[TheClimate.Vote] October 26, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*October 26, 2020*/

[top concern]
*As Colorado wildfires burn, fears that climate change is causing 
"multi-level emergency" mount*
Heat, aridity, mega-fires and smoke are intensifying faster than 
projected...
- -
The record-breaking forest fires burning in Colorado even as winter sets 
in are the latest sign climate warming is hitting the West hard, causing 
scientists to up their rhetoric and warn it is past time to move beyond 
planning and start aggressively acting...
- -
Colorado and the West face more hot days and temperatures will shoot 
higher, scientists say. The rising heat is depleting water and drying 
soil across the Colorado River Basin and other river basins. Last week, 
federal authorities classified 97% of Colorado in severe to exceptional 
drought...
- -
Dry conditions also set the stage for bigger, hotter wildfires. Eight of 
Colorado's 20 largest recorded fires hit after 2018 and all occurred in 
the last two decades. And the three largest burned in the last three 
months...
- -
"We-re clearly seeing the number of fires and the size of fires 
continuing to go up. It will continue to go up," Morgan said. "And now 
this fire problem is everybody's problem with more smoke coming into 
metro areas. We cannot ignore what is happening. We all have to chip in 
and do our part to reduce these impacts."..
- -
Lawmakers have ordered cuts below 2005 levels -- 30% by 2025, 50% by 
2030 and 90% by 2050. Colorado-s emerging strategy would meet those 
goals by requiring a faster shift away from gas-power to zero-emission 
vehicles; closing coal-fired power plants; reducing methane pollution by 
the oil and gas industry; and making the heating and cooling of 
buildings more efficient.

"We need to move fast, but we need to move right and we need to move 
carefully. We cannot impair the reliability of the electric grid," CDPHE 
environment programs director John Putnam said. "If we blow the grid, 
nobody's going to follow our model. I would love to say let-s get off 
fossil fuels now, but it just doesn't work that way in the real world."

But officials last week acknowledged growing pressure to prepare for and 
adapt to immediate escalating threats. Putnam referred to "a multi-level 
emergency" as wildfires blew up.

"I understand the impatience," he said. "I suffer from asthma."
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/25/colorado-wildfires-climate-change/



[Ooops - best laid plans]
*North Pole ice cap too thin for testing Russia-s giant icebreaker*
The Arktika icebreaker will have to undergo a second test-voyage to 
prove its capabilities to crush thick and hard sea-ice...
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2020/10/north-pole-ice-cap-too-thin-testing-russias-giant-icebreaker



[Opinion from the National Catholic Reporter]
*Editorial: Barrett-s moral relativism is cause for rejection from the 
bench*
Oct 21, 2020
by NCR Editorial Staff

The United States Senate should reject the nomination of Judge Amy Coney 
Barrett to the Supreme Court.

We believed it was wrong for the Senate to consider this nomination in 
the first place given the precedent set four years ago when Justice 
Antonin Scalia died in February, nine months before the election. Senate 
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even hold hearings on the 
nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, saying repeatedly that the American 
people should have a say in the matter. This year, when the death of 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created a vacancy less than nine weeks 
before Election Day, McConnell has seen fit to ram through the nomination.

The hypocrisy is rank, and it is impossible to see how rushing this 
nomination will be good for our democracy. The enmity caused by the 
Republicans' shameful double standard will not soon dissipate, not when 
lifetime appointments are at stake.

Barrett is not responsible for McConnell's behavior, but she has allowed 
herself to be a vehicle for his agenda and that of President Donald 
Trump. She could have phoned the White House and asked not to be 
considered for the nomination: Barrett is only 48 years old and there 
will be other vacancies.

"Many on the faculty are strongly opposed to the process by which Judge 
Barrett is being pushed through by the president and the GOP, especially 
on the eve of this presidential election," stated an open letter signed 
by over 100 faculty at the University of Notre Dame, where Barrett 
attended and taught at the law school.

Her willingness to become a collaborator, complete with the required 
adoring look at the president at the super-spreader event at which she 
was nominated, is not enough to justify a negative vote, but it set the 
table.

What disqualifies Barrett is the extreme moral relativism she displayed 
in her confirmation hearing. Not so long ago, moral relativism was the 
war cry of cultural conservatives, at least since then-Cardinal Joseph 
Ratzinger enounced the "dictatorship of relativism" at the last Mass 
before the cardinals entered the conclave of 2005 from which Ratzinger 
emerged as Pope Benedict XVI.

For example, after acknowledging that COVID-19 is contagious and that 
smoking causes cancer, she declined to affirm that climate change is 
happening, Barrett called the issue of climate change "a very 
contentious matter of public debate." Is that true? It is certainly the 
case that Trump is not sure what, if anything, he makes of climate change.

But let-s be clear: Denying climate change is not that far from QAnon 
conspiracy theories. If Barrett really has doubts on the subject, she is 
not intellectually qualified to serve on the bench, and we suspect she 
knows that. She was simply willing to embrace moral relativism rather 
than risk a nasty tweet from the man who nominated her.

When Sen. Kamala Harris asked her a direct question -- "Prior to your 
nomination, were you aware of President Trump-s statement committing to 
nominate judges who will strike down the Affordable Care Act? And I'd 
appreciate a yes or no answer" -- Barrett said she could not recall.

Really? You would think that in the days leading up to her nomination, 
Barrett would have followed closely, or been briefed upon, what the 
president did and did not say about his criteria in selecting a judge.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked Barrett if she thought it was against the law 
to intimidate voters at the polls and, even more strangely, Barrett 
refused to affirm that it was. Originalists like to claim that their 
method of interpreting the Constitution is the only method that 
genuinely honors democracy, but how is that possible if intimidation of 
voters is permitted?

This leads to the most repugnant realization about Barrett-s relativism: 
In her commitment to originalism and textualism, she claims not to be 
interpreting the law or the Constitution at all. In her worldview, the 
Constitution is virtually a self-interpreting text. If that were so, why 
would we need judges?

In fact, in claiming that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed, and 
she can discern it, Barrett is actually doing exactly what she said she 
would never do. "As I said before, it is not the law of Amy, it is the 
law of the American people," she said.

But, unlike the brilliant scholar Barrett will replace when confirmed, 
who accepted other ways of interpreting the Constitution, the logic of 
Barrett's originalism is that Ginsburg's legal theories were not just 
different but were illegitimate. Barrett-s relativism, like the man who 
nominated her, is on steroids.

We are glad that most commentators and virtually every question in the 
formal hearing avoided discussing Barrett-s religion, even if her 
membership in a patriarchal covenanted community raises some legitimate 
concerns.

We at NCR do not like the prospect of five of the six conservative 
justices being Catholic and worry what that says about our church. In 
America, however, there are no religious tests for office and no senator 
should oppose Barrett on account of her religion.

It is her bad faith in discussing the law that warrants disqualifying 
her. About the evils of climate change, access to health care and voter 
intimidation, Americans deserve better than a relativist dressed in 
originalist drag. The Senate should vote no on the nomination of Amy 
Coney Barrett.

A version of this story appeared in the Oct 30-Nov 12, 2020 print issue 
under the headline: Barrett's nomination should be rejected .
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/editorial-barretts-moral-relativism-cause-rejection-bench


[worse that thought]
*Coastal permafrost more susceptible to climate change than previously 
thought*
by University of Texas at Austin
If you flew from the sea towards the land in the north slope of Alaska, 
you would cross from the water, over a narrow beach, and then to the 
tundra. From the air, that tundra would look like a landscape of 
room-sized polygonal shapes. Those shapes are the surface manifestations 
of the ice in the frozen ground below, a solidified earth known as 
permafrost...
- -
Permafrost studies have almost exclusively focused on the region beneath 
the tundra. Because it-s not easy to work in such remote locations and 
under harsh weather conditions, the transition from sea to shore has 
been largely ignored...
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-coastal-permafrost-susceptible-climate-previously.html



[Biden trending]
*Aggressive push to 100% renewable energy could save Americans billions 
– study*
As much as $321bn could be saved with complete switch to clean energy 
sources, Rewiring America analysis finds...
- -
But it appears that American voters are broadly in favor of bolder 
action to address global heating in the wake of a brutal year of 
wildfires and hurricanes that scientists say are being fueled by the 
climate crisis. A New York Times and Siena College poll this week found 
that two-thirds of voters approve of Biden's plan, with overwhelming 
support for the policies among younger voters.

Snyder said the Biden plan is "probably the most ambitious yet plausible 
plan I've seen" on the climate crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/22/us-renewable-energy-costs-savings-study-report



[first examine the cost and value]
*Solar Panels for Home - Still Worth it 2 Years Later?*
Oct 20, 2020
Undecided with Matt Ferrell
Head to https://www.squarespace.com/mattferrell to save 10% off your 
first purchase of a website or domain using code MATTFERRELL. Exploring 
Solar Panels for Home - Still Worth it 2 Years Later Review.  It-s been 
two years since I installed solar panels on my home in the Boston area.  
How's it been going?  Let's take a look at how much it cost, how much 
it's saved, how it-s been holding up and what type of maintenance it's 
taken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdjRADbVDo

- -

[see the cost]
*Get competing solar quotes online*
2020 is the last year to get 26% back on your solar panel installation
The average solar shopper saves at least $5,000 thanks to the solar tax 
credit. In 2021, the tax credit drops to 22%, before expiring in 2022.
https://www.energysage.com/



[opinion of outrage]
*Geology-s human footprint is enough to spur rage*
October 21st, 2020, by Tim Radford
Once again science has presented evidence that a new geological epoch is 
here. This human footprint is all our own work.

LONDON, 21 October, 2020 - The human footprint has left its mark on 
Earth, in every sense. The United States alone is scarred by 500,000 
abandoned mines and quarries.

Right now, worldwide, there are more than 500,000 active quarries and 
pits, employing 4 million people, excavating the sand and gravel needed 
for new roads, new homes and new megacities.

Humans have not simply pitted the face of the Earth, they have paved it. 
In 1904, beyond the cities, the US had just 225 km of sealed highway. 
Now it has 4.3m km of asphalt or concrete roadway, consuming more than 
20 billion tonnes of sand and gravel.

By comparison, the Great Wall of China, the biggest and most enduring 
construction in early human history, contains just 0.4bn tonnes of stone.

Humans have changed the face of the waters. In 1950, trawlers, 
long-liners and purse seiners fished just 1% of the high seas beyond 
territorial waters. No fish species of any kind was considered 
over-exploited or depleted.

*Extinction threat widens*
Less than one human lifetime on, fishing fleets roam 63% of the high 
seas and 87% of fish species are exploited, over-exploited or in a state 
of collapse. Meanwhile somewhere between 5m and almost 13 million tons 
of discarded plastics flow each year into the sea.

Humans and human livestock now far outweigh all other mammalian life. At 
least 96% of the mass of all mammals is represented by humans and their 
domesticated animals. Domestic poultry makes up 70% of the mass of all 
living birds. The natural world is now endangered, with a million 
species at risk of extinction.

And humans have left an almost indelible radiant signature over the 
entire global surface: between 1950 and 1980, nations detonated more 
than 500 thermonuclear weapons to smear the air and surface of the 
planet with radioactive materials: one of these, plutonium-239, will be 
detectable for the next 100,000 years.

The catalogue of planetary devastation that is the human footprint is 
assembled in a new study by US and European scientists in the journal 
Nature Communications: Earth and Environment. It is part of a fresh 
attempt to settle a seemingly academic question of geological 
bureaucracy, the naming of ages.
*
**"We humans collectively got ourselves into this mess, we need to work 
together to reverse these environmental trends and dig ourselves out of it"*

The 11,000-year interval since the end of the last Ice Age and the dawn 
of agriculture, metal smelting, and the first cities, cultures and 
empires is still formally identified as the Holocene. The latest study 
of the human legacy is just another salvo in the campaign to announce 
and confirm the launch of an entirely new epoch, to be called the 
Anthropocene.

In fact, environmental campaigners, biologists and geophysicists have 
for years been informally calling the last six or seven decades the 
Anthropocene. But the authority with the last word on 
internationally-agreed geological labels - the International Commission 
on Stratigraphy - has yet to confirm the launch of the new geological epoch.

To help confirm the case for change, researchers have once again 
assembled the evidence and identified at least 16 ways in which humans 
have dramatically altered the planet since 1950, and the beginning of 
what is sometimes called The Great Acceleration.

For instance, humans have doubled the quantity of fixed nitrogen in the 
biosphere, created an alarming hole in the stratospheric ozone layer, 
released enough gases to raise the planetary temperature and precipitate 
global climate change, fashioned or forged perhaps 180,000 kinds of 
mineral (by comparison, only about 5,300 occur naturally) and - with 
dams, drains, wells, irrigation, and hydraulic engineering - effectively 
replumbed the world-s river systems.

*Ineradicable scar*
By forging metals and building structures, humans have become the 
greatest earth-moving force on the planet, and left a mark that will 
endure for aeons.

Altogether, humans have altered the world's rivers, lakes, coastlines, 
vegetation, soils, chemistry and climate. The study makes grim reading.

"This is the first time that humans have documented humanity-s 
geological footprint on such a comprehensive scale in a single 
publication," said Jaia Syvitski, of the University of Colorado, 
Boulder, who led the research team that assembled the evidence.

"We humans collectively got ourselves into this mess, we need to work 
together to reverse these environmental trends and dig ourselves out of it.

"Society shouldn't feel complacent. Few people who read the manuscript 
should come away without emotions bubbling up, like rage, grief and even 
fear." - Climate News Network
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/geologys-human-footprint-is-enough-to-inspire-rage/



[classic documents- Dr James Hansen-s earliest presentation]
*On this day in the history of global warming - October 26, 2004 *
October 26, 2004:

NASA climate scientist James Hansen delivers a speech at the University 
of Iowa on the hazards of human-caused climate change. Angered by the 
speech, the Bush administration increases its efforts to prevent Hansen 
from speaking publicly about climate change.

*October: Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference: A Discussion of 
Humanity-s Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments Coming Due. 
*Presentation given at the Distinguished Public Lecture Series at the 
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, on Oct. 26.
  Download PDF (4.3 MB) 
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2004/dai_complete_20041026.pdf

    *Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference*
    A Discussion of Humanity's Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments
    Coming Due
    James E. Hansen
    Kintnersville, Pennsylvania
    October 26, 2004

    I have been told by a high government official that I should not
    talk about "dangerous
    anthropogenic interference" with climate, because we do not know how
    much humans are
    changing the Earth's climate or how much change is "dangerous".
    Actually, we know quite a
    lot. Natural regional climate fluctuations remain larger today than
    human-made effects such as
    global warming. But data show that we are at a point where human
    effects are competing with
    nature and the balance is shifting.

    Ominously, the data show that human effects have been minimized by a
    Faustian bargain:
    global warming effects have been mitigated by air pollutants that
    reduce the amount of sunlight
    reaching the Earth's surface. This Faustian bargain has a time
    limit, and the payment is now
    coming due.

    Actions that would alleviate human distortions of nature are not
    only feasible but make
    sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and
    national security. However, our
    present plan in the United States is to wait another decade before
    re-examining the climate
    change matter. Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk...

    more at - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2004/dai_complete_20041026.pdf

 From the NYTimes two years later

    *Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him*
    By Andrew C. Revkin - Jan. 29, 2006

    The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has
    tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last
    month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases
    linked to global warming.

    The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's
    Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that
    officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff
    to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web
    site and requests for interviews from journalists.

    Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their
    job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he
    said.

    Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at
    the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen.
    "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We
    promote openness and we speak with the facts."

    He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that
    government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but
    that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed
    spokesmen.

    Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review
    interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out
    of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any
    individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about
    coordination."

    Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying
    such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping
    recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

    "Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said,
    "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of
    overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

    Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967,
    directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the
    Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

    Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term
    threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide,
    that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other
    fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their
    appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in
    the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

    In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick
    Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House
    officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up
    soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far
    easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

    He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a
    speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election,
    in which he complained that government climate scientists were being
    muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

    But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made
    since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he
    says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

    In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr.
    Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly
    because NASA-s mission statement includes the phrase "to understand
    and protect our home planet."

    He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come
    through telephone conversations and not through formal channels,
    leaving no significant trails of documents.

    Dr. Hansen-s supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no
    official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi
    added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

    The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series
    of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of
    the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he
    said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing
    technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that
    without leadership by the United States, climate change would
    eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

    The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow,
    but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

    After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15
    showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a
    century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency
    repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning
    to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such
    statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

    Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal
    draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors
    could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

    Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers
    were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He
    said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media.

    But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were
    canceled as a result.

    In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs
    officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at
    National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy,
    a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

    Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy
    said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in
    the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said
    his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White
    House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

    But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a
    scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference
    was that Hansen was disloyal."

    Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such
    conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview
    after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she
    would not face any retribution for doing so.

    Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was
    asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of
    the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.

    Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go
    out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a
    dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"

    Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was
    telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr.
    Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she
    told them when the conversations occurred.

    "He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis,
    an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really
    feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal
    scientists, to inform the public."

    Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December
    at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr.
    Hansen be better controlled.

    In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist
    and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation-s
    leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific
    contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public
    statements clearly as his personal views.

    "He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in
    the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times
    and I-ve read many of his papers, starting in the late 70-s. Every
    single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always
    clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the
    administration, whichever administration it's been."

    The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes
    other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists
    who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so
    only if the interview is approved by administration officials in
    Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or
    on the phone.

    Where scientists- points of view on climate policy align with those
    of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions
    on extracurricular lectures or writing.

    One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and
    technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department.
    For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has
    written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts
    in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered
    economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of
    warming and adapt to problems.

    In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the
    Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work,
    but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long
    as he identified the views as his own.

    "One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff,"
    he wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I
    plan on saying or writing."

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/climate-expert-says-nasa-tried-to-silence-him.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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20201026/5213eb2a/attachment.html>