[TheClimate.Vote] January 29, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Jan 29 10:03:40 EST 2021
/*January 29, 2021*/
[Military News]
*Climate change is now a national security priority for the Pentagon*
By: Aaron Mehta -Jan 28, 2021
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will begin incorporating climate analysis into
its war-gaming and analysis efforts as well as featuring the issue as
part of its future National Defense Strategy.
The announcement by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin came shortly after
President Joe Biden signed a series of executive orders targeting the
climate crisis.
The Defense Department “will immediately take appropriate policy actions
to prioritize climate change considerations in our activities and risk
assessments, to mitigate this driver of insecurity. As directed by the
President, we will include the security implications of climate change
in our risk analyses, strategy development, and planning guidance,”
Austin said in a statement...
“As a leader in the interagency, the Department of Defense will also
support incorporating climate risk analysis into modeling, simulation,
wargaming, analysis, and the next National Defense Strategy. And by
changing how we approach our own carbon footprint, the Department can
also be a platform for positive change, spurring the development of
climate-friendly technologies at scale.”
“There is little about what the Department does to defend the American
people that is not affected by climate change,” Austin concluded. “It is
a national security issue, and we must treat it as such.”
For years, the DoD has acknowledged that environmental change could pose
a threat to military capabilities. In fiscal 2020, the department doled
out $67 million in funds to help bases alleviate or repair
climate-related damage. A 2018 report by the Center for Climate and
Security identified a number of key domestic military installations,
including both North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton in
California, as at-risk from climate change. In 2019, a number of bases
were hit by large weather events, including Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska, which required more than $400 million in repairs...
But under the Trump administration, defense officials were careful to
use such statements to acknowledge logistical concerns and they refused
to comment on whether climate change is real or human-made.
That is now officially changed — unsurprisingly, given the focus Biden
said his administration will place on fighting climate change, including
putting former Secretary of State John Kerry into a new role with the
National Security Council, where he will focus entirely on the issue.
The public version of the Trump administration’s National Security
Strategy included only a single mention of climate-related concerns; the
public version of the National Defense Strategy, a more DoD-focused
document, did not raise the issue. Austin’s statement could be a sign
the issue will feature prominently whenever the next NDS is released.
The indication from Austin that the department will look to change its
carbon footprint is also notable, as the Pentagon is often reported as
being the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in the United States.
Already, planners in the department were looking for alternatives, such
as nuclear reactors, to help limit the logistics train needed for the
military.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2021/01/27/climate-change-is-now-a-national-security-priority-for-the-pentagon/
[Promises, promises]
*Wind, solar, and coal: Joe Biden’s curious renewable energy cocktail*
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY on 1/28/2021
WASHINGTON (Bloomberg) --President Joe Biden enlisted the entire U.S.
government in the fight against climate change on Wednesday, even
telling the Central Intelligence Agency to consider global warming a
national security threat.
Yet he left out coal -- the fossil fuel most widely blamed for global
warming -- when he froze the sale of leases to extract oil and gas from
federal land.
It was a conspicuous omission for a president who has vowed to make the
electric grid carbon-free by 2035 and who has said the world’s “future
rests in renewable energy.”
“This order should have included all fossil fuel extraction on public
lands,” said Mitch Jones, policy director at the environmental group
Food and Water Watch, who called the decision to leave out coal both “a
disappointment” and “scientifically unsound.” “For years we’ve been
force fed the false idea that fracked gas -- fracked methane -- is
cleaner than coal, but, now, coal gets a pass?” Jones said. “The fight
against climate change demands that we remain vigilant against all
fossil fuel extraction.”
White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy said coal leasing
will still get a review as part of a broad analysis of fossil-fuel
leasing. But unlike oil and gas development on federal land, which Biden
promised to target when running for president, a pause on selling coal
rights “was not part of the commitments on the campaign.”...
- -
Biden ordered the creation of an interagency working group focused on
the coordinating investments and other efforts to assist communities
tied to coal, oil and natural gas.
“We’re never going to forget the men and women who dug the coal and
built the nation,” Biden vowed. “We’re going to do right by them -- make
sure they have opportunities to keep building the nation and their own
communities and getting paid well for it.”
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/1/28/wind-solar-and-coal-joe-biden-s-curious-renewable-energy-cocktail
[Big Cyber hides its face]
*Big Tech says it wants to solve climate change. Its lobbying dollars
say otherwise.*
By Zoya Teirstein on Jan 28, 2021
It’s hard to quantify political power, but it’s safe to say that big
tech companies wield a lot of it. A decade ago, companies like Amazon
and Google employed just a smattering of lobbyists who worked to
influence D.C. policymakers on their behalf. Now, the Big Five tech
companies — Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Amazon — spend tens
of millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress. In 2020, they
collectively spent $61 million domestically lobbying on issues that
included international tax policies, copyright reform, and content policy.
Only a tiny fraction of Big Tech’s legislative lobbying might is going
toward advocating for climate policy, according to a new report from the
think tank InfluenceMap. Between 2019 and 2020, just 4 percent of Apple,
Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft’s
self-reported lobbying activities targeted climate-related policy at the
federal level. In Europe, these companies do even less lobbying on
climate — InfluenceMap says they have been “largely silent on the EU’s
ambitious climate policy agenda.”
This halfhearted effort to promote climate-friendly policies stands in
sharp contrast to Big Tech’s much-publicized promises to lead the rest
of the business sector, and indeed the entire world, toward a greener
future...
Apple, for instance, revealed a plan last summer to make its supply
chain and products carbon neutral by 2030, something CEO Tim Cook said
will be good for the planet and its products. “With our commitment to
carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond that creates a
much larger change,” Cook said. In 2019, Amazon unveiled a climate plan
that aims to get the company to meet the decarbonization requirements of
the Paris Agreement 10 years early. “If we can do this, anyone can do
this,” Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said at the time.
“Climate change is a crisis we will only be able to address if we all
work together on a global scale,” Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said.
Facebook aims to make its global operations net-zero, starting with
making its value chain net-zero by 2030. “We will support new public
policy initiatives to accelerate carbon reduction and removal
opportunities,” Microsoft president Brad Smith wrote in January last
year, outlining seven principles the company will adhere to in its quest
to remove more emissions than it produces by 2030 and eliminate all of
its emissions since 1975 by mid-century. “We know that no company, no
matter how ambitious, can solve a challenge like climate change alone,”
Google said in its sustainability report last September.
It’s clear that these companies like to talk about climate action being
a collective effort. But despite the many detailed climate plans and
pledges, Big Tech has done strikingly little government-level work to
bring about the global-scale climate action it says it wants to see. The
little lobbying the Big Five do has been largely focused on technical
rules that are directly tied to these companies’ abilities to stick to
their climate commitments, like procuring enough renewable energy.
Meanwhile, the world is nowhere near where it needs to be to meet the
climate targets outlined in the Paris Agreement.
“Relative to their scale, they invest very little in saving the planet,”
Nic Bryant, a spokesperson for the climate activist group Extinction
Rebellion, told Grist, referring to tech companies. “These companies
could and should be leading the way.”
What’s more, tech companies are being vastly out-lobbied by Big Oil, the
InfluenceMap report found. Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips,
and BP directed, on average, 38 percent of their legislative lobbying to
climate-related policies between 2019 and 2020. Much of that lobbying
activity was, unsurprisingly, against climate policy.
And during Donald Trump’s presidency, when the federal government did
virtually nothing to address the climate crisis and some states tried to
pick up the slack, the five major tech companies engaged on climate
policy at the state level in less than half of the 22 states where they
are headquartered, own data centers, or have regional offices.
“We worked from a list of almost 50 major climate bills that have been
proposed in states over the last few years, and we found that Big Tech
engaged on only a couple of them,” Kendra Haven, U.S. engagement manager
for InfluenceMap, told Grist. Apple, Google, and Facebook, all
headquartered in California, did almost no lobbying in the state, which
has an aggressive climate agenda. Chevron, by comparison, also based in
California, dedicated 51 percent of its disclosed lobbying activities to
climate policy there.
“These companies have statements that indicate climate is a shared
problem that needs to be addressed by society as a whole,” Dylan Tanner,
executive director of InfluenceMap, told Grist. “The question to
investors and stakeholders in the tech companies is, given this huge
power and then your statements on climate, do you want to leave it up to
a few oil and gas companies to decide the broad agenda on climate?”
Further complicating Big Tech’s stance on climate are its membership in
industry associations. InfluenceMap scored each of the Big Five tech
companies on the climate-friendliness of the industry groups they belong
to. These are organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the most
powerful trade organization in the world, which has lobbied extensively
against climate policy, as well as groups with progressive agendas like
the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance. By looking at Big Tech’s
membership in industry associations across the board, InfluenceMap found
“misalignment between the companies’ own climate lobbying positions and
those of their industry associations.”
“Big Tech has no problem shelling out tens of millions of dollars
jockeying for their own interests in Washington, so we know their
failure to lobby for climate solutions is not due to a lack of means,
but a lack of will,” David Arkush, director of the climate program at
the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, told Grist.
“If they’re serious about climate, they need to push for government
climate action at the scale and speed we need.”
Representatives for two of the tech companies named in the report
asserted that they take climate change seriously. “Amazon believes that
both private and public sector leadership is required to address the
scale of the challenge, and we actively advocate for policies that
promote clean energy and address climate change,” a spokesperson for
Amazon told Grist. “We believe government action is a critical tool to
advance climate solutions, and we will continue advocating for policies
that address the urgency of the climate crisis.”
“We’re committed to fighting climate change and are taking substantive
steps without waiting for any legislative action,” a spokesperson for
Facebook told Grist.
Spokespeople for Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft did not respond to
Grist’s request for comment prior to this article’s publication.
https://grist.org/politics/big-tech-says-it-wants-to-solve-climate-change-its-lobbying-dollars-say-otherwise/
[5 min video interview]
*Shell Oil President on methane emissions, carbon capture*
Jan 24, 2021
PBS NewsHour
Gretchen Watkins, the president of oil and gas major Shell Oil has taken
a tough stand on methane emissions. She joins Hari Sreenivasan to
discuss the methane problem, the need for regulation and her ideas for
what the Biden administration should do to address the issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N00GIqpLl6o
[MIT news]
*MIT convenes influential industry leaders in the fight against climate
change*
The MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium launches with 13 company
members to work with MIT on innovation in climate and sustainability.
Watch Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2L9dG0AVY0&feature=emb_logo
Lori LoTurco | School of Engineering
Publication Date:January 28, 2021
Launched today, the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC)
convenes an alliance of leaders from a broad range of industries and
aims to vastly accelerate large-scale, real-world implementation of
solutions to address the threat of climate change. The MCSC unites
similarly motivated, highly creative and influential companies to work
with MIT to build a process, market, and ambitious implementation
strategy for environmental innovation.
The work of the consortium will involve a true cross-sector
collaboration to meet the urgency of climate change. The MCSC will take
positive action and foster the necessary collaboration to meet this
challenge, with the intention of influencing efforts across industries.
Through a unifying, deeply inclusive, global effort, the MCSC will
strive to drive down costs, lower barriers to adoption of best-available
technology and processes, speed retirement of carbon-intensive power
generating and materials-producing equipment, direct investment where it
will be most effective, and rapidly translate best practices from one
industry to the next in an effort to deploy social and technological
solutions at a pace more rapid than the planet’s intensifying crises...
- -
The inaugural members of the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium are:
Accenture is a global professional services company that
delivers on the promise of technology and human ingenuity, which
includes helping clients across 40 industries reach their
sustainability goals by transitioning to low-carbon energy;
reducing the carbon footprint of IT, cloud, and software; and
designing and delivering net-zero, circular supply chains.
Apple is a global leader in technology innovation, providing
seamless experiences across Apple devices and empowering people
with breakthrough services.
Boeing is the world’s largest aerospace company and leading
provider of commercial airplanes, defense, space and security
systems, and global services.
Cargill is a global food manufacturer with the goal of
nourishing the world in a safe, responsible, and sustainable way.
Dow is a global manufacturer of innovative products that solve
the materials science challenges of its customers and contribute
to a more sustainable world.
IBM is a hybrid cloud platform and artificial intelligence company.
Inditex is one of the world’s largest fashion retail groups with
eight distinct brands focused on fitting its products to meet
customer demands in a sustainable way through an integrated
platform of physical and online stores.
LafargeHolcim is the world's global leader in building materials
and solutions at the forefront of sustainable construction.
MathWorks develops mathematical computing software used to
accelerate the pace of engineering and science.
Nexplore (Hochtief) is an innovative company that develops
technology solutions to digitize the infrastructure sector,
using next-generation technologies including artificial
intelligence, blockchain, computer vision, natural language
processing, and internet of things. Nexplore was founded in 2018
by HOCHTIEF, one of the largest infrastructure construction
groups worldwide.
Rand-Whitney Containerboard (RWCB), a Kraft Group company, is a
manufacturer of lightweight, high-performance recycled
linerboard for corrugated containers, using the most
environmentally sustainable production processes and methods.
PepsiCo is a global food and beverage company that aims to use
its scale, reach, and expertise to help build a more sustainable
food system.
Verizon is one of the world’s leading providers of technology,
communications, information and entertainment products and services.
Jeffrey Grossman will serve as director of the MCSC. Grossman is the
Morton and Claire Goulder and Family Professor in Environmental Systems,
head of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and a
MacVicar Faculty Fellow. Elsa Olivetti, the Esther and Harold E.
Edgerton Associate Professor in Materials Science and Engineering, will
serve as associate director. A steering committee comprised of faculty
spanning all five of MIT’s schools and the MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman
College of Computing, will help to drive the work of the consortium.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/mit-convenes-influential-industry-leaders-fight-climate-change-0128
- -
[More MIT]
*School of Architecture and Planning creates climate action plan*
Aims to reduce carbon emissions through changes in procurement, waste
tracking, airline travel, and other areas of operation.
School of Architecture and Planning
Publication Date:January 26, 2021
https://news.mit.edu/2021/school-architecture-and-planning-creates-climate-action-plan-0126
https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/sap_climate_action_plan.pdf
[YouTube Skepchic commentator - bots as information warfare weapon]
*Bots, Misinformation, and How COVID-19 Should Prepare Us for Climate
Change*
Jan 28, 2021
Rebecca Watson
Are bots controlling the climate change narrative? And what can we do
about it?
Transcript and links at https://www.patreon.com/46794875
ABOUT: Rebecca Watson is the founder of the Skepchick Network, a
collection of sites focused on science and critical thinking. She has
written for outlets such as Slate, Popular Science, and the Committee
for Skeptical Inquiry. She's also the host of Quiz-o-tron, a rowdy, live
quiz show that pits scientists against comedians. Asteroid 153289
Rebeccawatson is named after her (her real name being 153289).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=125&v=qnQmq4LM0_A&feature=youtu.be
- -
*[get your own botometer]*
https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/faq
https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search/items/botometer.html
https://cnets.indiana.edu/blog/tag/botometer/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/19/qa-how-pew-research-center-identified-bots-on-twitter/
[Media battlefield analysis video- 1 hour]
*The Role of Media in Addressing Climate Change with Alan Rusbridger*
Oxford Climate Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKTR6Y-djo
- -
[Classic talk from 2015]
*Science Of Persuasion*
Nov 26, 2012
influenceatwork
http://www.influenceatwork.com This animated video describes the six
universal Principles of Persuasion that have been scientifically proven
to make you most effective as reported in Dr. Cialdini’s groundbreaking
book, Influence. This video is narrated by Dr. Robert Cialdini and Steve
Martin, CMCT (co-author of YES & The Small Big).
About Robert Cialdini:
Dr. Robert Cialdini, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing,
Arizona State University has spent his entire career researching the
science of influence earning him a worldwide reputation as an expert in
the fields of persuasion, compliance, and negotiation.
Dr. Cialdini’s books, including Influence: Science & Practice and
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, are the result of decades of
peer-reviewed published research on why people comply with requests.
Influence has sold over 3 million copies, is a New York Times Bestseller
and has been published in 30 languages.
Because of the world-wide recognition of Dr. Cialdini’s cutting edge
scientific research and his ethical business and policy applications, he
is frequently regarded as the “Godfather of influence.”
To inquire about Dr. Robert Cialdini’s speaking, Steve Martin, CMCT or
any of our other Cialdini Method Certified Trainers (CMCTs) please
contact INFLUENCE AT WORK at 480.967.6070 or info at influenceatwork.com.
About INFLUENCE AT WORK:
INFLUENCE AT WORK (IAW®) was founded by Robert Cialdini, Ph.D. as a
professional resource to maximize influence results through ethical
business applications. Offering participatory workshops and training,
keynote presentations and intensive Cialdini Method Certified Trainer
(CMCT) programs, IAW serves an international audience. For more
information, visit our website at www.influenceatwork.com or call
480.967.6070.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw
[Do the math, follow your money. 3 min video]
*Saul Griffith on Soft Costs of Solar*
Jan 28, 2021
greenmanbucket
Saul Griffith is a MacArthur Fellow ("Genius Award") winner, CEO of
Otherlab, and PhD from MIT. He is a recognized expert on the energy
transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3C-LOxtBw
[opinion words and politics are not physical actions]
*Science denialism in the new administration*
BY JAMES BROUGHEL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/27/21
Last week President Joe Biden signed an executive order reconvening a
task force to update the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).
Environmentalists are cheering the move, but it’s a loss for
science-backed policy. We can find smart, sustainable answers to tough
questions, but they don’t come from activists masquerading their
political advocacy as science. They come from objective cost-benefit
analysis.
The SCC is an estimate of the harm to “society” from emitting a ton of
carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere. It’s important because the
metric is used to decide how much to spend on regulations and other
policies targeting global warming — policies that can end up costing
billions. For example, if the SCC is set at $100 a ton, and a regulation
reduces CO2 emissions by one million tons, then an economist might say
that social welfare would fall if we spend more than $100 million
implementing the regulation.
You might be forgiven for thinking that the SCC is measured in dollars,
given that the number is, in fact, preceded by a dollar symbol. Indeed,
many people describe it in just this way — as a measure of the “dollar
cost” of emitting a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. But that’s not
exactly right. In fact, the units the SCC is almost always expressed in
are units of “social welfare.” The relevant dollars are “wellbeing
dollars,” not dollars like you have in your wallet. The SCC isn’t
directly comparable to the dollars in your wallet, either, which is why
most estimates of it can’t be used in cost-benefit analysis.
If you are left scratching your head, you aren’t the only one who is
confused.
So, here’s a brief explainer: The SCC is calculated using “integrated
assessment models” (IAMs), which are just fancy-sounding models that —
beyond looking at weather and climate — incorporate how CO2 impacts the
economy and other things people value. The catch is that these models —
unlike those used in, say, physics or meteorology — also include a
“social welfare function” that converts economic and environmental
damages into wellbeing units.
As you can imagine, measuring society’s wellbeing is no easy task, and
it turns out there is no agreed-upon method for doing this. Of course,
that hasn’t stopped some economists from picking an equation — out of
thin air more or less — and claiming they are measuring social welfare.
To understand what’s going on here, it might help to think about another
area where a dollar symbol can be misleading: inflation-adjusted
dollars. If an economist is measuring spending in 2012, and wants to
compare it to spending in 2021, she might adjust the 2012 spending to
2021 dollars. The resulting figure would have a dollar symbol in front
of it. But the adjusted value is not expressing units of money. Rather,
what’s being reported is a quantity of real goods and services. The
monetary value in 2012 has been converted into an equivalent value of
real resources, using an index that accounts for changes in the
purchasing power of money in different years.
In a similar way, the SCC value has a dollar sign attached to it. But
what’s really being described is not money, but instead how a particular
impact from CO2, at a specific moment in time, ranks on an index of
social welfare. This index has no compelling basis in economics or in
ethics.
Another way to think about the issue is that economists often make a
distinction between “positive” and “normative” statements. Positive
statements describe what is: “The shirt is red.” Meanwhile, normative
statements express values, like “the shirt is ugly.” The SCC is
normative. It’s an expression of a value judgment.
We can debate that value judgment on its merits, but only if we know
it’s being made.
To be clear, there are good reasons for estimating the dollar cost of
emitting carbon pollution. But that’s not what’s going on here. The true
impacts of CO2 are concealed from the public after being distorted by
the social welfare function in the IAM models underlying the SCC. Most
estimates of the SCC can’t be used in standard cost-benefit analysis,
because that analysis requires units to be expressed in
more-straightforward (inflation-adjusted) dollars.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/536160-science-denialism-in-the-new-administration
*[See image of why it's cold in Europe, and warm in the Southern coast]*
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=306.29,44.21,995/loc=-132.620,41.864
- -
[related]
*James Hansen on shutdown of AMOC and consequences - from 2015*
YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8 14 min
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150921_IceMeltPredictions.pdf
[Beckwith lectures on recent climate research]
*Musings: Acceleration of Global Ice Loss, Feedbacks, and Biden’s
Executive Actions on Climate Change 1 of 3
**On Earth’s Staggering Loss of Ice from Abrupt Climate Change: How Much
and From Where? Part 2 of 3*
*How Abrupt Climate Change is Causing Massive Accelerating Losses to our
Planets Ice: Part 3 of 3*
Jan 27, 2021
Paul Beckwith
A few days ago a landmark scientific review paper was published on
Earth’s Global Ice Imbalance. The major findings of this satellite
observational work is my primary focus in this 3 part video series, but
mostly appears in video Parts 2 and 3. In Part 1 I mostly chatted about
some of what I have been up to the last few weeks (C++ programming,
reading fiction and nonfiction, shoveling snow, plumbing and boiler
repairs, etc.) Also, I chatted briefly about some of Biden’s awesome
Executive Actions on climate change, Feedbacks in the Earth System, and
my plans for future videos on Peter Carter’s Climate Emergency Institute
work.
Regarding Earth’s Global Ice Imbalance, the Earth lost 28 trillion
(million million) tons of ice between 1994 and 2017. This loss in
trillions of tons was 7.6 from Arctic Sea Ice, 6.5 from Antarctic Ice
Shelves, 6.1 from Mountain Glaciers, 3.8 from the Greenland Ice Sheet,
2.5 from the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and 0.9 from Southern Ocean Sea Ice.
58% of the ice loss was from the Northern Hemisphere, with 42% from the
Southern Hemisphere. In the 1990s the yearly loss averaged 0.8 trillion
tons, rising to 1.2 in the 2010s. Loss of grounded ice from Greenland
and Antarctica and Mountain Glaciers rapidly increased global sea level
rise. 68% of global ice loss is caused by atmospheric heating, with 32%
caused by oceanic melting driving ice sheet discharge and ice shelf
thinning and calving. The global melt of ice around the planet only took
up 3.2% of the total global energy imbalance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCU9JbOGlxQ - part 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K4ufq6i_Kw - part 2 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BW0WpSrjAU - part 3 of 3
[video discussion 1:21:00]
*21st Century Eating: Ethical and Environmental Reasons for going
Plant-Based*
Jan 27, 2021
Oxford Climate Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M061GIpzWd8
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - January 29, 2006 *
The New York Times reports on the extensive effort by the George W. Bush
administration to muzzle NASA scientist James Hansen. (The controversy
would also be covered by Air America's "EcoTalk with Betsy Rosenberg"
and the CBS program "60 Minutes.")
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/ecotalkblog/2006/02/ecotalk_82.html
http://youtu.be/x0i4Sx1edJE
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/nasa-scientist-muzzled/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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/20210129/b5639090/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list