[TheClimate.Vote] March 11, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/March 11, 2019/


[Courts act]
*UK Fracking Policy Ruled Illegal for Ignoring Climate Impacts*
United Kingdom authorities must take climate change objections into 
account when approving local fracking licenses, the High Court of 
England and Wales has ruled.

The decision, handed down on Thursday, means the government will also 
have to redraw its national policy on shale gas extraction to take into 
account the latest scientific evidence on climate change.

The case was brought by the advocacy group Talk Fracking, which 
challenged the government's update of its shale gas planning policy in 
2018. Talk Fracking said the government had not properly consulted the 
public when rewriting the policy. The High Court heard the case in 
London in December.

The UK government has long positioned fracking as a way to transition to 
low-carbon energy, saying it will help wean the country off 
higher-carbon fuel sources such as coal and help meet national climate 
targets. It also sees fracking as a means of boosting domestic energy 
security by reducing gas imports.

The latest ruling is important because it recognizes climate change as 
an issue at a local level, which is likely to give heart to other 
anti-fracking campaigners in the UK, where fracking already has little 
public support...
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/03/08/uk-fracking-climate-change/


[video..Session at Brown University]
*Brown University Hosts Conference on America's Climate Change Future*
Featuring Senator Whitehouse, topics include housing markets, stranded 
assets, and the entrenched interests of climate deniers
February 1, 2019
Video recordings: 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBrPYoChOfOAiotTcYIO8j9MDZk4mbfdI
https://watson.brown.edu/research/2019/brown-university-hosts-top-scholars-policy-makers-business-analysts-americas-climate
- - -
*America's Climate Change Future - Session 4: Pushing against climate 
denial and defending science*
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
Published on Feb 7, 2019
America's Climate Change Future: Housing Markets, Stranded Assets, and 
Entrenched Interests
Session 4: Pushing against climate denial and defending science
Moderator: Mark Blyth (Brown University)
Initial paper/presentation for discussion: "Evidence-based Solutions to 
Combat Scientific Misinformation," by Justin Farrell, Robert Brulle and 
Kathryn McConnell (Yale University and Brown University)
Panelists:
Kert Davies (Climate Investigation Center)
Timmons Roberts (Brown University)
Kerry Ard (Ohio State University)
The Rhodes Center for International Economics, the Institute at Brown 
for Environment and Society, and the Office of the President are pleased 
to announce a one day conference on the economic and political 
consequences of climate change. The conference focuses on three key 
areas. First, the economics of rising sea levels for real coastal estate 
markets, which comprise a large portion of US housing market growth and 
hence personal wealth. The economics of 'stranded carbon assets.' That 
is, the raw materials and financial assets tied up in carbon release 
that have a high current value but whose values could decline 
precipitously in the future, especially if ambitious action is 
undertaken as scientific consensus suggests is needed. The third is the 
organized politics of climate denial: who are the agents and 
institutions behind scientific disinformation and how can such a 
politics best be countered? A lunchtime keynote speech will be given by 
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Lunch will be provided for 
participants.
Read full Research Brief on the conference: 
https://watson.brown.edu/research/2019/brown-university-hosts-top-scholars-policy-makers-business-analysts-americas-climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzH-eNztwc
- - -
[documents here]
*Climate Files*
Hard to Find Documents All in One Place
Climate files is an archival database of news, information and 
documents. The information compiled here is collected from various 
sources and is based on more more than 20 years of research and data 
collection.
http://www.climatefiles.com/


[Check the data from Weather Underground]
*From North to South, A Winter and Summer of Record Temperature Extremes*
Christopher C. Burt  ·  March 8, 2019, 5:03 PM EST
On March 2, 2019, Dover, Tasmania, attained an all-time record high of 
40.1C (104.3F), the hottest reading ever observed in that Australian 
state during the month of March. Just the next day (March 4 in the U.S.) 
a temperature of -46F was measured at Elk Park, Montana, a new 
(preliminary) all-time record for cold in that state for March. These 
two dramatic extremes were exclamation points on what has been one of 
the most extreme northern-winter/southern-summer pairings on Earth in 
terms of temperature (in the modern record, of course, extending back a 
little more than a century).

Consider that February brought Western Europe's most exceptional winter 
heat wave on record. Although the temperatures were not dangerously hot, 
the departures from average were astounding. As detailed below, all-time 
national monthly heat records were measured in the United Kingdom, 
Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, Hungry, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Denmark, Andorra, and San Marino. Meanwhile, all-time (any 
month) coldest temperatures on record were observed in parts of Japan, 
Canada, and the U.S., both in January and February.

Australia has just endured its hottest summer on record, and in southern 
Africa, Angola saw its hottest temperature ever measured (any month).
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/North-South-Winter-and-Summer-Record-Temperature-Extremes


[Two women interviewed for 2 minute BBC video] *
**The women too scared of climate change to have children*
Blythe Pepino and Alice Brown say they are so scared about the future of 
the planet they do not want to have children.
They are part of a group called BirthStrike, and spoke to Victoria 
Derbyshire about how their fears have grown.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-47442943/the-women-too-scared-of-climate-change-to-have-children


[a really important essay - BBC]
*The perils of short-termism: Civilisation's greatest threat*
Our inability to look beyond the latest news cycle could be one of the 
most dangerous traits of our generation, says Richard Fisher.
By Richard Fisher
10 January 2019
- - -
For many of us currently in adulthood, how often can we truly say we are 
thinking about the well-being of these future generations? How often do 
we contemplate the impact of our decisions as they ripple into the 
decades and centuries ahead?

Part of the problem is that the 'now' commands so much more attention. 
We are saturated with knowledge and standards of living have mostly 
never been higher - but today it is difficult to look beyond the next 
news cycle. If time can be sliced, it is only getting finer, with 
ever-shorter periods now shaping our world. To paraphrase the investor 
Esther Dyson: in politics the dominant time frame is a term of office, 
in fashion and culture it's a season, for corporations it's a quarter, 
on the internet it's minutes, and on the financial markets mere 
milliseconds.
- - -
Modern society is suffering from "temporal exhaustion", the sociologist 
Elise Boulding once said. "If one is mentally out of breath all the time 
from dealing with the present, there is no energy left for imagining the 
future," she wrote in 1978. We can only guess her reaction to the 
relentless, Twitter-fuelled politics of 2019. No wonder wicked problems 
like climate change or inequality feel so hard to tackle right now.

That's why researchers, artists, technologists and philosophers are 
converging on the idea that short-termism may be the greatest threat our 
species is facing this century. They include philosophers arguing the 
moral case for prioritising our distant descendants; researchers mapping 
out the long-term path of Homo sapiens; artists creating cultural works 
that wrestle with time, legacy and the sublime; and Silicon Valley 
engineers building a giant clock that will tick for 10,000 years.
- - -
A social discount rate is a technique that policy-makers use in their 
cost-benefit analyses to gauge whether to make investments with a 
long-term impact. It weighs the upsides for future people against costs 
borne in the present-day, and proposes that the calculated value of 
benefits to future economies and people should steadily decline over 
time. For example, if you're weighing up whether to build an expensive 
sea-bridge to foster trade, it'll tell you that a 5% boost in economic 
growth in 12 months is better than a 5% boost in 12 years.
-  -
Discount rates have been at the root of vigorous debates about climate 
change - and how urgently to make investments in mitigation as the 
effects rapidly worsen. Many citizens would accept that there's a need 
to bear some costs to avoid future climate catastrophe. But how much 
cost is acceptable, and how quickly? What portion of your own income 
today would you be willing to give up for the benefit of future 
generations? When economists and politicians are debating this question, 
they are essentially arguing over how big a discount rate to apply.
- - -
Some philosophers have reasoned that discounting the needs of our 
descendants is akin to burying a shard of broken glass in a forest. If a 
child steps on the glass and cuts themselves today or tomorrow, then a 
discount rate suggests this injury is much worse than a child hurting 
themselves on the glass a century from now. But ethically, there is no 
difference between the two.

The philosophical argument for investing in measures to protect the 
wellbeing of future generations can also be framed, simplistically, by 
imagining a set of scales, with everybody alive today on one side, and 
every unborn person on the other. Today's population of 7.7 billion is a 
lot - but it is small when you weigh it against everybody on Earth who 
will ever call themselves human, along with all their achievements. If 
Homo sapiens (or the species we evolve into) endures for tens or 
hundreds of thousands of years, that becomes a humongous number of lives 
to consider. Trillions of families, relationships, births; countless 
moments of potential joy, love, friendship and tenderness.
- - -
Unless we get better at ditching our short-termist ways on a global 
scale, the decisions we make in the early 21st Century could shape the 
future of our species in far more profound - and chilling - ways than we 
might realise.
And as one group of researchers warned recently, acts of neglect or 
stupidity in the present day could possibly even threaten civilisation 
itself.
- - -
The meeting would lead to an intriguing and readable co-authored paper 
called Long-term Trajectories of Human Civilisation, which attempts to 
"formalise a scientific and ethical field of study" for thousands of 
years hence. As they write: "To restrict attention to near-term decades 
may be akin to the drunk searching for his keys under the streetlight: 
it may be where empirical study is more robust, but the important part 
lies elsewhere."
- - -
I experienced a brief moment of clarity, though, when sitting with my 
daughter at breakfast recently. As five-year-olds do, she often asks 
questions. We got talking about what I had been writing.

"Do you know what the future is?" I asked.

She paused. "No, not really."

"Well you know history, and the past? This is the opposite."

She chewed her cereal.

"What's the furthest in the future you can imagine?" I asked.

"Um... when I am 10."

"Can you imagine further? Being a grown-up?"

"No. When I am 10."

She picked up her bowl and wandered out to the kitchen.

And so, I thought, this is where I can start: as a parent. As my 
daughter grows up, what I am sure I can do is try my hardest to widen 
the horizons, empathy and potential of a little girl who can't yet 
imagine a world beyond life as a 10-year-old. A girl who will become a 
teenager, an adult, a grandmother, my closest descendant in a chain of 
generations, who, just maybe, will live long enough to watch the start 
of the 22nd Century unfold.
--
Richard Fisher is the managing editor of the BBC.com features sites (UK 
& RoW), and tweets at @rifish.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat



[Bulletin of the Atom Scientists]*
**Adults won't take climate change seriously. So we, the youth, are 
forced to strike.*
By Maddy Fernands, Isra Hirsi, Haven Coleman, Alexandria Villasenor, 
March 7, 2019
Editor's note: The authors are the lead organizers of US Youth Climate 
Strike, part of a global student movement inspired by 16-year-old 
climate activist Greta Thunberg's weekly school strikes in Sweden and 
other European countries.

    We, the youth of America, are fed up with decades of inaction on
    climate change. On Friday, March 15, young people like us across the
    United States will strike from school. We strike to bring attention
    to the millions of our generation who will most suffer the
    consequences of increased global temperatures, rising seas, and
    extreme weather. But this isn't a message only to America. It's a
    message from the world, to the world, as students in dozens of
    countries on every continent will be striking together for the first
    time.

    For decades, the fossil fuel industry has pumped greenhouse gas
    emissions into our atmosphere. Thirty years ago, climate scientist
    James Hansen warned Congress about climate change. Now, according to
    the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on
    global temperature rise, we have only 11 years to prevent even worse
    effects of climate change. And that is why we strike.

    We strike to support the Green New Deal. Outrage has swept across
    the United States over the proposed legislation. Some balk at the
    cost of transitioning the country to renewable energy, while others
    recognize its far greater benefit to society as a whole. The Green
    New Deal is an investment in our future--and the future of
    generations beyond us--that will provide jobs, critical new
    infrastructure and most importantly, the drastic reduction in
    greenhouse gas emissions essential to limit global warming. And that
    is why we strike...

- -
We strike because our world leaders haven't acknowledged, prioritized, 
or properly addressed the climate crisis. We strike because marginalized 
communities across our nation--especially communities of color and low 
income communities--are already disproportionately impacted by climate 
change. We strike because if the societal order is disrupted by our 
refusal to attend school, then influential adults will be forced to take 
note, face the urgency of the climate crisis, and enact change. With our 
future at stake, we call for radical legislative action--now--to combat 
climate change and its countless detrimental effects on the American 
people. We strike for the Green New Deal, for a fair and just transition 
to a 100 percent renewable economy, and to stop creation of new fossil 
fuel infrastructure. We strike because we believe the climate crisis 
should be called what it really is: A national emergency, because we are 
running out of time.
https://thebulletin.org/2019/03/adults-wont-take-climate-change-seriously-so-we-the-youth-are-forced-to-strike/ 



[some PR background]
*How Machine Propagandists Are Eating the Internet - Berit Anderson - 
TEDxVilnius*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn-Wd418JtI

[Yale post from January 2019]
*Research reveals strategies for combating science misinformation*
By Kevin Dennehy  January 14, 2019
Just as the scientific community was reaching a consensus on the 
dangerous reality of climate change, the partisan divide on climate 
change began to widen, a new study finds.

That might seem like a paradox, but it's also no coincidence, according 
to Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at the Yale School of 
Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES). It was around this time that an 
organized network, funded by organizations with a lot to lose in a 
transition to a low-carbon economy, started to coalesce around the goal 
of undercutting the legitimacy of climate science, Farrell said.

Writing in the journal Nature Climate Change on Jan. 14, Farrell and two 
co-authors illustrate how a large-scale misinformation campaign has 
eroded public trust in climate science and stalled efforts to achieve 
meaningful policy, but also how an emerging field of research is 
providing new insights into this critical dynamic.

In the paper, they identify potential strategies to confront these 
misinformation campaigns across four related areas: public inoculation, 
legal strategies, political mechanisms, and financial transparency. 
Other authors include Kathryn McConnell, a Ph.D. student at F&ES, and 
Robert Brulle at Brown University.

"Many people see these efforts to undermine science as an increasingly 
dangerous challenge and they feel paralyzed about what to do about it," 
said Farrell, the lead author of the paper. "But there's been a growing 
amount of research into this challenge over the past few years that will 
help us chart out some solutions."

A meaningful response to these misinformation campaigns must include a 
range of coordinated strategies that counter false content as it is 
produced and disseminated, Farrell said. But it will also require 
society to confront the institutional network that enables the spread of 
this misinformation in the first place.

In the paper, they examine those strategies across the four identified 
areas:

    *Public inoculation:* While a growing body of research shows that an
    individual's perceptions of science are informed by "cultural
    cognition" -- and thus influenced by their preexisting ideologies
    and value systems -- there is evidence that society can "inoculate"
    against misinformation by exposing people to refuted scientific
    arguments before they hear them, much like one can prevent infection
    through the use of vaccines. This strategy can be strengthened by
    drawing more attention to the sources of misinformation, and thus
    similarly build up resistance to their campaigns, say the researchers.

    *Legal strategies:* Research has also shown the extent to which some
    industry leaders tied to the climate misinformation network
    knowingly misled the public about the dangers of climate change. In
    response, cities and states in the U.S. and U.K. have filed lawsuits
    alleging that fossil fuel companies, such as ExxonMobil, downplayed
    the risks of their products. While such lawsuits can be expensive
    and time-consuming, notes the report, media coverage has the
    potential to influence public opinion and "perhaps to further
    inoculate the public about industry efforts to deliberately mislead
    them." The authors also describe how an improved understanding of
    these networks has helped in the legal defense of climate scientists
    who have come under attack for their research.

    *Political mechanisms: *The authors argue that more social science
    research is needed in order to reveal and better understand how the
    political process is often manipulated. For instance, they identify
    a case in which the energy company Entergy Corporation acknowledged
    hiring a PR firm that in turn paid actors who posed as grassroots
    supporters of a controversial power plant in New Orleans. The
    researchers suggest making targeted efforts in geographic areas
    where skepticism of climate change is widespread, including
    promotion of stronger media coverage of candidates' views on climate
    science, clearer understanding of funding sources, and lawsuits
    highlighting the effects of climate change in these areas.

    *Financial transparency*: A growing share of funding for campaigns
    that promote science misinformation comes from donor-directed
    foundations that shield the contributor's identity from the public;
    in fact, financial giving from these groups quadrupled in the past
    decade, topping $100 million. While it is often difficult to
    identify the flow of dollars, say the authors, nonpartisan
    organizations tracking money in politics have become important
    resources for researchers who seek to understand this dynamic. The
    authors call for new legislation to improve funding transparency.

"We're really just at the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding 
the full network of actors and how they're moving money in these 
efforts," said McConnell. "The better we can understand how these 
networks work, the better the chances that policymakers will be able to 
create policy that makes a difference."

These strategies must be coordinated in order to be effective, the 
authors conclude. For instance, they write, "public inoculation and 
legal strategies depend on improved financial transparency, just as 
financial transparency can similarly be strengthened by legal strategies 
that are themselves dependent on continued research into the financial 
and ideological sources of misinformation."

"Ultimately we have to get to the root of the problem, which is the huge 
imbalance in spending between climate change opponents and those 
lobbying for new solutions," said Farrell. "Those interests will always 
be there, of course, but I'm hopeful that as we learn more about these 
dynamics things will start to change. I just hope it's not too late."
https://news.yale.edu/2019/01/14/research-reveals-strategies-combating-science-misinformation


*This Day in Climate History - March 11, 2009 - from D.R. Tucker*
March 11, 2009: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann rips Paul Dellegatto, 
meteorologist for Tampa, Florida Fox affiliate WTVT, for failing to 
forecast the facts about human-caused climate change:

    "[I]n the middle of a forecast [Dellegatto] declared global warming
    was no longer a threat.  [Dellegatto stated,] 'Athens, Georgia, just
    about a week ago, and they had up to half a foot of snow.  Las Vegas
    got snow.  It actually snowed in New Orleans this winter.'
    Dellegatto went on to say the current warming trend peaked in 1998
    and, quote, 'I just think the whole global warming doomsayer theory
    is tough to see, based on recent calculations.'

    "Once again, this is science's fault.  Never should have used the
    phrase 'global warming.'  'Weather disaster' would have worked. The
    mistake was they thought even the dimmer folks would realize during
    global warming, it could get colder from time to time, especially in
    the places where it's not supposed to, like Tampa last month, when
    it got down to 28 here.  This guy missed it, obviously because he
    was more worried about putting in global warming denial propaganda
    into the local freaking weather forecast on the local freaking Fox
    station!"

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/countdown/29645384#29645384
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.