[TheClimate.Vote] February 26, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*February 26, 2021*/

[slow flow]
*Scientists see stronger evidence of slowing Atlantic Ocean circulation, 
an ‘Achilles’ heel’ of the climate*
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, a system of currents, 
is weaker than it has been in 1,000 years.  It has long been considered 
capable of a sudden shutdown, which could have dramatic climate effects.
By Chris Mooney and Andrew Freedman - Feb. 25, 2021
A growing body of evidence suggests that a massive change is underway in 
the sensitive circulation system of the Atlantic Ocean, a group of 
scientists said Thursday.

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), a system of 
currents that includes the Florida Current and the Gulf Stream, is now 
“in its weakest state in over a millennium,” these experts say. This has 
implications for everything from the climate of Europe to the rates of 
sea-level rise along the U.S. East Coast.

Although evidence of the system’s weakening has been published before, 
the new research cites 11 sources of “proxy” evidence of the 
circulation’s strength, including clues hidden in seafloor mud as well 
as patterns of ocean temperatures. The enormous flow has been directly 
measured only since 2004, too short a period to definitively establish a 
trend, which makes these indirect measures critical for understanding 
its behavior.

The new research applies a statistical analysis to show that those 
measures are in sync and that nine out of 11 show a clear trend.

Prior research had suggested that the AMOC was at its weakest point in a 
millennium or more, and suggested a roughly 15 percent weakening since 
about 1950. But when it comes to the latest evidence, “I think it just 
makes this conclusion considerably stronger,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, an 
author of the research and an oceanographer with the Potsdam Institute 
for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

The study was published in Nature Geoscience by scientists from the 
Potsdam Institute, Ireland’s Maynooth University and University College 
London.

The AMOC is driven by two vital components of ocean water: temperature 
and salt. In the North Atlantic, warm, salty water flows northward off 
the U.S. coastline, carrying heat from the tropics. But as it reaches 
the middle latitudes, it cools, and around Greenland, the cooling and 
the saltiness create enough density that the water begins to sink deep 
beneath the surface...
- -
The late climate scientist Wallace S. Broecker wrote in 1997 that the 
AMOC is the “Achilles’ heel” of the climate system, citing evidence that 
it has switched on and off repeatedly over the course of Earth’s 
history, with the power to flip warming periods to intense cold in the 
Northern Hemisphere.

Scientists do not expect anything so severe in our future, especially 
because greenhouse gases will continue to cause offsetting warming. 
However, they note that even the modest slowing of 15 percent has been 
accompanied by odd temperature patterns in the ocean and the significant 
upending of certain key fisheries, such as lobster and cod off the coast 
of New England...

more at - 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/02/25/atlantic-ocean-currents-weakening-amoc-gulf-stream/
- -
[slow currents make bad news]
***Atlantic Ocean circulation at weakest in a millennium, say scientists*
Decline in system underpinning Gulf Stream could lead to more extreme 
weather in Europe and higher sea levels on US east coast
Published: 25 February 2021
*Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last 
millennium*
L. Caesar, G. D. McCarthy, D. J. R. Thornalley, N. Cahill & S. Rahmstorf

Abstract

    The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—one of
    Earth’s major ocean circulation systems—redistributes heat on our
    planet and has a major impact on climate. Here, we compare a variety
    of published proxy records to reconstruct the evolution of the AMOC
    since about AD 400. A fairly consistent picture of the AMOC emerges:
    after a long and relatively stable period, there was an initial
    weakening starting in the nineteenth century, followed by a second,
    more rapid, decline in the mid-twentieth century, leading to the
    weakest state of the AMOC occurring in recent decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic-ocean-circulation-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists
---
[Source of concern - Wally Broecker's 1997 article]
*Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate System: Will 
Man-Made CO2 Upset the Current Balance?*
Wallace S. Broecker
DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5343.1582
Abstract
During the last glacial period, Earth's climate underwent frequent large 
and abrupt global changes. This behavior appears to reflect the ability 
of the ocean's thermohaline circulation to assume more than one mode of 
operation. The record in ancient sedimentary rocks suggests that similar 
abrupt changes plagued the Earth at other times. The trigger mechanism 
for these reorganizations may have been the antiphasing of polar 
insolation associated with orbital cycles. Were the ongoing increase in 
atmospheric CO2 levels to trigger another such reorganization, it would 
be bad news for a world striving to feed 11 to 16 billion people.
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Broecker_97_Science278.pdf



[BBC report]*
**President Joe Biden asks Anna Hursey, 14, for climate advice*
Climate change: Biden takes advice from a 14-year-old athlete
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-56203565

- -

[Family matters]
*Here’s how to talk with your kids about climate anxiety*
By Ariella Cook-Shonkoff on Feb 23, 2021

Kids want to trust that grown-ups have a plan. But when it comes to 
climate change, adults have left the next generation with more questions 
than answers.

Growing up, I thought my parents knew what to do about everything, 
including caring for the environment. It was the early ’90s, and most 
environmental campaigns were focused on individual behaviors; our family 
engaged in small actions — cleaning up parks, recycling, carpooling — 
hoping to make a difference. But these solutions obviously were not 
enough to compensate for the government’s failure to act boldly and 
swiftly on the issue.

Now, more than 30 years later, the critical moment is upon us to 
confront global climate change. Who is saving the day? Our own kids.

Greta Thunberg. Alexandria Villaseñor. Autumn Peltier. Xiye Bastida. 
These are some of the young climate leaders who are pushing hard for 
environmental action. Instead of enjoying carefree childhood hobbies, 
they are protesting, litigating, organizing, and public speaking about 
the importance of policy-based climate solutions. Those efforts are 
courageous and inspirational, but teens’ superhero-worthy feats do not 
absolve the rest of us. Kids need parents to engage, too.

As a psychotherapist working with teens, I see firsthand the need for 
parents to share the burden of climate responsibility. Some parents are 
unintentionally dismissive, minimizing, or belittling of their kids’ 
environmental concerns: Don’t worry so much. You’re too young to think 
about these things. Go do something fun and take your mind off it. These 
responses are often rooted in parents’ own triggered and disregarded 
emotions. Other adults are silent on the issue, either because it feels 
too hard or too unpleasant to discuss. Dr. Renee Lertzman, a climate 
engagement strategist, uses the term disavowal to describe this 
behavior: We know the climate crisis is happening, but choose to ignore 
or turn away, focusing elsewhere.

Climate disavowal was already happening in pre-pandemic life, but the 
additional stressors associated with our country’s present situation — 
joblessness, food insecurity, political conflict, pandemic health 
concerns, social isolation — make it even harder to think about 
environmental responsibilities. Psychology helps explain this gap 
between climate awareness, concern, and engagement. People have a 
tendency to prioritize immediate concerns over long-term considerations; 
survival depends on responding to perceived imminent threats. Climate 
change, though a clear peril, remains on the brain’s back burner.’ Many 
American parents are overwhelmed by responsibilities, and 
under-resourced, and there is little bandwidth to tack on one more thing 
at the end of the day.

But climate can’t stay on the back burner forever. Dr. John Fraser, a 
conservation psychologist and CEO of New York-based think tank Knology, 
points out that climate trauma “builds over time” with “the sense that 
the earth is abandoning us.” Meanwhile, young people are asking adults 
to engage with them on environmental issues. When a parent is avoidant 
or uncomfortable, it only makes kids worry more.

“Children and young people tell me that their anxiety is severe,” wrote 
Carol Hickman, a climate psychology researcher at the University of Bath 
in a recently published paper. These feelings worsen if parents “fail to 
understand why and how their worries about the climate and biodiversity 
crisis can affect them daily, constantly.”

In other words, how adults respond to youth matters. Our job isn’t to 
overprotect, scare, stigmatize, or sugarcoat, but to listen to kids’ 
real and valid concerns and then talk about them together. Only then can 
kids and adults work together toward finding a solution. That 
intergenerational collaboration is key. When kids believe adults are 
trusted allies, they can carry less of the emotional burden of climate 
change. Jill Kubit, Co-Founder of Our Kids’ Climate, an international 
organization amplifying parent voices on this issue, says youths are 
“asking for adults to act, and to make changes and decisions, and we 
have the power to do that.”

Kids need parents to act in order to reach the critical mass needed for 
climate action. That’s something Buddhist scholar and environmental 
activist Joanna Macy has described as “the Great Turning,” the profound 
socio-political shift away from “business as usual.” Only when ideas and 
behaviors become contagious, she says, will we be able to tip the scales.

But we have a ways to go before we reach that turning point; the Yale 
Program on Climate Change Communications reported in 2020 that even 
though 66 percent of Americans are at least “somewhat worried” about 
global warming, roughly the same percent said they “rarely” or “never” 
discuss it with friends or family. The climate crisis is already here, 
but many of us still find it, too daunting to think about.

But just because you don’t want to talk with your kids about climate 
change doesn’t make you immune to its effects. As a mother of two 
children living in California, I’ve long known that climate change was 
behind many of the changes visible from my own doorstep — hotter 
summers, drier winters, and longer periods of drought. Even so, I tended 
to ignore the threat — that is, until wildfires scorched the landscape 
around us for each of the last four years. Dealing with orange skies and 
ash-filled air upended ordinary life, demanding additional mental 
exertion. It finally forced me to face my own climate anxiety and grief.

There was one particular day when it all seemed to hit me at once. I had 
just dropped my kids at school when I caught Greta Thurnberg, then 16, 
speaking on the radio. She was addressing the adult members of the 2019 
U.N. Climate Change Summit, her voice shaking with anger.

“I should be in school right now!”

“How dare you!”

“Shame on you!”

Her words seemed to puncture my chest, like an emotional heart attack. 
When I got home, I trudged from car to house, zombie-like. Instead of 
getting dressed for work, I curled up into a couch pretzel and wept.

In my tears, I tasted my own bitter childhood naivete, grief, shame, 
anger, and sorrow. I realized that somewhere in the transition between 
my idealistic youth and my pragmatic parenthood, I’d abandoned my 
commitment to climate action. As co-leader of my high school 
Environmental Club, I’d participated in a panel interview on local TV 
with longtime environmental advocate Jane Goodall. I remember her 
saying, “The greatest danger to our future is apathy.” But it took the 
voice of a Swedish teenager to rouse me from the adult slumber of my 
climate disavowal.

Leslie Davenport, psychotherapist and author of Emotional Resiliency in 
the Era of Climate Change, advises making time for difficult emotions 
and “not just rushing to find the ‘happy’ feelings.” She says ignoring 
climate change feelings is like trying to hold a ball underwater with 
one hand. Instead, she recommends people should strive for a 
climate-specific kind of emotional resilience, increasing our capacity 
“to remain present and engaged as we bear witness to growing distress in 
ourselves, others, and the world.”

For parents, our choice is simple: wake up to climate change or risk 
dying in our sleep. The former choice requires us to acknowledge our 
ambivalence about reducing our carbon footprint. We must ask ourselves 
tough questions: Why is changing our habits, comforts, and the way we 
live so hard? How can we hold elected officials accountable in light of 
the climate task at hand? What sacrifices and compromises must we make 
to avoid the worst impacts of climate change?

There are many ways for parents to step up. We can offset disturbing 
news with inspiring stories, affirmations, and creative acts to bolster 
our families for the climate long-haul: Listen to the poem Earthrise by 
Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman with your kids; get inspired by the 
story of four girls “greening” their school, instead of doomscrolling, 
seek out stories about promising climate policies, laws, and proposals; 
reflect on and write down your deepest hopes and fears — something Kubit 
of Our Kids’ Climate says tends to increase pro-environmental behaviors, 
motivation, and community engagement.

If you feel lost or overwhelmed, try connecting with others. Look up 
parent-centric climate organizations like Parents for Future, Climate 
Mama, Science Moms, Climate Action Families. Join a Carbon Conversation 
or attend a virtual Climate Café, forums for sharing and hearing what 
others have to say about the climate crisis. Spending time in those 
spaces might help you find the words to talk to kids — and other adults! 
— about our rapidly warming world.

So, hop on the bandwagon, grownups! Now that a new administration is 
here and open to prioritizing the environment, parents have a chance to 
join our kids and help shift our country’s values toward a more 
sustainable future.

Future generations, vulnerable ecosystems, and “fenceline” communities 
all depend on our ability to act now. As Kubit puts it, “Parents have a 
unique responsibility because they have someone they love to answer to. 
Our own kids will hold us accountable.”

Ariella Cook-Shonkoff is a licensed psychotherapist and art therapist 
based in Berkeley, California. She is co-chair of Communications/ Media 
at the Climate Psychology Alliance-North America. The views expressed 
here do not reflect any official organizational opinions or positions at 
Grist.
https://grist.org/climate/parent-therapist-how-to-talk-about-climate-change-anxiety-with-kids/


[Alt energy]
*The Wild Ways Local Governments Are Blocking Renewable Energy*
Molly Taft - Feb, 25, 2021

“Shadow flicker” from wind turbines, concerns about sparrow habitat on 
landfills, and worries about “toxic chemicals” from solar panels are 
just some of the ways municipalities are slowing down renewables 
installation.

A new report exhaustively chronicles the local resistance to renewable 
energy at play in the U.S. The report, published this week by the Sabin 
Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, finds at least 100 
ordinances have been passed in 31 states that block or constrict 
construction of new renewable energy facilities. Meanwhile, least 152 
proposed projects in 48 states have been opposed or contested by local 
groups. At a time when the U.S. needs to be stepping up renewables 
installation, these laws are slowing the transition.

“The report includes local laws that either placed a moratorium or 
outright ban on wind or solar energy development; imposed regulations 
that are so restrictive that they act as a de facto ban; or were 
designed to block a specific project,” Hillary Aidun, a lawyer with the 
Sabin Center who supervised the research, said over email.

There are some actions and legislations described in the report that 
explicitly frame renewables as a threat to fossil fuels, and indeed, 
some have direct backing from industry. Alduin noted that the proposed 
Wind Catcher project in Texas—which would have been the largest wind 
farm in the U.S.—was blocked by regulators in 2018 thanks in part to 
opposition from the Koch-funded group, Americans for Prosperity. One 
county commissioner in New Mexico is holding up development of a solar 
plant based on the “impact it could have on the region’s oil and gas 
industry,” while citizens in North Dakota also defeated a wind farm in 
2018 using pro-coal arguments. But there’s far more sneak attacks on 
renewable energy that limit how projects can move forward that don’t 
mention fossil fuels at all.

“We found a number of laws that on their face merely regulate wind and 
solar energy siting—which is local governments’ prerogative—but in 
effect, completely bar new development because they are so restrictive,” 
Aidun said. “For example, some local laws discussed in our report 
require wind turbines to be located 2,000 feet or more from any 
residence. In many places, it is impossible to construct an economically 
viable wind farm that can meet such a stringent setback requirement.”

In describing challenges to local projects from residents, the report 
also paints a valuable portrait of NIMBYism by cataloging the various 
avenues used to push back against renewables. In addition to worries 
about land use and properly sited projects, there’s concern over 
minutiae of species and environment conservation; a solar project 
planned on a landfill in Amherst, Massachusetts was ultimately scrapped 
because it could hurt the habitat of an endangered sparrow. (Residents 
had made no mention of the sparrow’s fate in their first try at blocking 
the project, which was solely based on the use of the land in question.)

Then there’s the wild pseudoscientific claims. Another solar farm in 
Massachusetts was defeated in 2012 after residents raised concerns over 
“toxic chemicals in the panels and the output of electromagnetic 
frequency,” while citizens in Colorado cited “shadow flicker” as a 
reason not to build a proposed wind farm.

And looking a little closer at some of the local groups behind these 
challenges shows that while fossil fuel money may not be directly 
involved, right-wing funded hysteria and lies about renewable power can 
easily leak into, and fuel, local opposition efforts. At least two of 
the local groups named in the report as successfully opposing wind farms 
in New York and Michigan were actively sharing anti-wind propaganda 
around the Texas blackouts on their Facebook pages last week.

It’s not unreasonable for residents to want to protest improperly sited 
construction projects (per the report, one wind farm in California was 
defeated based on how it would interfere with a sacred prayer site of a 
local tribe), and it’s important to protect public health and the 
environment with any new development. But we need to build a whole lot 
of renewable projects, in a lot of different places, really soon if 
there’s any hope of transitioning off fossil fuels in the next decade 
and wavering the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

Local groups concerned about the “character” of their county or how a 
solar farm might change the view from their home need to ask some hard 
questions about how climate change may also destroy the places they know 
and love. And anti-renewable interests who may want to encourage this 
kind of opposition have an arsenal of tools at their disposal from fake 
health impacts, to lies about grid reliability, to overwrought concern 
about the “waste” generated from renewable energy.

State legislatures, almost exclusively at the behest of conservative 
lawmakers, have also passed increasingly draconian laws criminalizing 
protests against fossil fuel infrastructure. The American Legislative 
Exchange Council, a right-wing think tank with ties to the Koch 
brothers, has gained notoriety since the Dakota Access Pipeline protests 
by pushing the draft of a bill that would criminalize anti-pipeline 
protests onto state lawmakers. The effort has been a success. As of this 
month, 14 states have approved a version of the legislation, while four 
states are considering their own bills.

The Sabin Center report found no concrete evidence of a larger, 
coordinated ALEC-like hand at play with opposing renewables. But it’s 
not out of the question to think that local lawmakers may be looking at 
each other’s homework when figuring out ways to oppose a solar farm, or 
that local anti-wind groups are looking to each other for inspiration on 
Facebook.

Aidun pointed out that if attacks on renewables continue to intensify, 
people in favor of the projects will need backup to properly face some 
of these opponents. (The Sabin Center has partnered with a law firm to 
form a coalition of lawyers who provide pro bono assistance to local 
groups who want to support renewables projects; that organization 
supported the production of this report.)

“While renewable energy opponents tend to be organized, vocal, and 
well-resourced, there are often local residents who support wind and 
solar energy projects–because they are concerned about climate change or 
welcome the economic benefits these projects provide–but who are afraid 
to speak out or who lack the resources to fully participate in 
decision-making processes,” Aidun said.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-wild-ways-local-governments-are-blocking-renewable-1846355479



[dangers in small, rural Western towns]
*Cascadia mapping shows communities most vulnerable to effects of 
climate change*
By PETER FAIRLEY (InvestigateWest)
Feb. 25, 2021
Residents of 152 cities and towns in the Pacific Northwest are 
particularly vulnerable to climate-fueled wildfires. Residents of 60 
other communities are most susceptible to floods. And people living in 
75 towns are most liable to suffer — maybe even die — because of heat waves.

That’s according to a new analysis released Wednesday by news agency 
InvestigateWest and planning firm Headwaters Economics. It drills down 
to towns where, for example, sparse tree canopies and older residents 
make communities more susceptible to heat waves than younger populations 
in leafier places.

The analysis looks at likely climate disasters and examines factors such 
as the number of people with disabilities, how many live in poverty, the 
proportion that rents their home and how many of the vulnerable are 
Black, Indigenous or people of color.

In short, the analysis pinpoints how the human toll liable to be taken 
by climate change spreads far across the map, especially into rural 
areas of Washington and Oregon. It highlights where circumstances such 
as income and race will — without targeted action — place communities at 
greater risk as climate change advances.

It’s just the latest in a series of studies to create new data-driven 
methods to identify and address unequal environmental risks.
- -
Grand Coulee Mayor Paul Townsend told InvestigateWest he has “a hard 
time” seeing the connection between climate change and natural 
disasters, such as the wildfires that threatened his community in 2020.

“I have mixed emotions about the whole climate change issue,” Townsend said.

Nor does better information guarantee that action will follow. Townsend, 
for one, acknowledges that Grand Coulee has vulnerable residents. But he 
said in the case of a disaster, better information would be of little 
use without state and federal support.

“Some people have no financial resources for any kind of shelter. And, 
of course, our city revenues don’t have any margin for helping with 
that,” said Townsend.

Washington state officials are working to alert rural citizens to the 
threat.

Last month a reporter from Wenatchee asked the head of Washington’s 
Energy Policy Office what help the state’s newly released 
decarbonization plan offered to rural citizens, such as farmers and 
ranchers who use a lot of diesel fuel. Glenn Blackmon had a specific 
answer, noting the plan’s call for production of clean fuels, including 
hydrogen likely to be generated by utilities in eastern Washington.

But his first response served as a warning.

“If we’re not successful in addressing climate impacts, rural areas will 
be among the hardest hit with things like wildfires,” Blackmon said.
https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/25/cascadia-mapping-shows-communities-most-vulnerable-to-effects-of-climate-change/

- -
[Source material}
*Mapping Climate Vulnerability*
InvestigateWest is a nonprofit investigative journalism newsroom located 
in Seattle, WA. We focus on critical issues that impact our communities 
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Cascadia, with a special focus on 
environment, government and corporate accountability, and public health.

*Wildfire Vulnerability*
As part of the yearlong reporting project “Getting to Zero: 
Decarbonizing Cascadia,” InvestigateWest commissioned a set of maps that 
provide digital windows into vulnerabilities spanning Washington and 
Oregon that are likely to worsen with climate change. These maps — and 
related tools developed by community advocates, academic researchers and 
governments in Washington, Oregon and British Columbia — are described 
in the Decarbonizing Cascadia series’ fourth article: Visualizing 
Climate-Vulnerable Communities.

The vulnerability maps spotlight a selection of communities in Oregon 
and Washington that bear greater attention as climate change worsens. 
The trio of maps highlight communities that simultaneously face:

    above-average risk of experiencing wildfire, flooding or extreme
    heat, and
    above-average prevalence of characteristics that tend to make
    communities more vulnerable to those climate impacts.

Consider wildfire vulnerability. Fire risk predictions by U.S. Forest 
Service scientists, developed for the agency’s Wildfire Risk to 
Communities information service, show that Washington and Oregon’s most 
intense wildfires are most likely to occur east of the Cascade Mountains.

But the interactive Wildfire Vulnerability mapplots more than just 
communities facing heightened fire risk. It highlights communities that 
face heightened risk as well as above-average levels of poverty and 
rental housing — including some towns and small cities west of the Cascades.

The socioeconomic factors matter because they limit residents’ ability 
to prevent fires by, for example, upgrading to fire-resistant roofing.

One observation that jumps out of all three maps: climate vulnerability 
is to be found across Cascadia.

Learn more about the highlighted communities by using the map’s 
interactive tools. Zoom in anywhere by panning and double-clicking. 
Hover over the dots to see data on each community. Learn more by 
clicking on a community and then clicking the provided link.

*Data sources*
Montana-based Headwaters Economics created the interactive 
visualizations using a pair of powerful mapping tools that the community 
planning firm launched last year.

Socioeconomic variables are from the 2018 U.S. Census Bureau’s American 
Community Survey. Variables include the percent of families in poverty; 
people who are Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latino, and/or Native American; 
housing units that are rentals; people over the age of 65; and people 
with disabilities. Average values are for Oregon and Washington combined.

Wildfire risk is the “risk to homes” data from USDA Forest Service 
Wildfire Risk to Communities. “Wildfire risk rank in state” is shown as 
a percentile for each state individually. For example, if an Oregon 
community’s “wildfire risk rank” is 80, it has greater wildfire risk to 
homes than 80% of the communities in Oregon.

Flood risk is from FEMA and is shown as the percent of land in a 
community within the 500-year floodplain, which includes all 100-year 
floodplain areas. Average is for Oregon and Washington combined.

Heat exposure is from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 
Consortium and it shows area lacking tree canopy based on remotely 
sensed data from 2016. Average is for Oregon and Washington combined.
https://www.invw.org/2021/02/24/mapping-climate-vulnerability/


[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - February 26, 2003 *

The New York Times reports:

"A panel of experts has strongly criticized the Bush administration's 
proposed research plan on the risks of global warming, saying that it 
'lacks most of the elements of a strategic plan' and that its goals 
cannot be achieved without far more money than the White House has 
sought for climate research.

"The 17 experts, in a report issued yesterday, said that without 
substantial changes, the administration's plan would be unlikely to 
accomplish the aim laid out by President Bush in several speeches: to 
help decision makers and the public determine how serious the problem is 
so that they can make clear choices about how to deal with it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/us/panel-of-experts-faults-bush-plan-to-study-climate.html


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

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes. 
Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20210226/bda4c56f/attachment.html>