[TheClimate.Vote] December 11, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 11, 2020*/

[Greta report and video]
*Greta Thunberg: 'We are speeding in the wrong direction' on climate crisis*
Exclusive: Climate striker speaks before UN event marking five years 
since the Paris accord
- -
Thunberg has released a video which calls leaders to account for failing 
to reverse rising carbon emissions. "We are still speeding in the wrong 
direction," she said. "The five years following the Paris agreement have 
been the five hottest years ever recorded and, during that time, the 
world has emitted more than 200bn tonnes of CO2.

"Distant hypothetical targets are being set, and big speeches are being 
given," she said. "Yet, when it comes to the immediate action we need, 
we are still in a state of complete denial, as we waste our time, 
creating new loopholes with empty words and creative accounting."...
- -
She told the Guardian: "Leaders should be telling the truth: that we are 
facing an emergency and we are not doing nearly enough. We need to 
prioritise the action that needs to be taken right here and right now, 
because it is right now that the carbon budget is being used up.

"We need to stop focusing on goals and targets for 2030 or 2050," she 
said. "We need to implement annual binding carbon budgets today."

Thunberg said recent pledges by the UK - to cut carbon emissions by 68% 
by 2030 compared with 1990 levels - and by China, Japan and South Korea 
to become net carbon zero were creating a sense of progress, and she 
added: "That is a very dangerous narrative because of course we're not 
going in the right direction. We need to call this out."...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/10/greta-thunberg-we-are-speeding-in-the-wrong-direction-on-climate-crisis



[Divest yes]
*NY Pension Fund Will Divest From Fossil Fuels*
https://www.ecowatch.com/ny-pension-fossil-fuel-divestment-2649439380.html



[information battleground]
*One Thing John Kerry Is Sure to Fight Against: Disinformation *
By Amy Westervelt
Back in January, on my first and last reporting trip of the year, I 
interviewed media whiz Jay Rosen about disinformation, fake news, and 
propaganda. When I asked him what he thought patient zero was for 
today's fake news explosion, I expected him to hesitate a bit, weigh the 
many options. But he answered immediately: The John Kerry Swift Boat 
Veterans for Truth thing.

I, of course, asked what about climate, which I believe has been a trial 
balloon for all the disinformation chaos of the modern century, and he 
said "Yes, definitely, but that Kerry swift boat thing was the first 
time that political reporters pointing out that something was false 
seemed to have no effect whatsoever."

If you're younger than 35 you may not remember this moment in U.S. 
politics. Back in 2004, before he was Obama's secretary of state or 
Biden's climate czar, John Kerry was a Democratic senator running for 
president. He was campaigning against George W. Bush who was a couple 
years into the U.S. response to 9/11, so it was important to highlight 
his military career. At the end of July, Kerry was ahead of Bush in the 
polls. And then a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 
unleashed their media campaign. In various op-eds, a best-selling book, 
and a now-famous ad, this shadowy group of men who claimed to have 
served with Kerry in Vietnam said he was lying about his military 
service and was unfit to lead the country.

"In previous election cycles, that would be the kind of thing where 
early reporters to the campaign would check it out because they'd want 
to know if it was going to be an issue," Rosen said. "And then when they 
discovered that there wasn't much to it, they would just say, well, 
that's not a factor. Because the campaign discourse was limited enough 
at that time where if the reporter said it's not an issue, then it's not 
an issue."

That didn't happen this time, and it opened the floodgates for more of 
the same, changing campaign coverage forever. "The Swift Boat Veterans 
for Truth proved that they could smuggle their charge into a campaign. 
And it could start to wound him. And it would spread on its own, even if 
the press was saying there's nothing there."

It was at that point that Rosen thinks people who were aiming to 
misinform suddenly gained more power. "It changed the calculus for 
journalists. So it's not a matter now of just vetting information. 
That's part of your job. But then you have this other job of 'wait a 
minute, misinformation is taking over. Propaganda is taking over.' Are 
you just covering that or are you opposing that? And how do you correct 
it and how should you stand toward it now? Those are really hard questions."

I'm telling you this story because while it is true that John Kerry is 
probably not the radical future liberals want, there is almost no one in 
the country more passionately opposed to disinformation. And having 
someone who wants to tear down the disinformation apparatus in a 
position to actually do so could be a real asset in the fight for 
climate action. In 2020, we finally regained all the ground lost to 
disinformation in the 90s, in terms of the number of people who get that 
climate change is a problem and that we need to do something about it. 
We can't afford another backslide.
https://realhottake.substack.com/p/one-thing-john-kerry-is-sure-to-fight-42a


[RAND study]
*When Hurricanes Happen During Pandemics*

During the 2020 hurricane season, COVID-19 complicated the challenge of 
preparing for and responding to major storms. RAND researchers created a 
model to better understand how to weigh the risks involved in such 
circumstances. Their analysis revealed several useful insights. For 
example, in areas that are not anticipating heavy storm damage, 
sheltering in place may be safer than evacuating. This is because the 
spread of COVID-19 in shelters would likely cause more deaths than the 
hurricane itself.
Study Data
*A Model of the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic During a Hurricane in 
Virginia*
As of August 24, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic 
had resulted in the deaths of approximately 2,500 Virginians. The 2020 
hurricane season began June 1 and is considered to be extremely active. 
The threat of the pandemic increases the complexity of risk management 
decisions during the hurricane season. In this report, the authors study 
the implications that a hurricane during the COVID-19 pandemic would 
have for the Commonwealth of Virginia. This analysis should help inform 
advance planning for the hurricane season in general and could be used 
in response to a specific storm with an estimated track through 
Virginia. The authors focus on the combined impacts of COVID-19 and a 
hurricane on morbidity and mortality; they do not examine other effects, 
such as effects on infrastructure, social networks, and the economy.

*Key Findings*
*For areas not anticipating heavy damage, sheltering in place is 
generally safer than evacuation during the COVID-19 pandemic*
Because most of Virginia is generally not in the path of the 
most-dangerous hurricane conditions, the spread of COVID-19 through 
evacuation is likely to be deadlier than sheltering in place.
In areas likely to have heavy damage, residents should evacuate earlier 
than in a normal hurricane season to reduce the risk from heavy rain and 
other transportation hazards.
The projected number of deaths from increased sheltering in place is 
orders of magnitude lower than that expected from evacuation (caused by 
traffic accidents and COVID-19 spread) and COVID-19 spread in communal 
shelters.
*The relative safety of communal shelters versus self-evacuations 
depends on COVID-19 spread levels*
Smaller shelters increase the attractiveness of communal sheltering 
relative to evacuating in terms of avoiding COVID-19.
If community COVID-19 case levels are high, individuals in the area are 
more likely to spread the disease to evacuation destinations and in 
communal shelters.
Alternatively, if community COVID-19 case levels are low, the risk of 
individuals spreading the disease by evacuation or in communal shelters 
is low.
*Recommendations*
Individuals need information from trusted sources to know how to safely 
react to a hurricane based on their personal risk. In particular, clear 
and consistent risk communication will be vital to inform the population 
about the safest options for their family.
This communication must be population-specific, because different groups 
will have access to and prefer different communication modes.
Given the potential nuances in personal and household risk, this 
communication should begin as soon as possible.
Shelter characteristics, such as capacity and social distancing 
measures, will determine the risk associated with using communal 
shelters. To the extent possible, smaller methods of shelter should be 
used to prevent spread of COVID-19.
It would be prudent to prepare plans, COVID-19 cleaning equipment, and 
masks in shelters ahead of time.
Because more people may shelter in place, the response phase will need 
to be accelerated. Virginia might wish to be prepared to enact mutual 
aid for utilities and hospitals more quickly than under normal 
circumstances so as not to exacerbate health consequences.
Self-evacuations by car could be a major source of spread for COVID-19. 
Evacuees should be informed of best practices for safe travel and the 
risks associated with various destinations.
Extensive testing of evacuees throughout hurricane season, particularly 
prior to hurricane landfall, can better inform policymakers of the risks...
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA323-2.html



[more skirmishes on the battlefields of misinformation]
*Drag them.**
**The climate case for calling out fossil fuel companies online*
Emily Atkin
https://heated.world/p/drag-them



[Big battle under the Sun]
*Jonathan Scott's Power Trip*
FULL FILM (1:23:01) | IN INSPIRATIONAL
Premiere: 11/16/2020 | *Available until 12/16/2020*
Solar energy evangelist and "Property Brother" Jonathan Scott journeys 
all across the U.S. to uncover why clean, renewable energy isn't 
available to all. While traveling to learn both the obstacles and 
opportunities for achieving energy freedom, Jonathan talks with 
conservatives fighting for solar freedom; sits down with farmers 
struggling to make ends meet; engages coal workers desperate for a new, 
healthy means of making an income; the Navajo Nation who built a 
utility-scale solar plant; religious leaders who made a desperate 
attempt to help meet their community's energy needs; and politicians at 
the forefront of the battle for energy freedom.
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/jonathan-scotts-power-trip/



[The Vatican and the Club of Rome]
*Faith, Science and Youth: A call for an ambitious climate summit*
Webinar: Faith, Science, Youth - A call for an ambitious Climate Summit
Dec 9, 2020
Vatican IHD
The webinar "Faith, Science, Youth - A call for an ambitious Climate 
Summit" which will take place on Wednesday 9th of December at 2 pm 
(CET), organized by the Vatican Covid19 commission and its partners. In 
this webinar, you will hear from H.E. Cardinal Peter K.A. Turkson, Prof. 
John Schellnhuber and Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim; an exchange on calls and 
expectations towards the Climate Ambition Summit, which will be held on 
the 12th of December on the occasion of the 5th anniversary of the Paris 
Agreement. The aim of this webinar is thus to urge governments to raise 
ambition through a faith, science, youth voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXLvf7_Sk0


[Economist is just wrong about 4 degrees]
*'4C of Global Warming is Optimal' - Even Nobel Prize Winners are 
Getting Things Catastrophically Wrong*
November 30, 2020
Steve Keen (Nov. 2019), UCL
William Nordhaus was awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics for 
"integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis".

This implies that he worked out what global heating means for our 
economy, given what climate scientists say will happen to our planet.

But Nordhaus's predictions of what global heating will cost the earth 
are dangerously at odds with the science.

In his Nobel Prize lecture, Nordhaus described a 4C increase in global 
average temperature as "optimal" — that is, the point at which the costs 
and benefits of mitigating climate change are balanced.

In a subsequent academic paper based on this lecture, he stated that 
"damages are estimated to be 2 percent of output at a 3C global warming 
and 8 percent of output with 6C warming". This is a trivial level of 
damage, equivalent for the 6C warming case to a fall in the rate of 
economic growth over the next century of less than 0.1% per year.

Nordhaus's conclusions are based in part on the simple but wayward 
assumption that the weak relationship between temperature and GDP within 
the US today can be used to assume how future global temperature rises 
will affect the economy.

For example, the coldest state in mainland US is North Dakota, with an 
average temperature of 4.9C and a high GDP per head - US$67,000 in 2018. 
Slightly warmer states such as New York (9.0C, US$73,000) tend to have 
higher GDPs, while the hottest state - Florida, at 22.1C - has a lower 
GDP (US$43,000). This implies that past a certain point, higher 
temperatures reduce GDP, but the relationship is very weak: huge changes 
in temperature result in relatively small changes in income.

If it were true that this weak relationship could be applied to global 
temperature change, then global warming would indeed be nothing to worry 
about. However, the relationship between temperature and GDP within one 
country today tells you absolutely nothing about how the world will 
change if global temperatures rise by 10C.

This can be hard to grasp, since we're talking about the truly unknown - 
humanity has never experienced global temperatures that high. But we can 
assess how unrealistic Nordhaus's work is because it predicts exactly 
the same damages for a fall in global temperature as it does for a rise. 
It predicts, for example, that both a 4C rise and a 4C fall in 
temperature would reduce global GDP by 3.6%.

The average global temperature during the last Ice Age was 4C cooler 
than today. There's no way we can accurately predict what GDP would be 
in such a cool world today, but we know that most of Europe north of 
Berlin, and of America north of New York, would be under a kilometre of 
ice. To argue that this would cut GDP by just 3.6% is simply absurd.

Trillions at stake
Indeed, estimates from climate scientists based on relatively 
conservative figures from the IPCC suggest that limiting global warming 
to 1.5C instead of 2C are likely to save trillions of dollars by 2100, 
even accounting for the costs of increased action. Uncertainties in 
climate modelling mean that this analysis is by no means definite. But 
given the distinct possibility that 2C of warming could set off a 
cascade of "tipping points" that cause the planet to irreversibly heat 
to catastrophic temperatures, can we afford to play with fire?...

The risk to organised human civilisation of sending Earth into a 
nightmare "hothouse" state should be sufficient alone to justify the 
higher cost of a decarbonisation timescale compatible with 1.5C. Even if 
letting warming reach 2C or above turned out to be more cost-effective, 
the saved money is not worth the moral costs of species extinctions, 
habitat destruction, and forcing climate refugees from their homes.

The faith that William Nordhaus and others have in the "incredible 
adaptability of human economies" is almost admirable in a sense. But 
that adaptability has occurred in a remarkably stable climate where 
global temperatures have fluctuated by 1℃ below or above the average for 
the last 10,000 years. If that climate stability breaks down, then human 
adaptability will almost certainly break down with it.

Many climate scientists are now calling for the focus on economy 
efficiency and incremental change that economists have taken to global 
warming to be abandoned. When supposedly respected experts disagree so 
fundamentally over an issue, it would be understandable for the public 
to switch off. But in this case, such a reaction would be wildly dangerous.

Just as energy companies have been accused of paralysing the political 
response to climate change, the trivialising of the dangers of climate 
breakdown by mainstream economists has paralysed bold and timely action 
on climate breakdown for almost 50 years.

In that time, humanity's population has doubled, and the average amount 
each person consumes has more than doubled. If we don't challenge the 
naïve assurances of economists that all will continue to be well, the 
"human economies" they believed they were defending will tumble just as 
fast.
https://theanalysis.news/uncategorized/4c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong/

- -

[Mark Lynas describes and Nat Geo video]
*Four Degrees*
At 4 degrees of warming most of the Nile Delta is threatened by rising 
seas, as is a third of Bangladesh. Tens of millions more become climate 
refugees.
West Antarctic ice sheet potentially collapses, pumping five metres of 
water into global sea levels.
Southern Europe becomes like the Sahara, with deserts spreading in Spain 
and Portugal.
People move north into temperate refuges in Scandinavia and the British 
Isles, which become increasingly overcrowded, resulting in further conflict.
All glaciers disappear from the Alps, further reducing water supplies in 
central Europe.
Permafrost melt in Siberia releases methane and carbon dioxide, meaning 
that global warming spirals upward.
Notes from Mark Lynas author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
http://localsteps.org/4degreemap.html

- -

For more information on 4 Degrees see also: Download the Climate Action 
Centre primer "4 degrees hotter"
http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/4-degrees-hotter.pdf
"Will we live in a world 4 degrees Celsius warmer?" .

If only the present levels of commitments by nations are achieved this 
amounts to global political failure on greenhouse gas reduction. 
Scientific imperatives will result in 4 degrees Celsius of global 
warming by 2100.

In 2008 an influential and controversial paper by Anderson and Bows of 
the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research concluded that:

…it is increasingly unlikely any global agreement will deliver the 
radical reversal in emission trends required for stabilization at 450 
parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e). Similarly, the 
current framing of climate change cannot be reconciled with the rates of 
mitigation necessary to stabilize at 550ppm CO2e and even an optimistic 
interpretation suggests stabilization much below 650ppm CO2e is improbable.
http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2011/02/4-degrees-hotter-adaptation-trap.html

- - *
*
[video Nat Geo]
*Video from National Geographic 2008*
4 Degrees Warmer: Great Cities Wash Away | National Geographic
https://youtu.be/skFrR3g4BRQ



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - December 11, 1985 *

The New York Times reports:

"A group of senators and scientists today called for national and 
international action to avert a predicted warming of the earth's climate 
resulting from a buildup of carbon dioxide and other man-made gases in 
the atmosphere.

"They warned at a Senate hearing that such an effect, like that of a 
greenhouse, would produce radical climate changes and a subsequent rise 
in ocean levels that could have catastrophic results in the next century 
unless steps were taken now to deal with the problem.

"Senator Albert Gore Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, said he would introduce 
legislation to expand and focus scientific efforts on this greenhouse 
effect.

"At a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Toxic Substances and 
Environmental Oversight, Mr. Gore said his bill would call for 'an 
international year of scientific study of the greenhouse effect and 
would request that the President take steps to begin this worldwide 
cooperative investigation.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-avert-global-climate-shift.html 



/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can 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. 
Messages have no tracking software.
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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20201211/72b6d2b9/attachment.html>