[TheClimate.Vote] May 20, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest.
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed May 20 09:22:02 EDT 2020
/*May 20, 2020*/
[new polling]
*Americans See Climate as a Concern, Even Amid Coronavirus Crisis*
Researchers thought Covid-19 might displace climate change as a threat
in the American mind. It hasn't, according to a new survey.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/climate/coronavirus-climate-change-survey.html
- - -
[from Yale and George Mason University]
REPORT - May 19, 2020
*Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2020*
Our latest national survey finds that, in the midst of the COVID-19
epidemic, American public opinion about climate change has remained
steady and, in some cases, reached all-time highs. For example,
Americans' understanding that climate change is happening has tied the
prior all-time high, and public understanding that global warming is
human-caused has reached an all-time high. The report includes many
other interesting findings, including how often Americans hear and talk
about global warming.
Download the full Report
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/climate-change-american-mind-april-2020b.pdf
Read the Executive Summary
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2020/2/
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2020/
- -
*1. Executive Summary*
This survey was fielded from April 7 - 17, 2020, during which time a
large percentage of the U.S. population was sheltering at home due to
the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic. Social science theory and
prior research suggest that people have a "finite pool of worry,"1 such
that worrying about one issue will decrease concern about other issues.
In a national survey on American Responses to COVID-19, conducted
separately from this survey, we found that most American adults were
quite worried about COVID-19 in April, and justifiably so given the
large number of deaths and serious illnesses it was causing at the time.
Given the finite pool of worry hypothesis, we were prepared to find
dramatically reduced levels of concern about climate change in this
survey. Although we did find a slight decline in the proportion of
Americans who report being "very worried" about climate change since our
previous survey in November 2019, overall, the results of the current
survey are remarkably consistent with our previous survey, with several
indicators of public engagement actually reaching record levels. This is
not to say that the finite pool of worry hypothesis is correct or
incorrect, as we did not formally test it. But what is clear is that
public engagement in the issue of climate change remains at or near
historic high levels. Specifically, we found:
- A record-tying 73% of Americans think global warming is happening.
Only one in ten Americans (10%) think global warming is not
happening. Americans who think global warming is happening outnumber
those who think it isn't by a ratio of about 7 to 1.
- A record-high 54% of Americans are "extremely" or "very" sure
global warming is happening. By contrast, only 6% are "extremely" or
"very" sure global warming is not happening.
- A record-tying 62% of Americans understand that global warming is
mostly human-caused. By contrast, about three in ten (29%) think it
is due mostly to natural changes in the environment.
- More than half of Americans (56%) understand that most scientists
think global warming is happening. However, only about one in five
(21%) understand how strong the level of consensus among scientists
is (i.e., that more than 90% of climate scientists think
human-caused global warming is happening).
- Two in three Americans (66%) say they are at least "somewhat
worried" about global warming. One in four (26%) are "very worried"
about it.
- About six in ten Americans (63%) say they feel at least
"moderately interested" in global warming. Four in ten or more say
they feel say they feel "disgusted" (46%), "hopeful" (45%), "angry"
(41%), "resilient" (41%), "outraged" (41%), or "helpless" (40%).
- More than four in ten Americans think people in the United States
are being harmed by global warming "right now" (45%) and about the
same percentage say they have personally experienced the effects of
global warming (44%).
- More than four in ten Americans (43%) think they will be harmed by
global warming, while more think their family (46%) and people in
their community (49%) will be harmed. Half or more Americans think
global warming will harm people in the U.S. (62%), people in
developing countries (66%), the world's poor (67%), future
generations of people (73%), and plant and animal species (73%).
- Many Americans think a variety of health harms, both physical and
psychological, will become more common in their community as a
result of global warming over the next 10 years, if nothing is done
to address it.
- Two in three Americans (66%) say the issue of global warming is
either "extremely," "very," or "somewhat" important to them
personally, while one in three (33%) say it is either "not too" or
"not at all" personally important.
- More than six in ten Americans (64%) say they "rarely" or "never"
discuss global warming with family and friends, while 36% say they
do so "occasionally" or "often."
- About half of Americans (47%) say they hear about global warming
in the media at least once a month. Fewer (22%) say they hear people
they know talk about global warming at least once a month.
- Fewer than half of Americans perceive a social norm in which their
friends and family expect them to take action on global warming.
Forty-seven percent think it is at least moderately important to
their family and friends that they take action (an injunctive norm),
and 44% say their family and friends make at least a moderate amount
of effort to reduce global warming (a descriptive norm).
- Two in three Americans (66%) feel a personal sense of
responsibility to help reduce global warming.
- Few Americans (11%) agree with the statement that it is too late
to do anything about global warming, while about two in three (68%)
disagree that it is too late.
- Majorities of Americans think global warming is an environmental
issue (82%) or a scientific issue (74%). Half or more think global
warming is an agricultural (67%), severe weather (64%), economic
(64%), humanitarian (61%), health (60%), political (60%), or moral
(50%) issue.
- Two in three Americans (66%) think global warming is affecting
weather in the United States, and one in three think weather is
being affected "a lot" (33%).
- A majority of Americans are worried about harm from extreme events
in their local area including extreme heat (66%), droughts (65%),
flooding (60%), and water shortages (56%).
- Majorities of Americans think state and local governments should
place a "high priority" on protecting agriculture, public water
supplies, and people's health (all 55%) from the effects of global
warming over the next ten years.
- Six in ten Americans (60%) feel at least "fairly well informed"
about global warming, but only one in ten Americans (10%) feel "very
well informed."
- Majorities of Americans are at least "moderately" interested in
news stories about a variety of topics related to global warming.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2020/2/
[new colors]
*Climate change is turning parts of Antarctica green, say scientists*
Researchers map 'beginning of new ecosystem' as algae bloom across
surface of melting snow
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/20/climate-change-turning-parts-antarctica-green-say-scientists-algae
[MAY 19, 2020 ]
*Why we need climate stoicism to overcome climate despair*
by Max Goodman, Earth Institute at Columbia University
The phenomenon of climate despair is on the rise. Among the young,
educated, and climate-concerned folks that society hopes will "be the
change," many have become overwhelmed and immobilized by anxiety. The
climate-despairing view global warming as a fundamentally unstoppable
force that will ultimately render the Earth uninhabitable, believing
that any change is too little, too late. For some, it might be easy to
dismiss this response as dramatic or unproductive, but as a longtime
student of climate change, I empathize with the inclination to despair.
Climate despair is just the natural result of two increasingly pervasive
ideas: first, if society doesn't decarbonize in the next 30 years, we'll
be staring down the barrel of a global environmental cataclysm; and
second, there's no way we're going to decarbonize in time. Neither idea
is entirely wrong, but both are drastic oversimplifications, and when
carelessly combined, they demotivate in a moment when we desperately
need motivation.
According to the March 2018 report of the Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication, 33% of Americans think that we need to address climate
change to prevent "the destruction of most life on this planet." Yet 85%
of Americans have significant doubts that humans can reduce global
warming and will do so successfully. For comparison, U.S. climate denial
hovers around 9%. The forces of climate despair currently loom larger in
our culture than the forces of climate denial. If the paralysis of
despair is the next big social threat to decarbonization, it's critical
we pay attention to what's driving these beliefs...
- - -
We're already locked in for some warming and some rough consequences,
but sunk losses don't diminish the need to decarbonize. Say we are
doomed to overshoot the most painful tipping points: should that really
change how we act? No matter how enormous the losses we suffer, the
climate will continue to change, continue to strain our ability to
adapt, until we achieve net zero. It will never be too late to act,
because climate change can always get worse. Two-plus degrees of warming
is a Pandora's box we really don't want to open, but it's not the end of
the world or the end of the fight. Nor is 3 degrees or 4 degrees, or god
forbid 5 degrees. We could miss all our deadlines and whatever progress
we made will still have been worth it: it will still have staunched some
of the bleeding and made future healing more attainable. Somewhere down
the road (and alarmingly soon) there is a too late for the Marshall
Islands, a too late for the Great Barrier Reef and a too late for the
world's coastal cities. But no matter the damage sustained, there is no
too late for the whole world. Internalizing this non-duality, accepting
the reality of a tragic future, and committing to help soften the blow,
is the basis of what I would call climate stoicism.
The original stoics were ancient Greek thinkers who strove for mental
resilience in their own lives by meditating on negative possibilities. A
stoic took nothing for granted, and was logistically and emotionally
prepared for loss and ruin. This didn't mean pushing away distressing
emotions, but allowing oneself to sit with them and depressurize -
disempowering anxiety by accepting one's relative powerlessness, and
resolving to do what one can. A good stoic journeys into darkness and
emerges able to cope with the real world, grateful for their
opportunities and intensely practical about cultivating them. Climate
Stoicism extends this mental resilience to the collective, calling us to
get over our apocalyptic dread by learning to mentally project ourselves
into the future's landscape of loss. This shift is critical. For
activists, sustainability professionals, and concerned citizens to
maintain our momentum against near-insurmountable odds, we have to
decouple fighting to win from the dream of winning outright. We have to
be both feverishly dedicated to meeting the IPCC's targets and
psychologically prepared to miss them, keeping in mind that cutting our
losses after the disaster train gets rolling will be every bit as
morally valuable as our efforts to keep it in the station. We need to
overhaul the idea of apocalypse in our deadline rhetoric, and reaffirm
that while delaying decarbonization any longer courts mass extinction
and poses ever-more-unacceptable risks to humanity, it will never be too
late for decarbonization to be worth it to the world.
There is no time for climate despair. The ticking clock is not counting
down to a single explosive cataclysm, but continuously ticking away
future lives and livelihoods. Political organizers and environmental
educators can't afford to paint over despair with moonshot-optimism only
to have it strip off the walls when the weather changes. In preaching
climate urgency without climate stoicism, we are taking our own
unacceptable gamble, flipping a coin between motivation and despondency.
We fail whenever our rhetoric leaves room for complacency on climate
action. Whether that complacency comes from denial or despair ultimately
makes no difference.
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-climate-stoicism-despair.html
[Remember the B&W photos?]
*Dust bowl conditions of 1930s US now more than twice as likely to reoccur*
Climate breakdown means conditions that wrought devastation across Great
Plains could return to region
- - -
Such conditions could be expected to occur naturally only rarely - about
once a century. But with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, dust bowl conditions are likely to become much more
frequent events.
They are now at least two and a half times more likely to occur, with a
frequency probability of about once in 40 years, according to
projections by an international group of scientists published on Monday
in the journal Nature Climate Change.
If global temperatures rise by more than 2C (a rise of 3.6F) above
pre-industrial levels, such heatwaves will become one-in-20-year events
in the region, according to the study's authors.
"Even highly industrialised parts of the world are vulnerable to extreme
heat and drought," said Friederike Otto, co-author of the study and
acting director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University
of Oxford. "This is an important reminder that if we do not want events
like the dust bowl, we need to get to net zero [greenhouse gas
emissions] very soon," she said.
Farming has changed in the region since the 1930s, with more widespread
use of crop irrigation. But much of that relies on groundwater, which is
also being severely depleted.
Huge fields, which encourage soil erosion; the tendency towards growing
monocultures - vast areas given over to a single crop, such as maize or
wheat; and a lack of natural vegetation all contribute to the creation
of dust bowl conditions.
"If you don't have trees anywhere, it's much harder to keep water in the
ground," Otto said. "What crops you grow and how large the fields are
have an effect on how the ground is able to hold water."
Huge open fields with few borders have long been favoured by farmers as
they are more efficient for mechanised tilling and harvesting. But in
recent years some farmers have changed their practices to better
conserve the soil, particularly after severe droughts in 2017.
Tim Cowan, lead author and research fellow at the University of Southern
Queensland, said the study concentrated on the impacts of temperature
rises but that land management would have a big impact too. However,
improving land management could not remedy the damage done by the
climate emergency. "Even though you have better practices in cropping
now, the rises in temperature reduce those benefits, so there would
still be a negative impact," he said.
The researchers also found that there was a small but detectable impact
from greenhouse gases on the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s.
Gabi Hegerl, co-author, and professor of climate system science at the
University of Edinburgh, said: "With summer heat extremes expected to
intensify over the US throughout this century, it is likely that the
1930s records will be broken in the near future."...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/18/us-dust-bowl-conditions-likely-to-reoccur-great-plains
[Extreme conjecture from Top Scientist Dr James Hansen]
*Sophie's Planet #7: Chapter 10 (Runaway Greenhouse)*
19 May 2020
James Hansen
Earth is certain to have a baked-crust runaway greenhouse. It will
destroy all life on Earth, but it is nothing to worry about. The baked
crust runaway is still at least a billion years in the future, and
before then, if humanity survives, it will have technology to escape to
a more hospitable place.
The runaway that we should be concerned about is the existential threat
(ET) runaway. ET runaway will occur if we let high fossil fuel
emissions continue to the point that rapid disintegration of the
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets begins, with sea level rise of many
meters and loss of all coastal cities. At the same time, low latitudes
would become unreasonably hot and humid. Global emigration pressures
would become so great that global governance breaks down. Chaos
ensues. That is the ET runaway greenhouse.
I am optimistic that we can avoid the ET runaway greenhouse. I believe
the United States and China will realize that we are all in the same
boat. We can, together, use our technological prowess to pull back from
the brink. Pulling back from the brink will not happen without effort.
It is not enough to demand that governments address the global climate
change matter. None of the political parties are advocating an approach
that would actually work. It is necessary that the public, especially
young people, understand the actions that are needed. That is my
purpose in writing this book. (Chapter 10 draft for fact checking)
I opened a Twitter account @DrJamesEHansen,
(https://twitter.com/drjamesehansen), but will minimize interactions
until the book is finished.
https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - May 20, 2013 *
The US Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal of the 9th US Circuit
Court of Appeals' decision in the Kivalina v. ExxonMobil case,
effectively ending one effort to hold fossil fuel companies legally
accountable for carbon pollution.
http://environblog.jenner.com/corporate_environmental_l/2013/05/high-court-refuses-to-take-up-kivalina-climate-suit.html
- -
[commentary on the real legal significance]
*[Rantman] Insurance case ruling: CO2 emissions warming is not accidental.*
Sept 16, 2011
Virginia court ruling today says carbon liability insurers do not have
to pay for known consequences of carbon emissions.
Congress failed to set an energy policy that addresses carbon emissions,
and the courts are very slow to moving on the issue directly.
But the insurance industry may be able to make something happen: they
just got a ruling saying they are not required to pay the considerable
legal fees to help a coal company defend a climate nuisance lawsuit. -
the AES coal company wanted their insurance company to pay legal fees
for defending the suit Kivalina v. Exxon, et al. (Global warming from
emissions? It was an accident!)
The coal company was not accidentally releasing co2 emissions leading to
global warming. This was known and foreseeable -- and the insurer -
which was sued to indemnify against liability -- did not have to pay.
"...utility was intentionally emitting carbon dioxide and knew that it
contributed to global warming"
This may mean the cost of defending against future lawsuits will be
carried by the carbon energy companies directly - this may concern
stockholders in energy companies.
The 9th Circuit is due to rule on Kivalia v. ExxonMobile et, al. -- that
emissions from 32 coal, gas and oil companies have contributed to rising
sea levels that endanger the Alaskan Native-American village of Kivalina.
Minor but significant.
RP
====================================
http://www.mckennalong.com/news-advisories-2604.html
AES Corp v. Steadfast
September 16, 2011
In a major victory for insurers, the Virginia Supreme Court held that
insurance companies do not have to defend utility companies accused of
intentional wrongdoing in connection with climate change liability
lawsuits. In AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co.,[1] the court
concluded that the underlying climate change claims in the Kivalina
lawsuit did not constitute an “occurrence” under AES’ commercial general
liability (CGL) policies.
----
The Kivalina plaintiffs, an Inupiat village located off the coast of
Alaska, allege that greenhouse gas emissions from AES and other oil,
energy, and utility companies have contributed to climate change which,
in turn, has eroded the village’s coastline and rendered it
uninhabitable. The complaint alleges that AES intentionally emits
millions of tons of carbon dioxide and thereby “intentionally or
negligently” created a nuisance, global warming. Kivalina further
asserts that AES “knew or should have known” that its activities would
result in the environmental harm to Kivalina.
After being sued, AES asked its insurer, Steadfast Insurance Company, to
defend. Steadfast refused and thereafter filed a declaratory judgment
action in Virginia (where AES is headquartered). Steadfast denied
coverage based on three grounds: (1) the Kivalina complaint did not
allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under its policies;
(2) the alleged injuries arose before Steadfast’s coverage incepted; and
(3) the GHG emissions alleged in Kivalina were “pollutants” excluded from
coverage by virtue of the policies’ pollution exclusion.
-----
Implications for Companies and Insurers with Potential Climate
Change-Related Tort Exposure:
1. Notwithstanding the favorable outcome for the insurer, the AES
decision may not be dispositive in coverage cases filed in less
favorable jurisdictions for insurers or in cases where the allegations
pled and/or the language of the relevant insuring agreements differs
from those at issue in AES. Company Executives and Risk Managers are
advised to seek specific advice from their brokers and counsel regarding
whether their individual policies afford coverage.
2. As additional climate change cases are filed, either under state tort
law or based on other legal theories that may emerge, new insurance
coverage cases may follow in other jurisdictions involving different
legal standards.
3. Climate change litigation (both liability and related coverage
litigation) is likely to continue to evolve as claimants and interest
groups respond and adapt to court rulings like AES.
4. Companies relying on the availability of insurance proceeds to defray
costs associated with climate litigation may have to consider the
implications on reporting obligations.
also Sept 16, 2011 NYTimes reports:
Va. Court Rules That Insurance Doesn't Cover Global Warming Claims
New York Times
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in the closely watched case that
Steadfast Insurance does not have a duty to defend AES Corp., a utility
which is a defendant in a major climate case, Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil
Corp., et al., which [was then]...before the...
https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/rantman/2011/000096.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 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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list