[TheClimate.Vote] October 9, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*October 9, 2020*/

[a look at one subject]
*Harris, Pence spar over climate science, fracking, and the Green New Deal*
Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) sparred over 
their commitment to the science of climate change, with the vice 
president repeatedly falsely asserting a Biden administration plans to 
ban fracking and adopt the Green New Deal.

"The climate is changing. The issue is, what's the cause and what do we 
do about it? President Trump has made it clear that we're going to 
continue to listen to science," Pence said in response to a question 
about climate change.

Pence later said "climate alarmists" would try to use natural disasters 
like hurricanes and wildfires to try and sell the Green New Deal.
The Biden campaign has charged the Trump administration with ignoring 
science on topics ranging from the coronavirus pandemic to climate change.

"When I first got to the Senate on the committee that's responsible for 
the environment you know this administration took the word science off 
the website. And then took the phrase climate change off the website. We 
have seen a pattern with this administration which is they don't believe 
in science," Harris said.

She then pointed to a recent example in California, where President 
Trump, visiting the state to survey wildfire damage, said "I don't think 
science knows, actually," in reference to global warming.

Pence responded to Harris, repeatedly charging that a potential 
Biden-Harris administration would ban fracking and support the Green New 
Deal. Pence attacked Harris on these topics several times, even on 
questions not specifically related to climate change.

"Now, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would put us back in the Paris climate 
Accord they'd impose the Green New Deal, which would crush American 
energy, would increase the energy costs of American families in their 
homes, and literally would crush American jobs," Pence said.

"The both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and 
banning of fracking," he added later said.
Biden's climate plan does not call for banning fracking or fossil fuels, 
something he reiterated in August in Pennsylvania, where this kind of 
drilling is used.

"I am not banning fracking," Biden said. "Let me say that again: I am 
not banning fracking no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me."

Harris also refuted Pence's claims Biden would see a fracking ban.

"I will repeat, and the American people know that Joe Biden will not ban 
fracking, That is a fact. That is a fact," Harris said, adding that 
Biden's plan to transition to clean energy is embedded in his plan for 
economic recovery.

Biden's plan would, however, bar any new oil drilling leases on public 
lands.

The issue of fracking has been a pressure point with progressive 
Democrats who want to transition away from fossil fuels. They see 
fracking as a risk to water quality.

"Fracking is bad, actually," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) 
tweeted during the debate.

Harris during the event Wednesday largely ignored Pence's attacks on the 
Green New Deal.
Harris endorsed the Green New Deal during the Democratic primary and has 
introduced legislation to begin implementing certain aspects of the 
resolution.

The Biden climate plan calls the Green New Deal a "crucial framework for 
meeting the climate challenges we face."

His plan calls for transitioning the country to net-zero carbon 
emissions by 2050.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/520127-harris-pence-spar-over-climate-science-fracking-and-the-green-new?


[short video BBC]
*Are wildfires the end of the Californian dream?*
As unprecedented wildfires rage across the Golden State, Californians 
have been bearing the brunt.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54455636


[Information battleground]
*Climate denial ads on Facebook seen by millions, report finds*
The ads included calling climate change a hoax and were paid for by 
conservative US groups
Adverts on Facebook denying the reality of the climate crisis or the 
need for action were viewed by at least 8 million people in the US in 
the first half of 2020, a thinktank has found.

The 51 climate disinformation ads identified included ones stating that 
climate change is a hoax and that fossil fuels are not an existential 
threat. The ads were paid for by conservative groups whose sources of 
funding are opaque, according to a report by InfluenceMap.

Last month Facebook said it was "committed to tackling climate 
misinformation" as it announced a climate science information centre. It 
said: "Climate change is real. The science is unambiguous and the need 
to act grows more urgent by the day."...
- -
The report said the ads appeared to be tailored to different audiences. 
Those seen mostly by the over-55s often contested the credibility of 
climate science, while ads mostly seen by 18- to 34 year-olds tended to 
challenge the future impact of climate change...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-denial-ads-on-facebook-seen-by-millions-report-finds

- -

[Influence Map]
*Climate Change and Digital Advertising*
An InfluenceMap Report
October, 2020
*Climate Science Disinformation in Facebook Advertising*
Amid growing concerns at both the impacts of the climate emergency and 
the use of social media to sway public opinion, InfluenceMap has 
launched a detailed analysis of the use of platforms such as Facebook by 
corporations and other entities to influence the climate agenda. 
InfluenceMap categorizes three objectives of the use of social media 
advertising on the climate issue: Climate-science disinformation; 
Climate brand building; and Climate policy and election influencing.

This report deals with the category of Climate-science 
disinformation-related advertising over Facebook's platform and takes 
and analyzes a representative sample of Facebook ads originating from 
think tanks and other politically motivated advertisers known to be 
linked to climate disinformation content.

On the 14th of September 2020, Facebook launched its Climate Science 
Information Center and reaffirmed its commitment to tackling climate 
science misinformation through its fact-checking program. However, this 
research reveals that under the current fact-checking program, 
anti-climate groups are still able to take advantage of Facebook's 
advertising platform and unique targeting abilities to spread climate 
disinformation. Only 1 of the 51 ads identified by InfluenceMap was 
taken down by Facebook; the rest were allowed to run for the entirety of 
their scheduled time. Two of the ads, both run by US conservative 
nonprofit PragerU, started on January 23rd, 2020, and ran up to October 
1st, 2020, two weeks after Facebook launched its Climate Science 
Information Center. See records of these and other ads covered in this 
research in the Facebook Ad Library.
(download graphics and the full report)
https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Change-and-Digital-Advertising-86222daed29c6f49ab2da76b0df15f76


[One more problem is linked]
*Nitrogen fertiliser use could 'threaten global climate goals'*
DAISY DUNNE 07.10.2020
The world's use of nitrogen fertilisers for food production could 
threaten efforts to keep global warming below 2C above pre-industrial 
levels.

That is according to the Global Carbon Project's first comprehensive 
assessment of how nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are contributing to 
climate change.

Published in Nature, the results show that human-caused N2O emissions 
have increased by 30% over the past four decades – with the use of 
nitrogen fertilisers in agriculture playing a major role in the uptick.

A growing demand for meat and dairy products has also contributed to the 
surge. This is because livestock manure causes N2O emissions and 
nitrogen fertilisers are often used in the production of animal feed, 
the scientists say.

The countries with the fastest growing human-caused N2O emissions 
include Brazil, China and India, the research adds.
*
**Potent pollutant*
N2O is a long-lived greenhouse gas that is almost 300 times more potent 
than CO2 over a 100-year period. It is the third-largest contributor to 
climate change after CO2 and methane.

The gas is released into the atmosphere by various natural processes, 
including through the activity of microbes in soils and oceans. Other 
natural processes, including chemical reactions in the stratosphere and 
troposphere, cause a reduction in N2O emissions.

However, human activities can also cause N2O to be released into the 
atmosphere. Human-caused N2O emissions chiefly come from agriculture, 
with the fossil-fuel industry and biomass burning also contributing to a 
lesser degree.

The new assessment considered all the ways in which human activities and 
natural processes contributed to N2O emissions from 2007-16 in order to 
produce the first global "N2O budget".

The findings show that, unless curbed, human-caused N2O emissions could 
threaten the Paris Agreement's target of keeping global warming "well 
below" 2C, says lead author Prof Hanqin Tian, director of the 
International Center for Climate and Global Change Research at Auburn 
University in Alabama. He tells Carbon Brief:

"The most surprising result of the study was the finding that current 
trends in N2O emissions are not compatible with pathways consistent to 
achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement."

*First budget*
The infographic -- 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/A-graphic-summary-of-the-worlds-global-nitrous-oxide-N2O-budget-from-2007-16.jpg 
-- which was produced by the Global Carbon project, summarises the 
findings. On the infographic, orange arrows show human-caused N2O 
emissions while green arrows show natural N2O emissions. A blue arrow 
indicates the reduction in N2O emissions provided by chemical reactions 
in the upper atmosphere ("atmospheric chemical sink").

On the infographic, average N2O emissions are shown in millions of 
tonnes per year, with the minimum and maximum range in emissions shown 
in brackets.
The infographic shows that global N2O emissions increased by a net 4.3m 
tonnes a year, on average, from 2007-16. This figure includes N2O 
emissions from both natural and human-caused sources.

In that time, human-caused N2O emissions rose to 7.3m tonnes per year. 
This is 30% higher than four decades ago, the study says.

More than half of human-caused N2O emissions come from agriculture. The 
main driver of these emissions are nitrogen fertilisers, which are 
routinely sprayed over food crops in order to boost yields.

Fertiliser application on crops has increased nine-fold worldwide since 
1961, according to a recent landmark report on land and climate change 
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 2019.

However, a growing demand for meat and dairy products is also a driver 
of increasing agricultural emissions, the researchers say in their paper:

"Growing demand for meat and dairy products has substantially increased 
global N2O emissions from livestock manure production and management 
associated with the expansion of pastures and grazing land."

The assessment shows that, since the 1980s, agricultural N2O emissions 
have been rising the fastest in East and South Asia, South America and 
Africa.

Meanwhile, agricultural N2O emissions in North America have stayed 
consistently high, while Europe has seen a small dip in its agricultural 
N2O emissions.

*Outpaced*
As part of their analysis, the scientists explored how current N2O 
emissions compare with those from the scenarios used to make future 
projections about climate change.

These include the "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs) and the 
"Shared Socioeconomic Pathways" (SSPs). [More information on all of 
these pathways is available in Carbon Brief's explainer on SSPs.] -- 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Historical-and-projected-nitrous-oxide-emissions-and-concentrations.jpg

Chart A below shows how global N2O emissions compare with projected 
emissions from the RCPs. Chart C, meanwhile, shows how global 
concentrations of N2O compare to projected concentrations from the RCPs.

(RCP2.6 is a scenario where the world successfully limits global warming 
to below 2C, whereas RCP8.5 is a scenario of very high emissions, where 
temperatures could rise by around 4.3C or more by the end of the century.)

Chart B shows how global N2O emissions compare with projected emissions 
from the SSPs, while chart D shows how global concentrations of N2O 
compare to projected concentrations from the SSPs.

(SSP3 is a scenario where countries do little to cooperate on climate 
action, whereas SSP1 is a scenario where the world shifts its focus to 
meeting climate targets.)

On the charts, the black line shows average N2O emissions, whereas the 
blue line shows "bottom-up" estimates and the yellow line shows 
"top-down" estimates. (Bottom-up estimates are based on country 
inventory data, whereas top-up estimates are obtained from global models 
and satellite data.)

Historical and projected nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (A, B) and 
concentrations (C, D). Charts A and C show how historical emissions 
compare to projections from the Representative Concentration Pathways 
(RCPs), whereas charts B and D show how historical emissions compare to 
projections from the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs).

The charts show that N2O emissions are currently tracking a high 
emissions scenario (RCP8.5) – and are outpacing all of the SSP projections.

This means that, in order to limit global warming to below 2C, N2O 
emissions will need to be rapidly reduced in the coming decades, 
explains study author Dr Pep Canadell, chief research scientist at the 
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 
Climate Research Centre in Australia and executive director of the 
Global Carbon Project. He tells Carbon Brief:

"The global food system will always leak some N2O given there are no 
alternatives to nitrogen fertiliser for growing so much of the food we 
eat. However, we must become much more efficient in the way we use it, 
which will lead to significant emission reductions."

The findings reinforce the message that the world needs to change its 
eating habits in order to tackle climate change, says Prof Pete Smith, 
chair of plant and soil science at the University of Aberdeen, who was 
not involved in the research. He tells Carbon Brief:

"The study underlines that we must find more efficient ways of producing 
food, with lower nitrogen inputs and emissions per unit of product. But 
also, we must redesign our current food system so that it can feed us 
all within 'planetary boundaries' by reducing reliance on inefficient 
supply chains such as meat and dairy and by dramatically reducing food 
waste."

The results "further highlight the need to raise agriculture up the 
climate change agenda", says Dr Helen Harwatt, a senior research fellow 
at Chatham House and food and climate policy fellow at Harvard Law 
School, who was also not involved in the study. She tells Carbon Brief:

    "Measures to reduce N2O emissions from the agriculture sector align
    with the broader requirements of food system transformation to meet
    key planetary health goals. [Such measures include] a shift to
    plant-based eating patterns to reduce the disproportionate burden of
    animal agriculture on all three major greenhouse gases – N2O, CO2
    and methane."

(Last month, Carbon Brief published a series of articles examining how 
food production is driving climate change. The series also featured a 
webinar, which included Prof Pete Smith and Dr Helen Harwatt as expert 
panelists.)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/nitrogen-fertiliser-use-could-threaten-global-climate-goals 




[Lessons not learned will be repeated]
*What Have We Learned in Thirty Years of Covering Climate Change?*
By Bill McKibben
October 7, 2020
About a year ago, the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, called to 
ask if I thought it might make sense to publish an anthology of the 
reporting on climate change that has appeared in the magazine's pages. 
Since he works at a breakneck pace, that volume appears in print this 
week, under the title "The Fragile Earth." It's a wonderful book, 
demonstrating not only the depth of The New Yorker's commitment to this 
planet but also the ever-growing sophistication with which writers have 
taken on this most important of topics. The dark splendor of Elizabeth 
Kolbert's pieces alone is worth the thirty dollars.

The book opens with a piece of mine called "The End of Nature," an 
excerpt from a book of the same title that appeared in 1989. It's been a 
while since I read the words I wrote as a twenty-eight-year-old, and it 
made me nostalgic to climb back inside that young and perhaps overly 
earnest mind. The essay is a combination of reflection on the sadness of 
living in a world where the human imprint could be measured in every 
cubic metre of the atmosphere, and of straightforward reporting about 
what we then knew about climatic disruption. In the late 
nineteen-eighties, I could fit every scientific report on global warming 
on my desk. The articles and monographs published since then would fill 
an airplane hangar, but what's amazing is how little has changed. Even 
then, we knew that the rivers of the West would be drying up, the oceans 
starting to rise dramatically, the ice at the top and bottom of the 
planet beginning a catastrophic melt.

But we even understood many of the details. Here is a small dry 
paragraph that I had forgotten I'd written:

    One common suggestion is to replace much of the coal and oil we burn
    with methane, since it produces considerably less carbon dioxide.
    But . . . any methane that escapes unburned into the atmosphere
    traps solar radiation twenty times as efficiently as carbon dioxide
    does. And methane does leak--from wells, from pipelines, from
    appliances; some estimates suggest that as much as three percent of
    the natural gas tapped in this country escapes unburned.

We knew that, but we wasted much of the past thirty years wandering down 
that blind alley anyway. (Indeed, new estimates show that methane is 
eighty times more potent than carbon dioxide.) The Obama 
Administration's response to climate change was mostly about replacing 
coal with natural gas.

That's why it was very good news last week when Joe Biden's transition 
team announced that he would not employ anyone who had helped to lead 
fossil-fuel companies. Assuming that the promise carries over to an 
Administration proper, it means that natural-gas advocates (and Obama 
holdovers) such as Ernest Moniz or Heather Zichal, both of whom have 
served lucrative terms on the boards of large fossil-fuel firms, will 
find themselves sidelined in the event of a Biden Presidency. That's 
crucial, because we need people fully committed to the task of building 
out solar and wind power as fast as possible. Those technologies are 
much cheaper now than they were thirty years ago, which helps change the 
game. (Indeed, news came last week that ExxonMobil, not long ago the 
most valuable corporation in the world, now had a market cap smaller 
than a big solar-and-wind company.) As the credit-rating agency Moody's 
pointed out in an analysis released last week, natural-gas pipelines are 
now an unwise financial bet, partly because activists have become adept 
at blocking them. The pincers created by the confluence of cheap clean 
tech and a stronger environmental movement should give Biden the 
opportunity to move far more nimbly than any President before him. 
That's, of course, if he's elected, which remains the first order of 
business...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/what-have-we-learned-in-thirty-years-of-covering-climate-change
- -
[Yeah, well try the 1979 issue of People Magazine - some 41 years ago]
*CO2 Could Change Our Climate and Flood the Earth--Up to Here*
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074765,00.html


[harsh talk caught on audio about 10:30 ]
*GOP Sen. Cory Gardner is billing himself as a "national leader" on 
climate issues. But in a heated 2017 *recording, he insisted those who 
want to cut emissions really want to control the economy. 
https://huffpost.com/entry/cory-gardner-climate-change_n_5f7dcd46c5b61229a05a7b13?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004 
via
@HuffPostPol
*Sen. Cory Gardner's Climate Conspiracy Theory Revealed In 2017 Recording*
A local newspaper columnist's persistent questions laid bare what the 
now-embattled Republican senator actually thought about the climate crisis.
By Alexander C. Kaufman
Sen. Cory Gardner echoes President Donald Trump's rhetoric on climate 
change, grudgingly admitting that humans have some effect

Sen. Cory Gardner echoes President Donald Trump's rhetoric on climate 
change, grudgingly admitting that humans have some effect on atmospheric 
changes. Scientists have long agreed that humans are the primary cause 
of global warming.
Facing an uphill battle for reelection in a state where two-thirds of 
registered voters polled last month said they favored a Senate candidate 
who promised "aggressive action" on climate change, Colorado Sen. Cory 
Gardner (R) has billed himself as a "national leader" on climate issues 
and run three separate ads casting himself as a pragmatic environmentalist.

But in a 2017 audiotape HuffPost obtained, Gardner squirms out of 
questions about what is causing climate change, instead leaning into 
conspiratorial thinking that efforts to curb carbon emissions are part 
of a larger plan to "control the economy."

"There are people who want to control the economy as a result of their 
belief about the environment," Gardner said in a previously unpublished 
interview with a local newspaper columnist in his native Yuma County in 
rural eastern Colorado. "Absolutely, there are."

Throughout their 17-minute phone call, Gregory Hill, a novelist who 
writes a column for the 136-year-old weekly Yuma Pioneer, fired off an 
unsparing barrage of questions that the senator tried to deflect from a 
position on climate change that is out of sync with scientific reality 
and the political consensus among Centennial State voters.

"I certainly think that the climate is changing," Gardner said.

"I've heard you say that before," Hill responded. "But here's my 
question: Is it changing as a consequence of the human introduction of 
carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds into our atmosphere?"

"Well, I don't think there's any doubt that humans have an impact on the 
environment around us," Gardner said.

Hill grew audibly frustrated. "Let's be clear, because when I step 
outside and exhale, I'm having an impact on the environment. But are 
humans essentially causing climate change?"
hear the audio - 
https://soundcloud.com/alexander-charles-kaufman/yuma-pioneer-columnist-gregory-hills-interview-with-sen-cory-gardner

"I think that humans do have an impact on the environment," Gardner 
repeated.

Pressed to state clearly that gases from fossil fuels accumulate in the 
atmosphere and trap the sun's heat on the planet, an effect that 
scientists first grappled with more than a century ago, Gardner said he 
didn't want to get "into a loaded political debate."

Hill asked Gardner to name "those people" seeking to use climate change 
"to control" the economy.

"People who want to shut down fossil fuel production," Gardner said.

By 2050, natural gas use would need to decline worldwide by nearly 60%, 
oil use would need to fall by 80% and coal use by nearly 95% to keep 
global warming from exceeding a catastrophic 1.5 degrees Celsius above 
pre-industrial averages, according to research by the United Nations' 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a consortium of scientists 
from droves of countries. A study published last November found that 
fossil fuel production remained 120% higher than would be consistent 
with a 1.5 degrees scenario.

Calls to nationalize oil companies and electricity production have grown 
among the Democratic Party's resurgent left wing. But Gardner's opponent 
sits on the opposite end of the party's spectrum.

On the campaign trail, Democratic challenger John Hickenlooper has 
promised to end subsidies for fossil fuel production and said he 
supports halting all new drilling on public lands. But the former 
Colorado governor is also an avowed centrist with deep ties to the 
state's energy industry. As part of a past bid to expand the gas- and 
oil-extraction practice known as hydraulic fracturing, the governor 
famously sipped water treated to remove toxic drilling fluids, prompting 
progressives to pejoratively nickname him "Frackenlooper." When he ran 
for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, Hickenlooper 
insisted in an op-ed that the movement for a Green New Deal "sets us up 
for failure." He defeated a climate-focused progressive for his party's 
Senate nomination in June.

There are people who want to control the economy as a result of their 
belief about the environment.
Sen. Cory Gardner
This year, Gardner sponsored the Great American Outdoors Act, a law to 
permanently fund the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund that the 
GOP-controlled Senate hastily passed in a bid to boost Republicans' 
election prospects amid widespread discontent over the party's handling 
of the environment.

It may or may not sway Colorado voters. After all, the legislation 
solved a problem that Gardner himself had helped to create. The 
Republican lawmaker had voted in 2011 to eliminate most funding for the 
National Park Service fund and endorsed cutting $16 million from its 
budget in 2018.

And as Eric Sondermann, an independent Colorado political analyst, told 
InsideClimate News, "Democrats are so desperate to retake the Senate and 
send Cory Gardner packing that there are a lot of Democratic voters who 
are willing to overlook some issues they normally wouldn't." 
Hickenlooper "is never going to be as much of an oil and gas guy as 
Gardner," Sondermann said.

It's that desire to unseat Gardner that convinced Hill to share his 
interview with a reporter. Following their testy Tuesday morning call 
three years ago, Gardner's team contacted Tony Rayl, the editor of the 
Yuma Pioneer, to complain about the columnist's tone and ask whether 
Hill truly worked for the paper. Hill, who said he is on the autism 
spectrum and reacts angrily when someone appears to be evading simple 
questions, was embarrassed at losing his temper.

"I felt like a failure," he said in a phone call with HuffPost. And in a 
county of roughly 10,000 people, he didn't want his mostly conservative 
neighbors to see him as "the shrill, hysterical version of the liberal 
that they already have in their mind."

The senator's staffers reinforced that feeling. "It felt like this 
intimidation thing that worked," Hill said. "It worked on me more than 
anybody." So the interview didn't run in 2017.

Gardner's office did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.

People in Colorado are also grappling with unignorable signs that the 
climate is changing. This summer's monsoon season never really arrived 
in the state. The warmest August since records began in 1895 bled into 
unprecedentedly hot September days. By October, every inch of Colorado 
was in drought, with roughly half the state in "extreme drought," and an 
already historic wildfire season scorched more than 500 square miles of 
the state.

"We live on a dirt road," Hill said. "It's so fucking dry and dusty, 
every time a car drives by, it's just this fog of dust that settles into 
the low parts of the ground and sits there."

We want to know what you're hearing on the ground from the candidates. 
If you get any interesting -- or suspicious! -- campaign mailers, 
robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us 
at scoops at huffpost.com.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cory-gardner-climate-change_n_5f7dcd46c5b61229a05a7b13?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004 




[Polling opinions]
*Guardian/Vice poll finds most US 2020 voters strongly favor climate action*
Seven in 10 support government action to address crisis – and young 
Republicans are less accepting of their party's inaction, according to 
new poll published in partnership with Covering Climate Now
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/23/us-voters-climate-change-guardian-vice-poll



[Comic skit where October self speaks with the past June self]
*Explaining the Pandemic to my Past Self Part 3*
Oct 8, 2020
Julie Nolke
What would happen if I tried to explain what's happening now to the June 
2020 version of myself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbdk_lBCxJk



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - October 9, 1996 *

Vice President Al Gore and former Representative Jack Kemp discuss the 
environment in the Vice Presidential debate, with Kemp bizarrely 
accusing Gore of promoting "fear of the climate" and embracing an 
"anti-capitalistic mentality," while Gore defends the Clinton 
administration's first-term environmental accomplishments.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/74250-1 - (60:13--70:50)

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

/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/20201009/116a9f41/attachment.html>