[TheClimate.Vote] October 16, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Oct 16 08:57:30 EDT 2020
/*October 16, 2020*/
[New mailing from The Atlantic magazine]
*The Atlantic Daily: Why the Climate Story Is So Exciting Right Now*
There's been a technological breakthrough in the fight against climate
change, a new report confirmed this week.
ROBINSON MEYER - OCTOBER 15, 2020
Today, The Atlantic launched Planet, a new section devoted to climate
change, along with The Weekly Planet, a new newsletter written by
Robinson Meyer. He also writes today's edition of the Daily, explaining
why the climate story is so exciting right now.
I've been covering climate change at The Atlantic for five years.
There's still one question I get more than any other: Are you hopeful?
At this point, honestly, I find the question to be a little beside the
point: If you don't want the planet to warm, you should work to reduce
carbon pollution regardless of whether you're hopeful about the overall
outcome...
The International Energy Agency announced, in its enormously influential
annual report, that solar energy is now the "cheapest electricity in
history." At the same time, it substantially downgraded its forecast for
coal, saying that the fuel source will soon enter a prolonged and
irreversible decline. That means global carbon pollution could peak in
the next several years--though, without further policy, it will not
decline as rapidly as needed to avoid catastrophic global warming...
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/10/why-the-climate-story-is-so-exciting-right-now/616749/
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/sign-up/weekly-planet/
- -
[clean energy is now cheaper]
*World Energy Outlook 2020*
Our assessment is that global energy demand is set to drop by 5% in
2020, energy-related CO2 emissions by 7%, and energy investment by 18%.
The impacts vary by fuel. The estimated falls of 8% in oil demand and 7%
in coal use stand in sharp contrast to a slight rise in the contribution
of renewables. The reduction in natural gas demand is around 3%, while
global electricity demand looks set to be down by a relatively modest 2%
for the year.
The 2.4 gigatonnes (Gt) decline takes annual CO2 emissions back to where
they were a decade ago. However, the initial signs are that there may
not have been a similar fall in 2020 in emissions of methane - a
powerful greenhouse gas - from the energy sector, despite lower oil and
gas output.
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020
[NYTimes speaks]
*By Calling Climate Change 'Controversial,' Barrett Created Controversy*
Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer numerous questions, but it was
her avoidance of acknowledging climate change that particularly resonated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/climate/amy-coney-barrett-climate-change.html
- -
[hearing for US Supreme Court nominee]
*"I have read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm
views on it."*
https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316490804152602624
- -
Some of the biggest cases Amy Coney Barrett will hear in the decades she
will ostensibly be on Supreme Court will be on climate change
"I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change are
relevant to the job I will do as a judge...I'm not really in a position
to offer any informed opinion on what I think causes global warming"
https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316457529350721541
https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316460184424906759
- -
[controversy increasing]
*Amy Coney Barrett isn't a scientist, but she might be a climate denier*
By Zoya Teirstein on Oct 14, 2020
"I'm certainly not a scientist," Amy Coney Barrett said in response to a
question about climate change during her confirmation hearing for the
Supreme Court on Tuesday. "I mean, I've read things about climate
change. I would not say I have firm views on it."
On Wednesday, Barrett doubled down on her lack of scientific background
when Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut pressed her on
her position on climate change.
BLUMENTHAL: Do you believe that human beings cause global warming?
BARRETT: Senator Blumenthal, I don't think I am competent to opine on
what causes global warming or not.
BLUMENTHAL: We all have views on it. I'm asking for your opinion.
BARRETT: I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change
are relevant to the job I would do as a judge, nor do I feel like I have
views that are informed enough -- and I haven't studied scientific data
-- I'm not really in a position to offer any kind of informed opinion on
what I think causes global warming...
twitter - *On climate change, the science is clear. The evidence is
irrefutable.*
Why isn't Amy Coney Barrett willing to acknowledge it?
https://twitter.com/WeDemandJustice/status/1316456034437922819
Barrett is considered an originalist, meaning she interprets the
Constitution based on the understanding of its authors at the time of
its writing. But Barrett's "not a scientist" line is anything but original.
Republicans have trotted out the "I am not a scientist" trick for years
now to deflect questions about climate change. "I'm not a scientist,"
Florida's former Governor Rick Scott said in response to a question
about anthropogenic warming in Miami in 2014. "Listen, I'm not qualified
to debate the science over climate change," then-House Speaker John
Boehner told reporters the same year. "What I have said repeatedly is
I'm not a scientist," then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a
Kentucky sports radio show (he later acknowledged human-caused climate
change exists).
You get the picture. They're not scientists, OK? The thing is, you don't
have to be a scientist, like at all, to understand that the planet is in
grave danger. Just like you don't have to be a doctor to grasp the
severity of a cancer diagnosis, or a mechanic to understand that your
car is totaled.
"I'm not a scientist, either," Barack Obama said at his 2015 State of
the Union address. "But you know what, I know a lot of really good
scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities. And the
best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are
changing the climate."
Supreme Court nominees tend to hold their ideological cards close to
their chests at confirmation hearings to avoid forecasting their future
decisions. So, in a sense, it's not surprising that Barrett offered up
that non-answer in response to Republican Senator John Kennedy of
Louisiana's question about climate change.
But Barrett didn't have to rely on the ol' "I'm not a scientist" saw.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sworn into the Supreme Court in 2018, has said
the earth is warming multiple times. And climate denial is starting to
fall out of favor with the GOP. Some Republican members of Congress are
starting to change their tune on the issue, eager to catch up with young
voters who want to see their party offer a solution to rising
temperatures. Then there's the fact that climate change isn't actually a
matter of "views" -- it's happening whether Barrett likes it or not.
If she's confirmed, Barrett will shape the next generation of American
law, including -- quite possibly -- the climate change liability
lawsuits currently sweeping the nation. She should leave the climate
misdirection playbook where it belongs: in the past.
https://grist.org/politics/amy-coney-barrett-isnt-a-scientist-but-she-might-be-a-climate-denier/
- -
[Greta tweets]
*Greta Thunberg*
To be fair, I don't have any "views on climate change" either. Just like
I don't have any "views" on gravity, the fact that the earth is round,
photosynthesis nor evolution...
But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the
21st century so much easier.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1316736048056225792
[Misinformation battleground]
*The five climate disbeliefs: a crash course in climate misinformation*
Aug 26, 2020
John Cook
You can summarize climate change in just ten words: it's real, it's us,
experts agree, it's bad, there's hope. Climate change misinformation is
like a bizarro world version of this summarized with five categories:
it's not real, it's not us, experts are unreliable, it's not bad,
there's no hope. Understanding the arguments of climate denial is the
first step to countering it. This video is a crash course in climate
misinformation, summarizing the key arguments used to cast doubt on the
reality of climate change and delay climate action.
Follow me here:
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/johnfocook
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/johnfocook/
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/john.cook.186/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuUz2AwoSko&feature=youtu.be
[News media as information battleground]
*Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling
'climate rejectionism'*
Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street
Journal are holding back progress on climate
Daniel Hurst - 14 Oct 2020
A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch's media
outlets for fuelling "climate rejectionism" among conservatives,
suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is
failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.
Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced his
previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to rally
conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox
Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.
Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US shared a
form of "climate rejectionism that comes in conservative clothing".
He said both countries also shared "a particular news organisation that
has a great deal to do with that" - and pointed the finger at Murdoch's
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in particular.
"If you look at Fox viewers in America - that's where you find the
climate disputation," Inglis said.
Inglis said his group, RepublicEn, which campaigns for conservative
leadership on climate action, believed that a change in the way the
issue was covered by those outlets would be "the holy grail" in
unlocking greater ambition in US policy.
"If Fox would just change or if the Wall Street Journal editorial page
would just change - either one of those and this would be finished, we'd
be done with climate, we'd be acting," he said. "It really is that
important - so if anybody can get to the Murdochs please let me know."
Business leader and former Sydney lord mayor Lucy Turnbull also sheeted
home some responsibility to large media businesses such as News Corp
during the same webinar event on Wednesday.
Turnbull's husband, the former Australian prime minister Malcolm
Turnbull, was ousted as leader of the centre-right Liberal party in
2009, and again in 2018, in part because of internal battles over
climate policy.
"There are a lot of people who have a huge level of conviction about the
fact that climate change is with us, that we have to act," she said.
"The problem is that the polarisation makes it hard to do that because
you have the people [who believe] that it isn't a problem despite the
overwhelming scientific evidence that it is."
In a clear reference to News Corp, Turnbull added: "They have a very
loud voice in a lot of political debate aided by very large media
organisations, especially one which crosses both the US and Australia
and other countries besides."
She said this had resulted in a "fragmented, deeply polarised
conversation", which could be a symptom of the fragmentation of politics
around the world.
The comments come as another former prime minister, Kevin Rudd,
campaigns for a royal commission to be launched into the Murdoch empire
in Australia.
The petition, launched on the Australian parliament's website on
Saturday, has so far attracted more than 236,000 signatures.
The focus on the company comes after Rupert Murdoch's youngest son,
James Murdoch, said one of the reasons he had stepped away from his
father's media empire was because it legitimised disinformation and
sowed doubts about facts.
He told the New York Times climate change and coronavirus were both
public health crises and "political spin" should not get "in the way of
delivering crucial public health information".
James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn, also issued a joint statement in
January - midway through Australia's summer bushfire crisis - to say
they were "particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the
news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary".
Last year, however, Rupert Murdoch told shareholders "there are no
climate change deniers" around his company and said his business was
early to commit to "science-based targets to limit climate change" and
was working to reduce its climate emissions.
Inglis and Turnbull discussed media coverage as part of the wide-ranging
webinar on Wednesday, which also canvassed the forthcoming US
presidential election.
Inglis contended that Republicans would undergo a "reappraisal" of their
position on climate policy in coming years, although that reassessment
would come faster if Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump for the presidency.
Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris climate accord is due to
take effect the day after the November election.
Inglis, who previously visited Australia in 2017 as a guest of the
Australia Institute, recounted how he had once insisted that climate
change was "nonsense".
"I didn't know anything about it except that Al Gore was for it and, in
as much as I represented probably one of the most conservative districts
in America, that was the end of the inquiry," he said.
But Inglis said he had a "three-step metamorphosis", based on his
children pressing him to take environmental issues seriously, his own
visit to Antarctica to see ice core drilling evidence and his
snorkelling trip to the Great Barrier Reef.
He spoke of the importance of bridging divides, saying he was grateful
to have been "extended grace by people who knew it was real before I did".
Inglis urged people on the left of politics to accept new entrants to
the conversation "without saying you're the dumb kid in the class, the
last one to get it" because "if you welcome them in we can solve this
thing".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/14/former-republican-congressman-says-murdochs-media-outlets-fuelling-climate-rejectionism
[from NYTimes]
*A FIELD GUIDE TO **THE ELECTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE*
INDEX
1. What price is America ready to pay?
2. Are fossil fuels part of the future?
3. How quickly must things change?
4. Should governments put a thumb on the scale?
5. How can the U.S. adapt to worsening disasters?
6. Who is hurt the most by warming?
7. What about birds, bears and other animals?
8. Where should America stand on the world st
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/14/climate/biden-trump-climate-change-questions.html
[From Yale studies]
*New poll on climate change: Denial is out, alarm is in.*
By Joseph Winters - Oct 13, 2020
Americans are now nearly four times more likely to say they're alarmed
about the climate crisis than to be dismissive of it.
That's the highest ratio ever since the Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication (YPCCC) first began gathering data on American attitudes
about climate change back in 2008. According to survey data collected in
April and released last Friday, more than a quarter of the U.S. adult
population -- 26 percent -- now thinks global warming and its attendant
consequences are alarming. That's more than double the 11 percent who
were alarmed back in 2015, and almost four times the 7 percent who
currently say the climate isn't changing...
https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/6amercias_edit.gif
The data comes from a YPCCC project called Global Warming's Six
Americas, which categorizes Americans into six groups based on what they
think about climate change. Using data from a YPCCC survey called
Climate Change in the American Mind, the researchers identify where
respondents stand on a continuum of climate worry. People fall into the
"alarmed" category if their survey responses show that they're very
worried about climate change -- these people are fully convinced of
global warming's reality and of the need for far-reaching political and
individual action to address it. Those who land in the "concerned" think
climate change is bad news but are less likely to prioritize action, and
those in the "cautious" category recognize that the Earth is warming but
aren't convinced of its causes or of the need to take any action.
"Disengaged" folks never got the memo that the climate is changing,
while the "doubtful" suspect it's not really happening. The "dismissive"
category refers to your stubborn uncle who denies the science of
human-caused climate change. He is against most climate policies.
According to Anthony Leiserowitz*, a senior research scientist and the
director of the YPCCC, the survey data show the most interesting trends
at the bookends of the climate worry spectrum, the "alarmed" and
"dismissive" categories.
These groups form an influential subset of the population that
Leiserowitz called the "issue publics" -- the people who are most deeply
engaged and passionate about their side of a particular issue. "It's the
pro- or anti-immigration movement, it's the gun-control movement versus
the NRA," Leiserowitz said.
For climate change, the relative proportion of the two issue publics has
undergone a massive shift over the past five years. In 2014, the ratio
of Americans alarmed about climate change to those who were dismissive
-- basically climate deniers -- was roughly one to one. By January of
this year, however, the ratio had grown to three to one. And now, the
most recent data show that there are roughly four alarmed citizens for
every one American dismissing the science of climate change.
"It indicates a massive shift in our political, social, and cultural
understanding of climate change," Leiserowitz said.
Only 18 percent of Americans are now dismissive or doubtful about the
science of climate change and the need for action. More than half (54
percent) think the opposite, falling into the "alarmed" or "concerned"
categories.
This sea change in American attitudes represents a triumph for climate
scientists and communicators who have been trying to convey the truth
about climate change. But the growth of climate alarm presents another
challenge for researchers and policymakers: communicating what action to
address climate change could look like. The climate alarmed don't need
more information about what climate change is; they've already reached
the fundamental conclusions: "It's real, it's us, and it's bad," as
Leiserowitz put it. "Now, they need to know what we can do."
https://grist.org/climate/new-polling-on-climate-change-denial-is-out-alarm-is-in/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - October16, 1988 *
Discussing the role of global warming in the 1988 presidential election,
Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman observes:
"Last summer, one of the hottest and driest on record, the nation was
roused by alarms about the 'greenhouse effect'--the gradual warming of
the globe that threatens to turn coastal cities into underwater ruins
and corn fields into salt flats.
"The problem is that for the last century or so industrial societies
have been releasing substances into the air that capture heat and erode
the Earth`s shield against the sun. The villains? Carbon dioxide from
the burning of fossil fuels, methane from natural and man-made sources
and aerosol propellants.
"But as soon as the heat dissipated, so did interest in the issue. In
the campaign, the greenhouse effect has gone almost unmentioned...
"Both candidates pretend the solutions will be painless and free. Both
pass over the obvious remedies in favor of the politically appealing ones.
"The nations of the world have taken one step by agreeing on a treaty to
reduce the use of aerosol propellants. But any serious attempt to slow
the warming of the Earth requires at least three additional measures:
discouraging the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas; big
improvements in energy efficiency; and greater reliance on nuclear power."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-10-16/news/8802080029_1_greenhouse-effect-global-warming-environmentalism
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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/20201016/f1915fc2/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list