[TheClimate.Vote] August 13, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Aug 13 11:56:02 EDT 2019
/August 13, 2019/
[Iowa polls]
*Iowa Voters - Support Climate Action*
As Democratic presidential primary candidates barnstorm the annual Iowa
State Fair, a new survey finds
Iowa voters are concerned about the impacts of climate change and
support policies to reduce fossil fuel
emissions and expand renewable energy generation in the state. Climate
Nexus, in partnership with the
Yale University Program on Climate Change Communication and the George
Mason University Center for
Climate Change Communication, conducted a representative survey of 519
registered voters in Iowa from
July 17-22, 2019. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 4.6% at the
95% percent confidence level.
Iowans are worried about climate change, having experienced the impacts
of extreme weather. More than two-thirds of registered voters (69%) say
they are worried about climate change, and say it is having an effect on
Iowa’s agriculture (74%), extreme weather in the state (71%), its
economy (59%) and Iowans’ health (58%). And as a result of the historic
floods that devastated parts of the Midwest this year, roughly a quarter
of Iowans (27%) say they or someone in their family has experienced
property damage or other economic hardships as a result of flooding or
severe storm damage in the past 12 months.
Iowans are likewise concerned about the impacts climate change is having
on health and safety. More than three-quarters (79%) say pollution of
rivers, lakes, and streams is a serious problem in their area, and 77%
also say extreme weather such as heavy rainfall and flooding is a
serious problem. Nearly two-thirds (66%) worry that floods could expose
and damage oil and gas pipelines, causing pollution to rivers and other
bodies of water.
Similar large majorities of Iowans favor policies to address climate
change and its impacts, and support increased generation of renewable
energy. Seven in 10 Iowa voters (70%) say they favor more government
action to address climate change. More than three-quarters (76%) support
a policy to require Iowa to generate 100% of its energy from renewable
sources (RPS) by 2050. Eight in 10 voters (80%) support extending
government funding for renewables, such as wind and solar, and more than
three-quarters (77%) say new infrastructure projects should be built to
withstand extreme weather, even if it comes at a higher cost to taxpayers.
Iowans believe policies like switching to 100% renewable energy will
benefit their state, with majorities saying it will have a positive
impact on Iowa’s environment (79%), its cities and towns (73%), its
economy (70%), and its rural and farming communities (61%). They also
say it will lower electricity costs (64%), improve wages (52%), and
bring down Iowa’s unemployment rate (50%).
- - -
*[Summary Memo]*
*Iowa Voters Want Action on Climate Change, Renewable Energy,
**Infrastructure*
https://climatenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/Iowa-Voters-Support-Climate-Action.pdf
- - -
[Details of the polling process and 21 pages of data]
*Iowa Poll Toplines*
Methodology
Poll number: pr1917
Interview Dates: July 17-22, 2019
Sample Population: 519 registered voters in Iowa.
Sample Selection: Scientific online poll - stratified sample of panel
respondents.
Weighting Parameters: The sample was weighted based on the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Voting and Registration Supplement to the Current Population
Survey for registered voters in Iowa based on age, gender, race, and
educational attainment.
Figures may or may not sum to 100% and this is due to the effects of
rounding and weighting. The standard deviation of the weights was:
0.37276. The
maximum weight was: 1.98. The minimum weight was: 0.32. 95% of the
weights were between 0.4961699, 1.976638.
Margin of Error: The 95% credibility interval for this survey is +/-
4.6%, which includes the square root of the design effect (DEFT): 1.0670906
https://climatenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/Iowa-Poll-Toplines-PR1917.pdf
[Better hurry ]
*The Republican Climate Closet*
When will believers in global warming come out?
By Justin Gillis
- - -
In the coming debate, a Republican Party that came fully out of the
closet on climate change would be liberated to play the role it
naturally ought to play: arguing for a national climate strategy that
does the least economic damage and makes maximum use of markets to find
the solutions we need.
For those Republicans still cowering in the closet, I have a question:
If we really decided to commit the nation in all its might to solving
this problem, do you not believe that American ingenuity and American
industry could get the job done?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/opinion/republicans-environment.html
[Activism and the FBI]
*Revealed: FBI and police monitoring Oregon anti-pipeline activists*
Emails show the latest example of environmental groups facing increased
surveillance by law enforcement
Law enforcement groups, including the FBI, have been monitoring
opponents of a natural gas infrastructure project in Oregon and
circulated intelligence to an email list that included a
Republican-aligned anti-environmental PR operative, emails obtained by
the Guardian show.
The South Western Oregon Joint Task Force (SWOJTF) and its members were
monitoring opponents of the Jordan Cove energy project, a proposal by
the Canadian energy company Pembina to build the first-ever liquefied
natural gas export terminal on the US west coast, as well as a new
232-mile pipeline that would carry fracked natural gas to the port of
Coos Bay...
- - -
Although Coos Bay is located more than 200 miles away from Portland, the
Portland police bureau (PPB) officer Andrew Hearst is also part of the
SWOJTF email list. Hearst told Valencia in January 2019: "As always if
we hear anything about our people heading down to your area we will
alert asap."
Jordan Cove opponents expressed alarm upon learning about the level of
scrutiny they are receiving from so many different law enforcement entities.
"It is outrageous that our Oregon public agencies are actually working
to plan how to stifle the very southern Oregonians whose drinking water,
property and communities are threatened by this project," said Sylvia
Mangan, a retired public health nurse who lives on one of the proposed
pipeline routes.
Asked why Pfeifle was included in the distribution of intelligence on
protest groups, Fabrizio wrote: "Open source information is posted on
public forums and not considered sensitive."
He added: "Anyone who may be affected by potential actions are involved
as an effort in community outreach and according to the tenets of
community policing."
Pfeifle previously described his work with law enforcement at Standing
Rock during a 2017 presentation to oil, gas and banking executives
during a pipeline conference in Houston. "A lot of things that we were
doing were being done to put a marker down for the protesters. And, ‘OK,
if you’re going to go protest somewhere? There’s going to be
consequences from it.’"
In an email comment, the ACLU of Oregon questioned the legality of the
activities revealed in the emails.
"Monitoring and compiling information about Oregonians’ political or
social views, activities, or associations violates Oregon law," said the
spokeswoman Sarah Armstrong.
Lauren Regan, the executive director of the Oregon-based Civil Liberties
Defense Center, says the SWOJTF’s activities reflect a nationwide trend.
"Police and corporations are working together to suppress movements
against fossil fuels," she said.
Holly Mills of Southern Oregon Rising Tide, a group regularly subjected
to scrutiny in the records obtained by the Guardian, said: "We know that
the state, police and corporations have often tried to stop movements
like this one by using fear as a tactic and repressing dissent. We have
prepared ourselves with this in mind, and we communicate on social media
and over email with the assumption that cops might be reading."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/08/fbi-oregon-anti-pipeline-jordan-cove-activists
[warning: choose your weather forecaster carefully]
*AccuWeather misleads on global warming and heat waves, a throwback to
its past climate denial ~ The Washington Post*
By Jason Samenow and Andrew Freedman
August 9
A week after a punishing heat wave torched the eastern two-thirds of the
country, setting numerous records, AccuWeather chief executive Joel
Myers cast doubt on the scientific finding that heat waves in the United
States and elsewhere are worsening because of climate change. This point
of view, at odds with peer-reviewed research, is reminiscent of the
contrarian position AccuWeather took on the climate change issue in the
1990s, which historical documents recently obtained by The Washington
Post shine light on.
Both then and now, AccuWeather has landed on the wrong side of the science.
Myers’s essay "Throwing cold water on extreme heat hype," published
online Wednesday, attempts to debunk the scientific finding that heat
waves in the United States are becoming more severe, but he cherry-picks
data and shows an incomplete understanding of the drivers of temperature
change.
"[A]lthough average temperatures have been higher in recent years, there
is no evidence so far that extreme heat waves are becoming more common
because of climate change, especially when you consider how many heat
waves occurred historically compared to recent history," Myers writes.
In saying this, he ignores the U.S. government’s National Climate
Assessment, published in 2018 and signed off on by 13 federal agencies,
which flat out states -- with very high confidence -- that the frequency
of heat waves has increased since the mid-1960s.
Myers relies mostly on historical data from the 1930s to make his case
that heat waves haven’t gotten worse. "Here is a fact rarely, if ever,
mentioned," he writes, "26 of the 50 states set their all-time high
temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since
been tied)."
He concludes: "Given these numbers … it cannot be said that either the
frequency or magnitude of heat waves is more common today."
But there are problems with this argument that have been addressed in
the scientific literature and independent analyses.
The heat waves of the 1930s were exacerbated by land mismanagement tied
to the Dust Bowl. A combination of springtime drought and farming
practices left fields bare of vegetation, which allowed summer
temperatures to skyrocket. In other words, the extreme heat of the 1930s
is a reflection of specific circumstances in that decade and does not
invalidate a link between today’s heat waves and climate change.
Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist for Berkeley Earth, which
specializes in temperature data, points out that although the heat waves
in the 1930s may have had higher daytime temperatures, present-day
nighttime temperatures are much higher. This is an expected outcome of
climate change as the atmosphere responds to increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases...[More]
https://therobertreport.net/2019/08/10/accuweather-misleads-on-global-warming-and-heat-waves-a-throwback-to-its-past-climate-denial-the-washington-post/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-4
[Australia beach erosion video news report]
*Roads, parks swallowed by the sea as WA battles coastal erosion | ABC News*
ABC News (Australia)
Published on Aug 9, 2019
The beach forms the foundation of life in Western Australia, but the
oceanfront dream is under threat in cities and towns along the coast.
Tonnes of sand and rocks have been dumped on beaches to stop buildings
falling into the sea. Authorities say that in some locations the only
solution is to retreat from the coast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYl05iGYb9U
- - -
[with videos]
*A coast being slowly eaten by the ocean*
The beach forms the foundation of life in Western Australia, but the
oceanfront dream is under threat in cities and towns along the coast.
By Irena Ceranic, James Carmody and Cecile O'Connor - 4 Aug 2019,
- - -
The city of Perth lies stretched out along 160 kilometres of almost
uninterrupted sandy beaches to the north and south, as families have
embraced outlying suburbs in search of their beachfront dream home.
But what the ocean delivers, the ocean can also take away...
- - -
Read more here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-31/erosion-washing-away-beaches-up-and-down-wa-coast/11359006
[ABC interviews Al Gore - text summary of video interview]
*Climate change 'getting worse faster than we are mobilizing to solve
it': Al Gore*
By ESTER WELLS Aug 11, 2019,
Former Vice President Al Gore called for unity and urgency in the
American response to climate change, saying he was encouraged by growing
climate activism around the world, but alarmed by what he said is the
imminence of irreversible, continuing environmental damage.
"There’s both bad news and good news," he said in an interview with ABC
News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl. "The problem’s
getting worse faster than we are mobilizing to solve it. However … we
now have an upsurge in climate activism.
Gore acknowledged that climate change is "a global crisis that requires
a global response," and that to be successful, climate policies require
international cooperation. But he held that the U.S. has a
responsibility to facilitate this cooperation.
"The United States of America -- and only the United States of America
-- can provide the necessary leadership to rally nations around the
world to do the right thing," he said.
And with Democratic primary voters ranking climate change among their
top five issues, 2020 candidates have made addressing it more central to
their campaigns. Gore said on "This Week" that while he would not
comment or advise on specific candidate’s plans, he felt encouraged that
the issue has become more of a political priority for Democrats.
"I would always like to see more time devoted to it," Gore told Karl.
"But I have to say, yes I think that it's great that there are so many
of these candidates who are really making it their top priority and who
are really focusing on introducing bold plans."
For the Trump administration, however, the approach to climate change
has included rolling back environmental protection policies, including
those implemented under President Barack Obama, from repealing Obama-era
regulations on methane in September 2018 to relaxing safety measures on
offshore drilling in May. In 2017, Trump announced his intention to pull
out of the landmark Paris climate agreement, saying it crippled American
job growth and manufacturing.
Gore met in December 2016 with then-President-elect Donald Trump for a
conversation on climate change and the Paris Accord and in the interview
with "This Week" that he was hopeful before the meeting that even under
a conservative administration, there could be progress made on climate
policy. More than two years later, however, he said that were he to meet
with Trump again, he would do so, "without any expectation of
reasonableness or responsiveness."
"I did think at the time that there was a chance he might change on
climate when presented with the facts," Gore said. "I was clearly wrong
about that… He doesn't want to change on it."
In the same interview, Karl asked Gore about the possibility of
impeachment proceedings against Trump. The Judiciary Committee, led by
Rep Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., is investigating whether to recommend
articles of impeachment for what Nadler has said is "the obstructive
conduct described by the special counsel." Gore, during his vice
presidency in the Clinton administration, saw impeachment proceedings
from up close and said he supports the course of action Nadler has
decided to pursue.
"Not seeking accountability for what appear to be credible allegations
that crimes were committed, meaningful crimes, runs the risk of
normalizing that behavior," Gore said.
With impeachment on the table and climate policy virtually off it,
advancing climate policy during the Trump administration could be
difficult. But the surge in climate activism around the world, Gore
said, is good news. He also indicated that wind and solar power were
growth industries for the economy.
"This is the best way to create millions of new jobs," he said. "This is
where the economic growth of the future is to be found."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/climate-change-worse-faster-mobilizing-solve-al-gore/story?id=64862944
*
*
*
*
[Environmental Law]*
**Op-Ed: Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change*
By ANN CARLSON - AUG. 12, 2019
Oil and gas companies are desperate to stop the wave of lawsuits seeking
to hold them financially responsible for their role in climate change.
Should these suits get to trial, their executives would have to testify
about whether they knowingly misled the public about the climate threat
posed by their products going back to the 1970s.
A federal district judge in a recent ruling made it harder for the
defendants to shut down a lawsuit filed by the state of Rhode Island to
have the industry pay the costs associated with climate change.
Judge William E. Smith ruled that the suit against 21 oil and gas
companies, including Exxon, Shell and BP, should be heard in state court
-- a venue that the companies fear would be less likely to dismiss the
case. Federal judges in Northern California and Baltimore, likewise,
have ruled that these cases belong in state court. (I have been a pro
bono consultant to lawyers representing government plaintiffs in these
cases.)
Judge Smith also noted in his opinion: "Defendants understood the
consequences of their activity decades ago, when transitioning from
fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy would have saved a world of
trouble. But instead of sounding the alarm, Defendants went out of their
way to becloud the emerging scientific consensus and further delay
changes -- however existentially necessary -- that would in any way
interfere with their multibillion-dollar profits. All while quietly
readying their capital for the coming fallout."
A number of high-profile cases against other businesses that marketed
and sold harmful or deadly products have succeed in state courts --
especially when the businesses knew their products would cause injury.
State courts paved the way for the record $246-billion settlement with
Big Tobacco. They secured the first major victory in the fight to hold
opioid manufacturers accountable. And paint manufacturers have had to
pay damages to clean up lead paint they sold despite knowing that lead
is poisonous.
Those lawsuits, and the internal documents they uncovered during
litigation, bear a strong resemblance to what we are learning about what
oil companies knew about climate change, when they knew it, and how they
funded a multimillion-dollar campaign to convince the American public
that climate change isn’t happening.
We now know that at the same time oil companies were funding the
disinformation campaign, they spent millions of dollars protecting their
own assets -- like oil platforms -- from more-powerful storms and sea
level rise expected as temperatures increase.
Climate liability litigation, filed by state and local governments
around the country, raises a fundamental question: Who should pay for
the damage climate change is already causing, and will continue to cause
well into the future with accelerating sea level rise, more-intense
flooding, larger wildfires, growing droughts and stronger hurricanes, if
the federal government does not pick up the tab? Local taxpayers or the
companies whose products caused the damage?
The discovery process in litigation -- which allows the plaintiffs to
get company documents and interview oil company executives -- will play
a large role in answering that question. There is already substantial
evidence that oil and gas company executives created campaigns to
convince the public that climate change was not a threat. It was
discovery that changed the course of tobacco litigation. And damning
documents are imperiling opioid manufacturers in court.
Needless to say, the oil companies are doing everything they can to stop
discovery. Shell, Exxon and other oil companies do not want their
executives testifying under oath about why the companies were upgrading
their own facilities to prepare for climate change while publicly
proclaiming that climate change wasn’t happening.
If governments get to the discovery phase and ultimately to trial,
juries will be the ones to decide whether oil companies will have to pay
for the climate change-related damage they have caused. Otherwise,
taxpayers will be on the hook. A recent study by the Center for Climate
Integrity found that coastal communities in the U.S. must spend upwards
of $400 billion at a minimum in the next five to 10 years alone to
protect property from sea level rise.
The recent federal court decision and the shifting momentum in favor of
the plaintiffs have now upped the ante for oil companies. Expect them to
increase pressure on Congress to block state and local access to the
courts, while they continue to fight tooth and nail against any form of
accountability to communities around the country.
[Ann Carlson is the Shirley Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law at
the UCLA School of Law and faculty co-director of the UCLA Emmett Center
on Climate Change and the Environment. She provides pro bono consulting
to some of the plaintiffs in climate litigation]
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-10/climate-change-lawsuits-oil-companies-state-courts
- - -
[ 12 min video]
*2016 UCLA Law Insights: Ann Carlson on Climate Change Policy*
UCLA School of Law - Published on Nov 4, 2016
Ann E. Carlson, Shirley Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law and
Faculty Co-Director, Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment, UCLA School of Law, on "Climate Change, the Paris Agreement
and the Future of the Planet" as part of UCLA Law Insights, an afternoon
of brief, compelling talks by distinguished alumni and faculty about
ideas transforming our society and the legal landscape (September 23, 2016).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9JmzSwwAD0
- - -
[Listed claims against the fossil fuel industries - Kivalina vs.
Exxon,et al 2007]
*API's site Vote4Energy.org is an immoral, criminal deception*
Listed Claims against the Carbon Fuel Industry accepted in Federal
District Court 2007
Kivalina vs. Exxon,et al 2007
http://novote4energy.org/
[another approach]*
**The Tent of Casually Observed Phenologies - HarvardX 3:45 Edit*
https://vimeo.com/142885040
more at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfrtOqUFQtk
even more at
https://jamesleonard.org/work/gallery/the-tent-of-casually-observed-phenologies/
*This Day in Climate History - August 13, 2014 - from D.R. Tucker*
August 13, 2014: On MSNBC's "The Ed Show," Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska
discusses the recent onslaught of poisoned weather in the US.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/damaging-impact-of-severe-weather-317880899851#
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list