[✔️] August 30, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*August 30, 2021*/

[New future]
*What We Know About Climate Change and Hurricanes*
Scientists are confident that the warming of the planet is changing the 
way storms behave. Here’s how...
- -
Global warming is changing storms...
- -
*1. Higher winds...*
“Potential intensity is going up,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of 
atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “We 
predicted it would go up 30 years ago, and the observations show it 
going up.”

Stronger winds mean downed power lines, damaged roofs and, when paired 
with rising sea levels, worse coastal flooding.
*2. More rain*
Warming also increases the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can 
hold. In fact, every degree Celsius of warming allows the air to hold 
about 7 percent more water.

That means we can expect future storms to unleash higher amounts of 
rainfall.

*3. Slower storms*
Researchers do not yet know why storms are moving more slowly, but they 
are. Some say a slowdown in global atmospheric circulation, or global 
winds, could be partly to blame.

In a 2018 paper, Dr. Kossin found that hurricanes over the United States 
had slowed 17 percent since 1947. Combined with the increase in rain 
rates, storms are causing a 25 percent increase in local rainfall in the 
United States, he said.

Slower, wetter storms also worsen flooding. Dr. Kossin likened the 
problem to walking around your back yard while using a hose to spray 
water on the ground. If you walk fast, the water won’t have a chance to 
start pooling. But if you walk slowly, he said, “you’ll get a lot of 
rain below you.”
*
**4. Wider-ranging storms*
Because warmer water helps fuel hurricanes, climate change is enlarging 
the zone where hurricanes can form.

There’s a “migration of tropical cyclones out of the tropics and toward 
subtropics and middle latitudes,” Dr. Kossin said. That could mean more 
storms making landfall in higher latitudes, like in the United States or 
Japan.
*
**5. More volatility*
As the climate warms, researchers also say they expect storms to 
intensify more rapidly. Researchers are still unsure why it’s happening, 
but the trend appears to be clear.

In a 2017 paper based on climate and hurricane models, Dr. Emanuel found 
that storms that intensify rapidly — the ones that increase their wind 
speed by 70 miles per hour or more in the 24 hours before landfall — 
were rare in the period from 1976 through 2005. On average, he 
estimated, their likelihood in those years was equal to about once per 
century.

By the end of the 21st century, he found, those storms might form once 
every five or 10 years.

“It’s a forecaster’s nightmare,” Dr. Emanuel said. If a tropical storm 
or Category 1 hurricane develops into a Category 4 hurricane overnight, 
he said, “there’s no time to evacuate people.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/29/climate/climate-change-hurricanes.html

- -

[Meteorology]
*Catastrophic damage likely at key oil industry hub*
Ida’s eye scored a direct hit on Port Fourchon, a critical hub for the 
U.S. oil industry. According to the Port Fourchon website: 
https://portfourchon.com/seaport/port-facts/

    Over 250 companies utilize Port Fourchon as a base of operation.

    In addition to its huge domestic hydrocarbon significance, Port
    Fourchon is land base for LOOP (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port), which
    handles 10-15% of the nation’s domestic oil, 10-15% of the nation’s
    foreign oil, and is connected to 50% of US refining capacity. LOOP
    is the only US deep water port capable of offloading VLCCs (Very
    Large Crude Carriers) and ULCCs (Ultra Large Crude Carriers).

    Port Fourchon currently services over 90% of the Gulf of Mexico’s
    deep water oil production.

    Overall, Port Fourchon plays a strategic role in furnishing this
    country with about 18% of its entire oil supply.

    Over 400 large supply vessels traverse the port’s channels each day.

    Approximately 15,000 people per month are flown to offshore
    locations supported by Port Fourchon.

    Truck traffic studies have shown that up to 1,200 trucks per day
    travel in and out of Port Fourchon.

    Over 1.5 million barrels of crude oil per day are transported via
    pipelines through the port.

Ida is likely to cause catastrophic damage to the port, and leave it cut 
off from the rest of the state as a result of storm surge flooding of 
Highway 1. Potential serious oil spills in Port Fourchon are also a 
concern given its numerous tank farms.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/catastrophic-hurricane-ida-hits-louisiana-with-150-mph-winds/



[Books]
*Penguin Classics Launches “New Canon” of Environmental Literature*
“This series feels like a collective expression of love and grief for 
the living world.”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/08/penguin-classics-launches-new-canon-environmental-literature-books/



["survival migrant" interview https://youtu.be/sweXVUuPhYY]
*Alice Hill | Adaptation Critical To Our Global Climate Preparedness 
Strategy*
Aug 30, 2021
Nick Breeze

In this episode of Shaping The Future, I am speaking with Alice Hill who 
was Special Assistant to President Obama at the White House and Senior 
Director for Resilience Policy at the National Security Council, working 
on climate change and pandemic preparedness.

Timestamps based on interview questions:

    01:20 Most of the narrative around our climate change response at
    the moment is very focussed on mitigation and debate rages on,
    regarding whether we are doing enough, fast enough. Your book is a
    very pragmatic and, in many ways reassuring, breakdown of what we
    need to do to adapt to climate impacts. Can you start by giving us
    some background on what led you to write a book that is essentially
    a global climate preparedness strategy?
    03:16 Early on in the book you refer to failures of imagination that
    mean we cannot prepare effectively. Can you elaborate on what this
    means and the tools that will need to be developed and deployed in
    order to fill the imagination gap?
    06:40 We are getting strong signals now of what extreme
    climate-driven impacts look like. You discuss preparedness for
    concurrent and consecutive disasters. Can you give an example of
    this kind of scenario and the resilience that would be needed?
    09:00 If you take the US, or Europe, for example, we don’t seem to
    hear much talk about preparation for adaptation, compared to places
    like Bangladesh, despite the impacts becoming more severe and
    widespread. Why is it so hard for developed nations to get ahead on
    this?
    14:10 You outline some excellent examples of leadership success and
    leadership failures, making the point that leadership matters.
    Looking at how countries have responded to the pandemic, there are
    obvious winners and losers but, generally, are you seeing the
    leadership qualities we need to steer us through the critical
    resilience building years ahead?
    15:40 Another major theme you highlight is the borderless nature of
    climate change and how our response should be equally borderless. If
    you take a country like the UK and even the US, it seems that we
    have an unhelpful obsession with borders. How does greater
    resilience relate to greater cross-border cooperation?
    *Include water sharing (17:25).
    19:10 You use the term ‘survival migrants’ in the book - what are
    these and how do they fit into the landscape of global change we are
    entering?
    20:05 Is this one issue perhaps a great test of our empathy and
    humanity?
    28:00 How close are we to the point where insurers (and re-insurers)
    stop insuring?
    31:25 In a press conference a few days ago with an agricultural
    producer in the US I asked how much of their climate strategy was
    allocated towards adaptation. The answer came back that the focus
    was purely on mitigation. Can you end by summarising why adaptation
    planning and mitigation strategies must be treated with equal
    seriousness right now?

[END]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sweXVUuPhYY


[Elizabeth Kolbert is the queen of climate reporting]
*The U.N.’s Terrifying Climate Report*
Scientists predict hotter heat waves and worse flooding in the decades 
ahead, but the catastrophe is evident everywhere this summer.

By Elizabeth Kolbert

August 15, 2021
In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization teamed up with the United 
Nations Environment Programme to form a body with an even more 
cumbersome title, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or, as 
it quickly became known, the I.P.C.C. The I.P.C.C.’s structure was every 
bit as ungainly as its name. Any report that the group issued had to be 
approved not just by the researchers who collaborated on it but also by 
the governments of the member countries, which today number a hundred 
and ninety-five. The process seemed guaranteed to produce gridlock, and, 
by many accounts, that was the point of it. (One of the architects of 
the I.P.C.C. was the Reagan Administration.) Indeed, when the scientists 
drew up their first report, in 1990, the diplomats tried so hard to 
water down their conclusions that the whole enterprise nearly collapsed. 
Every five or six years since then, the group has updated its findings, 
using the same procedure.

It’s in this context that the latest I.P.C.C. effort, released last 
week, has to be read—or, more likely, not read. Even the shortest and 
snappiest version of the report, the so-called Summary for Policymakers, 
which, at forty-one pages, is just one per cent of the length of the 
full document, is, in its mix of the technical and the turgid, pretty 
much impenetrable. Still, it manages to terrify. Owing to humans, the 
report states, the world has warmed by more than one degree 
Celsius—nearly two degrees Fahrenheit. Global temperatures are now 
higher than at any other time in the past hundred and twenty-five 
thousand years. Anthropogenic warming, the report observes, is already 
producing fiercer heat waves, heavier rainstorms, and more violent 
cyclones. In the coming decades, still hotter heat waves and worse 
flooding are to be expected, as events that are now considered extreme 
become commonplace. On Twitter, the climate activist Greta Thunberg 
described the I.P.C.C. report as a “solid (but cautious) summary of the 
current best available science.” The U.N. Secretary-General, António 
Guterres, called it a “code red for humanity.”

Of course, these days, you don’t need to be a climate scientist to know 
which way the smoke is blowing. As Corinne Le Quéré, a climate modeller 
at the University of East Anglia and one of the authors of the I.P.C.C. 
report, told the Washington Post, “It’s now become actually quite 
obvious to people what is happening, because we see it with our own 
eyes.” Just before the report came out, the Dixie Fire, burning 
northeast of Sacramento, became the largest single fire on record in 
California. (Last summer’s August Complex Fire is still the largest over 
all, but it was made up of multiple fires that started separately.) On 
Wednesday, the National Weather Service warned, “Stifling summer heat to 
stretch from coast-to-coast.” That day, about two hundred million 
Americans were under some kind of heat advisory.

Elsewhere in the world last week, the situation was similarly grim. The 
city of Siracusa, in Sicily, set what appears to be a new European 
temperature record of 119.8 degrees. More than sixty people were killed 
by wildfires in Algeria, which was also experiencing intense heat. 
Wildfires in Greece prompted the country’s Prime Minister to declare a 
“natural disaster of unprecedented dimensions,” and in the Chinese 
province of Sichuan more than eighty thousand people were evacuated 
because of flooding caused by torrential rains.

As the world fried and boiled, Washington continued to do what it does 
best, which is argue. On Tuesday, the Senate approved its much touted 
bipartisan infrastructure package. It allocates billions of dollars for 
climate-related projects, such as upgrading the electrical grid and 
improving public transportation. But the level of funding falls far 
short of what is needed, and key provisions—including standards that 
would compel utilities to move away from fossil fuels—are missing. 
Meanwhile, the bill contains a great deal of spending that’s likely to 
increase carbon emissions. Senate Democrats have promised to do better 
in their $3.5-trillion budget-reconciliation bill, the broad outlines of 
which they approved last week, on a party-line vote. The reconciliation 
bill is supposed to include, among many other climate-related measures, 
incentives for utilities to switch to cleaner energy sources, and 
penalties for those that fail to. But, in an awkward twist, drafting the 
details of this program will fall to the Senate’s Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, which is headed by the fossil-fuel-friendly Joe 
Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia. In the House, progressive 
representatives have pressed Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to schedule a vote 
on the infrastructure package until the final budget-reconciliation bill 
has been approved by the Senate. Moderates have countered by threatening 
that they won’t vote for the resolution that would begin the budget 
process in the House until there is a vote on the infrastructure package.

Every delay matters. Three decades have passed since the I.P.C.C. 
released its first report. During that time, annual global emissions 
have nearly doubled, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere put 
there by humans has more than doubled. As a result, the world is rapidly 
approaching thresholds that no sane person would want to cross. The goal 
of the Paris Agreement, approved in 2015, was to hold “the increase in 
the global average temperature to well below” two degrees Celsius and to 
try to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.

The I.P.C.C. considered five possible futures. Under one scenario—the 
most optimistic, though by no means the most realistic—carbon emissions w
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/23/the-uns-terrifying-climate-report


[Lies and ethics]
MARCH 2, 2021
*Liars - Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception*
Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein offered his thoughts on how to limit 
false information in the public forum while protecting free speech. This 
virtual program was hosted by the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
[transcript available on page ]
https://www.c-span.org/video/?509533-1/liars-falsehoods-free-speech-age-deception

- -

[his book]
*Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception (INALIENABLE 
RIGHTS) 1st Edition*
by Cass R. Sunstein
Editorial Reviews
Review

"A passionate and forceful argument from America's pre-eminent legal 
scholar that our law ought to do more to protect the public from the 
harms of falsehood." -- Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law 
School

"An increasing amount of what we hear and read is demonstrably factually 
false, and the acceptance of falsity has grave consequences for 
democratic decision-making. Drawing on legal doctrine, psychological 
research, and an impressive command of the dynamics of modern media, 
Cass Sunstein offers a
sobering explanation of why factual falsity is increasingly prevalent in 
contemporary public discourse and why American free speech doctrine may 
do more to exacerbate than alleviate the problem. This book is essential 
reading in the modern political and media environment." -- Frederick 
Schauer,
David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of 
Virginia

"An insightful, balanced, and readable book, by one of America's leading 
legal scholars ― whether you ultimately agree with its suggestions or 
not, you will learn much from its analysis." -- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. 
Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
About the Author

Cass R. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard 
University. From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In 2018, he received the 
Holberg Prize from the Government of Norway, often described as the 
equivalent of the
Nobel Prize for law and humanities. Founder and director of the Program 
on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School, he has 
been involved in law reform activities in nations all over the world. He 
is the author of many articles and books, including Nudge, How Change 
Happens, and
Too Much Information.
https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Falsehoods-Speech-Deception-INALIENABLE/dp/0197545114



[Disinformation sadism]
*As denying climate change becomes impossible, fossil-fuel interests 
pivot to 'carbon shaming'*
Aylin Woodward - -Aug 28, 2021
Fossil-fuel interests no longer bother denying that climate change is real.
So they've pivoted to new tactics, including painting climate advocates 
as hypocrites.
Drawing attention to advocates' non-eco-friendly habits undermines their 
credibility and distracts from policy changes.

After Prince Harry told Oprah Winfrey that climate change and mental 
health are two of the "most important issues facing the world today," 
the New York Post threw the words back at him. In a story earlier this 
week, the Post reported that the "double-talking dilettante" had taken a 
private plane from Colorado to California.

Sky News and The Times too, have lambasted Harry's carbon-intensive 
jetsetting. All three publications are tied to Rupert Murdoch's News 
Corporation, which previously denied the science of climate change. 
Murdoch is on the advisory board of Genie Energy, an energy company that 
invests in oil and gas projects.

London mayor Sadiq Khan, an anti-pollution advocate, got similar 
treatment from The Sun, another Murdoch-owned publication, for flying 
32,000 miles between 2016 and 2019 and purchasing 4.3 million paper 
towels in a year.

According to Michael Mann, an atmospheric science professor at 
Pennsylvania State University, these types of stories are part of a 
larger strategy: Groups that support the continued use of fossil fuels 
have increasingly begun to point out climate advocates' seemingly 
hypocritical behavior, rather than denying that climate change is real. 
It's one of many new strategies the fossil-fuel industry has adopted, 
according to Mann's latest book "The New Climate War."

Mann told Insider that in his view, "2009-2010 was the last hurrah for 
good old fashioned climate-change denialism." By 2019, 62% of Americans 
agreed that climate change was affecting their day-to-day lives.

"It's beyond not being able to deny the science," he said. "It's now a 
matter of having to deny reality."

Hurricane delta flooding louisiana car street baker
A car moves through a flooded street as Hurricane Delta approaches, in 
Baker, Louisiana, October 9, 2020. Marco Bello/Reuters
So instead of hammering the "climate change isn't happening" message, 
the fossil-fuel industry now seems to be fostering finger-pointing and 
infighting among environmentalists. That siphons time and attention away 
from efforts to bring about systemic changes to cut emissions — policies 
like carbon taxes, incentives for renewable energy, or restrictions on 
fossil-fuel infrastructure.

"What better way to discredit thought leaders and key messengers than to 
tar them as hypocrites based on accusations that they don't walk the 
walk?" Mann said.

'Mr. Global Warming?'
Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore, and Barack Obama have all been targets of 
this "climate hypocrisy" line of attack.

DiCaprio started a multi-million dollar environmental conservation fund 
and used his 2016 Oscars speech to talk about the climate crisis. But 
when he flew from France to New York in a private jet to accept an 
environmental award later that year, the headlines followed.

"Hollywood hypocrite's global warming sermon," the Herald Sun's read. 
(The Herald Sun also belongs to Murdoch's news empire.) The New York 
Post called DiCaprio a "megapolluter" and "Mr. Global Warming," and 
suggested that the actor's flight "expanded his carbon footprint by 
8,000 miles in about 24 hours."

Gore, meanwhile, is known for the 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient 
Truth." But after he starred in a sequel to the film in 2017, an op-ed 
in The Daily Caller suggested that Gore's home devoured 34 times more 
energy than the average US household. The Daily Caller, founded by 
Tucker Carlson, received $3.5 million in funding from the Koch Family 
Foundations and the Charles Koch Institute in the last decade. According 
to Greenpeace, the Koch brothers spent $15 million to finance 90 groups 
that attacked climate science and policy between 1997 and 2018.

The Daily Caller piece was written by Drew Johnson, founder of the 
Beacon Center of Tennessee, a libertarian think tank. Johnson was, for 
the most part, doubling down on a tactic that had worked for him a 
decade earlier.

"He tells other people how to live and he's not following his own 
rules," Johnsen told ABC in 2007, after the center published a report 
describing how Gore's 20-room home used 20 times as much electricity as 
the average American house.

The criticism of Obama came in 2019, when an op-ed in the Hill blasted 
him for buying a house in Martha's Vineyard. Purchasing ocean-front 
property, the piece argued, suggests one isn't actually worried about 
sea-level rise. The article was written by Katie Pavlich, an alumna of 
the Young Americans' Foundation — an outreach organization of the 
conservative movement with financial ties to the Koch Brothers.

"If the former president is truly concerned about sea levels rising as a 
result of climate change," Pavlich wrote, "his latest real estate 
purchase places doubts on his sincerity."

That type of argument, Mann said, directs attention away from the 
companies emitting the carbon that contributes to sea-level rise.

"It would be funny if it weren't so pernicious," he added.

'Carbon shaming'

Shaz Attari, a climate-communications researcher at Indiana University 
Bloomington, thinks this new tactic is working. Her research suggests 
that scientists and communicators with large carbon footprints have less 
credibility than those with reduced carbon consumption, and that people 
are more likely to support policies or recommendations if the leader 
promoting them has a small carbon footprint.

"When it comes to message uptake, advocates are judged for inconsistency 
between their behavior and advocacy," Attari told Insider. "This 
judgement is dominated by flying or home energy consumption."

Attari said she even once gave a talk in New York City about reducing 
personal energy use, and someone in the audience asked: "Hey, you flew 
to this meeting — why should I listen to what you say?"

"The tactic of carbon shaming is quite an effective way of inciting 
infighting among climate advocates," Mann said. "There are armies of 
bots and trolls deployed to generate these arguments online of, 'Why do 
you fly?' 'Why aren't you a vegan?'"

'Climate sadism'
Mark Maslin, an Earth science researcher at the University College 
London, told Insider that "attacking the messenger has always been part 
and parcel" of fossil-fuel interests' strategy to counter environmental 
movements.

What's changed, he said, is the tenor of these attacks, which Maslin 
says have escalated into a vicious pageantry of "climate sadism."

Take, for example, the backlash against Greta Thunberg. The teenage 
activist is a difficult target for the hypocrisy argument, since she 
doesn't eat meat or fly. One staff member at the Heartland Institute, a 
Koch-funded think tank, did point out that the boat Thunberg once used 
to cross the Atlantic was made of plastic, but for the most part, 
conservatives and anti-environmentalists have chosen to target 
Thunberg's personality instead.

Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg speaks at the 'Friday 
Strike For Climate' on March 6, 2020, in Brussels, Belgium. Thierry 
Monasse/Getty Images
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called her a "little brat" in 2019. 
Donald Trump said she had an "anger management problem."

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles called Thunberg, who has 
Asperger's syndrome, "a mentally ill Swedish child" on Fox News. Fox 
host Laura Ingraham, meanwhile, compared the Thunberg's youth climate 
movement to a murderous cult of children from a Stephen King novel.

"The blowback is directly related to the impact you're having," Kim 
Cobb, a climate scientist from Georgia Tech, told Insider. Thunberg's 
movement, she added, was "striking a nerve with every single human on 
the planet at that point."

The Heartland Institute even briefly worked with the German 
anti-environmental group EIKE to hire a German teenager, Naomi Seibt, to 
fashion herself as an antithesis to Thunberg.

"Many people believe I'm being pushed as an 'Anti-Greta,'" Seibt told 
Insider last year.

"It's wrong to look up to her as a climate puppet and symbol," Seibt 
said of Thunberg, adding, "I don't want people to panic about the world 
ending."

Over the course of four months, for a monthly salary of $2,000, Seibt 
produced videos for the institute like "Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: 
Whom should we trust?" and spoke at the 2020 Conservative Political 
Action Conference. Seibt quietly parted ways with Heartland in April 2020.

"The Anti-Greta just shows how cynical they are," Mann said, adding, 
"they think it's all a shell game about distraction and deception — 
that's what they've got left."

In Prince Harry's case, reports about his plane flights do seem to have 
discredited the prince's climate agenda. A recent Newsweek poll in the 
UK found that 66% of respondents viewed the prince as "hypocritical on 
air travel." But the number most stories about Harry's trip left out is 
the US's total emissions from fossil fuels: 4,853 million metric tons of 
carbon in 2019 alone.

Harry's private flight from Aspen to Santa Barbara, meanwhile, emitted 
at most 9 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fossil-fuel-interests-target-climate-advocates-personally-2021-8



[The news archive - looking back]
*On this day in the history of global warming August 30, 2005*
In an essay published in the Boston Globe, and republished the next day 
in the New York Times, Ross Gelbspan writes:
"The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by 
the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming."
http://web.archive.org/web/20130618033413/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0830-22.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/20210830/5fef0eae/attachment.htm>