[TheClimate.Vote] October 5, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/October 5, 2018/

[see a list of climate aware candidates]
*2018 ENDORSED CANDIDATES <https://www.sunrisemovement.org/endorsements>*
Sunrise is a movement of young people uniting to stop the climate 
crisis. We are building an army of young people to break the hold of oil 
and gas CEOs on our politics and elect leaders who will protect the 
health and wellbeing of all people, not just a wealthy few.

    TELL OUR LEADERS: TAKE THE NO FOSSIL FUEL MONEY PLEDGE
    <https://www.sunrisemovement.org/nofossilfuelmoney>
    Our politicians and candidates should reject contributions from
    fossil fuel executives, lobbyists and their front groups and protect
    our health, climate, and democracy instead.
    https://www.sunrisemovement.org/nofossilfuelmoney

https://www.sunrisemovement.org/endorsements


*This place on Russia's Arctic coast has most dramatic climate change 
<https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2018/10/place-russias-arctic-coast-has-most-dramatic-climate-change>*
The town of Dikson and the surrounding Taymyr Peninsula has the most 
rapid temperature increase in Russia, as well as an aggravating melting 
of permafrost and nearby sea ice.
Atle Staalesen
October 02, 2018
The new climate report from Roshydromet, Russia's state agency on 
meteorology and environmental monitoring, leaves no doubt about the 
serious changes now unfolding in the Arctic parts of the country.

According to the document, the year 2017 was the third warmest ever on 
record in the Arctic, and only 0.1 C degrees lower than the 
record-beating 2011. And the further north, the bigger the temperature 
increase. On altitudes of 70-85 degrees North, the air was 2.7 C degrees 
warmer than the annual average since measurements started in 1936. That 
includes the lion's share of the country's Arctic coast, as well as the 
major archipelagos like Novaya Zemlya, Franz Josef Land and the New 
Siberian Islands.

On altitudes between 60-70 degrees North, the deviation was 1.8 C 
degrees, the reports reads.
*Warm Kara Sea*
According to Roshydromet, it is the Kara Sea that over the last 30 years 
has experienced the most dramatic boost in air temperatures. Since 1998, 
the average temperatures in the area have increased with as much as 4.95 
C degrees.

That has a serious effect on nature, as well as social and economic 
conditions, in nearby settlements like Dikson on the Taymyr Peninsula.
The temperature data are based on information collected from the 
country's 250 meteorological stations, as well as from buoys in Arctic 
waters.

The biggest temperature deviations in the whole country in 2017 were 
found in the Kara Sea and the Chukchi Sea, and it was March month that 
was the most staggering. The temperatures that month were as much as up 
to 13 degrees higher than average, the data show...
- - - - -
*Melting permafrost*
The report from Roshydromet also includes alarming data about melting of 
permafrost. According to the researchers, all measuring points in the 
country's European parts of the Arctic in 2017 saw a shrinking of the 
permafrost layer by about 10 cm. The biggest melting was observed at 
measuring point in the Pechora River delta, where the decrease was as 
much as 33 cm.

Also in the western parts of Siberia, there is a major reduction of the 
permafrost. In the area of Nadym, a key oil-producing town, the 
researchers found a shrinking of the permafrost layer by as much as 38 
cm, and five measuring points in the Yamal Peninsula showed a decrease 
of between 12-26 cm.

In Norilsk, the industrial city with a population of about 175,000, the 
measurements showed that the local permafrost in the late summer of 2017 
had decreased by 22 percent compared with the previous year...
- - -
Can lead to serious accidents
Consequences for the worst affected areas can be dramatic, the state 
agency on meteorology and environmental monitoring warns. All kinds of 
infrastructure, including roads, pipelines, buildings and industrial 
plants can loose functionality as the ground's ability to carry the 
weight dwindles and a string of destructive processes sets inn.

As a result, infrastructure objects can be partly or fully destroyed, 
and social-economic and environmental consequences can be numerous and 
unpleasant. That includes oil spills and pollution with dangerous 
chemical, biological and radioactive materials, the researchers say.

Among the objects most in danger are buildings and coastal installations 
along the shores of the Arctic ocean, they add.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2018/10/place-russias-arctic-coast-has-most-dramatic-climate-change


[Paul Beckwith video lecture #2]
*Part 2: Profound Climate Mayhem With NO Arctic Sea-Ice 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-Z08vuOw4>*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Oct 4, 2018
In a few years we face a world with NO Arctic sea-ice. Profound climate 
and weather changes will profoundly disrupt human societies, eg. severe 
global food shortages. In previous videos I discussed timeframes and 
trajectories for a zero sea-ice state, and a shift of the center-of-cold 
by 17 degrees latitude. Now, and last video I delve into heat capacity 
changes with spiking Arctic warming, magnified ocean waves bringing heat 
from depth, destabilizing Greenlands glaciers; also wind reversals, 
monsoon effects, and bubbling methane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-Z08vuOw4


[Finance pressure change]
OCTOBER 4, 2018
*Stanford's new Sustainable Finance Initiative to help unleash capital 
needed for decarbonization 
<https://news.stanford.edu/2018/10/04/new-research-program-focuses-financing-sustainability/>*
A new Stanford program, supported by Bank of America,  will fund 
research to develop the finance and policy tools needed for the 
transition to a decarbonized and climate-resilient global economy.
BY MARK GOLDEN
The global transition to low-carbon economies is dramatically 
transforming the investment landscape, especially in the enormous 
sectors of energy, agriculture and transportation. To unlock the massive 
amount of capital needed for that transition, Stanford University's 
Precourt Institute for Energy is launching a research program to develop 
new economic and financial models to more effectively manage risk and 
drive successful investment.
The Sustainable Finance Initiative at Stanford will work with leading 
public and private financial institutions, companies and governments to 
engage Stanford researchers in economics, law, business and computer 
science to accelerate the transition toward decarbonization and climate 
resilience. Bank of America, a founding member of Stanford's Strategic 
Energy Alliance, is supporting this initiative.

"A global expansion of capital deployment in low-carbon infrastructure 
is one of the most important prerequisites to building economies that 
will serve humanity for our children, grandchildren and beyond," said 
Sally Benson, co-director of the Precourt Institute and Stanford 
professor of energy resources engineering. "We value the support and the 
knowledge of collaborators like Bank of America as we all try to figure 
out the technologies, finance and economic structures needed for this 
new era in sustainability."

For the energy sector alone, global investment needs to triple from its 
current level to $2.3 trillion annually through 2040 to limit global 
warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, according to an International 
Energy Agency study.

"Significant barriers block capital deployment at anywhere near the 
level needed, especially investments from economically developed 
countries in economically developing economies," said Thomas Heller, 
faculty director of the Sustainable Finance Initiative and professor 
emeritus at Stanford Law School.

"The fight for a sustainable Earth will be won largely in developing 
economies, which are now massively investing in infrastructure designed 
to operate profitably for decades," said Heller, an expert in climate 
policies and laws as well as in economic development....
- -
The Sustainable Finance Initiative will work closely with Stanford's 
Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance, which is led by former 
Law School Dean Paul Brest along with Heller and Seiger. Results of the 
Sustainable Finance Initiative's work will be made public. For more 
information visit 
https://energy.stanford.edu/sustainable-finance-initiative.
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/10/04/new-research-program-focuses-financing-sustainability/


[Every word seems important in these 5 classic speeches from Morningstar 
Investment Conference ]
*Watch Jeremy Grantham's 'Race of Our Lives' Speech 
<https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870606/watch-jeremy-granthams-race-of-our-lives-speech.html>*
from June 2018 - video and transcript
This video is part one of five from GMO's Jeremy Grantham's address at 
the 2018 Morningstar Investment Conference. You can also watch parts 
two, three, four, and five:

    https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870607/grantham-part-2.html
    https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870608/part-3-effects-of-climate-change.html
    https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870609/part-4-sixth-great-extinction.html
    https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870600/part-5-gmos-portfolio-for-climate-change.html

*Jeremy Grantham: *In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that 
I am all in on the topic of climate and toxic damage to the environment; 
98% of my net worth is either in two foundations or is committed to it. 
Fortunately, I come from a vastly overpaid industry, ours, and so that 
still leaves me enough to have two houses and a Tesla Model 3, if they 
would just deliver it to me. I'm going to give you first a broad 
overview of this topic, which I'll read to save time, because if I ad 
lib all this we'll be here all day. Then I'll give you lots of backup 
data with slides.

You could call this presentation the story of carbon dioxide and Homo 
sapiens. You may not know, but if we had no carbon dioxide at all, the 
temperature of the Earth would be minus 25 degrees centigrade, and we 
would be a frozen ball with no life except bacteria perhaps. 200 to 300 
parts per million of carbon dioxide has taken us from that frozen state 
to the pretty agreeable world we have today. CO2 is therefore, thank 
heavens, a remarkably effective greenhouse gas. The burning of fossil 
fuels has played a very central role in the development of civilization. 
The Industrial Revolution was not really based on the steam engine, it 
was based on the coal that ran steam engine. Without coal, we would have 
very quickly run through all our timber supplies, and we would have 
ended up with what I think of as the great timber wars of the late 19th 
century. The demand for wood would have quickly denuded all of the great 
forests of the world, and then we would have been back to where we were 
at the time of Malthus, living at the edge of our capability with 
recurrent waves of famine as every other creature on the planet does. A 
few good years, the population expands and bad years, you die off.

A gallon of gasoline has at least 400 hours of labor equivalent. It 
means that ordinary middle-class people have the power that only kings 
used to have in the distant past. And what that has done, that 
incredible gift of accumulated power over millions of years is to 
catapult us forward in terms of civilization, in terms of culture and 
science. It's created an enormous economic surplus with which we could 
do these things for the first time in history. And above all agriculture 
has benefited allowing our population to surge forward.

The sting in this tale however is that this has left us with 7.5 billion 
people going on 11 or so billion by 2100. And that can only be sustained 
by continued heavy, heavy use of energy. Fossil fuels will either run 
out, destroy the planet, or both. The only possible way to avoid this 
outcome is rapid and complete decarbonization of our economy. Needless 
to say, this is an extremely difficult thing to pull off. It needs the 
best of our talents and innovation, which almost miraculously, it may be 
getting. It also needs much better than normal long-term planning and 
leadership, which it most decidedly is not getting yet. Homo sapiens can 
easily handle this problem, in practice; it will be a closely run race, 
the race of our lives. I like to say never underestimate technology and 
never underestimate the ability of Homo sapiens to screw it up.

If the outcome depended on our good sense, if we had, for example, to 
decide in our long-term interest to take 5% or 10% of our GDP--the kind 
of amount that you would need in a medium-sized war--we would of course 
decide that the price was too high I think, until it would be too late. 
It is hard for voters to give up rewards now to remove distant pain 
particularly when the pain is deliberately confused by distorted data. 
It's also hard for corporations to volunteer to reduce profits in order 
to be greener. Given today's single-minded drive to maximize profits, 
it's nearly impossible.

But technology, particularly, the technology of decarbonization has come 
leaping to help us. This is the central race. Technology in my opinion 
will in one sense win. When we come back in 40 years, I'm pretty 
confident that there will be a decent sufficiency of cheap green energy 
on the planet. And in 80 years perhaps it's likely we will have full 
decarbonization. Lack of energy, green energy will not be the issue that 
brings us down. If only that were the end of the story. The truth is 
we've wasted 40 or 50 years. We're moving so slowly that by the time 
we're decarbonized and have reached a new stability of plus two and a 
half to three and a half degrees centigrade, a great deal of damage will 
have been done. And a lot more will happen in the deeper future due to 
the inertia in the environmental system, for even if we stop producing a 
single carbon atom, ice caps, for example, will melt for centuries and 
ocean levels will continue to rise by several perhaps many feet.

I don't worry too much about Miami or Boston, that's just the kind of 
thing that capitalism tends to handle pretty well. The more serious 
problem posed by ocean level rise will be the loss of the great rice 
producing deltas around the world--the Nile, the Mekong, Bangladesh, 
Thailand, and others, which produce about a fifth of all the rice grown 
in the world. They're all heavily populated areas. The great Himalayan 
rivers, which support one and a half billion people, depend on the 
normal springtime runoff of the glaciers which are now diminishing in 
size at an accelerating rate.

Agriculture is in fact the real underlying problem produced by climate 
change. But even without climate change, it would be somewhere between 
hard and impossible to feed 11.2 billion people, which is the median 
U.N. forecast for 2100. It will be especially difficult for Africa. With 
climate change, there are two separate effects on agriculture. One is 
immediate, the droughts, the increased droughts, the increased floods, 
the increased temperature reduce quite measurably the productivity of a 
year's harvest. Then there's the long-term, permanent effect, the most 
dependable outcome of increased temperature is increased water vapor in 
the atmosphere, currently up over 4% from the old normal. And this has 
led to an increase, a substantial increase in heavy downpours. It is 
precisely the heavy downpours that cause erosion.

In a rain, even a heavy rain, the farmers are not stupid, they lose very 
little. It's the one or two great downpours every year or two that cause 
the trouble. We're losing perhaps 1% of our collective global soil a 
year. We are losing about a half a percent of our arable land a year. 
Fortunately, the least productive half a percent. It's calculated that 
there are only 30 to 70 good harvest years left depending on your 
location. In 80 years, current agriculture would be simply infeasible 
for lack of good soil. We have to change our system completely to make 
it sustainable. With conservative farmers to deal with, it will take 
decades and we haven't even started.

One of the impressive parts of new technology though is in fact in 
agriculture from intense data management where you know square meter by 
square meter exactly what is going on to the isolation of every single 
micro-organism that relates to the plant.

This race too is finely balanced. A separate thread also closely related 
to fossil fuels is that we've created a toxic environment apparently, 
not conducive to life from insects to humans as we will see. We must 
respond rapidly by a massive and urgent move away from the use of 
complicated chemicals that saturate our daily life. Finally, in terms of 
this introduction, a subtext to all of what I have to say is that 
capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these 
problems. Mainstream economics largely ignores natural capital. A true 
Hicksian profit requires that the capital base be left completely intact 
and only the excess is a true profit. And, of course, we have not left 
our natural capital based intact or anything like it. The replacement 
cost of copper, phosphate, oil, and soil and so on is not even 
considered. If it were, it's likely that the last 10 or 20 years for the 
developed world anyway has had no true profit at all, no increase in 
income, but the reverse.

Capitalism also has a severe problem with the very long term because of 
the tyranny of the discount rate, anything that happens to a corporation 
over 25 years out doesn't exist for them. Therefore, grandchildren, I 
like to say, have no value. They the corporations also handle 
externalities very badly. Even the expression "handle badly" is 
flattering for often they don't handle them at all, they're just 
completely ignored as are the tragedies of the commons. We deforest the 
land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water, and treat 
air like an open sewer. We do it all off the balance sheet and off the 
income statement. Indeed, sensible capitalist response is deliberately 
slowed down by well-funded and talented programs of obfuscation by what 
is called the merchants of doubt, familiar in the past with tobacco 
particularly in the U.S., but here also the U.K.

One of these merchants, Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT actually 
went seamlessly from defending tobacco--where he famously puffed 
cigarettes through his TV interviews--to denying most of the problems of 
climate change. Let me just add this doesn't happen in China or India, 
Germany, Argentina. This is unique to the three English-speaking, oily 
countries--the US, the UK, and Australia.
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870606/watch-jeremy-granthams-race-of-our-lives-speech.html
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870607/grantham-part-2.html
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870608/part-3-effects-of-climate-change.html
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870609/part-4-sixth-great-extinction.html
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870600/part-5-gmos-portfolio-for-climate-change.html
- - - -
[textbook for public policy]
*Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change 
(Business and Public Polic 
<https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Politics-Governance-Response-Business/dp/1316632482/ref=sr_1_1>*y) 

Paperback – December 28, 2017
by Michael P. Vandenbergh  (Author), Jonathan M. Gilligan  (Author)
Private sector action provides one of the most promising opportunities 
to reduce the risks of climate change, buying time while governments 
move slowly or even oppose climate mitigation. Starting with the insight 
that much of the resistance to climate mitigation is grounded in concern 
about the role of government, this books draws on law, policy, social 
science, and climate science to demonstrate how private initiatives are 
already bypassing government inaction in the US and around the globe. It 
makes a persuasive case that private governance can reduce global carbon 
emissions by a billion tons per year over the next decade. Combining an 
examination of the growth of private climate initiatives over the last 
decade, a theory of why private actors are motivated to reduce 
emissions, and a review of viable next steps, this book speaks to 
scholars, business and advocacy group managers, philanthropists, 
policymakers, and anyone interested in climate change.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Politics-Governance-Response-Business/dp/1316632482/ref=sr_1_1


[Book review of Beyond Politics]
*Faced with government inaction, private firms emerge as major players 
in climate change mitigation 
<http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/12/18/beyond-politics/>*
By David G. Victor 18 December, 2017
- - - -
With a large number of diverse vignettes and case studies, the authors 
show that the success of private governance hinges, in particular, on 
what the behavioral sciences have learned about how firms and households 
internalize change. The authors point to factors such as labeling, 
flexible organizational structures, and new types of markets as 
contributors to this new interdisciplinary science of private governance.
Particularly important is the book's attention to firms that have become 
adept at realigning incentives across the whole supply chain. Walmart is 
a standout, having achieved 28 million tons of emissions reductions from 
2010 to 2015, mainly through making their supply chains and operations 
smarter and getting their suppliers to line up.
One of the strengths of this book is that the authors don't just make 
the case for their view of a privately governed world. They also grapple 
with the weaknesses of that approach. A chief concern is whether private 
governance, for all its potential, might actually make a difference to 
the climate problem.
The authors seek to quantify the level of emissions reductions that 
private governance could achieve in the real world—that is, not just the 
technical potential of such an approach but what actual implementation 
might look like in real organizations. They estimate, for example, that 
almost 500 million metric tons per year of CO2-equivalent emissions 
might be cut by households—a big number in absolute terms, although 
small when one considers that total global emissions are 100 times that 
level.
One area for future work is to quantify these impacts dynamically. Where 
successful private solutions emerge, it is reasonable to presume that 
others will follow; good deeds will beget more success, and a virtuous 
(and profitable) cycle of emissions cuts might follow.
Private governance could change the nature of government itself, suggest 
Vandenbergh and Gilligan. It could also change how society achieves 
justice and its lines of accountability. Work like this helps reveal 
what is possible, even without formal governments doing much or all the 
work.
My guess is that the pendulum will need to swing back a bit toward a 
view of governance that brings the state back in. But Vandenbergh and 
Gilligan offer a sober and well-grounded reminder that real change 
depends on much more than formal government.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/12/18/beyond-politics/


[Opinion: wake up Michael Moore]
*Climate Denial on the Left 
<https://tedglick.com/future-hope-columns/climate-denial-on-the-left/>*
Michael Moore's "molotov cocktail to the system" movie, Fahrenheit 11/9, 
has a number of good things to say and good sections. I was particularly 
appreciative of the sections on lead poisoning criminality in Flint, 
Michigan, recent progressive electoral victories and campaigns within 
the Democratic Party, and the West Virginia teachers strike. His 
critique of the Clinton/corporate/dominant wing of the Democratic Party 
was also on target.

However, I was appalled that there was virtually nothing about the 
climate crisis. Out of the two hours, there might have been a literal 
total of 10 seconds of footage about something related to that huge, 
world-overarching issue.
For example, the struggle at Standing Rock was nowhere to be found in 
this progressive movie about US politics and progressive activism since 
2016.
15 years ago I began my transformation from a progressive activist and 
organizer primarily working in the arena of independent politics into 
someone primarily working on the climate crisis. The impetus for that 
life-change was a disastrous heat wave in western Europe in August of 
2003. 35,000 or more people died as a result of it. This unprecedented, 
massive human tragedy caused me to spend the next several months 
studying the reality of global heating, how bad it is, how relatively 
close we are to climate tipping points, and who was working against this 
looming world catastrophe.

I was disturbed to learn that almost no one on the left and not that 
many within the environmental community were doing so, at least on a 
consistent basis. And so, in January of 2004, I started doing work in 
this area, co-founding with Fr. Paul Mayer the Climate Crisis Coalition 
and staying active ever since.

It has been encouraging to see the growth of an activist climate 
movement, an anti-racist climate justice movement and an inclusion of 
the climate issue as a major one on the part of many groups within the 
progressive movement. It was very significant that in his history-making 
Presidential campaign in 2016 Bernie Sanders spoke about this issue 
consistently and strongly. And there could be other positive examples.
So is Michael Moore's climate blindspot in this movie an exception to 
the prevailing reality on the left?
I think it's more complicated. Moore does get it on the climate crisis 
on some level. In a tweet from him on March 28 last year he wrote, 
"Historians in the near future will mark today, March 28, 2017, as the 
day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump. 
Trump has signed orders killing all of Obama's climate change 
regulations. The EPA is prohibited henceforth from focusing on climate 
change."

Actually, the threat of "the extinction of human life on earth" began 
gathering steam (via coal burning on a mass scale) long before Donald 
Trump. And though Obama did things to move us in the right direction, 
they were in no way commensurate with the seriousness of our situation.
On a human level, I don't understand how someone who appreciates this 
extinction threat, who understands how dire our situation is, how 
profoundly this is a societal and ecological crisis of the highest and 
most immediate magnitude, could "forget" to  incorporate this issue into 
a movie like Fahrenheit 11/9.

But in addition, the fact is that a huge majority of the U.S. American 
people, 80-85% consistently for many years, Democrats, Independents and 
Republicans, support wind and solar. Conservative landowners have joined 
forces with enviros, progressives and Indigenous people to oppose the 
taking of their and others' land for oil and gas pipelines and 
infrastructure. And with all of the fires and storms and floods, extreme 
weather events, that just keep coming and will be doing so for a long, 
long time, there is a realistic basis for making political inroads among 
even conservatives if we are there with them to help them deal with 
these fossil fuel industry-fueled, destructive disasters.
There really is no excuse, and many good reasons, for this issue always 
being part of our work and our strategic and political thinking and action.
Maybe Michael Moore's next movie could be on the climate crisis? Michael?
Ted Glick has been a progressive activist, organizer and writer since 
1968. Past writings and other information can be found at 
https://tedglick.com, and he can be followed on twitter at 
https://twitter.com/jtglick.
https://tedglick.com/future-hope-columns/climate-denial-on-the-left/


*This Day in Climate History - October 5, 1988 
<http://youtu.be/99-v2Farbjs> - from D.R. Tucker*
October 5, 1988: Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D) and Indiana Senator Dan 
Quayle (R) discuss global warming in the Vice Presidential debate, with 
both men agreeing that the problem must be addressed during the next 
four years; Bentsen suggests that natural gas and ethanol might be 
alternatives to oil dependence. (49:33-52:45)
http://youtu.be/99-v2Farbjs

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20181005/e13b6460/attachment.html>