[TheClimate.Vote] November 17, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/November 17, 2018/

[Audio podcast]
*CALIFORNIA IS BURNING -- HERE'S WHY 
<https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/11/16/while-some-states-are-still-counting-ballots-california-is-burning/>*
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 - JEFF SCHECHTMAN
California forests have long been a disaster waiting to happen. Forest 
density, antiquated forest practices, stressed and dead trees as a 
result of bug infestation, conflicts between state and federal 
government, and private property owners wanting to live close to the 
"wildland-urban interface" are just a few of the problems.

In this week's WhoWhatWhy podcast, we talk with longtime California 
environmental reporter, Julie Cart, about just how bad the problem is 
and what is being done to prevent more death and destruction.
She explains that a full 30 percent of California is forested. Of this 
total, 60 percent is owned by the federal government, 2 percent by the 
state of California, and the rest is owned either privately or by local 
governments. Each has a different approach to dealing with the problem.

California has an estimated 129 million dead trees, an acknowledged 
factor in spreading wildfires, Cart says. The cost for removing a single 
dead tree is approximately $1,000, and the optics of cutting down trees, 
even dead ones, in a state with strong environmental rules make 
remediation even more difficult.

The impact of climate change on forest fires involves a deadly feedback 
loop. So many of the fires are a direct result of extended drought 
related to climate change. But in torching so many dead trees, a severe 
fire season of one or two months can release enormous amounts of carbon 
into the air -- more than that emitted by all the cars in California 
each year -- which significantly adds to the buildup of greenhouse gases 
fueling climate change...
https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/11/16/while-some-states-are-still-counting-ballots-california-is-burning/


[VOX - Book review]
*Climate change policy can be overwhelming. Here's a guide to the 
policies that work. 
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/16/18096352/climate-change-clean-energy-policies-guide>*
A new book from veteran energy analyst Hal Harvey simplifies 
decarbonization.
By David Roberts - Nov 16, 2018
Climate change is such a large and sprawling problem -- there are so 
many forces involved, so many decision makers at so many levels -- that 
solving it can seem hopelessly complex. There are so many options 
available to policymakers, each with their own fierce constituencies. 
Where to begin? Which clean-energy policies actually work?

That is the question Hal Harvey, long-time energy analyst and CEO of the 
energy policy firm Energy Innovation, set out to answer with a new tool.

The tool is the Energy Policy Simulator, which allows anyone to choose a 
package of energy policies and immediately see the impact on carbon 
emissions and other pollutants. (It's like a video game for energy 
nerds.) It's based on a model that attempts to replicate the physical 
economy, with detailed information about real-world assets.

Designing Climate Solutions Energy Innovation
Using that tool, Harvey and his team narrowed in on the policies that 
work, the places they work best, and the best way to design them. Their 
conclusions are summarized in a new book, Designing Climate Solutions: A 
Policy Guide for Low-Carbon Energy. It's a compact but detailed how-to 
guide for developing energy policies that have real impact...

    Here's the thing about the Drawdown book: It's a technology book,
    not a policy book. And it's geographically indifferent -- it doesn't
    say you have to do this in the top 20 countries, or anywhere. It
    doesn't mention policy, it doesn't mention geography -- and without
    those two things, it's not a plan. I think it's a good contribution
    to the world, but it doesn't tell anyone what to do on Monday morning.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/16/18096352/climate-change-clean-energy-policies-guide
[the miniature version of the book online here]
POLICY DESIGN TO WIN ON CLIMATE 
https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Climate-Solutions-Policy-Low-Carbon/dp/1610919564
Significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to 
limit climate change and stay under two degrees of warming, and 
immediate action is needed to put the world on a path to a reasonable 
climate future. The mounting evidence of potential damage from climate 
change is daunting, and with each day that passes the challenge ahead 
becomes more difficult.
Designing Climate Solutions: A Policy Guide for Low-Carbon Energy 
<https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Climate-Solutions-Policy-Low-Carbon/dp/1610919564> 
is the first such resource, combining the latest research and analysis 
on low-carbon energy solutions from electric vehicles to renewable 
energy. It is the first book to identify which specific policies, 
applied to the top 20 most-emitting countries, can have the largest 
potential impact to reduce emissions enough for a 50% chance of keeping 
global warming to a safe level.
https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Climate-Solutions-Policy-Low-Carbon/dp/1610919564


[Anticipatory grief]
*As climate change accelerates, "ecological grief" becomes catalyst for 
action 
<https://www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/contributors/writers-group/2018/11/16/we-must-take-steps-reduce-damage-our-planet/2021514002/>*
Terri Macey, Writers Group
How can we know something so dangerous is happening and yet take no 
significant steps to prevent or mitigate it?
Recently some authors, in journals as reputable as "Science" and 
"Nature" have begun talking about "ecological grief", defined as a 
profound sense of sadness created by the losses in the natural world. As 
we experience a changing climate and a changing world that affect our 
lives in both small and profound ways, grief and anxiety are normal 
reactions. Grief is a rational reaction to loss. Yet failure to 
acknowledge this sense of loss, and the profound emotional and mental 
pain it creates, leaves us feeling alone and isolated. We are paralyzed 
by the knowledge that the world as we know it is ending. Our refusal to 
acknowledge this leaves us powerless to cope. We try to ignore the 
irrefutable evidence that confronts us and pretend it isn't happening,

One of the consequences of ignoring our grief is to throw up our hands 
in despair and to double down on global destruction. This is the 
rationale behind the current administration's efforts to roll back 
ambitious targets for fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 
The administration publicly concluded that since we are locked into 
catastrophic climate change, the benefits of increased fuel economy are 
not worth pursuing.

To acknowledge grief is to feel pain. It is easier to bury our heads in 
the sand and pretend that catastrophic climate change isn't happening. 
In addition, we may feel we will be mocked for acknowledging our pain. I 
know in my own case I am reluctant to admit how often I lose sleep 
knowing that I will not be able to protect my children from the horrific 
consequences of climate change. I am their mother; my duty is to protect 
them, and yet I can't. I am embarrassed by how often I am moved to tears 
knowing that animals are suffering and dying as a result of climate 
changes they cannot adapt to.

But writers as respected as Aldo Leopold have acknowledged this grief. 
Leopold wrote that ecological awareness means you "live alone in a world 
of wounds".  A recent article in an environmental journal, in which the 
author described his grief over the loss of the world he knew, earned 
derision by some. Yet one response said that acknowledging  deep pain 
does not make you a snowflake; it makes you a badass. Only by 
courageously and openly acknowledging our deep sense of loss and grief 
will we be able to move past the pain and take the steps necessary to 
reduce the damage to our lovely planet.

Terri Macey is a retired faculty member in the Psychology Department at 
the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the Iowa City 
Climate Advocates.
https://www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/contributors/writers-group/2018/11/16/we-must-take-steps-reduce-damage-our-planet/2021514002/


[lawsuits]
*AS CALIFORNIA BURNS, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BATTLES CLIMATE LAWSUIT 
<https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/11/16/as-california-burns-trump-administration-battles-climate-lawsuit/>*
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 | CHRIS GRAY
As both ends of California burn in one of the deadliest fire seasons on 
record, the Trump administration is in court stymying an interesting 
approach to fighting climate change.
The Camp Fire roared through the northern town of Paradise, killing at 
least 63 people, while the Woolsey fire in Malibu torched the estates of 
the rich and famous, from Miley Cyrus and Shannen Doherty to Neil Young.

But in the stuffy halls of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San 
Francisco, federal judges deliberate on yet another attempt from the 
Trump administration to thwart a trial that could lay bare the 
government's posture toward our environment.
The case, Juliana v. United States, has been stalled repeatedly by the 
federal government with a series of motions that have taken it all the 
way to the Supreme Court.
Twenty-one young people between the ages of 10 and 22 are the plaintiffs 
in the suit, including Kelsey Juliana, a student at the University of 
Oregon.
"Climate change is the biggest threat to our earth, and our government 
is failing us," said Avery McRae, an 8th grader in Eugene, OR, and one 
of the plaintiffs with Our Children's Trust, an Oregon nonprofit.
Philip Gregory, an attorney for the plaintiffs, has likened their case 
to Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 9–0 Supreme Court ruling in 
1954 that struck down segregation in public schools.

"The finding in Brown was that children were being harmed due to 
'separate but unequal' rulings like Plessy v. Ferguson," Gregory said. 
"When a policy is causing harm to children as the result of aggregate 
acts of the government, that policy is unconstitutional. That is exactly 
our case. The government has not introduced any evidence that the 
plaintiffs are not being harmed by climate change."

*US Government Knew of the Harm -- for Decades*
Gregory says that the federal government had evidence as far back as the 
Eisenhower and Johnson administrations that carbon dioxide was 
increasing rapidly in the atmosphere. Those findings made eerily 
accurate predictions on carbon levels in the atmosphere in 2000, and the 
related increase in the global world temperature...
- - -
"It could take a week or two. It could take seven months" to get a 
decision from the 9th Circuit, said Gregory. Plaintiffs are asking for a 
court-ordered plan to bind public officials to move the energy system 
away from the burning of fossil fuels, to sequester carbon currently in 
the atmosphere, and to reduce its carbon dioxide content to 350 parts 
per million. They argue that the government has taken affirmative 
actions over past decades to accelerate climate change.

"They didn't want a trial that will show what they knew and what we can 
do about it," said Coreal Riday-White, the community engagement director 
for Our Children's Trust.

Our Children's Trust has provided a template for legal action on behalf 
of youth demanding a sustainable climate, and their efforts have been 
replicated around the world and in state courts across the nation.

The Trump administration has scrapped even the tepid, incremental 
changes President Barack Obama made toward reducing US reliance on 
fossil fuels. Trump ripped up the nation's agreement with world partners 
in the Paris climate accords, revved up fossil fuel exploration on 
public lands, and attempted to scrap automobile fuel-economy standards.

Last week, a district court judge in Montana blocked the construction of 
the Keystone XL oil pipeline across the Great Plains, ruling that the 
Trump administration had greenlighted the controversial pipeline without 
"a hard look" at the effects it would have on climate change.

The court system represents a different avenue toward forcing the 
government to mitigate or reverse human-caused climate change, one that 
rests on centuries of Public Trust law and the 5th and 14th amendments 
to the US Constitution.

University of Oregon environmental law professor Mary Wood said that our 
air, water, and wildlife are held in trust by the government, which is 
under legal obligation to protect them. "The government has a fiduciary 
responsibility to protect these resources," Wood said.

But the liberal Warren Court that ordered the desegregation of schools 
in Brown v. Board of Education is long gone, and the Supreme Court has 
moved far to the right over the past 40 years, capped by the recent 
replacement of "swing vote" Justice Anthony Kennedy with Justice Brett 
Kavanaugh. A district court trial, if finally allowed to proceed, would 
be but a first step in a long and uncertain road toward putting a 
court-ordered plan in place.

"This case has always faced the difficult prospect of eventual review by 
the Supreme Court. But there is no question that Justice Kavanaugh is 
less likely to rule in favor of plaintiffs than Justice Kennedy," said 
Michael Burger, the executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate 
Change Law at Columbia University.

"It is worth noting," Burger added, "that Justice Kennedy, in his 
decision to deny an earlier DOJ petition to the Supreme Court in this 
case, made clear that he thought the plaintiffs' claims are 'breathtaking.'"
https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/11/16/as-california-burns-trump-administration-battles-climate-lawsuit/


[need to get a better microphone]
*Kevin Anderson climate talk <https://youtu.be/fsrrzK9qNxM>*
Friends of the Earth Scotland
Published on Oct 31, 2018
Public talk by Professor Kevin Anderson in Edinburgh 30/10/18. (poor 
audio quality)
Kevin discusses the implications of the recent United Nations IPCC 
climate report and Scotland's responsibility in tackling climate change.
https://youtu.be/fsrrzK9qNxM


*This Day in Climate History - November 17, 2006 
<http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15814614/ns/msnbc-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/worst-person-world-sen-james-inhofe/> 
- from D.R. Tucker*
November 17, 2006: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann calls out Oklahoma Senator 
James Inhofe for simultaneously trafficking in climate denial and blasphemy:

    "But our winner, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who until January
    will remain the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment
    and Public Works.  This morning he declared that any global warming
    is owed to 'natural causes' and is 'due to the sun.'

    'God’s still up there,' he added.

    "So, Senator, you’re blaming global warming on God?

    "Senator James 'Is it just me or is it hot in here' Inhofe, Friday’s
    'Worst Person in the World.'"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15814614/ns/msnbc-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/worst-person-world-sen-james-inhofe/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.