[TheClimate.Vote] October 13, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sat Oct 13 11:47:23 EDT 2018
/October 13, 2018/
[time to vote]
*Global Warming: USA Voting Guide
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/global-warming-usa-voting-guide/>*
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/global-warming-usa-voting-guide/>October
12, 2018
If you think climate change is an important issue (like I do), and
you're wondering who to vote for in the upcoming U.S. election, who
should get your vote? Which politicians should you vote against?
The easy answer is: vote for democrats, against republicans. That's
actually a excellent way to choose, but there's one even better: look at
your individual politicians and see what their record is on the climate
change issue.
Fortunately, there are organizations that have done just that. One is
the League of Conservation Voters, who record every environmental vote
in the U.S. House and Senate and issue a "score" (on a scale of 0 to
100) for each member. They also score each one on separate issues,
including climate change. They score both their performance in the most
recent full year (2017) and their lifetime record.
- - - -
Only 2% of republicans have a score of 50 or higher, while 99% of
democrats do. The median score for republicans is 2 (on a scale of 0 to
100), median for democrats is 95. Yes, this is one of the most partisan
issues in the U.S. today.
But there are exceptions, republicans scoring 50 or higher and democrats
scoring below 50. Here are the five republicans with good scores, with
their party (all republicans of course), the district they represent,
and their lifetime scores:
Brian Fitzpatrick, R, PA-08, 100
John Faso, R, NY-19, 100
Brian Mast, R, FL-18, 83
Carlos Curbelo, R, FL-26, 75
Elise Stefanik, R, NY-21, 50
Note that two of them have a lifetime rating of 100! Let's keep those
people in congress. Extra note: Carlos Curbelo has a lifetime score of
75 but only got a 50 for the year 2017, while Elise Stefanik has a
lifetime 50 but scored 100 in the year 2017.
Here are the democrats with bad score:
Collin C. Peterson, D, MN-07, 36
Henry Cuellar, D, TX-28, 40
More at:-
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/global-warming-usa-voting-guide/
[pay attention]
*1.5 to Stay Alive, Says a Landmark UN Climate Report
<https://www.thenation.com/article/1-5-to-stay-alive-says-landmark-un-climate-report/>*
A 2 degrees C rise would be catastrophic, and avoiding it requires
radical change and climate justice.
By Tom Athanasiou OCTOBER 9, 2018
- - - -
The big, and very welcome, surprise in the IPCC report is that a 1.5 C
future is technically achievable. When the world's governments agreed at
the 2015 Paris climate summit to limit global temperature rise to "well
below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels," while "pursuing efforts
to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C," the 1.5 C reference was
widely seen more as a political concession to poor and vulnerable
countries than as a realistic policy goal. Now, in 2018, the IPCC has
definitively declared that 2 C in fact invites disaster. That would be
dire news indeed except for the panel's finding that a 1.5 C future is
still within reach—a finding that surprised some of the IPCC experts.
"Two years ago, even I didn't believe 1.5 C was possible," Jiang Kejun,
a scientist at China's Energy Research Institute and a co-author of the
IPCC report, said at the press conference where the report was released.
"But when I look at the options, I have confidence it can be done."...
- - - -
And if we don't heed the scientists' warning? Mainstream news coverage
has ably highlighted the IPCC report's list of projected impacts if the
earth warms by 2 C rather than by 1.5 C. Hundreds of millions of people
would be more likely to endure poverty. Heat waves would get much worse.
The record heat wave that struck Europe in 2003, killing over 71,000
people, was a one-in-100-years event at the time. Such extreme heat
waves would be 50 percent more common in a 2 C world than a 1.5 C world.
At the poles, the difference between 1.5 C and 2 C will be particularly
severe. Think ice-sheet instability, which directly threatens sea-level
increase. A 2 C future would expose at least 10 million more people
living along coastlines to inundation. "Every fraction of a degree of
warming we can avoid matters," says Peter Frumhoff of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. "Human lives can be saved, and coral reefs,
wetlands, and other vulnerable species and ecosystems better protected.
The risk that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will ultimately
melt, leading to catastrophic sea level rise, will also be lower."
The climate transition is going to be as hard as anything human beings
have ever done. It raises immense justice challenges, challenges that
require the same kind of concentrated attention that has, to this point,
been focused on the ins and outs of science and technology. The IPCC
report is a milestone in this long overdue reorientation of the climate
debate. Ultimately, however, it's not going to be the IPCC that answers
the fundamental questions facing us, for those questions are not
scientific questions. They are questions of morality, justice, and the
political and economic actions needed to achieve them, and they involve
all of us.
https://www.thenation.com/article/1-5-to-stay-alive-says-landmark-un-climate-report/
[Vote for it]
*Clean Energy For All <https://www.cleanenergyforall.org/>*
A movement is building across the country to reject dirty fossil fuels
and embrace clean energy. And in the absence of federal leadership,
this movement's progress is taking hold in the states. Clean Energy for
All is a grassroots campaign that is moving our country closer to 100
percent clean energy by 2050.
https://www.cleanenergyforall.org/
https://www.lcv.org/
[odd, strong storms]
*Queensland storm: Tornadoes and huge hailstones wreak damage
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45831883>*
The nation's strongest tornadoes form during supercells - a type of
storm that is also frequently accompanied by damaging hail.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45831883
- - - -
*Tornado hits Queensland bringing hail the size of tennis balls
<https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/10/12/06/07/tornado-supercells-tansey-queensland-south-east>*
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/10/12/06/07/tornado-supercells-tansey-queensland-south-east
/BBC shows us a responsible mass media discussion../
[with a touch of philosophy, BBC Radio discusses the moral maze]
*Climate Change <https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/m0000nhn>*
Twelve years to save the world. While we're squabbling about Brexit,
climate scientists are reminding us that the existential threat of our
day is global warming. This week's report from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues the most extensive warning yet on
the risks of rising temperatures. According to its authors, keeping to
the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean
cutting carbon emissions by 45% by the year 2030. That will involve,
they say, "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects
of society". Decades of increasing prosperity, freedom and choice in the
West have come at a cost. The rest of the world wants rapid growth too,
but should they be allowed to have it? In a society that badly needs to
learn the meaning of 'delayed gratification', how should we, as
individuals, change our behaviour? When the priority is putting food on
the table, many choose economic expedience over sustainability - it can
be expensive to go green. Would it be right for the government to make
us all greener by taxing or even banning log-burning stoves,
gas-guzzling cars and cheap air travel? Many make the moral case for
saving the planet on behalf of our grandchildren. But what of our moral
obligation to those who don't yet even exist? Is it morally dubious to
put the theoretical interests of posterity before the real and immediate
needs of poor people today? If climate change is the organising call of
our age, how should we respond? Combative, provocative and engaging
debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Shiv Malik, Anne McElvoy, Tim
Stanley and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Leo Barasi, Author of "The Climate
Majority: Apathy and Action in an Age of Nationalism"; Ross Clark,
Journalist, author and political commentator; Charlotte Du Cann, Core
member of the Dark Mountain project; and George Monbiot, Journalist,
columnist and campaigner.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/m0000nhn
[soggy seed bank being rebuilt]
*Thawing permafrost makes big trouble for world's northernmost town
<https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/10/thawing-permafrost-troubles-longyearbyen>*
Houses are sagging in Longyearbyen and the unstable ground around the
famous seed vault is now frozen artificially while the entrance to the
tunnel is being re-built.
By Thomas Nilsen - October 09, 2018
- - -
Temperatures in the Arctic continue to soar. For 2017, average
temperatures in Longyearbyen were 4,5C higher than normal. While the UN
Climate Panel this week issued a report urging world leaders to take
action to limit global average warming to 1.5C, the same scientists
concludes that the Arctic is already warming two to three times higher.
Over the last 94 months, temperatures measured at Longyearbyen airport
have been above average since measurements started in 1936. This year,
spring came abnormally early, with a mean temperature of 1,8C in May.
That is 6C above normal in a month where the frost should still remain.
No strange the ground is melting underneath people's houses.
Permafrost is defined as ground where the temperature is below zero
degrees Celsius for a minimum two years in succession. In summer at
Svalbard, the upper one-meter of soil thaws and plants can grow. It is
this one-meter that now melts deeper, making the traditional wooden
pillars houses in Longyearbyen are build on unstable.
Two snow avalanches and landslides, in 2015 and 2017, is another reason
some houses nearest to the steep mountain have to be moved. The
avalanches are also linked to climate changes as the snow piles and
warmer weather cause higher risk for avalanches.
- - - - -
The entrance to the Global Seed Vault, where some 45,000 international
varieties are stored deep into the mountain, is being rebuilt.
Climate change has caused more snow and rain and the entrance has been
flooded several times. Although built only 10 years ago, nobody at that
time anticipated the water troubles could be so severe.
During reconstruction, the ground around the new waterproof entrance is
artificially frozen to avoid further erosion. Big white-frozen pipes are
visible in long distance from the vault, stabilizing a five meters thick
and 20 meters high ice-wall. The tunnel from the entrance into the
mountain will be made much smaller than the original one, only three
meters in diameter.
All heat sources in the vault have been moved out and will be placed in
a separate service building to be built next to the vault, while extra
cooling capacities will be installed inside the mountain.
The freezing elements will be removed when stones and rocks again covers
the entrance area. Reconstruction will be completed in May 2019.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/10/thawing-permafrost-troubles-longyearbyen
[Nordhaus and Romer]
*They won this year's Nobel for economics. Here's why their work matters
<https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/meet-the-winners-of-this-years-nobel-prize-for-economics/>*
Simon Brandon - Oct 2018
- - - - -
William Nordhaus, a professor of economics at Yale, has been recognized
by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for his work – dating back to
the 1970s – in understanding and modelling how the global economy and
the climate interact.
Nordhaus shares the $1 million Nobel prize with Paul Romer – a professor
at New York University's Stern School of Business – who has won for his
work demonstrating the fundamental importance of internal factors, such
as technological innovation, in driving a nation's economic growth...
- - - -
Together, the Nobel Committee says, the two laureates have "designed
methods that address some of our time's most fundamental and pressing
issues: long-term sustainable growth in the global economy and the
welfare of the global population".
Nordhaus began his work on climate change in the 1970s, when the
evidence of manmade global warming had begun to emerge. He developed a
set of simple but dynamic models of the relationship between the global
economy and climate. These tools – called 'integrated assessment models'
– enable us to simulate the consequences for both economy and climate of
the decisions, assumptions and policies made and enacted today...
Nordhaus' work has led him to conclude that the best way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate their effects is a globally
enforced system of carbon taxes – a course of action is recommended in
the IPCC's report...
Romer's work, meanwhile, has led him to develop a set of ideas called
endogenous growth theory. Traditionally, economists have held that a
nation's economic growth is driven largely by external factors – outside
investment, for example. But Romer's theory holds that the opposite is
true; that it is internal – or endogenous - factors that hold the key to
a country's prosperity. This is important because it demonstrates to
governments and policymakers that sustainable growth is achievable by
directing resources and investment internally towards drivers of
technological innovation, such as education and research...
While Nordhaus' work is the most overtly concerned with combatting
climate change, Romer's is also key, because we need technological
innovation on our side in the fight against climate change. Asked to
name the most important lesson from his during the interview with the
Nobel Prize Committee included above, Romer answered: "What happens with
technology is within our control."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/meet-the-winners-of-this-years-nobel-prize-for-economics/
- - - -
[audio interview with Romer]
*"What happens with technology is under our control."
<https://youtu.be/o1tX9TOYJxM>*
Nobel Prize
Published on Oct 8, 2018
Paul M. Romer, the 2018 Economic Sciences Laureate, reminds us that
technology isn't like the weather. It doesn't just happen to us. It is a
tool we can use to do good in the world.
https://youtu.be/o1tX9TOYJxM
[Private Idaho]
*The 2019 forecast for climate-change effects on Idaho is 'not looking
good' <https://www.theolympian.com/news/state/article219849970.html>*
BY NICOLE BLANCHARD
October 11, 2018 10:13 AM
More fires. More smoky air. More of what made August in the Treasure
Valley so unpleasant.
That's what 2019 could bring to Idaho, thanks in large part to the
warming of the earth's atmosphere, a University of Idaho scientist says.
Days after a United Nations report called climate change "a
life-or-death situation," an Idaho climate scientist pointed out the
effects of climate patterns over the past year in the Pacific Northwest...
- - - -
"The smoke issue is one we're going to have to face in terms of how to
cope and adapt," Abatzoglou said.
"When you have large-scale fires, there's definitely a link to climate,
despite what some people may think," Abatzoglou said.
"Some people just don't trust scientists, unfortunately," he added. "But
the thing to drive home is that climate matters."
In a nod to the UN's recent report, the U of I professor said there are
"great benefits to reducing warming," though in the meantime people must
figure out how to manage the unavoidable, such as the worsening droughts
hitting the Northwest.
So what's in store for Idaho and the surrounding region in 2019?
It's hard to say, Abatzoglou said. Experts are predicting an El Niño
weather pattern that would bring unseasonably warm temperatures through
the coming winter.
Abatzoglou's short-term predictions echo the details of other recent
climate change reports:
"If the guesses are right, if the models are right, things are not
looking good," he said.
https://www.theolympian.com/news/state/article219849970.html
[interpreting the IPCC report]
*IPCC Special Report on 1.5: Limiting global warming without temperature
"overshoot"
<https://www.boell.de/en/2018/10/10/15-grad-bericht-des-ipcc-fokus-auf-striktes-klimaziel-ohne-overshoot>*
Analysis The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 opts for a rigorous
interpretation of the 1.5 limit of global warming. It has good reasons
to do so: "Overshooting" that target risks irreversible impacts and
damage for societies and ecosystems, and increases reliance on unproved,
high-risk geoengineering technologies.
10. October 2018 by Linda Schneider
- - - -
The key messages of the IPCC's SR1.5 are surprisingly unwavering: 1.5 is
feasible if radical emissions cuts, transformative pathways and the
protection and restoration of natural ecosystems are implemented. But
also: 1.5 is absolutely vital in order to contain the impacts of climate
change and the risks for humans and ecosystems that are associated with it.
- - -
*Climate change impacts at 1.5*
Based on most recent scientific estimates, the report finds that warming
of 1.0C (+/- 0.2C) has already occurred and that climate change impacts
resulting from this warming are already being felt in many regions.
Global warming of 1.5C, therefore, is a real danger for millions of
people around the world and requires comprehensive adaptation measures
as well as financial and technological support on the part of those
historically responsible for climate change...
- - - -
Radical emissions reductions and transformative pathways
Due to all of these risks and potentially irreversible impacts, the
report opts for a rigorous interpretation of the 1.5 target and focuses
on mitigation scenarios that minimize or avoid overshoot altogether.
To that end, the report issues a clear call for radical emission cuts:
Global CO2 emissions need to be reduced by around 45% by 2030 (compared
to 2010 levels), and reach zero in around 2050...
- - - -
Technologies for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) such as Bioenergy with
Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) are viewed critically in the report
as well. In particular at scales that most of the „overshoot" pathways
rely on, their deployment will not be feasible, the report finds.
CDR technologies predominantly modelled in 1.5 pathways are BECCS and
large-scale afforestation (usually monoculture tree plantations). The
IPCC confirms them to carry enormous risks and adverse impacts on
ecosystems, biodiversity and food security due to to the fact that they
require exorbitant amounts of land as well as water, energy and resources...
- - - -
*Radical Realism at the IPCC?*
The IPCC's language on issues of social justice and equity is
surprisingly bold as well: The report describes social justice and
reduced inequality as key pillars of climate-resilient (and
climate-just!) futures...
- - - -
Even if the negotiations almost fell apart at the last minute when a
small number of oil-exporting countries did everything they could to
prevent mention of nationally determined contributions (NCDs) submitted
under the UNFCCC as well as mention of the Paris Agreement altogether
(!), on balance, the report offers a good and forward-looking result.
The political messages coming out of the IPCC at this point are
precisely what the world needs to hear: It is possible to limit global
warming to 1.5, and it is necessary to contain the impacts of the
climate crisis. 1.5C, essentially, is the new 2C. However, limiting
global warming to 1.5C requires fast and spirited climate action and
deep emissions cuts that can be achieved through a timely and managed
decline of fossil fuel production, the comprehensive upscaling of
renewable energy, but also through changes in production and consumption
patterns as well as the protection and vast but carefuly restoration of
our natural ecosystems...
https://www.boell.de/en/2018/10/10/15-grad-bericht-des-ipcc-fokus-auf-striktes-klimaziel-ohne-overshoot
[video lecture personal science overview of glaciers and Ice sheets]
*Glaciers and Ice Sheets in a Changing Climate – Professor Andrew
Mackintosh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY-8mJHMUpg>*
Victoria University of Wellington
Published on Sep 16, 2018
Part of Victoria University of Wellington's Inaugural lecture series
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY-8mJHMUpg
[A classic video - history documentary]
*How Big Oil Conquered the World <https://youtu.be/ySnk-f2ThpE>*
corbettreport
Published on Dec 27, 2015
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16888
From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to
plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day
lives that is not affected by the oil industry. The story of oil is the
story of the modern world. And this is the story of those who helped
shape that world, and how the oil-igarchy they created is on the verge
of monopolizing life itself.
https://youtu.be/ySnk-f2ThpE
["it brings on many changes"]
*The Climate Impact Lab studies the less-known costs of climate change.
Like suicide.
<https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/the-climate-impact-lab-studies-the-less-known-costs-of-climate-change-like-suicide/>*
https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/the-climate-impact-lab-studies-the-less-known-costs-of-climate-change-like-suicide/
[system collapse]
*Heading for extinction and what to do about it
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2VkC4SnwY0>*
RisingUp!
Published on Sep 18, 2018
This talk by Gail Bradbrook of Extinction Rebellion will cover two main
things:
The ecological crisis- the latest science on what risks there are and
our current trajectory which includes the possibility of abrupt (ie near
term dramatic climate change) and human extinction
Understanding our emotional response and about appropriate responses.
The basic premise of this talk is to tell the truth and ask us all to
act accordingly and consistently with the information, including our
understanding of what actually enables change to happen in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2VkC4SnwY0
*This Day in Climate History - October 13, 1988
<http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/4256-1> - from D.R. Tucker*
October 13, 1988: In the second presidential debate, Republican
candidate and Vice President George H. W. Bush declares himself an
environmentalist and "an outdoorsman and a sportsman all my life," while
Democratic candidate and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis states
that Bush was "[a] charter member of the environmental wrecking crew
that went to Washington in the early '80s and did a job on the EPA."
(65:00--69:05)
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/4256-1
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20181013/08aa0644/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list