[✔️] November 25, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*November 25, 2021*/

/[  Pay boost for firefighters ] /
*NPR interviews firefighters about the pay increase*
AuthorBill Gabbert -- Nov 23, 2021
Firefighters on the North Complex
Firefighters on the North Complex, Plumas NF, Sept. 9, 2020. USFS photo 
by Kari Greer.
National Public Radio produced a four-minute feature on All Things 
Considered in which they interviewed wildland firefighters about the 
effects of the forthcoming pay raise. They talked with firefighters Dave 
Carman and Patrick Benson, as well as retired US Forest Service Fire 
Chief Riva Duncan who is now with Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/11/23/npr-interviews-firefighters-about-the-pay-increase/

- -

/[  Firefighers - audio NPR ]/
*Wildland firefighters are split on whether higher pay would keep them 
in the industry*
Nov 22, 20214
Heard on All Things Considered
NATE HEGYI
HEGYI: We're walking in a park on a cold day in his hometown of 
Missoula, Mont., and Benson says sometimes he's working every day of the 
week during the fire season for long hours without much of a break, 
sweating in the heat, digging a fire line.

BENSON: It's exhausting. It's exhausting mentally. It's exhausting 
physically. And then you compound that on top of the fact that you don't 
know how long you're going to be gone for or, you know, what you're 
going to encounter while you're out there.

HEGYI: It's all a lot. And while he welcomes these changes from the 
infrastructure bill, it might not be enough to keep him on the job next 
season, especially as a tight labor market nationwide has employers 
competing for labor.

BENSON: I kind of want to try carpentry. I'm thinking about taking a 
carpentry job.

HEGYI: It would keep him at home with a stable schedule.

BENSON: I don't know a ton about it, to be honest, but fingers crossed 
and hopefully not as much of an emotional toll.

HEGYI: Now that the infrastructure bill has been signed into law, 
federal agencies have to sort out exactly how the new pay and benefits 
will be applied. It's unclear when exactly wildland firefighters will 
start seeing bigger paychecks.
For NPR News, I'm Nate Hegyi in Missoula, Mont.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/1058128896/wildland-firefighters-are-split-on-whether-higher-pay-would-keep-them-in-the-ind



/[ fairly well-informed video explaining the graphic 21 minutes ]/
*The Map of Doom | Apocalypses Ranked*
DoS - Domain of Science
This follows my journey to find and rank all of the biggest threats to 
humanity. Grab yourself the Map of Doom poster here: 
store.dftba.com/collections/domain-of...

This year was the first experience we’ve had of a global disaster 
affecting every single person on Earth. And also how unprepared society 
was to deal with it, despite plenty of people giving warnings that this 
was going to happen at some stage.

But in the midst of all the doom I started to wonder, what other things 
could threaten humanity, that we are not thinking about? So I made the 
Map of Doom to list all the threats to humanity in one place.

But just finding them all is not enough. I wanted to find a way of 
comparing the risks of all of these disaster scenarios. So this video 
follows my attempt at doing that, and I think I’ve hit on a great way to 
visually compare all these dangers, which I haven’t seen anyone do 
before, so hopefully by the end of the video you’ll have a better idea 
about what the biggest threats are, and how they compare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htf0XR6W9WQ&



/[  Follow the money ] /
Nov 23, 2021
*What's next for the Fed on climate change*
Axios - Ben Geman, Andrew Freedman

The Federal Reserve is poised to increase its climate focus even as 
President Biden's nomination of Chairman Jerome Powell to a second term 
disappointed advocates of policies to tilt the economy away from fossil 
fuels.

Catch up fast: Biden on Monday announced Powell's nod and said he's 
tapping Lael Brainard — a Fed board member who's outspoken on climate — 
as vice chair.

"[Powell's] made clear to me [that] a top priority will be to accelerate 
the Fed's effort to address and mitigate the risks that climate change 
poses to our financial system and our economy," Biden said.
Why it matters: The Fed has broad powers to weigh and ameliorate 
climate-related risks to the financial system.

- These risks include the physical damage from costly extreme weather 
events and the potential for stranded fossil fuel assets in the 
transition to cleaner energy.
- However, it remains to be seen how far the Fed will go on climate, an 
area outside its traditional work that requires new staff expertise.
- What we're watching: The Fed is already studying the risks that 
climate change poses to the financial system and has been deepening its 
work over the last year.

The Fed has set up two committees, one to study how climate change may 
affect the nation's economic stability and the other to examine the 
individual banks it oversees.
In late 2020, the Fed also joined the multilateral Network of Central 
Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System.
Both Powell and Brainard have said the Fed may conduct "scenario 
analysis" of climate risks, possibly focusing on individual banks — but 
stopped short of calling for "stress tests" that activists want.
Reuters reported last week that the Fed has been pressuring banks to 
analyze their portfolios for climate risks and may release findings to 
the public in 2023.
What they're saying: "The risk is real and the systemic nature of that 
risk is pretty apparent already, and is only going to get more so," Dan 
Firger, managing director at Great Circle Capital Advisors, told Axios. 
"And I think the very smart people inside the Federal Reserve are keenly 
aware of that fact."

Ilmi Granoff of the ClimateWorks Foundation expects the Fed's scenario 
analyses to reveal the need for risk management strategies for the 
economy as a whole and individual financial institutions.
"I expect the Fed to start scrutinizing financial risks, macro and 
systemic risks and at individual financial institutions. ... They've 
created two high level committees with really, really serious people at 
the helm of them," he said.
The intrigue: The Fed's moves so far stop well short of what 
environmentalists want from the central bank and other financial regulators.

Groups including Evergreen Action and the Sierra Club say the Fed should 
increase the amount of capital banks must hold for their fossil 
portfolios. They want "portfolio limits" on the level of polluting 
assets banks can hold.
More broadly, Powell's nomination to a second term came despite 
criticism of his tenure from some Capitol Hill Democrats who are very 
active on climate.
Yes, but: Christina Parajon Skinner of the University of Pennsylvania's 
Wharton School expects Powell will be "attentive" to ways climate 
affects the Fed's mandates "while also staying within the boundaries of 
the law and therefore not pushing the Fed into a drastically new role."

She expects the Fed to analyze risks, be prepared to deal with them and 
weave climate considerations into supervisory work.
"The Fed does not have the authority to use its policy tools to attempt 
to mitigate climate change with its balance sheet, its regulatory might 
(via capital charges or otherwise), or through the moral suasion 
deployed under the guise of supervision," she said in an email exchange.
What's next: Powell and Brainard's nominations aren't the only climate 
puzzle pieces left to be put into place at the Fed.

There are three other vacancies on the Fed Board of Governors that Biden 
needs to fill. One of them, the vice chair for supervision, will play a 
lead role in overseeing the Fed's climate work.
https://www.axios.com/fed-climate-change-powell-brainard-c01f422e-eb12-4b98-ad3d-b3b0e842b917.html



/[ Erudite commentary declares optimism ]/
*Profound climate change may be inevitable, but society can go on*
Although the world may soon be unrecognizable, humans might be able to adapt
By MARIANNE APOSTOLIDES
NOV 24, 2021
THE NEWS REPORTS FROM the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 
Glasgow this month followed a predictable pattern. World leaders took to 
the stage one after the other, each of them issuing dire warnings about 
imminent climate disaster and concluding with urgent calls to action: 
It’s not too late…but we must act now!

This message feels tired, its urgency attenuated from decades of 
repetition. “Now” was once the 1970s, with the birth of the modern 
environmental movement; “now” was the Kyoto Protocol and its 
carbon-reduction commitments of the 1990s; “now” was Paris 2015. Now, 
some believe, is now too late: The tipping point has come. We’re at the 
apex of the curve, on the verge of an unstoppable cascade that will 
irreversibly alter the systems governing the natural world. It’s too 
late. And if we, as a society, copped to that fact, we’d all benefit 
immensely.

This is the argument of Deep Adaptation, a movement launched in 2018 by 
Jem Bendell, a professor of sustainability leadership at the University 
of Cumbria in the United Kingdom. The movement situates the conversation 
about society’s future in a new realm, one in which catastrophic climate 
change is taken as a given. Bendell says the world will become an 
unfamiliar place: Everything we’ve known about the dynamics driving our 
lives will be overturned by climate-induced disruption, leading to 
societal collapse. Only when we accept this inevitability can we prepare 
for the coming catastrophe “in ways that may reduce harm, especially by 
reducing conflict and trauma,” writes Bendell.

Deep Adaptation has attracted a worldwide following: The founding 
document was downloaded more than a half million times, according to 
Bendell, and forums have solidified a base of participants, from 
students to psychologists to scholars. Recently, more than 500 scholars 
signed an open letter espousing the main tenets of Deep Adaptation, and 
urging policymakers to “engage openly with the risk of disruption and 
even collapse of our societies.”

As an author who delved into climate-change science for my book “Deep 
Salt Water,” I’m compelled by the sober and dispassionate honesty of 
Deep Adaptation. I find Bendell’s scientific conclusions convincing, 
even though many experts disagree with them. I’m also heartened by his 
framework: Solutions can’t be found unless the problem is posed 
correctly. Where I diverge from Deep Adaptation is in its emphasis on 
societal collapse. Where Bendell sees a sort of fait accompli, I see 
accumulating evidence that, despite the imminent climate crisis, 
technology will bolster the pillars that uphold society.

I DISCOVERED Deep Adaptation after reading a preprint study about 
climate anxiety among youth. The study — submitted to Lancet Planetary 
Health but yet to undergo peer review — surveyed 10,000 people aged 16 
to 25, from 10 countries. It revealed a population riddled by fear and 
angered by the betrayal they ascribe to people in power. The authors of 
the study are part of a burgeoning community of psychologists who 
specialize in dealing with climate anxiety.

These psychologists urge their colleagues to recognize climate-related 
grief and fear as a rational response to actual events, not as a 
manifestation of an underlying psychopathology such as anxiety or 
depression. Despite offering a necessary forum to youth in distress, 
this therapy continues to promote the idea that climate catastrophe can 
be avoided, or at least reduced. As Caroline Hickman, a co-author of the 
youth climate anxiety study and a lecturer at the University of Bath, 
tweeted last month: “Between apocalyptic thinking and naive misplaced 
optimism is radical hope. Things are bad, AND we can change the end of 
this story.”

To me, that message is disingenuous, if not unintentionally cruel. How 
can youth be supported if their anxieties are initially validated, only 
to be amplified as climate commitments are broken by leaders, and 
disasters keep coming?

The Deep Adaptation movement creates a better framework, arguing that 
people build psychological resilience by contemplating four guiding 
questions:

What do we most value that we want to keep and how? That’s a question of 
resilience. What could we let go of so as not to make matters worse? 
That’s a question of relinquishment. What could we bring back to help us 
with these difficult times? That’s a question of restoration. With what 
and whom shall we make peace as we awaken to our common mortality? 
That’s a question of reconciliation.

Through this framework, Bendell succeeds in distilling a terrifying 
future into a series of questions that invite people into conversation. 
By doing so, he gives us a language to speak the unthinkable.

Bendell’s 2018 manifesto, which laid the foundation for the movement, 
has been sharply criticized on scientific and moral grounds. The most 
comprehensive critique argues that Bendell misinterprets the predictions 
of climate models, ignores important caveats, and adopts a “doomist” 
narrative that, the critics say, will lead to despair and inaction, 
exacerbating existing inequalities and sapping energy from the fight for 
climate justice. Bendell accepted some of these criticisms, making a few 
corrections and updates to his original manuscript. But he countered 
others, holding steadfast to the broader principles motivating Deep 
Adaptation. (The New York Times reported that Bendell’s original 
manuscript was “submitted to and rejected by a peer-reviewed 
sustainability journal.”)

In my assessment, the political context tips the scale in favor of 
Bendell’s view: Even if, on a purely scientific level, we could stop the 
feedback loops already set in motion, our political, economic, and 
governance structures have proven incapable of proactively responding 
with measures commensurate to the threat.

Despite its significant contribution to the thinking about climate 
change, Deep Adaptation contains a weakness at its core: the premise 
that climate change will lead to society’s collapse, defined as “the 
uneven ending of normal modes of sustenance, shelter, security, 
pleasure, identity, and meaning,” Bendell writes.

How can youth be supported if their anxieties are initially validated, 
only to be amplified as climate commitments are broken by leaders, and 
disasters keep coming?

Bendell’s logical leap from catastrophic climate change to societal 
collapse betrays his stance against capitalism, which he has blamed for 
the climate crisis. Bendell denigrates mainstream adaptation efforts as 
“encouraging people to try harder to be nicer and better rather than 
coming together in solidarity to either undermine or overthrow a system 
that demands we participate in environmental degradation.” By 
implication, those efforts — the unglamorous work of revamping 
infrastructure, engaging in urban and ecosystem planning, coordinating 
supply chains for food, water, and raw materials — are superficial, 
unlike the profound ethical and spiritual transformation that Deep 
Adaptation envisions. Societal collapse, in this worldview, becomes the 
event that triggers a creative reimaging of human civilization.

Blinded by utopian visions, Bendell seems to overlook the advancements, 
in science and technology and other realms, that are capable of 
upholding society. In sectors such as energy, water, materials science, 
and agriculture, basic science and innovative technology are spawning 
new realities that could stabilize societies, even amid horrific shifts 
in the natural world. Some of this technology, including large-scale 
nuclear fusion reactors and smaller nuclear batteries, will reduce 
carbon emissions. Other technologies, especially those developed with 
synthetic biology, may help us adapt to a warming planet by, for 
example, improving crop yields and revolutionizing manufacturing. By 
seizing a power once reserved for nature — the power to direct evolution 
— scientists can tackle some of the very problems humans have created 
through their consumption of fossil fuels.

None of these developments is a panacea. None will stop catastrophic 
climate change. None prefigure a world I want to live in. Yet they all 
refute the idea of societal collapse.

Bendell’s failure to recognize the promise of technology is a tremendous 
loss for policymakers, activists, psychotherapists, and industry. We 
currently lack a framework for discussing the work needed to prepare for 
climate change. That work pertains not only to physical infrastructure 
but to psychology and ethics — especially as it regards the predicted 
mass migration of people whose homelands will no longer be habitable.

In my view, Deep Adaptation is perfectly poised to facilitate this 
difficult conversation — if it eases its focus on societal collapse. 
Bendell’s framework encourages us to “make sense of our situation in 
ways that discourage defensive or violent approaches and encourage more 
kind, wise, and accountable responses.”

This type of thinking is lucid, productive, and necessary. I’ll hold it 
more fiercely than any vapid statement coming from Glasgow.

Marianne Apostolides is an award-winning author of seven books, most 
recently the novel “I Can’t Get You Out of My Mind.”
https://undark.org/2021/11/18/profound-climate-change-may-be-inevitable-but-society-can-go-on/
https://www.salon.com/2021/11/24/profound-climate-change-may-be-inevitable-but-society-can-go-on_partner/



/[ Thoughtful opinion from George Monbiot  ]/
*Domino Theory*
19 Nov 2021
Our last, best hope of averting systemic environmental collapse is to 
use the peculiarities of complex systems to trigger cascading political 
regime shifts.

By George Monbiot

Now it’s a straight fight for survival. The Glasgow Climate Pact, for 
all its restrained and diplomatic language, looks like a suicide pact. 
After so many squandered years of denial, distraction and delay, it’s 
too late for incremental change. A fair chance of preventing more than 
1.5C of heating means cutting greenhouse gas emissions by about 7% every 
year: faster than they fell in 2020, at the height of the pandemic.
What we needed at the Cop26 climate conference was a decision to burn no 
more fossil fuels after 2030. Instead, powerful governments sought a 
compromise between our prospects of survival and the interests of the 
fossil fuel industry. But there was no room for compromise. Without 
massive and immediate change, we face the possibility of cascading 
environmental collapse, as Earth systems pass critical thresholds and 
flip into new and hostile states.

So does this mean we might as well give up? It does not. For just as the 
complex natural systems on which our lives depend can flip suddenly from 
one state to another, so can the systems that humans have created. Our 
social and economic structures share characteristics with the Earth 
systems on which we depend. They have self-reinforcing properties – that 
stabilise them within a particular range of stress, but destabilise them 
when external pressure becomes too great. Like natural systems, if they 
are driven past their tipping points, they can flip with astonishing 
speed. Our last, best hope is to use those dynamics to our advantage, 
triggering what scientists call “cascading regime shifts”.

A fascinating paper published in January in the journal Climate Policy 
showed how we could harness the power of “domino dynamics”: non-linear 
change, proliferating from one part of the system to another. It points 
out that “cause and effect need not be proportionate”, a small 
disturbance, in the right place, can trigger a massive response from a 
system and flip it into a new state. This is how the global financial 
crisis of 2008-09 happened: a relatively minor shock (mortgage defaults 
in the US) was transmitted and amplified through the entire system, 
almost bringing it down. We could use this property to detonate positive 
change.

Sudden shifts in energy systems have happened before. The paper points 
out that the transition in the US from horse-drawn carriages to cars 
running on fossil fuels took just over a decade. The diffusion of new 
technologies tends to be self-accelerating, as greater efficiencies, 
economies of scale and industrial synergies reinforce each other. The 
authors’ hope is that, when the penetration of clean machines approaches 
a critical threshold, and the infrastructure required to deploy them 
becomes dominant, positive feedbacks will rapidly drive fossil fuels to 
extinction.

For example, as the performance of batteries, power components and 
charging points improves and their costs fall, the price of electric 
cars drops and their desirability soars. At this point (in other words, 
right now), small interventions by government could trigger cascading 
change. This has already happened in Norway, where a change in taxes 
made electric vehicles cheaper than fossil-fuel cars. This flipped the 
system almost overnight: now more than 50% of the nation’s new car sales 
are electric, and petrol models are heading for extinction.

As electric cars become more popular, and more polluting vehicles become 
socially unacceptable, it becomes less risky for governments to impose 
the policies that will complete the transition. This then helps to scale 
the new technologies, causing their price to fall further, until they 
outcompete petrol cars without the need for tax or subsidy, locking in 
the transition. Driven by this new economic reality, the shift then 
cascades from one nation to another.

The battery technologies pioneered in the transport sector can also 
spread into other energy systems, helping to catalyse regime shifts in, 
for example, the electricity grid. The plummeting prices of solar 
electricity and offshore wind – already cheaper than hydrocarbons in 
many countries – are making fossil fuel plants look like a filthy 
extravagance. This reduces the political costs of accelerating their 
closure through tax or other measures. Once the plants are demolished, 
the transition is locked in.

Of course, we should never underestimate the power of incumbency, and 
the lobbying efforts that an antiquated industry will use to keep itself 
in business. The global infrastructure of fossil fuel extraction, 
processing and sales is worth somewhere between $25tn (£19tn) and $0, 
depending on which way the political wind is blowing. The fossil fuel 
companies will do everything in their power to preserve their 
investments. They have tied President Joe Biden’s climate plans in 
knots. It would be no surprise if they were talking urgently with Donald 
Trump’s team about how to help lever him back into office. And if they 
can thwart action for long enough, the eventual victory of low-carbon 
technologies might scarcely be relevant, as Earth’s systems could 
already have been pushed past their critical thresholds, beyond which 
much of the planet could become uninhabitable.

But let’s assume for a moment that we can shove the dead weight of these 
legacy industries aside, and consign fossil fuels to history. Will that 
really have solved our existential crisis? One aspect of it, perhaps. 
Yet I’m dismayed by the narrowness of the focus on carbon, in the 
Glasgow pact and elsewhere, to the exclusion of our other assaults on 
the living world.

Electric cars are a classic example of the problem. It’s true that 
within a few years, as the advocates argue, the entire stinking 
infrastructure of petrol and diesel could be overthrown. But what is 
locally clean is globally filthy. The mining of the materials required 
for this massive deployment of batteries and electronics is already 
destroying communities, ripping down forests, polluting rivers, trashing 
fragile deserts and, in some cases, forcing people into near-slavery. 
Our “clean, green” transport revolution is being built with the help of 
blood cobalt, blood lithium and blood copper. Though the emissions of 
both carbon dioxide and local pollutants will undoubtedly fall, we are 
still left with a stupid, dysfunctional transport system that clogs the 
streets with one-tonne metal boxes in which single people travel. New 
roads will still carve up rainforests and other threatened places, 
catalysing new waves of destruction.

A genuinely green transport system would involve system change of a 
different kind. It would start by reducing the need to travel – as the 
mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, is doing with her 15-minute city policy, 
which seeks to ensure that people’s needs can be met within a 15-minute 
walk from homes.

It would encourage walking and cycling by all who are able to do so, 
helping to address our health crisis as well as our environmental 
crisis. For longer journeys, it would prioritise public transport. 
Private electric vehicles would be used to address only the residue of 
the problem: providing transport for those who could not travel by other 
means. But simply flipping the system from fossil to electric cars 
preserves everything that’s wrong with the way we now travel, except the 
power source.

Then there’s the question of where the money goes. The fruits of the 
new, “clean” economy will, as before, be concentrated in the hands of a 
few: those who control the production of cars and the charging 
infrastructure; and the construction companies still building the great 
web of roads required to accommodate them. The beneficiaries will want 
to spend this money, as they do today, on private jets, yachts, extra 
homes and other planet-trashing extravagances.

It is not hard to envisage a low-carbon economy in which everything else 
falls apart. The end of fossil fuels will not, by itself, prevent the 
extinction crisis, the deforestation crisis, the soils crisis, the 
freshwater crisis, the consumption crisis, the waste crisis; the crisis 
of smashing and grabbing, accumulating and discarding that will destroy 
our prospects and much of the rest of life on Earth. So we also need to 
use the properties of complex systems to trigger another shift: 
political change.

There’s an aspect of human nature that is simultaneously terrible and 
hopeful: most people side with the status quo, whatever it may be. A 
critical threshold is reached when a certain proportion of the 
population change their views. Other people sense that the wind has 
changed, and tack around to catch it. There are plenty of tipping points 
in recent history: the remarkably swift reduction in smoking; the rapid 
shift, in nations such as the UK and Ireland, away from homophobia; the 
#MeToo movement, which, in a matter of weeks, greatly reduced the social 
tolerance of sexual abuse and everyday sexism.

But where does the tipping point lie? Researchers whose work was 
published in Science in 2018 discovered that a critical threshold was 
passed when the size of a committed minority reached roughly 25% of the 
population. At this point, social conventions suddenly flip. Between 72% 
and 100% of the people in the experiments swung round, destroying 
apparently stable social norms. As the paper notes, a large body of work 
suggests that “the power of small groups comes not from their authority 
or wealth, but from their commitment to the cause”.

Another paper explored the possibility that the Fridays for Future 
climate protests could trigger this kind of domino dynamics. It showed 
how, in 2019, Greta Thunberg’s school strike snowballed into a movement 
that led to unprecedented electoral results for Green parties in several 
European nations. Survey data revealed a sharp change of attitudes, as 
people began to prioritise the environmental crisis.

Fridays for Future came close, the researchers suggest, to pushing the 
European political system into a “critical state”. It was interrupted by 
the pandemic, and the tipping has not yet happened. But witnessing the 
power, the organisation and the fury of the movements gathered in 
Glasgow, I suspect the momentum is building again.

Social convention, which has for so long worked against us, can if 
flipped become our greatest source of power, normalising what now seems 
radical and weird. If we can simultaneously trigger a cascading regime 
shift in both technology and politics, we might stand a chance. It 
sounds like a wild hope. But we have no choice. Our survival depends on 
raising the scale of civil disobedience until we build the greatest mass 
movement in history, mobilising the 25% who can flip the system. We do 
not consent to the destruction of life on Earth.
www.monbiot.com



/[The news archive - looking back]/
*On this day in the history of global warming November 25, 2006*
November 25, 2006: The Washington Post reports:

    "While the political debate over global warming continues, top
    executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have
    accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see
    federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.

    "The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the
    federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies
    have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a
    national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in
    the works. They are also working to change some company practices in
    anticipation of the regulation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.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. 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/20211125/55ef3005/attachment.htm>