[TheClimate.Vote] December 23, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 23, 2019*/

[Candidate Yang]
*Andrew Yang has a good answer for one of the toughest climate change 
questions*
Climate change is already forcing people to move. Yang has a plan for 
getting them out of harm's way.
By Umair Irfan - Dec 20, 201
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang was the only candidate to take it head on. 
"First, we should obviously be paying to relocate Americans away from 
places that are hit by climate change. We're already doing it," he said. 
"Part of my plans literally call for moving people to higher ground 
because that's what we need to do."..

In his climate plan, he calls for $40 billion in grants, loans, and 
subsidies to relocate people in vulnerable areas. It's something that 
other candidates are reluctant to talk about in such blunt terms, as 
Vox's Dylan Matthews observed:

This is an unusual posture for a campaign, simply due to how bleak it 
is. Part of the political logic of a Green New Deal involves thinking of 
climate action as a hopeful possibility that brings with it jobs, 
investment, and a better quality of life. Yang is arguing, instead, that 
we have to accept that climate change is already having an impact and 
has to be accommodated as well as mitigated.

As the risks of coastal flooding and wildfires grow steeper, the idea of 
a managed retreat of homes, businesses, and infrastructure from 
vulnerable areas toward safer regions becomes a more urgent option to 
consider. And as the damage from these threats gets higher, it may be 
the only option.

Americans have already been forced to relocate from areas like Isle de 
Jean Charles in Louisiana due to sea level rise. But the government has 
been helping them in a haphazard way, often with emergency provisions 
under Federal Emergency Management Agency, rather than with a 
coordinated proactive strategy.

Yes, it's still possible to limit warming, and it will require 
aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst-case 
scenarios. But there are impacts of climate change that are already 
baked in -- cities like Miami are already facing high-tide flooding, for 
instance.

About 40 percent of the US population lives in a coastal county, so 
millions more will feel the ripple effects of sea-level rise alone. Add 
to that the jobs and lives that will face irreversible changes from 
persistent heat waves, wildfires, and drought, and you have huge 
pressure on the next president to figure whether people in these areas 
should stay and rebuild or preemptively pull back.

Telling people where they can and can't live is a huge political 
challenge, one that's bound to cause enormous headaches for the next 
White House. But the problem will only get worse, and the other 
candidates need better answers.
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/20/21030970/democratic-debate-andrew-yang-climate-change



[Newsweek item]
*THE AMAZON HAS REACHED A TIPPING POINT WHERE IT HAS BEGUN TO 
'SELF-DESTRUCT'--BUT MAJOR REFORESTATION COULD SAVE IT*
https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-tipping-point-self-destruct-major-reforestation-1478481



[reporting happy news for Christmas says new father Wallace-Wells]
*We're Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future -- and It's Not 
as Bad as It Once Looked*
By David Wallace-Wells

For once, the climate news might be better than you thought. It's 
certainly better than I've thought.

You may not have noticed it, amid the flood of bad news about the 
"Emissions Gap" and the collapse of the COP25 climate conference in 
Madrid, but over the last few weeks a new narrative about the climate 
future has emerged, on balance encouraging, at least to an alarmist like 
me. It is this: As best as we can understand and project the medium- and 
long-term trajectories of energy use and emissions, the window of 
possible climate futures is probably narrowing, with both the most 
optimistic scenarios and the most pessimistic ones seeming, now, less 
likely.

That narrowing contains both good and bad news -- what was recently the 
best to hope for now seems vanishingly unlikely, and what was the worst 
to fear much less likely, too. But let's start with the good news, since 
there is typically so little of it.

A few weeks ago, the International Energy Agency released its annual 
World Energy Outlook 2019. The IEA is not known to be optimistic, at 
least to climate advocates, who have, for years, mocked its projections 
for future renewable growth: Every year, the agency basically predicts a 
plateau for renewable use, and every year renewables keep dramatically 
growing. This made the most noteworthy prediction in this year's report 
even more so. According to the IEA report, given only current carbon 
policies, which nearly everyone studying climate considers terribly 
weak, the world is on track for about 3 degrees Celsius of warming by 
2100, which could, if existing pledges were implemented, be brought down 
as low as 2.7 degrees -- about one and a half degrees less warming than 
is suggested by the U.N.'s IPCC reports in what is often referred to as 
the "business as usual" "RCP8.5" scenario.

Now, bear with me, because this is going to get a bit technical, but, I 
promise, it really does matter. That RCP8.5 scenario is one of four 
included by the IPCC in their last major assessment report, in 2014, to 
model possible paths forward -- the worst one, tracing the highest arc 
of emissions and warming outcomes this century. It has shaped a lot of 
scientific research conducted in the interim; a very common approach is 
for a particular paper to highlight projected climate impacts in a 
low-end emissions scenario (either 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees Celsius) and 
a high-end one (somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 degrees), then 
describe the low-end outcome as the climate future "if we achieve the 
goals of the Paris accords" and the high-end one as "business as usual."

Those deep in the weeds always knew there was something misleading about 
that characterization, but especially in the aftermath of that IEA 
report, a very public conversation began, especially on "climate 
Twitter," outlining the deep -- and perhaps fatal -- problems with using 
RCP8.5 in that way. To begin with, three of the four climate scenarios 
in the IPCC report were originally devised as "business as usual" 
scenarios, because none of them reflected, at first, meaningful climate 
policy.

The assumptions about those factors represent a variety of different 
no-policy futures, each reflecting different assumptions about the way 
the world's energy systems and economies will evolve over the next 
decades. And the assumptions about those factors which are baked into 
RCP8.5 seem, by the year, more and more implausible -- chiefly that 
global coal use, which is growing slowly, would dramatically increase 
over the rest of the century. Given that China is still opening new coal 
plants, and much of the developing world has yet to reach levels of 
prosperity where energy use explodes, some growth in coal is probably 
inevitable, perhaps even dramatic growth. But by 2100, RCP8.5 would 
require 6.5 times as much global coal use as we have today. That may be 
possible, given how much we don't know about the path developing nations 
in south and southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa will take. But given 
recent drops in renewable pricing, and the positive signs for coal 
decline in the developed world, as a prediction about energy use RCP8.5 
is probably closer to a "worst case," outlier scenario than anything it 
would be fair to call "business as usual."

To be clear, the IEA report only measured emissions from energy use, 
which is not at all the whole picture when it comes to emissions. RCP 
stands for "representative concentration pathways," and theoretically 
climate feedback loops and other natural processes could deliver those 
carbon concentrations even if coal use fails to grow at the predicted 
rate. And it is also the case that some climate impacts are already as 
bad or even worse than RCP8.5 imagined they could be -- arctic ice melt, 
for instance, including in Greenland, where the ice sheet is melting 
seven times faster than it was in the 1990s. Plus, the IEA only projects 
out to 2040, leaving large uncertainties about what would come in the 
second half of the century. But in a remarkably insightful paper 
published by the Breakthrough Institute on Wednesday -- "in a right and 
just world, this would be the most high-impact piece of climate writing 
of the month of December," the Niskanen Center's Joseph Majkut said on 
Twitter -- Zeke Hausfather and Justin Ritchie modeled the remainder of 
the century based on some very conservative assumptions. In one 
scenario, they assumed emissions would peak in 2040 and hold steady 
rather than decline until 2100; in the other, they assumed emissions 
would steadily grow from 2040 until the end of the century. They ran 
those emissions figures through the IPCC's own basic temperature 
calculator and found "that transitions in the global energy system over 
the past decade mean that a conservative business-as-usual projection of 
current trends in the energy system continuing is now likely to lead to 
warming of around 3C by 2100." Further, while they acknowledge a 
higher-emissions world than the IEA projects is possible, they conclude 
that "it may be possible under an optimistic business-as-usual case to 
have as little as 2.5C warming by the end of the century, though 
anything below that is very unlikely to happen in the absence of policy 
given the rate of emissions reductions required."

I've spent the last few weeks trying to wrap my head around all of this, 
speaking with energy analysts and climate scientists (including 
Hausfather) about just what these projections mean for our understanding 
of where we are headed. Nearly every one has told me the IEA 
projections, while limited in ways, nevertheless represent a more 
plausible projection of the medium-term energy future than is contained 
in RCP8.5. Most -- though not all -- told me that they did not see 
RCP8.5 as a plausible scenario, even in the absence of meaningful 
climate policy. Honestly, this surprised me; while objections to RCP8.5 
have been around for a decade or more, those who view it skeptically now 
seem to outnumber those who see it as useful -- at least as a vision of 
a "business as usual" future.

That's the good news. But it is not, in the end, simple good news. To 
begin with, there is not corresponding good news in all the other 
sectors of emissions -- agricultural, transportation, industry. 
Additionally, the single-figure of 3C is a little misleading, since it 
is only a median projection, as the Breakthrough authors fully 
acknowledge; their analysis actually finds, using the IEA projections, a 
range of possible warming levels, from 1.9C to 4.4C (the high-end figure 
ultimately not very different from RCP8.5's projections). On top of 
which, a next generation of more advanced models are currently being 
developed to better predict what amount of temperature rise would result 
from certain emissions levels, and while the models are by no means 
speaking in unison, a concerning proportion of those that have been 
released show that the climate could be considerably more sensitive to 
emissions than previously understood -- meaning we could find ourselves 
in a better place, emissions wise, this century, and still end up in 
roughly the same place we thought we would, when we were expecting 
higher emissions. (Or perhaps, in theory, even a worse place.)

But the worst news from recent calculations is not about how much we 
should be lowering our high-end estimates for what amount of warming is 
possible, but that we have to simultaneously raise our floors. As this 
animation usefully shows, we are practically already at the limit of our 
"carbon budget" for 1.5 degrees Celsius:

Glen Peters
@Peters_Glen
How big is the CO2 bucket for 1.5C?
Well, the bucket is about to overflow in a few short years, unless we:
1. Turn off the tap (urgently)
2. Put a hole in the bottom to remove CO2 (negative emissions)#COP25
#CarbonBudget @FutureEarth @gcarbonproject
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm …
Embedded video

The math -- ten years left at current emissions -- is actually bleaker 
than it might seem at first, since running through ten years at the 
current rate would only land us at 1.5 degrees if, immediately 
thereafter, we went all the way to zero, never again emitting another 
ounce of carbon, let alone a gigaton, of which we are today producing, 
from industrial processes and fossil-fuel burning, 37 each year. A 
gigaton is, keep in mind, a billion tons. Which makes not just 1.5 
degrees but, I think, 2 degrees, for all practical purposes out of 
reach. As a reminder, this is a level of warming that the IPCC has 
called "catastrophic" and the island nations of the world have described 
as "genocide."

This may all seem dizzyingly complicated 
on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other inside baseball climate talk. But four 
big takeaways suggest themselves -- to me, at least.

The first is that, for all of our earned confidence in the present state 
of scientific understanding of climate change, there is enormous 
uncertainty about human response to the challenge of warming. There is a 
reason the IEA sunsets its projections at 2040 -- it's because 
projecting things further out is, ultimately, a foolish game. Energy 
projections as recent as the pre-fracking 2000s are already very much 
out of date; even more so for those made during the 1970s and 1980s. 
Projecting what global energy use will be in the year 2100 is the 
equivalent of trusting projections made in 1940 about where we are today.

This is especially problematic because, ultimately, that range of inputs 
-- how much carbon we put into the atmosphere over the next decades -- 
is the major determinant of warming levels. We can know, with pretty 
good if not absolute confidence, that putting X amount of carbon into 
the atmosphere will produce Y amount of warming on a timescale of a 
century, say. But just how big that X turns out to be is, ultimately, a 
matter of very gestural guesswork. Whether China's coal use grows 
slowly, plateaus and then drops slowly, or drops precipitously over the 
next two decades -- that is not something it is even possible to know, 
really, though we can guess. Even less possible is knowing whether the 
next wave of developing nations -- India, Indonesia, much of sub-Saharan 
Africa -- will follow the patterns of energy use of the nations just 
ahead of them on the economic growth. If coal use grows in other parts 
of the world as dramatically as it did in China in the 1990s and 2000s… 
well, there are billions of people in those parts of the world, and a 
rapid energy expansion there could conceivably bring us a lot closer to 
RCP8.5 than the IEA (or Breakthrough) suggest.

Perhaps a sixfold increase in coal use seems implausible, globally. But 
even a steady trajectory of coal emissions -- new use in the developing 
world counterbalancing the growth of renewables elsewhere -- would be 
quite bad, if it extended for decades. The IEA predicts it will remain 
stable, at least for the time being. Exxon, for its part, predicts no 
decline in carbon emissions from the energy sector through 2040 -- and 
no point, at all, where they reach zero. (By the way, a little-noticed 
2018 methane leak at an Exxon plant in Ohio was recently found to have 
released more of the powerful greenhouse gas than the entire oil and gas 
industries of many countries.) And we do of course have enough carbon on 
the planet to reach RCP8.5, should we choose to burn it.

The second takeaway is that anyone, including me, who has built their 
understanding on what level of warming is likely this century on that 
RCP8.5 scenario should probably revise that understanding in a less 
alarmist direction. Scientists who are studying particular impacts 
should probably stop using RCP8.5 as a stand-in for "no policy" or 
"business as usual" climate trajectories, and certainly stop describing 
research that does use it as reflecting a "business as usual" world. We 
could still get to an RCP8.5-like situation, theoretically, but it is 
pretty unlikely, and would probably require a departure from the blithe 
stumbling-down-our-current-path-blindly pattern of the last few decades. 
This is all, absolutely, cause for optimism, even if it is optimism in 
the face of great uncertainty. (In climate, we'll take what we can get.)

The third takeaway is that anyone who sees a world of 3 degrees warming 
-- or even 2.5 degrees -- as a positive or happy outcome has a pretty 
grotesque, or at least deluded, perspective on human suffering. At just 
two degrees, the U.N. estimates, damages from storms and sea-level rise 
could grow 100-fold. Cities in South Asia and the Middle East that are 
today home to many millions of people would be so hot during summer heat 
waves, scientists have projected, even going outside during the day 
could mean risking heatstroke or heat death. The number of climate 
refugees could pass 200 million, according to the U.N., and more than 
150 million would die from the impacts of air pollution alone. North of 
two degrees, of course, the strain accumulates and intensifies, and 
while some amount of human adaptation to these forces is inevitable, the 
scale of adaptation required at even two degrees begins to seem close to 
impossible.

The fourth is that these findings do not, actually, make it look easier 
to get to "safe" levels of warming -- say 1.5 degrees, or even, for that 
matter, 2. All future emissions paths are charted from the present 
forward, of course, not from some projected scenario backward. And the 
state of things is in the present tense is really quite dire -- new 
emissions records every year. To stay safely below 2 degrees, we would 
still need to roughly halve our carbon output by 2030 and zero it out 
entirely by 2075, as the U.N. warned last October in its "Doomsday" 
report. Neither of those tasks look any easier today than they did six 
months ago, since in fact the world is still moving in the wrong 
direction, growing our emissions and making more radical future cuts 
necessary with each passing day. According to the UN's Emissions Gap 
report, we now need to cut emissions by 7.6 percent per year every year 
for the next decade, globally, to hit the Paris targets -- a rate faster 
than any single nation has ever achieved in any single year, pursued 
globally, including by many countries with populations collectively in 
the billions pursuing high-energy prosperity for the very first time.

How we respond to these challenges -- decarbonization but also the 
climate impacts brought about by delay -- is, of course, another 
uncertainty, perhaps the most significant one. And even in a year of 
dramatic political mobilization on climate, on this question, 
personally, I've been growing more concerned that one major response 
among the world's well-off, at least, will be normalization, 
compartmentalization, and continued complacency.

In the spring, I spent some time reporting on life in California under 
the threat of wildfires -- traveling to Los Angeles expecting I'd be 
seeing a glimpse of our climate future, a city buckled under with 
climate anxiety, but which I found ultimately to be a journey through 
normalization and compartmentalization. One woman I met had personally 
lived through nine fires, a fact I thought about a lot in the months 
that followed, whenever I found myself considering the problem of 
climate normalization.

But over the last few weeks, I've been thinking more about another 
encounter, from earlier this fall, one that followed a climate panel I'd 
just participated in. After the discussion, I was cornered by a 
middle-aged businessman, who assured me that despite what I might think, 
he did believe in climate change, then asked, in an almost 
conspiratorial tone -- seeking, it seemed, a kind of a secret answer -- 
"How bad is it going to be?"

It was a bit of a confusing question, after 90 minutes of conversation 
on stage -- a conversation he'd chosen to attend and paid attention to, 
he pointed out, which he suggested was a self-evident sign that he took 
the issue seriously.

"Well," I began, "at just 2 degrees of warming, which is basically a 
best-case scenario, it's been estimated that 150 million people would 
die from air pollution -- "

"But out of 8 billion," he said quickly, cutting me off and smiling 
strangely.

"Right," I said, "I don't think human extinction or total civilization 
collapse is likely, though the pressures are going to get pretty intense 
and we don't really know how societies will respond. But even if they 
respond pretty well -- I mean, 150 million is 150 million. That's a lot 
of people. That's dying at the scale of 25 Holocausts."

"But out of 8 billion," he repeated, smiling, like he'd caught me in a 
trap. At which point I understood what he'd actually meant by the 
question he'd posed, and why it was so important to him to get a precise 
answer. What he was asking was not, how bad is it going to be. What he 
was asking was, how bad is it going to be for me?

The tragic thing was, in learning about 150 million deaths from air 
pollution, which were today concentrated in India and China and would 
likely grow in other areas of the developing world in the future, he 
seemed to have gotten the comforting answer he was looking for: not that 
bad, relatively speaking. He walked away triumphantly. I didn't have the 
chance to tell him that, just in 2017, pollution killed 197,000 Americans.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/climate-change-worst-case-scenario-now-looks-unrealistic.html#comments


[A positive list to check twice]
*Beyond Changing Light Bulbs: 22 Ways You Can Stop The Climate Crisis**
*December 13, 2019
By Rivera Sun, World BEYOND War, December 12, 2019

Here's the good news: The debate is over. 75% of US citizens believe 
climate change is human-caused; more than half say we have to do 
something and fast.

Here's even better news: A new report shows that more than 200 cities 
and counties, and 12 states have committed to or already achieved 100 
percent clean electricity. This means that one out of every three 
Americans (about 111 million Americans and 34 percent of the population) 
lives in a community or state that has committed to or has already 
achieved 100 percent clean electricity. Seventy cities are already 
powered by 100 percent wind and solar power. The not-so-great news is 
that many of the transition commitments are too little, too late.

The best news? The story doesn't end there.

We can all pitch in to help save humanity and the planet. And I don't 
mean just by planting trees or changing light bulbs. Climate action 
movements are exploding in numbers, actions, and impact. Groups like 
Youth Climate Strikes, Extinction Rebellion, #ShutDownDC, the Sunrise 
Movement, and more are changing the game. Join in if you haven't 
already. As Extinction Rebellion reminds us: there's room for everybody 
in an effort this enormous. We all make change in different ways, and 
we're all needed to make all the changes we need.

Resistance is not futile. As the editor of Nonviolence News, I collect 
stories of climate action and climate wins. In the past month alone, the 
millions of people worldwide rising up in nonviolent action have 
propelled a number of major victories. The University of British 
Columbia divested $300 million in funds from fossil fuels. The world's 
largest public bank ditched fossil fuels and said it would no longer 
invest in oil and coal. California cracked down on oil and gas fracking 
permits halting new drilling wells as the state prepares for a renewable 
energy transition. New Zealand passed a law to put the climate crisis at 
the front and center of all its policy considerations (the first such 
legislation in the world). The second-largest ferry operator on the 
planet is switching from diesel to batteries in preparation for a 
renewable transition. Re-affirming their anti-pipeline stance, Portland, 
Oregon city officials told Zenith Energy that they would not reverse 
their decision, and instead would continue to block new pipelines. 
Meanwhile, in Portland, Maine, the city council joined the ever-growing 
list endorsing the youths' climate emergency resolution. Italy made 
climate change science mandatory in school. And that's just for starters.

Is it any wonder Collins Dictionary made "climate strike" the Word of 
the Year?

Beyond planting trees and changing lightbulbs, here's a list of things 
you can do about the climate crisis:

1. Join Greta Thunberg, Fridays for the Future, and the global
Student Climate Strikes on Fridays.
2. Not a student? Join Jane Fonda's #FireDrillFridays (civil
disobedience is the latest workout fad; everybody looks good saving
the planet).
3. Take to the field, like the students who disrupted the
Harvard-Yale football game to demand fossil fuel divestment. You
can't play football on a dead planet, after all.
4. Stage an "oil spill" like these 40 members of Fossil Fuel Divest
Harvard (FFDH) and Extinction Rebellion. They staged an oil spill in
Harvard's Science Center Plaza to call attention to the university's
complicity in the climate crisis.
5. Get in the way with city-wide street blockades like #ShutDownDC.
People from an alliance of groups blockaded the banks and investment
firms in the nation's capital to protest the financing of fossil
fuels, and the ways the banking industry drives the climate
migration crisis while profiting from the devastation.
6. Rally the artists and paint giant murals to remind people to take
action, like this skyscraper-sized Greta Thunberg mural in San
Francisco.
7. No walls handy? Print out a scowling Greta and put it in the
office to remind people not to use single-use plastic.
8. Crash Congress (or your city/county officials' meetings)
demanding climate legislation, climate emergency resolutions, and
more. That's what these climate justice activists did last week,
protesting legislative inaction and demanding justice for people
living on the front lines of the crisis.
9. Occupy the offices: Sit-ins and occupations of public officials
offices are one way to take the protest to the politicians.
Campaigners occupied US Senator Pelosi's office and launched their
global hunger strike just before US  Thanksgiving weekend. In
Oregon, 21 people were arrested while occupying the governor's
office to get her to oppose a fracked gas export terminal at Jordan
Cove.
10. Organize a coal train blockade like climate activists in Ayers,
Massachusetts. They made a series of multi-wave coal train
blockades, one group of protesters taking up the blockade as the
first group was arrested. Or rally thousands like the Germans did
when they gathered between 1,000-4,000 green activists, made their
way past police lines, and blocked trains at three important coal
mines in eastern Germany.
11. Shut down your local fossil fuel power plant. (We've all got
one.) New Yorkers did this dramatically a few weeks ago, scaling a
smokestack and blockading the gates. In New Hampshire, 67 climate
activists were arrested outside their coal power plant, calling for
it to be shut down.
12. Of course, another option is to literally take back your power
like this small German town that took ownership of their grid and
went 100 percent renewable.
13. Like Spiderman? You could add some drama to a protest like these
two kids (ages 8 and 11) who rappelled down from a bridge with
climbing gear and a protest banner during COP25 in Madrid.
14. Ground the private jets. Extinction Rebellion members went for
the gold: they blockaded a private jet terminalused by wealthy
elites in Geneva.
15. Sail a Sinking House down the river like Extinction Rebellion
did along the Thames to show solidarity with all those who have lost
their homes to rising seas.
16. Clean it up. Use mops, brooms, and scrub brushes for a "clean up
your act" protest like the one Extinction Rebellion used at
Barclay's Bank branches.
17. Blockade pipeline supply shipments like Washington activists did
to stall the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline.
18. Catch the eye with a Red Brigade Funeral Procession like this
one during the Black Friday climate action protests in Vancouver.
19. Tiny House Blockades: Build a tiny house in the path of the
pipelines, like these Indigenous women are doing to thwart the Trans
Mountain Pipeline in Canada.
20. Make a racket with a pots-and-pans protest. Cacerolazos – pots
and pans banging protests – erupted in 12 Latin American countries
last week. The media focused on government corruption and economic
justice as the cause, but in many nations, including Chile and
Bolivia, climate and environmental justice are included in the
protesters demands.
21. Share this article. Action inspires more action. Hearing these
examples – and the successes – gives us the strength to rise to the
challenges we face. You can help stop the climate crisis by sharing
these stories with others. (You can also connect to 30-50+ stories
of nonviolence in action by signing up for Nonviolence News' free
weekly enewsletter.)
22. Connect peace and climate, militarism and environmental
destruction, by pressuring your local government to divest from both
weapons and fossil fuels, like Charlottesville, VA, did last year,
and Arlington,VA, is working on right now.

Remember: all these stories came from the Nonviolence News articles I've 
collected in just the past 30 days! These stories should give you hope, 
courage, and ideas for taking action. There's so much to be done, and so 
much we can do! Joan Baez said that "action is the antidote to despair." 
Don't despair. Organize.
__________________
Rivera Sun, syndicated by PeaceVoice, has written numerous books, 
including The Dandelion Insurrection. She is the editor of Nonviolence 
News and a nationwide trainer in strategy for nonviolent campaigns.
https://worldbeyondwar.org/beyond-changing-light-bulbs-22-ways-you-can-stop-the-climate-crisis/



*This Day in Climate History - December  23, 2004 - from D.R. Tucker*
Proving that climate-change deniers always stick together, syndicated 
columnist George Will praises Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20998-2004Dec22.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.