[TheClimate.Vote] January 2, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/January 2, 2019/

[Listen up, parents]
*Kids, it's time to give your parents 'the talk.' Not that one, the one 
on climate change.*
Michael A. Smyer, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Dec. 20, 2018
Confronting your family and leaving them upset is not the goal. Keep it 
positive, and you might be surprised by what happens next.

My first-year Bucknell University students were nervous about their 
assignment: Interview someone in your family about climate change. Only 
one rule: It had to be someone 50 or older. It had to be 
intergenerational. If I could, I'd give everyone the same homework 
assignment this holiday season.

Yes, we need national and international action to solve the climate 
dilemmas we face. That's what the 24th Conference of the Parties to the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), which 
wrapped up Sunday, has been all about. But each of us also needs to talk 
about the issues with our family and friends, because those 
conversations are what will lead to concrete changes in our daily lives, 
specific next steps for making our lives more sustainable and eventually 
political action to ensure a more sustainable country.

The day after Thanksgiving, when the Trump administration released the 
Fourth National Climate Assessment, many of my students were talking to 
their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends or neighbors.

The class was ready for the conversation. They had reviewed the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released in October, 
highlighting the need for "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes 
in all aspects of society." They knew the near universal consensus among 
climate scientists that climate change is extremely likely to be 
human-caused. They had reviewed public opinion data from the Yale 
Program on Climate Change Communication for their own state, county, and 
congressional district, so they knew what their neighbors thought about 
climate change and the policies they endorsed in response.

The conversation Americans aren't having
But they also knew that most of us avoid talking about climate change: 
Less than a third of Americans (31 percent) talk about global warming at 
least occasionally with family members or friends, according to a Yale 
Program on Climate Change Communication survey. That's why I wanted them 
to have "the conversation." Because talking with others is the first 
step from anxiety to action. It lets others know how concerned we are, 
lets us hear their concerns and  what they support, and starts us 
planning our next steps toward sustainability.

Maybe parents and grandparents aren't talking to young adults because 
they're worried about adding anxiety. The irony is that silence only 
makes it worse — the generations don't realize that they share a deep 
concern, that they are actually doing something about it, and that 
together they can do more and demand more from our leaders.

So how did it go? Really well! Not one student got turned down. Lesson 
No. 1: If you ask a family member or friend to spend a few minutes 
talking with you, chances are they will say yes, especially if it's an 
invitation across generations.

The students' biggest take-away, however, was surprise: Their 
interviewees were already taking actions like planting trees, changing 
their air filters, eating less meat, reducing their driving or changing 
to solar power. They were surprised because, as the students put it, 
their families never spoke about it. And that's the point. Many of us 
are absorbing the enormity of climate change in isolation, not realizing 
that others are also concerned and taking action.

Everyday actions add up
Here are three steps to starting your own climate conversation this 
holiday season:

    *First, keep it social*. Focus on people and places that you and
    your family care about. With my students, I began by asking them to
    imagine a place that has special meaning for them and to envision
    the impact of extreme weather or climate change on that place.

    *Second, keep it short in terms of time frame, three or four
    generations at the most*. Our class interview assignment focused on
    the next 40-50 years at the places they cared about. One student
    told me that this short-term view had a strong impact on her
    grandfather. He considered life for his child and grandchildren in
    the next 50 years and was upset about what it may look like.

    *Third, keep it positive*. Leaving parents and grandparents upset is
    not your goal. Instead, help them see that they don't need to solve
    climate change in one day or one step. They just need to take a next
    step. The Alliance for Climate Education, for example, urges
    students and teachers to do one thing. As they put it: "Everyday
    actions add up."

My students used climate action cards and asked their friends and 
relatives to identify one next step, to move one card from "could do" to 
"will do". Some chose political action (like joining a climate 
organization or joining a climate demonstration). Others chose simple 
acts such as washing clothes in cold water and using public 
transportation. One of my students put it well: It's not important what 
you're doing now, but what you do to move ahead.

Not sure what your next step should be or what to recommend? 
Environmental groups have lists of things you can do online and in your 
everyday life.

Are you a parent or grandparent who wants to start a conversation with 
kids, but not sure where to start? You're in luck! The Climate Reality 
Project has developed "Beginning the Climate Conversation," a family 
guide with advice and activities for meeting kids where they are.

The holidays are a perfect time to have a sit down. Just ask your 
relatives and friends to think and talk about a place they care about. 
And ask them what's next. You may be surprised by what happens.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/12/20/climate-change-talk-report-students-column/2350167002/


[Excellent set of videos from Peter Hadfield - a British freelance 
journalist and author, trained as a geologist, who runs the YouTube 
channel Potholer54]
*A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming part 1*
potholer54 - Published on Sep 2, 2018 - (21 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0
[Part 2]
*A conservative solution to climate change - part 2*
potholer54 - Published on Jan 1, 2019
(Sources that are clearly displayed in the video description are not 
listed.)
https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs


[a great document to share with kids]
*BEGINNING THE **CLIMATE CONVERSATION*
In this guide, we discuss when to start the climate conversation and how to
approach the topic with children. It is not designed as a substitute for 
formal
science instruction. Our goal is to help you navigate a tricky topic so 
your children
can grow into informed young people excited to learn more about how they can
make the world a better place...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/default/files/kidsandclimatechangee-book.pdf


CLIMATE REALITY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES:
*CLIMATE CRISIS 101: HOW YOU CAN TAKE ACTION: *
In Climate Crisis 101, we outline the basics of climate change in plain 
language, and provide tips on
how to take action. This resource answers key questions like: What do we 
mean by
"climate change"? What are the causes of climate change? And how do we know
climate change is happening?
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/Climate%20101_FINAL.pdf

*RIGHT UNDER YOUR FEET: SOIL HEALTH AND THE CLIMATE CRISIS*:
We're already beginning to see what a warmer future has in store for us 
- and
it's not a pleasant sight. Learn more about climate change's impact on soil
health, what's at stake, and what you can do to support a world where we can
provide our booming population with fresh, healthy food grown in a 
sustainable
soil ecosystem.
http://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/Soil%20Health%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

*CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WATER CYCLE: FOUR BIG QUESTIONS ANSWERED:*
The climate crisis is impacting weather patterns and the water
cycle in dangerous ways. Some of these impacts can be hard to 
understand. Why
does climate change increase our risk of both heavy rains and extreme 
droughts?
Aren't the two contradictory? Get the answers to these questions and 
much more.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/WaterCycle.pdf

*EXTREME WEATHER AND THE CLIMATE CRISIS: WHAT YOU NEED **TO KNOW:*
Is climate change really making weather more extreme? The simple
answer is yes. In this e-book, we explain in plain language how burning
fossil fuels is driving climate change and making our weather more intense
and dangerous.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/default/files/ExtremeWeatherandtheClimateCrisisEBook.pdf


[OTA from 1993 to 1995]
*In 1993 my agency warned of climate change. In 1995 it was abolished*
William Westermeyer - Thu 27 Dec 2018
The US Office of Technology Assessment should be revived - in 2019 the 
world will need its expertise more than ever

Many agree that one of the most pressing problems the world faces today 
is climate change. The question of what to do about it, however, has 
become highly politicised. Scepticism about climate change is typically 
a conservative position and trust in the conclusions of the scientific 
community a more progressive one. While this politicisation is perhaps 
most evident in the United States, it is well known in many other countries.

But this wasn't always the case. Between 1972 and 1995, a US agency 
named the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) existed to provide the 
practical means to help overcome such politicisation. During its 23-year 
existence, the OTA was in a unique position to assist members of 
Congress in understanding complex issues in science and technology.

Risks of 'domino effect' of tipping points greater than thought, study says
The OTA was a non-partisan agency governed by a technology assessment 
board which consisted of of equal numbers of senators and 
representatives and equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Its 
assessments strove for objectivity and comprehensiveness, and were 
considered state-of-the-art documents by many. The OTA provided 
Congress, at its request, with the information and options it needed for 
the issues with which it was grappling, but it was careful never to tell 
Congress what it should do. The methodology that OTA used was widely 
admired and imitated in the parliamentary units that many European 
countries established following OTA's lead.

In the early 1990s there was still Congressional interest in taking 
action on climate change, which most of the scientific community already 
understood would become a major problem if not addressed. Thus, in 
October 1993, the OTA published a two-volume, 700-page report, Preparing 
for an Uncertain Climate, at the request of three Congressional 
committees. I was a principal author. The report identified more than 
100 options to help coastal areas, water resource systems, agriculture, 
wetlands, forests, and federally protected natural areas adapt to 
climate change. Not only that, but the OTA had also proposed - in its 
comprehensive 1991 assessment, Changing by Degrees - steps to reduce 
emissions of greenhouse gases that would help the US avoid climate change.

Imagine where we would be now if Congress had begun to address climate 
change at the time of these reports (and the early reports of other 
organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Instead, the OTA was abolished in 1995, shortly after Republicans retook 
control of Congress and Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House of 
Representatives. At the time, the OTA was one of the most respected 
agencies in Washington.

Many reasons have been suggested for the move, but it mostly came down 
to a change in attitude towards the value of science and analysis in 
Congress. The OTA's abolition was the proverbial canary in the coalmine 
with respect to the current anti-science attitude among many 
conservatives in and out of Congress. Since the 1990s, the pace of 
technological change has continued to accelerate, but few in Congress 
have the scientific or technological background to understand the new 
developments.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/27/1993-agency-climate-change-abolished-office-technology-assessment


[Silencing Science Tracker]
*Access to BLM Conservation Website Blocked During Government Shutdown*
Citing the government shutdown, the DOI's Bureau of Land Management 
blocked access to a website, containing links to documents discussing 
proposed changes to the conservation rules for greater sage grouse 
habitat. The block, which appears to violate DOI guidance, was 
implemented despite the fact that DOI is currently accepting comments on 
the proposed rule changes.
http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/access-to-blm-conservation-website-blocked-during-government-shutdown/


[classic comparison]*
**What the Believers Are Denying*
The denial of climate change and the denial of racism rest on the same 
foundation: an attack on observable reality.
Ibram X. Kendi, Director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at 
American University
- - -
Do not get me wrong. We should not follow all scientific pronouncements 
blindly. I am not saying every scientist and scientific consensus is 
indisputable. For decades before the publication of Charles Darwin's On 
the Origin of Species in 1859, the scientific consensus of polygenesis 
found that the races were separate species with separate origins. At the 
turn of the 20th century, the scientific consensus of social Darwinism 
found the white race had been naturally selected for the highest 
evolution. After World War II, the scientific consensus of black 
cultural pathology urged African Americans to assimilate into white America.

But scientific anti-racists on the margins did not respond to mainstream 
scientific racists by saying they didn't believe their findings, by 
spinning out easily disprovable alternative facts, by walking away.

It is one thing to disbelieve scientific findings. It is yet another 
thing to dispute scientific findings. We dispute on the basis of 
training and expertise; by conducting and finding and presenting 
evidence; and by challenging assumptions, flawed study designs, and 
analyses of findings. Unlike disbelieving, disputing produces an 
intellectual exchange among open-minded scientists. Only the 
disbelievers, some of whom pose as scientists, are closed-minded and 
unwilling to change their mind in response to new evidence.

In order to reinforce the scientific certainty that human action and 
inaction are disastrously warming the globe and racist action and 
inaction are disastrously causing racial inequities, environmentalists 
and anti-racists must separate belief from science. Instead of caring 
about belief, environmentalists and anti-racists should care about 
knowledge, especially our own. Instead of asking, "Are you a racist?" we 
should be asking, "What is a racist?" Instead of asking, "Do you believe 
in climate change?" we should be asking, "What does climate change look 
like?"

To disconnect science from belief, environmentalists and anti-racists 
must disconnect the disbelievers from the power to make racial and 
climate policy. When disbelievers take power, they will always believe 
in the business of reproducing disbelief. Environmentalists and 
anti-racists must be in the business of reproducing humanity.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to 
the editor or write to letters at theatlantic.com.
IBRAM X. KENDI is a professor and the director of The Antiracist 
Research and Policy Center at American University.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/what-deniers-climate-change-and-racism-share/579190/


[US Government buried what we knew in 1993]
*Preparing for an Uncertain Climate—Vol. I*
October 1993
Preparing for an Uncertain Climate is OTA'S second report on climate 
change. In
1991, we published Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,
which focused on ways to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. Slowing the rate of growth in these emissions continues to 
be very
important, but most analyses conclude that despite i
https://ota.fas.org/reports/9338.pdf
[blame Newt Gingrich?]


[From the 2018 archive - Industry buried what it learned in 1959]
*On its 100th birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry 
about global warming*
Somebody cut the cake - new documents reveal that American oil writ 
large was warned of global warming at its 100th birthday party.
Benjamin Franta - 1 Jan 2018
It was a typical November day in New York City. The year: 1959. Robert 
Dunlop, 50 years old and photographed later as clean-shaven, hair 
carefully parted, his earnest face donning horn-rimmed glasses, passed 
under the Ionian columns of Columbia University's iconic Low Library. He 
was a guest of honor for a grand occasion: the centennial of the 
American oil industry.

Over 300 government officials, economists, historians, scientists, and 
industry executives were present for the Energy and Man symposium - 
organized by the American Petroleum Institute and the Columbia Graduate 
School of Business - and Dunlop was to address the entire congregation 
on the "prime mover" of the last century - energy - and its major 
source: oil. As President of the Sun Oil Company, he knew the business 
well, and as al director of the American Petroleum Institute - the 
industry's largest and oldest trade association in the land of Uncle Sam 
- he was responsible for representing the interests of all those many 
oilmen gathered around him.

Four others joined Dunlop at the podium that day, one of whom had made 
the journey from California - and Hungary before that. The nuclear 
weapons physicist Edward Teller had, by 1959, become ostracized by the 
scientific community for betraying his colleague J. Robert Oppenheimer, 
but he retained the embrace of industry and government. Teller's task 
that November fourth was to address the crowd on "energy patterns of the 
future," and his words carried an unexpected warning:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I 
will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the 
past must be supplemented. First of all, these energy resources will run 
short as we use more and more of the fossil fuels. [....] But I would 
[...] like to mention another reason why we probably have to look for 
additional fuel supplies. And this, strangely, is the question of 
contaminating the atmosphere. [....] Whenever you burn conventional 
fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, 
it is transparent, you can't smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so 
why should one worry about it?

Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it 
absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its 
presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been 
calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent 
increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and 
submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a 
considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I 
think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people 
tend to believe.

How, precisely, Mr. Dunlop and the rest of the audience reacted is 
unknown, but it's hard to imagine this being welcome news. After his 
talk, Teller was asked to "summarize briefly the danger from increased 
carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century." The 
physicist, as if considering a numerical estimation problem, responded:

At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent 
over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per 
cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Teller's 
accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of 
purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious 
additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet 
will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees 
Fahrenheit or only one or 5.

But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole 
globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting and 
the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don't know whether 
they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but anyone can 
calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the icecaps over 
Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick.

And so, at its hundredth birthday party, American oil was warned of its 
civilization-destroying potential.

Talk about a buzzkill.

How did the petroleum industry respond? Eight years later, on a cold, 
clear day in March, Robert Dunlop walked the halls of the U.S. Congress. 
The 1967 oil embargo was weeks away, and the Senate was investigating 
the potential of electric vehicles. Dunlop, testifying now as the 
Chairman of the Board of the American Petroleum Institute, posed the 
question, "tomorrow's car: electric or gasoline powered?" His preferred 
answer was the latter:

We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical 
electric car can be mass-produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any 
meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint. Emissions from 
internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.

Dunlop went on to describe progress in controlling carbon monoxide, 
nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles. Absent from 
his list? The pollutant he had been warned of years before: carbon dioxide.

We might surmise that the odorless gas simply passed under Robert 
Dunlop's nose unnoticed. But less than a year later, the American 
Petroleum Institute quietly received a report on air pollution it had 
commissioned from the Stanford Research Institute, and its warning on 
carbon dioxide was direct:

Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 
2000, and these could bring about climatic changes. [...] there seems to 
be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be 
severe. [...] pollutants which we generally ignore because they have 
little local effect, CO2 and submicron particles, may be the cause of 
serious world-wide environmental changes.

Thus, by 1968, American oil held in its hands yet another notice of its 
products' world-altering side effects, one affirming that global warming 
was not just cause for research and concern, but a reality needing 
corrective action: "Past and present studies of CO2 are detailed," the 
Stanford Research Institute advised. "What is lacking, however, is [...] 
work toward systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control."

This early history illuminates the American petroleum industry's 
long-running awareness of the planetary warming caused by its products. 
Teller's warning, revealed in documentation I found while searching 
archives, is another brick in a growing wall of evidence.

In the closing days of those optimistic 1950s, Robert Dunlop may have 
been one of the first oilmen to be warned of the tragedy now looming 
before us. By the time he departed this world in 1995, the American 
Petroleum Institute he once led was denying the climate science it had 
been informed of decades before, attacking the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, and fighting climate policies wherever they arose.

This is a history of choices made, paths not taken, and the fall from 
grace of one of the greatest enterprises - oil, the "prime mover" - ever 
to tread the earth. Whether it's also a history of redemption, however 
partial, remains to be seen.

American oil's awareness of global warming - and its conspiracy of 
silence, deceit, and obstruction /-/ goes further than any one company. 
It extends beyond (though includes) ExxonMobil. The industry is 
implicated to its core by the history of its largest representative, the 
American Petroleum Institute.

It is now too late to stop a great deal of change to our planet's 
climate and its global payload of disease, destruction, and death. But 
we can fight to halt climate change as quickly as possible, and we can 
uncover the history of how we got here. There are lessons to be learned, 
and there is justice to be served.

Benjamin Franta (@BenFranta) is a PhD student in history of science at 
Stanford University who studies the history of climate change science 
and politics. He has a PhD in applied physics from Harvard University 
and is a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and 
International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming


*This Day in Climate History - January 2, 2014 - from D.R. Tucker*
January 2, 2014:
-Chris Mooney of Mother Jones explains to the willfully ignorant that 
snow doesn't disprove climate change.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/blizzards-dont-refute-global-warming

-MSNBC's Chris Hayes and climate scientist Michael Mann point out the 
absolute stupidity of the right-wing claim that snow disproves climate 
change.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/right-mocks-rescued-climate-scientists-105626691902
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/theres-global-warming-and-its-snowing-105637955899
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.