[✔️] September 3, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*September 3, 2021*/

[93 second video of harsh truth from a climate scientist]
*“This is climate change, *and it’s just a small preview of what’s going 
to happen if we don’t start, stopping emitting greenhouse gases into the 
atmosphere,” said Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas 
A&M University. “We really need to do that, or we’re going to look back 
on this as the good ol’ days.”
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/09/02/this-is-climate-change-and-its-just-a-small-preview-says-texas-am-professor.html 


- -

[climate scientist says]
*Extreme weather ‘just a small preview of what’s going to happen,’ warns 
climate scientist*
PUBLISHED THU, SEP 2 20218
-- The extreme weather across the U.S., from the devastating Caldor Fire 
scorching the West Coast to the deadly flooding and tornadoes slamming 
the East Coast, could pale in comparison to future weather, warned 
climate scientist Andrew Dessler.
-- “This is climate change, and it’s just a small preview of what’s 
going to happen if we don’t start, stopping emitting greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere,” said Dessler.
-- “We look at cities on the coast like Miami, Houston, and now, New 
York, and you think, can those people live in those places for a 
century?” said Dessler
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/extreme-weather-just-a-small-preview-of-whats-going-to-happen-warns-climate-scientist.html



[Media battles]
*Why won’t US TV news say ‘climate change’?*
Mark Hertsgaard
It’s media malpractice not to mention that burning fossil fuels drives 
extreme weather events like Hurricane Ida
- -
The problem is that most viewers won’t make that connection, because 
most stories don’t contain the words “climate change”. Six of the 
biggest commercial TV networks in the US – ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and 
MSNBC – ran 774 stories about Ida from 27 to 30 August, an analysis by 
the watchdog group Media Matters found. Only 34 of those stories, barely 
4%, mentioned climate change.

My own survey of the coverage confirmed the trend. Viewers were shown 
powerful images – roofs torn off, block after block of houses submerged 
in floodwaters, first responders pulling weeping victims to safety. They 
heard plenty of numbers: Ida was a category 4 hurricane with wind speeds 
of 172 miles an hour and storm surges of 7ft to 11ft. But almost never 
were they told what was behind all this destruction.

It’s not as if making the climate connection is scientifically 
controversial or journalistically difficult, as a handful of exemplary 
stories demonstrated.

On NPR, the reporter Rebecca Hersher said that “climate change is 
basically super-charging this storm … As the Earth gets hotter because 
of climate change, the water on the surface of the ocean – it also gets 
hotter. So there’s more energy for storms like Ida to get really big and 
really powerful.”..
- -
In the Washington Post, the reporter Sarah Kaplan called Ida a “poster 
child for a climate change-driven disaster” and quoted the hurricane 
specialist Kerry Emmanuel of MIT saying: “This is exactly the kind of 
thing we’re going to have to get used to as the planet warms.”

The vast majority of news coverage instead chose climate silence.

This amounts to nothing less than media malpractice. Scientifically 
accurate reporting would not only link this extreme weather to the 
climate crisis, it would note that climate change is caused primarily by 
burning oil, gas and coal. ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies 
have been lying for 40 years about their products causing dangerous 
climate change. Responsible journalism should tell the truth about 
what’s driving these terrible storms, fires and famine...
- -
This kind of journalism leaves the public not just uninformed but 
misinformed. It gives the impression that these storms and fires are not 
only terrible (which, of course, is true) but also – to use a phrase 
that climate breakdown has made obsolete – they’re simply “natural” 
disasters.

They are not. Of course, hurricanes and wildfires were happening long 
before human-caused climate change emerged. The climate crisis, however, 
makes them significantly worse. As a Weather Channel segment on Ida 
explained, it’s not that “climate change caused the storm, but … that a 
warming world made Hurricane Ida more powerful”.

What’s odd is that plenty of journalists at big US news outlets know the 
climate crisis is an important story. And climate coverage had been 
improving. During the heatwave that scorched the Pacific Northwest in 
July, 38% of broadcast and cable news segments made the climate 
connection, Media Matters reported, as did about 30% of this summer’s 
wildfires coverage. So newsrooms have the ability to make the point when 
they choose to.

In two months, world leaders will gather in Glasgow for one of the most 
important diplomatic meetings in history. The Cop26 summit will go a 
long way toward deciding whether humanity preserves a livable climate on 
this planet. From now to the summit and beyond, journalism has got to do 
better.

This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global 
collaboration of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate story.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/02/us-media-hurricane-ida-climate-change 


- -

[Watch TV]
*National corporate TV news largely failed to cover Hurricane Ida as a 
climate justice story*
Only 4% of Ida coverage from August 27-30 connected the storm to climate 
change
Key Findings
Corporate broadcast TV outlets — ABC, CBS, and NBC — aired a combined 93 
segments about Hurricane Ida during morning and evening news programs 
from August 27-30. Only 5 of these broadcast news segments referenced 
climate change.
Of the 5 climate mentions, ABC had 3 mentions, while CBS and NBC 
contributed one each.
Cable TV news outlets -- CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC -- aired a combined 
681 segments about Hurricane Ida during all original programming from 
August 27-30. Only 4% (29) of cable news segments referenced climate 
change during their Ida coverage.
Of the 29 climate mentions, CNN had 5 mentions, Fox News mentioned 
climate twice, and MSNBC had the most out of all networks with 22.
- -
To watch hurricane coverage by TV news is to hear ad nauseum about the 
wind speed, the storm surge, and the expected accumulation of rainfall. 
These things are important to document and are done by dedicated 
journalists and TV crews, but networks should expand their coverage 
beyond the meteorological phenomena. In these moments, before attention 
is pulled elsewhere, there is so much more to learn and so much more 
that could be said...
https://www.mediamatters.org/cnn/national-corporate-tv-news-largely-failed-cover-hurricane-ida-climate-justice-story



[I knew it would be something simple]
*The Answer to Climate Change Is Organizing*
Dealing with global warming is always going to be about the balance of 
power.
By Bill McKibben  - Se[t 1. 2021...
- -
I do not, precisely, relish the prospect of another bout of organizing. 
Part of me has always thought it’s crazy that we have to build these 
movements: Why must we fight so hard, even go to jail, in order to get 
our leaders to take more seriously the clear and unequivocal warnings of 
scientists? But I’ve long accepted that we’re engaged in a fight, not an 
argument—and that the main way to counter the malign power of vested 
interest is to meet organized money with organized people. I’ve 
highlighted many brilliant people in this column; the best shot at 
giving their ideas a chance is to keep shifting the balance of power. 
And that, in the end, is the point of activism. I have no idea whether 
we’ll be successful, but we’ll try.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-answer-to-climate-change-is-organizing



[From Australia - a brief video]
*Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture and Storage*
Sep 1, 2021
thejuicemedia
The Australien Government has made an ad about Carbon Capture and 
Storage, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8



[not surprising, but still impressive
*Hi-tech wooden flooring can turn footsteps into electricity*
Swiss scientists develop prototype ‘nanogenerator’ that produces 
renewable energy when trodden on
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/01/hi-tech-wooden-flooring-can-turn-footsteps-into-electricity



[Disinformation deconstructed - follow the money - video rant from the 
Capital]
*Dem. Senator EXPOSES dark money scheme that propped up Kavanaugh and 
Barrett*
Horrifically summarized
https://youtu.be/Imqnsuu2tDk


[Common sense too]
*New study strengthens link between wildfire smoke and severe COVID*
Smoke from last year’s West Coast wildfires was associated with almost 
20,000 excess COVID-19 cases.
- -
Although previous research has documented the connection between 
wildfire smoke and COVID-19, this is the first time that scientists have 
calculated the specific toll from the pandemic that is attributable to 
last year’s wildfires...
https://grist.org/climate/wildfire-smoke-covid-cases-deaths-study/



[New book emerging]
*Welcome to the Pyrocene*
We have created a planetary fire age. Now we have to live in it.
https://grist.org/wildfires/welcome-to-the-pyrocene/


[Been there, done that, ...]
*Worrying About Your Carbon Footprint Is Exactly What Big Oil Wants You 
to Do*
Aug. 31, 2021,
By Auden Schendler

Mr. Schendler is the senior vice president of sustainability at the 
Aspen Skiing Company, the chairman of the board of the group Protect Our 
Winters and the author of “Getting Green Done.”

Everybody’s going carbon neutral these days, from the big boys — Amazon, 
Microsoft, Unilever, Starbucks, JetBlue — to your favorite outdoor 
brand, even ski resorts. Probably your neighborhood coffee roaster, too.

What’s not to like? Becoming carbon neutral means cutting greenhouse gas 
emissions as much as you can, then offsetting what you can’t avoid with 
measures like tree planting. Seems admirable.

Well, not exactly. Carbon neutrality doesn’t achieve any sort of 
systemic change. A coal-powered business could be entirely carbon 
neutral as long it stops some landfill gas in Malaysia from entering the 
atmosphere equal to the emissions it’s still releasing. American fossil 
fuel dependence would remain intact, and planet-warming emissions would 
continue to rise. The only way to fix that is through politics, 
policymakers and legislation. But distressingly, most businesses don’t 
want to play in that arena.

Instead, they’re doing exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants: 
staying in their lane, accepting some blame for a global problem and 
maintaining the dominance of fossil fuels. They’re well intentioned, 
sure, but also clueless, even complicit.

Imagine if businesses put as much effort into climate lobbying as 
climate neutrality. Corporations wield tremendous influence over the 
political system. But on climate, most corporations have decided to sit 
this one out. Notably, the five biggest tech corporations — Apple, 
Microsoft, Facebook, Alphabet and Amazon — spend only 4 percent of their 
lobbying dollars on climate, according to Influence Map.

As a result, they avoid the chance to put in place systemic solutions in 
favor of carbon neutral navel gazing. Large corporations will protest, 
saying that they are lobbying on climate. But they are typically working 
both sides of the aisle. And their political contributions are mostly 
going in the wrong direction. Bloomberg Green examined political 
donations by more than 100 major American corporations and found last 
year that they were “throwing their support behind lawmakers who 
routinely stall climate legislation.”

Climate never ascends to the level of mission-critical issues like trade 
policy and taxation. Sure, there are exceptions: Salesforce recently 
said it would intensify its focus on climate lobbying. And Patagonia has 
always been aggressive, along with Ben and Jerry’s. But they are 
anomalies, led or inspired by charismatic founders.

How did it come to this? The story of how what’s considered the best 
approach to corporate sustainability became complicity with the very 
industry responsible for climate change starts with the famous “Crying 
Indian” commercial of the 1970s. The ad, in which an actor portraying a 
Native American is devastated by the sight of rampant pollution, created 
several generations of dutiful litter-picker-uppers. (Guilty!) But it 
wasn’t so benign. It was, in fact, masterly propaganda from the beverage 
and container industries, designed to place responsibility for the trash 
problem on American consumers, not manufacturers.

The approach was so good that the fossil fuel industry adopted the very 
same strategy.

In 2004, BP hired the public relations firm Ogilvy & Mather to improve 
its image, in part by conveying the message that consumers of oil and 
natural gas bear the responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions, 
not the producers of the oil and gas they use. The result was BP’s 
ingenious carbon footprint calculator, which allows individuals to 
calculate the carbon emissions that result from their activities. It’s 
“about helping you to go carbon neutral — reducing and offsetting your 
carbon footprint,” BP says on its “target neutral” website.

Nor was BP alone among the big oil companies communicating this message. 
A study by Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran at Harvard published in May 
in the journal One Earth found that since 1972, ExxonMobil has 
consistently used “rhetoric aimed at shifting responsibility for climate 
change away from itself and onto consumers.”

Yes, those consumers want the hot showers, warm homes and cold beer that 
coal, oil and gas provide. But they did not insist on the burning of 
fossil fuels for those amenities. Now there are other ways to produce 
energy, and responsibility to tap those renewable resources lies with 
the world’s energy companies.

Today, almost 20 years after BP’s carbon calculator went live, cutting a 
firm’s carbon footprint is still the gold standard of corporate climate 
action. The phrase is firmly lodged in the environmental lexicon.

The idea of offsetting one’s carbon footprint by reducing or eliminating 
greenhouse gas emissions in one place to make up for emissions elsewhere 
has grown into an enormous industry. Businesses often do this by buying 
carbon credits to offset emissions they can’t or won’t reduce. The 
consulting firm McKinsey estimates that “the market for carbon credits 
could be worth upward of $50 billion in 2030.”

Many of these offsets underwrite worthwhile projects — protecting virgin 
expanses in some of the world’s last great forests, as in the Amazon, or 
the deployment of solar power. But according to an analysis by the 
private-sector Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets, fewer than 
five percent of offsets in 2020 removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Which, of course, is what we desperately need to be doing.

A giant, systemic problem like climate needs to be addressed like other 
huge environmental challenges the world has successfully taken on — 
reducing ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, for example, and sharply 
cutting back on smog and water pollution in the United States. Imagine 
if, in response to the expansion of the ozone hole, businesses and 
governments had said, “We’ll just hope businesses do the right thing.” 
Instead, international policymakers created the Montreal Protocol, which 
set standards that phased out ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbon use 
worldwide.

We need more of that approach — citizens, businesses and governments 
working together to address this crisis. It might result in policy 
solutions like government regulation, effective carbon taxes, national 
standards for renewable energy and electrification, the elimination of 
legacy subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, strict auto emission 
standards and new national building codes. All of these approaches 
threaten fossil fuel’s business model and, not coincidentally, would 
help to slow the warming of the planet.

What do fossil fuel companies prefer? They like consumers and 
corporations to do anything and everything as long as they stay out of 
the companies’ way and avoid doing anything that could actually make a 
difference.

Tragically, the overwhelming majority of American businesses are on a 
path of complicity. Their climate strategy avoids conflict and generates 
great P.R. Unfortunately, it also allows fossil fuel interests to 
monetize their remaining assets unhindered, ensuring catastrophe for all.

How carbon neutral is that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/opinion/climate-change-carbon-neutral.html



[The news archive - looking back]
*On this day in the history of global warming September 3, 2013*
The New York Times reports:

    "In this native village situated on a gravel spit above the Arctic
    Circle, life is changing more quickly than the Alaskans who have
    lived off the land and water here for thousands of years can keep
    pace with.

    "'The ice is the biggest thing,' said Dominic Ivanoff, 28, a leader
    of Kotzebue’s tribal council. He used to need two foot-long auger
    extensions to cut holes through the thick ice when he went fishing
    in April. Now, he said, the ice is thin enough that he needs none.

    "The situation is even more severe in smaller villages surrounding
    this remote slice of northwest Alaska, where climate change is not a
    political talking point or a theoretical scientific phenomenon but a
    punishing everyday reality. Some communities are sinking into the
    water, as erosion and melting permafrost wash away their foundations.

    "It was here that President Obamaarrived on Wednesday to deliver his
    alarm-sounding message about the warming of the planet — a
    phenomenon occurring twice as quickly in Alaska as in the rest of
    the United States — bringing with him promises of new aid for Arctic
    communities whose shorelines and infrastructure are crumbling
    because of rising temperatures.

    "In a history-making stop — the first presidential visit to Arctic
    Alaska — Mr. Obama delivered a speech laying out new federal efforts
    to help these communities cope with coastal erosion and high energy
    costs and, in some extreme cases, relocate altogether.

    "Coming at the end of a trip he used to call attention to the
    challenge of climate change and to rally support in the United
    States and globally to address it, the announcement of the new
    efforts was a bid to draw attention to places that are feeling the
    effects most acutely."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/politics/obama-takes-climate-message-to-alaska-where-change-is-rapid-in-alaska.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0 



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

/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/20210903/16b23e8f/attachment.htm>