[TheClimate.Vote] May 11, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sat May 11 09:24:43 EDT 2019
/May 11, 2019/
[now measured]
*US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds*
**Exclusive: Out of 23 big countries, only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia
had higher proportion of doubters
- - -
The survey--conducted by the YouGov-Cambridge Global Project in
partnership with the Guardian--included 23 of the world's largest
countries where the U.S. ranks No. 3 on the climate denial scale. More
than 25,000 people were surveyed online for this analysis, which found
that 13 percent of Americans believe that humans are not at all
responsible for climate change. On the other hand, only 6 percent of the
Chinese and British public don't blame people. What is wrong with us?!
Another 5 percent of Americans don't even believe the climate is
changing. To put this all in perspective, that's some 58 million
individuals in the U.S. who are in denial of reality...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll
- - -
[Many polls show increased interest]
*Guest Post: Polls reveal surge in concern in UK about climate change*
Leo Barasi is the author of The Climate Majority: Apathy and Action in
an Age of Nationalism and blogs at Noise of the crowd.
Climate change has been unusually prominent in the UK media over recent
weeks - and this is mirrored by a noticeable increase in
climate"concern" in the polls.
From 15-25 April, climate change was high on the news agenda in
response to the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, a major BBC
documentary presented by Sir David Attenborough and the visit to London
by the Swedish school climate protestor Greta Thunberg.
Data presented by Carbon Brief and the University of Colorado both found
that the media mentioned"climate change" more in April than it did in
almost any previous month.
Several research agencies have conducted opinion polls of the UK public
since the protests started and have now published their results. This
means we can see what effect the events of April, and the resulting
media coverage, has had on public opinion...
- - -
Another poll, by ComRes, conducted after the protests had finished,
included a pair of questions that point to a similar conclusion. The
poll tested several statements, including:
"I believe that climate change threatens our extinction as a species."
And…
"I do not believe that climate change threatens our extinction as a
species, but it does need to be tackled."
The first of these reflects Extinction Rebellion's position, while the
second sounds like the sort of measured compromise favoured by some
conservative commentators.
Strikingly, despite being offered a more extreme statement and a milder
compromise, the public are much more likely to agree with the stronger
statement. ComRes found that 54% agree climate change threatens human
extinction, with only 25% disagreeing. In contrast, only 39% agree with
the compromise statement, with 47% disagreeing.
- - -
The polls also found widespread support for some government policies
that could help achieve this transformation. In the Opinium poll, 77%
said they would support the government investing more heavily in
renewables, while 57% said they would support a move to"stop giving
aviation tax breaks".
The same poll also found clear majorities for clean incentives and
subsidies, such as for home insulation, electric cars and public
transport. The BEIS poll also found support for solar and wind energy is
at record levels...
- - -
For example, a second Sky Data poll found that 40% say they would
significantly reduce meat or give it up entirely to help combat climate
change, a shift that may be needed to reduce the UK's emissions. The
same poll found fewer people say they would reduce the amount they drive
or travel by plane: 28% for both changes. Likewise, the Opinium poll
found 33% supporting a meat tax, with 39% opposing one.
Some other questions on the same themes found even more support. For
example, the ComRes poll found 51% would"forego at least one overseas
trip per year for the sake of the climate" - that is 23 percentage
points more than told Sky Data they would"significantly reduce" their
air travel or give it up entirely. The Opinium poll also found 75% said
they might/would definitely eat less meat in the future to protect the
environment and climate, or were already doing so. This is nearly twice
the proportion that responded positively to Sky Data.
The difference in responses to these questions about personal behaviour
change seem to reflect the implication of how disruptive the shift would
be. When a change to something such as meat eating or flying is phrased
as a"significant" reduction, most people are reluctant. But when the
quantity is specified or it is simply presented as meaning people would
do it"less", there is much more support.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-rolls-reveal-surge-in-concern-in-uk-about-climate-change
- - -
[More Leo Barasi]
*Extinction Rebellion's protests were an unprecedented success. Three
questions about what comes next.*
Past climate change protests have had little direct effect on public
debate, but Extinction Rebellion protests in London seem to have
directly influenced politics, the media and the public. Its success
raises questions about the climate debate and what happens next with the
protest movement.
I have some historical data to help understand Extinction Rebellion's
success: my master's dissertation analysed the impact of public
protests, along with extreme weather events and international climate
conferences and reports, on public opinion, political debate and media
coverage. I found that extreme weather sometimes influences public
opinion, while UN climate conferences and IPCC reports often trigger
media coverage and parliamentary debates. But climate protests generally
have little direct effect on any of these. The full 2014 dissertation is
here and a summary of the results is here.
Extinction Rebellion is different
But while climate protests have done less than other climate-related
events to directly influence public debate, the Extinction Rebellion
protests have been different...
- - -
My research found only one example of public concern about climate
change directly increasing after a particular external event: major
floods from December 2013 to February 2014 were followed by a spike in
public worries.
We don't yet know whether the protests - and the documentary and
Thunberg's visit - will influence public opinion, but it's plausible. I
can say this because there has been a rapid increase in the number of
Google searches for climate change, taking it to the same level as it
was at during the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen - the previous
high. That said we're still at only about half the level of interest we
were at during a peak in attention to climate change in 2007 (and,
interestingly, we can see a shift from the public using the term global
warming to preferring climate change, over this time)...
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/extinction-rebellions-protests-unprecedented-success-three-questions-comes-next/
[Oh darn, another unique climate event discovered]
*Simultaneous heatwaves caused by anthropogenic climate change*
April 10, 2019
Source: ETH Zurich
Summary: Without the climate change caused by human activity,
simultaneous heatwaves would not have hit such a large area as they did
last summer.
Many people will remember last summer -- not only in Switzerland, but
also in large swathes across the rest of Europe, as well as in North
America and Asia. Multiple places around the world experienced heat so
severe that people died of heatstroke, power generation had to be
curtailed, rails and roads started to melt, and forests went up in
flames. What was truly sobering about this heatwave was that it affected
not only one area, such as the Mediterranean region, but several across
the temperate zones and the Arctic simultaneously.
ETH researchers have concluded that the only explanation of why heat
affected so many areas over several months is anthropogenic climate
change. These are the findings of the recent study that ETH climate
researcher Martha Vogel presented today at the European Geosciences
Union press conference in Vienna. The paper resulting from this study is
currently in review for an academic publication.
Analysing models and observations
In the study, Vogel, a member of ETH Professor Sonia Seneviratne's team,
looked at the areas of the Northern Hemisphere north of the 30th
latitude that experienced extreme heat simultaneously from May to July
2018. She and her fellow researchers concentrated on key agricultural
regions and densely populated areas. In addition they looked into how
large-scale heatwaves are projected to change as a consequence of global
warming...
- - -
*Heat puts food security in jeopardy*
Professor Seneviratne adds,"If multiple countries are affected by such
natural disasters at the same time, they have no way to help one
another." This was illustrated in 2018 by the forest fires in Sweden: at
that time, several countries were able to help with firefighting
infrastructure. However, if many countries are battling major fires at
the same time, they can no longer support other affected countries.
The food supply situation could also become critical: if broad expanses
of areas vital to agriculture are struck by a heatwave, harvests could
suffer massive losses and food prices would skyrocket. Anyone thinking
these assumptions are overly pessimistic would do well to recall the
heatwave that swept across Russia and Ukraine in 2010: Russia completely
stopped all its wheat exports, which drove up the price of wheat on the
global market. In Pakistan, one of the biggest importers of Russian
wheat, the price of wheat rose by 16 percent. And because the Pakistani
government cut food subsidies at the same time, poverty increased by 1.6
percent, according to a report by aid organisation Oxfam.
"Such incidents cannot be resolved by individual countries acting on
their own. Ultimately, extreme events affecting large areas of the
planet could threaten the food supply elsewhere, even in Switzerland,"
Seneviratne emphasises.
She continued by pointing out that climate change won't stabilise if we
don't try harder. At present, we are on course for a temperature
increase of 3 degrees. The Paris Agreement aims for a maximum of 1.5
degrees."We are already clearly feeling the effects just from the one
degree that the global average temperature has risen since the
pre-industrial era," says Seneviratne.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190410112744.htm
- - -
[more earlier source material supports]
*Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United
States*
Abstract
A combination of climate events (e.g., low precipitation and high
temperatures) may cause a significant impact on the ecosystem and
society, although individual events involved may not be severe extremes
themselves. Analyzing historical changes in concurrent climate extremes
is critical to preparing for and mitigating the negative effects of
climatic change and variability. This study focuses on the changes in
concurrences of heatwaves and meteorological droughts from 1960 to 2010.
Despite an apparent hiatus in rising temperature and no significant
trend in droughts, we show a substantial increase in concurrent droughts
and heatwaves across most parts of the United States, and a
statistically significant shift in the distribution of concurrent
extremes. Although commonly used trend analysis methods do not show any
trend in concurrent droughts and heatwaves, a unique statistical
approach discussed in this study exhibits a statistically significant
change in the distribution of the data.
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11484.short
[listen or read clips from New Yorker interview]
*Bill McKibben and Elizabeth Kolbert on the U.N. Extinction Report*
While the political tide could be turning on climate change, both
writers worry that it is too late.
By The New Yorker - May 9, 2019
Bill McKibben: What's different about now? Well, one of the things
that's different is it's much easier to see precisely what's going on...
"The problem with climate change is that it's a timed test," the writer
Bill McKibben says."If you don't solve it fast, then you don't solve it."
McKibben joined Elizabeth Kolbert in a conversation about the U.N.'s new
report on species extinction. It finds that a million species could
become extinct within a few decades, and that human life itself may be
imperilled. While the political tide could be turning, both worry that
it is too late...
Listen: David Remnick interviews Bill McKibben and Elizabeth Kolbert on
The New Yorker Radio Hour...
- -
*Now, why would Donald Trump, who is not an executive in the oil
industry, believe something like that global warming is a Chinese hoax?
And why, correspondingly, why is a matter of science a matter of
partisan politics? You say that the Democratic Party believes X, but a
lot of Republicans believe otherwise.*
Kolbert: Well, this ... has been kind of a long history of a combination
of moneyed interests and political interests colluding, as it were--the
word of the hour--to make this issue seem to be one of belief. It has
nothing to do with your belief. It has to do with geophysics, and
geophysics that have been established for quite some time now. And so
how we got into the situation here, the most technologically
sophisticated society in history in the world where you still have a lot
of people saying--and a lot of people in very high places, like the
White House, and also at the head of the E.P.A.--and they've put in
place, they've taken people out of this, you know, denier complex, and
put them into top offices in the federal government. And those guys know
exactly what they want to undo, and they are pretty systematically going
about doing it. I don't know--to be honest, with all the noise there is
around the Trump Administration, I'm not sure enough attention has been
paid to what they're doing to environmental regulations across the board...
Kolbert: Well, I would think it would be extremely interesting if you
could, in an unguarded moment--I don't think any of the three of us are
getting these guys in an unguarded moment--but to say, you know, how how
do you sleep with yourself at night? How do you look at yourself in the
mirror? I would love to be able to pose that question now. I think that
one of the lessons of the last couple of years, unfortunately, is the
capacity for human delusion and self-delusion is limitless. So, you
know, it's possible that you could administer truth serum to these guys
and they would still be saying the same thing, because they actually,
you know, quote-unquote"believe it." I honestly don't know
- - -
*Betsy,...when I read the report about"The Sixth Extinction" in the U.N.
report, I said, The New Yorker had that ten years ago, when you
published it, in 2009, the very same thing. What is the difference
between 2009 and 2019 in terms of the extinction of hundreds of
thousands of species on the planet Earth?*
Kolbert: Well, I think that it's one of those cases where, as I'm sure
Bill would say, you don't like to see the news bearing out what you
said. But, in this case, you know, the only difference is more
documented destruction, really. And a lot more studies piled on the ones
that were available to us five, ten years ago. But the general trend
lines--an accelerating trend line, I do want to say, of human
impacts--but the general trend line of biodiversity loss, which has been
recognized for quite some time now, it's all just playing out according
to plan, unfortunately. And what this report does, I think, it's really
trying to, (a), raise the alarm, but, (b), really pointing to, there
seems to be this strange disconnect, once again, out there. And it's
true that global G.D.P. is larger than ever. And at the same time
species loss and destruction of the natural environment, natural world,
other species is also greater than ever. And those two things are very
intimately linked, and if you only pay attention to the G.D.P. part, you
might say,"Oh, everything's fine." But I think what the point that this
report is really trying to make is, those lines are going to cross.
People are still dependent on the natural world--all the oxygen we
breathe, all the food we eat, all the water--you know, these are
biological and geochemical systems that we're still dependent on, for
better or worse, and we are mucking with them in the most profound ways.
I think that that is the message, the take-home message of that report.
*In other words, this so-called soaring economy that we're enjoying now
is the worst kind of illusion.*
Kolbert: Well, once again, it depends on how you measure it. If you
measure it by stuff that we're producing, I don't want to say it's an
illusion. But if you look at the other side of that, the cost it's taken
on the natural world, everything from land use gobbling up habitat to
plastic pollution in the oceans. The list goes on and on and on. And the
question of, can you sustain that over time, we haven't been at this
project very long without really wreaking havoc with the systems that
sustain us. I mean, there are two issues here. And I think they have to
be separated to a certain extent, intellectually if not biologically.
And one is, could humans go on like this for quite a long time, just
letting the rest of the world decay around us? Is that O.K.? You know,
for us as a species to just do in a million or more other species, just
because we are enjoying a better and better standard of living, is that
O.K.? That's one question, and then the other question is, can that
happen? You know, just physically, are we capable of sustaining this,
with all of these other trends going around, or are we really
threatening our own life-support systems? And I think this report is
suggesting very significantly that we are threatening our own
life-support systems. But I think that the other question of the ethical
stance that we take toward this is also extremely important.
*And yet, for years and years, if you betrayed the fact that you cared
about this, you were described as a tree-hugger and mocked.*
Kolbert: Well, and that's still true. I mean, we are arguing in this
country right now. Even as I speak, and we speak, this goes back to the
Trump Administration, and how they're systematically trying to unravel a
lot of very basic environmental protections in this country. We're going
to argue over the Endangered Species Act, which actually has been quite
successful, in its own modest way. If you are a species, you get on the
list, you have to have a recovery plan, and those species have tended to
survive--not necessarily thrive, but survive. And now we're going to
argue about whether we should even be doing that. So these arguments are
never-ending and, you know, pitting human welfare against the welfare of
everything else, that doesn't seem like a winning strategy over the long
run...
*Bill, I was really interested to read that you think that the great
climate-change document of our time is by Pope Francis.**
*McKibben: Well, I think that the encyclical that he wrote three and a
half years ago now,"Laudato Si," it is amazing. Mostly because, though
it takes off from climate change, it's actually a fairly thorough and
remarkable critique of modernity. And it talks really about precisely
the things that Betsy has been talking about--understanding this as,
yes, a problem of physics and of the need to put up a lot of solar
panels and wind turbines, which we now can do because the engineers have
made them affordable, but also understanding it as a problem of human
beings and their relations with each other. As Francis points out, the
last forty years, this period of time when we've worshipped markets and
assumed they solved all problems has not only spiked the temperature
through the roof, it's spiked inequality through the roof. And the two
are not unrelated...
- -
*Betsy, at the forefront of political conversation where this is
concerned is the Green New Deal. What do you make of the proposals, and
is it sufficiently specific for you?*
Kolbert: Well, I think there's a tremendous amount of thought that went
into the Green New Deal, and it's sort of the very big-tent view of who
should be interested in climate change. I think it was very smart in a
lot of ways, because one of the things that always happens when you try
to use, for example, pricing mechanisms to drive us off of fossil fuels
and toward renewable energy is you can get this terrible coalition of
polluters and poor people, or people who claim to be campaigning on
behalf of low-income Americans, because there's ways, for example, to do
a carbon tax that is revenue-neutral and that's cost-neutral to people.
But there are also ways to play it so that it seems like it's a
regressive tax on the poor. So we need a really big tent to get some of
these key pieces of legislation passed, and I think that that's a very
smart aspect of the Green New Deal, that it's really trying to bring as
many people together, a coalition of labor interests, of people working
on behalf of income equality, all sorts of causes under the same tent.
Now, that being said, to get from here to there, to get to the kind of
society that is envisioned in the Green New Deal, which the three of us
here might very much agree with, that's not one political battle, that's
a zillion political battles. So that's the question, you know, is it
better to try to take on all these things at one point, or would it be
better to have one single piece of legislation. There is no legislation
associated with the Green New Deal. It is really just as a series of
aspirational goals at this point.
*Bill, how do you see the Green New Deal? Do you see it the same way?*
McKibben: I think it's the first time we've had legislation that's on
the same scale as the size of the problem. I mean, look. It's one of
these places where I have to be careful not to be a jerk and say," Oh if
only you listened to me when . . ." Because, as I said before, there
were things we could have done at a certain point that were relatively
small and easy, but those options are no longer available. Like a modest
carbon tax, which still makes perfect sense but by itself is nowhere big
enough to get the yield, the savings in carbon emissions that we now
desperately need, because we're talking six, seven per cent a year or
more now to try and meet anything like these U.N. goals. Those are
enormous, on the bleeding edge of technically possible. So I think it's
really important that the Green New Deal is out there, and I think it's
really important, most of all, that we just keep ramping up pressure on
this system to produce something large.
*Well that's why the first reaction to the proposal of a Green New Deal
from the President of the United States and people at cpac and the rest
was,"They're going to take away your hamburgers, they're going to ban
cows." You're dealing with an opposition that's working not in the
spirit of science or good faith.*
McKibben: Right. Which is why it's probably not worth trying to spend a
whole lot of time coming up with a solution that the President's going
to love and enjoy. What we have to do is rally the three-quarters of
this country that understands we're facing a really serious problem. I
think that this is going to become one of the issues in this
Presidential campaign, because I think everyone's begun to realize how
out of touch Trump is with most voters. It's a good thing, too, because,
David, we're basically out of Presidential cycles in order to deal with
this problem.
*How do you mean?*
McKibben: Well the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last
November issued their most recent report, and it was by far their most
pointed to date. It said if really fundamentally transformative work was
not well under way by 2030 then we were not going to catch up with the
math of climate change. Physics was going to just be too far ahead in
this race. And you know enough about political life in this country or
any other to know that a decade is a short period of time--if we want to
have anything substantial happening in a decade then we have got to be
doing it right away...
- - -
*Now, there's a recent CNN poll, Betsy, that shows that Democrats care
more about climate change than any other issue in the upcoming election.
More than health care, more than gun control, more than impeaching or
not impeaching President Trump. Did that surprise you? And do you think
that will hold up somehow when it comes time for the campaign to
intensify in the debates to happen?*
Kolbert: I will confess that I was very surprised by that. I mean,
you've always seen climate change rank, you know, nineteenth, or
something like that. And so I think that's an extraordinary development.
And you could argue it's a positive result, and you could argue, oh, my
God, that's the scariest thing I've ever heard, because it does suggest
that people are really seeing changes in their own lives that they find
very frightening. And I think that, to get back to your point of, do the
Koch brothers have grandchildren, I mean, people look at their kids. You
know, I certainly do, and all the kids who are out on the street and
say," What is the world going to look like?" You know, twenty or thirty
years from now, when my kids are my age--it's scary and it's depressing
and it makes you ashamed. I mean, how could we leave a world like this
to our children? I think increasing numbers of people are feeling that...
- - -
*McKibben*: Well, people are really beginning to talk at least about
trying to hold those companies financially accountable. As you know, the
New York state attorney general is suing Exxon on the grounds that it
lied to investors. New York City is suing the oil companies on the
grounds that their product produced a knowable and foreseeable harm in
terms of the sea-level rise. The city is now spending billions to try
and cope with it. This is happening now around the country and around
the world. The clearest analogy probably is to the tobacco wars of the
previous generation. In fact, the oil industry hired veterans of the
tobacco wars and the DDT wars to try and pull the same trick here. And
they did it with, sadly, great power. That's what happens when you have
the biggest industry in the world all in behind the most consequential
lie in human history...
- - -
*And we've been seeing it already.*
Kolbert: And we're seeing it, but it's just beginning. And it's not just
beginning and then we can turn it around, it's just beginning and a lot
more is built in...
*What can be held back, Bill, and what can't be held back at this point?*
McKibben: Well, look, Betsy's right. The problem with climate change is
that it's a timed test, and if you don't solve it, it's really the first
timed test like this we've ever had. And if you don't solve it fast then
you don't solve it. No one's got a plan for refreezing the Arctic once
it's melted, and we've lost now seventy or eighty per cent of the summer
sea ice in the Arctic. So that's a tipping point more or less crossed.
The oceans are thirty per cent more acidic than they used to. So we're
not playing for stopping climate change. We're playing maybe for being
able to slow it down to the point where it doesn't make civilizations
impossible. That's an open question. There are scientists who tell you
we're already past that point. The consensus, at least for the moment,
is that we've got a narrow and closing window, but that if we move with
everything we have, then, perhaps, we'll be able to squeeze a fair
amount of our legacy through it. But Betsy is right, an already very
difficult century is going to become a lot harder no matter what we do.
It's at this point trying to keep it from becoming not a difficult and
even miserable century but a literally impossible one...
- - -
*Now, Betsy, .. you see this all over the world. Is right-wing populism
in concert with anti-environmentalism globally?*
Kolbert: Well, they they do tend to go hand in hand. They have tended to
go hand in hand, and one of the strains to all of this, and it does get
back to some of the points that Bill was making about this peculiar
moment that we have lived through and live in, is climate change is a
global problem. The atmosphere is the global commons. There's just no
getting around it. The atmosphere doesn't care where the carbon was
emitted, it just cares that it was emitted. And so you do need global
cooperation and global action. And at precisely this moment where
nothing could be more important we are seeing a resurgent nationalism.
Coincidence? You know, possibly, but it is possibly also a lot of
anxiety around how are we going to deal with this global problem.
*And I don't see when you look at all of the global politics involved,
you know, putting even aside American politics for the moment, which are
very hard to see beyond.*
But that's why I say it's one of these problems where you scale one
mountain and then you see, you know, another mountain chain ahead of
you, unfortunately.
Elizabeth Kolbert, Bill McKibben--authors of really the essential works
on climate change these last thirty years. Thank you so much.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/bill-mckibben-and-elizabeth-kolbert-on-the-un-extinction-report
[Beckwith video]
*Abrupt Changes in El Nino Measured From 400 Year Coral Record: Part 1 of 2*
Paul Beckwith
Published on May 10, 2019
With ongoing abrupt climate change, El Niño events have undergone a
profound shift in the past few decades. Over a 400 year time-span, the
strongest ever, literally off-the-chart events were the Eastern Pacific
(EP) El Niño in 1997-98, followed by the EP events in 1982-83, and then
in 2015-16; occurring every 15 years, on average. However Central
Pacific (CP) El Niño events that occurred about every 9 years over the
last 400 years, have increased in occurrence frequency to every 3.3
years; we have one now. Global consequences of ENSO - El Niño Southern
Oscillation to humanity via teleconnections are now different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ttPT5fwqQk
[well, duh]
*Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard: 'Denying climate change is evil'*
The octogenarian entrepreneur, who prefers gardening to meetings, says
capitalism is destroying earth
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/10/yvon-chouinard-patagonia-founder-denying-climate-change-is-evil
[Half Way Joe, means defeat,"If you don't solve it fast, then you don't
solve it"]
*Joe Biden Looks To Revive Obama's Climate Plan. Scientists Say That's
Not Good Enough.*
The 2020 Democratic candidate's plan to tackle the climate crisis, which
he's called an"existential" threat, reportedly includes a role for
fossil fuels.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-climate_n_5cd5a008e4b0705e47db6ac2
*This Day in Climate History - May 11, 2014 - from D.R. Tucker*
HBO's"Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" mocks the mainstream media's
false-balance fixation on climate.
John Oliver hosts a mathematically representative climate change debate,
with the help of special guest Bill Nye the Science Guy, of course.
http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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