[TheClimate.Vote] February 12, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Feb 12 09:50:02 EST 2019
/February 12, 2019/
[keeping it under]
*Landmark Australian ruling rejects coal mine over global warming*
The case is the first time a mine has been refused in the country
because of climate change.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00545-8
[Bloomberg makes a clear video message]
*Corporate America Is Getting Ready to Monetize Climate Change*
Bank of America Corp. worries flooded homeowners will default on their
mortgages. The Walt Disney Co. is concerned its theme parks will get too
hot for vacationers, while AT&T Inc. fears hurricanes and wildfires may
knock out its cell towers.
The Coca-Cola Co. wonders if there will still be enough water to make Coke.
As the Trump administration rolls back rules meant to curb global
warming, new disclosures show that the country's largest companies are
already bracing for its effects. The documents reveal how widely climate
change is expected to cascade through the economy -- disrupting supply
chains, disabling operations and driving away customers, but also
offering new ways to make money....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/muggy-disney-parks-downed-at-t-towers-firms-tally-climate-risk
- - -
[source material for CDP]
*CDP*
We focus investors, companies and cities on taking urgent action to
build a truly sustainable economy by measuring and understanding their
environmental impact
CDP is a not-for-profit charity that runs the global disclosure system
for investors, companies, cities, states and regions to manage their
environmental impacts. Over the past 15 years we have created a system
that has resulted in unparalleled engagement on environmental issues
worldwide.
https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about-us
[money from melting]
*As ice melts, Greenland could become big sand exporter: study*
Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) - Greenland could start to export sand in a rare positive
spinoff from global warming that is melting the island's vast ice sheet
and washing large amounts of sediment into the sea, scientists said on
Monday.
Mining of sand and gravel, widely used in the construction industry,
could boost the economy for Greenland's 56,000 population who have wide
powers of self-rule within Denmark but rely heavily on subsidies from
Copenhagen.
By mining sand, "Greenland could benefit from the challenges brought by
climate change," a team of scientists in Denmark and the United States
wrote in the journal Nature Sustainability.
The study, headlined "Promises and perils of sand exploitation in
Greenland", said the Arctic island would have to assess risks of coastal
mining, especially to fisheries.
Rising global temperatures are melting the Greenland ice sheet, which
locks up enough water to raise global sea levels by about seven meters
(23 ft) if it ever all thawed, and carrying ever more sand and gravel
into coastal fjords.
"You can think of it (the melting ice) as a tap that pours out sediment
to the coast," said lead author Mette Bendixen, a researcher at the
University of Colorado's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research.
Worldwide demand for sand totaled about 9.55 billion tonnes in 2017 with
a market value of $99.5 billion and is projected to reach almost $481
billion in 2100, driven by rising demand and likely shortages, the study
said.
"Normally the Arctic peoples are among those who really feel climate
change - the eroding coast, less permafrost," said Bendixen. "This is a
unique situation because of the melting ice sheet."
David Boertmann of Aarhus University, who was not involved in the study,
said there was already some local mining of sand for the domestic
construction industry in Greenland.
Drawbacks for Greenland, common to other mining projects on the island
ranging from uranium to rare earth minerals, include the distance to
markets in Europe and North America, he said.
Still, Bendixen said sand was already often transported long distances,
such as to Los Angeles from Vancouver or from Australia to Dubai.
"At the moment it is an inexpensive resource but it will become more
expensive," she said.
The study said that sand and gravel might also be used in future to
reinforce beaches and coastlines at risk of rising sea levels, caused in
part by Greenland's thaw.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-greenland/as-ice-melts-greenland-could-become-big-sand-exporter-study-idUSKCN1Q01YG
[big changes Down Under]
*Up to 500,000 drought-stressed cattle killed in Queensland floods*
After years of drought graziers were elated when the rain came. Now
floods have created a humanitarian crisis
- - -
"The speed and intensity of the unfolding tragedy makes it hard to
believe that it's just a week since farmers' elation at receiving the
first decent rains in five years turned to horror at the devastating and
unprecedented flood that quickly followed."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/11/up-to-500000-drought-stressed-cattle-killed-in-queensland-floods
- -
[from drought to flood to drowning]
***Video shows hundreds of cattle dead in Australia as floodwaters recede*
Warning: This video contains disturbing images. Discretion advised.
Aerial footage taken Monday shows hundreds of cattle found dead in a
Queensland paddock after floodwaters receded. The region had been
dealing with a lengthy drought but officials say the heavy rains may
have left hundreds of thousands of cattle dead.
Video released by a Queensland MP on Monday in Australia revealed the
impact of heavy flooding with hundreds of cattle being found dead in a
single paddock after the waters receded.
Last week, northwest Queensland saw heavy downpours hit the region after
it had gone through an extensive drought, bringing joy to many graziers.
But the flooding came fast as some rural parts of Queensland received
three years' worth of average rainfall in a week, The Guardian reports.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4948545/video-australia-floodwaters/
[what the world knows]*
**Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry: poll*
BERLIN (Reuters) - Climate change is the top security concern in a poll
conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Center, followed by
Islamist terrorism and cyber attacks while respondents in a growing
number of countries worried about the power and influence of the United
States.
In 13 of 26 countries, people listed climate change as the top global
threat, with the Islamic State militant group topping the list in eight
and cyber attacks in four, the non-profit, non-partisan Pew Research
Center said in its report.
Worries about climate change have increased sharply since 2013, with
double-digit percentage point increases seen in countries including the
United States, Mexico, France, Britain, South Africa and Kenya,
according to the poll of 27,612 people conducted between May and August,
2018.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-military/u-s-destroyers-sail-in-disputed-south-china-sea-amid-trade-tensions-idUSKCN1Q00AJ
[Remember the SuperBowl?]
*Fossil Fuel Industry Attacks Budweiser's Pro-Wind Super Bowl Ad*
Sunday, February 3, 2019
By Dave Anderson, crossposted from Energy and Policy Institute
The pro-wind power Budweiser ad that Anheuser-Busch will air during the
Super Bowl on Sunday is being attacked by the fossil fuel industry.
The Kentucky Coal Association is among the groups attacking the
Budweiser ad, which has already racked up nearly 14 million views on
YouTube. Their attack was echoed by the website ClimateDepot.com, a
project of a coal-backed group called the Committee for Constructive
Tomorrow.
"Wind never felt better," the Budweiser ad says. "Now brewed with wind
power for a better tomorrow."
Watch the Budweiser ad: https://youtu.be/B6VciSoR1iQ
The first volley came from the American Energy Alliance just one day
after Anheuser-Busch announced the ad. It described Budweiser's pro-wind
power statement as a "joke."
The American Energy Alliance is the "advocacy arm" of the Institute for
Energy Research. Together these affiliated political groups have
received millions of dollars from the Koch brothers, as well as money
from the coal industry.
The attack was soon joined by Kevon Martis, an anti-wind activist with
ties to the Institute for Energy Research and other groups funded by
polluting industries.
Martis posted a video on Facebook in which he protested the Budweiser ad
by dumping a can of the company's beer on the ground. Martis said in the
video that he is the director of the Interstate Informed Citizens
Coalition, a Michigan-based anti-wind group.
Martis did not disclose in the video that he is also a senior policy
fellow for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, a climate denial
group that has also received funding from the Kochs and coal industry.
Martis was also among the anti-wind activists who participated in a 2012
meeting in Washington, D.C., with representatives from powerful special
interest groups funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Martis's video claimed that he has witnessed the "social destruction"
caused by wind farms across the Midwest.
A new Michigan State University poll found broad support among
Michiganders for transitioning away from coal and using more wind and
solar power.
Anti-wind operatives like Martis travel the country giving presentations
that often claim that noise from wind turbines negatively impact human
health -- a claim made frequently on MasterResource.org, a blog run by
the Institute for Energy Research.
"There is no authoritative evidence that sound from wind turbines
represents a risk to human health among neighboring residents," a new
study out of Iowa, a top state for wind power, confirmed this week.
Greenwich Neighbors United, an Ohio-based anti-wind group, was among
those that shared Martis's video and the American Energy Alliance's hit
piece on Budweiser's ad. It's an example of how messages that originate
with individuals and special interest groups that have ties to the
fossil fuel industry are often echoed by local anti-wind groups.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/03/fossil-fuel-industry-attacks-budweiser-s-pro-wind-super-bowl-ad?utm_source=dsb%20newsletter
[Tar sands Line 3 - from Enbridge PR]
*Line 3 Replacement Program*
The multibillion-dollar Line 3 Replacement Program is the largest
project in Enbridge history. The new Line 3 will comprise the newest and
most advanced pipeline technology—and provide much needed incremental
capacity to support Canadian crude oil production growth, and U.S. and
Canadian refinery demand..
The Line 3 Replacement Program, with a C$5.3-billion Canadian component
and a US$2.9-billion American component, expands on the former Line 3
Segment Replacement Program, and will include all remaining segments of
Line 3 between Hardisty, Alberta and Superior, Wisconsin. All told, the
Line 3 Replacement Program will fully replace 1,031 miles (1,660
kilometres) of Line 3 with new pipeline and associated facilities on
either side of the Canada-U.S. international border.
https://www.enbridge.com/Line3ReplacementProgram.aspx
- -
*Line 3 Project Summary*
https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Projects/Line%203/ProjectHandouts/ENB_Line3_Public_Affairs_ProjectSummary.pdf?la=en
- -
[Wikipedia overview]
*Enbridge Line 3*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 3 is an oil sands crude oil pipeline that runs from Hardisty,
Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. Construction of a new route for Line 3
has been proposed by the Canadian oil company, Enbridge. While this
project was approved in Canada, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, the
proposed pipeline has received resistance from environmental groups and
U.S. Native American communities in Minnesota.
*History of Line 3 and the New Proposed Route*
Construction on the original Line 3 pipeline started in 1962. It began
operating in 1968 to meet growing U.S. demand for oil. Since its
construction, the pipeline has carried on average between 390,000 and
760,000 barrels of oil per day. Numerous structural anomalies have
developed along the pipeline over time. These holes, and concerns about
the safety of the pipeline, have led Enbridge to reduce the amount of
oil transported daily. Enbridge announced plans to build the new Line 3
in 2014. That multi-billion dollar project would allow Enbridge to
restore their historic operating capacity and move nearly 800,000
barrels per day.
While governing bodies in Canada, North Dakota, and Wisconsin had
approved their segments of the pipeline by 2016, approval took longer in
Minnesota where environmentalists have resisted the project. In advance
of their decision on Line 3 the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
solicited public input about Line 3. Most feedback they received opposed
the pipeline. Of the nearly 70,000 individual comments that were
submitted, 68,244, or 94%, voiced opposition to the pipeline's
completion. However, in June 2018 the PUC granted Enbridge the
Certificate of Need and approved their desired route for Line 3.
Environmentalists and Native communities in the state have pledged to
resist the pipeline's construction.
*Enbridge Line 3*
Line 3 is an oil sands crude oil pipeline that runs from Hardisty,
Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. Construction of a new route for Line 3
has been proposed by the Canadian oil company, Enbridge. While this
project was approved in Canada, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, the
proposed pipeline has received resistance from environmental groups and
U.S. Native American communities in Minnesota.
*History of Line 3 and the New Proposed Route*
Construction on the original Line 3 pipeline started in 1962. It began
operating in 1968 to meet growing U.S. demand for oil. Since its
construction, the pipeline has carried on average between 390,000 and
760,000 barrels of oil per day. Numerous structural anomalies have
developed along the pipeline over time. These holes, and concerns about
the safety of the pipeline, have led Enbridge to reduce the amount of
oil transported daily. Enbridge announced plans to build the new Line 3
in 2014. That multi-billion dollar project would allow Enbridge to
restore their historic operating capacity and move nearly 800,000
barrels per day.
While governing bodies in Canada, North Dakota, and Wisconsin had
approved their segments of the pipeline by 2016, approval took longer in
Minnesota where environmentalists have resisted the project. In advance
of their decision on Line 3 the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
solicited public input about Line 3. Most feedback they received opposed
the pipeline. Of the nearly 70,000 individual comments that were
submitted, 68,244, or 94%, voiced opposition to the pipeline's
completion. However, in June 2018 the PUC granted Enbridge the
Certificate of Need and approved their desired route for Line 3.
Environmentalists and Native communities in the state have pledged to
resist the pipeline's construction.
*Line 3 Controversy in Minnesota*
Much of the resistance to the Line 3 project comes from concerns over
climate change. Environmental groups such as the North Star Chapter of
the Sierra Club, MN350, and Honor the Earth have anti-Line 3 campaigns.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was conducted by the
Minnesota Department of Commerce, explains how the new Line 3 pipeline
would contribute to deforestation, increase risk of pollution to
Minnesota's pristine water ecosystems and wild rice beds, and generate
greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change. Since the
publication of the EIS, the MN Department of Commerce has formally
denounced the proposed Line 3 project on environmental grounds, going so
far as to say that they would prefer to see the old pipeline cease
operations:
*The EPA tries to clean oil out of the front yards of residents near the
spill*
2010 Enbridge Oil Spill
In light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and
socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited
benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is
reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge
proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new
pipeline being built.
— Minnesota Department of Commerce
One specific concern about the project is the potential for oil spills
along Line 3. In recent years, Enbridge has safely transported 99.999%
of oil. However, among other accidental releases, the original Line 3
pipeline was responsible for the largest ever inland oil spill in the
U.S. In 1991, 1.7 million gallons of oil ruptured from Line 3 in Grand
Rapids, MN. Enbridge was also responsible for the 2010 spill on the
Kalamazoo river in Michigan. After 8 years and over a billion dollars
spent, that spill is still being cleaned up. The resulting pollution has
adversely affected the economy, public health, and the environment in
MIchigan. Enbridge has consistently reassured the public that pipeline
safety is their primary goal. They employ technology to monitor
pipelines, and train employees on emergency response. While significant
oil spills (>238 barrels of oil) have decreased in recent years,
organizers in Minnesota feel that the potential for even one serious
spill is too much of a risk. The Environmental Impact Statement on Line
3 acknowledges that some accidental release of oil is inevitable and
that serious oil spills are possible.
Many Native communities in Minnesota oppose Line 3. Five Anishinaabe
tribes, the White Earth, Red Lake, Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, and Leech
Lake bands hold status as intervening parties against the project in the
PUC's permit deliberations. The Environmental Impact Statement
acknowledges that the construction of Line 3 would disrupt tribal
cultural sites such as burial grounds and historic locales, and degrade
natural resources such as wild rice beds and healthy water ecosystems. A
complete Traditional Cultural Properties Survey has not been conducted
of the proposed route. One will not take place unless a permit for
construction is granted to Enbridge. This lack has been criticized by
tribal groups. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, in conjunction with Honor
the Earth, an Indigenous climate justice organization, released their
own assessment of the cultural and environmental determinants Line 3
would have on their land. The Chippewa Cumulative Impact Assessment
reflects grave concern in that community and strongly opposes the
pipeline's construction. In response to such concerns, Enbridge has an
'Indigenous Peoples Policy' which lays out guidelines for the company's
work on Native land.
Another debate surrounding the proposed Line 3 project is what will
happen to the infrastructure of the old Line 3. Enbridge has proposed a
process they call "deactivation." Many who oppose the project call it
"abandonment." Enbridge explains deactivation of a pipeline as a 5 step
process: remove the oil, clean the pipe, disconnect it from facilities,
put corrosion controls in place, and then leave the pipe in the ground.
The method that Enbridge would use to prevent corrosion is called
cathodic protection. Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup, an organization
opposed to Line 3, has expressed concerns about the efficacy of that
process. Many landowners along the old route worry that they will bear
the financial burden for the decommissioned pipe, either through costs
of cleanup, removal, or lost property value. Both the Pipeline
Abandonment Report from Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup and the
Chippewa Cumulative Impact Statement mention that Line 3 would be the
first pipeline ever to be decommissioned in MN, and try to interrogate
what sort of precedent that might set.
Many Minnesotans support the Line 3 project for its potential to support
the economy of communities along the route. Enbridge has said that
thousands of jobs will be created as a result of the pipeline's
construction. However, the Environmental Impact Statement draws a
distinction between the temporary employment that would be available
during construction and the likelihood of long term job creation:
Based on the small number of permanent jobs, it is likely that operation
of the pipeline would result in no to negligible impact on the per
capita household income, median household income, or unemployment rates
in the ROI (region of interest.)
— Line 3 Environmental Impact Statement (Chapter 5, page 578)
In addition to job creation, Line 3 supporters also cite the positive
impact that Enbridge property taxes could have on communities in
Northern Minnesota. In the first year of the new Line 3's operations,
Enbridge would pay $19.5 million in property taxes along the route. That
number would increase over time. Organizers hold some reservations about
how impactful that revenue might be, citing Enbridge's recent lawsuit in
which their claim that they had been overtaxed indebted counties across
Minnesota to Enbridge for tens of millions of dollars.
Another argument in support of the pipeline ties safety to the economic
concept of supply and demand. Recent studies have highlighted that train
and truck transportation of oil results in more regular spills than
transport by pipe. Among their arguments in support of the pipeline,
Minnesotans for Line 3 cites the growing number of trains transporting
oil through the state. They argue that, due to high U.S. demand, oil
will be moved through the states by whatever means are available. Justin
Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, also advanced this argument in his
public endorsement of the Canadian section of Line 3:
(Transport of oil by rail) is less economic, and more dangerous for
communities, and is higher in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than
modern pipelines would be.
— Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister
Enbridge estimates that Line 3 would replace more than 10,000 rail cars
or 24,000 tanker trucks transporting oil everyday. Minnesotans for Line
3 say that by approving the pipeline, government regulators could ensure
safer transport of millions of barrels of oil a year. The MN Department
of Commerce, in their testimony against Line 3, questioned these
projections, claiming that they depend on an unrealistic idea of the
future demand of oil.
Enbridge's key argument in support of the pipeline relates to that
critique from the Department of Commerce. Today, U.S. Americans consume
more petroleum than any other source of energy. Oil and its byproducts
fuel cars, pave roads, and even make up the foundation for many cosmetic
products and synthetic fabrics. Enbridge calls Line 3 a "vital link,"
supplying that highly demanded oil to Minnesota and the United States.
While many analysts in the industry believe that demand for oil will
eventually begin to fall, no one can predict when that will be. Some
environmentalists worry about future decreased demand, concerned with
the notion of stranded assets. A stranded asset is equipment or a
product that can't be turned into profit because of some change in the
demand. Environmentalists raise the question of what will happen to oil
infrastructure when the companies that owned them are no longer
profitable or cease to operate.
With environmentalists vowing to fight the pipeline, government
officials are concerned about what sort of resistance might materialize
as construction begins. Commentators have compared the potential
resistance to the front line protests over the Keystone XL and Dakota
Access Pipelines. Environmentalists have already pursued legal
intervention, direct action, and more creative resistance to the
pipeline, so officials along the route fear that the next phase of
resistance to Line 3 could incur high security costs and disruption to
life along the proposed route.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_Line_3
- - -
[Line 3 Activism]
*Faith Leaders Gather in St. Paul to Oppose Line 3 Pipline Replacement*
https://www.wdio.com/news/faith-leaders-gather-st-paul-oppose-line-3-pipline-replacement/5239959/
- -
[MinnPost]
*Enbridge Line 3: The threat of spillage is as real as its precedent*
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2019/01/enbridge-line-3-the-threat-of-spillage-is-as-real-as-its-precedent/
[classic from July 2018 Miami Agent magazine]
*How global warming will impact Miami real estate by 2030*
A new study shows that Florida's real estate market stands to lose the
most from projected sea level rises due to climate change — and South
Florida is the epicenter of the problem.
Not only is Florida projected to have the most homes affected by global
warming, Miami Beach has also been named the most at-risk city for sea
level rise in the country, according to the study by the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Florida could see as many as 64,000 of its homes
at risk from higher sea levels by 2030, according to the study.
Miami Beach will see 2,600 homes at risk by 2030, according to the
study. The situation gets more dire by 2045, when a whopping 12,000
homes in the city could be negatively impacted by rising sea levels.
The city of Miami stands to see 858 homes at risk from global warming by
2030. West Palm Beach would lose the third-most homes in South Florida
to global warming by 2030, with a projected 227 homes at stake,
according to the study.
When it comes to the threat sea level rise presents to communities,
"there is no risk, it's a guaranteed total loss," said Philip Stoddard,
mayor of South Miami and biology professor at Florida International
Unity, who was a panelist in the study. "The only uncertainty is the
timeline."
While South Florida's relationship to climate change is not new, not
many studies have shown the potential impact on real estate. According
to the Union of Concerned Scientists report, the area stands to not only
lose valuable developed land — it will also lose a big portion of its
tax base.
Consider that the complete loss of 2,600 Miami Beach homes by 2030 could
wipe out $1.1 trillion in economic value, and result in the loss of
$16.9 million in annual property tax revenue. That's four times as much
property value at risk than in all of Miami proper — thanks in large
part to Miami Beach's concentration of ultra luxury housing — the study
says.
The study not only shows which communities stand to lose the most, but
also which ZIP codes are the most at-risk from global warming. Miami
Beach's 33139 is the most at-risk ZIP code, with 1,584 houses and $610
million of property value in danger of being wiped out due to rising sea
levels.
After Miami Beach, Palmetto Bay's 33157 has the most homes at risk.
Coconut Grove's ZIP 33133 has only 15 houses at risk, but has more than
$36 million in value at risk, the Union of Concerned Scientists reports.
The impact of rising sea levels is not relegated to home and property
value loss. It will likely mean a total change in flood insurance
programs, the mortgage industry, developers and virtually everyone else
in the real estate industry, according to the study.
"I believe that we will see credit downgrades sooner than later.
Property values will be impacted as chronic flooding increasingly
manifests. Reinsurers will be wary ahead of exposure in coastal areas,"
John Miller, a flood policy expert, said in the report.
https://miamiagentmagazine.com/2018/07/10/global-warming-will-impact-miami-real-estate-2030/
- -
*Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the Implications for US
Coastal Real Estate (2018)*
Hundreds of thousands of homes are at risk of chronic flooding due to
sea level rise over the coming decades. The implications for coastal
residents, communities, and the economy are profound.
To determine the number of coastal properties at risk from this level of
chronic flooding, the analysis uses property data from the online real
estate company Zillow combined with the findings of the 2017 analysis,
When Rising Seas Hit Home: Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal
Communities, which uses a peer-reviewed methodology to assess areas at
risk of chronic inundation.
Three sea level rise scenarios, developed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and localized for this analysis, are
included:
--A high scenario that assumes a continued rise in global carbon
emissions and an increasing loss of land ice; global average sea
level is projected to rise about 2 feet by 2045 and about 6.5 feet
by 2100.
--An intermediate scenario that assumes global carbon emissions rise
through the middle of the century then begin to decline, and ice
sheets melt at rates in line with historical observations; global
average sea level is projected to rise about 1 foot by 2035 and
about 4 feet by 2100.
--A low scenario that assumes nations successfully limit global
warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (the goal set by the Paris
Climate Agreement) and ice loss is limited; global average sea level
is projected to rise about 1.6 feet by 2100.
For more information on the sources and methodology used for this
analysis, please see the full report and technical backgrounder.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/sea-level-rise-chronic-floods-and-us-coastal-real-estate-implications#.XGEFblxKguV
*Full Report pdf download*
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/06/underwater-analysis-full-report.pdf
*This Day in Climate History - February 12, 1958 - from D.R. Tucker*
February 12, 1958: "The Unchained Goddess," part of the Bell Laboratory
Science Series produced by Frank Capra, is broadcast. "Goddess" directly
addresses human-caused climate change; the existence of the program
would never be acknowledged by climate-change deniers.
http://youtu.be/m-AXBbuDxRY
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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