[TheClimate.Vote] October 10, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest.

[Richard Pauli]

/*October 10, 2020*/
*
*[Interests of the many versus interest of the few]
*Private firefighters allegedly set illegal backfires during the Glass Fire*
Bill Gabbert - October 8, 2020
The Glass Fire has burned over 67,000 acres and 643 residences
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is 
investigating allegations that an unauthorized backfire was set by 
private firefighters on the Glass Fire in California’s Wine Country.

ABC7 claims their video shows private firefighters being detained Friday 
October 2 by officers from CAL FIRE and the CHP.
A backfire or any burning operation can endanger the lives of 
firefighters and others if it is not carefully planned and coordinated 
with the fire organization. Fighting a fire in any area, but especially 
in an urban interface, can be chaotic as hell. Throw in an unauthorized 
backfire and it can put lives at risk. Many experienced wildland 
firefighters can tell you stories about a burning operation that meant 
well, but caught others unaware who had to scramble to escape the 
unexpected flames.

    video https://youtu.be/VR0eUU3KPX0
    EXCLUSIVE: Video shows private firefighters being detained for
    setting possibly illegal backfires
    Oct 8, 2020
    ABC7 News Bay Area
    Exclusive video from the ABC7 I-Team shows private firefighters
    being detained by CHP and CAL Fire for possibly setting illegal
    backfires. CAL Fire confirms an investigation is underway that could
    result in charges and arrests.
    https://abc7ne.ws/30LDyAT

For the last 15 years we have been aware of insurance companies sending 
fire engines to protect high-valued homes that were covered by their 
policies when a wildfire approaches. Companies such as Chubb and 
Wildfire Defense figure keeping a multi-million dollar home from burning 
is less expensive than paying to rebuild it, so they contract with 
private companies to send firefighters to their customers properties 
when smoke is in the air.

The tricky part is intermixing the private crews with the existing 
incident management organization. Some jurisdictions view the insurance 
company crews as personnel that need to be protected, rather than fellow 
firefighters engaged in the fire fight. This became very evident during 
the 2017 Woolsey Fire when CAL FIRE prohibited the private engine crews 
from accessing their customers’ homes, including mansions in Malibu, 
California.

Our opinion:
First, firefighters that are not part of the incident management 
structure should not even consider putting fire on the ground unless 
they are coordinating closely with and have permission from the Division 
Supervisor or Branch Director.

Private engine crews can be helpful in keeping certain high-value 
structures from burning during a rapidly spreading wildfire when there 
are not enough government resources to protect every home. However, if 
they have no communication with the incident management organization 
which does not have any knowledge of their location, mission, or 
capabilities, it can throw a monkey wrench into an already chaotic 
situation.

CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service, and the other large organizations 
involved in wildfire suppression need to sit down with the insurance 
companies and agree on some standard operating procedures. The Incident 
Management Team needs to know what the private crews are doing and 
where, and the private crews need to have direct communication with the 
Team.

One day, when all firefighting resources are carrying equipment that 
makes it possible to track their location, this will become much easier 
-- and safer.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/10/08/private-firefighters-allegedly-set-illegal-backfires-during-the-glass-fire/ 


- - -

[meanwhile CAL Fire seizes PG&E equipment]
*On October 9, 2020, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an electric 
incident report with the California Public Utilities Commission 
indicating that:*

    "On September 27, 2020, a wildfire began in the area of Zogg Mine
    Road and Jenny Bird Lane, north of Igo in Shasta County, California
    (the "Zogg Fire"). The California Department of Forestry and Fire
    Protection ("CAL FIRE") website, dated as of October 9, 2020, 6:20
    a.m. Pacific Time (the "CAL FIRE website"), indicates that the Zogg
    Fire had consumed 56,338 acres and was 95% contained. The CAL FIRE
    website reported four fatalities and one injury.  The CAL FIRE
    website also indicated that 27 structures were damaged and 204
    structures were destroyed.

    Wildfire camera and satellite data on September 27, 2020 show smoke,
    heat or signs of fire in that area between approximately 2:43 p.m.
    and 2:46 p.m.

    Customers in the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane are
    served by a PG&E distribution line --the Girvan 1101 12 kV circuit. 
    According to PG&E’s records, on September 27, 2020, a PG&E
    SmartMeter and a line recloser serving that area reported alarms and
    other activity between approximately 2:40 p.m. and 3:06 p.m., when
    the line recloser de-energized that portion of the circuit. The data
    currently available to PG&E do not establish the causes of the
    activity on the Girvan 1101 circuit or the locations of these causes.

    On October 9, 2020, CAL FIRE informed PG&E that they had taken
    possession of PG&E equipment as part of CAL FIRE’s ongoing
    investigation into the cause of the Zogg Fire and allowed PG&E
    access to the area. PG&E does not have access to any evidence
    collected by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE has not issued a determination as to
    cause. PG&E is cooperating with CAL FIRE in its investigation.

    This information is preliminary."

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/75488/000095015720001260/form8-k.htm



[Well-modeled scenario]
*Amazon near tipping point of switching from rainforest to savannah - study*
Climate crisis and logging is leading to shift from canopy rainforest to 
open grassland
Fiona Harvey - Environment correspondent - 5-Oct-2020
Much of the Amazon could be on the verge of losing its distinct nature 
and switching from a closed canopy rainforest to an open savannah with 
far fewer trees as a result of the climate crisis, researchers have warned.

Rainforests are highly sensitive to changes in rainfall and moisture 
levels, and fires and prolonged droughts can result in areas losing 
trees and shifting to a savannah-like mix of woodland and grassland. In 
the Amazon, such changes were known to be possible but thought to be 
many decades away.
New research shows that this tipping point could be much closer than 
previously thought. As much as 40% of the existing Amazon rainforest is 
now at a point where it could exist as a savannah instead of as 
rainforest, according to a study published in the journal Nature 
Communications.
- -
Arie Staal, lead author of the study, said the ecology of rainforests 
meant that although they effectively produce their own self-sustaining 
rainfall in the right climate, they are also prone to drying out in the 
wrong conditions...
- -
"Drier conditions make it harder for the forest to recover and increase 
the flammability of the ecosystem," Staal told the Guardian. Once 
rainforest has crossed the threshold and converted to an open 
savannah-type mix of wood and grassland, it is unlikely to revert 
naturally to its former state...
- -
The team of researchers ran computer simulations of where forests might 
be expected to exist across the earth’s tropical regions, given certain 
climatic conditions, and looked at the minimum and maximum areas of 
likely forest cover.

They also looked at what was likely to happen if greenhouse gas 
emissions kept rising, and found that the ability of forests to grow 
back once trees were lost would be much reduced.

Ingo Fetzer of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, co-author of the paper, 
said: "We understand now that rainforests on all continents are very 
sensitive to global change and can rapidly lose their ability to adapt. 
Once gone, their recovery will take many decades to return to their 
original state. And given that rainforests host the majority of all 
global species, all this will be forever lost."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/05/amazon-near-tipping-point-of-switching-from-rainforest-to-savannah-study 


- -

[source]
*Hysteresis of tropical forests in the 21st century*
Abstract

    Tropical forests modify the conditions they depend on through
    feedbacks at different spatial scales. These feedbacks shape the
    hysteresis (history-dependence) of tropical forests, thus
    controlling their resilience to deforestation and response to
    climate change. Here, we determine the emergent hysteresis from
    local-scale tipping points and regional-scale forest-rainfall
    feedbacks across the tropics under the recent climate and a severe
    climate-change scenario. By integrating remote sensing, a global
    hydrological model, and detailed atmospheric moisture tracking
    simulations, we find that forest-rainfall feedback expands the
    geographic range of possible forest distributions, especially in the
    Amazon. The Amazon forest could partially recover from complete
    deforestation, but may lose that resilience later this century. The
    Congo forest currently lacks resilience, but is predicted to gain it
    under climate change, whereas forests in Australasia are resilient
    under both current and future climates. Our results show how
    tropical forests shape their own distributions and create the
    climatic conditions that enable them.

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-020-18728-7/MediaObjects/41467_2020_18728_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-020-18728-7/MediaObjects/41467_2020_18728_Fig2_HTML.png?as=webp

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18728-7



[information battleground]
*Facebook showed this ad to 95% women. Is that a problem?*
Jul 31, 2020
Vox
*How algorithmic ad targeting can segregate us. *
In 2019, Facebook settled a lawsuit with civil rights groups following 
the revelation that advertisers using their platform could use the 
targeting options to exclude many specific demographics from seeing 
their ads. It's now more difficult for an unscrupulous advertiser to use 
Facebook's platform to discriminate.

However, even when you remove human bias from the system, Facebook's ad 
delivery algorithms can result in biased outcomes. According to research 
from Northeastern University, Facebook sometimes displays ads to highly 
skewed audiences based on the content of the ad.

By purchasing ads and inputting neutral targeting options, the 
researchers found that the algorithmically determined audience for job 
ads for cleaners, secretaries, nurses, and preschool teachers was mostly 
women. The job ads for fast food workers, supermarket cashiers, and taxi 
drivers skewed toward Black users. The studies show that by targeting 
"relevant" users, these systems can reinforce existing disparities in 
our interests and our opportunities.

Sources:
Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's ad delivery can lead 
to skewed outcomes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02095
Ad Delivery Algorithms: The Hidden Arbiters of Political Messaging 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.04255.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wVPyiyukQc


[some radical, philosophical discussions derived from our global warming 
condition]
*The Right to Life and Revolution | Tim Crosland and Roger Hallam | 
Extinction Rebellion UK*
Oct 9, 2020
Extinction Rebellion
Imagine a warthog on the savannah as a cheetah approaches her young. The 
warthog lies still, impassive, as the cheetah hones in on its prey. 
Something is wrong. The warthog is badly injured, or ill or drugged, 
because the vigorous defence of life is the first law of life, without 
which there would be no life.
What follows is an exploration of the moral, legal and political 
consequences of that natural law, in the context of the climate and 
ecological emergency.
Recorded in London, July 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFc5fkCMgqE


[investing in the future]
*Inside the climate battle quietly raging about US homes*
Away from the headlines, there’s an important fight happening that is 
pitting real estate developers and utilities against efforts to make 
America’s new homes more climate friendly
Some challenges to US climate action are obvious - like when Donald 
Trump boasts about leaving the international Paris agreement and rolling 
back pollution rules.

But many more play out behind the scenes. One of those is the battle 
over efforts to make America’s new homes and buildings more 
energy-efficient.
On one side are the city and state officials trying to go greener, and 
on the other are real estate developers and the natural gas industry.

The International Code Council, which like the World Series largely 
concerns Americans, met this week on updating the baseline codes that 
most states and cities adopt for new buildings. The council is reviewing 
about two dozen proposals that would, for example, require builders to 
install electrical outlets near gas stoves that may one day be replaced 
with electric ones; and to wire enough power to garages where people may 
one day want to plug in electric cars.
In the US, the energy used in buildings accounts for more than one-third 
of heat-trapping emissions, and reducing those emissions is key to the 
nation’s climate progress.

With the stakes high, climate advocates last year launched a campaign to 
make sure that more climate-minded officials - the ones that set energy 
and environment rules, in addition to those who enforce code - were 
involved in the normally obscure process.

The plan worked, and a slate of efficiency measures was approved.

Developers and gas utilities have not been pleased with the outcome.

The industries’ trade groups are appealing, calling the measures costly 
and premature. They are challenging the government officials’ online 
votes, saying the new voters were unfairly recruited and go against what 
committee members and in-person voters decided.
"The developers … they clearly wanted our point of view to be 
dismissed," said Stacey Miller, the sustainability program coordinator 
for Minneapolis and a first-time voter. "But in fact, I feel like we’re 
the strongest advocates for the public interest. That’s our job as 
government officials - unlike for-profit or trade organizations where 
there are other motivations."

Craig Drumheller, assistant vice-president of construction codes and 
standards for the National Association of Homebuilders, in an interview 
said there were "holes in the process that got taken advantage of, and 
those holes need to be plugged".

In a council hearing on Monday, the Leading Builders Association - 
another developer trade group - argued that governmental members were 
"recruited by special interests for the sole purpose of advancing their 
agenda".

The gas trade groups - the American Gas Association and the American 
Public Gas Association (APGA) - both argued that consumers want to keep 
natural gas because it is affordable and reliable.

Yet none of the proposals would ban gas appliances. They would only make 
buildings ready for electric ones, in case future homeowners choose them 
or future policies require them.

Efficiency experts said the industries are up in arms because they fear 
losing their historical influence over the process for setting model 
building codes. The New York Times last year revealed a "secret deal" 
that gives developers an advantage in code-setting.

"Appeals have happened before, but never like this," said Kim Cheslak, 
director of the New Buildings Institute.

The final decision for most of the measures is now before the council’s 
board of directors, and a decision could come later this week or next 
week, the code council said.

Lauren Urbanek, a senior energy policy advocate with the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, said while the cities are the ones using the 
codes, it seems like the board of directors "take the position more 
often of the builders".

Madison Neal, a spokeswoman for the council, defended its process as 
"open, transparent and responsive". She said anyone can propose code 
changes but only governmental representatives "who have no financial or 
business interest in the outcome" make the final vote.

No matter how the model codes turn out, cities are increasingly making 
plans to shrink building emissions. In 2017, when President Trump issued 
an executive order that promoted fossil fuels, the US Conference of 
Mayors responded with its support for climate efforts and said boosting 
building efficiency is a key way cities can help.

The Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, is also promising to 
jumpstart efficiency improvements with a plan to retrofit 4m buildings 
in his first term.

Alongside Miller, the Minneapolis official, were government workers from 
San Diego, Boston, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Seattle, Honolulu, Charlotte 
and Orlando, as well as small cities like Edina, Minnesota, she said.

"There are few things that are more impactful than energy code," Miller 
said. "So we see this as critical, it’s why we took the time to 
participate in the process."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/09/climate-change-building-code-emissions-us



[Digging back into a different time when John Kerry and Lindsey Graham 
agreed]
*On this day in the history of global warming - October 10, 2009 *
In a New York Times opinion piece, Senators John Kerry and Lindsey 
Graham express confidence that bipartisan climate-change legislation 
will receive 60 votes in the Senate. Graham would later disavow support 
for such legislation, setting the stage for its demise in 2010.

    *Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)*
    By John Kerry and Lindsey Graham
    Oct. 10, 2009 - Washington

    CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a
    comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero.
    The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are
    deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing
    the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans
    remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the
    environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction
    to foreign sources of oil.

    However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States
    cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are
    also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate
    legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy
    future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and
    create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.

    Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that
    adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change
    solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now
    — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.

    It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and
    represent different constituencies and that we supported different
    presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But
    we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America
    stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the
    world.

    This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine
    bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward
    proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and
    Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this
    legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work
    of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.

    First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
    economy and national security. That is why we are advocating
    aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that
    cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters
    through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and
    time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering
    global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.

    Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and
    solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single
    largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to
    be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our
    emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome
    regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in
    favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous
    safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more
    plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in
    research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

    Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious
    about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have
    ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground.
    Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must
    recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn
    fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as
    cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the
    Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new
    financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and
    sequestration technology.

    In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional
    onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started
    by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration
    must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect
    the rights and interests of our coastal states.

    Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas.
    China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in
    clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There
    is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that
    do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should
    consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid
    these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the
    World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other
    countries to adopt tough environmental protections.

    Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and
    ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central
    element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost
    of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important
    industries while they make the investments necessary to join the
    clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition
    costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can
    be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will
    be enormous.

    Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our
    dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency
    strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the
    military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to
    sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In
    the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could
    put our nation at risk.

    Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass
    legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use
    the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations.
    Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will
    not include the job protections and investment incentives we are
    proposing.

    The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a
    Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency
    regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative
    process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a
    panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass
    today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional
    action.

    We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America
    back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down
    at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of
    the world join us in producing a new international agreement on
    global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a
    strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.

    John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey
    Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

    A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 11, 2009, Section
    WK, Page 11 of the New York edition with the headline: Yes We Can
    (Pass Climate Change Legislation).

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.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 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.