[TheClimate.Vote] February 19, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*February 19, 2020*/

[candidates from KQED]
*Here's Where Each of the Presidential Candidates Stand on Climate Change*
California Democrats will go to the polls on March 3 to select a 
candidate to be the party's nominee against President Donald Trump in 
November...
- - -
Climate change has "gone from being a nonissue for voters to being one 
of the top one or two issues," said Marianne Lavelle, a reporter with 
the Pulitzer Prize-winning site InsideClimate News.

Lavelle and her colleagues spent months crafting detailed climate 
profiles of the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination. She 
also wrote an expansive analysis of President Donald Trump's 
environmental record in office.

"Although Trump occasionally feigns concern about climate -- 'I think 
about it all the time,' he once said -- his policy has been an 
unmitigated and relentless drive toward fossil energy development," 
Lavelle wrote.

KQED's Raquel Maria Dillon interviewed Lavelle and ICN reporter Georgina 
Gustin on where the candidates stand on climate policy. Below are 
excerpts from their answers, edited for length and clarity. Some key 
points ...

Climate is a huge issue this election

Gustin:  We know that, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, climate 
change ranked second only to health care in surveys of likely voters. 
That is likely because people are seeing the impacts of climate change 
all around them -- in California, obviously, the devastating wildfires 
these last couple of years, and the historic flooding across the Midwest 
this past year. In New England, wildlife levels are dropping. Everybody 
sees this in their backyards and in their lives.

Democratic candidates agree on key policies

Lavelle: All of the Democrats agree on getting to zero new greenhouse 
gas emissions by midcentury, and that's very significant because it's in 
line with the science. They all agree on getting back in the Paris 
Accord. They all say they won't take money from the fossil fuel 
industry. And each of them has embraced elements of the Green New Deal.

Disagreements on fracking and continued use of fossil fuels

Gustin: Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg have all said that 
they are open to fracking, and they have said that they would continue 
exporting fossil fuels. Mike Bloomberg hasn't addressed fracking. We're 
not really sure where he stands. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are 
out in front from a climate hawk standpoint: They would ban fracking 
and, to varying degrees, continued use of fossil fuels.

Candidates talking about their experience

Lavelle:  Warren's plan includes a fossil fuel industry disclosure of 
risks, and that makes it unique. Bloomberg worked with the Sierra Club 
for years on the "Beyond Coal" campaign to shut down coal-fired power 
plants. His plan is to do that on a federal level. He talks a lot about 
resilience, and, of course, as mayor of New York City, he had to deal 
with Superstorm Sandy and the after effects. Biden talks about his 
diplomatic experience, and how he was active in the Paris climate talks.

Trump: All about fossil fuels

Lavelle: Donald Trump is ignoring climate change and doing all he can to 
promote fossil fuels, including opening up fracking on a million acres 
in California.

Gustin: This administration has tried to, or is in the process of 
dismantling, every major piece of climate legislation enacted by the 
Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan and fuel economy 
standards, which were major accomplishments.

The filibuster and its 60-vote requirement to pass legislation is a big 
stumbling block

Lavelle: Just this past year, Congress couldn't even pass a very small 
investment in renewable energy. And no matter who wins the Senate, it's 
going to be a closely divided Congress. The candidates will have to work 
with the other party.

Different constituencies divided on approaches and emphasis

Lavelle: Young people look at someone like Biden, who stresses his 
experience, and they say, 'So what?' They don't see that he accomplished 
anything with the Obama administration. They don't see that a lot of 
work went into environmental policy that went even that far.

Gustin: Rural voters who are typically very conservative and support 
Trump appreciate that the candidates include agriculture in their 
climate and rural plans. All of the candidates have agriculture 
proposals. Four or eight years ago, climate wasn't an issue at all. To 
have candidates get into the weeds on an issue like soil carbon --which 
Biden and Buttigieg are semi-conversant in -- is a remarkable change in 
the political conversation.

Lavelle: Voters are divided on the approach that they want. Buttigieg 
and Sanders are sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Sanders has 
taken the mantle of the Green New Deal. Buttigieg seems to be the choice 
of people who want something more pragmatic. He garnered the largest 
percentage of people who place climate as their number one issue in New 
Hampshire.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1957119/climate-change-is-a-top-issue-for-californias-democrats-heres-where-the-candidates-stand



[AGU 100 - Earth's Future]*
**The Environmental Footprint of Transport by Car Using Renewable Energy*
*Abstract*
Replacing fossil fuels in the transport sector by renewable energy will 
help combat climate change. However, lowering greenhouse gas emissions 
by switching to alternative fuels or electricity can come at the expense 
of land and water resources. To understand the scale of this possible 
trade‐off, we compare and contrast carbon, land, and water footprints 
per driven km in midsize cars utilizing conventional gasoline, biofuels, 
bioelectricity, solar electricity, and solar‐based hydrogen. Results 
show that solar‐powered electric cars have the smallest environmental 
footprints per km, followed by solar‐based hydrogen cars, and that 
biofuel‐driven cars have the largest footprints.
*4 Conclusions*
The environmental performance of different cars depends on the choice of 
energy source. We show inherent tradeoffs between land use, water use 
and carbon emissions. From the environmental footprint perspective, 
solar‐powered battery‐electric vehicles are the most resource efficient 
per unit of distance, followed by solar‐based hydrogen‐driven vehicles. 
Biodiesel has the worst resource use efficiency per unit of distance 
while bioethanol has smaller emissions compared to fossil fuels but has 
extremely large land and water requirements. The logical choice of 
future transport is thus diffusion of electric and hydrogen vehicles 
based on (non‐biomass) renewable energy sources.



[retribution? revenge? revanche?]*
**Planners talk about resilience in the face of climate change. We need 
to start using a different R word.*
By Steven Bingler and Martin C. Pedersen
  Feb. 17, 2020 at 8:19 a.m. PST
Steven Bingler is a New Orleans-based architect and planner and founder 
of Common Edge Collaborative, a nonprofit organization that advocates 
planning and design engagement with the public. Martin C. Pedersen is 
executive director of the organization.

Hundred-year floods. Record-breaking Antarctic heat. Wildfires and 
drought. The stories appear with numbing regularity. And though the 
details differ, they all point to the same grim conclusion. We're 
failing to address climate change. With carbon emissions continuing to 
rise, what were once dismissed as worst-case scenarios now look like the 
best we can hope for.

If Plan A was to prevent, or at least mitigate, the most serious impacts 
of climate change, what's Plan B?

In our Plan-A world, architecture and planning has become focused on the 
idea of "resilient" design. But continuing to talk about "resilience" in 
the face of ever-worsening projections is its own form of climate 
denial. It's time for planners to begin replacing the R-word of the 
moment with a now not-so-unthinkable one.

Retreat.

According to a recent paper in the scientific journal Nature 
Communications, some of the earlier projections of population 
displacement from sea-level rise are probably way too low. Around the 
world, instead of some 50 million people being forced to move to higher 
ground over the next 30 years, the oceans will likely rise higher than 
predicted, with a coastal diaspora at least three times larger; by 2100, 
the number of climate refugees could surpass 300 million. Indeed, 
sea-level rise looks likely to be measured in yards and meters, not 
inches or feet.

Where will all of these displaced people go? Can they be accommodated in 
existing cities, towns and villages? Which cities will we defend? Which 
will we surrender? Who will decide? These are unprecedented design and 
planning challenges that our society hasn't begun to think about, let 
alone plan for. Given the increasingly dire outlook, we believe it is 
time to start.

In recent years, we've seen countless climate-resiliency schemes 
featuring bioswales, rain gardens, retention ponds, earth berms, levees, 
sea-wall barriers, even oyster beds. All of these strategies are useful, 
but they come with a big "if." They will help protect our coastal cities 
if we also cut our carbon emissions in time to mitigate even worse 
impacts of climate change.

Both of us live in New Orleans, a city that is below sea level but that 
is not at all inclined to give up. But for the sake of future 
generations, we need to honestly assess the threats ahead and plan 
accordingly. Planners are expected to operate within multiple time 
frames, and the challenge today is even trickier. We must continue to 
wage the political fight to rein in and eventually eliminate fossil 
fuels, while at the same time remaining clear-eyed about what needs to 
happen should our best efforts fail. Doing both is the only responsible 
course of action.

It is not overly alarmist to start thinking about exit strategies that 
work under the most severe scenarios. Moving existing cities, 
retrofitting old ones for explosive growth, creating new settlements and 
mitigating thousands of miles of polluted shorelines will be expensive 
and complicated. Even if properly planned, this will be a messy and even 
brutal process; if unplanned and ad hoc, in all likelihood, it will 
descend into a chaos straight out of science fiction.

Steven's firm, Concordia, led the politically and emotionally charged 
planning process in post-Katrina New Orleans, a city with a pre-storm 
population of 485,000. (Today, that number stands at about 390,000.) 
That was certainly a difficult and unprecedented effort, but it was 
nothing compared to the simultaneous challenges facing coastal towns and 
cities in the decades ahead. And our problems don't stop at the water's 
edge. Many places inland will see water become increasingly scarce, 
putting immense stress on settlement patterns and agriculture. Mass 
migrations will inevitably become a part of our children's and 
grandchildren's futures.

Sadly, few of our politicians will "go there" yet, because their 
planning for the future extends precisely as far as the next election. 
It's time for architects and planners to sound the alarm. Time, in other 
words, to get real.

The irony is that as we dawdle, energy and insurance companies, along 
with the Pentagon, are turning to face what's coming. In the real world, 
that's called risk management. And while many cities have begun the 
process of resilient planning, it is time for them to join with states 
and regions, as well as the civilian side of federal government, to be 
sure the unavoidable disruptions are anticipated and managed as humanely 
and fairly as possible.

An inundated coastline is not just a national security issue; it's not 
just an actuarial challenge for the insurance industry. It's our future, 
and it's upon us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/17/climate-hope-best-prepare-worst/



[URL at the end of the book "Weather"]
*Obligatory Note of Hope*
How can we imagine and create a future we want to live in?

How can we contribute to the common good? There are people all over the 
world trying to answer these questions. In big ways but also in small 
ways. In grand leaps but also in fits and starts.

I always thought it was ridiculous to try and fight for social change 
when I couldn't even get my own house in order. How could a meat-eating, 
plane-flying, march-hating person like me ever find a place in the 
climate justice movement? But then I started to read about all the 
different ways ordinary people were refusing to give into fatalism and 
were exploring the possibilities of what they could do, what they might 
fight for in this half-ruined world of ours.

There were saints among these accidental activists, but also stone-cold 
hypocrites like me. Slowly, I began to see collective action as the 
antidote to my dithering and despair.

There's a way in for everyone. Aren't you tired of all this fear and dread?
www.obligatorynoteofhope.com



[Harvard Business Review]
*Why "De-growth" Shouldn't Scare Businesses*
- - -
As we continue to grapple with climate change, we can expect consumers, 
rather than politicians, to increasingly drive degrowth by changing 
their consumption patterns. Firms should think in an innovative way 
about this consumer-driven degrowth as an opportunity, instead of 
resisting or dismissing the demands of this small but growing movement. 
Businesses that successfully do so will emerge more resilient and 
adaptable -- instead of necessarily selling more, they will sell better, 
and grow in a way that satisfies consumers while respecting the environment.
https://hbr.org/2020/02/why-de-growth-shouldnt-scare-businesses


[Rene Lertzman coursework]
*Engaging People on Climate Change*
An integrated approach for innovation and behaviour change

When we need to communicate and engage with people about climate change, 
it can feel very daunting, especially when we want them to change their 
behaviour and buy into our product or idea.

This course explores engagement from a different angle. It introduces a 
transdisciplinary approach that integrates traditional messaging, 
behavioural and systems innovation approaches but also taps into an 
often-ignored  psychosocial perspective. It features the powerful 
Quadrants of Engagement tool developed by psychologist and climate 
strategist Dr. Renee Lertzman.
https://learning.climate-kic.org/en/programmes-and-courses/engaging-people-on-climate-change


[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming  - February 19, 2006 *

The CBS program "60 Minutes" reports on the effects of human-caused 
climate change in the Arctic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-global-warning/

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

/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.