[TheClimate.Vote] November 19, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Mon Nov 19 09:32:53 EST 2018
/November 19, 2018/
[Deadiest wildfire in America in a century]
*Relentless California wildfires leave 80 dead, over 1,200 others still
missing
<https://abcnews.go.com/US/devastating-california-wildfires-leave-74-dead-1000-unaccounted/story?id=59262994>*
https://abcnews.go.com/US/devastating-california-wildfires-leave-74-dead-1000-unaccounted/story?id=59262994
- -
[radio update NPR]
Nov 19, 2018*
**The Number Of People Unaccounted For In Calif. Wildfire Is Revised
<https://kuow.org/stories/the-number-of-people-unaccounted-for-in-calif-wildfire-is-revised>*
https://kuow.org/stories/the-number-of-people-unaccounted-for-in-calif-wildfire-is-revised
[A friendly, simple drawing explains it well]
*Friendly Guide to Climate Change - and what you can do to help
#everytoncounts <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CM_KkDuzGQ>*
Henrik Kniberg
Published on Apr 8, 2017
This video is a short, sweet, and pragmatic summary of climate change -
what the problem is, why, and what you can actually do about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CM_KkDuzGQ
- -
[The big drawing in a single image]
http://everytoncounts.org/images/Friendly-Guide-to-Climate-Change.jpeg
[A video - somber science discussion by Paul Beckwith]
*Climate Change Cremation Consequences: Paradise Lost
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1QCEOFxS9E>*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Nov 17, 2018
As people age they tend to think about their own mortality more, and
plan their final exit, whether it be cremation or burial. Many people in
Paradise, California had no such choice. They were essentially cremated
inside their houses, workplaces, and cars from horrific fires that
essentially wiped the city from the face of the Earth. At filming time,
about 1300 people are missing, and I fear that many of these men, woman,
and children have been reduced to ashes, never to be seen again.
Consequences of abrupt climate change are inarguably horrendous. We must
halt denial insanity; please support http://paulbeckwith.net
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1QCEOFxS9E
- - -
[part 2 video]
*Climate Driven Hell in Paradise California: 2 of 2
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha9QdQ2Fs4Y>*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Nov 18, 2018
Paradise, a city of 27,000 people in California is no more. A wildfire
on steroids, a veritable tsunami of flames, cremated people in their
homes, workplaces and vehicles. Drought sucked moisture out of the air,
and strong Santa Ana and Diablo winds reaching above hurricane force
fanned hellish flames and gave people virtually no time to escape. The
vagaries of the fire, as I explain, torched structures and cars while
leaving some trees virtually untouched. Nutter conspiracy theories of
energy beams, chemtrail spraying, and HAARP, etc. are dismantled in my chat.
Please support my vids http://paulbeckwith.net
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha9QdQ2Fs4Y
[An important idea]
*Is sucking CO2 from the air the answer to global warming?
<https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/negative-emissions-_is-sucking-co2-from-the-air-the-answer-to-global-warming-/44547682>*
By Luigi Jorio
To limit global warming, it's not enough simply to reduce emissions. We
also must remove CO2 from the atmosphere, a field in which Switzerland
is at the forefront. What's the potential of these new technologies?
"I'm sorry, I have very bad news for you." The words of Fatih Birol,
head of the International Energy Agency, in mid-October. In the first
nine months of 2018, he announced, global CO2 emissions had already
reached a record high.
This development is in stark contrast with the latest findings of the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which
says a drastic reduction in emissions is needed if global warming is to
be restricted to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the ambitious aim of the Paris
agreement external linkon climate change.
By 2030, net emissions caused by human activity need to diminish by 45%
in comparison with 2010 values, the IPCC says, while they should
disappear altogether by 2050.
Climatologists therefore warn that to keep temperature increases to a
manageable level, it will not be enough simply to reduce emissions. We
also need to remove billions of tons of existing CO2 from the atmosphere.
*Sucking up CO2, Swiss-style*
When it comes to technologies to capture CO2, Switzerland "is at the
forefront", Sonia Seneviratneexternal link tells swissinfo.ch.
Senevirante is a researcher at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate
Science at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and was a
co-author of the last IPCC report.
The first industrial plant capable of capturing and storing carbon
dioxide (a process known as DAC, or 'direct air capture') was built In
2017 in Hinwil, near Zurich, and designed by the Swiss start-up
Climeworksexternal link. It can absorb up to 900 tons of CO2 a year –
the equivalent of the total emissions of 450 cars.
And based on this experience in Switzerland, Climeworks has also built
DAC plants in six other countries, including Italyexternal link and
Icelandexternal link. The latter is the first in the world to capture
CO2 from the atmosphere and then store it underground, where the gas
turns into rock.
The aim of Climeworks, which recently announced it had secured further
funding of about CHF30 million ($29.8 million), is to remove the
equivalent of 1% of global CO2 emissions (about 300 million tons) from
the earth's atmosphere by 2025.
The whole point of their technology is to transform a waste product into
a natural resource, says Climeworks communications manager Louise
Charles. When it is not being stored below ground, the CO2 can be used
to stimulate plant growth in hothouses, make fizzy drinks, and, as with
the Italian project, produce fuel.
Sucking CO2 directly out of the air, where the concentration levels are
just 0.04%, is an expensive business, however. Currently, it costs about
CHF600 to capture a metric ton of CO2. "Our goal is to get this down to
CHF100," says Charles.
*Open Questions*
Cost is not the only limitation, notes Urs Neu, who heads the Swiss
Forum for Climate and Global Change (ProClimexternal link) and is a
member of the Swiss Academy of Sciences. "The technology to capture CO2
from the air is still at the experimental stage. The plants operating
around the world are few in number, and secure storage needs to be found
underground. We are still far from widespread use," he tells swissinfo.ch.
These systems also need large amounts of power, so they only make sense
if they are themselves powered by renewable energy sources (Climeworks
uses heat from the Hinwil incinerator; geothermic energy is used in
Iceland). Neu has co-authored a publicationexternal link on the topic,
raising the obvious question of whether the best approach is to shift
towards green energy or to absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere.
Among such technologies with negative emissions, experts think the most
promising is BECCS (bio-energy with carbon capture and storage). This
method aims to generate electricity by burning biomass and then
capturing and storing the CO2 produced at a deep level under the earth.
"We could use waste wood and biological waste, though there are limited
quantities of both available," says Neu. An even bigger challenge is
finding space. "To do BECCS on a large scale we would need to cultivate
crops that grow quickly and that could be used for energy purposes, like
corn, and grow them over extensive areas. This would mean competition
with other land use options – primarily, food production", he explains.
In the case of BECCS it is estimated that, to have a tangible effect,
crops would need to be cultivated across an area of hundreds of millions
of hectares.
The same goes for the simpler approach to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere
– reforestation. "The best areas for this kind of approach are in the
tropics. But those are the very regions where agriculture is already
under pressure due to climate change. So it's hard to find space to
plant trees," says Neu.
And so, the current challenge, he says, is not bringing back forests,
but stopping deforestation. "Before planting trees, we should stop
cutting them down."
Other methods, such as fertilising the oceans or techniques to increase
the amount of CO2 in the ground, are only theoretical possibilities, Neu
explains. "We don't know whether they will have tangible effects on the
concentration of CO2 and, especially, whether they involve risks for the
marine ecosystem and the environment generally."
*Stop-gap solution*
Technologies for capturing CO2, like those for artificially modifying
the climate (geo-engineeringexternal link), also don't meet with
unanimous approval. According to the science advisory council of the
European Academies, eliminating CO2 from the air is not enough: no
technology can reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to the extent necessary and
at the speed demanded by the IPCC, say the researchers in their latest
reportexternal link, emphasising that the only way that will work is
cutting emissions.
For Climate Alliance Switzerlandexternal link, too, a coalition of some
seventy Swiss environmental and humanitarian organisations, elimination
of CO2 on a large scale is "risky and costly". The priority, they say,
should be the rapid reduction of emissions and protection of natural
reserves of carbon – namely forests and oceans.
This is a point with which Neu of ProClim agrees: "capturing CO2 from
the atmosphere should be a temporary solution, not a long-term
strategy," he says. "It is really just a kind of stop-gap. The only real
direction remains avoiding emissions."
Translated from Italian by Terence MacNamee, swissinfo.ch
[Brown University student opinion]
*warming up to the apocalypse
<http://post.browndailyherald.com/2018/11/16/warming-up-to-the-apocalypse/comment-page-1/>*
gratitude in the face of climate change
BY ANDREW LIU ,
When I was 12, I loved conspiracy theories. Often, I would scour YouTube
for mysterious videos that claimed to uncover a spectacular truth hidden
from the public. Whether it was the banks, the Illuminati, or even
corrupt lizard humanoids that ran the world, I would become a staunch
believer. One theory that I was particularly obsessed with was the
doomsday prophecy, which predicted the end of the world on December 21,
2012. The date was the last day that the Mesoamerican Long Count
calendar included, a calendar that had no cycles. I would preach to my
family about Mayan scriptures, ancient prophecies, and solar alignments
that told us to prepare for the end. I'm not sure if I subconsciously
knew we would all be fine, but I had a lot of fun entertaining the
thought. When the day finally came, and the world passed all 24 hours
unscathed, I was oddly disappointed, as if I'd been denied some cheap
thrill that came with the end of the world.
Now 20 years old, I've learned to go about my days with a healthier load
of skepticism than when I was a kid. For the first time in years,
however, I believed a headline instantly. This time, I could appreciate
what the end of the world actually meant. Several weeks ago, a news
notification appeared on my phone with the headline, "We have 12 years
to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN." I remember just feeling
a cold, cutting chill slice through me as I read the article, as if some
truth I had entertained in my head was finally said. For a few years I
had heard about how our climate was starting to approach a critical
juncture and about how, from that point on, natural disasters would
escalate out of control. I had heard about how the Paris climate
accord's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 C to 2.0 C was
impossible to achieve, but I chose instead to focus on the celebrations
of such a monumental agreement. However, internalizing the headline in
front of me, there was no choice but to acknowledge that there was a
real doomsday scenario approaching us.
The report, created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
included 91 authors from 40 countries and over 6,000 references to
scientific studies and journals. Its main emphasis was on limiting
global warming to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels in the 19th century.
If we allowed the Earth to warm by the 2 C allowed by the Paris accord,
we would lose all coral reefs, potentially all ice in the Arctic Ocean,
and up to three million tons of marine wildlife. On top of that, rising
ocean levels would displace hundreds of millions of human lives, leading
to inevitable war over resource shortages and mass migration as well as
trillions of dollars lost in the global economy. If we limit the warming
to 1.5 C, we simply lessen the effects of these catastrophic outcomes.
The report called for an unprecedented acceleration and remodeling of
our world in terms of energy, transportation, business, land, and
industry, with the target set at net zero carbon emissions by 2050. It
states that "the next years are probably the most important in our history."
The report also includes hundreds of pages detailing necessary protocols
for policymakers to pursue. It remains doubtful what actions will be
taken. Despite one of the greatest pleas for action in scientific
history, those in charge seem to have greater priorities, at least in
the United States. The coal and fossil fuel industry still has several
years of lucrative profits ahead, and policymakers (often funded by
these massive corporations) intend to milk every drop for their
re-elections and local economies. We live in a system almost entirely
based on these short-term gains. Manufacturing and industry, America's
greatest strengths since World War II, largely dictate the lobbying and
influence of our politicians, who lose elections the moment they bring
up carbon taxes or decreases in coal use.
I appreciate America's values of ambition and progress, but not when it
entails blackening skies and rigs drilled deep into the earth. There is
a difference between progress and transgression. We have always
suspected that taking megatons of carbon that have been stored deep
underground for millions of years and then pumping them into the sky was
perhaps not the best option for the environment, but such logic has so
far been pointless when there are greenbacks to be earned. Indeed,
President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris agreement in favor of the
coal and fossil fuel industry, and the United States is not alone in
prioritizing the economy over the environment. Jair Bolsonaro, the
recent President-elect of Brazil, claimed during his campaign that he
would ramp up agribusiness in the Amazon rainforest if elected, leading
not only to the demise of massive portions of the forest but also the
potential genocide of its indigenous peoples. The government of Saudi
Arabia has proposed no plan to steer the country away from exploiting
its rich oil reserves, and it remains to be seen if they will stay true
to their commitment to the Paris agreement. Under their current carbon
emissions growth rate, the country's greenhouse gas emissions are
projected to double by 2030.
For me, the scariest aspect of the Paris report is how it destroys
normalcy in my life. All the excitement in the future pursuits of my
education, career, and passions is now completely put out of frame; my
worries about deadlines, assignments, and exams now feel meaningless
when our planet's delicate ecosystem is on the brink of collapse. All
the dystopian and apocalyptic prophecies that I used to be fascinated
with may now very well become reality, and suddenly they no longer seem
so fun to entertain.
A few days ago, I discovered a source of hope. My favorite view on
campus is the path between MacMillan and Marston Hall that heads toward
Soldier's Arch. A few days ago, with colorful leaves floating in the
breeze and strewn all over the ground, the scene looked absolutely
stunning. I'd been thinking about the report for a long time, but in
that moment, I realized that the picturesque scene before me was more
vivid than usual: The air felt clearer, and the sun was just the right
complement of warmth to the cool breeze. After seeing the report, I
realized that everyday scenes like this have become extraordinary for
me. Now, I find myself carrying a large store of gratitude for the
perfectly normal days we have left.
Moving forward, I hope to go outside more. I have always been a bit of a
homebody, but I have also assumed the days of traveling or even taking a
walk outside would always be there for me in the future. I've recently
noticed how amazing it is that we have heat and electricity in the midst
of increasingly violent rainstorms and windy days, but I also imagine
how much energy I must be sapping every second for that comfort. I've
become more aware of times when I have consumed more resources than
needed, of times when I needlessly enlarged my own carbon footprint. I
am now aware of so many luxuries I took for granted when I was a kid and
am extremely grateful to have had a childhood where I could speculate
about armageddon, knowing it was just speculation.
In a strange way, the climate change report allows us to see the small
miracles in the world around us more clearly. Whether it is the cool
mornings, the tiny robins hopping outside my dorm, or the squirrels that
never seem to be afraid of me, I realize how lucky we are to be able to
take such things for granted. At the same time, I realize how
heart-wrenching it would be if they began to fade away, replaced by
unpredictable storms, collapsed ecosystems, and silent forests and
oceans. It is an amazing thing that we often only see how beautiful and
valuable things are when we also realize that they are temporary. Today,
circumstances are far more grim, and it falls on each of us to take
responsibility. We must be grateful rather than despairing for what we
have today, for only then can we have the hope and inspiration to
improve. For my part, I will try to use less electricity, eat less meat,
and affect policy in any way I can. These are meager contributions to a
problem dozens of orders of magnitude larger than I am, but
collectively, if each one of us takes this responsibility, I believe we
can make a sizable difference.
I have always been someone who tries to find happiness in the worst of
any situation and make any positive outcome seem like a luxury. I think
it is one of the reasons why I could stomach so many conspiracy and
armageddon theories as a kid. Recently, whether out of maturity or
confusion, I've found myself becoming more cynical, having less hope,
and feeling especially annoyed by the people in tinfoil hats. I realize
now that there is no progress or hope in that approach. It is far too
easy to shout at the world and expect things to change, and it is far
too easy to be angry and turn a blind eye to all the good in the world.
Instead, perhaps the true message of the climate change report is not
one of panic or resignation, but of encouragement to find an
unprecedented unity with each other. We must feel gratitude and
compassion for all life with whom we share this planet. Perhaps then we
can lead our lives with responsibility not only for ourselves but also
for everyone else.
This Thanksgiving, I hope we can all find a larger source of gratitude
than ever before. I encourage each of us to be more aware of the
beautiful fall leaves, the brisk air, and each one of our family
members, no matter how they might ruin the conversation at the dinner
table. Because everything, including the very ground we stand on and the
sun that shines every morning, is far more fragile than we once thought,
and we can take none of it for granted. This Thanksgiving, I hope we can
turn that into a blessing in disguise with a deeper and more poignant
sense of gratitude for our food, family, and friends.
Here at Brown, we are part of the generation that will be the most
equipped to positively impact our climate within the next decade. When I
go through each day on campus, I have no doubt that we will. I see the
most supportive groups of students helping each other through tough
times, keeping their spirits full of hope despite this overwhelming time
of year when everything happens at once. When we graduate, we should not
forget to keep our hearts open and extend our gratitude for each other
to the communities and ecosystems that we will impact. The world just
might depend on it.
http://post.browndailyherald.com/2018/11/16/warming-up-to-the-apocalypse/comment-page-1/
[another suggestion]
*Ask a Scientist: How to Deal with a Climate-Change Skeptic
<https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/ask-a-scientist-how-to-deal-with-a-climate-change-skeptic>*
By Carolyn Kormann
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/ask-a-scientist-how-to-deal-with-a-climate-change-skeptic
[Foreign relations with sea level rise]
*Sea level rising <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkwFCLUxW6I>*
Elizabeth Mendenhall - TEDx Talks
Published on Mar 2, 2018
Dr. Mendenhall earned her Ph.D. in International Relations in 2017 and
is now an assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island. She
teaches International Ocean Governance in Marine Affairs, and has a
joint appointment with Political Science. In 2011, she won a national
college policy debate championship and currently sits on the Board of
Directors for the non-profit Women's Debate Institute. As a native
Kansan, she actively chose the ocean as an area of interest and study,
and came to the TEDx stage to share her ideas with a broader audience.
Dr. Mendenhall earned her Ph.D. in International Relations in 2017 and
is now an assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island. She
teaches International Ocean Governance in Marine Affairs, and has a
joint appointment with Political Science. In 2011, she won a national
college policy debate championship and currently sits on the Board of
Directors for the non-profit Women's Debate Institute. As a native
Kansan, she actively chose the ocean as an area of interest and study,
and came to the TEDx stage to share her ideas with a broader audience.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but
independently organized by a local community. Learn more at
https://www.ted.com/tedx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkwFCLUxW6I
*This Day in Climate History - November 19, 2010
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805451.html>
- from D.R. Tucker*
November 19, 2010: In a Washington Post article, former Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY) asks, "Can the party of Reagan accept the science of
climate change?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805451.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list