[TheClimate.Vote] October 10, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed Oct 10 11:17:55 EDT 2018
/October 10, 2018/
[societal resilience]
*Mental health issues linked to climate change
<https://www.salon.com/2018/10/09/mental-health-problems-linked-to-climate-change/>*
Temperatures rising and the fear of more natural disasters is affecting
our mental health, a new study says
https://www.salon.com/2018/10/09/mental-health-problems-linked-to-climate-change/
[ValveTurners case dismissed, warning persists]
*"Valve Turner" Case a Mistrial, but Also a Warning for Direct Action
Activists
<https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/valve-turner-case-a-mistrial-but-also-a-warning-for-direct-action-activists-20170202>*
Criminal sabotage was one of the charges for Ken Ward, who with fellow
activists in Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota shut down pipelines
carrying tar sands oil.
- - - -
On Oct. 11, Ward and fellow activists in Minnesota, Montana, and North
Dakota shut down pipelines carrying tar sands oil into the United
States. The orchestrated action earned them the nickname the "Valve
Turners," and was described by Reuters as "the biggest coordinated move
on U.S. energy infrastructure ever undertaken by environmental
protesters." Ward's trial, which began Monday, was the first for the
five activists who had a direct hand in turning valves. Several others,
including media members who were present only to document the action,
also face charges.
Ward cut two chains to stop the flow of oil through Kinder Morgan's
Trans Mountain pipeline. He was initially charged with trespass,
burglary, assemblage of saboteurs, and criminal sabotage. That this last
charge--a rarely invoked law drafted to quell labor protests in the
early 20th century--was dusted off for this case may be an ominous sign
of the times and a harbinger of the inclemency future activists should
expect in this new era.
To date, conservative legislators in 10 states, including Washington,
are considering new laws that would chill protest. Proposed legislation
ranges from attempts to stifle free speech, as seen in North Carolina
Sen. Dan Bishop's bid to make heckling politicians a crime, to laws that
would excuse violence, like the proposal under consideration in North
Dakota that would protect motorists who inadvertently run over
protesters blocking roads and highways. These proposals sprouted during
the Standing Rock protests that grew to challenge authorities through
autumn and early winter. Now, in a season of mass activism following
President Trump's inauguration, anti-protest bills are spreading across
the country...
https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/valve-turner-case-a-mistrial-but-also-a-warning-for-direct-action-activists-20170202
- - - -
@dechristopher
Among other restrictions for jurors overnight, the judge urged them not
to engage in protest or try to reenact the action in question. That
gives me a new bar for a best case scenario for a civil disobedience
trial. #ClimateTrial
Tim DeChristopher
[Understatement]
*What's Not in the Latest Terrifying IPCC Report? The "Much, Much, Much
More Terrifying" New Research on Climate Tipping Points*
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/09/whats-not-latest-terrifying-ipcc-report-much-much-much-more-terrifying-new-research>
"This is the scariest thing about the IPCC Report -- it's the watered
down, consensus version."
Jon Queally - staff writer
If the latest warnings contained in Monday's report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which included
pronouncements that the world has less than twelve years to drastically
alter course to avoid the worst impacts of human-caused global warming
and that nothing less than keeping all fossil fuels in the ground is the
solution to avoid future calamities--have you at all frightened or
despondent, experts responding to the report have a potentially
unwelcome message for your already over-burdened heart and mind: It's
very likely even worse than you're being told.
"The IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing feedback
loops could push the climate system into chaos before we have time
to tame our energy system."
--Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate
After the report's publication there were headlines like: "We have 12
years to act on climate change before the world as we know it is lost.
How much more urgent can it get?" and "Science pronounces its verdict:
World to be doomed at 2C, less dangerous at 1.5C" and "A major new
climate report slams the door on wishful thinking."
But as Jamie Henn, co-founder and the program director for the
international climate group 350.org, stated in a tweet on Tuesday, the
*"scariest thing about the IPCC Report" is the fact that "it's the
watered down, consensus version. The latest science is much, much, much
more terrifying."*
This is very possibly true and there is much scientific data and
argument backing this up. As Henn and Mann both indicate, the IPCC
report is based on the consensus view of the hundreds of scientists who
make up the IPCC – and its been consistently true that some of the most
recent (and increasingly worrying) scientific findings have not yet
found enough support to make it into these major reports which rely on
near-unanimous agreement...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/09/whats-not-latest-terrifying-ipcc-report-much-much-much-more-terrifying-new-research
- - - - -
[In TheAtlantic]
*How to Understand the UN's Dire New Climate Report
<https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/how-to-understand-the-uns-dire-new-climate-report/572356/>*
It tries to find hope against a backdrop of failure.
ROBINSON MEYER - OCT 9, 2018
- - - -
The report articulates what seems, from the vantage point of 2018, like
a best-case scenario for climate change. It describes what the world
will look like if it warms by only 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5
degrees Celsius, by the end of this century. Meeting that target would
require humanity to abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next
decade or two: an economic transition so abrupt that, in the IPCC's
words, it "has no documented historic precedents."...
- - - -
The report articulates what seems, from the vantage point of 2018, like
a best-case scenario for climate change. It describes what the world
will look like if it warms by only 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5
degrees Celsius, by the end of this century. Meeting that target would
require humanity to abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next
decade or two: an economic transition so abrupt that, in the IPCC's
words, it "has no documented historic precedents."...
- - - -
Nowhere are its prescriptions more glaring than around coal. By 2050, it
warns that coal must generate no more than 7 percent of global
electricity. Today, coal generates about 40 percent of the world's power.
But more than 1,600 new coal plants are due to come online worldwide in
the next few decades, most under contract from Chinese companies. The
Trump administration, meanwhile, has tried to create new subsidies for
coal companies. It has also moved to weaken or repeal pollution
regulations limiting airborne neurotoxins, as well those reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions--rules that attracted the ire of coal companies...
- - - -
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, told me that the
report as a whole should be seen as a re-appraisal of where we're
heading as a planet. "It's like we had a medical issue. The physician
had diagnosed it. But now they're worried it might be worse than we
thought," she said. "So we go back and do a complete work over, every
type of test we can imagine."
The new prognosis is stirring. A world that warms by 3.6 degrees--and
not 2.7 degrees--will find that its problems metastasize out of scale
with that seemingly small difference. In the hotter world, the number of
people affected by water scarcity will double. Twice as many corn crops
will perish in the tropics. The size of global fisheries will drop by 50
percent. And 99 percent of the world's coral reefs will perish...
- - - -
"A lot of the reason it's been so challenging to turn the corner on
climate change is it will mean that some of the folks who are in
positions of power and privilege won't maintain that privilege," Field
said. "We have a huge number of special interests that benefit from
making the transition slower rather than faster."
Even lacking that clause, the new report might set the stage for the
next stage of the climate challenge. As every climate scientist will
tell you, the battle to prevent climate change entirely has already been
lost. But the battle to blunt its effects--to manage it, as humanity
manages the threats of hunger, poverty, war, disease, and other
afflictions, and to choose a better, cooler future--has just begun.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/how-to-understand-the-uns-dire-new-climate-report/572356/
[looking to the future]
*Fran Ulmer: After the Arctic Ice Melts
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vbJAFgX7g&t=74s>*
World Affairs
Published on Jun 1, 2018
Sea ice in the Arctic is getting thinner and thinner each year. As the
ice melts away, shipping lanes will expand and create new opportunities
for ships to use faster and more direct routes. Beyond international
trade, countries are eager to start development projects and gain access
to natural resources. We can see that warmer temperatures will increase
activity in the Arctic, but we should also consider what this activity
entails.
Competition and conflict may arise as countries eye this region. No
other nation is more prepared for polar enterprises and protecting
untapped natural resources than Russia. The US is also interested in
this region for its oil reserves, though this has concerned Canada due
to environmental factors. These three nations, along with Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, are all part of the Arctic
Council. This governing body is responsible for ensuring the region is
safe by encouraging nations to reduce gas emissions and protecting
biodiversity. However, it seems these goals will be more challenging as
the Arctic becomes more accessible.
How will member states of the Arctic ensure the region remains safe?
Should we expect a period of greater uncertainty as countries and
companies increase their presence and vie for space in the Arctic? In
terms of the value of untapped natural resources, will development
projects allow countries like Russia to gain a stronger foothold in the
world?
The Honorable Fran Ulmer, Chair of the US Arctic Research Commission and
current Visiting Professor at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy, and
Environmental Sciences, joins us for a discussion on the challenges
facing the Arctic region.
SPEAKER: Fran Ulmer - Chair, United States Arctic Research Commission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vbJAFgX7g&t=74s
[methane]
*HFCs and Methane Emissions are Growing Again
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbZwyMI4Vs>*
Climate State
Published on Aug 13, 2018
2016 presentation overview of the science and the latest findings on
black carbon by Drew Shindell, Chair of the CCAC SAP and Professor of
Climate Science at Duke University, and A. R. Ravishankara, Professor of
Chemistry and Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, who
gives an overview of the latest findings on methane and HFCs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbZwyMI4Vs
[Rand study shy about international politics]
The Public Health Impacts of Gaza's Water Crisis
Analysis and Policy Options
Read Online
<https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2500/RR2515/RAND_RR2515.pdf>
Gaza has long had water and sanitation challenges, but today it is in a
state of emergency. Its dual water crisis combines a shortage of potable
water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene with a lack of wastewater
sanitation. As a result, over 108,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage
flow daily from Gaza into the Mediterranean Sea, creating extreme public
health hazards in Gaza, Israel, and Egypt. While these problems are not
new, rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, strict limitations on the
import of construction materials and water pumps, and a diminished and
unreliable energy supply have accelerated the water crisis and
exacerbated the water-related health risks. Three wars between Israel
and Hamas since 2009 and intra-Palestinian rivalry between Hamas and
Fatah have further hindered the rehabilitation of Gaza's water and
sanitation sectors.
- - -
This report describes the relationship between Gaza's water problems and
its energy challenges and examines the implications of this water crisis
for public health. It reviews the current state of water supply and
water sanitation in Gaza, analyzes water-related risks to public health
in Gaza, and explains potential regional public health risks for Israel
and Egypt. The authors recommend a number of steps to ameliorate the
crisis and decrease the potential for a regional public health disaster
that take into consideration current political constraints. The audience
for this report includes stakeholders involved in Gaza, including the
Palestinian, Israeli, and Egyptian governments, various international
organizations and nongovernmental organizations working on the ground in
Gaza, and the donor community seeking to rehabilitate Gaza.
- - -
*Key Findings*
Gaza's young and growing population lacks water not only for drinking
but also for hygiene and sanitation
More than a quarter of all reported disease in Gaza is caused by poor
water quality and access.
Chemical and biological contamination could lead to bacterial (cholera,
Salmonella, Shigella), parasitic (Giardia), and viral (polio, viral
meningitis) infections.
If present trends continue, Gaza and the surrounding region are at risk
of a disease outbreak or another water-related public health crisis.
*Recommendations*
Increase the quantity and consistency of Gaza's electricity supply
through infrastructure and other investments such as advancing the
"161kV Line;" upgrading and expanding the electricity transmission
network to and inside Gaza; restoring the fuel storage tank at the Gaza
Power Plant and connecting it to a natural gas pipeline; investing in
solar energy; developing the Gaza Marine gas field; increasing the
supply of purchased power from Egypt; ensuring consistent supply of
electricity for the Khan Yunis Short-Term Low-Volume desalination plant;
and improving fee collection to cover the ongoing cost of electricity.
Increase Gaza's water supply and improve wastewater treatment, including
by increasing water purchases from Israel; expanding desalination
capacity; improving water storage and distribution systems; investing in
household and industrial wastewater treatment; distributing chemicals
and spare parts for household treatment systems; constructing more
wastewater treatment plants; using treated wastewater to recharge the
aquifer; repairing the wastewater collection system, and connecting all
of Gaza residents.
Protect public health and promote hygiene and sanitation practices by
preventing and preparing for disease outbreaks (e.g., cholera
vaccinations and rehydration salt packets); maintaining basic health
services; promoting more-rigorous hygiene and sanitation education in
schools; and creating a regional pandemic task force to prevent a
disease outbreak and implement containment.
Reduce implementation barriers and work within political differences
through creating a follow-up mechanism on donor pledges; increasing
funds for public health risk mitigation initiatives; relaxing
restrictions on access and movement; and identifying trusted third
parties to mediate political disputes over payments for water and
electricity.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2515.html
[opinion from Kevin Anderson]
*What Does Science Demand? A Global Energy Transformation With Focus on
Inequality of Consumption
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/09/what-does-science-demand-global-energy-transformation-focus-inequality-consumption>*
Until human society is prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in
consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise
beyond 1.5 and 2C
by Kevin Anderson
The University of Manchester's Professor Kevin Anderson responds to
today's report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC report meticulously lays out how the serious climate impacts of
1.5C of warming are still far less destructive than those for 2C. Sadly,
the IPCC then fails, again, to address the profound implications of
reducing emissions in line with both 1.5 and 2C. Dress it up however we
may wish, climate change is ultimately a rationing issue.
The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards the
lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters – professors and climate
academics amongst them. Almost 50% of global carbon emissions arise from
the activities of around 10% of the global population, increasing to 70%
of emissions from just 20% of citizens. Impose a limit on the per-capita
carbon footprint of the top 10% of global emitters, equivalent to that
of an average European citizen, and global emissions could be reduced by
one third in a matter of a year or two.
*To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2C of warming requires a
transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the
Marshall Plan.*
Ignoring this huge inequality in emissions, the IPCC chooses instead to
constrain its policy advice to fit neatly within the current economic
model. This includes, significant reliance on removal of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere much later in the century, when today's senior
scientists and policy makers will be either retired or dead. Conjuring
up such futuristic 'negative emission technologies' to help achieve the
virtually impossible 1.5C target is perhaps understandable, but such
intergenerational buck-passing also dominates the IPCC's 2C advice.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2C of warming requires a
transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the
Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the high-carbon
lifestyles of the top 20% will need to shift rapidly to deliver a fully
decarbonised energy system. No more second or very large homes, SUVs,
business and first-class flights, or very high levels of consumption.
Instead, our economy should be building new zero-energy houses,
retrofitting existing homes, huge expansion of public transport, and a
4-fold increase in (zero-carbon) electrification.
The Paris Agreement notes how it will take a little longer for poorer
countries to fully decarbonise, raising the bar still further for the
UK, USA and other wealthy nations. Even for 2C the maths points to such
nations moving to zero-carbon energy by 2035-2040, with poorer nations
following suit a decade later. For 1.5C, such 'real' 2C mitigation will
need to be complemented with planetary scale negative emissions. Whilst
the IPCC's 1.5C report rightly emphasises the urgent need to research
these speculative technologies, it continues to run scared of the
economic elephant dominating the room. Until the IPCC (and society more
generally) are prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption
and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and
2C – bequeathing future generations the climate chaos of 3C, 4C or even
higher.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/09/what-does-science-demand-global-energy-transformation-focus-inequality-consumption
[History revealed in*bold text*]
*This Day in Climate History - October 10, 2009
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
- from D.R. Tucker*
October 10, 2009: In a New York Times opinion piece, Senators John Kerry
and Lindsey Graham express confidence that bipartisan climate-change
legislation will receive 60 votes in the Senate. Graham would later
disavow support for such legislation, setting the stage for its demise
in 2010.
*Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)
<https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>*
By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM - - *OCTOBER. 10, 2009*
Washington
*CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing
a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching
zero.* The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate
change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for
curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many
Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to
the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our
addiction to foreign sources of oil.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States
cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are
also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate
legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy
future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and
create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that
adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change
solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now
-- with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It's true that we come from different parts of the country and
represent different constituencies and that we supported different
presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But
we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America
stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the
world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine
bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward
proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and
Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this
legislation. We're looking for a new beginning, informed by the work
of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.
*First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
economy and national security.* That is why we are advocating
aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that
cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters
through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and
time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering
global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.
*Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and
solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power*, our single
largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to
be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our
emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome
regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in
favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous
safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more
plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in
research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
*Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious
about breaking our dependence on foreign oil*. For too long, we have
ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground.
Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must
recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn
fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as
cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the
Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new
financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and
sequestration technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional
onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration -- work that was
started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any
exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner
and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.
*Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas*.
China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in
clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There
is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that
do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should
consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid
these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the
World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other
countries to adopt tough environmental protections.
*Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses -- and
ultimately consumers -- from increases in energy prices*. The
central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for
the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important
industries while they make the investments necessary to join the
clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition
costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can
be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will
be enormous.
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency
strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the
military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to
sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In
the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could
put our nation at risk.
*Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass
legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use
the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations.
*Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly
will not include the job protections and investment incentives we
are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a
Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency
regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative
process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a
panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass
today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional
action.
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America
back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down
at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of
the world join us in producing a new international agreement on
global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a
strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.
John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey Graham is
a Republican senator from South Carolina.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on October 11, 2009, on Page
WK11 of the New York edition with the headline: Yes We Can (Pass Climate
Change Legislation).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20181010/0d2b6dec/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list