[TheClimate.Vote] September 30, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed Sep 30 10:29:28 EDT 2020
/*September 30, 2020*/
[un-civil discourse]
*Trump, Biden spar over climate change at debate*
BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 09/29/20
President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden sparred over climate
change and their respective records on the issue during Tuesday night's
presidential debate.
Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump during one segment of the debate
whether he believed that human greenhouse gas emissions contribute to
warming of the planet.
"I think a lot of things do but I think to an extent yes," the president
said, later adding in reference to current wildfires blazing in the West
that "we have to do better management of our forests."
The vast majority of scientists believe that climate change is
human-caused. Many forests in Western states facing wildfires are
federally managed, like California, where about 57 percent of them are
managed by the federal government.
Trump also defended his decision to roll back fuel economy standards,
claiming that it made cars safer and cheaper.
"The car is much less expensive and it's a much safer car and you're
talking about a tiny difference," he said, calling California's recent
decision to try to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars "crazy."
However, the cost-benefit analysis for the administration's fuel economy
standards found that consumers would ultimately pay $13 billion more in
the next decade, in part due to spending more on gas because of lower
fuel economy standards.
Meanwhile, Biden defended his own energy policies, saying they would
create jobs.
The candidates became heated when Biden began to criticize Trump
administration moves that roll back the regulations of methane emissions
and weaken fuel economy standards...
more -
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/518883-trump-biden-spar-over-climate-change
[NatGeo]
*The jet stream is bringing fire weather to the West and a chill to the
East*
Super-wavy jet stream configurations are sometimes associated with heat
waves, and the West can't really afford more extreme heat right now.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/jet-stream-fire-weather-california-chill-eastern-us/
- -
[video of fires still going]
*3 killed and thousands evacuated as Northern California wildfire rages*
The Zogg Fire in Northern California is blamed for killing at least
three people, bringing this year's statewide wildfire season death toll
to 29. Jonathan Vigliotti has the latest.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/3-killed-and-thousands-evacuated-as-northern-california-wildfire-rages/
- -
[Fox news video]
*Wildfire-plagued West faces more heat as stormy conditions head East*
Elevated fire weather conditions exist across Southern California where
red flag warnings are in place
https://www.foxnews.com/us/wildfire-west-fire-weather-red-flag-warning-east-coast-storm-rain-midwest-front
[BBC asks, has it?]
*Has world started to take climate change fight seriously?*
Justin Rowlatt
A surprise announcement at this year's UN General Assembly has
transformed the politics of cutting carbon, says the BBC's chief
environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt. As the meeting of the
so-called "global parliament" comes to an end, he asks whether it might
just signal the beginning of a global rush to decarbonise.
You probably missed the most important announcement on tackling climate
change in years.
It was made at the UN General Assembly.
It wasn't the big commitment to protect biodiversity or anything to do
with the discussion about how to tackle the coronavirus pandemic -
vitally important though these issues are.
No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese President,
Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to net zero by 2060.
The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise
marks something even more significant: China may have fired the starting
gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels...
- -
So why now?
President Xi definitely had an eye on global politics.
His address was a very deliberate contrast to that of President Trump a
couple of days earlier.
Where Trump blames China for the world's problems, Xi calls for global
cooperation and highlights all the good work China has been doing.
He called on the world to work together, investing in a green recovery
to lift the global economy from the post-Covid doldrums.
"We are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake,"
says Xi...
"All countries are closely connected and we share a common future. No
country can gain from others' difficulties or maintain stability by
taking advantage of others' troubles."
"we should embrace the vision of a community with a shared future in
which everyone is bound together," he continues.
Heart-stirring stuff, eh?
It is also presumably no coincidence that Xi's announcement came weeks
before the US Presidential election, and just as the terrible fires on
the west coast and a series of fierce storms in the east made climate an
issue in the polls for the first time.
And a cynic might think his reassuring words were partly a ploy to
reingratiate China with the climate-conscious Europeans, and isolate a
climate-sceptic US President. It came straight after a virtual bilateral
summit between Beijing and Brussels.
A global race to clean power?
But there is a much more important broader context for his announcement:
the fact that the collapsing cost of clean energy is completely changing
the calculus of decarbonisation.
Renewables are already often cheaper than fossil fuel power in many
parts of the world and, if China and the EU really ramp up their
investments in wind, solar and batteries in the next few years, prices
are likely to fall even further.
Why? Because the cost of renewables follows the logic of all
manufacturing - the more you produce, the cheaper it gets. It's like
pushing on an open door - the more you build the cheaper it gets, the
cheaper it gets the more you build.
The Europeans have been quite open that their strategy is to entice
other countries to join them by driving down the cost of renewables
globally. Alongside this carrot, they also plan to wield a stick - a tax
on the imports of countries that emit too much carbon.
Meanwhile, President Xi's 2060 pledge was notably unconditional - China
will move ahead whether or not other countries chose to follow.
This is a complete turnaround from past negotiations, when everyone's
fear was that they might end up incurring the cost of decarbonising
their own economy, while others did nothing but still enjoyed the
climate change fruits of their labour.
How things have changed. Very soon, renewable power is likely to be the
cheapest and therefore almost certainly the most profitable choice in
large parts of the world.
Think what this means: investors won't need to be bullied by green
activists into doing the right thing, they will just follow the money...
Why invest in new oil wells or coal power stations that will become
obsolete before they can repay themselves over their 20-30-year life?
Why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?
The change of appetite on financial markets has become ever more obvious
over the last decade. This year alone, Tesla's rocketing share price has
made it the world's most valuable car company.
Meanwhile, the share price of Exxon - once the world's most valuable
company of any kind - fell so far that it just got booted out of the Dow
Jones Industrial Average of major US corporations.
- -
First off, Mr Xi's did not give any details of how his country would
achieve his carbon-neutral target.
Remember, China is by far the biggest consumer of coal in the world,
hoovering up about half of the global supply.
It is also the world's second biggest user of oil - after the US.
Across its economy, some 85% of its power comes from fossil fuels with
15% from low carbon sources...
-- -
But there is another reason for optimism.
The US is the world's biggest economy and the second biggest producer of
greenhouse gases, and is therefore essential to any effort to tackle
climate change.
Under Donald Trump it has steered clear of carbon-cutting commitments.
But his challenger, Joe Biden, has said he will re-join the Paris
accord, and has promised a $2 trillion green recovery plan for the US,
which would aim to slash emissions and tackle the effects of climate change.
That holds out the promise of the world's three largest economies,
responsible for nearly half of all emissions, all making a serious
effort to cut carbon.
Once half the world is on-board with the project it is hard to see how
the rest could hold out.
So - and this isn't something we often say about climate change - there
are powerful new reasons for optimism.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54347878
[Video]
*We teamed up with Kurzgesagt to make a video about climate change: 'Is
It Too Late To Stop Climate **Change? Well, it's Complicated'*
by Hannah Ritchie
September 29, 2020
Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress
against the world's largest problems.
In recent years, the team at Our World in Data have teamed up several
times with the YouTube channel 'Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell' to make
videos on the global questions our work is focused on. One example was a
video on Egoistic Altriusm (The selfish argument for making the world a
better place), a video on the COVID-19 pandemic, and more recently a
video on climate change: 'Who is responsible for climate change? - Who
needs to fix it?'.
This time we worked with the Kurzgesagt team again to produce another
video on climate change: 'Is It Too Late To Stop Climate Change? Well,
it's Complicated'.
https://ourworldindata.org/kurzgesagt-climate-video
https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo
[VOA]
*UN, Britain to Co-host Climate Summit on December 12*
By Agence France-Presse
September 23, 2020
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations and Britain will co-host a global
climate summit on December 12, the fifth anniversary of the landmark
Paris Agreement, the world body said Wednesday.
The announcement came days after Chinese President Xi Jinping told the
U.N. that the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter would peak
emissions in 2030 and attempt to go carbon neutral by 2060, a move
hailed by environmentalists.
"We have champions and solutions all around us, in every city,
corporation and country," U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.
"But the climate emergency is fully upon us, and we have no time to
waste. The answer to our existential crisis is swift, decisive,
scaled-up action and solidarity among nations."
The world remains off-track to limit global temperature rise to 1.5
degrees Celsius by the end of the century, which scientists say is
crucial to prevent runaway warming that would leave vast swaths of the
planet inhospitable to life.
"In light of this urgency, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and U.K.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson will co-host a landmark global event
convening global leaders ... to rally much greater climate action and
ambition," the statement said.
Session on Thursday
The two were to address the issue at a climate round-table meeting
hosted by Guterres on Thursday.
National governments will be invited to present more ambitious and
high-quality climate plans at the summit, which would involve government
leaders, as well as the private sector and civil society.
https://www.voanews.com/science-health/un-britain-co-host-climate-summit-december-12
[In VICE]
*People of Color Experience Climate Grief More Deeply Than White People*
"For Black and Indigenous peoples, you could argue that the history of
our oppression is the story of the Anthropocene itself--the current
geological age defined by the dominant influence that human activity has
had on mass extinction, climate, and the environment. Without
colonization, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the genocide and
oppression of Indigenous peoples around the world, we likely would be
living in a different reality. Research has bolstered the idea that
white supremacy has led to the climate crisis. Scientists from
University College London found that the mass genocide that accompanied
the colonization of the Americas in the 15th century permanently altered
Earth's climate..."
Read full article:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7ggqx/people-of-color-experience-climate-grief-more-deeply-than-white-people?fbclid=IwAR1xtehLNtNd3LbzTxOOwdFBHMaTrJlrL3d0nyojF2Cd9BnLcEixzVzNEJA
[Lawsuit filed 9/14/2020]
*Connecticut Sues Exxon For Decades of Deceit Regarding Climate Change*
(Hartford, CT) - Attorney General William Tong today sued ExxonMobil
under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging an ongoing,
systematic campaign of lies and deception to hide from the public what
ExxonMobil has known for decades--that burning fossil fuels undeniably
contributes to climate change.
"ExxonMobil sold oil and gas, but it also sold lies about climate
science. ExxonMobil knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels would have
a significant impact on the environment, public health and our economy.
Yet it chose to deceive the public. No more," said Attorney General
Tong. "ExxonMobil made billions of dollars during its decades-long
campaign of deception that continues today. Connecticut's citizens
should not have to bear the expense of fortifying our infrastructure to
adapt to the very real consequences of climate change. Our case is
simple and strong, and we will hold ExxonMobil accountable."
"Connecticut communities have seen very real damage from climate
change," said Michelle Seagull, Commissioner for the Department of
Consumer Protection, "but for decades ExxonMobil has misled the public
by downplaying the harmful effects of the fossil fuels they sold."
"This misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel companies misled the
public and stymied policy that cost us decades of inaction," DEEP
Commissioner Katie Dykes said. "Because of these delays, Connecticut is
already experiencing the very real, and very costly, impacts of man-made
climate change. This suit seeks to hold companies accountable for their
actions and seeks their just remediation for the damages caused and the
challenges that continue to compound into the future. Fortunately, we
know what we need to do going forward. We need to decarbonize our
electric sector and make affordable, clean, renewable energy available
to all, and the Lamont administration is working hard to achieve those
goals."
The lawsuit is built on solid evidence that contrasts internal company
memos and research with false and deceptive public messages that
continue today. Records show Exxon knew burning fossil fuels contributed
to global warming as early as the 1950s. The company conducted its own
research in the 1970s and 1980s confirming that atmospheric CO2 expelled
in the exploration, refining and combustion of the fossil fuel products
it sold contributed to climate change and that climate change could have
catastrophic effects on humanity. Armed with that critical information,
Exxon had the unique ability to disclose its research and help find a
sustainable energy solution. Instead, beginning in the 1980s and
continuing today, the company hid its research and launched a widespread
campaign of deception through advertising, skewed research papers,
public speeches, books, and presentations. This deception continues
today in "greenwashed" ads that falsely portray the company as
meaningfully working to combat climate change.
The lawsuit draws heavily from Exxon's and Mobil's own historical
internal memos, which plainly convey the companies' firm understanding
of the connection between fossil fuel consumption and climate change,
and the impacts of climate change to our environment, economy and public
health.
Click here to download a sample of key documents cited in the complaint.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Key-Documents-from-Connecticut-Climate-Case.pdf
Because of this deception, Connecticut lost out on decades of
opportunities to prepare for and mitigate climate change, which is now
causing sea level rise, flooding, drought, increased temperatures,
decreased air quality, and more frequent severe storms--all with
devastating consequences for public health, the environment, and our
economy. Even if the Earth stays at its current rate of warming, the
State of Connecticut and its citizens will have to expend billions of
dollars to adapt to the consequences of global warming.
The lawsuit seeks relief in the form of remediation for past, present
and future harm from climate change, restitution for investments already
made due to climate change, disgorgement of corporate profits, civil
penalties, disclosure of all climate research, establishment of a
third-party controlled education fund and an immediate end to the false
and misleading information that ExxonMobil has been disseminating for years.
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act has no statute of
limitations, allowing the Office of the Attorney General to examine all
of ExxonMobil's deceptions dating back decades.
Special Assistant Attorney General Ben Cheney, Assistant Attorney
General Dan Salton, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Harding,
Administrative Assistant Sonda Thomas, Secretary Heidi Melendez, and
Assistant Attorney General Matthew Levine, Head of the Environment
Department are assisting the Attorney General in this matter.
Twitter: @AGWilliamTong
Facebook: CT Attorney General
https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2020-Press-Releases/CONNECTICUT-SUES-EXXON-FOR-DECADES-OF-DECEIT-REGARDING-CLIMATE-CHANGE
[some history]
*Climate Change Was on the Ballot With Jimmy Carter in 1980--Though No
One Knew It at the Time*
BY JONATHAN ALTER SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 1:30 PM EDT
This year's wildfires and hurricanes leave no doubt that climate change
is a key issue in November's election, but 2020 is hardly the first time
the environment has been on the ballot. In fact, the future of the
planet was at stake in the presidential contest as early as 40 years
ago--but no one knew it at the time.
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter was running for reelection against
former California Governor Ronald Reagan. The environment was a campaign
issue, in part because Reagan had been quoted saying that more than 80%
of nitrogen oxide air pollution is "caused by trees and vegetation."
(Reagan, the Sierra Club responded, was "just plain wrong.") Carter,
meanwhile, had signed 14 major pieces of environmental legislation,
including the first funding of alternative energy, the first federal
toxic waste cleanup (the Super Fund), the first fuel economy standards
and important new laws to fight air, water and other forms of pollution.
He also protected California's redwood forest and 100 million acres in
the Alaska Lands bill, which doubled the size of the National Park Service.
But there was one big environmental issue he didn't have time to
confront--a challenge that was unknown then outside the scientific
community but would eventually become of critical importance around the
world.
Carter had been a nuclear engineer in the Navy and--while other
politicians played golf--he spent his spare time reading scientific
publications. In 1972, when he was governor of Georgia, he underlined
path-breaking articles in the journal Nature about carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
When he became President, Carter was the first global leader to
recognize the problem of climate change. In 1977, scratching his itch as
a planner and steward of the earth, he commissioned the Global 2000
Report to the President, an ambitious effort to explore environmental
challenges and the prospects of "sustainable development" (a new phrase)
over the next 20 years. As part of that process, the White House Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued three reports contending with
global warming, the last of which--issued the week before Carter left
office--was devoted entirely to the long-term threat of what a handful
of scientists then called "carbon dioxide pollution."
The report, written by Gus Speth, Carter's top aide on the environment,
urged "immediate action" and included calculations on CO2 emissions in
the next decades that proved surprisingly accurate. The large-scale
burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels could lead to "widespread
and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social, and
agricultural patterns," the CEQ report concluded with great prescience.
One recommendation--covered in the very last paragraph of a New York
Times story that ran on page A13--encouraged industrialized nations to
reach agreement on the safe maximum level of carbon dioxide released
into the atmosphere. The CEQ report suggested trying to limit global
average temperature to 2°C above preindustrial levels--precisely the
standard agreed to by the nations of the world 35 years later in the
Paris Climate Agreement that has now been abandoned by President Trump.
With these facts in hand, Reagan's landslide victory over Carter in the
1980 election takes on a tragic dimension: Carter had acted on every
other CEQ report issued in the previous four years with aggressive
legislation and executive orders. He almost certainly would have done so
on this one, too, had he been reelected. Gains made under Carter's
presidential leadership in the early 1980s might have bought the planet
precious time. Instead, for the next 12 years, under Reagan and George
H.W. Bush, the U.S. government would view global warming as largely
unworthy of study, much less action. Then came 25 years of
stop-and-start efforts under administrations of both parties, followed
by a return to denial under Trump.
There are lessons here for the present. Carter was a political
failure--confronted with a bad economy, the Iran hostage crisis, a
divided Democratic Party and a talented challenger in Reagan--but he was
a substantive and visionary success.
It took a while for public opinion to catch up to him. After being
burned in effigy in Alaska, he received only 26% of the statewide vote
in the 1980 presidential election. But by 2000, a billion-dollar tourism
industry had blossomed there, and polls showed residents favored
Carter's landmark achievement. When he visited that year, his speech was
interrupted five times for standing ovations.
In 1979, Carter placed solar panels on the roof of the West Wing of the
White House. After Reagan came to office, he cut funding for green
energy and his chief of staff, Donald T. Regan, describing the panels as
"just a joke," took them down. It wasn't until 2010 that President Obama
put up a new generation of solar units. Now, solar is the
fastest-growing source of electricity in the United States.
Joe Biden was the first senator to endorse Carter for president in 1976,
when Carter ran a campaign based on "healing" after the Watergate
scandal and promised not to lie. Biden is running on similar themes and
has introduced an ambitious program to combat climate change and create
millions of green jobs. Trump, on the other hand, has described climate
change as a "hoax."
Jimmy Carter's example suggests that looking over the horizon might
light our path to a better future--but also that, without political
victory, the chance to realize that future can easily slip away.
https://time.com/5894179/jimmy-carter-climate-change/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - September 30, 2004 *
In his first debate with President Bush, Democratic challenger and
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry incurs the wrath of the right wing by
declaring:
"The president always has the right, and always has had the right,
for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold
War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with
respect to arms control. No president, though all of American
history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in
any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
"But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a way
that passes the test, that passes the global test where your
countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for
legitimate reasons. Here we have our own secretary of state who has
had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the
United Nations.
"I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile
crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle.
And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles
in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.' And DeGaulle
waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president
of the United States is good enough for me."
"How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a
result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is
the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the
world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North
Korea are now more dangerous.
"Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't
know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my
eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire
time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the
Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from
some of the treaties that were on the table.
"You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from
the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal
at length with the United Nations.
"You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning
back to do."
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FullS - (59:20--61:22)
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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/20200930/f3a99c6b/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list