[✔️] August 15, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*August 15, 2021*/

[a great headline]*
**Media Makes Climate Change Seem Hopeless — but They're Hiding Solutions*
The media frames the climate crisis as hopeless -- but that's because 
they're hiding the solutions.
https://www.businessinsider.com/media-frames-climate-change-hopeless-hiding-the-solutions-2021-8



[thinking - from AXIOS]
*How climate change kills the future*
Bryan Walsh, author of Future
One of the hardest facts to grasp about climate change is this: No 
matter what we do now, it's almost certain to get worse in the future.

*Why it matters:* The time lag effect of climate change means that 
actions taken to reduce carbon emissions will only begin to noticeably 
bend the curve decades from now.

That gives us the power to avert the worst-case scenario for warming, 
but we have to come to grips with a future that will feel as if it gets 
worse by the year.
*The big picture: *Even under the most optimistic scenario for carbon 
emission reductions — one far more ambitious than anything the world is 
currently on a path for — global average temperatures are projected to 
keep rising until the 2050s and, while they begin to dip, still end the 
century higher than they are now.

As one meme circulating on social media goes, this year isn't the 
hottest summer of your life, but the coldest summer of the rest of your 
life.
*Between the lines: *Barring the invention of some kind of technology 
that could economically pull carbon out of the atmosphere — and we're 
not close to that — there is no full solution to climate change. 
Instead, it's a problem to be managed — whether well or badly — for the 
foreseeable future.

But that makes it very different than most of the other major challenges 
the world faces.
As terrible as the COVID-19 pandemic has been and remains, it will end 
one day, and both individuals and governments can take immediate actions 
to get immediate results. But there's no "flattening the curve" on 
climate change — at least not in any near-term time frame.
*Context:* Given all that, it shouldn't be surprising that the reaction 
to climate change tends to fall into three broad camps: outright denial, 
obliviousness, or despair.

According to a December survey, 40% of Americans feel helpless about 
climate change and 29% feel hopeless, while a separate 2020 poll by the 
American Psychiatric Association found that more than half of Americans 
are somewhat or extremely anxious about the impact of climate change on 
their mental health.
The younger the respondent, the more likely they reported higher levels 
of climate anxiety.
Analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note to investors last month that 
the "movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is 
growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend 
in the field of fertility decline."
*Driving the news:* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
report released on Monday contained a few silver linings amid a slew of 
generally bad news about the science of global warming.

Improved science about climate sensitivity — how much we can expect the 
planet to warm given a doubling of preindustrial atmospheric carbon 
concentration — enabled the IPCC to dial back the likelihood of the most 
extreme warming scenarios.
*Yes, but:* That same science also reduced the likelihood that we would 
experience the lowest levels of warming given that scenario.

The upshot is that we have more confidence about where climate change is 
poised to take us and more certainty about our ability to influence that 
future through actions on greenhouse gas emissions.
*Thought bubble: *One of my 4-year-old son's favorite books is "The 
Snowy Day" by Ezra Jack Keats, about a young boy's adventures out in — 
as the title suggests — a very snowy day.

Reading it to him, I can't escape the fact that growing up in an 
ever-warmer New York City, he will be much less likely than I was to get 
to enjoy his own snowy days.
It's a minuscule thing against the expected damage that is and will be 
caused by climate change — a disproportionate amount of which will be 
borne by people far less lucky than he is — but it personalizes for me 
the depressing sense that our future will be lesser.
*The bottom line:* Many of us have been fortunate enough to grow up in a 
world that in most ways — whether we appreciate it or not — has 
generally been getting better year by year.

Much of that progress will likely continue, barring the most extreme 
worst-case warming scenarios, but maintaining a sense of optimism about 
the future in the face of gradually worsening climate change and all 
that will come with it will be the challenge of the century.
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-pessimism-future-ipcc-dbd9fd35-8474-45f1-bf12-69a8095f4272.html



[weather attribution video]
*Climate Thinkers: Friederike Otto*
Jul 14, 2021
Svenska Dagbladet SvD
Our emissions make the weather worse – today
For a long time, climate change was described as a distant threat. But 
as new research shows, this is not the case. Meet climatologist 
Friederike Otto, who has proved that human emissions are already raising 
the risk of extreme weather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gNkSjx3spE



[Nick Breeze Interview CCAG]
*Sir David King | Arctic Report | Climate Crisis Advisory Group*
Nick Breeze - -Jul 30, 2021
In this episode of Shaping The Future, I am speaking with former UK 
Government Chief Science Advisor, Sir David King. Sir David has recently 
set up the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) to respond with agility 
to the real-time climate crisis.

The first report is linked in the notes and focuses on the Arctic as a 
key regulator of global climate stability and more recently, chaotic 
disruption.
Key points:

    Jet Stream Omega Event Johanne Rockstrum: Arctic tipping point has
    passed.
    Are accelerating impacts at risk of outpacing action?
    Scientists have mismanaged the modelling of climate change events.
    Greenland ice sheet is sitting in warm air and losing ice rapidly.
    We are not prepared for what we are currently seeing!
    We need a UN Security Council For Climate Change.
    Our future as a civilisation depends on a rapid response to the
    situation.
    UK Policy on China: Timing-wise it could not be worse! The EU, China
    and US are all talking together.
    Greenhouse Gas Removal: Build up oceans to what they used to be and
    we could absorb 30-40 billion tonnes per annum.
    Refreezing the Arctic: If we don’t manage this we are cooked!
    The CCAG Report is for Governments, Businesses and Financial
    operations.
    The time for action is now!

Sir David discusses the mantra they are trying to get into the 
mainstream consciousness of climate action: Reduce, Remove and Repair. 
The message is clear that climate is now the main issue threatening our 
civilisation across the globe.

We are now crossing tipping points and the time rapid scaled up action 
is now.

Sir David also suggests the creation of a UN Security Council for 
Climate Change to deal specifically with the international efforts of 
nations and regions to tackle arising issues. This connects to my 
interview next week with NATO and US Government Security Advisor on 
Climate Change, Chad Briggs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fANQwhMFcCU

- -

[Here is the CCAG  Climate Crisis Advisory Group]
*CCAG monthly reports*
July 2021 - Extreme Weather Events in the Arctic and Beyond: A Global 
State of Emergency (PDF)
June 2021 - The Global Climate Crisis and the Action Required (PDF)
https://www.ccag.earth/reports

- -

[The Kim Stanley Robinson book]
*The Ministry for the Future*
ISBN    9780316300131

    The Ministry for the Future is a novel by American science fiction
    writer Kim Stanley Robinson published in 2020. Set in the near
    future, the novel follows a subsidiary body, established under the
    Paris Agreement, whose mission is to advocate for the world's future
    generations of citizens as if their rights are as valid as the
    present generation's. While they pursue various ambitious projects,
    the effects of climate change are determined to be the most
    consequential. The plot primarily follows Mary Murphy, the head of
    the titular Ministry for the Future, and Frank May, an American aid
    worker traumatized by experiencing a deadly heat wave in India. Many
    chapters are devoted to other (mostly anonymous) characters'
    accounts of future events, as well as their ideas about ecology,
    economics, and other subjects.

    With its emphasis on scientific accuracy and non-fiction
    descriptions of history and social science, the novel is classified
    as hard science fiction. It is also a part of the growing body of
    climate fiction. Robinson had previously written other climate
    fiction novels, such as 2312 and New York 2140. The novel also
    includes elements of utopian fiction as it portrays society
    addressing a problem and elements of horror fiction as climate
    change threatens characters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future



[daily dose of hubris and optimism - text and audio]
*Computer Models Of Civilization Offer Routes To Ending Global Warming*
Dan Charles -- August 14, 2021

As the world's top climate scientists released a report full of warnings 
this week, they kept insisting that the world still has a chance to 
avoid the worst effects of climate change.

"It is still possible to forestall most of the dire impacts, but it 
really requires unprecedented, transformational change," said Ko 
Barrett, vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
"The idea that there still is a pathway forward, I think, is a point 
that should give us some hope."


That hopeful pathway, in which dangerous changes to the world's climate 
eventually stop, is the product of giant computer simulations of the 
world economy. They're called integrated assessment models. There are 
half a dozen major versions of them: four developed in Europe, one in 
Japan, and one in the U.S., at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

"What we mostly are doing, is trying to explore what is needed to meet 
the Paris goals." says Detlef van Vuuren, at the Netherlands 
Environmental Assessment Agency, which developed one of the models.

How to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero in 40 years
World leaders agreed in Paris to limit global warming to less than 2 
degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The planet has already warmed 
about 1 degree Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

Meeting that goal will mean cutting net greenhouse gas emissions to zero 
within about 40 years. It would require profound changes; so profound, 
it's not immediately clear that it's even possible.

That's why van Vuuren and his colleagues turned to their computer models 
for help. "How is it possible to go to zero emissions?" he says. "That's 
for transport, that's for housing, that's for electricity."
Each of these models starts with data about current sources of 
greenhouse emissions. They include cars and buses, auto rickshaws, 
airplanes, power plants, home furnaces and rice paddies. The models also 
include assumptions about international trade, prices, and the costs of 
new technologies.

Then the scientists force their virtual worlds to change course, by 
introducing limits on greenhouse emissions. The models then try to 
satisfy that requirement in the most cost-effective way, as long as it's 
technologically feasible and doesn't run up against limits like the 
supply of land or other natural resources.

The good news is that the models found a way to meet that target, at 
least in scenarios where world governments were inclined to cooperate in 
meeting their Paris commitments. In fact, according to Keywan Riahi, at 
the International Institute for Applied Systems, in Austria, they found 
multiple paths to zero carbon.

"The models tell us that there are, first of all, alternative pathways 
possible; that there are choices available to the decision-maker," he says.

Different models, using different assumptions, arrive at contrasting 
visions of the future world. But they're all dramatically different from 
the situation today.

Some models show people responding to higher energy prices or government 
regulations by changing their lifestyle. They move to more energy-saving 
houses, and give up their cars in favor of a new and better kind of 
public transit. In addition to traditional bus lines, autonomous 
vehicles respond like Uber — taking people where they need to go.

Riahi likes this version best. "I'm convinced that a fundamental 
demand-side restructuring would also lead to a better quality of life," 
he says.

Other scenarios show people still using plenty of energy, which in turn 
requires a huge boost in production of clean electricity. It would mean 
10 or 20 times more land covered with solar and wind farms, compared to 
now, plus more power plants burning wood or other biofuels, outfitted 
with equipment to capture and store the carbon dioxide that's released.

Politics and individuals' preferences could foil the models
Riahi is quick to point out that what happens in the models may not be 
feasible in real life. They don't account for political obstruction, for 
instance, or human preferences. People may just want to drive an 
expensive car, rather than take public transit, even when the models 
says that choice isn't economically rational.
But the models also can be far too pessimistic, in particular about 
technological innovation. Ten years ago, van Vuuren says, they never 
anticipated the rise of cheap solar power. "We have been in the 
extremely fortunate situation that the cost of renewables has declined 
rapidly in the past decade." This has made the task of reducing carbon 
emissions much easier.

For all their shortcomings, though, these models remain the primary way 
that scientists and policymakers figure out options for the future. They 
quantify tradeoffs and consequences that may not be clearly apparent. If 
countries want to turn trees or crops into fuel, for instance, it means 
less land for growing food or for natural forests. Also, the models make 
it clear that international cooperation is essential, with rich 
countries helping poorer countries to cut their emissions.

The results of the computer modeling are like fuzzy maps, pointing out 
routes that could help the world avoid disaster.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027370891/climate-change-solutions-global-warming-computer-models-paris


[Financial Times $]
*Learning to live with climate change: lessons from Los Angeles*
With a 1.5C rise in temperatures now seeming inevitable, California is 
becoming a laboratory for solutions
AUGUST 13 2021
https://www.ft.com/content/149a7cfb-46a7-43f8-8b38-141448d67745



[failure to pick on someone their own size]
*When the Far Right Picks Fights With a Teen*
How Greta Thunberg became the target of a barrage of disinformation and 
conspiracies.
By Yasmeen Serhan

The next front in the culture wars is climate change, and the battle 
lines have already been drawn. On one side are the climate 
skeptics—those who see global warming as nothing more than unusual 
weather, and argue that government interventions and regulations to curb 
greenhouse-gas emissions are alarmist or “eco-fascist.”

On the other side is Greta Thunberg.

This, at least, is what the populist right’s next political battleground 
looks like online. There you can find a barrage of disinformation and 
conspiracies about the Swedish climate activist, including depictions of 
her as a spoiled child, a leftist pawn, and even a Nazi. While much of 
this ridicule comes from internet trolls, a group of far-right 
activists, media pundits, politicians, and even heads of state have 
joined, and at times driven, the pile-on.

That a teenager could cause such a stir around the world is a testament 
to Thunberg’s influence. This Friday marks three years since she began 
her weekly protest against climate inaction outside the Swedish 
Parliament, a demonstration that has since ballooned into a global 
movement involving millions of students across more than 150 countries, 
with Thunberg as its Joan of Arc. Through her protests and speeches, she 
has galvanized the world about the climate crisis in ways few have 
before her. She has met world leaders, addressed the United Nations, and 
been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize—thrice.

These accolades have helped give Thunberg an enormous platform, but they 
have also invited a torrent of abuse, disinformation, and conspiracy 
theories of the kind typically reserved for older and more powerful 
figures such as George Soros and Bill Gates. That neither Thunberg’s 
youth nor her status has prevented her from becoming the far right’s 
latest villain reveals the extent to which she is seen as a threat. That 
she hasn’t been deterred by the attacks suggests that they aren’t working.

Although Thunberg first rose to international prominence in the summer 
of 2018 after starting her “school strike for climate,” it wasn’t until 
a year later, once she embarked on a two-week (and, crucially, 
carbon-neutral) boat trip across the Atlantic to deliver a speech at the 
UN climate summit, that she became the focus of the global right’s ire. 
Pundits suggested that she was a “schoolgirl puppet” being “exploited” 
by sinister forces including her ostensibly fame-hungry parents, energy 
giants, and the international left. Populist politicians as far afield 
as Canada, Germany, and Brazil took potshots at her, calling her a 
“brat,” an icon of the “climate church,” and “mentally unstable.” 
Perhaps her loudest critic was former President Donald Trump, who 
accused her of having an “anger management problem.”

Some of the worst attacks, however, have come in the form of memes. 
While many have been used to spread conspiracy theories (among them that 
she is tied to Soros, the billionaire financier and the right’s favorite 
bogeyman), others have gone further. “The stuff on the internet about 
her—the violence and vilification, the pure hatred—is really quite 
scary,” Catherine Fieschi, a political analyst who tracks dissent 
against climate policy in Europe, told me. Her latest study reproduced 
some of most popular memes, including one portraying Thunberg as akin to 
a member of the Hitler Youth. “There’s literally millions of those 
images going around the world,” she said.

Inherent in the attacks against Thunberg is a desire not only to 
undermine her credibility and her activism, but also to use her as a 
proxy for other left-wing movements. According to a 2020 study by the 
German Marshall Fund, which looked at the proliferation of online 
disinformation about Thunberg from 2018 to 2019, the most common 
narratives have focused on her mental fitness (Thunberg has Asperger’s 
syndrome, a form of autism, which she calls her “superpower”), as well 
as her purported affiliations with Soros and “antifa,” a loose group of 
radical anti-fascist and anti-racist activists. The common thread in all 
of these narratives is a desire to make Thunberg appear untrustworthy 
and to be seen as less a person than a pawn—of her parents, of nefarious 
movements, and of the global elite.

“Part of her power is that she doesn’t seem to represent any other 
interest but the interests of the climate and young people,” Karen 
Kornbluh, the director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy 
Initiative at the German Marshall Fund, told me. “Casting aspersions on 
that and trying to tie her to some other interest tries to take away 
some of her power.”

Such tactics have been tried and tested against other bogeymen of the 
far right. In the case of Soros, that has meant pervasive conspiracies 
about him bankrolling every movement reviled by the right—not only 
antifa but Black Lives Matter—with the ultimate goal of destroying the 
United States. With Gates, it’s the claim that he has invested billions 
of dollars into the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines 
(which is true) with the intent of using them to control people via 
microchip (which is false). Unlike both men, however, Thunberg is not a 
billionaire. She isn’t a patron of left-wing causes (though she has 
donated prize money to climate groups in the past). She doesn’t claim to 
be the climate-movement figurehead that many have made her out to be.

That the far right has had to resort to often misogynist and ableist 
attacks against Thunberg is in itself a testament to how difficult she 
is to discredit. Part of that challenge is due to the fact that her 
activism is rooted in science rather than politics (she leaves policy 
making to the policy makers). But it also has to do with the fact that 
she’s genuine. Unlike other high-profile climate activists, she can’t 
easily be accused of even occasional hypocrisy: In addition to being 
vegan, she abstains from plane travel and mass consumerism. “The last 
time I bought something new was three years ago and it was second-hand,” 
Thunberg told Vogue Scandinavia in a recent interview. “I just borrow 
things from people I know.”

Katrin Uba, an associate professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University who 
has been studying Thunberg’s impact on climate activism, told me that 
her rise to global prominence wouldn’t have been possible without social 
media—the same tool that her detractors are trying, and by all accounts 
failing, to use against her. Thunberg has already had a demonstrated 
impact on how her generation views the climate crisis, with one recent 
survey showing that nearly 70 percent of people under the age of 18 
believe that climate change is a global emergency compared with 58 
percent of people over the age of 60. Her influence, on the general 
public as well as on politicians and corporations, has been termed by 
Uba and others as “the Greta effect.”

Thunberg isn’t daunted by her status. The way she sees it, the 
demonization is a diversion from climate science, to which skeptics have 
few answers. It is proof that she and her fellow activists are having an 
effect. Those who attack her “are not evil,” she said in her interview 
with Vogue Scandinavia, extending a level of empathy that few of her 
detractors are ever likely to return. “They just don’t know better. At 
least that’s what I am trying to think.”

Yasmeen Serhan is a London-based staff writer at The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/08/greta-thunberg-far-right-climate/619748/
- -
[another article]
*Franklin Foer: Greta Thunberg is right to panic*
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/greta-thunbergs-despair-is-entirely-warranted/598492/


[The news archive - looking back]
*On this day in the history of global warming August 15, 2004*
August 15, 2004: In the New York Times, Al Gore reviews Ross Gelbspan's 
"Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and 
Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis -- and What We Can Do to Avert 
Disaster," the follow-up to his seminal 1997 book "The Heat Is On: The 
Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription."

    *Hot Enough for Us?*
    By Al Gore
    Aug. 15, 2004

    BOILING POINT
    How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Are
    Fueling
    the Climate Crisis -- and What We Can Do to Avert Disaster.

    By Ross Gelbspan.
    254 pp. Basic Books. $22.

    THE blend of passionate advocacy and lucid analysis that Ross
    Gelbspan brings to this, his second book about global warming, is
    extremely readable because the author's voice is so authentic. When
    Gelbspan first encountered the issue as a reporter nine years ago,
    he writes, he had no inkling of how it would change his life. But as
    he put together the evidence of the global climate crisis he
    describes in this book, he found himself pulled inexorably to do
    more than simply write about it. So he now feels called to a kind of
    mission: to describe what is happening, to single out the specific
    failures and misdeeds of politicians, energy companies,
    environmental activists and journalists who share responsibility for
    our predicament, and then propose bold solutions that -- unlike more
    timid blueprints already on the public agenda -- would in his view
    actually solve the problem.

    For a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the top of his game, this
    is a career detour requiring courage I greatly admire. Moreover, he
    candidly describes how, as he opened himself to the implications of
    what he was learning in his dogged pursuit of this story, he has
    undergone something of a personal transformation. He writes that it
    has become ''an excruciating experience to watch the planet fall
    apart piece by piece in the face of persistent and pathological
    denial.'' He describes how mountain glaciers around the world are
    melting, most of them rapidly. And he cites early examples of
    environmental refugees like those created in recent weeks in
    Bangladesh, vulnerable to catastrophic flooding as sea levels rise.

    In the course of this transformation, Gelbspan has become a
    different kind of reporter, one who recalls the great reforming
    journalists of the first decade of the 20th century -- Upton
    Sinclair, Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and others -- who not only
    reported on political corruption and corporate excesses but
    connected them to larger destructive patterns that had developed in
    the economy and politics of their time. They agitated for policy
    reforms, many of which were enacted into statutes when they became
    part of the progressive movement's agenda: antitrust laws, the Food
    and Drug Administration, railroad regulation, wage and hour laws,
    workmen's compensation and child labor laws, to name a few.

    It is in that spirit that Gelbspan pursues solutions for climate
    change that can ''also begin to reverse some very discouraging and
    destructive political and economic dynamics as well.''

    Part of what makes this book important is its indictment of the
    American news media's coverage of global warming for the past two
    decades. Indeed, when the author investigates why the United States
    is virtually the only advanced nation in the world that fails to
    recognize the severity of this growing crisis, he concludes that the
    news coverage is ''a large reason for that failure.''

    At a time when prominent journalists are writing mea culpas for
    allowing themselves to be too easily misled in their coverage of the
    case for war in Iraq, Gelbspan presents a devastating analysis of
    how the media have been duped and intimidated by an aggressive and
    persistent campaign organized and financed by coal and oil
    companies. He recounts, for example, a conversation with a top
    television network editor who was reluctant to run stories about
    global warming because a previous story had ''triggered a barrage of
    complaints from the Global Climate Coalition'' -- a fossil fuel
    industry lobbying group -- ''to our top executives at the network.''

    He also describes the structural changes in the news media, like
    increased conglomerate ownership, that have made editors and
    reporters more vulnerable to this kind of intimidation -- and much
    less aggressive in pursuing inconvenient truths.

    Gelbspan's first book, ''The Heat Is On'' (1997), remains the best,
    and virtually only, study of how the coal and oil industry has
    provided financing to a small group of contrarian scientists who
    began to make themselves available for mass media interviews as
    so-called skeptics on the subject of global warming. In fact, these
    scientists played a key role in Gelbspan's personal journey on this
    issue. When he got letters disputing the facts in his very first
    article, he was at first chastened -- until he realized the letters
    were merely citing the industry-funded scientists. He accuses this
    group of ''stealing our reality.''

    In this new book, Gelbspan focuses his toughest language by far on
    the coal and oil industries. After documenting the largely
    successful efforts of companies like ExxonMobil to paralyze the
    policy process, confuse the American people and cynically ''
    'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,' '' as one
    strategy paper put it, he concludes that ''what began as a normal
    business response by the fossil fuel lobby -- denial and delay --
    has now attained the status of a crime against humanity.''

    I wouldn't have said it quite that way, but I'm glad he does, and
    his exposition of the facts certainly seems to support his charge.

    Gelbspan also criticizes the current administration, documenting its
    efforts to ''demolish the diplomatic foundations'' of the
    international agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol, and describing
    its approach to energy and environmental policy as ''corruption
    disguised as conservatism.'' Again, he backs up his charge with
    impressive research. Moreover, his critique is far from partisan. He
    takes on environmental groups for doing way too little and for
    focusing on their own institutional agendas rather than the central
    challenges.

    When Gelbspan addresses the subject of solutions, he first gives a
    detailed analysis of all the significant plans that have been
    offered, and then endorses a maximalist approach called the World
    Energy Modernization Plan, developed six years ago by an ad hoc
    group that met at the Harvard Medical School. His basic argument is
    that it is far too late in the game to waste time on strategies that
    might be more politically feasible but don't actually do enough to
    begin to solve the problem.

    He may be right, but the plan's authors, though distinguished,
    remind me of Sam Rayburn's remark that he'd feel a lot better ''if
    just one of them had ever run for sheriff.''

    THE fact is, many who have worked on this problem believe it may be
    essential to begin with a binding agreement among nations and then,
    after governments and industries shift direction, toughen the goals.
    That is the formula used successfully in the Montreal Protocol in
    1987 to begin reducing the emissions that cause destruction of
    stratospheric ozone. Three years later, the standards were
    dramatically tightened in the London Amendments, and by then most
    resistance had dissipated.

    The Kyoto Protocol (which may soon become legally effective if
    Russia ratifies it, even though the United States has not) has been
    criticized by many, including Gelbspan, for not going nearly far
    enough to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But it has
    simultaneously been condemned from the opposite side for going too
    far. If Kyoto does take effect, we may find that after industries
    and countries begin to comply, it will be easier to expand the
    limits of what is politically possible.

    But Gelbspan's point is a powerful one and is well argued. And he
    has, in any case, performed a great service by writing an
    informative book on a difficult but crucial subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/books/hot-enough-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.amazon.com/Boiling-Point-Politicians-Journalists-Crisis--And/dp/0465027628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387936832&sr=8-1&keywords=boiling+point+ross+gelbspan
http://www.amazon.com/The-Heat-Is-On-Prescription/dp/0738200255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387936855&sr=8-1&keywords=the+heat+is+on+ross+gelbspan

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


/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. This is a hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain 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/20210815/7dbda911/attachment.htm>