[TheClimate.Vote] June 27, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*June 27, 2020*/

*[from Bill McKibben's New Yorker magazine newsletter - the Climate Crisis]*
R. L. Miller is a California climate activist who, for some years, has 
run a PAC called Climate Hawks Vote, which tries to elect candidates who 
are particularly eager to combat global warming. (I've sat on the board 
of the group.) She has also served as chair of the climate caucus in the 
California Democratic Party, and has just been elected by fellow 
California Party members to the Democratic National Committee, with the 
goal of making the climate a priority in the campaign.

    *What's the strategy for the D.N.C.?*

    Top priority right now is the platform! I ran for the D.N.C. on a
    platform of transparency and accountability. I was particularly
    fired up about the D.N.C. leadership's refusal to hold a climate debate.

    The D.N.C. Climate Council has released a bold, visionary set of
    policy recommendations. I helped set up the council, and am on its
    advisory board, but can't take credit for drafting the
    recommendations. Check out the platform!

    Separately, the Biden-Sanders unity task forces are finishing up
    their work and are due to release their recommendations soon. I
    don't know whether those recommendations will play into the
    platform. Everything has been done behind closed doors, and I've
    heard rumors that the recommendations may not be made public. Having
    said that, there are some very good people on the climate task
    force, whom I trust to convey the urgency of the climate crisis.

    Finally, there's the official platform-drafting committee of the
    D.N.C. Apparently, the Climate Council's work has offended some
    old-school types at the D.N.C. To be clear, I've been elected to the
    insurgent wing of the D.N.C.! If the official platform committee is
    doing anything at all, besides sniffing at insurgents, it's not
    happening in public. So I believe the D.N.C. needs to be holding
    public hearings on the platform.

    *Poll after poll during primary season showed climate change was the
    top priority for young voters, and second only to health care for
    Democratic voters in general. Do you sense that the Party is ready
    to make it a priority, too? What stands in the way?*

    What stands in the way of making climate a priority is a lot of
    old-school Democrats--some in trade-union labor and some just plain
    establishment folk--who think that bold climate action will cost us
    key states. And they're badly missing the point. Poll after poll
    after poll shows that the American people are hungry for bold
    climate action. People generally see the enormous job potential of a
    hundred-per-cent clean-energy transition.

    And then there's the scary part. What I'll be taking to the D.N.C.
    is a very personal perspective on a climate-fuelled disaster. The
    Woolsey Fire, of November, 2018, came within five hundred feet of my
    home. I heard about it early enough, via Twitter, that I was able to
    evacuate my frail, elderly mother safely. I watched my children's
    childhood memories burn down on national television: their
    preschool, their soccer fields, their neighborhood parks. I remain
    nervous and jumpy every October, when the hot Santa Ana winds blow.
    I don't know if anyone else on the D.N.C. can say they've been
    directly affected by a climate disaster. But it changes one's
    perspective.

    *You keep track of lots of congressional and local races around the
    country. Who are the candidates you're watching most fondly?*

    Everyone who's not focussed on the Presidential race is working hard
    on flipping the Senate. At Climate Hawks Vote, we've endorsed Mark
    Kelly, in Arizona, and Jaime Harrison, in South Carolina, both of
    whom were unopposed in their primaries. We stand with every other
    green group in the nation for Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, the
    co-author of the Green New Deal and countless other climate bills.

    Probably the best race from a climate perspective is the Colorado
    Senate primary, on June 30th. Andrew Romanoff is running explicitly
    on a Green New Deal, and his initial climate ad went viral.
    Washington Democrats prefer John Hickenlooper, known unfondly as
    Frackenlooper. Romanoff has recently gained ground on Hickenlooper
    in the polls.

    At the same time, there's room for more real climate hawks in the
    House. Too many Democrats, still, pay lip service to the climate
    crisis, but witness how rank-and-file members of Congress have had
    to beg leadership for crumbs of clean-energy tax-credit extensions.
    We've endorsed Cathy Kunkel--yes, there are climate hawks in West
    Virginia--and Christy Smith, in California, and are planning more
    endorsements.

Signup for this newsletter *The Climate Crisis*
*Updates from inside the climate movement, *from the activist and author 
Bill McKibben. https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/the-climate-crisis


[Two candidates in Zoom fundraising]
*Donate to Ed Markey and Jay Inslee*
Join Ed and Jay for a Zoom call on Tuesday June 30th at 5pm PT / 8pm ET.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/samforedandjay



[public opinion battleground]
*Greenpeace slams Amazon's Climate Pledge Arena as a 'meaningless and 
costly PR stunt' *
BY KURT SCHLOSSER on June 26, 2020
A certain Muppet once told us it's not easy being green. It's not easy 
to get the approval of Greenpeace either, apparently, as the 
environmental organization slammed Amazon and Jeff Bezos over plans to 
name a Seattle sports venue "Climate Pledge Arena."

Reacting to Thursday's news about the new name and sustainability 
focused initiatives for the reimagined arena at Seattle Center, 
Greenpeace said Amazon was trying to "greenwash its climate pledges."

"If Amazon really cared about our planet, it would sever its contracts 
that help fossil fuel companies produce more oil, instead of executing 
this meaningless and costly PR stunt," said Elizabeth Jardim, a senior 
corporate campaigner with Greenpeace USA.
A post on the Greenpeace website showed an activist holding a 
#NoTech4Oil sign in front of the Spheres on Amazon's campus in Seattle. 
Greenpeace has been outspoken in its opposition to AWS Energy and the 
use of cloud technology and artificial intelligence to aid oil and gas 
companies.

"Jeff Bezos is out of touch with the seriousness of the climate crisis 
and Amazon is on thin ice with those concerned about the climate and 
environmental racism," Jardim said, adding that the arena does nothing 
for communitiers most impacted by Amazon's "gross environmental injustices."

Amazon's Climate Pledge aims to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement on 
climate change 10 years ahead of schedule. And a new Climate Pledge Fund 
is aimed at funneling an initial $2 billion into startups building 
sustainable technologies across various industries such as 
transportation, food, manufacturing, and more.

The company has faced increased pressure from its own employees to do 
more to reduce its carbon footprint. But getting to net carbon zero by 
2040 will be a challenge considering that the tech giant's greenhouse 
gas emissions in 2019 rose 15 percent over the previous year.

Beyond the name on the arena meant to draw attention to the pledge it 
made in 2019, Amazon says the venue will strive to be the the first net 
zero carbon certified arena in the world through such actions as zero 
waste from operations and events, 100 percent renewable electricity and 
hockey ice made from reclaimed rainwater.

But Greenpeace isn't buying it.

"Without meaningful commitments, Amazon's renaming of the Climate Pledge 
Arena, like the Climate Pledge itself, risks being yet another empty 
gesture," Jardim said. "The climate crisis will not be solved with 
greenwashed initiatives and carbon neutral arenas."
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/greenpeace-slams-amazons-climate-pledge-arena-meaningless-costly-pr-stunt/

- -

[Greenpeace says]*
**Amazon Renaming Seattle's KeyArena to Climate Pledge Arena Meaningless 
PR Stunt*
by Valentina Stackl - June 26, 2020
If Amazon really cared about our planet, it would sever its contracts 
that help fossil fuel companies produce more oil, instead of executing 
this meaningless and costly PR stunt...
- -
"Rather than spending millions of dollars on this sports arena, Amazon 
needs to end its machine learning contracts with oil and gas companies 
and more quickly and transparently reduce its growing carbon emissions-- 
up 15% in the last year. Amazon could do more for the public good by 
guaranteeing safer working conditions for its millions of workers, and 
discontinuing its harmful relationships with police departments and ICE.

"Without meaningful commitments, Amazon's renaming of the ClimatePledge 
Arena, like the Climate Pledge itself, risks being yet another empty 
gesture. The climate crisis will not be solved with greenwashed 
initiatives and carbon neutral arenas. The science is clear. We need to 
keep fossil fuels in the ground, scale up renewables, and elect 
politicians who support strong climate policies to have a livable 
planet. We hope that Amazon acts boldly and takes immediate steps to 
stop accelerating the climate crisis by ending its contracts with the 
oil and gas industry."

Greenpeace report: Oil in the Cloud: How Tech Companies are Helping Big 
Oil Profit from Climate Destruction 
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/oil-in-the-cloud/



[from the UK]
*Government climate advisers running scared of change, says leading 
scientist*
Rapid transformation needed, Kevin Anderson says, particularly in 
lifestyles of rich
Kevin Anderson, one of the world's leading climate scientists, had a 
familiar reaction to the latest report from the government's climate 
advisers, which was published this week.

The 196-page document by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) delivered 
a stinging rebuke of the government's record and said ministers must 
urgently up their game if the UK is to avoid a significant rebound in 
carbon emissions after the coronavirus crisis and meet its 2050 net zero 
carbon target.

Anderson is a professor of energy and climate change, working across the 
universities of Manchester, Uppsala in Sweden and Bergen in Norway. He 
said: "The constructive, meticulous criticism of the government, which 
is failing abysmally by any measure, is fine. The problem is the framing 
the CCC has for net zero is already far removed from what is needed to 
meet our Paris commitments."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/26/leading-scientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record 


- -

[Anderson latest report]
*A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of 'climate progressive' 
nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways*
Kevin Anderson
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209



[4th UK serious discussion to reach zero emissions]
*Net Zero Home School Day 4: Engineering Net Zero*
June 25, 2020
Oxford Climate Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4be8rcw3pU


[Carbon Brief]
*Guest post: How climate change misinformation spreads online*
26 June 2020
The rapid rise of social media over the past two decades has brought 
with it a surge in misinformation.

Online debates on topics such as vaccinations, presidential elections 
(pdf) and the coronavirus pandemic are often as vociferous as they are 
laced with misleading information.

Perhaps more than any other topic, climate change has been subject to 
the organised spread of spurious information. This circulates online and 
frequently ends up being discussed in established media or by people in 
the public eye.

But what is climate change misinformation? Who is involved? How does it 
spread and why does it matter?

In a new paper, published in WIREs Climate Change, we explore the actors 
behind online misinformation and why social networks are such fertile 
ground for misinformation to spread.

What is climate change misinformation?
We define misinformation as "misleading information that is created and 
spread, regardless of whether there is intent to deceive". It differs in 
a subtle, but important, way from "disinformation", which is "misleading 
information that is created and spread with intent to deceive".

Hierarchy of information (green), misinformation (yellow) and 
disinformation (red). Credit: Treen et al. (2020) 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/hierarchy-of-information-misinformation-and-disinformation.jpg

In the context of climate change research, misinformation may be seen in 
the types of behaviour and information which cast doubt on 
well-supported theories, or in those which attempt to discredit climate 
science.

These may be more commonly described as climate "scepticism", 
"contrarianism" or "denialism".

In a similar way, climate alarmism may also be construed as 
misinformation, as recent online debates have discussed. This includes 
making exaggerated claims about climate change that are not supported by 
the scientific literature. There is a negligible amount of literature 
about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is 
significantly less prevalent. As such, the focus for this article is on 
climate scepticism.

Who is involved?
Our review of the scientific literature suggests there are several 
different groups of actors involved in funding, creating and spreading 
climate misinformation.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-climate-change-misinformation-network-references-removed.jpg
A schematic illustration of the climate change misinformation network. 
It shows the actors (purple) and producers (orange), as well as the echo 
chambers among influencers (blue) and the public (green). Credit: Treen 
et al. (2020)
A schematic illustration of the climate change misinformation network. 
It shows the actors (purple) and producers (orange), as well as the echo 
chambers among influencers (blue) and the public (green). Credit: Treen 
et al. (2020)
Our findings, shown in the graphic above, highlight that the 
misinformation network begins with funding supplied by corporate and 
philanthropic actors (see purple sections) with a vested interest in 
climate change – particularly in fossil fuels.

This money goes to a range of groups involved in producing 
misinformation (orange). These groups – referred to variously as the 
"climate change denial machine" and "organised disinformation campaigns" 
– include political and religious organisations, contrarian scientists 
and online groups masquerading as grassroots organisations (known as 
"astroturfing").

People in positions of power, such as the media, politicians and 
prominent bloggers, then repeat and amplify this information in an 
"influencers echo chamber" (blue), and from there it reaches a wider 
audience (green).

How does it spread?
The spread of misinformation is intertwined with a number of online and 
offline social processes. One of these is "homophily" – the tendency for 
people to form social connections with those who are similar to 
themselves, as captured by the common saying "birds of a feather flock 
together".

This behaviour is encouraged by social media platforms in the way new 
connections are recommended. Together with social norms and the 
observation that people tend to trust information from people in their 
social network, this can lead to "echo chambers" where information and 
misinformation echoes around a particular group. In turn, this can lead 
to polarisation, where communities can form around sharply contrasting 
positions on an issue.

Another factor which can contribute to polarisation is the way online 
social networks promote content based on being engaging and aligned with 
your previous viewed material rather than on trustworthiness. This is 
known as "algorithmic bias" and amplifies the psychological finding that 
people tend to prefer to consume information that matches their belief 
systems – known as "confirmation bias". Social media platforms are also 
susceptible to the existence of malicious accounts which may produce and 
manipulate misleading content.

As the graphic below shows, all these human (purple section) and 
platform (green) factors come together in a melting pot on social media 
to potentially increase the susceptibility of social media users to 
spread, consume and accept misinformation.

A schematic illustration of the climate change misinformation network. 
It shows the actors (purple) and producers (orange), as well as the echo 
chambers among influencers (blue) and the public (green). Credit: Treen 
et al. (2020)

These factors are all present in climate change debate. Research using 
social network analysis suggests that a strong homophily effect occurs 
between polarised groups of social media users on opposing sides of the 
climate debate, and also finds evidence of echo chambers. In addition, 
people's attitudes to climate change have been found to be strongly 
correlated to their ideology, values and social norms.

Why does it matter?
A key strategy used by the actors that spread climate change 
misinformation is to create doubt in people's minds, leading to what has 
been described as a "paralysing fog of doubt around climate change". 
There are three main themes: doubt about the reality of climate change; 
doubt about the urgency; and doubt about the credentials of climate 
scientists.

Research has suggested that climate misinformation can, therefore, 
contribute to public confusion and political inaction, rejection of or 
reduced support for mitigation policies, as well as increased existing 
political polarisation.

Research into misinformation in other areas has found it can cause 
individuals to have emotional responses, such as panic, suspicion, fear, 
worry and anger, as well as highlight that these responses, in turn, may 
have an impact on decisions and actions taken. There are concerns about 
misinformation being a threat at a societal level, particularly for 
democracies.

Some take it a step further. For example, a 2017 study in the Journal of 
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (pdf) highlights "more 
insidious and arguably more dangerous elements of misinformation", such 
as causing people to stop believing in facts altogether, and to lose 
trust in governments, impacting the "overall intellectual well-being of 
a society."

What can be done about it?
Scientific literature has put forward a range of ways to counteract 
misinformation. Summarised in the graphic below, these broadly fall into 
the categories of education (purple boxes), inoculation (blue), 
technological solutions (green), response (orange) and regulation (red).

A summary of the potential ways to counteract misinformation found in 
the literature, along with their criticisms and caveats. Credit: Treen 
et al. (2020)
A summary of the potential ways to counteract misinformation found in 
the literature, along with their criticisms and caveats. Credit: Treen 
et al. (2020)
Much of the literature looking more specifically at counteracting 
misinformation about climate change focuses on educational approaches: 
teaching critical-thinking techniques, better education about climate 
change, and using "agnotology" – the direct study of misinformation – as 
a teaching tool. While these all better equip people to identify 
misinformation, there is a risk of misuse of agnotology and a 
requirement for a certain level of climate literacy in educators.

Research on counteracting online misinformation also discusses 
"technocognition" or "socio-technological solutions", which combine 
technological solutions with cognitive psychology theory.

These take the form of "inoculation" prior to misinformation being 
received. This can mean pre-emptively providing correct information or 
explicitly warning people they may be misinformed. Pure technological 
approaches include early detection of malicious accounts and using 
ranking and selection algorithms to reduce how much misinformation is 
circulating.

Then there are responses and regulation – bringing in a correction or a 
collaborative approach after the misinformation has been received, or 
even putting in place punishments, such as fines or imprisonment.

However, all these solutions have a number of caveats. For inoculation 
strategies, it is difficult to inoculate against every issue and to 
identify the target audience. Technological solutions bring their own 
concerns – for example, over censorship, whether the algorithms are 
accurate or effective, and there being no clear answer what can and 
should be done once malicious accounts are detected.

Receive our free Daily Briefing for a digest of the past 24 hours of 
climate and energy media coverage, or our Weekly Briefing for a round-up 
of our content from the past seven days. Just enter your email below:

Corrective approaches come with their own risks. For example, there is 
the "backfire effect", whereby individuals receiving the correcting 
information come to believe in their original position even more strongly.

Then there is the "continued influence effect", whereby subsequent 
retractions do not eliminate people's reliance on the original 
misinformation. And there are "belief echoes", where exposure to 
misinformation continues to shape attitudes after it has been corrected, 
even when this correction is immediate. There is also the caveat that 
the source of corrections is important for credibility.

Regulation has been described as a "blunt and risky instrument" by a 
European Commission expert group. It is also potentially a threat to the 
democratic right to freedom of speech and has overtones of "Big Brother".

In conclusion, it is important to recognise the role of misinformation 
in shaping our responses to climate change. Understanding the origins 
and spread of misinformation – especially through online networks – is 
imperative. Importantly, although there are several strategies to 
address misinformation, none of them is perfect. A combination of 
approaches will be needed to avo
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-change-misinformation-spreads-online

- - -

[source material Information battles]
*Online misinformation about climate change*
Kathie M. d'I. Treen  Hywel T. P. Williams  Saffron J. O'Neill
18 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665
Edited by Irene Lorenzoni, Domain Editor, and Mike Hulme, Editor‐in‐Chief:
Funding information: Economic and Social Research Council, Grant/Award 
Number: ES/P011489/1; University of Exeter: Kathie Treen is funded 
through a University of Exeter PhD scholarship
*Abstract*
Policymakers, scholars, and practitioners have all called attention to 
the issue of misinformation in the climate change debate. But what is 
climate change misinformation, who is involved, how does it spread, why 
does it matter, and what can be done about it? Climate change 
misinformation is closely linked to climate change skepticism, denial, 
and contrarianism. A network of actors are involved in financing, 
producing, and amplifying misinformation. Once in the public domain, 
characteristics of online social networks, such as homophily, 
polarization, and echo chambers--characteristics also found in climate 
change debate--provide fertile ground for misinformation to spread. 
Underlying belief systems and social norms, as well as psychological 
heuristics such as confirmation bias, are further factors which 
contribute to the spread of misinformation. A variety of ways to 
understand and address misinformation, from a diversity of disciplines, 
are discussed. These include educational, technological, regulatory, and 
psychological‐based approaches. No single approach addresses all 
concerns about misinformation, and all have limitations, necessitating 
an interdisciplinary approach to tackle this multifaceted issue. Key 
research gaps include understanding the diffusion of climate change 
misinformation on social media, and examining whether misinformation 
extends to climate alarmism, as well as climate denial. This article 
explores the concepts of misinformation and disinformation and defines 
disinformation to be a subset of misinformation. A diversity of 
disciplinary and interdisciplinary literature is reviewed to fully 
interrogate the concept of misinformation--and within this, 
disinformation--particularly as it pertains to climate change.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.665



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - June 27, 2000 *
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore lays out his energy policy at 
a campaign appearance in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/GoreEne

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

/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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200627/6a5abdc2/attachment.html>