[TheClimate.Vote] March 26, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

Richard Pauli richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Mar 26 10:21:28 EDT 2019


/March 26, 2019/

[Gallup report]
*Americans as Concerned as Ever About Global Warming*
- 66% believe global warming is caused by human activity, near all-time high
- Fewer highly worried about it, though also near high point in Gallup trend
- Partisan differences still stark, with most Democrats worried, most in 
GOP not
- - -
At the high end of the range of global warming consciousness, 66% of 
U.S. adults say they believe global warming is caused by pollution from 
human activities rather than natural changes in the environment. 
Similarly, 65% perceive that most scientists believe global warming is 
occurring, and 59% believe the effects of global warming have already 
begun, while another 13% believe they will happen within their lifetime.

Despite these views, fewer than half of Americans -- 45% -- think global 
warming will pose a serious threat in their own lifetime and 44% say 
they worry a great deal about it. Another 21% worry a fair amount about 
global warming, while about a third (35%) worry only a little or not at all.

Just over four in 10, 42%, think the news underestimates the seriousness 
of global warming, while 22% think the news gets it about right and 35% 
think it exaggerates the problem.

These findings are based on Gallup's 2019 update of its annual 
Environment poll, conducted March 1-10. Full trends for these six global 
warming perceptions are available through a link at the end of this article.
- - -
Majority of Americans for First Time Are "Concerned Believers"

Gallup takes these data a step further by classifying Americans into 
attitudinal types based on four of the global warming questions. The 
analysis puts Americans into three main groups:

     "Concerned Believers" are highly worried about global warming, 
think it will pose a serious threat in their lifetime, believe it's the 
result of human activity, and think news reports about it are accurate 
or underestimate the problem...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx


[Beckwith video]
*Linkages from Globe to Arctic and from Arctic to Globe*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Mar 24, 2019
I discuss a new UN Environmental Report titled "Global Linkages: A 
Graphic Look at the Changing Arctic" (Google it!). Mainstream Media 
focused on only one small part of the report (namely the question as to 
whether 3-5C of warming is locked-in for the Arctic) and ignored the 
rest of the report. The report contains many excellent graphics that I 
chat about; namely the cryosphere, permafrost, short-lived climate 
pollutants, ocean acidification, persistent organic pollutants, 
plastics, mercury, and biodiversity, including migration and invasive 
species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTbcVLvBED4
- - -
['Locked-in' means no reverse, just slow it down]
*Temperature rise is 'locked-in' for the coming decades in the Arctic*
Even if existing Paris Agreement commitments are met, winter 
temperatures over the Arctic Ocean will increase 3-5C by mid-century 
compared to 1986-2005 levels.
Thawing permafrost could wake 'sleeping giant' of more greenhouse gases, 
potentially derailing global climate goals.
Ocean acidification and pollution also posing major threats to Arctic.
Nairobi, 13 March 2019 - Even if the world were to cut emissions in line 
with the existing Paris Agreement commitments, winter temperatures over 
the Arctic Ocean would rise 3-5C by mid-century, finds a new report by 
UN Environment.

Meanwhile, rapidly thawing permafrost could even accelerate climate 
change further and derail efforts to meet the Paris Agreement's 
long-term goal of limiting the rise in global temperature to 2C, warns 
Global Linkages - A graphic look at the changing Arctic.

Other environmental pressures on the Arctic identified by the paper - 
released at the United Nations Environment Assembly - include ocean 
acidification and plastic pollution.

"What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce 
Msuya, UN Environment's Acting Executive Director. "We have the science; 
now more urgent climate action is needed to steer away from tipping 
points that could be even worse for our planet than we first thought."

Even if drastic global emission reductions were to kick in immediately, 
winter temperatures in the Arctic would still keep increasing at least 
for the coming two decades, the study finds...
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/temperature-rise-locked-coming-decades-arctic
- - -
Full report:
*Global Linkages- A graphic look at the changing Arctic*
The new report "Global Linkages - A graphic look at the changing 
Arctic", produced by UN Environment and its collaborating center 
GRID-Arendal, is a set of maps and graphics, accompanied by short 
narratives to synthesize and illustrate the most critical, connected 
environmental challenges with Arctic and global relevance and focusing 
on issues which call for common solutions.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27687/Arctic_Graphics.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y




[NOAA Climate outlook explained ]
*NOAA's spring 2019 flood and climate outlook for the United States*
NOAAClimate
Published on Mar 21, 2019
Following a wet winter, many parts of the United States are at risk of 
at least minor flooding this spring. In this video, the Climate 
Prediction Center's Mike Halpert explains what's behind NOAA's 
temperature, precipitation, and flood outlooks for spring 2019. For maps 
and more discussion, visit https://www.climate.gov/spring2019.
- - -
NOAA Climate.gov
@NOAAClimate
  The @NOAA #SpringOutlook calls for increased chances of a wetter than 
usual spring for much of the country. 
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/us-flood-and-climate-outlook-spring-2019
Video produced by the Climate.gov team in cooperation with climate 
scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
Unless specifically stated otherwise, Climate.gov video productions can 
be freely republished or re-purposed by others.
https://youtu.be/_7nXBtnAQl0


[Geoffrey Supran on Twitter - Exxon denial testimony]
"I just testified as an expert witness to EU Parliament about 
ExxonMobil's decades of climate denial + delay. Between being the first 
major hearing of its kind, a leaked Exxon memo, & the rising prospect of 
Exxon being banned from EU lobbying, it was an interesting day."
https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/1109083684957810688
- - -
[European Parliament meeting EPTV]
*Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety*
Committee on Petitions
ENVIPETI joint meeting - (10:39 / 12:40)
11:53:13 Geoffry Supran testimony
Harsh Q&A at 12:37
mms://vod.europarl.europa.eu/wmv/nas/nasvod01/cod1903/wm_pad/Channel04/VODChapter_20190321_10390200_12405300_Ch04_6d40c6169977f12a26187.wmv?wmcache=0
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20190321-1030-COMMITTEE-PETI-ENVI
- - -
*Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977-2014)*
Geoffrey Supran1 and Naomi Oreskes
"Read all of these documents and make up your own mind,' ExxonMobil has 
challenged".

"This paper takes up that challenge by analyzing the materials 
highlighted by the company, and comparing them with other publicly 
available ExxonMobil communications on AGW. The issue at stake is 
whether the corporation misled consumers, shareholders and/or the 
general public by making public statements that cast doubt on climate 
science and its implications, and which were at odds with available 
scientific information and with what the company knew. We stress that 
the question is not whether ExxonMobil 'suppressed climate change 
research,' but rather how they communicated about it."
Abstract

    This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past
    misled the general public about climate change. We present an
    empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and
    comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil,
    including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal
    company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements
    ('advertorials') in The New York Times. We examine whether these
    communications sent consistent messages about the state of climate
    science and its implications—specifically, we compare their
    positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and
    solvable. In all four cases, we find that as documents become more
    publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This
    discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other
    documents. For example, accounting for expressions of reasonable
    doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents
    acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only
    12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We
    conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by
    way of its scientists' academic publications—but promoted doubt
    about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that
    ExxonMobil misled the public. Our content analysis also examines
    ExxonMobil's discussion of the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets.
    We find the topic discussed and sometimes quantified in 24 documents
    of various types, but absent from advertorials. Finally, based on
    the available documents, we outline ExxonMobil's strategic approach
    to climate change research and communication, which helps to
    contextualize our findings.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f



[BBC series]
*Sustainable thinking 16 VIDEOS*
A playlist featuring new, challenging and even visionary thinking around 
climate change and sustainability.
*Can we transform the world in 12 years?*
4:5026k views
Scientists say we have 12 years to stop the planet warming above 1.5C. 
Can we do it? History is full of examples of rapid change.
https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/can-we-transform-the-world-in-12-years/p073j3z5?playlist=sustainable-thinking



[Can we treat an ethical lapse?]
*Should Therapists Treat Climate Change Denial As A Psychological Disorder?*
Paul Hsieh - Contributor I cover health care and economics from a 
free-market perspective.

How far should therapists and psychiatrists go in taking sides on 
controversial political issues such as climate change?

Reporter Olivia Goldhill recently described a talk by psychoanalyst 
Donna Orange, an adjunct professor at New York University, urging that 
therapists address "not just the demons of a patient's subconscious, but 
the horrors of climate change."

In her talk, Orange noted:
Together with the colonialist past we all share, this history of slavery 
and its ongoing effects, of which we rarely speak, blinds us to the 
misery that our carbon-and-methane spewing lifestyles are creating in 
the global south.

Dr. Orange believes that therapists "can draw attention to the threats 
posed by climate change, and then challenge the mental defenses that 
prevent people from responding to climate change."

I fully support the right of any medical or mental health practitioner 
to speak out on issues of importance to them and to advocate associated 
political action. I respect everyone's right to free speech — whether or 
not I agree with the specific views being advocated.

However, I'm leery of medical and mental health practitioners 
introducing their personal politics into the treatment room. And I'm 
especially uneasy with the prospect that certain unpopular political 
views (for example, skepticism about climate change) might be labeled 
with psychoanalytic diagnoses such as "dissociation" or "regression."

Individuals can arrive at controversial views by a variety of means, 
both rational and irrational. The beauty of a free society is that 
rational discourse can allow sound views to take hold and displace 
irrational views. This process can take time and energy, but it's also 
the best way to get "buy in" at the broader cultural level. In my own 
lifetime, I've seen tremendous progress on contentious issues such as 
racial equality, acceptance of sexual minorities, abortion rights, gun 
rights, and drug legalization.

However, this process of organic cultural change is endangered when 
advocates on one side attempt to declare opposing views as out of bounds 
on either medical or legal grounds.

Wikipedia has an excellent (and heart-breaking) list of the many 
historical abuses of psychiatry in countries such as China and the 
former Soviet Union to stifle political dissent by labeling unpopular 
views as "mental illness."

Nor is the United States immune to similar problems. Psychiatrist 
Jonathan Metzl has described how mental health practitioners in one 
hospital in the 1960's "diagnose[d] African Americans with schizophrenia 
because of their civil rights ideas" including the patients' displays of 
"aggression" and "hostility."

Other environmental activists go even further and want to declare 
climate change "denial" not just a psychological issue but as a literal 
crime — to be punished as "murder" in some cases.

I don't have strong views on the climate change debate one way or 
another. I'm glad to let those who feel strongly on either side to apply 
their time, energy, and expertise to make their best possible cases to 
the American people with respect to the relevant scientific and public 
policy issues.

But I want to caution against the temptation to use the medical system 
(or the legal system) to stifle much-needed discussion on this and other 
controversial topics. Medicalizing (or criminalizing) the views of 
political dissenters threatens our basic free speech rights and 
ultimately does us all a disservice. Robust and spirited debate on 
contentious issues is our best way of arriving at the truth, and 
supporters in a free society should settle for nothing less.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2019/02/26/should-therapists-treat-climate-change-denial-as-a-psychological-disorder/#5b6b34061e2b

[Vogue Magazine asks a question of the 21 youths]
*Do Americans Have a Constitutional Right to a Livable Planet? Meet the 
21 Young People Who Say They Do*
- -
When do you think they're going to start studying us in law school?" 
asks Aji Piper, an eighteen-year-old who dropped out of high school to 
focus on the suit and related speaking opportunities (he's seeking a 
more "flexible" program that lets him take his schoolwork on the go.)

"They already are!" Loznak exclaims. "I've taken classes studying this 
case. Which is a surreal experience."

Kelsey Juliana, 23, a University of Oregon undergraduate who lent her 
name to the court filings, raises a different point. She chokes up 
describing the pressure of being, as she puts it, "a holder of hope."

"I have professors pleading with me: 'Can you please skip your class to 
come to my class and educate 200 people that are your age about why they 
should be hopeful?' I feel like I have to be an emotional and spiritual 
compass. They don't want to take the time to understand what's going on. 
[They're like]: 'Just tell me how to be happy!' "

It's snowing and the youngest plaintiff, Levi Draheim, eleven, who lives 
on an imperiled barrier island off the coast of Florida, is doing his 
best to contain his desire to run around outside. "You guys need 
snacks," concludes their lawyer, Olson, and vegan Mexican takeout soon 
appears. Several girls, whose luggage Delta lost, head to Forever 21. 
Van Ummersen starts watching a pottery video on her phone. Another 
plaintiff, Nick Venner, seventeen, dons headphones and begins solving 
differential equations on his laptop. A snowball and then a paper 
airplane go zooming by, care of Draheim, who disappears upstairs and 
returns wearing a psychedelic wizard robe sewn by his mother.

Several of the plaintiffs describe the group as family. "Birds of a 
feather flock together," is how Piper puts it. "Some of my best friends 
in the world," says Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, eighteen, a hip-hop artist—his 
new track features Jaden Smith—of Aztec descent.
- -
https://www.vogue.com/article/youth-v-gov-fight-for-future-april-2019-issue


[corrected version for an important document]
Press release:
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/temperature-rise-locked-coming-decades-arctic
Full report:
https://www.unenvironment.org/fr/node/24594
*Global Linkages- A graphic look at the changing Arctic*
The new report "Global Linkages - A graphic look at the changing 
Arctic", produced by UN Environment and its collaborating center 
GRID-Arendal, is a set of maps and graphics, accompanied by short 
narratives to synthesize and illustrate the most critical, connected 
environmental challenges with Arctic and global relevance and focusing 
on issues which call for common solutions.
www.unenvironment.org



[Some climate psychology]
*Leveraging Serial Dramas to Move the Needle on Climate Change*
5 months ago
Debra SaferPlus
This video includes highlights from speakers Dr. Al Bandura, William 
Ryerson, and Kathy Le Backes (as well as moderator Sonny Fox, host Debra 
Safer) which took place on 3/15/18 at Stanford University.
Applying Psychosocial Principles to Solve Urgent Global Problems.
https://vimeo.com/298100051



*This Day in Climate History - March 26, 2006 - from D.R. Tucker*
March 26, 2006: TIME Magazine releases its April 3, 2006 cover-dated 
issue, with the cover story: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried."
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.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.



More information about the TheClimate.Vote mailing list