[TheClimate.Vote] May 6, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*May 6, 2020*/

[another fall back]
*EPA Decides to Reject the Latest Science, Endanger Public Health and 
Ignore the Law by Keeping an Outdated Fine Particle Air Pollution Standard*
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
By H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University
The COVID-19 pandemic and economic shutdown have temporarily produced 
clearer skies across the U.S. Meanwhile, however, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency has been busy finding reasons not to pursue 
long-lasting air quality gains.

On April 30, 2020, the agency published a proposed new rule that retains 
current National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 
without any revisions. It took this action after a five-year review 
process, in which scientific evidence showed unequivocally that these 
standards are not adequate to protect public health.

I have studied air pollution and air quality for over 30 years, and have 
been directly involved for a decade with EPA’s reviews of scientific 
findings on air pollution. This includes serving on the agency’s Clean 
Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, and on 10 specialized 
panels focused on individual pollutants.

As I have written previously, the Trump administration has watered down 
the role of science in what is supposed to be a science-based process of 
setting national air quality standards. This new proposal -- which I 
expect will be challenged in court when finalized -- is the result...
- -
Fine particles, known as PM2.5 because they measure 2.5 microns or less 
in diameter, can penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream. EPA 
staff scientists have reaffirmed that daily and annual exposure to PM2.5 
causes premature death and a variety of illnesses.

Scientists have known this for decades, but since the national standard 
was last revised in 2012, new studies have strengthened these findings. 
They include an epidemiologic study with the largest ever number of 
subjects and several that include PM2.5 concentrations well below the 
current standard.

EPA’s scientific staff estimates, based on multiple epidemiologic 
studies, that currently an average of 13,500 to 51,300 people die 
prematurely each year from breathing fine particles. Although these 
numbers are uncertain, the likelihood of thousands of deaths per year 
would typically spur regulators to tighten existing standards. However, 
EPA’s current political leadership disagrees...
- - -
Preliminary evidence suggests that exposure to particles worsens the 
effects of COVID-19. While this finding needs peer review and additional 
study, existing evidence of risk for sensitive populations shows the 
need for a more protective standard.

EPA currently faces lawsuits for multiple instances in which it has 
either sought to weaken, or failed to strengthen, air pollution 
regulations. They include rolling back motor vehicle greenhouse gas 
emission standards, failing to implement stringent rules limiting 
interstate air pollution and repealing the Obama administration’s Clean 
Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from power plants. Unless EPA 
modifies its position on particle air quality to address the law and the 
science, I expect that this regulation too will end up in court.

H. Christopher Frey is Glenn E. Futrell Distinguished University 
Professor of Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University...
Read the original article.
https://theconversation.com/epa-decides-to-reject-the-latest-science-endanger-public-health-and-ignore-the-law-by-keeping-an-outdated-fine-particle-air-pollution-standard-136226



[projected]
*Billions projected to suffer nearly unlivable heat in 2070*
by Seth Borenstein
In just 50 years, 2 billion to 3.5 billion people, mostly the poor who 
can't afford air conditioning, will be living in a climate that 
historically has been too hot to handle, a new study said.
With every 1.8 degree increase in global average annual temperature from 
man-made climate change, about a billion or so people will end up in 
areas too warm day-in, day-out to be habitable without cooling 
technology, according to ecologist Marten Scheffer of Wageningen 
University in the Netherlands, co-author of the study.
How many people will end up at risk depends on how much heat-trapping 
carbon dioxide emissions are reduced and how fast the world population 
grows.

Under the worst-case scenarios for population growth and for carbon 
pollution--which many climate scientists say is looking less likely 
these days--the study in Monday's journal Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences predicts about 3.5 billion people will live in 
extremely hot areas. That's a third of the projected 2070 population.

But even scenarios considered more likely and less severe project that 
in 50 years a couple of billion people will be living in places too hot 
without air conditioning, the study said.

"It's a huge amount and it's a short-time. This is why we're worried," 
said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, who wasn't 
part of the study. She and other outside scientists said the new study 
makes sense and conveys the urgency of the man-made climate change 
differently than past research.

In an unusual way to look at climate change, a team of international 
scientists studied humans like they do bears, birds and bees to find the 
"climate niche" where people and civilizations flourish. They looked 
back 6,000 years to come up with a sweet spot of temperatures for 
humanity: Average annual temperatures between 52 and 59 degrees.

We can--and do--live in warmer and colder places than that, but the 
farther from the sweet spot, the harder it gets.
The scientists looked at places projected to get uncomfortably and 
considerably hotter than the sweet spot and calculated at least 2 
billion people will be living in those conditions by 2070.

Currently about 20 million people live in places with an annual average 
temperature greater than 84 degrees (29 degrees Celsius) - far beyond 
the temperature sweet spot. That area is less than 1% of the Earth's 
land, and it is mostly near the Sahara Desert and includes Mecca, Saudi 
Arabia.

But as the world gets more crowded and warmer, the study concluded large 
swaths of Africa, Asia, South America and Australia will likely be in 
this same temperature range. Well over 1 billion people, and up to 3.5 
billion people, will be affected depending on the climate altering 
choices humanity makes over the next half century, according to lead 
author Chi Xu of Nanjing University in China.

With enough money, "you can actually live on the moon," Scheffer said. 
But these projections are "unlivable for the ordinary, for poor people, 
for the average world citizen."

Places like impoverished Nigeria--with a population expected to triple 
by the end of he century--would be less able to cope, said study 
co-author Tim Lenton, a climate scientist and director of the Global 
Systems Institute at the University of Exeter in England.
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-billions-unlivable.html



[We know]
*'This pandemic is nothing compared to what climate change has in store'*
John Gibbons lays out the stark climate facts and urges us to take 
coronavirus as a warning that it’s now time to act, or perish.
- -
Until very recently, premature death had been the norm for most humans. 
However, in the last five decades, largely freed from the threat of 
predators, large and small, our numbers on this earth have more than 
doubled, to over 7.8 billion, while average life expectancy in the same 
period has increased by well over a decade per person.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that this unprecedented global 
expansion of the human footprint has brought the biosphere, our living 
planet, to the brink of collapse. There are many ways of measuring this, 
such as the precipitous decline in biodiversity, the average annual loss 
of 15 billion trees, many of them from razed ancient rainforests.

A major report on biodiversity and ecosystems published last May found 
that the natural world is declining globally ‘at rates unprecedented in 
human history - and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, 
with grave impacts on people around the world now likely’.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report concluded that around one million 
animal and plant species now face extinction in the coming decades. ‘The 
essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and 
increasingly frayed…this loss is a direct result of human activity and 
constitutes a direct threat to human well-being’, the IPBES report warned.

The unavoidable warming

We face an equally daunting and arguably more intractable challenge from 
climate change. In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) issued a special report on the likely impacts of global 
warming at and beyond 1.5C over pre-industrial temperatures.

Arising from this landmark report, it emerged that in order to keep 
global temperatures within relatively safe limits, carbon emissions 
would have to fall by at least 45% by 2030, which is just ten years from 
now.

This is in line with commitments made by almost all the world’s leaders, 
including Ireland, when we signed up for the 2015 Paris Agreement, which 
legally committed us to doing everything possible to avoid extremely 
dangerous climate change at 2C and beyond.
- -
At what cost?

Apart from constant lobbying by commercial and agri-industrial groups, 
another reason politicians have run scared of climate action is that the 
issue is consistently framed in the Irish media in terms of the cost of 
tackling climate change. However, international studies have shown 
repeatedly that the price of inaction far outweighs the costs of 
addressing the crisis.

It is estimated that the cost of the coronavirus to the global economy 
is in the range of $2-$4 trillion this year. A 2018 report calculated 
that failure to rein in climate change would deliver a devastating $34 
trillion hit to the global economy - many times greater than the 
economic chaos arising from the pandemic.

Other estimates are even less sanguine. An Australian study published in 
2019 argues that ‘climate change represents a near to mid-term 
existential threat to human civilisation’.

Should global temperatures reach 3C over pre-industrial by mid-century, 
‘the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high 
likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end’, the report warns.

So, the next time someone asks if we can ‘afford’ to tackle climate 
change, a better question might instead be: what price isn’t worth 
paying to avoid the collapse of civilisation?
/John Gibbons is an environmental writer and commentator who specialises 
in covering the climate and biodiversity emergency. He is a contributor 
to The Irish Times, The Guardian and DeSmog.uk and is a regular guest 
environmental commentator on broadcast media. He blogs at Thinkorswim.ie 
and also runs the website Climatechange.ie and is on Twitter: 
@think_or_swim./
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/coronavirus-climate-change-5086343-May2020/





[Radio EcoShock]
*DANGEROUS DREAMS OF A TECHNOLOGY TO SAVE US FROM CLIMATE CHANGE: DUNCAN 
MCLAREN
*Posted on April 29, 2020, by Radio Ecoshock
Remember all those fabulous technical fixes that were going to save us 
from disastrous climate change? The world would run on nuclear fusion, 
or oil from algae, while thousands of wind pumps saved the sea ice. The 
world is still waiting - and still heating up. A new paper from experts 
at UK’s Lancaster University collects the promises and failures of 
technical fixes - plus the ways all those shiny ideas helped governments 
and corporations avoid the hard part: real social and economic change 
needed to limit climate damage.

The paper is called "The co-evolution of technological promises, 
modeling policies and climate change targets." We reached the lead 
author, Duncan McLaren - Professor and Research Fellow at Lancaster UK.
Our first guest Professor Duncan McLaren explains why technical 
delusions are so dangerous.
https://www.ecoshock.org/2020/04/two-crises-on-a-small-planet.html
- -
[source material from the journal*nature climate change*]
*The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and 
climate change targets*
Abstract

    The nature and framing of climate targets in international politics
    has changed substantially since their early expressions in the
    1980s. Here, we describe their evolution in five phases--from
    ‘climate stabilization’ to specific ‘temperature
    outcomes’--co-evolving with wider climate politics and policy,
    modelling methods and scenarios, and technological promises (from
    nuclear power to carbon removal). We argue that this co-evolution
    has enabled policy prevarication, leaving mitigation poorly
    delivered, yet the technological promises often remain buried in the
    models used to inform policy. We conclude with a call to recognise
    and break this pattern to unleash more effective and just climate
    policy.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0740-1



[New book]
*Towards an Ecopsychotherapy*
by Mary-Jayne Rust
Synopsis

    Psychotherapy invites us to tell the story of our human
    relationships; ecopsychotherapy expands this to include our earth
    story, the context or continuum in which our human relationships
    sit. Ecopsychotherapy is not simply a technique to be applied in
    therapy: it involves a change in perspective. While practising
    therapy outdoors is a radical shift that can support and facilitate
    the healing process, it also acknowledges that our relationship with
    the earth is both inside and outside ourselves. As climate chaos
    quickens and increasing numbers of people are waking up to the
    seriousness of our environmental crisis, we are becoming more aware
    of our dysfunctional relationship with the earth - the body on whom
    we depend for everything. Ecopsychotherapy can help to support our
    reconnection with nature and to discover hope in turbulent times.

    "If psychotherapy is to remain relevant, it must change and
    recognize that we exist as part of, not apart from, Nature. I trust
    Mary-Jayne Rust more than anyone else to guide us there." Jerome
    Bernstein, Jungian Analyst, author of Living in the Borderland

    "In her characteristic style, Mary-Jayne presents ecopsychotherapy
    in an incisive way, with her richness of experience bringing the
    subject to life. This thought-provoking book touches on the heart of
    controversies in this field - our need to grow new terminology - and
    to actively ensure our spaces are inclusive. This is an invaluable
    introduction to ecopsychotherapy and is also sure to deepen the work
    of more seasoned practitioners."Emma Palmer, Body psychotherapist,
    BACP-accredited counsellor, ecopsychologist, supervisor, trainer and
    author of Other Than Mother

    "Mary-Jayne Rust has written an important work which broadens the
    field of psychotherapy to include our inherent connectedness to the
    more-than-human world. She provides a succinct, heartfelt overview
    of ecopsychotherapy. Given the current state of global environmental
    destruction, the wisdom in this book is needed now more than ever."
    Jeffrey T Kiehl, Jungian analyst, climate scientist, author of
    Facing Climate Change

https://www.kobo.com/gb/en/ebook/towards-an-ecopsychotherapy


[Clipped from more criticism of Michael Moore]
*Review: Planet of the Humans*
Richard Heinberg
April 27, 2020
- -
The film is controversial because it makes two big claims: first, that 
renewable energy is a sham; second, that big environmental 
organizations--by promoting solar and wind power--have sold their souls 
to billionaire investors...
- -
We found that the transition to renewables is going far too slowly to 
make much of a difference during the crucial next couple of decades, and 
would be gobsmackingly expensive if we were to try replacing all fossil 
fuel use with solar and wind. We also found, as the film underscores 
again and again, that the intermittency of sunshine and wind is a real 
problem--one that can only be solved with energy storage (batteries, 
pumped hydro, or compressed air, all of which are costly in money and 
energy terms); or with source redundancy (building way more generation 
capacity than you’re likely to need at any one time, and connecting 
far-flung generators on a super-grid); or demand management (which 
entails adapting our behavior to using energy only when it’s available). 
All three strategies involve trade-offs. In the energy world, there is 
no free lunch. Further, the ways we use energy today are mostly adapted 
to the unique characteristics of fossil fuels, so a full transition to 
renewables will require the replacement of an extraordinary amount of 
infrastructure in our food system, manufacturing, building heating, the 
construction industry, and on and on. Altogether, the only realistic way 
to make the transition in industrial countries like the US is to begin 
reducing overall energy usage substantially, eventually running the 
economy on a quarter, a fifth, or maybe even a tenth of current energy...
- -
During recent decades, the big environmental orgs wearied of telling 
their followers to reduce, reuse, and recycle. They came to see that 
global problems like climate change require systemic solutions that, in 
turn, require massive investment and governmental planning and oversight.

But the reality is, we need both high-level systemic change and 
widespread individual behavior change. That’s one of the lessons of the 
coronavirus pandemic: "flattening the curve" demands both central 
planning and leadership, and individual sacrifice.

Planet of the Humans paints environmental organizations and leaders with 
a broad and accusatory brush. One target is Jeremy Grantham, a 
billionaire investment analyst who created the Grantham Foundation for 
the Protection of the Environment in 1997. Grantham was already a 
mega-rich investor before he "got religion" on environmental issues. 
I’ve had several face-to-face meetings with him (full disclosure: the 
Grantham Foundation has provided modest funding to Post Carbon 
Institute, where I work) and it’s clear that he cares deeply about 
overpopulation and overconsumption, and he understands that economic 
growth is killing the planet. He’s scared for his children and 
grandchildren, and he genuinely wants to use whatever wealth and 
influence he has to change the world. To imply, as the film does, that 
he merely sees green tech as an investment strategy is a poorly aimed 
cheap shot. Bill McKibben, who is skewered even more savagely, also 
deserves better; he has replied to the film here.

Finally, the film leaves viewers with no sense of hope for the future. I 
understand why Gibbs made that choice. Too often, "hopium" is simply a 
drug we use to numb ourselves to the horrific reality of our situation 
and its causes--in which we are all complicit.

Yet, however awful the circumstance, we need a sense of human agency. In 
the face of the pandemic, many of us are reduced to sitting at home 
sewing facemasks; it seems like a paltry response to a spreading 
sickness that’s taking tens of thousands of lives, but it’s better than 
sitting on our hands and saying "Woe is me." The same goes for climate 
change: figuring out how to eat lower on the food chain, or how to get 
by without a car, or how to reduce home energy usage by half, or growing 
a garden might seem like trivial responses to such an overwhelming 
crisis, but they get us moving together in the right direction.

For all the reasons I’ve mentioned, Planet of the Humans is not the last 
word on our human predicament. Still, it starts a conversation we need 
to have, and it’s a film that deserves to be seen.
https://www.postcarbon.org/review-planet-of-the-humans/


[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - May 6, 2001 *
(hat tip to Carl Pope and BetsyRosenberg.com )
*May 6, 2001: The New York Times reports on EPA Administrator Christine*
*Todd Whitman's persona-non-grata status in the George W. Bush*
*administration:*

    "Mrs. Whitman was greeted like a political star when she arrived here
    several months ago to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Not a
    single senator, not even her Democratic rivals, opposed her
    appointment.

    "But no sooner had the former New Jersey governor unpacked her bags
    than she found her authority undercut by the very man who had lured
    her to Washington, George W. Bush.

    "The most recent snub occurred when the White House openly
    contradicted a claim she made on national television two weeks ago
    that the administration might back away from its plans to open up the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling amid growing
    opposition in Congress.

    "Only weeks earlier, Mrs. Whitman declared that Mr. Bush intended to
    fulfill a campaign pledge to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power
    plants -- only to find that the president had decided against that
    policy without so much as telling his chief environmental overseer.

    "So it is not surprising that the public embarrassments Mrs. Whitman
    has had to endure at the hands of her new boss are giving rise to
    questions about her ability to lead the environmental agency, though
    she and the White House insist that there is no strife and that she is
    an important voice in the administration...

    "The recent setbacks also threaten to undermine the credibility of
    Mrs. Whitman, a politician whose plain-spoken manner and seemingly
    moderate political views had made her one of the nation's most
    prominent governors and at one point a potential vice presidential
    candidate.

    "Indeed, Mrs. Whitman's nomination to head the environmental agency
    cheered many people on the left -- despite her mixed record on the
    environment in New Jersey -- who were wary of the conservative
    Republican crowd that had moved into the White House. But those very
    same people are no longer so optimistic that her voice will be heard
    within the new administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/nyregion/hitting-ground-limping-for-whitman-chaos-her-wake-sharp-elbows-her-future.html?pagewanted=all

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

/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/20200506/afb6b393/attachment.html>