[TheClimate.Vote] September 4, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed Sep 4 09:48:15 EDT 2019
/September 4, 2019/
[Warren moves decisively]
*Elizabeth Warren embraces Jay Inslee's climate change platform*
By Gregory Krieg and MJ Lee, CNN
September 3, 2019
(CNN) Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday announced she would adopt
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's 10-year climate plan, while also expanding
on his blueprint with a series of additional investments costing $1
trillion to offer additional protections to workers and help fund a
radical transition of American infrastructure and industry away from
fossil fuels.
The Warren proposal, which would cost $3 trillion total, was released on
the eve of a CNN town hall focused exclusively on the climate crisis.
The Massachusetts senator is one of 10 2020 Democratic primary
candidates scheduled to take questions Wednesday night on their
environmental plans.
Warren's announcement signals her hopes of picking up the climate change
baton from Inslee, who dropped out of the race on August 21, the same
day he released the final piece of his comprehensive plan. In a Medium
post published Tuesday night, Warren also challenged her rivals to meet
Inslee's standard.
"Jay didn't merely sound the alarm or make vague promises. He provided
bold, thoughtful, and detailed ideas for how to get us where we need to
go, both by raising standards to address pollution and investing in the
future of the American economy," Warren wrote. "While his presidential
campaign may be over, his ideas should remain at the center of the
agenda."...
- - -
As part of her infrastructure planning, the Warren proposal would create
incentives for the production of electric-powered cars, with an
additional promise to put charging stations at "every federal interstate
highway rest stop" by 2025 -- making them "as widespread and accessible
tomorrow as gas stations are today."...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/politics/elizabeth-warren-jay-inslee-clean-energy-plan-green-new-deal/index.html
- - -
[Elizabeth Warren leaps forward in global warming issue]
*"My Plan for 100% Clean Energy for America"*
- - -
Today, I'm embracing that goal by committing to adopt and build on
Governor Inslee's ten-year action plan to achieve 100% clean energy for
America by decarbonizing our electricity, our vehicles, and our
buildings. And I'm challenging every other candidate for President to do
the same...
- - -
I'm announcing I'll commit an additional $1 trillion over 10 years --
fully paid for by reversing Trump's tax cuts for the wealthiest
individuals and giant corporations -- to match Governor Inslee's
commitment, and to subsidize the economic transition to clean and
renewable electricity, zero emission vehicles, and green products for
commercial and residential buildings.
All told, a federal investment of $3 trillion will leverage additional
trillions in private investment and create millions of jobs.
Read the full plan:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/100-clean-energy-for-america-de75ee39887d
*Sen. Warren has now put forth 11 climate plans:*
Green Manufacturing
Fighting Corruption
Clean Energy
Green Infrastructure
Good Jobs and a Just Transition
Protecting Public Lands
Sustainable Agriculture
International Standards
Improving Trade
Tribal Lands
Clean Air and Water
Her team has them packaged here:
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/climate-change
[Hurricane Dorian question, opinion]
*How much destruction is needed for us to take climate change seriously?*
Kate Aronoff
Whether human civilization stays intact amid this worsening weather
depends on recognizing our shared humanity – and designing policy
accordingly...
- - -
Rising temperatures don't make hurricanes more frequent, but they do
help make them more devastating. Each of the last five years have seen
Category 5 storms pass through the Atlantic, brewed over hotter than
usual waters. How many more people have to die before political leaders
treat climate change like the global catastrophe it is?...
- - -
It'll be tempting, as Dorian drifts toward Florida, for observers in the
US to forget the death and destruction it has left behind elsewhere.
That would be a mistake. Jeff Bezos's escape plans notwithstanding,
we're all stuck on this warming planet together. Whether human
civilization stays intact amid all this worsening weather depends on
recognizing our shared humanity – and designing policy accordingly.
Platitudes for the planet won't cut it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/03/how-much-destruction-is-needed-for-us-to-take-climate-change-seriously
[4 video talks - Paul Beckwith series on Hurricanes]
*Hurricane Dorian Essentially Wipes Grand Bahama Island from the Map*
Paul Beckwith
Published on Sep 3, 2019
It is heart-wrenching witnessing utter devastation that Hurricane Dorian
unleashed on the Bahamas. This powerful Category 5 (sustained winds over
180 mph (300 km/hr), peak winds 225 mph (360 km/hr), storm surge 24
feet) razed and submerged lots of Bahama's northern islands,
unprecedentedly parking over Grand Bahama for 36 hours. Imagine being
hit by winds equal to a tornadoes EF3-EF4 not for a minute or so, but
continuously for 1.5 days, while inundated with 24 foot ocean surge, and
torrential rainfall. If this had occurred 50 miles to the west, it could
have caused trillions of dollars of damage to Florida's east coast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XwJHCmYq4M
- - -
*Unprecedented Behaviour: Category 5 Dorian Gets Stuck on Grand Bahama
Island*
What causes a Category 5 Hurricane (Cat. 6 if it existed) to park itself
over Grand Bahama Island, and stay stationary over 1.5 days while
churning away, grinding the island to a pulp, and submerging lots of the
island under 24 feet of seawater? I show you on Earth NullSchool how
Dorian behaved, and then I delve into the science on how climate change
is making hurricanes much more dangerous. Imagine what would happen if
Dorian had parked itself off Miami instead; the damage to Florida's east
coast could have run into trillions of dollars. We must think about the
unthinkable, with abrupt climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9jD_GrVzs
com/watch?v=06_Up5p_INs
- - -
*Hurricane Danger Increasing from Climate Change: chat on the SCIENCE*
I delve deeply into recent, cutting edge science on how climate change
is making hurricanes more dangerous. Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs)
above 26.5 C fuel cyclones, making them more intense. Global satellite
coverage available since 1985 shows a consistent average of 80 tropical
cyclones per year, varying from 65 to 90, with no discernible trend.
However, since 1975 there has been a substantial increase in the
proportion of Cat. 4 -5 hurricanes of 25-30% per degree C of global
warming (and a similar decrease in Cat. 1 -2 hurricanes. Rapid
intensification of hurricanes has increased 4.4 mph per decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-WaNwVKwn4
- - -
*Abrupt Climate Change Realities: Hurricanes Stronger, Intensify Faster,
Move Slower, Dump More Rain*
I continue to delve deeply into recent, cutting edge science on how
climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous. Warming oceans have
more evaporation; warmer air holds more water vapour, so storms are
stronger and intensify more rapidly and cause much greater rainfall.
Also, the forward speed of tropical storms has reduced globally by 10%
since 1949; slowing over land is even greater (by 21% in western North
Pacific, and 16% in North Atlantic). Hurricane Dorian was essentially
STATIONARY for 1.5 days; Hurricane Harvey in 2017 meandered at 1-2 mph
over Texas in 2017 dropping 5 feet of rain.
https://www.youtube.
[Yes, we will have no bananas.... ]
*Bananas have benefited from climate change – but they won't in future*
Bananas are a staple crop for millions, and one of the world's top 10
crops in terms of the cultivated area devoted to their growth and the
calories they provide to the global population. For the past 60 years,
annual yields have been increasing by 1.37 tonnes a hectare as the world
warms, and now stand at about 10-40 tonnes per hectare.
But a new study by Dan Bebber at the University of Exeter, UK, and his
colleagues suggests that as climate change continues, annual yield gains
will begin to slump. By 2050, they may be down to 0.19-0.59 tonnes per
hectare.
"Bananas can take it pretty hot," says Bebber. "But some of our big
suppliers are under serious threat, particularly in Latin America."
India and Colombia will be so badly affected that total annual banana
yields will begin to fall, he says.
Read more:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2214829-bananas-have-benefited-from-climate-change-but-they-wont-in-future/#ixzz5yVpxIf6L
["That was before the Big Thaw"]
*Alaska's Sea Ice Completely Melted for First Time in Recorded History*
https://truthout.org/articles/alaskas-sea-ice-completely-melted-for-first-time-in-recorded-history/
**[Analysis from Politico -some clips]
*Climate change could be a problem in 2020 ... for Democrats*
Climate change could be a winning long-term political issue for the
Democrats--but in 2020, it could also threaten the party from inside and
out.
By MICHAEL GRUNWALD September 03, 2019
Elissa Slotkin has learned that climate change is both a national
emergency and a political opportunity...
- - -
The politics of climate change are changing fast, partly because global
heat waves, fires in California and the Amazon, Midwestern floods and
increasingly brutal storms keep focusing attention on its nasty
consequences, and partly because the Green New Deal has thrust it to the
center of the national conversation. Polls suggest climate change has
emerged as one of the top two policy priorities for Democratic voters,
rivaled only by health care. The party's presidential candidates are
releasing remarkably aggressive plans to wean America off fossil fuels,
which they discussed briefly during each Democratic primary debate in
Miami and Detroit this summer, and will debate in more detail at forums
devoted exclusively to climate on CNN and MSNBC in September.
Meanwhile, even though Trump is an unapologetic climate-science denier
and fossil-fuel promoter who has claimed that wind turbines cause
cancer, other Republicans are retreating to more nuanced and factually
defensible positions, acknowledging that greenhouse-gas emissions are a
problem while calling for "innovation" and "adaptation" (as opposed to
Green New Deal-style economic transformation) to deal with them.
Corporate America is evolving, too. Dozens of big companies--including
oil majors like BP and Shell--descended on Capitol Hill this spring to
lobby for modest carbon taxes, responding to pressure from their
shareholders and the public to support some kind of climate action...
- - -
It's not a coincidence that Trump has vowed to run for re-election
against the Green New Deal, or that Senate Republicans gleefully forced
a vote on it, or that no Senate Democrats dared to vote yes. Even
liberal House speaker Nancy Pelosi, while supporting deep emissions cuts
and denouncing Trump's efforts to pull the United States out of the
Paris climate accord, has declined to endorse "the green dream or whatever."
Activists often say climate change shouldn't be a partisan issue, but in
the U.S. it still is. Democratic-controlled states like New York,
California, Washington, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada and Maine have
all passed sweeping bills requiring economy-wide climate neutrality by
2050 or earlier. States where Republicans hold power haven't passed
legislation like that, and the Republican Senate minority in blue Oregon
managed to block a similar bill by fleeing the state to avoid a quorum.
Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who chairs a new Democratic committee on
the climate crisis, devoted an entire hearing in July to conservatives
who support climate action, and he's hopeful about some modest
bipartisan efforts to promote clean energy infrastructure and research.
But Schatz says it's far more important for the health of the planet for
Democrats to defeat Trump in 2020 and take full control of Congress.
"As a practical matter, 2020 will decide whether we re-enter the realm
of responsible nations, or not," Schatz says. "It's not a super-complex
policy question. Climate is going to be on the ballot, and Democrats
just have to win."...
- - -
In the past, climate was rarely more than a check-the-box afterthought
on the campaign trail, so it's notable that it has finally broken
through as a top-tier issue for Democratic voters. In one CNN poll, 96
percent of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said
it was important that a presidential candidate support aggressive action
against climate change, higher than any other issue; in several other
polls, climate change has been cited as the number-two Democratic
priority, ahead of guns, jobs and education, just behind health care.
"That's worth underlining and bolding and italicizing," says Anthony
Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale University Program on Climate
Communication.
The Democratic presidential field has absorbed the message; one
potential problem with the CNN and MSNBC climate-only quasi-debates
might be the lack of substantive disagreements for the candidates to
debate. ...
- - -
"It's like the civil rights movement. It's almost better to have Bull
Connor on the other side, so everyone understands the enemy," Steyer
said. "It's one thing when they say: 'The earth is flat.' But when they
say, 'Oh, we're reasonable, but you crazy socialist eggheads are going
to kill millions of jobs,' the politics are tougher."
The politics are especially tough when Fox News is hammering away at the
crazy-socialist-egghead message. Polls show that frequent Fox watchers
hear much more about the Green New Deal than other Americans do, and
dislike it much more than other Americans do. Data for Progress, another
liberal group pushing the Green New Deal, has found in its focus groups
that Fox messaging is having a powerful effect, with many voters
associating the plan with "cow farts" and a tendentious "$93 trillion
price tag" that Fox personalities keep flogging. Fossil fuel interests
have also poured money into PR campaigns and think tanks pushing against
climate action; Steyer says he started intervening in energy-related
state ballot initiatives because environmental groups were getting
outspent by 25-to-1.
"We're up against a very effective and centralized propaganda machine,
and we need to fight back," says Julian Brave NoiseCat, a 26-year-old
indigenous rights activist who is now the strategic director at Data for
Progress. "We can't just remain in a defensive crouch, and that's what
Democratic leaders in Congress have done."...
- -
"The truth is, the situation is so dire that we don't need to argue
which of these policies is best," Schatz says. "We literally need to do
all of them."
Still, the arguments persist, and they help explain why congressional
Democrats have been so vague about their climate policies. They also
could cause problems for the party's presidential nominee, who will
irritate some Democrats whether he or she comes out as pro-nuclear,
anti-nuclear or somewhere in between. The troubling reality of climate
math has created an internal dynamic where just about any candidate's
plan can be criticized as inadequate by activists who don't like the
candidate. When Beto O'Rourke unveiled a far-reaching $5 trillion plan
to zero out emissions by 2050, exactly what the scientists on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have recommended, the Sunrise
Movement trashed it as weak sauce that would fail to "give our
generation a livable future."...
- -
The most prominent Democratic dispute about climate policy is whether it
should focus exclusively on climate, or whether it should take on
broader issues of economic injustice. The Green New Deal resolution was
widely criticized for tacking on utopian progressive ideas like job
guarantees ("to assure a living wage job for everyone") as well as
universal health care and the even broader mandate for "any other
measure the committee deems appropriate for economic security." Some
centrists in Congress and even some mainstream environmental groups
believe those contentious add-ons will send a politically damaging
message that Democrats don't welcome bipartisan cooperation, that their
most strident radicals will be running the show. "I'm worried about the
focus on the loudest voices," says the moderate Rep. Slotkin, who served
as a CIA analyst before working for Obama in the Pentagon.
But Green New Dealers argue that a single-minded focus on emissions
targets and warming scenarios would be bad politics and bad policy,
narrowing and demoralizing the potential coalition for climate action,
increasing the danger of a backlash like the "yellow vest" protests
against France's carbon taxes. They argue that climate hawks should
focus on economic fairness and justice, on helping inner-city residents
who breathe dirty air from coal plants, on dismantling power hierarchies
that favor oil billionaires and agribusiness conglomerates over
low-income minority consumers. They say the only way to fix the climate
will be to inspire a new progressive coalition to take back Washington,
and they're skeptical that a technical goal like keeping average global
temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius will offer enough
inspiration to mobilize the poor, the young, and other less reliable
voting groups to the polls...
- - -
"Intensity is what drives turnout," Steyer told me. "And climate lends
itself to intensity. People are trying to kill your kids! Those are the
facts. Why be polite?
It's also no coincidence that Steyer, before launching his own
presidential campaign, was the leading advocate for Trump's impeachment.
There are real divisions among Democrats over pipelines, carbon taxes
and the Green New Deal, and the rise of climate-curious Republicans is a
real phenomenon. But the president has a knack for dominating the
national conversation, and it's hard to imagine that the climate
conversation will be any different in 2020. As the Trump administration
whacks away at fossil-fuel regulations, while the Trump campaign sells
plastic straws designed to mock concern for the environment, Democrats
hope and Republicans fear that the complex nuances of climate politics
will be boiled down to whether voters care or don't, believe experts or
don't, trust Trump or don't. In that scenario, every climate-driven heat
wave, fire and flood can help persuade swing voters that the president
is ignoring a problem--and help turn out the base, too.
Then again, Trump has already signaled his plan to switch the spotlight
to the radicalism of the Green New Deal and Democratic climate action in
general. The problem for Democrats is that their plans, assuming they're
serious, really are quite radical, because they're all in line with the
international scientific recommendations, which are also quite radical.
A dramatic shift away from fossil fuels could impose dramatic costs on
fossil-fueled states, which helps explain why the Brookings Institution
found that the 13 states with the highest per-capita emissions all voted
for Trump in 2016, while the eight states with the lowest per-capita
emissions voted for Hillary Clinton. The solar and wind boom is quickly
changing the energy mix in red states like Texas and Georgia, but it's
not clear the changes will be quick enough to matter in 2020.
Mark Muro, a Brookings senior fellow, says those fossil-fueled red
states could form a "brown wall" protecting Trump and other Republicans
before they transition to clean energy. "Some of these red states are
decarbonizing fast, and that's incredible, but political realignment
doesn't usually happen that fast," Muro says. "Tribalism is pretty
durable."...
- -
"It's the policy problem from hell," says Yale's Leiserowitz.
"Politicians need to take hard decisions now to help the world in 2050,
when all the political incentives favor short-term thinking. The danger
is that by the time we feel serious pain and it's really obvious we need
to act, the situation will be beyond repair."
In other words, the new inconvenient truth is that it might be good
politics for Trump to campaign against uncomfortable change. But the
climate doesn't care about politics. It's already changing, and the
results will be uncomfortable no matter who wins in 2020.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/03/climate-change-democratic-candidates-2020-227910
[Wildfire Today]
*Portions of California expected to see above average wildfire activity*
"Due to the recent lack of rainfall, areas of concern have emerged
and are expanding to include Texas, California, Nevada, Utah and
southwestern Wyoming – all of which have generally seen less than
25% of average precipitation during the past month. Extended periods
of dry conditions across New Mexico and the southern Great Plains
are also leading to the development and intensification of drought
conditions.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/09/02/portions-of-california-expected-to-see-above-average-wildfire-activity/
[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)]
*Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert
judgment*
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rise
We find that a global total SLR exceeding 2 m by 2100 lies within the
90% uncertainty bounds for a high emission scenario. This is more than
twice the upper value put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change in the Fifth Assessment Report.
We find that since the AR5, expert uncertainty has grown, in
particular because of uncertain ice dynamic effects. For a +2 C
temperature scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement, we obtain
a median estimate of a 26 cm SLR contribution by 2100, with a 95th
percentile value of 81 cm. For a +5 C temperature scenario more
consistent with unchecked emissions growth, the corresponding values
are 51 and 178 cm, respectively. Inclusion of thermal expansion and
glacier contributions results in a global total SLR estimate that
exceeds 2 m at the 95th percentile. Our findings support the use of
scenarios of 21st century global total SLR exceeding 2 m for
planning purposes. Beyond 2100, uncertainty and projected SLR
increase rapidly. The 95th percentile ice sheet contribution by
2200, for the +5 C scenario, is 7.5 m as a result of instabilities
coming into play in both West and East Antarctica. Introducing
process correlations and tail dependences increases estimates by
roughly 15%.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/23/11195
[newly discovered interactions]
SEPTEMBER 2, 2019
*New feedback phenomenon found to drive increasing drought and aridity*
by Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science
A new Columbia Engineering study indicates that the world will
experience more frequent and more extreme drought and aridity than
currently experienced in the coming century, exacerbated by both climate
change and land-atmosphere processes...
- - -
While earlier studies have looked at how atmospheric and oceanic
processes drive climate extremes, the Columbia Engineering team has
focused on examining and modeling land-atmosphere processes, especially
in setting up concurrent extremes that can be very destructive. Soil
drought, represented by very low soil moisture, and atmospheric aridity,
represented by very high vapor pressure deficit, a combination of high
temperature and low atmospheric humidity, are the two main stressors
that drive widespread vegetation mortality and reduced terrestrial
carbon uptake. Concurrent soil drought and atmospheric aridity is a time
period when soil moisture is extremely low and vapor pressure deficit is
extremely high.
"Concurrent soil drought and atmospheric aridity have dramatic impacts
on natural vegetation, agriculture, industry, and public health," says
Pierre Gentine, associate professor of earth and environmental
engineering and affiliated with the Earth Institute. "Future
intensification of concurrent soil drought and atmospheric aridity would
be disastrous for ecosystems and greatly impact all aspects of our lives."
- - -
"Most groups have been focused on assessing concurrent drought and
heatwaves, but we are finding stronger coupling between drought and
aridity than between drought and heatwaves," says Sha Zhou, the study's
lead author and a postdoc working with Gentine. "Concurrent drought and
aridity also have a stronger impact on the carbon cycle and so we felt
this was a critical point to study."
The team discovered that the feedback of soil drought on the atmosphere
is largely responsible for increasing the frequency and intensity of
atmospheric aridity. In addition, the soil moisture-precipitation
feedback contributes to more frequent extreme low precipitation and soil
moisture conditions in most regions. These feedback loops lead to a high
probability of concurrent soil drought and extreme aridity. The CMIP5
simulations suggest that land-atmosphere feedbacks will further increase
the frequency and intensity of concurrent drought and aridity in the
21st century, with potentially large human and ecological impacts...- [more]
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-feedback-phenomenon-drought-aridity.html
- - -
[july 2019]
*Warming climate intensifies summer drought in parts of U.S., study finds*
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-summer-drought.html
[Australia weather summary and outlook]
*Climate and Water Outlook, September--November 2019*
Bureau of Meteorology
Published on Aug 28, 2019
The end-of-month Climate and Water Outlook video covers rainfall,
streamflow and temperature for the next three months. It includes a
wrap-up of recent conditions and a look at which drivers are influencing
our climate. Read more at http://ow.ly/lYZ650vNcMk Our first look at
likely conditions for October to December will be available on Thursday
the 12th of September.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCwI4m2yi9w
[but is it phony baloney]
*Beyond Meat uses climate change to market fake meat substitutes.
Scientists are cautious*
Key Points
- As concerns mount over the dangers of a rapidly warming planet,
upstart food companies are targeting a major climate-damaging food:
beef.
- Beyond Meat and its privately held rival Impossible Foods have
recently grabbed headlines and fast-food deals for their plant-based
burgers that imitate the taste of beef.
- They've also turned the environmental benefits of abstaining from
meat into a key marketing tool for their products -- drawing some
skepticism from environmental researchers who say plant diets are
healthier and less carbon emitting than producing processed
plant-based products.
- "Beyond and Impossible go somewhere towards reducing your carbon
footprint, but saying it's the most climate friendly thing to do --
that's a false promise," said Marco Springmann, a senior
environmental researcher at the University of Oxford.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html
*This Day in Climate History - September 4, 2001 - from D.R. Tucker*
September 4, 2001: In the Boston Globe, Theodore Roosevelt IV--the
great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt--declares:
"We Americans are heading into a carbon-constrained, ecologically
fragile future for which we are ill prepared. Under the present
leadership we are dragging our feet, willing to sacrifice vital
natural resources instead of making real investments in current
efficiency and future energy technologies. This is hardly a
conservative agenda.
"Moderate Republicans, and I am one, are distressed that an
administration that strenuously claims to be conservative is instead
intent on maintaining undisciplined and wasteful consumption. This
is unsustainable public policy, and I doubt that it will go far in
achieving victory in the midterm elections. Bad public policy and
bad politics are a lethal combination."
http://web.archive.org/web/20020619223452/http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0904-01.htm
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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