[TheClimate.Vote] February 21, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/February 21, 2019/


["first order political imperative"]
*David Wallace-Wells: 'Why climate change is gravely worse than feared' *
ITV News
Published on Feb 19, 2019
According to American author David Wallace-Wells, there is a jarring gap 
between academic research and how climate change is represented in the 
media.
His new book, worryingly titled, 'The Uninhabitable Earth' is a warning 
that simply more can and must be done.
In a wide-ranging interview with ITV News Science Editor Tom Clarke, 
Wallace-Wells describes how he became a "quasi-activist" during his 
research; how an alarmist approach can be effective; the damning failure 
of the Paris Agreement and how China could play a key role in reducing 
global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK4pMWZZh2I
- - -
19 February 2019
*'All this extreme weather pummelling the planet is our own doing': Is 
climate change worse than we feared?*
Play Video
The short answer? Yes, it's gravely worse.
That's according to American author David Wallace-Wells who believes 
there is a jarring gap between academic research and how climate change 
is represented in the media.
His new book, worryingly titled, 'The Uninhabitable Earth' is a warning 
that simply more can and must be done.
In a wide-ranging interview with ITV News Science Editor Tom Clarke, 
Wallace-Wells describes how he became a "quasi-activist" during his 
research; how an alarmist approach can be effective; the damning failure 
of the Paris Agreement and how China could play a key role in reducing 
global warming.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-19/david-wallace-wells-the-uninhabitable-earth-climate-change-world-pollution-global-warming-environment-weather/


[lunacy by lunatic]
*White House Panel Will Study Whether Climate Change Is a National 
Security Threat. It Includes a Climate Denialist.*
WASHINGTON -- President Trump is preparing to establish a panel to 
examine whether climate change affects national security, despite 
existing reports from his own government showing that global warming is 
a growing threat.

According to a White House memo dated Feb. 14, Mr. Trump's staff members 
have drafted an executive order to create a 12-member committee, which 
will include a White House adviser, William Happer, whose views are 
sharply at odds with the established scientific consensus that carbon 
dioxide pollution is dangerous for the planet.

The memo casts doubt on multiple scientific and defense reports 
concluding that climate change poses a significant threat to national 
security, saying they "have not undergone a rigorous independent and 
adversarial peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of 
climate science, as well as implications for national security."

The effort to establish the panel appears to be the latest step by the 
Trump administration to question the science of climate change, as Mr. 
Trump rolls back Obama-era regulations on planet-warming pollution from 
vehicle tailpipes and power plants. It also appears to be the latest 
example of Mr. Trump's propensity to ignore the findings and 
recommendations of his own intelligence and defense officials.
At least to some extent, the matter may not entirely be in Mr. Trump's 
control. Congress added language to the annual defense policy bill it 
passed with bipartisan support in late 2017 stating that climate change 
"is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and is 
impacting stability in areas of the world both where the United States 
Armed Forces are operating today, and where strategic implications for 
future conflict exist."

The bill, which Mr. Trump signed into law, specifically required the 
Pentagon to produce a report on climate change's impact on military 
installations and encouraged department leaders to consider the effects 
of climate change when planning for current and future missions. The 
report was issued last month.

Critics of the effort to create the new panel, which was first reported 
by The Washington Post, pointed to the inclusion of Dr. Happer, a 
Princeton physicist who serves on the National Security Council as Mr. 
Trump's deputy assistant for emerging technologies. Dr. Happer has 
gained notoriety in the scientific community for his statements that 
carbon dioxide -- a greenhouse gas that scientists say is trapping heat 
and warming the planet -- is beneficial to humanity. The memo did not 
name other officials to be appointed to the panel....
more at - 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/climate/climate-national-security-threat.html
- - -
[DeSmogBlog hosts a trusted research database for briefings on denialists]
*William Happer*
*Background*
William Happer is the emeritus Eugene Higgens professor of physics and 
Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University. Happer 
is a director of the CO2 Coalition, a group formed in 2015 out of the 
former George C. Marshall Institute where Happer was also previously 
chairman of the board.

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming 
Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group 
formed shortly after the UK's decision to leave the EU and based on the 
premise that "The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade."

In September 2018, Happer was reportedly set to join the Trump 
administration's National Security Council as a senior director for 
emerging technologies, according to NCS officials. In 2019, documents 
obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed 
Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on 
climate issues.

According to Will Happer's profile at the Cato Institute where he is 
adjunct scholar, his specialty at Princeton University was modern 
optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, 
radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and 
nuclei. From 1991-1993, Happer was the Director of Energy Research at 
the U.S. Department of Energy.

*Fossil Fuel Funding*
William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the 
past. In a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, 
Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition.

In a 2015 undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer told Greenpeace 
reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the 
benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources 
could be similarly concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition.

In March 2018, Happer--among other , was asked by a judge to disclose 
any ties he had to fossil fuel companies in a case between cities and 
fossil fuel companies. Happer disclosed $1,000 he had received for a 
speech on climate change at the Heritage Foundation in 2017. The 
response to the request for information also revealed that Happer had 
received "around $10,000 to $15,000 though he does not recall the 
precise number" (emphasis added) from Peabody Coal, which was donated to 
the CO2 coalition on his behalf "earned in connection with testimony 
given in a Proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in 
September 2015."

*Stance on Climate Change*
2018
"I know the difference between real and phony science. My sodium guide 
stars work. Climate models do not," Happer wrote in the summer 2018 
edition of Range magazine.

March 2016
Happer wrote an article at Asbury Park Press in 2016 where he argued 
that man's role in climate change was minimal:

"Since the year 1800, the Earth has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius. 
Some fraction of the warming is due to more atmospheric CO2 from burning 
fossil fuels, but most of the warming is probably due to the same 
natural forces that have always controlled the Earth's changeable climate."

May 2010
In Happer's written statement on "Climate Science in the Political 
Arena" (PDF), which he delivered to the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, 
he declared:
"I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared 
the natural fluctuations in the earth's temperature, and that the 
warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind." ...

*Key Quotes*
January 2018
"The public in general doesn't realize that from the point of view of 
geological history, we are in a CO2 famine," Happer said in an interview 
with E&E News.

November 30, 2017
Below are some quotes from Happer's talk at the "At the Crossroads IV: 
Energy & Climate Policy Summit" co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and 
Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).

"It's not as though if you double CO2 you make a big difference. You 
make a barely detectable difference […]"

"The 97% consensus is phony."

March 2017
Jezebel reported that Happer had responded to a reader of the magazine, 
arguing that the "demonization of CO2" "really differs little from the 
Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies 
or ISIL slaughter of infidels."

In his emails to a Jezebel reader, Happer also made a number of claims 
regarding CO2, temperatures, and sea level rise, to which climate 
scientist Gavin Schmidt responded, noting that "sea level was 
'typically' 100's of feet higher during the Phanerozoic," and CO2 levels 
are "nowhere near 'famine levels' for many plants."

December 8, 2016
"We're doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a 
dangerous pollutant. It's not a pollutant at all."

"We should be telling the scientific truth that more CO2 is actually a 
benefit to the earth. [… ]There are very good reasons to think that."

"Let me point out that if you have a well-designed coal plant, what 
comes out of the stack of the plant is almost the same thing that comes 
out of a person's breath."

"The main thing is that people don't realize we're in a CO2 famine right 
now. […] We're way down. We're down by a factor of 4 or 5 over the 
levels that plants would really like."

"We know that the scary things about CO2 you keep hearing about -- sea 
level rise, we're all going to boil--that's all based on models that 
don't work. They're not even close to working. […] So why are we basing 
these ruinous regulations on models that don't work?"

May 2016
"Burning all the economically available fossil fuel is unlikely to 
increase the current atmospheric CO2 levels by even a factor of 2. This 
is much less than the levels that the Earth has already tested. And a 
doubled level of CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for 
plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years."

March 2016
Happer was interviewed by Asbury Park Press regarding his views on 
climate change. Some excerpts below:
"I would like history to remember me as an honest scientist. Along with 
many like me, I am trying to explain to my fellow Americans the serious 
damage that will be done to us, and indeed to the whole world, by 
cockamamie policies to 'save the planet' from CO2."

"We have no more ability to prevent climate change than King Canute had 
to stop the tide from rising. All the observational evidence is that CO2 
has a relatively small effect on temperature. Changes in the Earth's 
temperature will continue to be dominated by natural causes, whether we 
increase CO2 concentrations, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, or 
whether we permit a nightmarish police state to stop emissions CO2,and 
punish 'deniers' as some in the alarmist camp demand."

"I can't think of any benefits for reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a 
pollutant. […] Almost all plants grow better and are more drought 
resistant with two to four times more CO2 than now."

"There is no "overwhelming consensus." In spite of decades of 
propaganda, and even threats to their jobs, about half of meteorologists 
remain unconcerned about global warming."...
- - -
February 20, 2019
Documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed Will Happer would 
lead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which would 
be established by executive order.

"The initiative represents the Trump administration's most recent 
attempt to question the findings of federal scientists and experts on 
climate change and comes less than three weeks after Director of 
National Intelligence Daniel Coats delivered a worldwide threat 
assessment that identified it as a significant security risk," The 
Washington Post reported.

The committee would be created "to advise the President on scientific 
understanding of today's climate, how the climate might change in the 
future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate 
could affect the security of the United States," according to the NSC 
discussion paper.

The paper also claims that prior government-issued reports finding 
climate change to be a serious threat "have not undergone a rigorous 
independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the 
certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as 
implications for national security."

In an interview, Francesco Femia, chief executive officer of the Council 
on Strategic Risks and co-founder of the Center for Climate and 
Security, described the committee as a political tool:
"This is the equivalent of setting up a committee on nuclear weapons 
proliferation and having someone lead it who doesn't think nuclear 
weapons exist," he said. "It's honestly a blunt force political tool 
designed to shut the national security community up on climate change."

Since the article in The Washington Post, a group of military and 
national security leaders voiced their united opposition to the "Climate 
Security Committee." Some statements reproduced below (view more at The 
Center for Climate and Security):
"This is not a real peer review committee - it's a political review 
committee. It's designed to try to scare our intelligence, defense and 
science professionals into doing and saying nothing about this pressing 
threat. I don't think it will succeed. In fact, I think it would be an 
embarrassment, like other panels before it" - Rear Admiral David Titley, 
US Navy (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for 
Climate and Security and former Oceanographer of the Navy.

"It's important to note the person behind this attempt to chill our 
defense agencies from understanding and managing climate risk is Dr. 
Will Happer.  Dr. Happer testified before Congress in December 2015 that 
the world has too little Carbon Dioxide and is too cold - an extreme, 
fringe view even for the tiny number of scientists who call themselves 
climate skeptics.  This is a clumsy attempt to force the entire federal 
government to conform to a bizarre view thoroughly rejected by the vast 
majority of scientists." - Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret), 
Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and 
Security and former Oceanographer of the Navy.

"It's hard to stop good people from doing good work - especially those 
in the defense, intelligence and science agencies of our government. One 
way to try to stop them is through bullying. This proposed 'adversarial' 
committee is a bully committee. And whether it succeeds or not, it will 
hurt our national security. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail" - 
Sherri Goodman, Senior Strategist with the Center for Climate and 
Security and former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental 
Security).

"The proposed committee appears to be a politically-motivated attempt to 
discourage our intelligence, defense and science agencies from doing 
their jobs. If realized, this committee could force a blind spot onto 
those whose job it is to defend this country, and that could have 
dangerous national security repercussions. I hope the White House 
reconsiders, and dumps this bad idea." -- Captain Steve Brock, USN 
(Ret), Senior Advisor, the Council on Strategic Risks and the Center for 
Climate and Security.

"This effort meets the definition of insanity--doing the same thing over 
and over and expecting a different result. No matter who is the 
President, our national security agencies have uniformly recognized the 
security threat from climate change. That question has been answered. 
Now is the time for action to address the risks." - Alice Hill, Senior 
Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and 
former Senior Director for Resilience Policy on the National Security 
Council.

"Even if this committee is successful for a year or two suppressing the 
acknowledgment of a changing climate as a security risk, the risks will 
continue to accelerate.  The climate does not care what the White House 
thinks or what Executive Orders are signed - it only responds to the 
laws of physics.  The temperatures will continue to warm, the ice will 
continue to melt and the seas will continue to rise.  And our county 
will be less secure if we prevent our very own federal agencies from 
responding to this threat." - Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret), 
Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and 
Security and former Oceanographer of the Navy...
more at - https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
Other Resources:
"William Happer," SourceWatch Profile 
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Happer
"William Happer," Wikipedia entry 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer


[Paul Beckwith]
*LECTURE: How Abrupt Climate Change is Redrawing the Map*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Feb 20, 2019
In my last video I skated on Ottawa's frozen Rideau Canal and RANTed 
about abrupt climate change redrawing planetary maps. Now, in the next 
few video LECTUREs, I show you new peer reviewed scientific papers 
(free) supporting what I RANTed about. Tropics are growing by 30 miles 
(0.5 degrees latitude) per decade; Hadley Cell expansion, but a "tropic 
squeeze" shrinking is occurring in equatorial regions with heavy rains 
(Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, or ITCZ). Since 1920, Sahara Desert 
has grown by 10%, advancing as much as 500 miles northward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knEgcXKBct8



[Podcast audio 51 mins]
To the Point
*Climate Change, the Green New Deal and 'socialism'*
Hosted by Warren Olney - Feb. 14, 2019 National
U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed 
Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed "Green New Deal" 
to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. 
Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019.

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed 
Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed "Green New Deal" 
to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. 
Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. Photo credit: Jonathan 
Ernst/Reuters

Universal health care, a national minimum wage and increased business 
taxes: all part of the Green New Deal. That has House Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi and some presidential candidates treading carefully. Will 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposal be the Democrats' version of "Build 
the Wall"--creating an opportunity for Republican backlash?
https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/to-the-point/climate-change-the-green-new-deal-and-socialism




[States take action]
*Momentum grows for New York's landmark climate-equity bill*
By Greta Moran on Feb 16, 2019
Walter Cooper, a labor union leader, stood on the steps of New York City 
Hall to fight for new kind of contract.

"We need a contract for a future of our state and for our communities," 
Cooper said in support of the Climate and Community Protection Act, a 
bill making its way through the state legislature.

Cooper's labor union is part of New York Renews, a broad coalition of 
160 labor, climate, and community groups that has been pushing for 
climate justice since 2015. The Climate and Community Protection Act 
would move New York to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The bill's 
labor and justice measures have garnered it wide grassroots support. And 
increasingly, the attention of lawmakers.

On Thursday, as part of New York Senate's first-ever hearing on climate 
change, testimonies were heard on behalf of the bill. The legislation 
would make its goals across energy, transportation, and buildings 
legally enforceable -- a contract with the environment.

The hearing, chaired by Senator Todd Kaminsky, signaled the Democrats' 
fresh resolve to address climate change.

It's not the first time the CCPA has come close to becoming law: Last 
April, it passed in the Assembly for the third time. But the Senate's 
leaders didn't allow it to come to the floor for a vote. Now that 
Democrats control the Senate, the passage of the bill -- or a similarly 
ambitious climate bill -- is looking more likely.

"The CCPA is the main vehicle through which we will address climate 
change and these hearings will go a long way toward ensuring that all 
stakeholders will have input in the legislative process," Senate 
Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said in a statement.

Along with mandated energy goals, the CCPA would require that state 
agencies consider not only climate but also equity in their decisions. 
It would require fair labor standards for jobs created in renewable 
energy and would invest 40 percent of the state's energy funds in 
communities likely to be hardest hit by climate change.

In her testimony, Annel Hernandez of the New York City Environmental 
Justice Alliance highlighted how the CCPA could help ameliorate the 
already unequal threat of climate change. "The confluence of extreme 
heat, lack of access to energy efficient buildings, and an aging grid 
with an increased likelihood of blackout is a quiet threat facing 
low-income people, people of color, and the elderly," Hernandez said.

The bill was also held up as something that would mitigate a public 
health crisis. "As nurses on the front line of patient care, we see 
firsthand every day the destruction that climate change and climate 
justice issues have on the health of our patients," Nella Pineda-Marcon, 
a nurse and climate activist, said in her testimony. She noted the 
chronic asthma she has witnessed in New York's poorest communities.

Heidi Garrett-Peltier, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, 
testified in support of the bill, which she estimated would lead to 
200,000 new jobs statewide over a decade thanks to clean energy growth. 
She estimates that it would take an investment of $8.7 billion per year 
to hit the renewable targets.

When asked by Senator Kaminsky if the bill is "practical and doable," 
Garrett-Peltier said it is "absolutely a manageable level of 
investment." Ultimately, she said, it comes down to "political will."
https://grist.org/article/momentum-grows-for-new-yorks-landmark-climate-equity-bill/


[from resilience]
*Insights From The Wilderness - Human Civilization Will Not Survive 
Climate Intensification*
By Dick Rauscher, originally published by Resilience.org
January 4, 2019
I recognize that the title of this StonyHill Nugget is alarming and that 
I will be accused of holding extremist views on global warming and 
climate intensification. But I am concerned that the media and our 
government are not telling us the truth. Stated simply, the 1% that 
control the media, and the reigns of political power in Washington and 
other nations around the globe, have absolutely no desire or motivation 
to talk about the real threats embedded in global warming.

They know that the global economy is extremely fragile…..and talking 
about the deeper truths embedded in global warming and climate 
intensification would quickly kill the golden goose that is laying eggs 
of pure petroleum gold for them.

The realities of global warming embedded in the Governmental Global 
Warming Crisis Report released by governmental scientists on the Friday 
following Thanksgiving were clear. Global warming is not only going to 
change life as we know it by the end of the century, but also the 
impacts of global warming are already changing life as we know it ….and 
the rate of change is going to continue to accelerate.

Unfortunately, the report which was mandated by Congress tended to gloss 
over the climate impacts that are coming in the near future or already 
happening. It focused primarily on climate impacts that will not be 
experienced by humanity for fifty to eighty years in the future!

*Here Is What Concerns Me…And Should Concern You*

Global warming has been metaphorically described as a cliff we are about 
to walk off. Unfortunately, it's more like a minefield. The further we 
walk out onto that minefield, the more we are likely to set off 
explosions and tipping points that can't be reversed.

The report gave accurate information on the coming climate crises, but 
it tiptoed very carefully around the sobering reality that virtually 
everything produced and consumed in our modern global economy is 
manufactured using energy provided by petroleum and natural gas. They 
understand that all of the short-term solutions that need to be 
implemented now, such as powering down from petroleum 95% in the next 
few decades, would immediately trigger a massive collapse in the world's 
global economy; a collapse that would very quickly bring human 
civilization as we know it to an end.

In other words, the writers of the government climate report knew a 
rapid powering down from petroleum and carbon energy cannot happen in 
time to effectively reverse the impacts of global warming. They also 
recognized the simple truth that the petroleum industry and the 1% who 
are profiting from the extraction and burning of carbon-based petroleum 
and gas are not about to let that happen. The 1% are not the least bit 
interested in killing the golden goose that is laying the solid 
petroleum gold eggs that are making them incredibly wealthy.

Humans are rarely able to internalize the impacts of a crisis that will 
happen in the distant future. But the 1%, and the CEO's of the petroleum 
industry, know full-well the day humanity does fully accept and embrace 
the severity of global warming, their golden goose will die. So they 
will continue to aggressively support those who deny that global warming 
is human-caused…….or that it is an immediate threat.

And this brings me to my concern and what I believe should concern you.

When humans are frightened and feel powerless, they can quickly become 
angry. And they will aggressively seek to project that anger onto those 
they believe are responsible for creating their fear.

As a mental health therapist, I'm concerned that when humanity awakens 
to the reality that global warming and global climate intensification 
are a serious survival threat to their future…..their fear and anger 
towards those who created this life-threatening situation could very 
quickly turn violent and extreme. This social anger and backlash could 
not only kill the golden petroleum goose; it could collapse the fragile 
financial structures of human civilization itself.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there.

When a) the actual financial and social impacts of global warming and 
global climate intensification are fully recognized by humanity and then 
combined with b) the growing recognition that powering down from the use 
of petroleum (the only realistic way to reverse global warming in time 
to save the planet) is not possible because it too would create an 
immediate, massive, and devastating collapse of the global economy and 
the economic foundations of human civilization.

As I pointed out above, virtually everything we produce and consume in 
our modern global economy is a) manufactured and created by carbon-based 
petroleum and natural gas energy, b) shipped around the world using that 
same carbon-based energy, and c) this includes most of the food we grow, 
eat, and ship around the world.

Stated simply, the inevitable emotional backlash of fear and anger that 
I'm concerned about when humanity finally digests these frightening 
realities…….will not bode well for the future of human civilization as 
we know it.

But the reality of global warming that most concerns me is not just the 
coming destructive impact of global climate change and storm 
intensification. Those will certainly threaten the future of our planet, 
but they are not the most immediate problem.

I believe the actual impacts of climate change and storm intensification 
will pale in significance compared to the violence and potential for 
social collapse of human civilization that will be created by the fear, 
powerlessness, and anger of a humanity that knows there is no way to 
avoid the suffering they will experience……a suffering that was created 
by greed. A greed that intentionally ignored and suppressed the long 
recognized reality of global warming, and the deeper reality that 
unlimited economic expansion is not physically or economically possible 
using the limited ecological and physical resources available on a 
limited planet.

Stated simply, my concern as a mental health therapist is the high 
probability that the emotional backlash created by social fear and anger 
will create a level of social violence that will threaten the economic 
and social structures of human civilization far sooner than the actual 
destructive impacts of global warming and climate intensification.

*So What Can We Do? How Can We Embrace Hope?*

We know there is currently no social or political will to prepare for 
these rapidly approaching and inevitable realities.
We also know that without preparation there will be no resilience for 
survival.
We know there is no way human civilization can power down from carbon 
energy fast enough to reverse global warming and avoid the social and 
economic collapse that a rapid powering down from petroleum would create.
Stated simply, the future is not what it used to be! Whether we a) do 
nothing and let global warming continue, or b) come off petroleum energy 
and reverse global warming in the next few decades, there is no way we 
can avoid a global collapse of the current global economic economy and 
human civilization as we know it.
We know life as we know it will end. But that does not mean the end of 
the world.
It simply means life as we know it is going to change. How it changes 
will be up to us! If we have the imagination needed to embrace the 
possibilities that change always offers, we could begin working together 
right now to create that new possible future.
It is critically important to remind ourselves that this is not the end 
of the world. It is only the end of life as we have come to know it. We 
created this life, this world, and we can begin creating a new possible 
future…..a new way of life. But we are very rapidly running out of time 
to create a future we would actually want to live in. We have to act now.

*The Path Forward: The Possible Futures We Can Not Allow To Be Re-created*

Here are some realities to think about as we prepare to create a new 
possible future; a future that will have to include the reality of 
further global warming, climate intensification and the looming threat 
of social collapse; the dark future that will be our reality for 
generations.

The possible future we create together cannot be the future that used to 
be. We cannot simply re-create the world we are living in today. 
Self-focused greed, denial of reality, avoidance of reality, and 
ignorant resistance to the inevitability of change in a changing 
universe…….are not options we can embrace as we work together to create 
our new possible future.

If we re-create the dangerous realities listed below in our new possible 
future human civilization……they would only lead to the same rapid 
economic and social collapse  we are about to witness in our present world.

*Possible Futures To Avoid*
1) A possible future that again allows our global debt to reach roughly 
$247 trillion. (To internalize this number consider that a million 
seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 
31,000 years. And 247 trillion seconds is roughly 7,657,000 years).

Debt is prosperity today, but poverty tomorrow when that debt has to be 
paid back…plus interest. We have allowed humanity to accrue a level of 
debt that no city, state, or nation has enough extra money left over 
after operating expenses are covered to pay back that kind of debt. 
Person A's debt is always person B's wealth, so when this massive debt 
begins to default, and it will, it would create a massive social and 
economic collapse.

Debt cannot be part of the economic system in our possible new future.

2) A possible future in which 80% of all pensions and social programs 
are again underfunded. Consider the emotional impact and anger that will 
happen when our current retirees fail to get the monthly checks they 
were promised in retirement. Or when social security underfunding enters 
the picture. Or when those retirees have to pay out of pocket for 
medical expenses when Medicare and Medicaid are cut back. Or when we add 
the hopelessness and anger of millions of retires that currently have 
little to no retirement savings, major credit card debt, and home equity 
loans well beyond their ability to afford due to decades in which the 
extreme wealth inequality favored the 1%.

Poverty, hunger, and wealth inequality cannot be part of our possible 
new future.

3) A possible future in which a denial of the social costs of global 
warming, floods, forest fires, dislocation, droughts, hunger, and storm 
refugees who have lost everything again begins to bankrupt insurance 
companies, states, and federal governments. When the global financial 
systems are no longer able to cover the overwhelming costs of food, 
medicines, and housing that will be urgently needed by the suffering 
victims of global warming, their suffering will quickly turn into an 
anger and violence that will threaten the very social structures and 
fabric of human civilization.

Compassion, empathy, and quality of life for all persons must be part of 
our possible new future.

4) A possible future in which there is again no social or political will 
to embrace the irreversible and uncontrollable global warming 
consequences which are already baked into our environment and global 
economy for generations to come. The same lack of social and political 
will that was needed to urgently embrace the actions that could have 
helped us avoid the no-win situation the world is in today. Ignoring 
global warming or powering down from carbon energy to reverse global 
warming…… would both quickly lead again to the collapse of our global 
economy and the foundations of human civilization.

Ignoring reality is not an option in our possible new future.

5) A possible  future in which the global wealth inequality is again 
allowed to get massively out of control. A future in which the globe's 
richest 1% currently owned half the world's wealth. Consider the reality 
that no empire in human history has ever survived at this level of 
wealth inequality.

Our possible new future will require a just and equitable distribution 
of wealth and an economic system that includes all members equally.

6) A possible future in which everyone is again encouraged to become 
rigidly hyper-partisan, angry at anyone considered to be "other", 
racist, ideologically inflexible, and hyper-nationally tribal. A human 
culture that again embraces rigid, black-and-white, zero-sum thinking.

Our possible new future will require a significant awakening and 
evolution of our collective human consciousness.

I could add more examples to this list, but I would like to close on a 
more positive note.

Final Thoughts

If we could find the courage, wisdom, and will to aggressively and 
decisively take action now,  it might not mean the end of human 
civilization. It might only mean the end of human civilization as we 
know it.

*The courage, wisdom, and will to take aggressive and decisive action 
now would require:*

a willingness to embrace voluntary simplicity,
a willingness to recognize that unlimited economic expansion on a 
limited planet is one of humanities most dangerous myths,
re-learning the self-reliant survival skills of our grandparents and 
previous generations,
learning to work together cooperatively,
the courage to become more self-aware, more evolved, to intentionally 
awaken our collective human consciousness by intentionally taming our 
collective childhood primitive ego……including our childhood egos need to 
be "right", its illusion of separateness from the rest of reality, and 
it's what-in-it-for-me self-focused greed.
learning to live in right relationship with nature and reality,
a radical and voluntary reduction in the "things" we currently extract 
and consume,
joining or creating self-reliant small local communities often referred 
to as sustainable eco-communities,
growing, preserving, and stockpiling our own food,
hand pumped wells for local water, and relearning the skills required to 
survive without electricity, gasoline, imported food and energy, how to 
stay warm in winter, weaving, knitting, hunting, fire starting without 
matches (which could eventually run out)……and most importantly,
starting this preparation and learning process now! The time to create a 
new viable possible future is far more time-limited than we ever imagined!
Conclusion

The lives of you, your family, and the billions of other individuals, 
families, and children all over the world…….will live in whatever 
possible new future we create together. Survival in this possible new 
future will require the skills of a self-reliant, sustainability-focused 
local community; a local community with the ability to work 
cooperatively together.

Going it alone will not be an option in this possible new future……if 
your goal is survival.

I don't claim to be omniscient and unerringly "right", but I do follow 
the facts and the scientific data of people who are a lot smarter than 
me. What if the vast majority of the world's scientists and economists 
are right? How long do we want to continue ignoring them? Perhaps a 
better way to think about that question is how long can we continue to 
ignore them……and still survive as a species?

My guess is…..not very long.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-01-04/insights-from-the-wilderness-human-civilization-will-not-survive-climate-intensification/



[Commanding attention - powerful change felt in Jet Stream flying - 
reported by the Washington Post ]
*Flight reaches 801 mph as a furious jet stream packs record-breaking 
speeds*
The jet stream, the high-altitude air current along which storms travel, is
furious. The river of air was clocked at more than 230 mph over Long 
Island on
Monday. That measure comes from the 250 millibar pressure level, meaning it
was at a height above 75 percent of the atmosphere's mass. It sets the 
record
for the fastest 250 millibar wind speed ever recorded over New York and,
probably, the country.

The 250 millibar level generally tends toward 30,000 feet to 35,000 feet.
That's about the same height at which commercial planes fly. Unsurprisingly,
the jet stream can have big implications on how quickly aircraft reach their
destination.

With a speed max currently over central Pennsylvania, airplanes flying 
through
the jet will either be sped up or slowed down big time, depending on their
direction of travel. It's like the moving walkway at the airport. You have
your own forward speed, but if you continue this velocity in an environment
that is itself moving, it can propel you at an impressive rate.

A Virgin Atlantic flight from Los Angeles to London peaked at a whopping 801
mph Monday evening 35,000 feet over Pennsylvania. "[N]ever ever seen 
this kind
of tailwind in my life as a commercial pilot," tweeted Peter James, a jet
captain.

It appears that's a record for the Boeing 787-9 twin jet, which in the past
has flown at speeds up to 776 mph. The ordinary cruising speed of a 
Dreamliner
is 561 mph, with a maximum propulsion of 587 mph. Any speed gained on top of
that is thanks to Mother Nature's helpful boost.

Although the plane didn't remain in the "jet streak" -- the zone of maximum
wind embedded within the jet stream -- for long, it still arrived 48 minutes
early. And you might notice something suspect about the 801 mph reading 
-- it's
above the speed of sound (767 mph). Commercial aircraft ordinarily can't 
break
the sound barrier, because they're not designed to handle the sudden 
increase
in drag and other aerodynamic effects associated with those speeds. 
Despite a
ground speed that high, the plane didn't come close to reaching that 
threshold
because it was embedded in the swiftly moving air.

An LAX-JFK Delta flight overnight hit 678 mph at 39,000 feet over the Ohio
Valley, while a 737 from Chicago to New York passed 700 mph at 8:43 Eastern
this morning. Chicago to New York/Boston routes will be shortened to 1 hour,
24 minutes tomorrow instead of the usual nearly two-hour flight time.

Likewise, flight times from Dallas to Boston dipped below three hours, 
with an
Embraer ERJ-190 twin jet achieving 739 mph in the jet streak.

Odds are that if you're flying west, you won't find the jet stream helpful.
Departing flights out of New England and the New York area will probably 
incur
20 or 30 extra minutes of travel time, either slowed by the jet streak or
forced to divert around it. But if you're traveling east , you might find
yourself on the ground a bit sooner than normal.

For the jet stream to get cranking this much, there must be a big storm
brewing somewhere, right? Surprisingly, it's the opposite (the closest
developing storminess is in the western Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday). Storms
cause the jet stream to bend, cresting and dipping into waves that ride 
across
the Lower 48. Just like kinking a garden hose, it causes the flow speed to
decline. In the absence of large-scale weather systems, a zonal west-to-east
jet is free to gather considerable speed, much like how we reach our fastest
highway speeds on straightaways.

The jet stream can usually get to speeds this high only in the winter 
because
temperature differences between the north and south are maximized.
Temperatures on Tuesday hovered around minus-10 to minus-20 in eastern 
Canada
while soaring well into the 80s over Florida. Such large differences in
temperature (and pressure) power the wind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/02/19/flight-reaches-mph-furious-jet-stream-packs-record-breaking-speeds/


*This Day in Climate History - February 21, - from D.R. Tucker*
February 21, 2012: Conservative blogger Steven L. Taylor calls out GOP 
presidential candidate Rick Santorum for his repeated denials of climate 
change:

    "[C]onservatives ultimately see any attempt at environment
    regulation as really not about the environment anyway, but about an
    excuse for increased government control.  Not only does this pay
    into general concerns about 'big government' but this strand of the
    argument asserts that all this researchy/sciencey talk is just a
    ruse:  those guys aren't really scientists interested in
    understanding the environment.  No!  They are Marxists in lab coats
    looking to fool you all into socialism!

    "Now, understand:  I do not consider myself an expert on climate
    change.  I do not even have especially strong views on the subject,
    although I do accept the rather overwhelming scientific consensus
    that we have a climate change problem.  What this means in terms of
    policy is another issue. However, I find it problematic when
    politicians hand-wave over serious issues [due to] some inherent
    belief that they understand topics that would otherwise require a
    lifetime of study to understand...Further, while I understand
    concerns over taxes and regulations, that doesn't make issues like
    pollution go away.

    "In short:  if one is going to make arguments on this topic (and
    seek to influence policy in this arena) I would like to see more
    than appeals to the Biblical creation story and fear mongering about
    government control."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/santorum-and-climate-change-theology/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.