests then you can have massive
tree die off. This was experienced over the past few years with the
tree mortality in the Sierra Nevada area. Over 129 million trees died
due to drought and bark beetles.
*
9. How much might temperatures in cities like San Francisco and LA
increase?*
Average temps were increase by 5.6 to 8.8 degrees by 2100.
Here are the reports forSan Francisco
<http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/regions/docs/20180827-SanFranciscoBayArea.pdf>andLos
Angeles.
<http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/regions/docs/20180928-LosAngeles.pdf>
All Fourth Assessment materialsare here
<http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/>.
Please find thefull report here.
<http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/docs/20180827-StatewideSummary.pdf>
Summary ofthe report
<http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/docs/20180827-SummaryBrochure.pdf>.
more at -
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/05/climate-change-may-increase-heat-waves-coastal-damage-wildfires-in-california/
[Bill McKibben opinion]
*Up Against Big Oil in the Midterms
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/climate-midterms-emissions-fossil-fuels.html>*
The election produced some wins for the climate, but also underscored
the power of the fossil fuel industry.
By Bill McKibben
Mr. McKibben is a founder of the environmental activism group 350.org.
The victories in the midterm elections were real and sweet for
environmentalists and progressives: There will be at least 119 women in
Congress, and for the first time their ranks will include a Muslim (two,
actually) and a Native American (actually, three).
Some of those candidates were talking about a Green New Deal, like the
one put forward by the soon-to-be-youngest member of Congress,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that would rapidly reduce the nation's fossil
fuel use while preparing the country for climate change. The fact that
the Democrats now control one house of Congress means that President
Trump's pillage of environmental regulations will at least proceed under
the spotlight of investigation. Half a dozen new states now have
governors and legislatures willing to consider cutting greenhouse gas
emissions significantly.
And yet I confess I came away from Tuesday night feeling unsure that
there really is the political space to get done what needs doing in the
time that we have left. Last month, the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change said that we had perhaps a dozen years to really
turn the planet around by substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It's not that we won't see real change eventually. The new governor of
Colorado, for instance, announced the most ambitious targets in the
nation for converting to 100 percent renewable power by 2040. That's
wonderful -- but it's also in one state, and still slow, at least when
compared with the timetable laid out by the United Nations' climate panel.
The new head of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is
likely to be Eddie Bernice Johnson, a black woman who -- and this is a
large change -- actually believes in science. That's wonderful too, but
new legislation emerging from the House would have to somehow get
through the Senate, which became redder on Tuesday, and through the
president, and then it would somehow have to survive review by the
courts, which the president can continue to pack with hard-right ideologues.
And most devastatingly, in those places where activists tried to take
matters into their own hands and pass truly serious changes, the money
power of Big Oil simply crushed them.
I can't find the words sufficient to praise activists in Washington
State who worked tenaciously to get a carbon tax on the ballot, or those
in Colorado who fought their hearts out for modest setbacks for new oil
and gas projects, including fracking wells, so that drill rigs wouldn't
loom over people's houses. In both cases early polling showed
substantial leads for the proposals. Heck, that noted radical, Bill
Gates, came out for Washington's carbon tax. But then Big Oil simply
overwhelmed the efforts with money.
Spending on the Washington initiative broke all records in the state. In
Colorado activists were outspent 40-1. Every time you turned on the TV
in those states, a commercial warned that these ballot measures would
destroy the economy. There apparently wasn't enough airtime available to
soak up all the money, so if you were driving the highways around Denver
you'd pass trucks towing billboards denouncing any effort to restrict
fracking.
Even where climate campaigns were well-funded (the billionaire Tom
Steyer poured at least $17 million into an effort for more renewable
power in sunny Arizona), the industry spent substantially more, and that
spending was enough to defeat change. Most places, though, the money was
virtually all on one side, and there was just so much of it. San Luis
Obispo County in California has less than 200,000 registered voters and
yet the oil industry spent more than $8 million to beat a fracking ban.
In one county.
So one message is clear. Along with working hard in states from Maine to
New Mexico where progress is far more possible after Tuesday's
legislative gains, environmentalists will have to figure out how to
focus fire on the fossil fuel industry itself, to see if somehow its
political power can be broken.
Some of that is already underway. A divestment movement that I've helped
to direct has grown rapidly, with endowments and financial portfolios
worth $6 trillion joining in. But such efforts need to keep growing, to
call to account the banks and insurance companies that bankroll the
coal, oil and gas investments that science tells us we can no longer
afford to be making. Investors can theoretically move more nimbly than
politicians, so it makes sense to pressure them, even as we continue
working for a political realignment.
Every election cycle brings wins and losses. But every election cycle
also brings us two years further down the path of irrevocable climate
change. That's why even a mixed result can seem bruising.
Bill McKibben teaches environmental studies at Middlebury College and is
the author of the forthcoming book "Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to
Play Itself Out?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/climate-midterms-emissions-fossil-fuels.html
[it's 82% - percentage of Americans for rebates on solar and electric
vehicles]
*Where Americans (Mostly) Agree on Climate Change Policies, in Five Maps
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/01/climate/climate-policy-maps.html>*
By NADJA POPOVICH - NOV. 1, 2018
Americans are politically divided over climate change, but there's
broader consensus around some of the solutions.
New data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication - in
partnership with Utah State University and the University of California,
Santa Barbara - show how Americans across the country view climate and
energy policies.
There Is Widespread Support for Renewable Energy...
more at -
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/01/climate/climate-policy-maps.html
- - -
[Pew Research]
*Majorities See Government Efforts to Protect the Environment as
Insufficient
<http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/14/majorities-see-government-efforts-to-protect-the-environment-as-insufficient/>*
Pockets of partisan agreement over renewables despite wide divides over
increasing fossil fuels and effects of climate change...
Americans' views on policies to address climate change are strongly
divided by politics...
Most liberal Democrats expect climate change policies to benefit the
environment, while most conservative Republicans expect either no
improvement or more harm than benefit...
Most Americans think policy changes can make a difference in reducing
climate change...
Millennial Republicans are more inclined than older Republicans to think
the federal government isn't doing enough to protect key aspects of the
environment...
People who care deeply about the issue of climate change stand out for
their near consensus that climate change is affecting the U.S. (96%) and
that policy proposals such as restrictions on carbon emissions from
power plants (95%), tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars (90%) and
corporate tax incentives to lower carbon emissions from businesses (90%)
can make a difference in reducing climate change.
more at -
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/14/majorities-see-government-efforts-to-protect-the-environment-as-insufficient/
- - -
[Yale Climate Change Communications August 2018]
[Reuters Video]
*India turns a Blind Eye to Delhi Toxic Smog
<https://www.reuters.tv/v/PK5D/2018/11/07/india-turns-a-blind-eye-to-delhi-s-toxic-smog>*
https://www.reuters.tv/v/PK5D/2018/11/07/india-turns-a-blind-eye-to-delhi-s-toxic-smog
[or turns up its nose]
[Political Cartoon election results from the NIB]
*How Are You Feeling This Morning?
<https://thenib.com/how-are-you-feeling-this-morning?t=recent>*
https://thenib.com/how-are-you-feeling-this-morning?t=recent
[Venerable radical]
*Noam Chomsky Calls Trump and Republican Allies "Criminally Insane"
<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/noam-chomsky-calls-trump-and-republican-allies-criminally-insane/>*
The great linguist and political critic remains hopeful that we can
overcome global warming and other threats
By John Horgan on November 3, 20187
- - -
*Why did you recently call the Republican Party "the most dangerous
organization in world history"?*
Take its leader, who recently applied to the government of Ireland for a
permit to build a huge wall to protect his golf course, appealing to the
threat of global warming, while at the same time he withdrew from
international efforts to address the grim threat and is using every
means at his disposal to accelerate it. Or take his colleagues, the
participants in the 2016 Republican primaries. Without exception, they
either denied that what is happening is happening - though any ignorance
is self-induced - or said maybe it is but we shouldn't do anything about
it. The moral depths were reached by the respected "adult in the room,"
Ohio governor John Kasich, who agreed that it is happening but added
that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to
apologize for it." Or take a recent publication of Trump's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a detailed study recommending an
end to regulations on emissions. It presented a rational argument:
extrapolating current trends, by the end of the century we'll be over
the cliff and automotive emissions don't contribute very much to the
catastrophe - the assumption being that everyone is as criminally insane
as we are and won't try to avoid the crisis. In brief, let's rob while
the planet burns, putting poor Nero in the shadows.
This surely qualifies as a contender for the most evil document in history.
There have been many monsters in the past, but it would be hard to find
one who was dedicated to undermining the prospects for organized human
society, not in the distant future -- in order to put a few more dollars
in overstuffed pockets.
And it doesn't end there. The same can be said about the major banks
that are increasing investments in fossil fuels, knowing very well what
they are doing. Or, for that matter, the regular articles in the major
media and business press reporting US success in rapidly increasing oil
and gas production, with commentary on energy independence, sometimes
local environmental effects, but regularly without a phrase on the
impact on global warming - a truly existential threat. Same in the
election campaign. Not a word about the issue that is merely the most
crucial one in human history.
Hardly a day passes without new information about the severity of the
threat. As I'm writing, a new study appeared in Nature showing that
retention of heat in the oceans has been greatly underestimated, meaning
that the total carbon budget is much less than had been assumed in the
recent, and sufficiently ominous, IPCC report. The study calculates that
maximum emissions would have to be reduced by 25% to avoid warming of 2
degrees (C), well above the danger point. At the same time polls show
that -- doubtless influenced by their leaders who they trust more than
the evil media -- half of Republicans deny that global warming is even
taking place, and of the rest, almost half reject any human
responsibility. Words fail.
*Wasn't Richard Nixon worse than Donald Trump? *
Nixon had a mixed record. In some respects, he was the last liberal
president: OSHA and EPA for example. On the other hand, he committed
terrible crimes. Arguably the worst was the bombing of rural Cambodia, a
proposed article of impeachment but voted down though it was
incomparably more important than the others. And the article was much
too weak, focusing on the secrecy. There has been little attention to
the orders that Nixon delivered, relayed to the Pentagon by his faithful
servant Henry Kissinger: "A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia.
Anything that flies on anything that moves." It is not easy to find
comparable orders for genocide in the archival record. But all of
Nixon's crimes pale in comparison with the decision to race towards the
precipice of environmental catastrophe.
*Are the U.S. media doing their job?*
It depends on what we think their job is. They are businesses, so by
accepted standards their job is profit. By other standards, they have a
duty to the public to provide "all the news that's fit to print," under
a concept of "fitness" that is as free as possible from submission to
power interests or other distorting factors. About this there is a great
deal to say - I've devoted many words to the topic elsewhere, as have
many others. But in today's strange climate of Trumpian "alternative
facts" and "false reality," it is useful to recognize that with all
their flaws, which are many, the mainstream media remain an
indispensable source of information about the world.
*Can incremental reforms transform the U.S. into a just, prosperous
society, or are more drastic measures required? In other words, are you
a reformer or a revolutionary?*
Both. Generalizations are misleading; too much depends on specific
circumstances. But some have a fair degree of validity, I think. One is
that there is both justification and pressing need for radical changes
in the socioeconomic and political orders. We cannot know to what extent
they can be achieved by incremental reforms, which are to be valued on
their own. But unless the great mass of the population comes to believe
that needed change cannot be implemented within the existing system,
resort to "drastic measures" is likely to be a recipe for disaster.
*My students are pretty gloomy about the future. What can I tell them to
cheer them up?*
Apart from the truly existential threats of nuclear war and global
warming - which can be averted - there have been far more difficult
challenges in the past than those young people face today, and they have
been overcome by dedicated effort and commitment. The historical record
of struggle and achievement gives ample reason to take to heart the
slogan that Gramsci made famous: "pessimism of the intellect, optimism
of the will."
*What's your utopia?*
I don't have the talent to do more than to suggest what seem to me
reasonable guidelines for a better future. One might argue that Marx was
too cautious in keeping to only a few general words about
post-capitalist society, but he was right to recognize that it will have
to be envisioned and developed by people who have liberated themselves
from the bonds of illegitimate authority.
more at -
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/noam-chomsky-calls-trump-and-republican-allies-criminally-insane/
Youthful call to action and encouragement - video, links to document
*How to give the Extinction Rebellion talk
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgVp7sBetVY>*
Published on Nov 5, 2018
Frieda and Robin give some tips on how to run the Extinction Rebellion
talk. Please take time to practice the different sections from the script.
Script-
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G6hxNOn-Ezw02oSgapaEA-vlT0gyI-xCDY0HKJ3S9y8/edit
Want to request a talk in your area? Sign up
here-https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FA...
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdutS8qRob4EgSRakHLr0k98Oa6a4V-yWmrmcXVjnhAM4R0xA/viewform?fbclid=IwAR19iW_AhNkGhxSuNWixIaileJFUKM7t19WPQ7e7mBNIKofqQHSa-SG1Eco>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgVp7sBetVY
The outline of the lecture.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G6hxNOn-Ezw02oSgapaEA-vlT0gyI-xCDY0HKJ3S9y8/edit
[Oil Change USA]
*More than half of new Democrats in House refuse Fossil Fuel industry
money
<http://oilchangeusa.org/more-than-half-of-new-democrats-in-house-refuse-fossil-fuel-industry-money/>*
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 7, 2018
CONTACT:
Stephen Kretzmann, steve [at] priceofoil.org
Collin Rees, collin [at] priceofoil.org
More than half of new Democrats in House refuse Fossil Fuel industry
money
New brand of climate leadership emerges
WASHINGTON, DC -- Following yesterday's U.S. midterm elections,
which saw a historic surge of Democratic women lead the Democratic
Party to take back the U.S. House of Representatives and win races
at all levels, Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change
United States had the following statement:
"Despite the fossil fuel industry-sponsored carpet-bombing of
advertising against clean energy and climate around the country,
several bright spots survived. A new kind of climate leadership is
emerging around the country - one that understands the need to stand
up to the oil and gas industry.
"This blue wave had a deep green tint. In a sign of things to come,
more than half of the new Democratic freshman class has signed the
No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. Of the anticipated 34 new Democratic
members, 19 have signed the Pledge, which commits them to not take
contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industry and instead
prioritize the health of our families, climate, and democracy over
fossil fuel industry profits.
"In New Mexico, voters elected Stephanie Garcia Richard to Public
Lands Commissioner, to oversee methane regulations and administer
public lands. She is committed to stopping the expansion of fracking
and drilling for oil and gas in the Permian Basin, which is the
largest new potential carbon bomb in the world today. Chevron, the
top leaseholder in the Permian, spent millions to defeat her, but lost.
"New Mexican voters also elected Deb Haaland to Congress. Haaland
has pledged to vote against all new fossil fuel infrastructure, in
line with climate science and the Paris climate goals. She is a
strong advocate for Indigenous rights and climate justice.
"In Minnesota, Ilhan Omar ran a proudly fossil-free campaign for
Congress and won, speaking frequently about a just transition to
build a clean energy economy with good-paying, union jobs, and
vocally opposing the Line 3 tar sands pipeline.
"Preliminary analysis of campaign finance data from the Center for
Responsive Politics indicates that fossil fuel industry money was
less than ¼ of one percent of all money raised by Democrats running
for the House in 2018. Democratic leadership would do well to recall
that when the issue of party acceptance of fossil fuel industry
donations next surfaces at the DNC."
###
http://oilchangeusa.org/more-than-half-of-new-democrats-in-house-refuse-fossil-fuel-industry-money/
*This Day in Climate History - November 8, 1989
<http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817>- from D.R. Tucker*
November 8, 1989: Margaret Thatcher delivers an address to the UN
General Assembly on global warming, noting that societies should have
economic growth "which does not plunder the planet today and leave our
children to deal with the consequences tomorrow."
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg&sns=em
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
///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/20181108/a71f6360/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list