[TheClimate.Vote] March 1, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest.

[Richard Pauli]

/March 1, 2019/

[Tamino is a respected blogger on climate statistics]
Talk About It - Posted on February 28, 2019
*Scientists have learned three things about climate change.*
#1: It's real
#2: It's us
#3: It's bad
Now that we've finally convinced most people about #1 and #2…it's time 
for you to face #3. Here's a start.
#3a: It's bad already
#3b: It will be terrible
#3c: How terrible? Depends on us.
Those are facts.
Here's my opinion: our best hope, maybe our only hope, is to get people 
to TALK ABOUT IT so much that politicians and pundits cannot ignore us. 
When enough people TALK ABOUT IT often enough, I'll have hope. Maybe 
I'll even give my friends a break and shut the hell up about it.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/02/28/10525/
- -
[source: scientist's words from RealClimate]
*The best case for worst case scenarios*
..It came up again in discussions about the 4th National Assessment 
Report which (unsurprisingly) used both high and low end scenarios to 
bracket plausible trajectories for future climate...
- -
However, I'm not specifically interested in discussing these articles or 
reports (many others have done so already), but rather why it always so 
difficult and controversial to write about the worst cases.

There are basically three (somewhat overlapping) reasons:

The credibility problem: What are the plausible worst cases? And how can 
one tell?
The reticence problem: Are scientists self-censoring to avoid talking 
about extremely unpleasant outcomes?
The consequentialist problem: Do scientists avoid talking about the most 
alarming cases to motivate engagement?
These factors all intersect in much of the commentary related to this 
topic (and in many of the articles linked above)...
- - -
*Summary*
To get to the worst cases, two things have to happen - we have to be 
incredibly stupid and incredibly unlucky. Dismissing plausible worst 
case scenarios adds to the likelihood of both. Conversely, dwelling on 
impossible catastrophes is a massive drain of mental energy and focus. 
But the fundamental question raised by the three points above is who 
should be listened to and trusted on these questions?

It seems clear to me that attempts to game the communication/action 
nexus either through deliberate scientific reticence or consequentialism 
are mostly pointless because none of us know with any certainty what the 
consequences of our science communication efforts will be. Does the 
shift in the Overton window from high profile boldness end up being more 
effective than technical focus on 'achievable' incremental progress or 
does the backlash shut down possibilities? Examples can be found for 
both cases. Do the millions of extra eyes that see a dramatic climate 
change story compensate for technical errors or idiosyncratic framings?  
Can we get dramatic and widely read stories that don't have either? 
These are genuinely difficult questions whose solutions lie far outside 
the expertise of any individual climate scientist or communicator.

My own view is that scientists generally try to do the right thing, 
sharing the truth as best they see it, and so, in the main are neither 
overly reticent nor are they playing a consequentialist game. But it is 
also clear that with a wickedly complex issue like climate it is easy to 
go beyond what you know personally to be true and stray into areas where 
you are less sure-footed. However, if people stick only to their narrow 
specialties, we are going to miss the issues that arise at their 
intersections.

Indeed, the true worst case scenario might be one where we don't venture 
out from our safe harbors of knowledge to explore the more treacherous 
shores of uncertainty. As we do, we will need to be careful as well as 
bold as we map those shoals.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/the-best-case-for-worst-case-scenarios/
- - -
[Western culture - humans]
*We Are Terrible Judges of Earth's Changing Climate, Twitter Shows*
Americans aren't necessarily good at noticing how small, gradual changes 
in the world around them are adding up -- variations that definitely 
make the case for climate change.

That's the takeaway from a new study that analyzes more than 2 billion 
location-tagged tweets about the weather sent from across the U.S. 
between March 2014 and November 2016. The results suggest that Americans 
may not be able to recognize just how much havoc climate change is 
wreaking on their lives; if they do, the recognition may inspire just a 
grumpy tweet, not the sort of systemic change needed to address climate 
change.

"There's a risk that we'll quickly normalize conditions [that] we don't 
want to normalize," lead author Frances C. Moore, an environmental 
scientist at UC Davis in California, said in a statement. "We are 
experiencing conditions that are historically extreme, but they might 
not feel particularly unusual if we tend to forget what happened more 
than about five years ago."
https://www.space.com/you-are-terrible-judge-of-climate-change.html

[video]
*Britain's Parliament Finds Something That Unites Them: The Heatwave*
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/britain-s-freak-winter-heatwave-draws-concern-from-all-parties


[actually this is for the parents]
*How to Talk to Your Kids About Climate Change*
Meghan Moravcik Walbert
Of all the tough conversations we should be having with our kids as they 
grow up, I'll admit that educating my son about climate change has not 
exactly been a priority. We've had conversations about death, 
disability, mental illness, racism, sexism, poverty and gun violence. 
All of those felt like important, pressing matters that he already has 
seen or experienced or could be exposed to at any point.

Climate change has felt like a problem that is farther off in the 
distance, or at the very least, like something he doesn't need to know 
about quite yet.
But I need to stop thinking that way. This needs attention right now.

I read this article in my local newspaper, which says that in 60 years, 
the climate where we live in eastern Pennsylvania will more closely 
represent the "humid, subtropical climes" of Jonesboro, Arkansas. Our 
winters will get wetter as our summers get drier. Our dairy cows will 
produce less milk. Our ability to produce (and export) electricity will 
suffer. Our northern trees will die off but we won't have the proper 
soil composition to support southern varieties.

All of this will happen by the time my son is in his 60s and my 
(theoretical) grandchildren are my age. Suddenly, it feels impossible 
not to address it with him.

Still, like with any large, complex and anxiety-producing topic such as 
this, it's not the sort of thing you spring on them one day with 
something like, "So, I think it's time to tell you how we're destroying 
the world for your generation." Instead, it's a topic you can start to 
address while they're young and build upon as they get older and develop 
an ability to understand the issue on a deeper level.

(Oh, and don't wait for them to learn about it in school. According to a 
2016 report in Science Magazine, the median teacher only devotes 1-2 
hours on the topic--and what they teach might not be totally accurate 
anyway.)

*Start with the basics*
No need to jump straight to scary statistics. Kids can start to 
understand how human actions affect nature as they learn a few basics. 
Talk about how the gasses we breathe out are the same gasses that plants 
breathe in (and vice versa). Talk about how we use the same water and 
air over and over, and how important it is for both to stay clean in 
order for all creatures--and the planet--to be healthy.

Help them develop a love of nature by regularly hiking, camping, 
gardening and reading about subjects like animals, oceans and forests. 
As they get older and can begin to understand the difference between 
"weather" and "climate" and start to form their own questions, you can 
introduce age-appropriate resources, such as NASA's Climate Kids website.
Be honest but optimistic
Once kids are old enough to have a basic understanding of climate 
change, focus on the positives, even if you don't feel particularly 
positive yourself. Explain that the first step to solving any problem is 
realizing there is a problem; and thanks to many dedicated scientists, 
we have a lot of solid information that can help us begin to turn things 
around.
Emphasize that it's not too late and lots of grown-ups are working 
together around the world to solve this problem. Focus on the little 
things your family can do at home to support those efforts.

*Get them involved*
Kids are naturally wired to want to help and taking some kind of action 
can give them hope and a sense of empowerment over the issue.

Plant a tree together to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Help them 
write a personal letter to members of Congress. Teach them about the 
importance of rainforests and offer a few suggestions for how they can 
prevent deforestation (here is a great list of ideas from the Rainforest 
Alliance).

*Model environmentally conscious behavior*
Like with most things in parenting, one of the most effective ways to 
influence our kids is by modeling the behavior we wish to see from them. 
That includes the obvious, like recycling, using second-hand or reusable 
goods, turning off the lights when you leave a room, lowering your 
thermostat and reducing the amount you drive.

But also make sure to show your kids what civic engagement looks like. 
Support green-space initiatives in your community and let your kids hear 
you call your representatives to weigh in on environmental policy. Model 
for them the importance of everyone taking ownership of the issue by 
doing your part in your home, in your community, and on a larger 
national and global scale.
https://offspring.lifehacker.com/how-to-talk-to-your-kids-about-climate-change-1832935630
- - -
[another source is Magic School Bus]
*The Magic School Bus And The Climate Challenge*
Trust the bestselling science series of all time to get down to the 
facts on global warming, so kids can understand the crisis - and how 
they can help solve it.

Like it or not, global warming is a hot topic, and it will affect the 
younger generation the most. So why not turn to the teacher kids like 
the most, Ms. Frizzle! Only the Friz can boil all the hoopla down to the 
scientific facts in a fun and informative way.
With trademark simplicity and wit, Joanna Cole explains why the earth is 
getting warmer, and Bruce Degen's bright, action-filled illustrations 
make the science easy to understand and fun to learn. This team brings a 
new, improved understanding to climate change, engaging kids and 
empowering all. Teachers will cheer!
https://www.amazon.com/Magic-School-Bus-Climate-Challenge/dp/0590108263


[from the citizen standing in the room]
*Open Forum: Sen. Feinstein fails to treat climate change with the 
urgency it deserves*
By Morissa Zuckerman Feb. 27, 2019
On Friday morning, I stood in front of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., 
while she told me and a dozen other young people that, essentially, 
we're toast. Video of the highly publicized encounter between the 
senator and Green New Deal youth activists has spread far and wide, 
highlighting not only the deepening generational divide between the 
emerging electorate and those representing us, but also a real 
disagreement over how to tackle the climate crisis and social inequity 
-- the most urgent and interlocking moral issues of our time.

Feinstein has been in office longer than I've been alive. She said to us 
on Friday, "I've been doing this for 30 years. I know what I'm doing," 
and then passed around her plan -- a watered-down Green New Deal 
resolution that set a goal to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 
2050. That is about two decades later than what the world's top 
scientists say is necessary to prevent catastrophic warming.

Given what we now know about the climate crisis, kicking the can down 
the road is morally reprehensible. The suffering has already begun, with 
the superstorms and super-wildfires of recent years the most dramatic 
signals. Poor communities and communities of color are hurt first and 
worst by fossil fuel extraction and climate change. Continued warming 
will exacerbate this injustice, claiming millions of lives and costing 
trillions of dollars both here in California and globally...

Congress has been aware of the threat of climate change for decades, 
when we still had time to enact a gradual drawdown of fossil fuels. 
Instead, the GOP elite sold themselves to Big Oil, and the Democratic 
establishment failed to treat the climate crisis with the urgency it 
deserves. Now, we're in the red zone.

That's what the kids were trying to tell Sen. Feinstein. We decided to 
visit her office because we are scared about what climate change means 
for our lives. We understand that our futures are in serious trouble and 
that politicians are not taking action at the scale our generation needs 
to survive.
At 24, I was one of the oldest in the room. Surrounded by other 
activists as young as 7, I was reminded again of the entirely different 
worlds we inhabit. For younger generations, climate change is not an 
abstract game of political chess. It is a matter of life or death.
Worse than Sen. Feinstein's condescending lecture was having her look us 
in the eyes and refuse to support Sen. Markey and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's 
Green New Deal resolution, the only proposed framework that can provide 
us with a livable future. When asked about the Green New Deal, 81 
percent of Americans and majorities of both parties support the suite of 
policies. It is the only proposed approach that can stop climate change, 
create good jobs and address inequality at the level that science and 
justice demand.

There's much work to be done to turn this vision of a Green New Deal 
into a concrete package of bills. But we must start by grounding it in 
what the science says is necessary for human survival. From there, civil 
society and social movements can work alongside legislators to build the 
political will necessary. We need a united Democratic front so that this 
legislation is ready to be passed in 2021 under a new administration.

The excuse that "we can't afford it" comes down to prioritization, and 
also ignores what climate change will cost under current trajectories. 
In November, 13 federal agencies estimated that the U.S. economy would 
face more than $500 billion per year in costs from sea level rise, 
extreme weather, lost labor and crop damage by the end of this century. 
The cost of inaction grows higher by the year...
Morissa Zuckerman is a volunteer leader with the Bay Area chapter of the 
Sunrise Movement, one of the youth-led groups spearheading the Green New 
Deal. She was born and raised in Oakland.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-Forum-Sen-Feinstein-fails-to-treat-climate-13647453.php


[Concrete solutions]
*A company called Blue Planet is converting carbon dioxide into building 
material A new terminal at the San Francisco airport was built using 
concrete from this process.*
Many companies are researching methods to capture some of that CO2 and 
store it in a safe way.

Constantz: "In our case, we turn it into limestone."

Brent Constantz is CEO of Blue Planet. The company has developed 
technology for capturing CO2 from power plants or other sources. They 
then use it as a raw material for making synthetic limestone, which can 
be used to make concrete for roads, bridges, and buildings.
He says turning carbon into a mineral is a permanent way to keep it out 
of the atmosphere.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/company-converts-carbon-dioxide-into-building-material/


[Methane mess]
*Rise of the METHANE Over Time and Latitude: 2 of 2*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Feb 28, 2019
Since 2007 atmospheric methane concentrations have risen strongly; 
average rate 7 ppb per year. Methane's Global-Warming Potential 
multiplies warming vs. CO2 by 34x, 86x, and 150-200x on time scales of 
100 years, 20 years, and a few years, respectively. Total radiative 
forcing of methane is rapidly catching that of CO2, making Paris targets 
nearly impossible to reach without emergency actions. Continuing on last 
video, I chat on latest methane science; spatial and temporal variation, 
isotopic changes, emission locations, etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9HnYJzRzBE


[Yes there are reformed Republicans]
Seeing Red on Climate
*Young Republicans, reformed lobbyists, and green Tea Partiers: Meet 
America's "eco-right."*
Zoya Teirstein on Jan 18, 2018
Todd Tanner has a pretty sweet offer for his fellow Montanans: a new 
shotgun in exchange for science-based evidence that he's wrong about 
climate change.

The conservationist uses the challenge in an attempt to raise awareness 
about our warming planet. A lot of people where Tanner lives in Bigfork, 
Montana, would probably like to take him up on his offer: The state has 
one of the highest rates of outdoor recreationists in the country, and 
Tanner is no exception. He was planning on going hunting after we 
finished our interview. "You wouldn't know it," he said over the phone, 
"but I'm literally walking around in a pair of wool pants."...
- -
A carbon tax in any form is unlikely to make it through today's highly 
partisan Congress, so, in the meantime, RepublicEn advocates for a level 
playing field for wind and solar energy, less leaky oil and gas 
infrastructure, and nuclear power.
Jessica Fernandez, a lifelong Floridian and conservative, was one of the 
people inspired by RepublicEn's national eco-right tour. Her upbringing 
might have had something to do with it. "At my house," she said, "we 
grew up with solar panels on the roof and composting."...
- - -
William Ruckelshaus, who served as EPA administrator under Nixon and 
President Reagan, has met with a number of eco-right organizations. He 
believes massive support for significant action on global warming is 
"going to have to include conservative groups, and virtually every 
discipline in society." When Republicans do finally warm up to the idea 
of a conservative environmental movement, the eco-right will step out of 
the wings.

"They're going to begin to get worried" about the growing impacts of a 
warming planet, Ruckelshaus said. "If there are organizations that they 
feel more comfortable with, they're more likely to sign on."...
- - -
What should the eco-right do while the top dogs on Capitol Hill insist 
on looking the other way? Ruckelshaus, the former EPA chief, says to 
"keep on." But as we descend into ever-worsening environmental chaos, 
the question remains: How soon can these conservatives alter the course 
of history?
https://grist.org/article/climate-change-isnt-just-for-democrats-anymore-meet-the-eco-right-republicans/


[Department of painful Irony and the absurd]
*Out on its own: Australia the only country to use climate funding to 
upgrade coal-fired plants*
Green finance experts say Australia is out of step with World Bank, 
Europe and the US, which are using funding to combat global warming...
- - -
"At a time when private-sector capital is increasingly looking for low 
carbon and decarbonisation opportunities, it would seem to be swimming 
against the tide to put government taxpayer funding into these [coal] 
activities,"...
- -
Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that 
limiting global warming to 1.5C - a goal referenced in the Paris climate 
agreement - would require coal use for energy to fall 59-78% below 2010 
levels by 2030.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/01/out-on-its-own-australia-the-only-country-to-use-climate-funding-to-upgrade-coal-fired-plants


*This Day in Climate History - March 1, 2002 - from D.R. Tucker*
March 1, 2002: The New York Times reports:

"Eighteen of the energy industry's top 25 financial contributors to
the Republican Party advised Vice President Dick Cheney's national
energy task force last year, according to interviews and election
records.

"Critics of the Bush administration's energy policy have long
suspected that many of the corporations that were invited to advise
the White House were large energy concerns that had contributed
heavily to President Bush's campaign and the Republican Party in
2000. The White House has refused to release the names of the
companies and individuals consulted during the formulation of the
administration's energy policy last spring. It has been sued for the
information.

"But interviews and task force correspondence demonstrate an
apparent correlation between large campaign contributions and access
to Mr. Cheney's task force. Of the top 25 energy industry donors to
the Republican Party before the November 2000 election, 18
corporations sent executives or representatives to meet with Mr.
Cheney, the task force chairman, or members of the task force and
its staff. The companies include the Enron Corporation, the Southern
Company, the Exelon Corporation, BP, the TXU Corporation,
FirstEnergy and Anadarko Petroleum."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/top-gop-donors-in-energy-industry-met-cheney-panel.html 


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.