[TheClimate.Vote] October 14, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Oct 14 10:47:30 EDT 2018
/October 14, 2018/
[compelling video]
*Sea Level: How Effed are We?
<https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/13/sea-level-how-effed-are-we/>*
Jeff Goodell in Rolling Stone:
watch this short video https://vimeo.com/292991175
In it, you'll see a scientist named Richard Alley in a Skype discussion
with students at Bard College, as well as with Eban Goodstein, director
of the Graduate Programs in Sustainability at Bard. It would be just
another nerdy Skype chat except Alley is talking frankly about something
that few scientists have the courage to say in public: As bad as you
think climate change might be in the coming decades, reality could be
far worse. Within the lifetime of the students he's talking with, Alley
says, there's some risk -- small but not as small as you might hope --
that the seas could rise as much as 15-to-20 feet.
Let's pause to think about what 15-to-20 feet of sea-level rise in the
next 70 or so years looks like. I'll put it bluntly: It means not just
higher storm surges from hurricanes, but the permanent drowning of
virtually every major coastal city in the world. Miami, New Orleans,
large parts of Boston and New York City and Silicon Valley, not to
mention Shanghai, Jakarta, Ho Chi Min City, Lagos, Mumbai -- all gone.
And I don't mean "sunny day flooding," where you get your feet wet on
the way to the mall. I mean these cities, and many more, become scuba
diving sites.
There are not enough economists in the world to calculate the trillions
of dollars worth of real estate that would be lost in a scenario like
this. Nor are there enough social scientists to count the hundreds of
millions of people who would be displaced. You think the world is a
chaotic place now? Just wait.
Richard Alley is not a fringe character in the world of climate change.
In fact, he is widely viewed as one of the greatest climate scientists
of our time. If there is anyone who understands the full complexity of
the risks we face from climate change, it's Alley. And far from being
alarmist, Alley is known for his careful, rigorous science. He has spent
most of his adult life deconstructing past Earth climates from the
information in ice cores and rocks and ocean sediments. And what he has
learned about the past, he has used to better understand the future.
For a scientist of Alley's stature to say that he can't rule out 15 or
20 feet of sea-level rise in the coming decades is mind-blowing. And it
is one of the clearest statements I've ever heard of just how much
trouble we are in on our rapidly warming planet.
See the hour long lecture https://vimeo.com/291976360
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/13/sea-level-how-effed-are-we/
[Rolling Stone article]
*What's Another Way to Say 'We're F-cked'?
<https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/>*
One of the leading climate scientists of our time is warning of the
horrifying possibility of 15-to-20 feet of sea-level rise
By JEFF GOODELL
- - - -
So why is Alley arguing that the risk of catastrophic sea-level rise is
so much higher than the report that is often cited as "the gold
standard" of climate science?
For one thing, IPCC reports are notoriously conservative. They are
written in collaboration with a large group of scientists and are often
watered down by endless debate and consensus-building. (There are 18
lead authors and 69 contributing authors on the chapter that considers
sea-level rise.) For another, they rely on published science that is
often out of date -- or at least, far from the cutting edge. The new
IPCC report has already been criticized for low-balling risks by
climatologists like Penn State's Michael Mann, who has pointed out that
the report understates the amount of warming we've already experienced
as a result of burning fossil fuels, which means that we are much closer
to the 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius thresholds than the report implies...
- - - -
Alley understands the secrets of ice.
For Alley, the engine of potential catastrophe is West Antarctica. The
details are complex, but here's a short version of what's happening:
warm water from the Southern Ocean is melting the underside of big
glaciers like Thwaites and Pine Island, which, due to the unusual
terrain there, have the potential to collapse quickly. (I wrote a much
longer, more detailed account of the mechanics of ice sheet collapse
here). If West Antarctica goes, that's 10 feet of sea-level rise right
there. Then if you add in ice loss from Greenland, a little from East
Antarctica and other sources, you quickly get to 15 to 20 feet.
The big question is, how soon could it happen?
"We don't really know," Alley tells Rolling Stone via email. He points
to the lack of constraints in physical data and models that would put a
speed limit on the collapse. "The most-likely future as projected by the
IPCC is well on the small-change/small-damage 'good' end of the possible
futures, with potential for slightly better, slightly worse, and much
worse, but without a balancing 'much better,'" Alley writes.
In other words, when it comes to ice-sheet collapse, uncertainty is not
our friend. The collapse might not happen fast. Then again, he can't
rule out the possibility that it will happen fast, very fast...
- - - -
Alley points out that the best way to avoid this uncertainty is to keep
climate warming below 1.5 Celsius or less. In existing climate models,
West Antarctica remains fairly stable below that threshold. But given
the world's current burn rate of fossil fuels, and the massive
industrial and political transformation required to keep temperatures
below that threshold, Alley knows that's unlikely.
"I personally am not planning to tell people that I know what [amount of
warming determines if] ice shelves will or won't break off, leaving
cliffs that will or won't crumble rapidly," Alley writes to me. "So, for
now, I have to leave large, rapid changes within my error bars, and I
believe I have a duty to tell people this."
And that's one of the things that makes Alley such a great scientist. He
not only understands the world-changing risks we face better than almost
anyone. He also understands that it's his job to warn us about them.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/
- - - -
[see the Bard College full video 1 hour seminar ]
*National Climate Seminar: Sea Level Rise with Richard Alley, 9/19/18,
Bard Center for Environmental Policy <https://vimeo.com/291976360>*
Dr. Alley is the Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences and an Associate of
the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State. His current
research interests include glaciology; ice sheet stability;
paleoclimates from ice cores; physical properties of ice cores; and
erosion and sedimentation by ice sheets. Along with his many teaching
accomplishments, Alley has authored numerous publications, chaired the
National Research Council's panel on abrupt climate change, has been
involved with advisory groups to improve national and international
research, and has been active with media outreach to translate research
findings to a broad audience with appearances on television and radio
and in print outlets. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences
(news.psu.edu/expert/richard-alley).
https://vimeo.com/291976360
[vote+plus]
*'We need some fire': climate change activists issue call to arms for
voters
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/midterms-climate-change-activists-voter-turnout-environment>*
Campaigners say more than 15m people who care about the environment did
not vote in the 2014 midterms - can they create a 'green wave' this
November?
Among the motivating issues for voters in US elections, the environment
is typically eclipsed by topics such as healthcare, the economy and
guns. But the upcoming midterms could, belatedly, see a stirring of a
slumbering green giant.
"The environmental movement doesn't have a persuasion problem, it has a
turnout problem," said Nathaniel Stinnett, the founder of the
Environmental Voter Project, which is aiming to spur people who care
about the natural world and climate change to the ballot box. "This
group has more power than it realizes. In the midterms we want to flood
the zone with environmentalists."
Any such voting surge would go some way to heeding the increasingly
urgent warnings from scientists about climate change. A major UN climate
report released this week said the world risks worsening floods,
droughts, species loss and poverty without "rapid and far-reaching
transitions" to energy, transport and land use.
"We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry," said Jim
Skea, a coauthor of the exhaustive report. "The final tick box is
political will. We cannot answer that."...
- - - - -
Beyond disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires, most politicians and
the media, particularly broadcast news, rarely dwell for long on
environmental matters. In 2017, the costliest year on record for
climate-related disasters, a total of just 260 minutes coverage of
climate change was broadcast across the six major TV networks, according
to one analysis.
A year prior, no questions on climate change were put to Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton during three presidential debates. Trump has
subsequently ignored the issue in office, save the odd disparaging
tweet, while overseeing an administration that has systematically
dismantled climate, air and water pollution regulations.
At first glance, the evidence suggests there will be only a mild voter
backlash to this agenda. Voters asked recently by Yale to rank 28 issues
placed global warming 15th, behind areas like tax reform, immigration,
terrorism, healthcare and the economy.
The partisan split is stark, however - while liberal Democrats place
global warming fourth out of 28, conservative Republicans rank it dead
last. "The issue has become more polarized than abortion in terms of
voting priorities," said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale
Program on Climate Change Communication. "The most important factor in
belief in climate science is political ideology...
- - - - -
Taken in aggregate, Americans' belief that climate change is occurring
is gradually strengthening, now standing at around seven in 10 voters.
Policies to address climate change enjoy surprisingly hefty support -
Yale found 85% of Americans support more funding for renewable energy
research, 77% want carbon dioxide regulated as a pollutant and nearly
seven in 10 want fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax.
A further 70% of those polled believe environmental protection is more
important than economic growth - evidence, perhaps, that the huge swaths
of political rhetoric about taxes and jobs is severely out of kilter
with the public.
"The link between events like hurricanes and climate change is emerging
as an idea in Americans' minds, even as they are swamped by
partisanship," said Leiserowitz.
"It's conceivable climate change will swing future elections but it's
also conceivable we will continue to ignore the issue. After all, it
gets almost no ink in the media, so how can we expect people to think
it's important?"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/midterms-climate-change-activists-voter-turnout-environment
[strong language]
*Top climate scientist blasts UK's fracking plans as 'aping Trump'
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/13/top-climate-scientist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans>*
James Hansen, 'father of climate science', accuses Britain of ignoring
science
One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a scathing
attack on the government's fracking programme, accusing ministers of
aping Donald Trump and ignoring scientific evidence.
James Hansen, who is known as the father of climate science, warned that
future generations would judge the decision to back a UK fracking
industry harshly.
"So the UK joins Trump, ignores science… full throttle ahead with the
worst fossil fuels," Hansen told the Observer. "The science is crystal
clear, we need to phase out fossil fuels starting with the most
damaging, the 'unconventional' fossil fuels such as tar sands and
'fracking'."
Hansen has also written to the UK energy minister, Claire Perry, to
underline his objections, warning that the decision was a serious policy
error that would contribute to "climate breakdown"...
-- - -
But in his letter Hansen warned that young people could inherit an
environment "out of their control" if fracking was pursued. "If the UK
were to join the US by developing gas fields at this point in time it
will lock in the methane problem for decades," he wrote, adding that
fracking would fatally undermine the UK's attempt to fulfil its climate
obligations.
"The fossil fuel companies are well aware methane is a potent greenhouse
gas, and yet they seem willing to continue on a path which can have
disastrous consequences for our grandchildren," Hansen said.
The Conservative party's fracking programme - which aims to release
fossil fuel gas from wells at sites across England - has been dogged by
criticism from environmentalists as well as fierce local opposition.
There is a moratorium on the practice in Scotland and Wales...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/13/top-climate-scientist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans
[forceful speech 8 min video]
*Harrison Ford - 2018 Global Climate Action Summit
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99AwWQ-M2_M>*
Conservation International
Published on Sep 25, 2018
"We know that we only have the possibility of avoiding a looming climate
catastrophe if people like us refuse to give up." - Harrison Ford,
Conservation International Vice Chair at the 2018 Global Climate Action
Summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99AwWQ-M2_M
[Tune in next year]
*Exclusive: BBC One to show first primetime film on climate change since
2007
<https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-one-show-first-primetime-film-climate-change-since-2007>*
12 October 2018
The BBC has commissioned a major new documentary film on climate change.
Charlotte Moore, the BBC's director of content, said in a speech last
night that the new film will be called "Two Degrees". She added:
"We want it to be the definitive film on climate change. To cut through
the confusion, tell audiences the facts without any other agenda,
explore what a dangerous level of climate change could really mean. It
will be unflinching about the potential catastrophe that's unfolding.
And offer the facts about what can still be done."
"Because, for all the uncomfortable truth, the message…is, ultimately, a
positive one: we have the power to do something. We hold the future in
our hands."
No further details about the film have yet been provided by the BBC.
However, Carbon Brief has exclusively obtained more information.
The 90-minute film is scheduled to air in a primetime slot on BBC One at
the end of March next year. It will be part of a week-long series of
environmentally themed programmes called "Blue Planet Live".
"Two Degrees" is currently the working title of the film. It will be the
first time BBC One has aired a primetime documentary dedicated to the
topic of climate change since 2007. On 21 January of that year, a
documentary presented by Sir David Attenborough called "Climate Change:
Britain Under Threat", was broadcast at 8pm on BBC One...
- - - -
*Three parts*
The film will likely be structured around three distinct parts across
its 90 minutes.
The current plan is to focus part one on the fact that the world has
just experienced a year of extremes weather events, such as the "Beast
of East" cold spell, wildfires and record-breaking summer heatwaves.
This has triggered public discussion about the contribution played by
human-caused climate change.
This first section will also include a "Where are we now?" and short
history of climate science. There will be testimonies from those
affected by the extremes, as well as interviews with scientists in the
field.
Part two will be themed, "Where are we going?". There will be a focus on
"tipping points" and why 2C of global warming matters as a threshold. It
will not just concentrate on the science, but also pan out to cover the
economics and politics.
The concluding part will focus on, "How do we save ourselves?". But
Carbon Brief understands from a source involved in the planning that
this section will "avoid cliched case studies of renewables, etc, and
focus instead on surprising advances and innovations which showcase
human ingenuity". It will avoid the narrative of "sacrifice". It will
allow the interviewees to explain the politics and how the "incumbency
is resisting change"...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-one-show-first-primetime-film-climate-change-since-2007
LIFE AFTER WARMING OCT. 10, 2018
*UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It's Actually Worse Than That.
<http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html>*
By David Wallace-Wells
- - - -(clip)
Barring the arrival of dramatic new carbon-sucking technologies, which
are so far from scalability at present that they are best described as
fantasies of industrial absolution, it will not be possible to keep
warming below two degrees Celsius -- the level the new report describes
as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are coursing along a
trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by the end of the
century. The IPCC is right that two degrees marks a world of climate
catastrophe. Four degrees is twice as bad as that. And that is where we
are headed, at present -- a climate hell twice as hellish as the one the
IPCC says, rightly, we must avoid at all costs. But the real meaning of
the report is not "climate change is much worse than you think," because
anyone who knows the state of the research will find nothing surprising
in it. The real meaning is, "you now have permission to freak out."
As recently as a year ago, when I published a magazine cover story
exploring worst-case scenarios for climate change, alarmism of this kind
was considered anathema to many scientists, who believed that
storytelling that focused on the scary possibilities was just as
damaging to public engagement as denial. There have been a few scary
developments in climate research over the past year -- more methane from
Arctic lakes and permafrost than expected, which could accelerate
warming; an unprecedented heat wave, arctic wildfires, and hurricanes
rolling through both of the world's major oceans this past summer. But
by and large the consensus is the same: We are on track for four degrees
of warming, more than twice as much as most scientists believe is
possible to endure without inflicting climate suffering on hundreds of
millions or threatening at least parts of the social and political
infrastructure we call, grandly, "civilization." The only thing that
changed, this week, is that the scientists, finally, have hit the panic
button.
- - - -
That is not to say it's over or we're doomed. Stalling warming below
four degrees is better than surpassing it, keeping temperatures below
three is better still, and the closer we get to two degrees the more
miraculous. That is because climate change isn't binary, and doesn't
just kick in, full force, at any particular temperature level; it's a
function that gets worse over time as long as we produce greenhouse
gases. How long we continue to is, really, up to us, which is to say it
will be determined in the province of politics, which is to say public
panic like that produced by the IPCC report can be a very productive
form of policy pressure.
There are also those far-fetched alternatives I mentioned -- carbon
capture and solar geoengineering -- but each is far from workable at the
moment and, even in theory, come with really scary drawbacks. But even
if the technology becomes dramatically cheaper and more efficient over
the next few years, you would need to build them out across the globe,
as well -- whole plantations sucking carbon almost everywhere on the
planet. It will take quite a long time to build those, in other words,
even if they worked, and we simply don't have that many years left to act...
- - - -
This is just the threat from sea level, and just one (very rich)
metropolitan area. The world is much bigger than that, but so is climate
change. It is also very fast, with more than half the carbon humanity
has ever emitted into the atmosphere having come in just the last 25
years, since Al Gore published his first book on climate change.
Monday's IPCC may seem like a dramatic departure, and it is. But there
is going to be much more like it coming. So long as we continue to
squander what little time we have, the news will only get worse from here.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html
[Food Stress article from VOA]
WFP: Climate Change to Accelerate World Hunger
GENEVA -- The World Food Program warns climate change will have a
devastating impact on agriculture and the ability of people to feed
themselves. The WFP forecasts a huge increase in worldwide hunger unless
action is taken to slow global warming.
The WFP warns progress in reducing global hunger is under threat by
conflict and the increase in climate disasters. For the first time in
several decades, the WFP reports the number of people suffering from
chronic food shortages has risen.
*This year, it says, 821 million people went to bed hungry, 11 million
more than the previous year.*
Gernot Laganda, WFP's chief of Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction,
notes the number of climate disasters has more than doubled since the
early 1990s. He says extreme weather events are driving more people to
flee their homes, leading to more hunger.
*He told VOA the situation will get much worse as global temperatures rise.*
"We are projecting that with a two-degree warmer world, we will have
around 189 million people in a status of food insecurity more than
today. And, if it is a four-degrees warmer world, which is possible if
no action is taken, we are looking beyond one billion more. So, there is
a very, very strong argument for early and decisive climate action,"
said Laganda.
Data from this year's State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
report by six leading U.N. agencies show the bulk of losses and damages
in food systems are due to drought and most of these disastrous events
occur in Africa.
Laganda says the number of people suffering from hunger because of
climate change-induced drought is rising particularly in Africa and
Latin America. He notes that until recently progress in Asia had led to
a reduction in world hunger, but that trend has slowed markedly.
https://www.voanews.com/a/wfp-climate-change-to-accelerate-world-hunger/4612092.html
[Litigation]
*Trump Administration Launches Third Legal 'Hail Mary' to Halt Youth
Climate Case
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/10/12/trump-administration-writ-mandamus-youth-climate-case/>*
By Karen Savage
The Trump administration has filed another extraordinary appeal in its
attempt to avoid a trial in the landmark youth-led climate lawsuit,
Juliana v. United States.
The government filed its third writ of mandamus petition to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to stay district court proceedings pending the
resolution of a separate petition it plans to file with the Supreme
Court next week. The Ninth Circuit denied the first two requests for a
writ of mandamus--a rarely used and even more rarely approved judicial
appeal that asks a higher court to overrule a lower one before the
conclusion of a case--and the Supreme Court has already once denied a
request by the federal government to halt discovery.
A writ of mandamus is usually granted only under extraordinary
circumstances and is considered a legal last resort. The Ninth Circuit
said after the first two requests that the government has not shown it
would be meaningfully burdened by discovery or a trial.
The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 29 at U.S. District Court in
Eugene, Ore.
Julia Olson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said there is nothing new in
the government's latest petition.
"To suggest that our government suffers harm greater than its citizens
by having to participate in a trial when its youngest citizens bring
legitimate claims of constitutional harm before our Article III courts
flies in the face of democratic principles," said Olson.
The government filed a separate motion in the U.S. District Court last
week asking for a stay until Judge Ann Aiken rules on two motions to
dismiss the suit that were heard in July.
Jacob Lebel, a 21-year-old plaintiff in the case, said the Trump
administration doesn't want to face the climate science that will be
presented during the trial. He referred to a government report issued in
August that predicts even more drastic global warming than previous
reports assumed.
"The Trump administration's own recent report indicates that we can
expect 7 degrees F of warming before the end of this century," Lebel
said. "It is truly frightening that their priority in the face of this
is to waste our time and the public's resources by desperately trying to
avoid trial."
Vic Barrett, a 19-year-old plaintiff from White Plains, NY, said
repeated attempts by the Trump administration to wrangle free of the
case are telling.
"The most powerful government in the world sure is scared of a group of
young people armed with the truth," said Barrett.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/10/12/trump-administration-writ-mandamus-youth-climate-case/
[Mapping, displaying data]
INFOGRAPHICS | September 26. 2018. 15:10
*Mapped: How every part of the world has warmed - and could continue to
warm
<https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm>*
Climate change is often communicated by looking at the global average
temperature. But a global average might not mean much to the average
person. How the climate is likely to change specifically where people
live is, in most cases, a much more important consideration.
To do this, the world has been broken up into "grid cells" representing
every degree latitude and every degree longitude. This results in 64,800
grid cells, which are typically about 100 kilometers wide. (In reality,
they are a bit larger at the equator and smaller close to the poles.)
The map overlay on the interactive above shows the amount of warming to
expect in each grid cell based on future Representative Concentration
Pathway (RCP) scenarios developed by climate scientists. These four
scenarios represent different possible future emission trajectories.
They range from the low-warming RCP2.6 scenario, which keeps global
warming from the pre-industrial era to below 2C, up to a high-warming
RCP8.5 scenario that would likely see global temperatures rise to above
4C...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm
*This Day in Climate History - October 14, 2913
<http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-14/news/bs-ed-climate-20131014_1_ipcc-report-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel>
- from D.R. Tucker*
October 14, 2013: In an editorial, the Baltimore Sun declares:
"The latest analysis produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), compiled by hundreds of scientists and dozens
of authors from around the globe, shows that climate change is real,
it's largely caused by man, and it's the greatest environmental
threat we face.
"That's not alarmism, it's reality. Of course, know-nothing deniers
will be as dismissive of the IPCC findings as they've been of
similar reports in the past. That the IPCC is under the auspices of
the United Nations will be used to stir up nationalistic suspicions.
That climate change policy is highly inconvenient for the fossil
fuel industries will cause the big coal and oil companies to
continue their disinformation campaigns.
"None of which changes the reality that climate change poses a
serious threat, and as the evidence mounts, it's actually become
easier to distinguish these basic changes in the ecosystem from the
normal ups and downs of weather. No one super storm or drought or
tornado is traceable to global warming, of course, but the data are
simply too overwhelming to ignore. Each of the last three decades
has proven successively warmer than the previous. Any recent slowing
of that trend or plateau, as the report notes, has more to do with
variables such as volcanic activity and the solar cycle over the
last five years than it does the build-up of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-14/news/bs-ed-climate-20131014_1_ipcc-report-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20181014/947d3c2c/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list