[✔️] August 21, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*August 21, 2021*/

[Five hour time lapse video of fire near Bakersfield - dramatic]
*French Fire 8/20/21*
Aug 20, 2021
ALERTWildfire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxb_jloMfBU

- -

[The Guardian video]
*The climate science behind wildfires: why are they getting worse?*
Aug 20, 2021
Guardian News
We are in an emergency. Wildfires are raging across the world as 
scorching temperatures and dry conditions fuel the blazes that have cost 
lives and destroyed livelihoods.
Subscribe to Guardian News on YouTube ► http://bit.ly/guardianwiressub

The combination of extreme heat, changes in our ecosystem and prolonged 
drought have in many regions led to the worst fires in almost a decade, 
and come after the IPCC handed down a damning landmark report on the 
climate crisis.

But technically, there are fewer wildfires than in the past – the 
problem now is that they are worse than ever and we are running out of 
time to act, as the Guardian's global environment editor, Jonathan 
Watts, explains

Heat, drought and fire: how climate dangers combine for a catastrophic 
‘perfect storm’ 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/10/heat-drought-and-fire-how-climate-dangers-combine-for-a-catastrophic-perfect-storm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJ0j1OZSTU



[information battleground skirmish  --thnx AW! ]
*U.N. Climate Report scapegoats “human activity” rather than fossil-fuel 
capitalism*
The root economic causes of the climate crisis appear nowhere in the 
report, but must be at the centre of movements’ efforts
by Steve D'Arcy - - Aug 10 2021

Analysis
The backdrop for the latest climate report from the United Nations has 
been a series of terrifying reminders of the unfolding crisis.

In the first ten days of August 2021, the world has been shaken by 
record-high temperatures, droughts, and out-of-control wildfires. Greece 
alone has lost 140,000 acres to fires in the past ten days, and 
catastrophic fires have also raged across Canada and the United States, 
Italy and Turkey, Algeria and Siberia.

The fires add to a growing list of catastrophic changes: disappearing 
glacial ice, mass extinctions, critical shortages of fresh water for 
agriculture, and collapsing pollinator populations.

With 234 authors drawing on evidence from over fourteen thousand 
scientific papers, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) is comprehensive. And like previous reports, it 
paints a very grim picture indeed. The report confirms that the 
extremely dangerous changes to the planet’s land, oceans, waterways, and 
weather systems can be slowed and in some cases reversed—but only if 
drastic transformative measures are taken in every part of the global 
economy.

That much is—or should be—uncontroversial. But the very feature of the 
new IPCC Report that garners it so much attention—its claim to be 
rigorously scientific—is something we can ask critical questions about...
- -
Does “scientific” mean that it is free of ideological bias and 
politically “neutral”? Unfortunately not. Reports of the IPCC, down to 
each individual sentence, have to be approved by representatives of all 
the governments participating in the United Nations climate change process.

This process has the predictable effect that controversial or 
politically challenging claims are systematically filtered out of the 
reports, especially claims that are perceived as threats to leading 
industries supported by governments.

It is indeed a scientific report, informed by a vast body of scientific 
research, but it is also an ideological document. The IPCC report tells 
us a lot about what is happening, and how, but it also actively covers 
up key causes of the crisis and insulates powerful systems from critical 
scrutiny.

By shifting the blame away from corporations and the governments that do 
their bidding onto the generic scapegoat of “human activity,” the report 
hides almost as much as it uncovers.

The Report comes in three main versions: a 41-page “Summary for 
Policymakers,” a 150-page “Technical Summary,” and 4,000-page “Full 
Report.” In the crucial and widely-read “Summary for Policymakers,” the 
word “human” appears 79 times.

By contrast, the word “capitalism” occurs zero times, the word 
“colonialism” occurs zero times, the word “corporation” occurs zero 
times, the word “business” occurs zero times, the word “money” occurs 
zero times, and the expression “fossil fuel” (or even just “fuel”) 
occurs zero times.  Even in the Full Report’s 4000+ pages, where the 
word “human” appears over 800 times, “colonialism” is completely absent, 
and mentions of “business” and “corporation” are at best incidental.

Have scientists researched the causes of climate change and proven that 
capitalism, colonialism, corporations and fossil fuel extraction are not 
key drivers of climate change? Absolutely not. A vast body of research 
confirms the role these systems and institutions continue to play in 
driving the Earth to the brink of catastrophic climate change.

Policy makers have known about the threat of climate change for decades 
and have on the whole accelerated fossil fuel consumption. But the 
IPCC’s report does not examine the level of vigor political and social 
action must have to bend political leaders in the other direction before 
it’s too late.

Solutions are discussed in the vaguest possible ways, purged of anything 
that could be deemed controversial among policymakers. It is notable 
that the “Summary for Policymakers” makes no mention of Indigenous 
peoples, land defenders, water protectors, or any efforts to decolonize 
and democratize decision-making about land use and resource extraction 
projects.

We should welcome the latest IPCC Report for its scientific insight. But 
we should also understand it as an ideological document that obscures 
the crucial systemic causes of climate change. For advice on what social 
forces could push forward climate solutions, readers will have to look 
beyond the thousands of pages generated by the IPCC.

For information on how we might confront capitalism, colonialism and 
global inequality, we’ll have to look elsewhere: the Indigenous peoples, 
social movements, and landless peasants leading the way forward.
https://breachmedia.ca/u-n-climate-report-scapegoats-human-activity-rather-than-fossil-fuel-capitalism/



[Why? video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0tPKQm-Ac ]
*STEPHEN FRY: Is XR doing the right thing? | Extinction Rebellion UK*
Aug 20, 2021
Extinction Rebellion UK

We’re at a crucial moment in history. Our climate is breaking down, and 
life on Earth is dying: accelerated by our economic system and supported 
by politicians.

We need urgent change, and we needed it yesterday. People everywhere 
need us to step up — once we begin to act, the politically impossible 
can become inevitable.

Extinction Rebellion UK: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/
International: https://rebellion.global/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/XRebellionUK/

    *1. Tell The Truth *
    *2. Act Now *
    *3. Beyond Politics *

World Map of Extinction Rebellion Groups: 
https://rebellion.global/branches/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0tPKQm-Ac



[Changing climes and oscillations - 3 min video explanation]
*Park Williams PhD: La Nina and Megadrought*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvrg5Pa0VF8



[Domestic refugee documentary from DW https://youtu.be/gv_L1_6U7L4 ]
*Oregon Already Has a Climate Refugee Crisis*Aug 19, 2021
VICE News
Last year the Labor Day fires burned over a million acres in Oregon. 
Since then, the state has been housing residents who lost their homes in 
hotels and motels purchased with state funds, while Oregon faces yet 
another major fire season this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv_L1_6U7L4



[So big changes due, but no rain  https://youtu.be/BuVEZXpgXzw]
*Update and Forecast for the Dixie Fire, Caldor Fire, Monument Fire, and 
other California Wildfires*
Aug 19, 2021
Holt Hanley Weather
The Dixie Fire, Caldor Fire, Monument Fire, River Complex, Antelope 
Fire, Mcfarland Fire, and a number of other wildfires continue to burn 
in Northern California.
Throughout this video, we'll dive into all the important updates, as 
well as the fire weather forecast to predict how the Dixie Fire, the 
Monument Fire, the Caldor Fire, and the other California Wildfires may 
change in the coming days.
You can subscribe to stay updated on all major wildfires throughout the 
2021 season.
I hope this video was helpful, and thanks for watching.

You can also check out Holt Hanley Weather on Twitter, where I post more 
concise updates on the current wildfires:
https://twitter.com/HoltHanleyWX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuVEZXpgXzw



[likely to worsen]
*WION Climate Tracker: Wildfires across the world | Siberia battles 
heatwaves, wildfires and drought*
Aug 19, 2021
WION
The scale of wildfires across the world has been unprecedented. Nearly 
20 countries across the world have been affected. In some cases, these 
blazes have been raging for months.
About Channel:
WION -The World is One News, examines global issues with in-depth 
analysis. We provide much more than the news of the day. Our aim to 
empower people to explore their world. With our Global headquarters in 
New Delhi, we bring you news on the hour, by the hour. We deliver 
information that is not biased. We are journalists who are neutral to 
the core and non-partisan when it comes to the politics of the world. 
People are tired of biased reportage and we stand for a globalised 
united world. So for us the World is truly One.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXd4gDV0HBo



[Classic from April ]
*Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research PIK*
Ecosystems are being destabilized by climate change and are at risk of 
reaching irreversible tipping points. Which way will things tip? How to 
manage tipping points as opportunities? Tipping points experts discuss 
these and other urgent questions in this Webinar (30 March 2021). With 
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (PIK), Tim Lenton (Uni. Exeter), Cameron 
Hepburn (Uni. Oxford), Ilona M. Otto (Uni. Graz), Jonathan Donges (PIK), 
Manjana Milkoreit (Uni Oslo), Peter Bakker (WBCSD). Moderator: Oliver 
Morton (the Economist).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAGQHPbsvTY


[Sci Fi writer declares future -long]
*Kim Stanley Robinson: a climate plan for a world in flames*
Aug 20, 2021
What does it feel like to live on the brink of a vast historical change? 
It feels like now.

Of course that sounds hyperbolic, and maybe even panicky, but I think 
we’re there. Not that a science fiction writer can see the future any 
better than anyone else; very often worse. But between the pandemic, the 
accelerating drumbeat of extreme weather events and the accumulations of 
data and analysis from the scientific community, it’s become an easy call.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I drove across the US east to west. In 
Wyoming, we hit a pall of wildfire smoke so thick that we couldn’t see 
the mountains just a few miles away on each side of the road. It went on 
like that for 1,000 miles.
Then we arrived in California just in time for the latest report from 
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which documents in 
meticulous detail the true scale of the climate problem. Humanity now 
stands on the brink of not just change, but disaster. And because we can 
see it coming, just as clear as a black storm on the horizon, our 
attempts to dodge disaster and create a healthy relationship with our 
only home will bring huge changes in our habits, laws, institutions and 
technologies.

All this is visible to us now. Unlike the people living in the years 
before the first world war, we won’t be sandbagged by catastrophe. The 
2020s will not be filled with surprises — except perhaps at the speed 
and intensity of the changes coming down. With its atmosphere of dread 
foreboding, our time more resembles the years preceding the second world 
war, when everyone lived with a sensation of helplessly sliding down a 
slippery slope and over a cliff.

But historical analogies will take us only so far in understanding our 
current situation, since we have never before been able to wreck our own 
means of existence. Scientists coined the name the Anthropocene to 
signal that this moment in history is unprecedented. There are so many 
of us, and our technologies are so powerful, and our social systems so 
heedless of consequences, that our damage to Earth’s biosphere has 
increased with stunning speed.

Many historians refer to the period since the second world war as the 
Great Acceleration, and the harmful aspects of the changes we’ve 
initiated have immense biological and geophysical momentum. We can’t 
just gather our diplomats and call it off, declare peace with the biosphere.

Although we did do that, in 2015: it’s called the Paris agreement. But 
that was an agreement to start a process of change, which we now have to 
live up to if it is to become real. We in effect agreed to decarbonise 
our civilisation across the board: in energy generation, transport, 
construction — everything. But since all these activities were run 
largely by the burning of fossil fuels, this change is a stupendous 
challenge, equivalent to the mobilisations made in the 20th century to 
fight world wars.

Mean estimates of global surface temperature, change from 1850-1900 
average in °C G1380_21X
Whether we can muster that kind of intense effort now is an open 
question. Not everyone is yet convinced that such an effort is 
necessary, and there are vested interests — not just private individuals 
or corporations, but many of the most powerful nations on Earth — deeply 
committed to continuing to burn fossil fuels.

So the Paris agreement could end up as something like the League of 
Nations, a nice idea that failed. But if we fail this time, the 
consequences could be even worse than the great wars of the 20th 
century. Again, this feels hyperbolic, but the facts in hand support the 
thought, alarming as it is. We are in terrible trouble, and not everyone 
agrees that we are; never will everyone agree on this, even though 
droughts and fires, storms and floods, are coming faster than ever.

Each moment in history has its own “structure of feeling”, as the 
cultural theorist Raymond Williams put it, which changes as new things 
happen. When I write stories set in the next few decades, I try to 
imagine that shift in feeling, but it’s very hard to do because the 
present structure shapes even those kinds of speculations.

Right now things feel massively entrenched, but also fragile. We can’t 
go on but we can’t change. Even though we are one species on one planet, 
there seems no chance of general agreement or global solidarity. The 
best that can be hoped for is a working political majority, 
reconstituted daily in the attempt to do the necessary things for 
ourselves and the generations to come. It’s a tough challenge that will 
never go away. It’s easy to despair.

Still, recently some things have happened that give me cause for hope. I 
wrote my novel The Ministry for the Future in 2019. That time surely 
torqued my vision because several important developments — ones I 
described in my novel as happening in the 2030s — I see now are already 
well begun. My timeline was completely off; events have accelerated yet 
again.

Part of that acceleration was caused by Covid-19. It was a slap in the 
face, an undeniable demonstration that we live on a single planet in a 
single civilisation, which can be disrupted in deadly ways. And it 
wasn’t just people everywhere dying of the same disease, but also our 
reactions to that shocking reality.

Supply chains that we rely on for life itself can be disrupted by 
hoarding, which is to say by loss of trust in our systems. In the US, it 
was toilet paper and cleaning supplies — but if it had been food, then 
boom: panic, breakdown, famine, the war of all against all. That’s how 
fragile civilisation is; that’s how much individuals are forced to trust 
each other to survive. A prisoner’s dilemma indeed, all of us locked 
together on this one planet. We either hang together or we hang 
separately: Franklin’s law.
- -
Another lesson from the pandemic, one we should have known already: 
science is powerful. We need to learn to put it to better use than we 
do, but if we were to do that, lots of good things would follow. Aiming 
science is the work of the humanities and arts, politics and law. We 
have to decide as a civilisation what tasks are most important for us to 
take on now.
- -
If private capital will not invest in the cost of pulling carbon out of 
the atmosphere — the cost of survival — then we are cooked

A third lesson we learnt in 2020 was the medical news that humans can’t 
survive prolonged exposure to extremely high combinations of heat and 
humidity. This realisation, which was already somewhat known but not yet 
recognised as an existential problem, should have silenced those 
sanguine commentators who were asserting that humans could simply adapt 
to whatever climate we happened to create. “Just adapt!”, these 
confident people pronounced. So what if we create a 3C or 4C rise in 
average global temperature? We’ll just adapt. Humans can adapt to anything!

But no. Human beings can’t live in conditions above the heat-index 
number called wet-bulb 35C, a measure of air temperature plus humidity. 
We didn’t evolve for such conditions and, when they occur, we quickly 
overheat and die of hyperthermia. And in July this year, wet-bulb 35s 
were briefly reached in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

As we keep burning fossil fuels, global average temperatures will 
continue to rise, and this deadly combination of heat and humidity will 
occur more often. And not just in the tropics, where more than 3bn 
people live; British Columbia’s high temperature record this summer 
overtook that of Las Vegas. So mitigating climate change by rapidly 
cutting greenhouse gases becomes not just a good idea but a survival 
necessity.

The Paris agreement can serve as our way to organise this massive 
effort. We need it because, although our problem is global, we live in a 
nation-state system in which the representatives of each nation are 
charged with defending that nation’s interests. In any perceived 
discrepancy between the interests of one’s nation and the world at 
large, some people will choose their nation.

This creates a lot of problems of the prisoner’s dilemma sort. When it 
comes to virtuous action, who goes first? The countries that act first 
might create future advantages for themselves, but many people are too 
cautious to see that, and so there are some very tough choices coming.

For example: we can burn about 900 more gigatons of carbon before we 
cross the 2C average global rise in temperature that will put us in 
truly dangerous territory. But we’ve already located thousands of 
gigatons of fossil fuels around the world. Most of those, which simply 
must be left in the ground if we want to avoid cooking the biosphere, 
are owned by national governments, who consider these reserves part of 
their national assets. They’re already collateral, and a steady source 
of income and, for quite a few of these nations, a big portion of their 
wealth.

So although almost every nation has signed the Paris agreement and 
agreed in theory to the principle of rapid emissions reduction, nations 
including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, Brazil, Nigeria, Australia, 
Mexico, China, Venezuela, Norway and the US — not to mention several 
others — have made promises under the Paris agreement that will cost 
them many trillions of dollars in lost income.

Thinking about money, and directing money, are key to getting through 
this crisis century successfully

Naturally, there will be elected officials and civil servants in these 
governments doing their best to burn a few last trillions’ worth of 
these soon-to-be-stranded assets. They will see this as their patriotic 
and fiduciary duty. So unless we make other arrangements, there will be 
a fire sale.

This means that one giant aspect of the problem we face is financial. 
Thinking about money, and directing money, are key to getting through 
this crisis century successfully. We have to figure out ways to pay 
ourselves to decarbonise as fast as possible, and to do all the other 
work needed to establish a sustainable civilisation. Keeping the 
petrostates from going bankrupt and doing desperate things will have to 
be part of that new arrangement, tricky though that will be. Discounts, 
amortisation, giving up on blame and righteousness, big haircuts — all 
these will come into play.

And don’t think that the market will do all this by itself, because it 
won’t. That whole notion of rule by market was a catastrophic example of 
monocausotaxophilia, “the love of single causes that explain 
everything”, Ernst Pöppel’s joke neologism for a tendency very common in 
all of us. This weakness in our thinking, the futile hope for a reliable 
algorithm, or a monarch, needs to be resisted at all times but 
especially when constructing a global economy.

It is not true that leaving finance to the market will arrange 
everything well, as the past 40 years have shown. The market 
systemically misprices things by way of improper discounting of the 
future, false externalities and many other predatory miscalculations, 
which have led to gross inequality and biosphere destruction. And yet 
right now it’s the way of the world, the law of the land. Capital 
invests in the highest rate of return, that’s what the market requires.

But saving the biosphere is not the highest rate of return (surely clear 
proof of another market miscalculation) because that rescue involves 
replacing most of our infrastructure, while also building what will be 
in effect a planetary sewage system, retrieving and disposing of the 
waste we’ve been dumping into the atmosphere.

This is no one’s idea of a high-return investment, because no one 
actually wants thousands of billions of tons of dry ice. Pulling that 
much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is simply a cost — the cost of 
survival, but not the highest rate of return. So private capital will 
not invest in it, and if we allow that judgment to stand, we are cooked.

But finance, too, is a technology, being civilisation’s software. It’s 
critically important software because it’s how we value our own work; 
and, being a human system, we are free to improve it by way of various 
alterations and improvements. And now we have to.

Happily, many people staffing the central banks of the world are feeling 
this need, and looking into innovations. Their involvement is critically 
important, because no cryptocurrency will do the job. Indeed, some of 
these new cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, only exacerbate the 
problem. And in any case, none of them are money; they are tulips, or 
any other speculative bubble. Money is a medium of exchange, a 
storehouse of value, and — crucially — a sign of social trust. And in a 
nation-state system, the money we trust is money that is nationally 
backed. The richer the country, the more we trust its money. So fiat 
currency is what we’ll need to deal with the existential emergency that 
climate change represents.

Even in our current political economy . . . we might be able to pay 
ourselves to do the necessary things and thus dodge the coming mass 
extinction event

What this suggests is that we are soon going to be testing out how many 
trillions of dollars our central banks can create per year without 
altering people’s trust in money. This will be an experiment, an 
improvisation. The quantitative easings of 2008-11 and 2020-21 gave 
strong evidence that a pretty large amount of new money can be created 
every year without negative results. The new wrinkle to add to that 
finding is the idea of spending newly created money first on 
decarbonisation and other biosphere-friendly activities. This is getting 
called carbon quantitative easing, and is something many central banks 
are now investigating.

The Network for Greening the Financial System, an organisation of 89 of 
the biggest central banks, recently released a paper outlining possible 
methodologies for this financial innovation. They suggested that 
possibly nations, companies and individuals who draw carbon from the 
atmosphere could be paid for it directly.

Possibly petrostates could be compensated for the fossil fuels they keep 
in the ground. Possibly oil companies could be paid to suck carbon from 
the air and then pump it back into the ground; they could also be paid 
to pump water from under the great glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland, 
which are currently sliding into the sea on newly melted subterranean 
water slides.

Of course, legislatures and citizens will need to urge their central 
banks, and ultimately to instruct or order them, to do these things. But 
the good news is that with these new strategies in hand, even in our 
current political economy, awkwardly suited at best to the task at hand, 
we might be able to pay ourselves to do the necessary things, and thus 
dodge the coming mass-extinction event.

This is not the total solution; I don’t want to succumb to 
monocausotaxophilia myself. It will take far more than carbon 
quantitative easing to finesse the coming years. We’ll need to 
re-establish wild land to maintain biodiversity, as in the various 
“30×30” plans; we may start growing food in vats from micro-organisms, 
freeing up land for other purposes; we’ll have to green our cities; we 
have to replace much of our infrastructure; and so on. All this implies 
a stupendous amount of work, all of which will have to be paid for.

Carbon quantitative easing won’t be enough to do all of that but, when 
combined with regulation and taxation channelling private capital into 
useful, survival-oriented projects, we might squeak through. And, by the 
way, full employment is very much implied in all this; there’s that much 
work to be done. Can we leverage all that needed work toward climate 
equity between nations and to the lessening of the grotesque inequality 
between rich and poor? It seems like we could.

This array of new policies means returning to some kind of Keynesian 
balance of public and private. Good. We need that. But this big shift 
naturally adds to the feeling of dread in our time. What — a new 
political economy? Didn’t that kind of change last happen in 1980, or 
1945, or in the 18th century’s great democratic revolutions? Surely it’s 
impossible now? Easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of 
capitalism?

No. The time has come to admit that we control our economy for the 
common good. Crucial at all times, this realisation is especially 
important in our current need to dodge a mass-extinction event. The 
invisible hand never picks up the check; therefore we must govern ourselves.

Kim Stanley Robinson’s ‘The Ministry for the Future’ is published in 
paperback in October. He will be speaking at the UN’s Cop26 climate 
change conference in Glasgow in November
https://todayuknews.com/health/4-out-of-10-parents-have-no-plans-to-get-child-vaccinated-for-school-poll/


[The news archive - looking back]
*On this day in the history of global warming August 21, 2007*

August 21, 2007: U.S. District Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong rules that 
the George W. Bush administration violated the 1990 Global Change 
Research Act (signed into law, ironically enough, by Bush's father) by 
not producing a legally required climate assessment report. The report 
would finally be released in May 2008.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/08/22/court-rules-that-bush-admin-unlawfully-failed-to-produce-scientific-assessment-of-global-change/ 


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PRESS/global-warming-08-21-2007.html 


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PROGRAMS/policy/energy/complaint-national-assessment.pdf 


http://web.archive.org/web/20080705212954/http://www.usda.gov/oce/global_change/sap_2007_FinalReport.htm 




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


/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/20210821/ab08cf08/attachment.htm>