[TheClimate.Vote] September 1, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sat Sep 1 10:30:43 EDT 2018
/September 1 , 2018/
[no swimming, no breathing]
*Florida's unusually long red tide is killing wildlife, tourism and
businesses
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/floridas-unusually-long-red-tide-is-killing-wildlife-tourism-and-businesses/2018/08/28/245fc8da-aad5-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html>*
By Darryl Fears and Lori Rozsa - August 28
SIESTA KEY, Fla. - Even as she sat under the brilliant Florida sun, her
toes covered in sugar-white sand, Alex McShane wasn't exactly enjoying
her summer vacation. Florida's worst red tide in more than a decade had
turned the aqua-blue surf to a rusty dull brown.
And then there were the lifeguards. They were wearing gas masks.
With no mask of her own, McShane, 24, wore a frown. Her eyes itched, she
coughed, and the stench was giving her a headache - all telltale
symptoms of the monster algal bloom spanning the southern Gulf Coast. It
is killing untold numbers of marine animals from Bradenton to Naples,
where rotting fish still lay scattered on a beach behind Gov. Rick
Scott's seaside mansion, even after a cleanup.
As the outbreak nears the year mark, with no sign of easing, it's no
longer a threat to just marine life. Business owners in the hardest-hit
counties report they have lost nearly $90 million and have laid off
about 300 workers because of the red tide and a separate freshwater
algal bloom in the state's largest lake. Together, the two blooms have
caused a sharp drop in tourism.
- - - -
"Gosh, should we be out here?" she wondered. "I definitely wouldn't go
in the water. This is as close as I'm getting."
- - - -
The red tide's poisonous algae is a variety called Karenia brevis that
is native to the Gulf of Mexico. It breaks out every year, and its
neurotoxin disorients and paralyzes marine life. But in her nine-year
tenure at Mote, Lovewell has never seen animals die on this scale.
As of Friday, the aquarium had recovered 19 dolphins and 239 sea turtles
in Sarasota and Manatee counties alone. That did not include more than
100 manatees statewide and an untold number of fish, as well as large
animals such as sharks and tarpons.
- - - - -
More than 2,000 tons of dead marine animals have been removed from the
coasts of the five hardest-hit counties, according to cleanup reports.
The baby dolphin was the 13th recovered.
At the beach, an intern and part-time worker snapped on blue rubber
gloves. A swarm of flies launched when they reached for the carcass. Its
mouth was stuck open, tongue bloated and body stiff with rigor mortis.
Blood oozed from its navel as they examined it.
"It definitely takes a toll on you, dealing with so much death,"
Lovewell said. "When this is all said and done, I'm going to have to go
into a room and scream and cry a little."
- - - -
"I am so sick of hearing it's a natural occurring phenomenon that I'm
ready to puke," said Andy Mele of Suncoast Waterkeeper, a nonprofit
watchdog. "Yeah, it's naturally occurring, but what happens to it is
man-made. It responds to nutrients - period. Really the dynamite that
lights the explosion is nutrient pollution."
- - - -
"We don't have an algae problem in Florida," Suncoast's Mele said. "We
have a nutrient problem in the state." The only way to stop giant algal
blooms, he said, is to stop nutrients from polluting the water.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/floridas-unusually-long-red-tide-is-killing-wildlife-tourism-and-businesses/2018/08/28/245fc8da-aad5-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html
- - - - - - -
[P=Phosphate]
*Increased Toxicity of Karenia brevis during Phosphate Limited Growth:
Ecological and Evolutionary Implications
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058545>*
Published: March 12, 2013
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058545
[similar messages before]
*Scientists calculated a 'point of no return' for dealing with climate
change - and time is running out
<https://www.businessinsider.com/global-warming-point-of-no-return-temperature-2018-8>*
Kevin Loria Aug. 30, 2018, 8:00 AM
The world is approaching a "point of no return" for dealing with climate
change. AP / Ed Wray
The goal of the Paris Agreement was to ensure global temperatures didn't
rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
If temperatures hit that point, we'll be more likely to see the worst
projected effects of climate change, including rising seas, severe
storms, extreme heat, drought, and fires.
The world needs to transition to renewable energy fast if we don't want
temperatures to rise that much, according to a new study.
In that study, the authors calculated a "point of no return" for acting
on climate- and it's soon.
There's nothing mysterious about what it will take to limit climate
change: The world needs to transition away from fossil fuels towards
renewable energy.
*Predicting the point of no return*
The authors aren't saying there's one decisive point after which all
hope is lost.
If global energy use were to rise faster, the switch to renewables would
have to happen sooner.
On the other hand, if the share of renewables were to grow by 5% a year
instead of 2%, that could push the date back 10 years. The development
of negative emissions technology that could suck greenhouse gases out of
the air could also push back that no-return date. But even that would
only give us six to 10 extra years - and the switch to renewables still
would be required.
Regardless of these caveats, the study suggests that the clock is
ticking, and it's going to get harder to meet our goals the longer we delay.
*Uncertain consequences*
In the study, the authors explain that it gets harder to predict climate
consequences and the world's response to them as the Earth's temperature
gets higher.
That's because research suggests that certain natural systems on the
planet could be activated by warming and consequently trigger further
warming. A recent paper that explained this concept: if those systems
are triggered at 2 degrees, it said, that might cause temperatures to
spike even higher regardless of how we control emissions. The study
dubbed this scenario "hothouse Earth."
In that situation, Earth's average temperature could rise 4 or 5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels, leading to sea levels up to 200
feet higher than they are now.
https://www.businessinsider.com/global-warming-point-of-no-return-temperature-2018-8
[The Daily radio 28 mins...version of NYT article]
*When We Almost Stopped Climate Change
<https://radiopublic.com/TheDaily/ep/s1%2110ca2>*
<https://radiopublic.com/TheDaily/ep/s1%2110ca2>Thirty years ago, the
United States had a chance to stop global warming in its tracks. Almost
nothing stood in the way - except human resistance. Guests: Rafe
Pomerance, an environmentalist who became involved with the climate
movement in its earliest days; Nathaniel Rich, who reported on the
history of climate politics for The New York Times Magazine. For more
information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
https://www.nytimes.com/podcasts/the-daily
<https://radiopublic.com/TheDaily/ep/s1%2110ca2>
[Radio: Here and Now - Real Estate - Climate Gentrification]
*What Happens When Climate Change Affects Your Ability To Sell Your
Home?
<http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/31/climate-change-sell-your-home>*
The damage to my home exceeded at least half its value, and in my case,
it exceeded 100 percent the value. Therefore, FEMA has granted $30,000
for the house for either demolition or elevation. I can have it
demolished for $30,000. I can't have it elevated for anything close to
30, so I do at least feel like those funds will go towards starting
over, blank canvas for someone, and in a way, I have to emotionally
detach from it because I've owned it since '97, lovingly refurbished it,
have spent so much time, energy, money and heartache trying to recover
from three flood episodes that in a way I'm spent with it. In another
way, you know, I'm both awash with emotion at the same time seeing the
damage from the flooding, recognizing there's really not any other way
but to move on."
"I hate to say I'm spent with it. I put so much into trying to come
back from this last one, which was such a hard hit. The other two
were just dress rehearsals." Elizabeth Boineau On how her neighbors'
homes fared after repeated flooding
"Well, on either side of me is an elevated and newer home - one roughly
10 years old that it sold in 17 days for $1.1 million; on the other side
of me [is] a brand new house. And that's part of the reason I was hit so
badly was a development on either side of me. The neighbors across the
street, three of four [homes] are [built] to the ground. They are all
very concerned, trying to decide if they better get out while they can.
Will they have the money to elevate their homes? The smaller homes are
outnumbered and seemed to be the ones that took the most damage."...
*On how the flooding has changed her life *
"We've just really been through a lot, and I have to say that first one
you could not leave the house, your possessions floating down the
street. Ever since then, life made a shift. And it's not just torrential
rain. We get sunny day flooding in Charleston, too. We're that low, the
sea has risen that high, and on a full moon or a new moon time of the
calendar you may not be able to get from one side of town to the other.
Our city can be, certain sections of it, can be underwater even with no
rain. Our legislators seem to be divided about whether or not to apply
some of the accommodations tax money to finding flooding fixes, and
maybe someone from Greenville doesn't exactly support offsetting
flooding in Charleston, South Carolina. I can see that, but hopefully we
can look at ways to come together."
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/31/climate-change-sell-your-home
[USA Today opinion:]
*Uncontrolled climate change could result in disaster for our kids. Will
we do something?
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/31/climate-change-global-warming-extreme-weather-disaster-column/1113923002/>*
Mike Hoffmann, Opinion contributor - Aug. 31, 2018
There is a one in 20 chance climate change could end in disaster by
2050. This is too great a risk. When will we start to protect our children?
Would you put your child or grandchild on a plane that has a one chance
in 20 of a disastrous crash?
- - - -
If we continue on that path without taking the necessary actions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a 5 percent chance of
catastrophic consequences - even an existential threat to humanity by
mid-century, according to experts at the Scripps Institute.
*We can see the change is happening*
We all take chances, but few would board a plane with a 5 percent chance
of crashing. In reality, air travel is incredibly safe because we trust
those who design, build and test aircraft and manage the flow of
thousands of flights a day...
- - - - -
Then consider what their future holds given what is happening all around
us - it's getting warmer, large wild fires are more frequent in
California, it's getting too hot to fly planes out of Phoenix, there are
more downpours hitting New York City and Boston, and Alaska is melting.
And then consider what that younger person's life journey looks like in
a changing climate: It's not going to get better. By attaching the name
of someone you care about, it becomes personal and for many, strikes home.
- - - -
*Our kids face the consequences of our choices*
Let's fast-forward to the year 2048, when today's under-12 crowd will be
in their early 30s and 40s. Most of them will be settled into careers,
with young families, and relatively secure - or maybe not. It all
depends on the path we choose to take now.
Path A: It was nearly miraculous given the overall political climate in
2018, along with the disbanding of an important federal climate-change
advisory panel, but the 86-member bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus
rapidly grew in number and influence - a bit of an awakening with a good
dash of bravery...
So, in 2048 a new clean energy economy is booming, gross domestic
product is up $290 billion, as is household income, energy bills down,
and an estimated 2 million additional jobs have been created. The United
States took advantage of the opportunity for economic development and
transformed an inefficient system to one much smarter. By doing so, the
nation led the world down a more stable path, with less geopolitical
upheaval and more cooperation, and a more just society. Taking on this
grand challenge was not easy, and the work will continue for decades to
come, benefiting today's 12 and under crowd and their children and
grandchildren.
*The other, avoidable path ends in disaster*
Path B: If we continue on today's path and do not address the climate
change challenge, the world in 2048 will likely be unravelling, a
disaster. And those 30- to 40-year-old's have several more decades
expected lifespan ahead. Their trajectory, their flight, their agenda
has been set and will get worse. And they are asking why we didn't do
something about this when we were young, when in fact 70 percent
believed that global warming was happening and were concerned about the
impact on future generations. It was so obvious at the time that
something was up with the climate.
And then there were the predictions of how it would get worse in the
future, which is our present day in 2048 - a long, clear and dangerous
list. What were the deniers, the doubters, thinking, especially those in
leadership roles? Calling climate change a hoax (Donald Trump), denying
the science (Rick Perry) or spreading myths (Lamar Smith), yet the rest
of the world was recognizing the challenge by signing the Paris climate
accord and agreeing to do something about it.
The science behind climate change was more solid than the science behind
smoking being a cause of cancer - but it was rejected by people who
should have known better.
So today, those who won't accept the truth about climate change are
messing with our children and grandchildren - their life journey. For
the vast majority who do believe we face a grand challenge, raise your
voice, get involved, and whisper that name again. It's personal, very
personal. What will they say about us in 2048? Did we try?
Mike Hoffmann is executive director of the Cornell Institute for Climate
Smart Solutions,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/31/climate-change-global-warming-extreme-weather-disaster-column/1113923002/
[Time for humans to eat insects?]
*The Very Hot, Very Hungry Caterpillar
<https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/climate-change-insects-crops/568978/>*
Climate change will mean more insects, and less food for humans.
ED YONG - AUG 30, 2018
In thinking about insects, Deutsch and his team focused on two big
patterns. First, insects burn calories at a faster rate when their
environment heats up, which forces them to eat more food. This is a
straightforward trend that's been documented in a number of earlier
experiments, with a wide range of pest species. As the future gets
hotter, the very hungry caterpillar is going to be even hungrier.
The second pattern is more complicated: Insect populations grow fastest
at certain optimal temperatures-neither too hot nor too cold. Those that
live in the tropics tend to live at those temperatures already. Their
numbers will probably grow more slowly as the climate heats up, which
will partly mitigate their expanding appetites. That's good news for
rice, which is mostly grown in tropical environments. Losses will still
rise with temperatures, but to a lesser degree than for the other crops.
But in temperate parts of the world, insects mostly live in
cooler-than-ideal conditions. "Some of them go through a dormant state
in the winter, and more of them will make it through a winter that's
warmer," explains Deutsch. "And when they emerge, they develop and
reproduce faster because their metabolic rates are higher." This is
especially bad news for wheat, which is mostly grown in cool climates.
Wheat growers will face more insects, which will also want to eat more
to support their metabolisms. "It's a double whammy," Deutsch says.
- - - - -
These intricacies might change the degree of the losses that Deutsch
predicts, but it's hard to imagine that they might wipe away those
losses entirely. This, he says, is the time to start preparing, whether
through agricultural practices like crop rotations, or by applying
pesticides, or by planting genetically modified crops. "But preventing
climate change is the thing I would first turn to," he adds.
"Humanity faces this food-security challenge at a time when training
and job opportunities for expert entomologists are shrinking," writes
Markus Riegler from Western Sydney University in an accompanying
editorial. "These experts are urgently needed" to deal not just with the
problem of pests, but also with threats to insect biodiversity.
Most of the millions of species of insects are not pests. They are the
linchpins of many ecosystems. They're sources of food for birds, and
carriers of pollen for plants. If insects decline, ecosystems everywhere
will too. And insects are declining, even in protected areas worldwide.
As I wrote in The Atlantic last year, "Insects are the most diverse and
numerous group of animals on the planet. If they're in trouble, we're
all in trouble."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/climate-change-insects-crops/568978/
*[Carbon Footprint for Burning Man; and global warming]*
(are you kidding!?- watch it yourself - live)
*Burning Man Life streaming video
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sajC0N21QD4>*
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sajC0N21QD4>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sajC0N21QD4
- - -- -
[years past: 2015]
*Burning Man Has A Big Carbon Footprint (Unsurprisingly)
<https://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/26/burning-man-big-carbon-footprint-unsurprisingly/>*
with an estimated 70,000 people heading to Black Rock City this year, I
figured it might be worth posting some information on the carbon
footprint involved.
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/26/burning-man-big-carbon-footprint-unsurprisingly/
- - -- -
[MOOP = mess, poop, garbage, glitter, broken bicycles, and abandoned trash]
*Hey, Burning Man: Your desert party sucks for the rest of us
<https://www.laweekly.com/music/lets-be-real-burning-man-is-bad-for-the-environment-5018359>*
By Katie Herzog on Aug 21, 2015
LA Weekly unearthed a 2007 website called Cooling Man, where concerned
Burners calculated the carbon footprint of the event.
There's certainly a lot of talk about the environment surrounding the
festival. It's long been touted as a leave-no-trace event. Participants
throw around terms such as MOOP (matter out of place) to acknowledge
they, like good Boy and Girl Scouts, do their best to leave their
campsites cleaner than before they arrived.
Burners are shunned for wearing feather boas, lest an errant wisp float
away onto the playa. And glitter is also a big no-no, even though it's a
mainstay with the EDM fans who meet the neo-hippies and post-apocalyptic
cosplayers in the middle of Black Rock City's Venn diagram.
And while that's all great, let's not forget about the thousands of cars
driving hundreds of miles, the hundreds of planes flying thousands of
miles, and the gigantic burning dude - that's a lot of smoke being spit
into the air. No matter how clean the desert looks when the party is
done, no matter how diligent the organizers are about shaming those who
leave behind MOOP, the environment gets worse every year because of
Burning Man.
Seven years ago, Burners created a website and calculated the overall
carbon footprint of the prior year's event. All told, Burning Man 2006
pumped out 27,492 tons of greenhouse gases. Eighty-seven percent of that
was from travel to and from Black Rock City, while the actual burning
man was responsible for 112 tons.
There were 40,000 participants that year, but now they allow 28,000 more
people, so let's update the math. Being generous and assuming the staff
and infrastructure will have the same impact at 1,776 tons, we can
figure those additional 28,000 participants will produce the same amount
of carbon dioxide as the others, and raise this year's overall total to
45,493 tons of greenhouse gases.
So what does that mean? Just how much is 45,493 tons? [about a half a
ton per person]
https://www.laweekly.com/music/lets-be-real-burning-man-is-bad-for-the-environment-5018359
- - - - -
['Leave no trace' BurningMan.org]
*Burning Man Event Preparation
<https://burningman.org/event/preparation/leaving-no-trace/greening-your-burn/>*
Greening Your Burn
Leave No Trace
<https://burningman.org/event/preparation/leaving-no-trace/greening-your-burn/>
Greening Your Camp
<https://burningman.org/event/preparation/leaving-no-trace/greening-your-burn/2>
Greening Your Art
<https://burningman.org/event/preparation/leaving-no-trace/greening-your-burn/3>
Greening Your Vehicle
<https://burningman.org/event/preparation/leaving-no-trace/greening-your-burn/4>
https://burningman.org/event/preparation/leaving-no-trace/greening-your-burn/
- - - - -
*COOLINGMAN <http://www.coolingman.org/?page_id=123>*
climate positive. carbon negative, tools for carbon computation
http://www.coolingman.org/?page_id=123
[Birthplace, date of birth?]
*How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born?
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share>*
As the world warms because of human-induced climate change, most of us
can expect to see more days when temperatures hit 90 degrees Fahrenheit
(32 degrees Celsius) or higher. See how your hometown has changed so far
and how much hotter it may get.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
[First episode of the NYTimes article - recent history, not news]
[listen to the podcast audio version of the printed article ]
*When We ALmost Stopped Climage Change
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change-losing-earth.html>*
The US had and opportunity to solve the climate crisis in the 1980s.
What went wrong?
August, 31, 2018
Thirty years ago, the United States had a chance to stop global warming
in its tracks. Almost nothing stood in the way - except human resistance.
On today's episode:
Rafe Pomerance, an environmentalist who became involved with the climate
movement in its earliest days.
Nathaniel Rich, who reported on the history of climate politics for The
New York Times Magazine.
Background reading:
Read "Losing Earth
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html>,"
Nathaniel Rich's magazine feature about the decisive decade when humans
first began to grasp the causes and consequences of global warming.
Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily at nytimes.com.
Follow Michael Barbaro on Twitter: @mikiebarb. And if you're interested
in advertising with "The Daily," write to us at thedaily-ads at nytimes.com.
- /Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device://
//- Via Apple Podcasts
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?mt=2>//|//Via
RadioPublic
<https://play.radiopublic.com/88f7d8c3-7289-4dc6-b300-5ba71b43f5e5>//|//Via
Stitcher <http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-new-york-times/the-daily-10>/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change-losing-earth.html
[Bury Caesar, not to praise him]
*The Covert Attack on John McCain's Climate Leadership by ExxonMobil and
the Koch Brothers
<https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/30/covert-attack-john-mccain-s-climate-leadership-exxonmobil-and-koch-brothers>*
Thursday, August 30, 2018
/InsideClimate News/
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26082018/john-mccain-climate-change-leadership-senate-cap-trade-bipartisan-lieberman-republican-campaign> notes
briefly that there was a coordinated effort to oppose McCain's efforts
run by corporate-funded entities. Climate Investigations Center went
back and looked at our records for documentation of the campaign to the
kill the McCain-Lieberman climate legislation
<https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2001/8/post-4be0be1b-0295-42bf-a9e8-f0ed44f1a8aa> as
it gained momentum. First introduced in 2001 by the two Senators, The
Climate Stewardship Act (S.139) was the first national, bipartisan
legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas pollution. This bill
eventually became the ground-zero target for climate deniers and
corporate interests.
Unfortunately, a month after the first McCain-Lieberman bill was
introduced, the attacks on September 11th changed everything. McCain and
Lieberman
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext_102101.html>,
a neo-con Democrat at the time, were among the first to lead
<https://thinkprogress.org/on-morning-of-9-11-attacks-mccain-immediately-began-making-the-case-for-iraq-war-4042b28b5f9b/> the
charge to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, well ahead of the Bush
Administration according to many accounts from that time.
By 2003, McCain and Lieberman got back to thinking about climate change
together and leveraged the first full Senate vote on their bill by
forcing Majority Leader Bill Frist's hand
<https://theconversation.com/will-john-mccain-be-the-last-republican-leader-in-the-senate-to-address-climate-change-102221>on
an energy bill he was trying to pass.
The McCain-Lieberman bill garnered surprising support but lost 43-55,
well short of the 60 votes needed to avoid an override under Senate
rule. Corporations saw this as a close call and began a concerted
effort to kill the momentum in 2004 (see below). In 2005, the bill was
renamed The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, and in McCain style,
stubbornly brought up for another vote where it lost by a bigger margin,
38 Yea to 60 Nay votes.
I know for a fact that they got blindsided on this. They thought they
had paved the way for success. In a meeting with a McCain staffer after
the second vote, I showed them an ExxonSecrets map (similar to the one
below) of the organizations and individuals that worked to kill the
bill. The staffer knew there were various organizations and companies
lobbying against the bill, but had no idea the level of coordination,
nor the ExxonMobil funding channels.
- - - - - -
*Was the Exxon Denial Machine built to fight Sen. McCain?*
It has always been interesting that our database of ExxonMobil climate
denial funding shows a dramatic increase in spending after 2000, which
coincides with McCain emerging as a climate champion.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that corporate polluters thought they
were off the hook with the Bush-Cheney victory over Gore-Lieberman. Yet
ExxonMobil's funding of climate denial organizations ballooned to its
highest levels between 2000 and 2005 as the McCain-Lieberman legislation
gained momentum. Between 2003-2005, Exxon wrote grants totaling more
than $3.3 million dollars each year to climate-denying organizations.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the leader of the Cooler
Heads Coalition
<http://climateinvestigations.org/climate-deniers/cooler-heads-coalition/>(CHC)
and recipient of over $2 million dollars total from ExxonMobil between
1997-2005, aggressively fought Sen. McCain's climate leadership in the
early 2000s. A leaked 2003 email from Myron Ebell
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4793357-2004-July-CEI-Myron-Ebell-leaked-email-targeting.html>,
Director of Global Warming Policy atCEI, lays out a target list for
lobbying against the "McLieberman" bill. FOIAed documents
<http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/cei/cei-white-house-congress-energy-policy/> show
communications in 2003 between Myron Ebell and the Bush White House
Council on Environmental Quality, where Ebell details the campaign
against McCain. CEIalso put out press releases
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3877869-Cei-Email-103003-1-728.html> against
the legislation, held events
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3877863-Cei-Email-102303-1-728.html>to
debate it, and used theCHCnetwork of climate deniers to wage their
campaign
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3877746-Cei-Email-6904-1-728-1-Not-Duplicative.html>.
The Exxon-funded groups were also being funded by the Koch brothers and
their foundations. In January 2003, CEIco-authored a letter with the
Koch-funded Citizen's for Sound Economy
<https://web.archive.org/web/20031207033457/http://www.cse.org:80/informed/issues_template.php/1238.htm> to
the Bush Whitehouse decrying the McCain-Lieberman legislation.
ExxonMobil gaveCEI$465,000 that year
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1019876-2003-exxon-giving-report.html#document/p41/a289372> according
to Exxon documents, the largest Exxon haul byCEIin any year. An
unredactedCEIIRS990
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4797409-Competitive-Enterprise-Institute-CEI-2003-IRS.html#document/p14/a450857> for
2003 lists a $100,000 donation from David Koch himself
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4797409-Competitive-Enterprise-Institute-CEI-2003-IRS.html#document/p14/a450858> and
only $180,000 from ExxonMobil (probably an accounting anomaly).
- - - -
*Kochtopus Tentacles Ensnare McCain*
Well before the Koch brothers became a household name, they were hard at
work influencing our political system. It is safe to assume that the
Koch campaign against climate progress ramped up in the mid-2000s
targeted Senator McCain.
Well before the Koch brothers became a household name, they were hard at
work influencing our political system. It is safe to assume that the
Koch campaign against climate progress ramped up in the mid-2000s
targeted Senator McCain.
McCain's presidential campaign was staffed by the long-time Koch
operative
<https://thinkprogress.org/nancy-pfotenhauer-mccains-dirty-energy-spokeswoman-972466b6f15b/>
Nancy Pfotenhauer.
<https://littlesis.org/person/41341/Nancy_Pfotenhauer> The Koch network
veteran became one of McCain's top policy advisors for his 2008
campaign, after she left her position as the leader of the
Koch-controlled Americans for Prosperity(AFP). Pfotenhauer began working
directly for Koch Industries in the mid-1990s and led its federal
lobbying shop during Clinton's second term. After Bush became president
in 2001, Pfotenhauer took on another Koch-funded group (*Independent
Women's Forum*)
<https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-feminists-doing-the-koch-brothers-dirty-work/> and
then became the head of the core Koch-controlled group in Washington,DC,
Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). CSE was created by Charles Koch's
right-hand man Richard Fink and later became AFP. Pfotenhauer leftAFPto
work for McCain in 2007. That year, McCain attended the Kochs'
firstAFP"Defending the American Dream" summit. After he lost, she went
back to Koch Industries as an official spokesperson and started a
consulting firm that represented Koch Industries and the Kochs in the media.
CSE was active in attacking efforts to address climate change when
Pfotenhauer was working for Koch Industries directly and when she
helmedCSE(which she led for a period as a joint operation with the
Koch-funded Independent Women's Forum). For example, in 2003,
CSEstaunchly backed Exxon in its shareholder controversy and lobbied
against McCain's Climate Stewardship Acts
<http://www.freedomworks.org/content/cse-urges-no-vote-s-139-climate-stewardship-act-0>.
CSE also advised members of Congress that it would score and publicize
to their constituents their votes on McCain's legislation. After CSE was
rebranded as AFP on her watch, the Koch group continued to attack
measures to mitigate climate change in numerous ways. (/PDFs available/).
In 2008, as Pfotenhauer served as one of McCain's top advisors on energy
policy <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=91462>and touted
his "market based approach"
<https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1018> to our climate and
environment,AFPran a national state-by-state roadshow to influence
elections and policy, called the "Hot Air Tour"
<https://web.archive.org/web/20080501145049/http://www.hotairtour.org:80/>...
There is clearly more to tell. Get in touch with further questions or
additional information at info at climateinvestigations.org
<mailto:info at climateinvestigations.org>.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/30/covert-attack-john-mccain-s-climate-leadership-exxonmobil-and-koch-brothers
[NYTime$]
*Environmental Groups Fight Back Against Corporate Lawsuits
<https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/28/us/ap-us-oil-pipeline-etp-lawsuit.html>*
By The Associated Press
Aug. 28, 2018
BISMARCK, N.D. - Twenty environmental and civil liberties groups are
fighting back against lawsuits they believe are aimed at limiting free
speech and silencing critics.
The "Protect the Protest" task force announced Tuesday targets what are
known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP,
which use legal action and the threat of financial risk to deter people
and groups from speaking out against something they oppose.
"We know from our own experience that this legal bullying tactic will
work if it's not shut down," said Katie Redford, co-founder and director
of EarthRights International.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/28/us/ap-us-oil-pipeline-etp-lawsuit.html
- - - -
[Block that slapp!]
*WHAT IS A SLAPP LAWSUIT?*
*ANTI-SLAPP TASK FORCE: PROTECT THE PROTEST
<https://www.protecttheprotest.org/>*
Courts are for those who seek justice, not revenge. A growing number of
corporations, law firms, and individuals attempt to silence their
critics by filing "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"
(SLAPPs). SLAPPs violate the First Amendment rights of those who speak
truth to power. We formed this task force to protect our rights - and
yours - to speak out, criticize, and protest peacefully. Because
democracy needs dissent.
https://www.protecttheprotest.org/
*This Day in Climate History - September 1, 2002
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2228741.stm> - from D.R.
Tucker*
September 1, 2002: British Prime Minister Tony Blair laments the failure
of the United States to join the Kyoto Protocol, even though the treaty
is quite moderate relative to what the science demands in terms of
worldwide emissions cuts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2228741.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/09/01/blair.climate.glb/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180901/1e80581f/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list