[TheClimate.Vote] November 5, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

Tue Nov 5 08:29:55 EST 2019

/November 5, 2019/

[Moving the issue forward, forcefully]
*Bernie Sanders's new bet: a climate change message can win him the Iowa 
caucuses*
In the final 100 days before Iowa's caucuses, Sanders is going all in on 
a climate change message.
By Tara Golshan and Ella Nilsen - Nov 4, 2019
- - -
A Harvard Institute of Politics poll conducted in the spring had Sanders 
as the most popular candidate among 18-to-30-year-old voters. Although 
he's maintained that popularity, other candidates including Warren and 
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg are also vying for younger voters.

But such a heavy emphasis on youth voters is a gamble in itself. Older 
voters are typically more reliable voters, and they are the ones not as 
engaged on the climate issue.

To appeal to voters of all ages, the Sanders campaign really wants to 
focus on how addressing the climate crisis through a Green New Deal plan 
could boost America's economy. That's a similar strategy being adopted 
by the youth climate activist group the Sunrise Movement.

"Climate is typically seen as an issue for young voters but we reject 
the notion that climate only engages young voters," Neidhardt told Vox. 
"We think a strong focus on climate especially on the economic issues 
can really turn the tide."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/4/20946855/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-2020-climate-change

- - -

[Check the scorecard of Presidential Candidates]
*THE RANKINGS*
Click on a candidate to learn more
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate2020/

[New Delhi chokes]
*Flights diverted as New Delhi chokes on heavy pollution*
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/03/india/delhi-flights-pollution-intl-scli/index.html
- - -
Flights diverted as New Delhi chokes on heavy pollution
https://www.newsweek.com/new-delhi-air-pollution-car-rationing-scheme-introduced-1469574
- - -
[Major city in India air hazard]
*New Delhi US Embassy Air Pollution: Real-time Air Quality Index (AQI)*
https://aqicn.org/city/india/new-delhi/us-embassy/
- - -
[recommending a mask]
*Feel tired with the pollution: Get a mask!*
https://aqicn.org/mask/

[National Interagency Fire Center prediction]
*Potential for wildfires in California predicted to be high in November*
It will remain high in southern California through December
https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/03/potential-for-wildfires-in-california-predicted-to-be-high-in-november/

- - -
[trouble]
*California fires: Trump threatens to pull federal aid*
Nearly 100,000 acres have been destroyed by wildfires in recent weeks, 
and thousands have been forced from their homes.

Mr Trump blamed Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, saying he had done a 
"terrible job of forest management".

Several of this year's major wildfires have burned in unforested areas.

"Every year, as the fire's (sic) rage & California burns, it is the same 
thing - and then he comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No 
more. Get your act together Governor," Mr Trump wrote on Twitter.

Mr Newsom, who has been highly critical of Mr Trump's environmental 
policies, responded: "You don't believe in climate change. You are 
excused from this conversation."

Increased temperatures due to global warming are causing huge wildfires 
in California, according to a recent study published in the Proceedings 
of the National Academy of Sciences.

Drier, warmer conditions lead to vegetation drying out and becoming more 
flammable.

President Trump made a similar threat to cut federal aid in 2018, when 
the most deadly fire in California's history killed 86 people.

In California, 57% of forested areas are managed by federal agencies 
such as the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the 
National Park Service.

In 2018, the state requested $72 million (£55.6 million) in 
reimbursements from the US Forest Service, with $9 million (£7 million) 
of that money withheld, the Los Angeles Times reports.

What's happening with the fires?
Firefighters have contained about half of the Maria Fire, the major 
blaze in southern California.

The fire, which broke out on Thursday, has burned more than 9,400 acres, 
the Ventura County Fire Department said on Sunday.

California wildfires 'can now happen in any year'
Is Trump right about California wildfires?
The largest blaze, the Kincade Fire in Sonoma County, was 76% contained 
on Sunday after burning nearly 80,000 acres since it started on 23 
October, officials said.

All evacuation orders were lifted on Saturday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50284656

*Naomi Oreskes: 'Discrediting science is a political strategy'*
ZoeCorbyn - The Observer
Science
The Harvard professor on science and scepticism - and why climate 
deniers have run out of excuses
Sun 3 Nov 2019

In her new book Why Trust Science? Naomi Oreskes, professor of the 
history of science at Harvard University, argues that if more people 
heard scientists talk personally about their values, it would help turn 
back the creeping tide of anti-science sentiment. The former geologist 
recently gave evidence both to a US House of Representatives 
subcommittee hearing, "Examining the Oil Industry's Efforts to Suppress 
the Truth about Climate Change", and a Senate Democrats special 
committee hearing looking at "Dark Money and Barriers to Climate Action".

Your previous book, Merchants of Doubt, chronicled tactics used by 
professional climate deniers. What inspired this one?
During public lectures I would explain there was a scientific consensus 
on climate change and the contrarians were either outliers within the 
scientific community or paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. People 
would say: "Well that's fine, but why should we trust the science?" I 
thought that was a legitimate question.

*Do we have a crisis of public trust in science?*
There has been exaggeration and even panic about this. Public opinion 
polls in the US consistently show that most people still trust science. 
And far more than they trust government or industry. However, there are 
certain areas - for example climate change, vaccination and evolution - 
where there is a high level of public suspicion. In these areas, people 
resist accepting what the evidence shows because of their values. The 
science can be seen to clash with their political, moral or religious 
worldviews, or their economic interests.

Discrediting science is also a political strategy - for example, the 
fossil fuel industry creating the impression that the science on climate 
change is unsettled stops action.
*
** It's fashionable to be sceptical of experts but we rely on them: 
dentists fix our teeth, plumbers unclog our drains*
You could say the US president doesn't trust science. Trump denies the 
climate crisis and has argued against vaccination in the past, and his 
vice-president, Mike Pence, demurs on evolution. How detrimental is this?
It is deeply problematic if the leadership of the US government is 
rejecting science, because it sends a signal to the American people and 
to business leaders that it is fine to reject science, and even to ride 
roughshod over scientists. It is also proof positive that this is not a 
question of people who simply don't have access to good scientific 
information. The US president has access to more scientific information 
than probably anybody on the planet - but he actively rejects it on a 
number of issues because it conflicts with his own interests.

*Why should we trust science? Is it because there is a "scientific 
method" that scientists follow?*
There isn't a single magic formula that guarantees results. We should 
trust science because it has a rigorous process for vetting claims. That 
includes the formal peer review of papers submitted to academic journals 
but also things like scientists discussing their preliminary results in 
conferences and workshops. Crucially, these practices are social in 
character. Consensus is key to when a scientific matter has been 
settled, and therefore when knowledge is likely to be trustworthy. We 
should also trust science because it is done by people who are experts 
in studying the natural world. It's fashionable to be sceptical of 
experts but we rely on trained people every day for all kinds of things: 
dentists fix our teeth and plumbers unclog our drains. Science also has 
a substantial record of success - think of our medicines and 
technologies - suggesting scientists are doing something right.

You say we can learn from science gone awry. One example in the book is 
the eugenics movement, the odious crusade in the early part of the last 
century arguing for the improvement of the genetics of the human race by 
restricting the reproduction of "unfit" people, which particularly 
targeted the mentally ill and the poor…
Climate change deniers love to claim that because scientists were once 
wrong about eugenics, they may be wrong now about climate change. But I 
looked closely and there never was any consensus among scientists on 
eugenics. British geneticists and evolutionary biologists in particular 
- famous names like JBS Haldane and Julian Huxley - who also happened to 
be socialists called out eugenics for its class bias targeting 
working-class people. It shows how diversity in science, in this case 
political diversity, can lead to assumptions being pointed out that 
otherwise would go unnoticed.

*You also look at why it took so long for scientists to study whether 
the contraceptive pill can have mental health side-effects like depression.*
A few years ago a big study came out that associated being on the pill 
with depression and it generated a lot of media attention. But we've 
known this for a very long time because millions of women have been 
telling us. Their self-reports were often discounted as unreliable by 
medical science. Lots of psychiatrists going back to the 1960s were 
aware and some took it seriously. But gynaecologists generally resisted 
that evidence for two reasons. One was because the pill really does 
work, so a lot were eager to prescribe it. But also, these were female 
patients and there is a long history of male doctors in particular 
discounting their reports. The lesson is scientists shouldn't discount 
evidence simply because it's not in their preferred form.

*You use a 2016 controversy around the effectiveness of flossing teeth 
as an example not of flawed science, but flawed journalism. What happened?*
The background is the US government took the view that its dietary 
guidelines should focus on diet and so removed a recommendation to 
floss. A journalist from the Associated Press noticed and decided to 
look at flossing's scientific basis for preventing gum disease and 
cavities. He found that if you took the gold standard of evidence - the 
double-blind randomised controlled trial - it was lacking. But you can't 
do that kind of trial: you know if your teeth are being flossed or not. 
If you make that the standard then, necessarily, there won't be "hard" 
evidence to support flossing. There is a kind of fetishism about RCTs. 
But there are cases including in nutrition and exercise when you can't 
do them, or it would be unethical. In those cases, other types of 
studies, like population or animal studies, can be valuable. Or if you 
have some other kind of information - for example dentists' and our own 
experience that flossing does a lot of good for our teeth and gums - it 
shouldn't be discounted.

*How can we increase trust in science where it is warranted?*
It isn't by giving people more scientific information. Rather scientists 
need to talk about the values that motivate them and shape the science 
they do. In many cases, scientists' values are less different from the 
people who are rejecting science than you might think. And where values 
overlap, trust can be built. We may think of people who reject 
vaccination as being "on the other side" but we all love our children. A 
scientist's "biodiversity" might be a religious believer's "Creation", 
but they are cherishing the same thing. Scientists being willing to talk 
about themselves and their experiences can also go a long way. In my 
book, I talk about something deeply personal: my own experiences with 
the contraceptive pill and depression. It may not be persuasive to 
everyone, but people are much more likely to accept factual information 
from those they can relate to or have a human connection with.

*Lots of scientists work for oil, energy, pharmaceutical, food and 
cosmetics companies, and can bury unwelcome results, massage their 
studies and so on - how do you feel about these people and are they 
contributing to the cynicism about science in the public?*
This is a big question, hard to answer in a soundbite. In the early 20th 
century, a good deal of important science was done in industrial 
laboratories, for example at Westinghouse, General Electric, Bell Labs, 
and Eastman Chemicals. But after the war, many large corporations cut 
back on their support of basic research, and some - most famously the 
tobacco industry - became involved in product defence and distracting 
research. A good deal of product defence research is now channelled 
through academia, and this is deeply problematic. I know from my email 
and Twitter feed that this has stoked distrust among some people, and 
rightly so.

Many scientific journals and universities have been very sloppy about 
taking steps to ensure the integrity of academic findings, for example 
by having and enforcing full disclosure. Academics have to be very clear 
about the soures of their support, and they should never agree to 
non-disclosure agreements. It is essential in science that we let the 
chips fall as they may.

*You've recently been testifying in Congress. What's the message you 
most want to send to politicians?*
Human-induced climate change is under way. It's no longer a matter of 
trust; our scientists have been shown to be right. Climate change 
deniers have run out of excuses.
Why Trust Science? by Naomi Oreskes is published by Princeton University 
Press
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/nov/03/naomi-oreskes-interview-why-trust-science-climate-donald-trump-vaccine

[Battle of state politics]
*Trump responds to California wildfires by threatening to cut federal aid*
Trump suggested ways to fight the fires at odds with the reality on the 
ground, and threaten to cut all federal wildfire "$$$ help."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/3/20946645/trump-california-wildfires-cut-federal-aid-gavin-newsom

[to stymie]
*Trump Stymies California Climate Efforts Even as State Burns*
California is feeling the brunt of climate change with more intense 
fires. The Trump administration is blocking the state's efforts to fight 
it...
By Thomas Fuller and Coral Davenport
SANTA ROSA, Calif. -- For the past three years, countries and companies 
around the world have looked to California as a counterweight to the 
Trump administration's aggressive dismantling of efforts to combat 
climate change.

But this past week, as wildfires burned across the state -- fires that 
scientists say have been made worse by a changing climate -- and as at 
least five large carmakers sided with President Trump's plan to roll 
back California's climate pollution standards, the state's status as the 
vanguard of environmental policy seemed at the very least diminished.
- - -
Michael Wara, director of the climate and energy policy program at 
Stanford University, says the extreme winds that are knocking down power 
lines and starting fires are only one factor.

"The conditions that we are observing right now are a function of 
climate change and climate change will get worse," he said.

California has contended for over a century with an annual wildfire 
season. But scientists have found that climate change -- including 
longer, hotter and drier fire seasons, diminishing snowpack and 
lengthening droughts -- have already measurably worsened the size and 
scale of fires in the western United States. Hotter temperatures means 
drier vegetation, making it more likely to burn.

The most destructive, the deadliest and the largest wildfires in 
California history have all occurred in the past two years.

The 2018 National Climate Assessment -- a major scientific report 
produced by 13 federal agencies -- concluded that if greenhouse gas 
emissions from burning fossil fuels continue to increase at current 
rates, the frequency of severe fires in the west could triple.

The report noted that climate change will also bring more specific 
threats to California. Increased drought could devastate the state's 
farmers, warming waters could close fisheries and spur the growth of 
toxic algae, and rising seas could inundate the homes of 200,000 
Californians and erode two-thirds of California beaches by 2100.

The Trump administration moved this summer to eliminate California's 
authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards on planet-warming 
tailpipe pollution that are stricter than those set by the federal 
government.

When California officials struck a deal in July with four automakers to 
abide by the state's tougher standards, the E.P.A. formally revoked 
California's authority, prompting a lawsuit.

The Trump administration has also threatened to withhold highway 
funding, opened an antitrust investigation into California's deal with 
the carmakers and filed suit to block part of a state initiative to 
limit greenhouse gases from power plants, arguing that its regional 
cap-and-trade system was unlawful because it included Quebec, Canada.

"Why are they going out of their way to attack this authority now?" 
asked Daniel Lashof, director of the World Resources Institute, a 
research organization focused on environmental policy, adding that 
California has been working with Quebec for over a decade.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/us/climate-change-california-fires-trump.html 

[adjustment]
*Madrid to host UN climate summit after Chile pulls out*
- - -
Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist who sparked the global 
student strikes, had travelled as far as Los Angeles without flying and 
was planning to continue to Santiago in time for the conference. On 
Friday she made a plea for help getting back to Europe in time for the 
conference.

"It turns out I've travelled half around the world, the wrong way," she 
tweeted. "Now I need to find a way to cross the Atlantic in November…If 
anyone could help me find transport I would be so grateful."

Event will take place from 2-13 December as planned after Spain 
intervenes to save talks
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/01/madrid-to-host-un-climate-summit-after-chile-pulls-out

[Damage evaluation]
*EPA Career Staffer Says Trump Has Effectively Immobilized the Agency*
https://truthout.org/articles/epa-career-staffer-says-trump-has-effectively-immobilized-the-agency/

[PR - blame from fame]
*A 'Big Short' Investor's New Bet: Climate Change Will Bust the Housing 
Market*
David Burt was one of the few who predicted the 2008 financial crisis. 
He's gambling that history is going to repeat itself soon.
- - -
"There's some really big incentives problems in markets," Burt explained 
recently at a hotel café on New York's Upper East Side. "Whether it's 
conscious or subconscious, and it's not necessarily nefarious, a lot of 
the time it's just easier for people to do the thing that's best for 
them in some easy-to-conceive-of timeframe."

Now Burt thinks there could be another financial disaster growing inside 
the real estate market. But this time, the bubble is being inflated by 
climate change denial.

We tend to conceive of global temperature rise as a slow, steady and 
predictable threat: humans release emissions, the atmosphere gets warmer 
and sea levels get higher and higher. But the disaster Burt thinks the 
markets are ignoring could strike a lot sooner and more abruptly. It 
would likely be felt first in Texas, Florida, New Jersey, California or 
anywhere else with a ton of homes and other real estate exposed to 
flooding, and then spiral outwards into the financial system, 
potentially wreaking destruction rivaling what happened in 2008...
- -
Burt sees similarities between now and the lead-up to 2008. "There's a 
lot of parallels, it's a big real estate mispricing issue. At its core 
that presents a lot of the same risks. A lot of real estate is massively 
overpriced and there's a lot of risk associated with that and the big 
risk is another foreclosure crisis," he said. "Now, it's a very 
different dynamic that's creating the mispricing but actually 
magnitude-wise it looks pretty similar, maybe even bigger."...
- - -
"The findings echo the subprime lending crisis of 2008, when unexpected 
drops in home values cascaded through the economy and triggered 
recession," the New York Times wrote of the report from John Hopkins 
University and HEC Montreal. "One difference this time is that those 
values would be less likely to rebound, because many of the homes 
literally would be underwater."

In such a scenario, Burt and those who invested with his fund would make 
money. But he insists that that's not his sole motivation. He wants 
people to wake up and realize what he has, that the housing 
market--along with so many other things--could be wrecked by climate change.

"I love the environment and nature and much of my joy in life comes from 
going for walks in the woods or on the beach with my family," he said. 
"We have no idea how bad things really could get, there's far bigger 
risks associated with climate change than depreciating home values and 
some of them are just really, really scary."...
more at - 
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wjwyy9/a-big-short-investors-new-bet-climate-change-will-bust-the-housing-market
- - -
[another plug for the book]
*Climate change will break the housing market, says David Burt, who 
predicted the 2008 financial crisis*
Burt's Cornwall Capital was player in the book 'The Big Short'
Published: Nov 2, 2019
In 2016, Freddie Mac's then-chief economist Sean Becketti wrote that 
"the economic losses and social disruption [of rising seas on coastal 
housing] may happen gradually, but they are likely to be greater in 
total than those experienced in the housing crisis and Great Recession."

Burt sees opportunity but says he also wants to sound the alarm.

"I love the environment and nature and much of my joy in life comes from 
going for walks in the woods or on the beach with my family," he told 
Vice. "We have no idea how bad things really could get, there's far 
bigger risks associated with climate change than depreciating home 
values and some of them are just really, really scary."...
- - -

    'There's a lot of parallels, it's a big real estate mispricing
    issue. At its core that presents a lot of the same risks. A lot of
    real estate is massively overpriced and there's a lot of risk
    associated with that and the big risk is another foreclosure crisis.
    Now, it's a very different dynamic that's creating the mispricing,
    but actually magnitude-wise it looks pretty similar, maybe even
    bigger.' -- David Burt

- - -
In 2016, Freddie Mac's then-chief economist Sean Becketti wrote that 
"the economic losses and social disruption [of rising seas on coastal 
housing] may happen gradually, but they are likely to be greater in 
total than those experienced in the housing crisis and Great Recession."

Burt sees opportunity but says he also wants to sound the alarm.

"I love the environment and nature and much of my joy in life comes from 
going for walks in the woods or on the beach with my family," he told 
Vice. "We have no idea how bad things really could get, there's far 
bigger risks associated with climate change than depreciating home 
values and some of them are just really, really scary."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-will-break-the-housing-market-says-david-burt-who-predicted-the-2008-financial-crisis-2019-11-01

[Damage evaluation]
*EPA Career Staffer Says Trump Has Effectively Immobilized the Agency*
by Tara Lohan, The Relevator - PUBLISHED November 3, 2019
On Feb. 6, 2017, 300 people took to the streets of Chicago in protest of 
the impending confirmation of Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Many of those in the crowd were EPA workers. 
ThinkProgress described the action as "what appears to be the first 
protest by federal workers against the Trump administration."

The effort -- led by the American Federation of Government Employees 
Local 704, which represents 900 EPA workers based in Chicago -- wasn't 
the last.

Three months later the broader AFGE Council 238, which represents Local 
704 and more than 7,000 other EPA employees nationwide, launched the 
Save the U.S. EPA campaign to fight attacks on the agency, its staff, 
and their effectiveness in protecting the environment and public health.
Nicole Cantello is one of its spokespeople and has been president of 
AFGE Local 704 in Chicago for the past five months. She's also spent 29 
years as an EPA attorney holding polluters accountable and currently 
works as senior counsel for water and water enforcement in the Great 
Lakes region.

Cantello spoke to The Revelator in her capacity as union president about 
how life has changed for EPA workers during the Trump administration, 
how those changes affect the environment and why we need a plan to 
rebuild the agency.

You've worked with a number of different administrations over your 
nearly three decades with the EPA. How much did things change with each 
one, and how does that compare to life now under the Trump administration?

The change that the Trump administration brought is the most devastating 
change that has ever been wrought on EPA.

My first administration was [George Herbert Walker] Bush. That was 
really the administration that was the most free of any political 
interference that I've ever worked under. Each administration after that 
had slight differences and slight biases based on politics. But you 
really didn't feel that constrained, it was minor.

It's so different now under the Trump administration, where every single 
matter that you might bring has a political tinge to it and you cannot 
bring a case under this administration that there isn't some kind of 
issue that is going to raise alarm bells.

It seems like things have basically come to a standstill here. There are 
just so many hoops to jump through that it's very difficult to bring 
enforcement cases.

What are the impacts of this on the ground, to human health and the 
environment?

Here in Chicago our job is to enforce the law. We don't do any of the 
rulemaking like they do in Washington, D.C., where there are a lot of 
regulatory rollbacks coming out of [now current EPA administrator] 
Andrew Wheeler's shop.

But the numbers on enforcement are down nationwide and where I am in EPA 
Region 5. A lot of times Region 5 does more inspections than the rest of 
the nation combined. We view ourselves as the engine of enforcement -- 
as Region 5 goes, so goes the nation.

When our enforcement is very low, you know things are really wrong. It 
means that human health and the environment are not being protected. It 
means that polluters don't fear the EPA and that means that they can 
pollute with impunity, or they believe that they can. And that means 
that there's going to be more pollutants being discharged into lakes and 
streams or into the air.

What is daily life like for EPA staffers?

We had a contract that we had been working under since 2007 that was 
taken away from us and we were robbed of our workplace rights that we 
had collectively bargained. As of July 8, we now have what we call a 
Unilateral Management Anti-Employee Directive. It took away a lot of the 
things that we had under the old contract, including the right to grieve 
any disciplinary actions brought against us or changes in our 
performance reviews.

For my work with the union, it took away any ability for me to help my 
employees during work time -- it basically took away the voice of unions 
in the workplace.

It also makes it very difficult for workers to feel like they can 
whistle-blow because what you could be disciplined for now you can't 
file a grievance to respond to. That's a very serious thing. There are 
three Office of Inspector General investigations going on in Region 5 
due to employee whistleblowing -- this is a hotbed of resistance.

Another issue is staffing. They have decided to drain EPA staff, 
especially here in Region 5, by not hiring to replace people. When Trump 
took office, he announced that he wanted to bring EPA staff down. We 
were at 1,160 here in the region [at the beginning of 2017] and now 
we're down about 950 and it has just been devastating to us. There's a 
lot of work not getting done and a lot of environmental protection not 
happening.

What are you hearing from people working in other federal agencies on 
environment-related issues? Are their complaints similar?

I don't know about all of them -- I do know that the Department of the 
Interior has the same workplace issues as we do from the standpoint of 
the contract. So, the National Park Service, for example, has no 
contract right now.

The thing about EPA is that when it comes to how much money someone or 
some industry is going make, we really have an influence on that in a 
way that the Department of the Interior or the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration or some of the other science people don't.

We're really more like the Securities and Exchange Commission [that 
regulates the financial industry] in that we can really have a say in 
exactly how much an industry is or is not going to be profitable because 
of how much pollution control we're going to demand from someone.

EPA operates obviously more in a regulatory mode and so is not very 
industry friendly. And I think that industry has been wanting to turn 
that around -- we've been in their sights for a long time. We're just 
more of a target.

How long do you think it will take to undo the damage caused to EPA 
during this administration?

This is something that we have been trying to call the alarm on because 
the people that are going to have to work on climate change and hit the 
ground running right away if a new administration comes in January 2020 
are my people. We are the people that have control of CO2 from the big 
sources that need to be addressed immediately -- things like power 
plants -- the low-hanging fruit. And it's my people that are being 
hamstrung right now.

We really have to start thinking about the fact that we can't be 
reducing EPA staff when it's EPA staff that has to start working on all 
this stuff that the kids were just in the streets protesting about three 
weeks ago.

We need to start thinking about how we're going to repair EPA right 
away, so that we can have EPA start trying to save the world.
https://truthout.org/articles/epa-career-staffer-says-trump-has-effectively-immobilized-the-agency/

[video documentary]
*What Oil Exploration in Alaska's North Could Mean for Indigenous 
Traditions and Wildlife*
Journeyman Pictures
At the Edge of the Earth: Alaska's indigenous Gwich'in tribe are 
fiercely proud of their pristine land but with Trump pushing to open up 
its largest protected wilderness for oil exploration, could it be under 
threat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJjwFVREECk

- -

[Also see this applied to Global Warming]
*Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt" (Part 1 of 6)*
Nov 1, 2010
KSREVideos
Proceed to Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILII3m...
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the 
University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of 
Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.  Oreskes is also 
a co-author, along with Erik M. Conway, of the book, "Merchants of 
Doubt: How a Handful o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVPIA6l2OTg

[very important video on media education]
*The Century of The Self*
Adam Curtis - 2002
To many in both business and government, the triumph of the self is the 
ultimate expression of democracy, where power is truly moved into the 
hands of the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, 
but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and 
controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society. How is 
the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interest?

Series
Part 1 -- Happiness Machines
Part one documents the story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud 
and his American nephew, Edward Bernays who invented 'Public Relations' 
in the 1920s, being the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate 
the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people 
want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced 
goods to their unconscious desires. Bernays was one of the main 
architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer manipulation, using 
every trick in the book, from celebrity endorsement to outrageous PR 
stunts and to eroticising the motorcar. His most notorious coup was 
breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes 
were a symbol of independence and freedom. But Bernays was convinced 
that this was more than just a way of selling consumer goods, it was a 
new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner 
irrational desires that his uncle had identified, people could be made 
happy and thus docile.
https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self/#top Part1, Part2, 
Part3, Part4.

*This Day in Climate History - November 5, 1965 - from D.R. Tucker*
President Johnson's Science Advisory Committee issues a report, 
"Restoring the Quality of Our Environment," that cites the hazards of 
carbon pollution.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today 

document: 
https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.