[TheClimate.Vote] April 7, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/April 7, 2019/


[Ooops]
*U.S. Air Force bases caught off guard by climate change*
Extreme weather is incurring expensive repair costs, forcing the Air 
Force to curtail operations.
NEXUS MEDIA - APR 5, 2019,
- -
Tyndall is just one of several military bases hit by extreme weather in 
the past year, and the high cost of repairs foreshadows a major upcoming 
problem for the U.S. military. Last week, the Air Force announced that 
it was seeking $5 billion for repairs to two bases following recent 
extreme weather events, Tyndall and Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base.

Both are smaller bases that officials say were completely unprepared for 
the severe impacts of October's Hurricane Michael and recent floods in 
the Midwest. Both of these weather events have distinct links to climate 
change: Michael gained strength from unusually warm waters off the 
Panhandle, while heavy late winter storms paired with unusually balmy 
weather supercharged runoff that helped lead to the Midwest's disaster...
- - -
As rising temperatures fuel increasingly disastrous storms, extensive 
fixes like these could become a regular problem. NOAA's 2019 spring 
outlook, published last month shortly after the floods, predicted weeks 
of extended flooding in the Midwest like those that hit Offutt. 
Overwhelming evidence shows that precipitation is getting heavier and 
flooding risk is going up as a result, while recent research is also 
showing that climate change is directly contributing to the hurricane 
intensity. Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress a list of military 
bases most at risk from climate change, but the list included neither 
Tyndall or Offutt.

Facing high costs from extreme weather, the military has shown a 
willingness to break from the White House on climate change, 
acknowledging that more severe weather poses a real threat. The Air 
Force said in February it will rebuild Tyndall as "the base of the 
future," with plans to make it resistant to storm surges and high-speed 
winds.

"Resilience is something that's a Department priority, and I think it's 
something Congress would like [the DoD] to prioritize," Conger said. 
"You have to expect that you're going to get damaging storms more often, 
so it's in our interest to get our bases ready."
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-is-costing-the-air-force-billions-6059ea179316/



[#1 Beckwith video]
*Arctic Sea-Ice Collapse Accelerating. What Next?*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Apr 6, 2019
As Arctic sea-ice plunges to record lows, many pundits are calling for a 
near-term Blue Ocean Event in which the entire Arctic Ocean is 
essentially devoid of ice. In this video analysis (and next), I chat 
time frames for increasing duration of the open ocean state, from 1 
month to 3 to 5 and then to year-round. I emphasize the overlooked but 
equally important loss of terrestrial snow cover to make the Arctic a 
very dark and hot place. I discuss changes to jet streams, including a 
17 degree latitude shift south in its center of rotation, and changes to 
weather drivers from jet-stream to monsoonal, even in the (winter) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2vxXT2cNxY
- - -
[#2 Beckwith video]
*Climate System Upheaval: Arctic Sea-Ice, Snow Cover, Jet-Stream, 
Monsoonal Consequences*
Paul Beckwith - Published on Apr 6, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtpF--rqZZ8
- - -
[See great data visualss]
*Arctic Sea Ice Graphs*
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/



[research data open sources]
*Quantarctica: A free GIS package for Antarctica*
Quantarctica is a collection of Antarctic geographical datasets which 
works with the free, cross-platform, open-source software QGIS. It 
includes community-contributed, peer-reviewed data from ten different 
scientific themes and a professionally-designed basemap. Best of all, 
Quantarctica is free to download and re-distribute. See what's included 
in Quantarctica and download it now!..
http://quantarctica.npolar.no/
- - -
[Univ of Minnesota]
*POLAR GEOSPATIAL CENTER*
Mapping the Earth's polar regions.
The Polar Geospatial Center (PGC) at the University of Minnesota 
provides geospatial support, mapping, and GIS/remote sensing solutions 
to researchers and logistics groups in the polar science community.

We support U.S. polar scientists to complete their research goals in a 
safe, timely, and efficient manner by providing a service which most 
groups do not have the resources or expertise to complete.

Our mission is to introduce new, state-of-the-art techniques from the 
geospatial field to effectively solve problems in the least mapped 
places on Earth...
https://www.pgc.umn.edu/



[a little jolt of science]
*All the elements of the periodic table that can be used to make batteries*
https://qz.com/1585667/the-elements-used-in-batteries-of-the-past-present-and-future/


[maybe]
*Can Buddhism Meet the Climate Crisis?*
BY DAVID LOY| FEBRUARY 13, 2019
David Loy makes clear what Buddhism offers in the face of climate 
change. From the Spring 2019 issue of Buddhadharma: The Practitioner's 
Quarterly.
It is no exaggeration to say that today humanity faces its greatest 
challenge ever: in addition to burgeoning social crises, a 
self-inflicted ecological catastrophe threatens civilization as we know 
it and (according to some scientists) perhaps even our survival as a 
species. I hesitate to describe this as an apocalypse because that term 
is now associated with Christian millenarianism, but its original 
meaning certainly applies: literally an apocalypse is "an uncovering," 
the disclosure of something hidden--in this case revealing the ominous 
consequences of what we have been doing to the earth and to ourselves.

Climate issues are receiving the most attention and arguably are the 
most urgent, but they are nonetheless only part of a larger ecological 
crisis that will not be resolved even if we successfully convert to 
renewable sources of energy quickly enough to avoid lethal temperature 
increases and the other climate disruptions that will cause.

The climate crisis is part of a much larger challenge that includes 
overfishing, plastic pollution, hypertrophication, topsoil exhaustion, 
species extinction, freshwater depletion, hormone-disrupting persistent 
organic pollutants (POPs), nuclear waste, overpopulation, and (add your 
own "favorite" here…), among numerous other ecological and social 
problems that could be mentioned. Most if not all of these disorders are 
connected to a questionable mechanistic worldview that freely exploits 
the natural world because it attributes no inherent value to nature--or 
to us, for that matter, since humans too are nothing more than complex 
machines, according to the predominant materialistic understanding. This 
larger view implies that we have something more than a technological 
problem, or an economic problem, or a political problem, or a worldview 
problem. Modern civilization is self-destructing because it has lost its 
way. There is another way to characterize that: humanity is experiencing 
a collective spiritual crisis.

The challenge that confronts us is spiritual because it goes to the very 
heart of how we understand the world, including our place and role in 
this world. Is the eco-crisis the earth's way of telling us to "wake up 
or suffer the consequences"?

If so, we cannot expect that what we seek can be provided by a 
technological solution, or an economic solution, or a political 
solution, or a new scientific worldview, either by themselves or in 
concert with the others. Whatever the way forward may be, it will need 
to incorporate those contributions, to be sure, but something more is 
called for.

This is where Buddhism has something important to offer. Yet the 
ecological crisis is also a crisis for how we understand and practice 
Buddhism, which today needs to clarify its essential message if it is to 
fulfill its liberative potential in our modern, secular, endangered world.

Traditional Buddhism focuses on individual dukkha due to one's 
individual karma and craving. Collective karma and institutional causes 
of dukkha are more difficult to address, both doctrinally and politically.
Just as climate change is only part of a much larger ecological crisis, 
so ecodharma is a small part of socially engaged Buddhism, and 
indifference or resistance to ecodharma is part of a larger problem with 
socially engaged Buddhism in the US. In the wake of the Great Recession 
of 2008 the two largest engaged Buddhist organizations, the Buddhist 
Peace Fellowship and the Zen Peacemakers, almost collapsed due to 
severely reduced financial support, and since then they have struggled 
on--often quite effectively, I'm pleased to add--in much reduced 
circumstances. Noticeably, however, some other Buddhist institutions are 
thriving financially. In the last few years, for example, Spirit Rock in 
Northern California successfully fundraised for a multimillion-dollar 
expansion program. Noticing this difference is by no means a criticism 
of that accomplishment, yet the contrast in public support is striking. 
Serious money is available for some high-profile meditation centers, 
where individuals can go on retreat, but apparently not for 
organizations that seek to promote the social and ecological 
implications of Buddhist teachings.

This doesn't mean that socially engaged Buddhism has failed. In some 
ways it may be a victim of its own success, in that some forms of 
service--prison work, hospice care, homeless kitchens, and so on--are 
now widely acknowledged as a part, sometimes even an important part, of 
the Buddhist path. Note that this is usually individuals helping other 
individuals. My perception is that over the last generation Buddhists 
have become much better at pulling drowning people out of the river, 
but--and here's the problem--we aren't much better at asking why there 
are so many more people drowning. Prison dharma groups help individual 
inmates who are sometimes very eager to learn about Buddhism, but do 
nothing to address the structural problems with our criminal justice 
system, including racial disparities and overcrowding. In 2014 the 
number of homeless children in the US attending school set a new record: 
about 1.36 million, almost double the number in 2006-2007. Why does by 
far the wealthiest country in human history have so many homeless 
schoolchildren and by far the world's largest prison population?

Buddhists are better at pulling individual people out of the river 
because that is what Buddhism traditionally emphasizes. We are taught to 
let go of our preconceptions in order to experience more immediately 
what's happening right here and now; when we encounter a homeless person 
who is suffering, for example, we should respond compassionately. But 
how do we respond compassionately to a social system that is creating 
more homeless people? Analyzing institutions and evaluating policies 
involves conceptualizing in ways that traditional Buddhist practices do 
not encourage.

A similar disparity applies to the ways that Buddhists have responded to 
the climate crisis and other ecological issues. My guess is that most 
people reading this have so far been little impacted personally by 
global warming, except perhaps for slightly larger air-conditioning 
bills. We have not personally observed disappearing ice in the Arctic or 
melting permafrost in the tundra, nor have we become climate refugees 
because rising sea levels are flooding our homes. For the most part, the 
consequences are being felt elsewhere, by others less fortunate. 
Traditional Buddhism focuses on individual dukkha due to one's 
individual karma and craving. Collective karma and institutional causes 
of dukkha are more difficult to address, both doctrinally and politically.

I'm reminded of a well-known comment by the Brazilian archbishop Dom 
Helder Camara: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When 
I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Is there a 
Buddhist version? Perhaps this: "When Buddhists help homeless people and 
prison inmates, they are called bodhisattvas. But when Buddhists ask why 
there are so many more homeless, so many people of color stuck in 
prison, other Buddhists call them leftists or radicals, saying that such 
social action has nothing to do with Buddhism."

Perhaps the individual service equivalent that applies to the climate 
emergency is personal lifestyle changes, such as buying hybrid or 
electric cars, installing solar panels, vegetarianism, eating locally 
grown food, and so on. Such "green consumption" is important, of course, 
yet individual transformation by itself will never be enough.

Imagine Buddhism as an iceberg where all types of social engagement, 
including ecodharma, form the tip at the top. Beneath them, but still 
above sea level, is something much bigger and still growing: the 
mindfulness movement, which has been incredibly successful over the last 
few years. Within the Buddhist world, however, it has also become 
increasingly controversial. Here I will not delve into that debate 
except to note that although mindfulness practices can be very 
beneficial, they can also discourage critical reflection on the 
institutional causes of collective suffering, what might be called 
social dukkha.

Bhikkhu Bodhi has warned about the appropriation of Buddhist teachings, 
and his words apply even more to the commodification of the mindfulness 
movement, insofar as that movement has divested itself of the ethical 
context that Buddhism traditionally provides: "absent a sharp social 
critique, Buddhist practices could easily be used to justify and 
stabilize the status quo, becoming a reinforcement of consumer 
capitalism." In other words, Buddhist mindfulness practices can be 
employed to normalize our obsession with ever-increasing production and 
consumption. In both cases the focus on personal transformation can turn 
our attention away from the importance of social transformation.

The contrast between the extraordinary impact of the mindfulness 
movement and the much smaller influence of socially engaged Buddhism is 
striking. Why has the one been so successful, while the other limps 
along? That discrepancy may be changing somewhat: an increasing number 
of mindfulness teachers are concerned to incorporate social justice 
issues, and the election of Donald Trump has motivated many Buddhists to 
become more engaged. Nonetheless, the usual focus of Buddhist practice 
resonates well with the usual appeal of mindfulness, and both of them 
accord well with the basic individualism of US society--"What's in it 
for me?" But are there other factors that encourage this disparity 
between mindfulness and social engagement? Is there something else 
integral to the Buddhist traditions that can help us understand the 
apparent indifference of many Buddhists to the ecological crisis?

The Challenge
A few years ago I was reading a fine book by Loyal Rue, titled 
Everybody's Story: Wising Up to the Epic of Evolution, and came across a 
passage that literally stopped me in my tracks, because it crystallized 
so well a discomfort with Buddhism (or some types of Buddhism) that had 
been bothering me. The passage does not refer to Buddhism in particular 
but to the "Axial Age" religions that originated around the time of the 
Buddha (the italics are mine):

The influence of Axial traditions will continue to decline as it becomes 
ever more apparent that their resources are incommensurate with the 
moral challenges of the global problematique. In particular, to the 
extent that these traditions have stressed cosmological dualism and 
individual salvation we may say they have encouraged an attitude of 
indifference toward the integrity of natural and social systems.

Although the language is academic, the claim is clear: insofar as Axial 
Age traditions (which include Buddhism, Vedanta, Daoism, and Abrahamic 
religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) emphasize 
"cosmological dualism and individual salvation," they encourage 
indifference to social justice issues and the ecological crisis.

What Loyal Rue calls "cosmological dualism" is the belief that, in 
addition to this world, there is another one, usually understood to be 
better or somehow higher. This is an important aspect of theistic 
traditions, although they do not necessarily understand that higher 
reality in the same way. While all of the Abrahamic traditions 
distinguish God from the world God has created, classical Judaism is 
more ambiguous about the possibility of eternal postmortem bliss with 
God in paradise. For Christianity and Islam, that possibility is at the 
core of their religious messages, as commonly understood. If we behave 
ourselves here, we can hope to go to heaven. The issue is whether that 
approach makes this world a backdrop to the central drama of human 
salvation. Does that goal devalue one's life in this troubled world into 
a means?

Does Buddhism teach cosmological dualism? That depends on how we 
understand the relationship between samsara (this world of suffering, 
craving, and delusion) and nirvana (or nibbana, the original Pali term 
for the Buddhist summum bonum). Despite many references to nibbana in 
the Pali Canon, there remains something unclear about the nature of that 
goal. Most descriptions are vague metaphors (the shelter, the refuge, 
and so on) or expressed negatively (the end of suffering, craving, 
delusion). Is nibbana another reality or a different way of experiencing 
this world? The Theravada tradition emphasizes parinibbana, which is the 
nibbana attained at death by a fully awakened person who is no longer 
reborn. Since parinibbana is carefully distinguished from nihilism--the 
belief that physical death is simply the terminal dissolution of body 
and mind--the implication seems to be that there must be some postmortem 
experience, which suggests some other world or dimension of reality. 
This is also supported by the traditional four stages of enlightenment 
mentioned in the Pali canon: the stream-winner, the once-returner (who 
will be reborn at most one more time), the nonreturner (who is not yet 
fully enlightened but will not be reborn physically after death), and 
the arhat (who has attained nibbana). If the nonreturner continues to 
practice after death, where does he or she reside while doing so?

If nibbana is a place or a state that transcends this world, it is a 
version of cosmological dualism. Such a worldview does not necessarily 
reject social engagement, but it subordinates such engagement into a 
support for its transcendent goal, as Bhikkhu Bodhi explains:

Despite certain differences, it seems that all forms of classical 
Buddhism locate the final goal of compassionate action in a transcendent 
dimension that lies beyond the flux and turmoil of the phenomenal world. 
For the Mahayana, the transcendent is not absolutely other than 
phenomenal reality but exists as its inner core. However, just about all 
classical formulations of the Mahayana, like the Theravada, begin with a 
devaluation of phenomenal reality in favor of a transcendent state in 
which spiritual endeavor culminates.

    It is for this reason that classical Buddhism confers an essentially
    instrumental value on socially beneficent activity. Such activity
    can be a contributing cause for the attainment of nibbana or the
    realization of buddhahood; it can be valued because it helps create
    better conditions for the moral and meditative life, or because it
    helps to lead others to the dharma; but ultimate value, the
    overriding good, is located in the sphere of transcendent
    realization. Since socially engaged action pertains to a relatively
    elementary stage of the path, to the practice of giving or the
    accumulation of merits, it plays a secondary role in the spiritual
    life. The primary place belongs to the inner discipline of
    meditation through which the ultimate good is achieved. And this
    discipline, to be effective, normally requires a high degree of
    social disengagement.
    --"Socially Engaged Buddhism and the Trajectory of Buddhist Ethical
    Consciousness" Religion & West, issue 9

Bhikkhu Bodhi distinguishes between the Theravada understanding of 
transcendence, which sharply distinguishes it from our phenomenal world, 
and the Mahayana perspective, which understands transcendence to be the 
"inner core" of phenomenal reality. Nevertheless, in his view both 
traditions begin by devaluing phenomenal reality. The question is 
whether "transcending this world" can be understood more metaphorically, 
as a different way of experiencing (and understanding) this world. 
Nagarjuna, the most important figure in the Mahayana tradition, famously 
asserted that there is not even the slightest distinction between 
samsara and nirvana: the kotih (limit or bounds) of nirvana is not 
different from the kotih of samsara. That claim is difficult to 
reconcile with any goal that prioritizes escape from the physical cycle 
of repeated birth and death, or transcending phenomenal reality.

In place of a final escape from this world, with no physical rebirth 
into it, Mahayana traditions such as Chan/Zen emphasize realizing here 
and now that everything, including us, is shunya (Japanese: ku), usually 
translated as "empty." Shunyata "emptiness" is thus the transcendent 
"inner core" of phenomenal reality that Bhikkhu Bodhi refers to. That 
all things are "empty" means, minimally, that they are not substantial 
or self-existing, being impermanent phenomena that arise and pass away 
according to conditions. The implications of this insight for how we 
engage with the world can be understood in different ways. It is 
sometimes taken in a nihilistic sense: nothing is real, therefore 
nothing is important. Seeing everything as illusory discourages social 
or ecological engagement. Why bother?

The important point here is that "clinging to emptiness" can function in 
the same way as cosmological dualism, both of them devaluing this world 
and its problems. According to Joanna Macy, this misunderstanding is one 
of several "spiritual traps that cut the nerve of compassionate action." 
According to Macy, to see this world as illusion is to dwell in an 
emptiness that is disengaged from its forms, in which the end of 
suffering involves nonattachment to the fate of beings rather than 
nonattachment to one's own ego. But the Buddha did not teach--nor does 
his life demonstrate--that nonattachment means unconcern about what is 
happening in the world, to the world. When the Heart Sutra famously 
asserts that "form is not different from emptiness," it immediately adds 
that "emptiness is not other than form." And forms--including the living 
beings and ecosystems of this world--suffer.

Many educated Buddhists today aren't sure what to believe about a 
transcendent "otherworldly" reality, or karma as a law of ethical cause 
and effect, or physical rebirth after we die. Some wonder whether 
awakening too is an outdated myth, similar perhaps to the physical 
resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion. So it is not surprising 
that a more secular, this-worldly alternative has become popular, 
especially in the West: understanding the Buddhist path more 
psychologically, as a new type of therapy that provides different 
perspectives on the nature of mental distress and new practices to 
promote psychological well-being. These include not only reducing greed, 
ill will, and delusion here and now, but also sorting out our emotional 
lives and working through personal traumas.

As in psychotherapy, the emphasis of this psychologized Buddhism is on 
helping us adapt better to the circumstances of our lives. The basic 
approach is that my main problem is the way my mind works and the 
solution is to change the way my mind works, so that I can play my 
various roles (at work, with family, with friends, and so on) better--in 
short, so that I fit into this world better. A common corollary is that 
the problems we see in the world are projections of our own 
dissatisfaction with ourselves. According to this spiritual trap, "the 
world is already perfect when we view it spiritually," as Joanna Macy 
puts it.

Notice the pattern. Much of traditional Asian Buddhism, especially 
Theravada Buddhism and the Pali canon, emphasizes ending physical 
rebirth into this unsatisfactory world. The goal is to escape samsara, 
this realm of suffering, craving, and delusion that cannot be reformed. 
In contrast, much of modern Buddhism, especially Buddhist psychotherapy 
(and most of the mindfulness movement), emphasizes harmonizing with this 
world by transforming one's mind, because one's mind is the problem, not 
the world. Otherworldly Buddhism and this-worldly Buddhism seem like 
polar opposites, yet in one important way they agree: neither is 
concerned about addressing the problems of this world, to help transform 
it into a better place. Whether they reject it or embrace it, both take 
its shortcomings for granted and in that sense accept it for what it is.

Neither approach encourages ecodharma or other types of social 
engagement. Instead, both encourage a different way of responding to 
them, which I sometimes facetiously call the Buddhist "solution" to the 
eco-crisis. By now we're all familiar with the pattern: we read yet 
another newspaper or online blog reporting on the latest scientific 
studies, with disheartening ecological implications. Not only are things 
getting worse, it's happening more quickly than anyone expected. How do 
we react? The news tends to make us depressed or anxious--but hey, we're 
Buddhist practitioners, so we know how to deal with that. We meditate 
for a while, and our unease about what is happening to the earth goes 
way…for a while, anyway.

This is not to dismiss the value of meditation, or the relevance of 
equanimity, or the importance of realizing shunyata. Nevertheless, those 
by themselves are insufficient as responses to our situation.

When it comes to the ecological crisis, Buddhist teachings do not tell 
us what to do, but they tell us a lot about how to do it. Of course, we 
would like more specific advice, but that's unrealistic, given the very 
different historical and cultural conditions within which Buddhism 
developed. The collective dukkha caused by an eco-crisis was never 
addressed because that particular issue never came up.

That does not mean "anything goes" from a Buddhist perspective. Our 
ends, no matter how noble, do not justify any means, because Buddhism 
challenges the distinction between them. Its main contributions to our 
social and ecological engagement are the guidelines for skillful action 
that the Theravada and Mahayana traditions offer. Although those 
guidelines have usually been understood in individual terms, the wisdom 
they embody is readily applicable to the more collective types of 
engaged practice and social transformation needed today. The five 
precepts of Theravada Buddhism (and Thich Nhat Hanh's engaged version of 
them) and the four "spiritual abodes" (brahmaviharas) are most relevant. 
The Mahayana tradition highlights the bodhisattva path, including the 
six "perfections" (generosity, discipline, patience, diligence, 
meditation, and wisdom). Taken together, these guidelines orient us as 
we undertake the ecosattva path.

Social engagement remains a challenge for many Buddhists, for the 
traditional teachings have focused on one's own peace of mind. On the 
other side, those committed to social action often experience fatigue, 
anger, depression, and burnout. The engaged bodhisattva/ecosattva path 
provides what each side needs, because it involves a double practice, 
inner (meditation, for example) and outer (activism). Combining the two 
enables intense engagement with less frustration. Such activism also 
helps meditators avoid the trap of becoming captivated by their own 
mental condition and progress toward enlightenment. Insofar as a sense 
of separate self is the basic problem, compassionate commitment to the 
well-being of others, including other species, is an important part of 
the solution. Engagement with the world's problems is therefore not a 
distraction from our personal spiritual practice but can become an 
essential part of it.

The insight and equanimity cultivated by eco-bodhisattvas support what 
is most distinctive about Buddhist activism: acting without attachment 
to the results of action, something that is easily misunderstood to 
imply a casual attitude. Instead, our task is to do the very best we 
can, not knowing what the consequences will be--in fact, not knowing if 
our efforts will make any difference whatsoever. We don't know if what 
we do is important, but we do know that it's important for us to do it. 
Have we already passed ecological tipping points and civilization as we 
know it is doomed? We don't know, and that's okay. Of course we hope our 
efforts will bear fruit, but ultimately they are our openhearted gift to 
the earth.

It seems to me that, if contemporary Buddhists cannot or do not want to 
do this, then Buddhism is not what the world needs right now.
https://www.lionsroar.com/can-buddhism-meet-the-climate-crisis/


*This Day in Climate History - April 7, 2009 - from D.R. Tucker*
April 7, 2009: In a story entitled "New Data Show Rapid Arctic Ice 
Decline," the Washington Post observes: "The new evidence -- including 
satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice 
cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant 
decline from the 1980s -- contradicts data cited in widely circulated 
reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the 
Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040601634.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 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.