[TheClimate.Vote] December 25, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 25, 2020*/

[Keep looking]
Kate Aronoff/December 24, 2020
*Carbon Capture Is Not a Climate Savior*
The promise of negative emissions is baked into most “net zero” pledges. 
But putting that into practice is easier said than done...
https://newrepublic.com/article/160754/carbon-capture-not-climate-savior


[clips from a moving report of toils and travails]
*The Tasting Menu at the End of the World*
SingleThread has been hailed as the pinnacle of farm-to-table dining. 
But what happens when the farm is under assault by climate change?
by Betsy Andrews  Dec 23, 2020,
- -
By August 20, the sky above parts of Healdsburg, a small tourist town in 
Sonoma County, roughly 70 miles north of San Francisco, was choked with 
dark smoke. When they finally decided to escape the deteriorating air 
quality, Kyle and Katina Connaughton packed their two cats, two dogs, 
and one of their two daughters (the other was in Boston) and her fiance 
into a farm truck and headed toward safety in Washington state.

Produced with FERN, non-profit reporting on food, agriculture, and 
environmental health.
They were familiar with the drill by this point: It was the 
Connaughtons’ third wildfire in four years. The first, the 2017 Tubbs 
Fire, had ripped through the region with a ferocity that made it, at the 
time, the most destructive wildfire in California history. Two years 
later, the Kincade Fire, the largest ever recorded in Sonoma County up 
to that point, scorched nearly 78,000 acres across wine country and 
forced the Connaughtons to evacuate for a week.

In fact, navigating climate disasters has become less an occasional 
disruption than a way of life. Between the fires, there were the floods. 
The first, in 2017, was caused by one of the wettest winters in a 
century, which had followed the state’s historic five-year drought. In 
2019, the Russian River approached record levels, leaving pockets of 
Sonoma County, including the Connaughtons’ property, completely 
submerged. On top of it all, there was a visit from a hungry bobcat...
https://www.eater.com/22187508/single-thread-sonoma-county-climate-change-2020-california-wildfires



[go ahead, talk with your family about global warming]
*Making sense of your climate-denying cranky uncle*
By John Cook | November 25, 2020

One challenge at Thanksgiving dinner is your climate-denying cranky 
uncle. You’re likely to hear a string of arguments from how cold it was 
last Tuesday to the whole field of climate science being a hoax.

How do you make sense of your cranky uncle’s arguments? Is there any 
rationality in irrational science denial? There are two main ways to 
respond to climate misinformation. Both are effective and ideally, a 
combination of the two is recommended. But one approach is particularly 
powerful, equipping you to make sense of misinformation across many 
topics, not just climate  change.

The first approach is what researchers call fact-based correction. You 
can see through misinformation if you have sufficient understanding of 
the science. In other words, debunk your cranky uncle’s arguments by 
explaining the facts.

For example, when you encounter the argument that the weather is cold 
therefore global warming isn’t real, explain how global warming spans 
the whole planet (the clue is in the word global). Individual locations 
may experience bursts of cold weather but overall, the planet is warming 
due to more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This means 
hot days are becoming more frequent and cold days are happening less often.

A limitation of the fact-based approach is each response only applies to 
a specific myth. Explaining the concept of global average temperature 
helps understand the “cold weather disproves global warming” myth. But 
it doesn’t necessarily help you make sense of other climate myths.

That brings us to the other way of making sense of cranky uncles’ 
arguments – using logic. Most misinforming arguments employ reasoning 
fallacies to get to a false conclusion. Identifying fallacies is an 
elegant and user-friendly way to show that misinformation is misleading. 
There’s an additional benefit to the logical approach. Learning the 
techniques of science denial extends beyond a single topic. 
Understanding a misleading technique in climate change helps you spot 
the same technique in misinformation in other topics such as COVID-19 or 
vaccination. I’ll come back to this later.

But first, let’s look at some concrete examples.

There are five overarching categories of misleading techniques in 
misinformation, summarized with the acronym FLICC: fake experts, logical 
fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories.

*Fake experts* are people who convey the impression of expertise but 
don’t have the actual relevant expertise. The clearest example of this 
strategy is the Global Warming Petition Project, an online petition 
claiming humans aren’t disrupting climate, signed by 31,000 science 
graduates. The petition is open to anyone with a science degree so it’s 
populated by graduates in computer science, medical science, 
engineering, and a variety of other fields. But over 99 percent of the 
signatories have no expertise in climate science. The petition is fake 
experts in bulk.

*Logical fallacies *are found in arguments where the conclusion doesn’t 
logically follow from the premises. The most common example in climate 
misinformation is single cause fallacy – assuming only one factor is 
causing something when there can be multiple causes.  The argument 
“climate is changing because climate has always changed” assumes that 
because climate has changed naturally in the past, it must be natural 
now. That’s like finding a murder victim and arguing “people have died 
of natural causes in the past so this person must have died of natural 
causes.”

*Impossible expectations* involve demanding unrealistic levels of proof 
from science. For example, the argument “scientists can’t predict the 
weather next week so how can we expect them to predict climate a century 
from now?” commits false equivalence—another logical fallacy—as weather 
is chaotic and hard to predict while climate is weather averaged over 
time and hence predictable. I can’t predict a coin toss but I can 
predict a million coin tosses will result in roughly half heads and half 
tails. Demanding you can predict a single coin toss before predicting a 
million coin tosses is an impossible expectation.

*Cherry picking* involves narrowly focusing on evidence that seems to 
confirm your beliefs while ignoring the bigger picture. Anecdotal 
thinking is a common form of cherry picking, such as the cold weather 
argument examined earlier. Who among us hasn’t heard a curmudgeon mutter 
on a cold day “What happened to global warming?” This is like arguing 
after Thanksgiving dinner “I feel full. Whatever happened to global 
hunger?!”

*Conspiracy theories* and science denial are bosom buddies. How else 
would a cranky uncle explain why the global scientific community 
disagrees with him? There are telltale red flags of conspiratorial 
thinking. Watch out for overriding suspicion: “all the data has been 
faked.” Conspiracy theorists see nefarious intent everywhere: 
“scientists are in it for the money!” And they are immune to evidence: 
“Of course there’s no proof of my conspiracy theory, the conspirators 
did such a good job covering it up!”

Should we respond to our cranky uncle with facts or logic? I recently 
published research testing both approaches. We found if people read a 
fact, then afterwards read a myth countering the fact, the myth 
cancelled out the fact. But an explanation of the myth’s logical fallacy 
was effective in neutralizing the myth whether it came before or after 
the myth. In other words, facts are vulnerable when we send them out 
into a hostile world but logical explanations are more robust, equipping 
us with the critical thinking to make sense of misleading arguments.

Other research finds both approaches work. A German study found both the 
logic and fact-based approaches (which they called technique and topic 
rebuttals) were effective in neutralizing misinformation. But the 
researchers also pointed out a key advantage of the logical approach – 
it could work across domains. Understanding the misleading techniques in 
one topic helps identify the same techniques in another area.

I found in a 2017 study that explaining the fake expert strategy used by 
the tobacco industry effectively inoculated participants against climate 
misinformation in the form of the Global Warming Petition Project. 
Critical thinking is like a universal vaccine against misinformation, 
conveying immunity across topics.

But how can this help you at the dinner table during Thanksgiving? 
Analogies are an elegant technique that help you turn abstract logic 
explanations into concrete examples. Critical thinking philosophers call 
this parallel argumentation, an approach used often by late night 
comedians. “Cold weather disproves global warming? That’s like saying 
nighttime disproves the sun.” “Climate change is natural because climate 
has always changed? That’s like arguing smoking doesn’t kill because 
people have always died of cancer.”

Cranky uncles can be challenging. But responding to their climate denial 
arguments can also be an opportunity to explain the reasoning fallacies 
in climate misinformation, potentially increasing people’s critical 
thinking skills.

So, critical thinking can help get you through Thanksgiving [and Xmas]. 
And help you deal with your own climate-denying, cranky uncle.
John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate 
Change Communication at George Mason University. He founded Skeptical 
Science, co-authored college textbooks ...
https://thebulletin.org/2020/11/making-sense-of-your-climate-denying-cranky-uncle/



[updating some 2018 explorations]
*Scientists descended into Greenland’s perilous ice caverns — and came 
back with a worrying message*
Vertical ice caves in Greenland, called ‘moulins,’ drain water from the 
ice to the sea — and they’re even bigger than we thought
- -
Human exploration is necessary in the case of the moulins, Gulley said, 
because it is extremely difficult to navigate drones in such small and 
unpredictable spaces. Beneath the surface of the ice sheet you can’t use 
GPS to guide them. Plus, he noted, sending a drone just isn’t the same 
as being in a cave in person, seeing an interesting feature, and getting 
closer to try to study and understand it.

The first results of these moulin descents have been published in the 
journal Geophysical Research Letters. They combine observations of the 
breathtaking extent of the caves with scientific modeling of the water 
levels contained within them, and what that might mean.

The key finding: Moulins can be huge.

In particular, the Phobos moulin in western Greenland, which Gulley and 
Gadd explored in 2018, was not simply a narrow hole penetrating 
downward. Instead, it opened into a vast cavern that reached nearly 100 
meters in depth before the water level began and extended horizontally 
outward as well. The group calculated that, at the water’s surface, the 
spatial area of the cave was some 5,000 square feet, or the size of 
several houses next to one another.

This volume is much larger than previous models assumed. It suggests the 
moulin can store much more water than previously thought. This, in turn, 
might mean the water in the moulins can exert more pressure on the 
surrounding ice and cause it to slide faster — which would be bad for 
sea level rise, and Greenland’s future...
- -
Granted, the researchers have only extensively explored two moulins so 
far, making it hard to generalize about thousands more that pockmark the 
Greenland ice sheet.

“Since this study is only able to examine two moulins in one region of 
the ice sheet, I think it’s too soon to say whether this finding might 
change our perspective on future variability of ice motion,” said Twila 
Moon, a Greenland expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in 
Colorado who was not involved in the research.

“The finding that larger-than-expected moulins are present in Greenland 
is significant, as these moulins provide a buffer between surface 
melting and the subglacial drainage system,” added Ádam Ignéczi, who 
studies moulins at Sheffield University in the United Kingdom and also 
was not involved in the latest research.

But Ignéczi added that scientists don’t know if “systematic differences” 
in the size of moulins can be found across the enormous ice sheet.

That may mean scientists will have to study more moulins in coming years 
— carefully, of course.

“These are really beautiful places,” Gulley said. “As you drop in, 
you’re in this intensely blue chamber. And you can see all the layering 
of the ice. You’re basically looking at the inside of the Greenland ice 
sheet.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/23/climate-moulins-greenland/



[warming and awaking]
DECEMBER 22, 2020
*A groggy climate giant: subsea permafrost is still waking up after 
12,000 years*
by Institute of Physics

In the far north, the swelling Arctic Ocean inundated vast swaths of 
coastal tundra and steppe ecosystems. Though the ocean water was only a 
few degrees above freezing, it started to thaw the permafrost beneath 
it, exposing billions of tons of organic matter to microbial breakdown. 
The decomposing organic matter began producing CO2 and CH4, two of the 
most important greenhouse gases.

Though researchers have been studying degrading subsea permafrost for 
decades, difficulty collecting measurements and sharing data across 
international and disciplinary divides have prevented an overall 
estimate of the amount of carbon and the rate of release. A new study, 
led by Ph.D. candidate Sara Sayedi and senior researcher Dr. Ben Abbott 
at Brigham Young University (BYU) published in IOP Publishing journal 
Environmental Research Letters, sheds light on the subsea permafrost 
climate feedback, generating the first estimates of circumarctic carbon 
stocks, greenhouse gas release, and possible future response of the 
subsea permafrost zone.

Sayedi and an international team of 25 permafrost researchers worked 
under the coordination of the Permafrost Carbon Network (PCN), which is 
supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation. The researchers 
combined findings from published and unpublished studies to estimate the 
size of the past and present subsea carbon stock and how much greenhouse 
gas it might produce over the next three centuries.

Using a methodology called expert assessment, which combines multiple, 
independent plausible values, the researchers estimated that the subsea 
permafrost region currently traps 60 billion tons of methane and 
contains 560 billion tons of organic carbon in sediment and soil. For 
reference, humans have released a total of about 500 billion tons of 
carbon into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. This makes 
the subsea permafrost carbon stock a potential giant ecosystem feedback 
to climate change.

"Subsea permafrost is really unique because it is still responding to a 
dramatic climate transition from more than ten thousand years ago," 
Sayedi said. "In some ways, it can give us a peek into the possible 
response of permafrost that is thawing today because of human activity."

Estimates from Sayedi's team suggest that subsea permafrost is already 
releasing substantial amounts of greenhouse gas. However, this release 
is mainly due to ancient climate change rather than current human 
activity. They estimate that subsea permafrost releases approximately 
140 million tons of CO2 and 5.3 million tons of CH4 to the atmosphere 
each year. This is similar in magnitude to the overall greenhouse gas 
footprint of Spain.

The researchers found that if human-caused climate change continues, the 
release of CH4 and CO2 from subsea permafrost could increase 
substantially. However, this response is expected to occur over the next 
three centuries rather than abruptly. Researchers estimated that the 
amount of future greenhouse gas release from subsea permafrost depends 
directly on future human emissions. They found that under a 
business-as-usual scenario, warming subsea permafrost releases four 
times more additional CO2 and CH4 compared to when human emissions are 
reduced to keep warming less than 2°C.

Artistic diagram of the subsea and coastal permafrost ecosystems, 
emphasizing greenhouse gas production and release. Credit: Original 
artwork created for this study by Victor Oleg Leshyk at Northern Arizona 
University.
"These results are important because they indicate a substantial but 
slow climate feedback," Sayedi explained. "Some coverage of this region 
has suggested that human emissions could trigger catastrophic release of 
methane hydrates, but our study suggests a gradual increase over many 
decades."

Even if this climate feedback is relatively gradual, the researchers 
point out that subsea permafrost is not included in any current climate 
agreements or greenhouse gas targets. Sayedi emphasized that there is 
still a large amount of uncertainty about subsea permafrost and that 
additional research is needed.

The coastline of the Bykovsky Peninsula in the central Laptev Sea, 
Siberia retreats during summer, when ice-rich blocks of permafrost fall 
to the beach and are eroded by waves. Credit: 2017, P. Overduin
"Compared to how important subsea permafrost could be for future 
climate, we know shockingly little about this ecosystem," Sayedi said. 
"We need more sediment and soil samples, as well as a better monitoring 
network to detect when greenhouse gas release responds to current 
warming and just how quickly this giant pool of carbon will wake from 
its frozen slumber."
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-groggy-climate-giant-subsea-permafrost.html



[Hydrogen comes from fossil fuels - hence the information battleground]
*THE HYDROGEN HYPE: GAS INDUSTRY FAIRY TALE OR CLIMATE HORROR STORY?*
The European Commission and its quest to let the gas industry write the 
book on hydrogen in Europe
“The gas lobby has massive influence on the
  EU hydrogen strategy. While the Commission
  makes it clear that clean hydrogen must
  come from renewable energies, it still
  wants to invest in fossil hydrogen.”
https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/hydrogen-report-web-final_0.pdf
- -
[Notice the PR push]
*Major Fossil Fuel PR Group is Behind Europe Pro-Hydrogen Push*
By Justin Mikulka • December 9, 2020
The recent deluge of pro-hydrogen stories in the media that tout 
hydrogen as a climate solution and clean form of energy can now be 
linked in part to FTI Consulting — one of the most notorious oil and gas 
industry public relations firms.

According to a new report, titled The Hydrogen Hype: Gas Industry Fairy 
Tale or Climate Horror Story?, released by a coalition of groups in 
Europe including Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and Food and Water 
Action Europe, details the work of FTI to push hydrogen as a clean 
climate solution in Europe. So far it appears FTI is being quite 
successful in this endeavor. As the report notes, the “European 
Commission is most definitely onboard” with the idea of a hydrogen-based 
economy.

FTI Consulting’s previous and ongoing work promoting the fossil fuel 
industry’s efforts to sell natural gas as a climate solution were 
recently featured in an article by the New York Times.

Among FTI’s misleading claims which it defended to the New York Times 
was that the Permian region in Texas — the epicenter of the U.S. shale 
oil industry’s fracking efforts — was reducing methane emissions. This 
claim, however, was based on government data that did not include 
emissions for actual oil and gas wells, which are major emitters of 
methane emissions. FTI's argument is easily disproved as methane 
emissions in Texas continued to break records in 2019.

And now FTI is taking the same approach for hydrogen as it has for 
natural gas — promoting it as a climate solution despite the evidence to 
the contrary...
- -
“No one has any true idea what is going on here,” Ben Gallagher, an 
energy analyst for consultant group Wood McKenzie, said about green 
hydrogen. “It’s speculation at this point. Right now it’s difficult to 
view this as the new oil. However, it could make up an important part of 
the overall fuel mix.”

Pushing fossil fuel based hydrogen as a climate solution is a strategy 
by the oil and gas industry to delay the implementation of true climate 
solutions. It is based on the widespread continued use of methane and 
existing gas infrastructure instead of spending money to transition to 
the electrification of the European and global economy.

The natural gas (methane) industry is currently struggling financially 
and looking to hydrogen as a lifeline. Just this week, a major natural 
gas pipeline in the U.S. that was being built to export liquefied 
natural gas was cancelled because “current market conditions do not 
support the economic thresholds” that were required. In other words, it 
makes no sense to build new gas infrastructure — unless hydrogen can 
become a substitute for methane.

If hydrogen was truly the clean energy climate solution being pushed by 
the favorite lobbyists of the oil and gas industry, the lobbyists and 
industry would be fighting it like they fight real solutions such as 
solar and wind power.

The oil and gas industry pushed the idea of methane as a clean energy 
solution for years. While the idea of methane as a bridge fuel is no 
longer widely accepted, the industry is spending heavily to again 
deceptively sell the myth that hydrogen — a fossil fuel based gas just 
like methane — is the new bridge fuel.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/12/09/fti-consulting-fossil-fuel-pr-group-behind-europe-hydrogen-lobby
- -
[source material]
*FTI Consulting*
Background
FTI Consulting (NYSE: FCN) describes itself as “an independent global 
business advisory firm dedicated to helping organizations manage change, 
mitigate risk and resolve disputes: financial, legal, operational, 
political & regulatory, reputational and transactional.” [1]

FTI offers services for a wide range of industries. For example, its 
energy industry services offer “advisory services that address the 
strategic, financial, reputational, regulatory and legal needs of energy 
and utility clients involved in the production of crude oil, natural 
gas, refined products, chemicals, coal, electric power, emerging 
technologies and renewable energy” as well as “strategic communications 
services across all disciplines.” [2]

FTI maintains an “Environmental Solutions Group” which focuses on “the 
resolution of complex contamination, toxic tort, products liability and 
insurance disputes.” [3]

For the mining industry, they offer “a comprehensive range of corporate 
finance, economic consulting and strategic communications services.” [4]

FTI Consulting is a public company. It began trading on the New York 
Stock Exchange under the symbol FCN in 2001. The group was initially 
known as Forensic Technologies International before changing its name to 
FTI Consulting in 1998, and initially went public under the name 
Forensic Technologies International (ticker symbol FTIC) in 1996. [5]

The group was founded in 1982 by Dan Luczak and Joseph Reynolds in 
Annapolis, Md. Its initial role would include providing courtroom 
evidence and computer models to help staff and jury members assess 
cases. In 1995, the company provided courtroom graphics and jury 
consultation to the O.J. Simpson trial. [5]
https://www.desmogblog.com/fti-consulting



[many governments]
*States and companies are now hotbeds of climate action*
Amy Harder, author of Generate

In the four years since the U.S. federal government last paid serious 
attention to climate change, the problem has become a top priority 
across states and corporations.

Why it matters: Washington, D.C. isn't the only place, or even the most 
important place, where meaningful climate change action is likely to 
happen in the coming years.

Where it stands: President-elect Joe Biden will attempt to force some 
changes at the federal level, but he's also expected to lean on states 
to show America’s progress on the global stage. Meanwhile, companies’ 
rhetoric on the problem in recent years will now be put to a test.

The big picture: Numerous states, cities and companies have pledged 
aggressive climate change goals over the past several years. It’s a 
trend driven by a multitude of factors, including growing urgency of the 
problem, cheaper clean energy technologies and investors increasingly 
concerned about the financial repercussions of a warming world.

By the numbers:

Since 2018, nine states have enacted standards mandating electricity to 
eventually emit zero carbon dioxide, which represents more than 20% of 
U.S. electric sales, according to the Clean Air Task Force, an 
environmental group.
Since 2018, nearly 30 utilities have pledged new, aggressive carbon 
reduction goals. When combined with the above states, these goals cover 
more than 50% of all electricity emissions, according to the group.
A record number of companies — nearly 10,000 — disclosed their 
environmental footprints, including on climate change, according to a 
new report by CDP, a nonprofit focused on corporate disclosures. That’s 
a 70% increase since the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 and 14% 
compared to last year.
Driving the news: The incoming Biden administration, led by 
international climate change envoy John Kerry, is expected to lean more 
heavily on state action, given the limitations of big policy at the 
federal level, to make commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement, 
according to several people familiar with the transition team’s thinking.

Action by states, cities and private business could cut U.S. emissions 
up to 37% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, according to a 2019 report by 
a consortium of environmental groups and former state leaders.
That percentage could rise to nearly 50% if the federal government 
reengaged, the report said.
The intrigue: Since Biden announced his appointment, Kerry has also 
already highlighted the shift among businesses.

“Real business people, real leaders within the business world understand 
that this is an imperative,” Kerry said in a recent interview with NPR. 
“They also understand that there's money to be made in producing the 
products.”
A coalition of U.S. Chamber of Commerce member companies created in 2017 
with six companies now has 60, according to Hugh Welsh, president of DSM 
North America, whose science-based business spans a lot of sectors, 
including climate and energy.
That effort helped spawn an internal task force at the Chamber that is 
asking its members about, among other topics, what a carbon tax would 
look like.
Welsh says the shift is due to changing membership.
“They [the Chamber] are beginning to see the future of its enterprise is 
less coal, natural gas and coal companies and more tech companies,” says 
Welsh, adding that tech companies support action on climate change.
Yes, but: Collaboration is far from guaranteed.

It’s politically easier for companies to speak positively about climate 
change when the threat of big policy is not imminent, which was the case 
under President Trump. Under Biden, companies, and especially oil and 
gas firms, will be expected to show whether they actually support 
tougher climate regulations.
Biden will also face pressure from liberals to target fossil-fuel 
companies in different ways, such as investigating organizations they 
have funded in the past that sowed doubt about climate change, Sen. 
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Axios recently.
https://www.axios.com/states-companies-climate-action-7ab3a11f-da1f-40c7-8ac3-fa3f5b986b4f.html 




[look out for this short movie - not yet on the Internet]
*‘Migrants’ Wins Best Short Prize at VIEW Fest 2020*
By Terry Flores
Migrants wins VIEW Fest prize

“Migrants,” a deeply textured eight-minute animated short about a polar 
bear cub and its mother driven to look for a new home because of climate 
change, has been named the best short of VIEW Fest, the short film 
festival sponsored by the VIEW Conference in Turin, Italy.

The story touched the international jury with its interwoven themes of 
global warming and immigration told through the experience of the 
homeless polar bears, who find themselves the subject of scorn and 
ridicule when they reach a new land populated by unfriendly brown bears. 
The film was made by fifth-year students at France’s POLE 3D: Zoé 
Devise, Lucas Lermytte, Hugo Caby, Aubin Kubiak and Antoine Dupriez. 
“Migrants” received the top prize of $2,000 euros.
https://variety.com/2020/film/global/migrants-short-view-fest-1234874752/




[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - December 25, 2014*

December 25, 2014: The New York Times reports:

"A plunge in oil prices has sent tremors through the global political 
and economic order, setting off an abrupt shift in fortunes that has 
bolstered the interests of the United States and pushed several big 
oil-exporting nations — particularly those hostile to the West, like 
Russia, Iran and Venezuela — to the brink of financial crisis.

"The nearly 50 percent decline in oil prices since June has had the most 
conspicuous impact on the Russian economy and President Vladimir V. 
Putin. The former finance minister Aleksei L. Kudrin, a longtime friend 
of Mr. Putin’s, warned this week of a 'full-blown economic crisis' and 
called for better relations with Europe and the United States."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/world/europe/oils-swift-fall-raises-fortunes-of-us-abroad.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/20201225/51b0cd5c/attachment.html>