[TheClimate.Vote] September 23, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/September 23, 2018/

[ick, drek]
*Florence Waters, and Fears, Still Rising, 
<https://climatecrocks.com/2018/09/21/florence-waters-and-fears-still-rising/>*
September 21, 2018
Duke estimated that the storm had washed away more than 2,000 cubic 
yards of coal waste -- enough to fill more than 150 dump trucks.
On Friday came more bad news. The company said the dam separating the 
Cape Fear River from man-made Sutton Lake, which holds water used to 
cool discharges from the power plant, suffered one large breach and 
several smaller ones.
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/09/21/florence-waters-and-fears-still-rising/
- - - -
[video of NC floods and VA tornado]
Climate & Extreme Weather News #137 (16th-21st September 2018) 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLhtnRf-Lmg>
Understanding Climate Change
Published on Sep 21, 2018
06:46 The USA: Carolina floods & Richmond tornado
https://youtu.be/bLhtnRf-Lmg?t=6m46s


[firefighter finally throws dirt at firenado that takes his hose]
*famous hose suck firenado video <https://www.instagram.com/p/BnwjbYfHwkB/>*

    mar.lowsky Fire tornado destroyed our line. It threw burning logs
    across our guard for 45 minutes and pulled our hose 100 plus ft in
    the air before melting it. That's definitely a first. #firenado
    #startthepump #wildfire
    Note: It got over 200ft tall but the smoke was too think to see it
    clearly on video. Sorry for the profanity.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnwjbYfHwkB


[Ethics and Climate- reviews related papers]
*New Evidence That Climate Change Poses a Much Greater Threat to 
Humanity Than Recently Understood Because the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change has been Systematically Underestimating Climate Change 
Risks 
<https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/09/21/new-evidence-that-climate-change-poses-a-much-greater-threat-to-humanity-than-recently-understood-because-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-has-been-systematically-underestimating-climate/>*
Three papers have been recently published that lead to the conclusion 
that human-induced climate change poses a much more urgent and serious 
threat to life on Earth than many have thought who have been relying 
primarily on the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC). This paper first reviews these papers and then examine 
the ethical questions by the issues discussed in these papers.
*I. The Three Papers*
On July 31, 2018, a paper was published in the Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences which should create a shiver of fear in all 
humans everywhere. The paper, Trajectories in the Earth System in the 
Anthropocene 
<http://macroecointern.dk/pdf-reprints/Steffen_PNAS_2018.pdf> by Steffen 
et.al., explains how human-induced warming is rapidly approaching levels 
that may trigger positive climate feedbacks which could greatly 
accelerate the warming already plaguing the world by causing record 
floods, deadly heat waves and droughts, increasing tropical diseases, 
forest fires, more intense and damaging storms, sea level rise, coral 
bleaching, and acidification of oceans, all of which are contributing to 
increasing the number of refugees which are destabilizing governments 
around the world...
- - - - -
Another recent paper published in mid-August in Nature Communications by 
Anthony et. al., 21st-Century Modeled Permafrost Carbon Emissions 
Accelerated by Abrupt Thaw Beneath Lakes 
<http://wordpress.redirectingat.com/?id=725X1342&site=ethicsandclimate.wordpress.com&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41467-018-05738-9%23author-information&xguid=8b469845476b574454882376a9ecc024&xuuid=efd3b793aaac8cbd2246eef82360d662&xsessid=6ea37a8d458a1117f7a3fdca02a71084&xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fethicsandclimate.org%2F2018%2F09%2F21%2Fnew-evidence-that-climate-change-poses-a-much-greater-threat-to-humanity-than-recently-understood-because-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-has-been-systematically-underestimating-climate%2F%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2BEthicsAndClimate%2B%2528ETHICS%2Band%2BCLIMATE%2529&xtz=420&jv=13.9.2&bv=2.5.1>, 
concludes that models used to predict climate impacts have failed to 
incorporate abrupt carbon feedback from permafrost decay that recent 
evidence has revealed is now possible. In fact, the paper claims that 
early stages of processes that lead to permafrost degradation are 
already underway. This paper further concludes that carbon emissions 
from melting permafrost could increase soil carbon emissions by 125–190% 
compared to gradual thaw alone...
- - - - -
This paper summarizes major conclusions from a third recent paper which 
analyzes IPCC's consistent underestimation of climate change impacts. 
The paper, What Lies Beneath: On the Understatement of Climate Change 
Risks 
<https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf>, 
(hereinafter "WLB") recently published by the Breakthrough Institute, 
claims both that the risks posed by climate change are far greater than 
is evident from the conclusions of IPCC and examines why IPCC has 
frequently underestimated threats from climate change.

The WLB report also further concludes that climate change is now an 
existential risk to humanity: that is an adverse outcome that would 
either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and dramatically 
curtail its potential...
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/09/21/new-evidence-that-climate-change-poses-a-much-greater-threat-to-humanity-than-recently-understood-because-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-has-been-systematically-underestimating-climate/


[#5 from another newsletter]
News email from Nikki - Sept 22 2018 <nikkijones5 at hotmail.com>

    Yesterday I read that *Trump has blasted the world with another
    tweet packed with eye-popping implications.
    <https://www.ft.com/content/57334796-bcc8-11e8-8274-55b72926558f>*
    OPEC should get oil prices down now!... *'We protect the Middle
    East, they would not be very safe without us, and yet they continue
    to push for higher and higher prices'.*  It's hard to know where to
    start with this one... Is this a threat that the US /will withdraw/
    from the Middle East if Saudi Arabia doesn't get the cartel to /do
    what the US would like, now.../? In fact both Saudi Arabia and
    Russia have increased production in the last few weeks. (Please see
    *this lecture
    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE8t7tvMdlU&list=PL23Cko0LytPlNRbe6GU6zlBzU6dj9NVhy&index=3&t=86s>*
    for an explanation on the role of Saudi Arabia and why oil prices
    are much more complicated than simple supply and demand. Maybe I
    should send it to Trump.....)                                      
                   The tweet looks even more bizarre when you consider
    that two supply-side developments affecting the current price *come
    from within the US.* It appears that the boom in * US shale oil  may
    finally be faltering
    <https://www.ft.com/content/13b4fae2-b1c3-11e8-8d14-6f049d06439c>.*There
    are now major problems in the disposal of waste water and waste gas,
    and in labour and pipeline costs. It is *shale oil that has masked
    the 'peak oil' that everyone was concerned about in the mid-2000s* -
    it has filled the gap left by the failure to discover and develop
    more 'conventional' large oil finds. Unlike conventional oil, shale
    can be drilled relatively quickly - but each well has to be replaced
    within years rather than decades, and this is what has sparked the
    frenzy of drilling in recent times.*It was often predicted that the
    boom would last till the early 2020s and it seems that we may be
    seeing the early signs of the downturn now.  (*The other US factor
    affecting the markets is the imposition of sanctions on Iran in
    November, but already affecting their output. As ever, Trump's
    policies seem at odds with each other...*) *Oil is still the
    'life-blood' of the world economy and the price affects everything
    in our daily lives, so whether it goes up or down, or becomes very
    volatile, matters. A short-fall in production seems very likely, and
    *will send prices up over the next few years*.  However, the *BIG
    QUESTION  for the industry is whether electric vehicles and trade
    wars will peak demand sooner than imagined...* The *industry is very
    divided on when this will happen
    <https://www.wsj.com/articles/debate-heats-up-over-when-era-of-oil-will-end-1536620460>*
    - *possibly our oil consumption will drop as early as the mid-20s,
    or possibly not till well into the 2030s.* Drops in production and
    in demand are what we want, but there's likely to be a lot of
    economic and political pain along the way. *The fact that the oil
    price may be going much higher is one thing to consider if changing
    your car and considering electric. *

Subscribe via: nikkijones5 at hotmail.com


[opinon - CounterPunch]
SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
*On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables 
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/21/on-climate-the-centrists-are-the-deplorables/>*
by JAMES MUNSON
For most countries, to be poor now is to have been rich before it 
mattered, like Bolivia or the Congo, or rich when it mattered, like 
Venezuela and Iraq. Literally torn apart for their timber, ore, labor, 
or spot on the map by resource-poor or depleted, or simply-gluttonous, 
rich ones.

Terrain, climate, or sensitive agriculture impoverish the rest, it turns 
out, the same way.

We know The richest 10% of the world's population produce half the CO2 
emissions, while the poorest half produce just 10%. All but the 
Koch-funded researchers know that temperatures will rise between 1.5 and 
5.9 degrees by 2100 as result. We know also that it hurts poor countries 
more than rich ones. How? A new study from the University of Melbourne 
tracks what a 4C rise would do to GDP of each country.

Mind, we don't know that we'll hit +4 degrees. But we know from UN 
documents we're not meeting our goals to prevent it, and the under +2 
range is near to parting the discussion. And we know maintaining current 
emissions puts us between a 3.6 and 5.9 increase by the end of this century.

We know also that America was the biggest problem even before Trump, and 
now we got him. (US emissions per head are over 2X that of China and 10X 
that of India, the 2nd and 3rd biggest polluters.) And we know if 
there's war, we'll exempt ourselves, needed or not (though of course 
not), from climate matters, and likely censor discussing it, besides.

Worse still, we see only one road forward. As Marx put it, 'all progress 
in increasing the fertility of the soil is progress towards ruining the 
sources of that fertility'. Yet we cling to the idea that high 
productivity will produce a cure for the detriments of high-production. 
-A useful paradox for not hitting our reduction goals.

Note also, rising GDPs are poor -if not fraudulent- indicators of civic 
health, since they count, but don't track, capital. (For instance, the 
spike in illegal immigration from Mexico under NAFTA coupled with a 
spike in their GDP.) Yet falling GDPs are useful, since, if even the 
capitalists are feeling it, it means they've already off-loaded what 
misfortune they can on the middle-class and poor. In particular, since 
taxes are based on GDP, social welfares are often the first casualties, 
with (public) infrastructures next in line.

So, for examples, according to the study at +4C India's GDP would drop 
by 14% per year, Nicaragua's 17%, Indonesia's 19%, and the Philippines 
20%. Losses for much of Africa range from 18 to over 26% of annual GDP.

For perspective- global GDP fell an average 15% per year in the Great 
Depression (1929-33), and even the richest states were paralyzed, 
fearing revolution, and sliding toward war. Last year Venezuela GDP 
dropped 12%, well below what's projected throughout the tropics. It 
caused, in UN terms, an 'immigration crisis'. The US, if not the UN so 
far, judges it a 'humanitarian crisis'. Whether it is or not, it's 
perhaps as important to note the US can't help exacerbating it. -A 
harder factor to quantify than falling GDP, but a factor in any 
foreseeable case. ( States aren't allowed to simply fail under 
global-capitalism. First the capitalists, and sometimes their bombs, 
must descend on them.)

In short, the study predicts the loss in GDP will deny states sufficient 
revenue to adapt, hence losses will recur until the states fail. If we 
fear demagogues, a mere 3.8% drop in America's GDP following the 2009 
banking scandal helped us scrape bottom and find Trump. Similar figures 
in Hungary and Italy. Between 1918 and 1929 Germany's GDP actually grew, 
but at a much slower annual 1.2%, and Hitler got their ear.
More pressing still, current estimates figure there are 68.5 million 
refugees wandering the globe. The backlash has ended more than one 
democracy, drawn battle lines in others, including the US, and now 
threatens the EU. A 4C rise in temperature could yield another 2-billion 
refugees. 30X as many as haunt us today. In response to the record 
number of refugees, Trump just lowered the cap we'll accept to 30,000 
-less than ½ of 1% of the total. Us bombs have flattened more homes than 
that this year. So we're already running in two directions.

Whatever their number, refugees are as inevitable as heat. But unlike 
heat, capitalism has the will-power to confront them. Whereas beforehand 
capitalist-states had welcomed or discouraged the flow of both wealth 
and populations, not always in equal part, but one in relation to the 
other. Now, as if prescient of its own horror, Neoliberalism -and 
Trumpian Neo-illiberalism- seem bent on decoupling the two, allowing 
capital to go where it pleases without penalty, and without human 
baggage or obligations.

Without and within borders. As one might guess, 'climate change also 
tends to increase preexisting inequality in the United States', 
transferring wealth and productivity from Southern, Central, and 
Mid-Atlantic regions toward the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. 
Ironically, life will become harder to bear for the populations siphoned 
south at the beginning of the neoliberal era by air-conditioning, cheap 
gas, and right to work laws. Then, particularly across the 'Rust Belt', 
divestment led to collapse and what amounts to Third World conditions 
without the hot weather. But no one tied to business or law saw it 
otherwise than the path cut by 'state's rights' and a rational 
market-god. And likely no one will this round
In explaining America's poverty crisis, UN Rapporteur on Human Rights, 
Philip Alston pointed to how 'states' rights' stood in the way of most 
municipal and civic reforms. The same is true of climate issues, since 
most of the initiative is at the city or community level. However, it's 
state charters that allow corporations to operate, and on what terms. 
-My point being, it's one example of how liberalism's modular structure 
helps it duck reform, rather than invite it -as its mythology portrays. 
Which makes it bad for harnessing emissions.

The 'Greed is Good' principle, even if its out of fashion now, produced 
our current, neoliberal system, as well as its Frankenstein monster, 
Trump. It recognized that the best way to avoid cleaning up your messes, 
is to make it law that you don't have to. That had been the point of a 
joint-stock company. But better still, make it doctrine, in case the 
laws change. Then you can ignore the law, like a sort of moral 
objection, Greed being God, instead.

For instance, fossil fuel companies have figured climate change for 
years, but hid it. We don't talk about the fossil fuel companies -much 
less try them- as premeditated murderers, but rather accept them as 
market fundamentalists. I doubt it's coincidence that both the cover-up 
and the moves to deregulate capital and dismantle the welfare state 
occurred at that same time. It's not nonsense that anti-government 
forces like the Kochs spend more zombifying the state than it costs to 
run it.

Needless to say, abandoning state responsibilities invites unrest, and 
thus, counter to their doctrine, 'libertarians' spend copiously on 
prisons, arms, surveilance, and jack-booted policing. Still, the violent 
horrors of liberal-capitalism shouldn't divert us from the peaceful 
ones. Another recent study caught my eye as illustrative of how the 
progressive goals of capitalism are as destructive as the imperial kind. 
It's on the topic of peace in Columbia, and identifies growing risks to 
the Earth's second most biodiverse country.

Because FARC tended to inhabit rural and forested areas, others moved to 
the cities. As a result, large forested areas remained unharmed during 
the war. The forests thrived, and even reclaimed abandoned farms. Now 
more stable socio-political conditions are drawing investment. Forestry, 
mining, and others are exploiting its 51,000 known species with about as 
much ecological foresight as one applies in battle. Not at all 
surprising since, as Marx decoded more than a century ago, stability is 
the enemy of profit.

Consider, humans gobble nearly twice per annum what the Earth can 
produce. 'Earth Overshoot Day', charts when we start gnawing at our 
foundations. August 1st this year. Americans, we know, are less than 5% 
of the global population but consume 20% of its food while supplying 
only 10%. If the world adopted our habits it would take 5 years to 
remake what's consumed next year.

Unfortunately, however, the US has nothing to offer the world, if not 
the chance of American-style gluttony. That is to say, about another 80 
years at most of high before overdosing. In Trump's case, its the only 
thing the US can deny the world until they succumb to our second-hand 
smoke. This earns him and his fools their 'deplorable' rating. 
Deplorable, because they cling to their irrational precepts. But 
progressive capitalists do too.

Asking people to use less when you mean more is the schizophrenia behind 
capitalist reform. It's no surprise it boggled poor Trump. Still, think, 
we wouldn't have to indulge the ecocidal clown if ecocide, itself 
weren't agreeable to (even progressive) capitalism. He's there because 
the 'Anonymous' patients run the asylum. It's possible in 2 or 6 years 
they'll patch some of his wreckage. But there's little evidence they'll 
mend their own.

That leaves it to us. Any worthwhile effort is going to deprive the rich 
of their fun. And anyone doing it is going to be called a radical. But 
anyone not should rightly be called an addict and a killer.

It's hard to think in an asylum. Hard to maneuver. But we must. We can't 
live with them.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/21/on-climate-the-centrists-are-the-deplorables/


[Foreign Policy]
*Why Growth Can't Be Green 
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/12/why-growth-cant-be-green/>*
New data proves you can support capitalism or the environment--but it's 
hard to do both.
BY JASON HICKEL | SEPTEMBER 12, 2018, 8:00 AM
Warnings about ecological breakdown have become ubiquitous. Over the 
past few years, major newspapers, including the Guardian and the New 
York Times, have carried alarming stories on soil depletion, 
deforestation, and the collapse of fish stocks and insect populations. 
These crises are being driven by global economic growth, and its 
accompanying consumption, which is destroying the Earth's biosphere and 
blowing past key planetary boundaries that scientists say must be 
respected to avoid triggering collapse.

Many policymakers have responded by pushing for what has come to be 
called "green growth." All we need to do, they argue, is invest in more 
efficient technology and introduce the right incentives, and we'll be 
able to keep growing while simultaneously reducing our impact on the 
natural world, which is already at an unsustainable level. In technical 
terms, the goal is to achieve "absolute decoupling" of GDP from the 
total use of natural resources, according to the U.N. definition.

It sounds like an elegant solution to an otherwise catastrophic problem. 
There's just one hitch: New evidence suggests that green growth isn't 
the panacea everyone has been hoping for. In fact, it isn't even 
possible.New evidence suggests that green growth isn't the panacea 
everyone has been hoping for. In fact, it isn't even possible.
Green growth first became a buzz phrase in 2012 at the United Nations 
Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. In the run-up 
to the conference, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development, and the U.N. Environment Program all 
produced reports promoting green growth. Today, it is a core plank of 
the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

But the promise of green growth turns out to have been based more on 
wishful thinking than on evidence. In the years since the Rio 
conference, three major empirical studies have arrived at the same 
rather troubling conclusion: Even under the best conditions, absolute 
decoupling of GDP from resource use is not possible on a global scale.

A team of scientists led by the German researcher Monika Dittrich first 
raised doubts in 2012. The group ran a sophisticated computer model that 
predicted what would happen to global resource use if economic growth 
continued on its current trajectory, increasing at about 2 to 3 percent 
per year. It found that human consumption of natural resources 
(including fish, livestock, forests, metals, minerals, and fossil fuels) 
would rise from 70 billion metric tons per year in 2012 to 180 billion 
metric tons per year by 2050. For reference, a sustainable level of 
resource use is about 50 billion metric tons per year--a boundary we 
breached back in 2000.

The team then reran the model to see what would happen if every nation 
on Earth immediately adopted best practice in efficient resource use (an 
extremely optimistic assumption). The results improved; resource 
consumption would hit only 93 billion metric tons by 2050. But that is 
still a lot more than we're consuming today. Burning through all those 
resources could hardly be described as absolute decoupling or green growth.

In 2016, a second team of scientists tested a different premise: one in 
which the world's nations all agreed to go above and beyond existing 
best practice. In their best-case scenario, the researchers assumed a 
tax that would raise the global price of carbon from $50 to $236 per 
metric ton and imagined technological innovations that would double the 
efficiency with which we use resources. The results were almost exactly 
the same as in Dittrich's study. Under these conditions, if the global 
economy kept growing by 3 percent each year, we'd still hit about 95 
billion metric tons of resource use by 2050. Bottom line: no absolute 
decoupling.

Finally, last year the U.N. Environment Program--once one of the main 
cheerleaders of green growth theory--weighed in on the debate. It tested 
a scenario with carbon priced at a whopping $573 per metric ton, slapped 
on a resource extraction tax, and assumed rapid technological innovation 
spurred by strong government support. The result? We hit 132 billion 
metric tons by 2050. This finding is worse than those of the two 
previous studies because the researchers accounted for the "rebound 
effect," whereby improvements in resource efficiency drive down prices 
and cause demand to rise--thus canceling out some of the gains.

Study after study shows the same thing. Scientists are beginning to 
realize that there are physical limits to how efficiently we can use 
resources. Sure, we might be able to produce cars and iPhones and 
skyscrapers more efficiently, but we can't produce them out of thin air. 
We might shift the economy to services such as education and yoga, but 
even universities and workout studios require material inputs.We might 
shift the economy to services such as education and yoga, but even 
universities and workout studios require material inputs. Once we reach 
the limits of efficiency, pursuing any degree of economic growth drives 
resource use back up.

These problems throw the entire concept of green growth into doubt and 
necessitate some radical rethinking. Remember that each of the three 
studies used highly optimistic assumptions. We are nowhere near imposing 
a global carbon tax today, much less one of nearly $600 per metric ton, 
and resource efficiency is currently getting worse, not better. Yet the 
studies suggest that even if we do everything right, decoupling economic 
growth with resource use will remain elusive and our environmental 
problems will continue to worsen.

Preventing that outcome will require a whole new paradigm. High taxes 
and technological innovation will help, but they're not going to be 
enough. The only realistic shot humanity has at averting ecological 
collapse is to impose hard caps on resource use, as the economist Daniel 
O'Neill recently proposed. Such caps, enforced by national governments 
or by international treaties, could ensure that we do not extract more 
from the land and the seas than the Earth can safely regenerate. We 
could also ditch GDP as an indicator of economic success and adopt a 
more balanced measure like the genuine progress indicator (GPI), which 
accounts for pollution and natural asset depletion. Using GPI would help 
us maximize socially good outcomes while minimizing ecologically bad ones.

But there's no escaping the obvious conclusion. Ultimately, bringing our 
civilization back within planetary boundaries is going to require that 
we liberate ourselves from our dependence on economic growth--starting 
with rich nations. This might sound scarier than it really is. Ending 
growth doesn't mean shutting down economic activity--it simply means 
that next year we can't produce and consume more than we are doing this 
year. It might also mean shrinking certain sectors that are particularly 
damaging to our ecology and that are unnecessary for human flourishing, 
such as advertising, commuting, and single-use products.

But ending growth doesn't mean that living standards need to take a hit. 
Our planet provides more than enough for all of us; the problem is that 
its resources are not equally distributed. We can improve people's lives 
right now simply by sharing what we already have more fairly, rather 
than plundering the Earth for more. Maybe this means better public 
services. Maybe it means basic income. Maybe it means a shorter working 
week that allows us to scale down production while still delivering full 
employment. Policies such as these--and countless others--will be 
crucial to not only surviving the 21st century but also flourishing in it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/12/why-growth-cant-be-green/


*This Day in Climate History - September 23, 2004 
<http://web.archive.org/web/20041009151214/http://www.rep.org/opinions/op-eds/61.html> 
- from D.R. Tucker*
September 23, 2004: In a Concord (NH) Monitor op-ed, former EPA 
Administrator and lifelong Republican Russell Train rips President 
George W. Bush's climate and environmental record:

    "The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's
    widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned
    Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists
    declared: 'When scientific knowledge has been found to be in
    conflict with its political goals, the administration has often
    manipulated the process through which science enters into its
    decisions.' More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote
    in an open letter to the American people that the administration
    'has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is
    so important to our collective welfare.'

    "There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our
    environmental and public health protections. In this year's
    election, environmental policy needs a full public debate."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041009151214/http://www.rep.org/opinions/op-eds/61.html


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180923/9d204ca9/attachment.html>