[✔️] April 4, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
👀 Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Mon Apr 4 11:24:26 EDT 2022
/*April 4, 2022*/
/[ //Where is it? //Promised//Sunday -//The IPCC SPM (Summary for
Policymakers) ////] /
*Political wrangling delays release of U.N. climate report*
By Maxine Joselow - research by Vanessa Montalbano
Today at 8:15 a.m. EDT
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was originally
scheduled to unveil a report on the sweeping societal changes needed to
stave off catastrophic warming at 5 a.m. Eastern this morning.
That didn't happen. Instead, the negotiations over the final text were
the longest in the IPCC's 34-year history, delaying the report's release
until 11 a.m. Eastern today to the frustration of many journalists and
observers.
Scientists and officials from nearly 200 countries haggled late into
Sunday night over thorny questions such as how much funding wealthy
nations should provide for developing countries to tackle climate
change, and what emphasis to give policies such as phasing out subsidies
for fossil fuels, the Guardian's Fiona Harvey reports.
India demanded key changes on issues including climate finance,
according to the Guardian.
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, sought changes related
to ensuring a continued role for fossil fuels as governments transition
to renewable energy.
Russia, which has faced international condemnation over its invasion of
Ukraine, played a more muted role than some scientists and officials had
feared.
“Every statement is loaded with implications for countries,” a person
familiar with the report told our colleague Sarah Kaplan, speaking on
the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly
discuss the negotiations.
Seemingly simple language about the need for renewable power sources can
be fraught with consequences for low-income countries struggling to
guarantee energy access for their citizens, as well as wealthier nations
that might be asked to provide financial and technical support for the
transition, the person said. ...
- -
“Countries were looking deep inside, into their own policies, to
contrast them with what this report says must be done,” Perez told our
colleague Sarah.
*The role of policymakers*
The report itself, which will stretch hundreds of pages, was largely
settled on Sunday night. The last-minute haggling was over the “summary
for policymakers,” which will be about 40 pages and will serve as the
key document for governments...
- -
But Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a Belgian climatologist who participated
in the approval process, took to Twitter to defend the IPCC process and
its outcomes.
“The scientists authoring the report always have the last word on what
is in the [summary for policymakers], even if they don’t on what is not
in it, because we work by consensus,” he said. “The strong, and
sometimes tense discussions between country delegates and the authors
have a big advantage over a report that would be written by scientists
alone, in their ivory tower: a common sense of ownership.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/04/political-wrangling-delays-release-un-climate-report/
- -
/[ has to be produced by consensus ]/
*Scientists urge end to fossil fuel use as landmark IPCC report readied
*Talks stretch past deadline as governments are accused of trying to
water down findings
Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Sun 3 Apr 2022
The world must abandon fossil fuels as a matter of urgency, rather than
entrusting the future climate to untried “techno-fixes” such as sucking
carbon out of the air, scientists and campaigners have urged, as
governments wrangled over last-minute changes to a landmark scientific
report.
Talks on the final draft of the latest comprehensive assessment of
climate science, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), stretched hours past their deadline on Sunday.
Scientists and governments were locked in disagreement on questions such
as how much funding was likely to be needed for developing countries to
tackle the climate crisis, and what emphasis to give policies such as
phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
Governments have been accused of trying to water down the scientists’
findings, originally due to be published early on Monday but – after
delays and disagreements on Sunday – postponed by six hours to later the
same day.
The Guardian understands that India has demanded key changes on issues
including finance, along with Saudi Arabia which wants to see
affirmation of a continued role for fossil fuels, while other countries
including China and Ecuador also held out on some points. Russia has
played a more muted role than some feared.
Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate the Tyndall Centre for
climate research at the University of Manchester, one of the UK’s
leading climate academics, called for the scientists to prevail.
“I hope Working Group 3 [the IPCC section about to be published] has the
courage to actually call for the elimination of fossil fuels production
and use within a Paris [agreement] compliant timeline,” he said.
This is the third part of the IPCC’s latest landmark assessment, and the
most contentious because it covers the policies, technologies and
finances needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The first part, covering the physical science of climate change, was
published last August showing the world had only a narrow chance of
limiting global heating to 1.5C; the second, published just over a month
ago, showed the catastrophic impacts heating of 1.5C would have, but it
was overshadowed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The report itself – hundreds of pages long and drawing on the work of
thousands of scientists over the past eight years – is settled, but
still in dispute is the crucial “summary for policymakers”, a selection
of key messages running to only about 40 pages.
While the report is drafted by scientists, the summary – which is the
key reference document for governments – is edited with input from every
UN member state that wishes to be represented.
The latest warning from the IPCC – the final instalment of its mammoth
comprehensive assessment, before a synthesis report in October draws
together its key messages in time for governments meeting for the UN
Cop27 climate summit in Egypt this November – comes at a crucial time.
Many countries, including the US, the EU and the UK, are reconsidering
their reliance on fossil fuels in light of the Ukraine war, which has
pushed already high energy prices to record levels. Energy is now seen
as a national security issue, and the crisis in the cost of living in
many countries is forcing governments to rethink ways to protect their
citizens, from high prices and climate breakdown.
Rachel Kyte, the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University in the
US, said: “We are at a moment of increasing tension around the world,
with every excuse possible for distraction and delay. We now have to put
our arms round a new form of energy security, one that embraces everyone
– a new kind of politics. We are at a moment of reckoning and the IPCC
report just puts an exclamation point at the end of that.”
Some governments are likely to stress the role the IPCC foresees for
techniques that remove carbon from the air, such as carbon capture and
storage, used to neutralise fossil fuel power stations, and technologies
such as “direct air capture” by which carbon is chemically extracted
from the atmosphere.
The IPCC in its broader report is likely to warn that these techniques
are unproven and likely to be prohibitively expensive to use quickly at
the scale required, but governments may force more favourable language
into the summary.
Nikki Reisch, the director of the energy and climate programme at the
Center for International Environmental Law, said governments should be
clear: “There is no room for more oil and gas full stop. [Some
businesses] want to perpetuate the myth that we can carry on using
fossil fuels. But we need a just transition away from fossil fuels, not
techno-fixes.”
Anderson said this was a key dilemma. He warned the report could “pull
its punches, hiding behind billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide removal
… [If that is what emerges], then the academic community will have
abdicated its responsibility and opted for realpolitik over real
physics. The climate responds only to the second.”
Stephen Cornelius, the head of delegation for WWF, defended the IPCC
process against charges that governments could use it to water down
scientific warnings. He said that as governments played a role in
writing the summaries, they could not shirk responsibility for heeding
the warnings they contain.
“The IPCC is a useful process,” he said. “It is cumbersome, there is a
long time between the outlines and the report, but … the reports have
political buy-in, and that’s why they are taken seriously.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/03/scientists-urge-end-to-fossil-fuel-use-as-landmark-ippc-report-readied
/[ says the Financial TIme$ ] /
*Biden doing more harm to renewables than Trump, says solar boss*
https://www.ft.com/content/cd913f13-27b3-45a4-aee8-62359b36d32c
/[ Australia movie video ] /
*Regenerating Australia | Trailer*
Feb 20, 2022
Cinema Australia
The official trailer for award-winning filmmaker Damon Gameau’s (That
Sugar Film, 2040) new documentary short, Regenerating Australia...
- -
Featuring Kerry O’Brien, Sandra Sully, Gorgi Coghlan, Tim Flannery,
David Pocock and other well-known voices, REGENERATING AUSTRALIA follows
on from solutions explored in 2040 and, with another unique format, asks
the question, ‘What would Australia look like by 2030 if we simply
listened to the needs of its people?’ Based on a four-month interview
process with Australians from all walks of life who shared their hopes
and dreams for the country’s future, it is a new story for our nation: a
story of empowerment. A story of solutions. A story of regeneration.
https://youtu.be/JOqOBOOyzFg
/[ the dirty divide ] /
*Florida Republican bill ‘basically erases’ state’s only pro-solar
energy policy*
Republican-led Senate passes bill that could hamper growth of solar
energy by removing popular financial incentive
Aliya Uteuova
1 Apr 2022
In one of America’s sunniest states, a Republican-led Senate recently
passed a bill that could hamper the growth of solar energy by removing a
popular financial incentive among consumers.
Environmentalists are decrying the measure, arguing that the expansion
of rooftop solar is a necessary step in the fight against the climate
crisis. The bill was passed in Florida, as another extremely sunny
state, California, considered a similar update to its solar policies.
“This is a bill that basically erases the only pro-solar policy in
Florida,” said Heaven Campbell, state program director of the non-profit
Solar United Neighbors.
The new legislation in Florida would impact a policy known as net
metering, through which solar power users who sell excess energy back to
the grid in exchange for a billing credit. If signed into law, HB-741
would cut this incentives for rooftop solar owners, and allow utilities
to charge fees that would raise the cost of switching to renewable energy...
- -
Another potential revision to net metering is underway in California,
the nation’s leading solar power state. The state utility commission
proposed reducing subsidy rates for rooftop solar and adding a monthly
charge for new solar owners. Some environmentalists have supported
changes to California’s net metering policy, calling them
“cost-effective and equitable”. As is the case in Florida, the
California proposal is backed by the state’s utility companies Pacific
Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and
Electric. In 2016, following similar net-metering legislation in Nevada,
many solar companies ceased their business in the state.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/01/florida-solar-energy-bill-financial-incentive
/[ News media is a generic term ]/
*Network news devoted just 22 hours of programming to climate change
last year*
April Siese - -Friday April 01, 2022
Daily Kos Staff
Media Matters for America recently released its annual report on how
major broadcast networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, handled
climate change coverage. There are some encouraging figures in the
report, including the fact that climate coverage overall tripled from
2020 to 2021, including on morning news shows. CBS Mornings led the pack
when it comes to such programming, running 387 minutes’ worth of climate
coverage in 2021 that included an entire program devoted to climate on
Earth Day. The network (where I used to work) dedicated overall
nine-and-a-half hours to climate change across its shows, accounting for
43% of all climate coverage across broadcast news networks in 2021.
Nearly a quarter of those segments can be attributed to Jeff Berardelli
and Evelyn Taft, who were part of 29 of CBS’ 137 climate segments last year.
I had the pleasure of working with Berardelli a bit during my tenure
with CBS, and, as both a climate specialist and meteorologist, his
expertise and passion for the issue are unparalleled—which is why I’m
concerned that next year’s Media Matters numbers will reflect his
absence, as he left CBS News to join WFLA as its chief meteorologist at
the beginning of 2022. There are very few correspondents who approach
climate change with the rigor and devotion Berardelli displayed, though
Media Matters notes that networks clearly had their favorites, including
NBC’s Al Roker and ABC’s Ginger Zee and Rob Marciano. Though Fox’s
climate coverage increased, the news network unsurprisingly did a
piss-poor job of devoting any substantial time to climate change—save
for two severe-weather-related segments on its Fox News Sunday show last
year. Fox News especially continues to push climate change denial and
outright false segments about this crisis.
The fact that so little about climate change is covered reflects a
cognitive dissonance between news broadcasters and the audience they
claim to serve. Recent Pew Research polls suggest that most Americans
want the U.S. to play a role in a net-zero future and want the country
to hit zero emissions by 2050. Though a Pew Research poll from last year
saw most Americans voice their opposition to the way the country is
handling climate change, the poll also showed that an overwhelming
amount of people in advanced economies took climate change seriously
enough to be willing to alter their very habits to mitigate its worst
effects. However, a network news viewer wouldn’t know any of these
things when tuning into morning shows or evening newscasts. Media
Matters notes that climate change made up just 1.2% of overall coverage
across the four researched networks.
The climate crisis isn’t getting any better the more network news turns
a blind eye to it. And it’s not getting any better if the U.S. similarly
ignores calls to pivot away from fossil fuels amidst the ongoing
Russia-Ukraine conflict and worries of skyrocketing gas prices. The only
folks coming out ahead at this juncture are oil and gas companies and
their shareholders. With extreme weather events already occurring and
the looming threat of both wildfire and the Atlantic hurricane seasons,
now is the time to take action. Call on President Biden to declare
climate change an emergency under the National Emergencies Act. This
will ensure that the U.S. not only meets the moment when it comes to
climate change mitigation, but helps lead the way as the world moves
toward a greener, more equitable future.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/4/1/2089551/-Network-news-devoted-just-22-hours-of-programming-to-climate-change-last-year
- -
/[ Closer to original sources ]/
*How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2021*
PUBLISHED 03/24/22
2021 was a stand-out year for climate coverage on corporate broadcast TV
networks. In our annual analysis of climate coverage, Media Matters
found that approximately 1,316 minutes — nearly 22 hours — were spent
discussing climate change on morning, evening, and Sunday morning news
shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co., more than a threefold
increase from 2020. However, all those hours of climate coverage on
corporate broadcast TV networks represented roughly 1% of overall news
programming in 2021, a figure that is still far too small in the face of
a worsening climate crisis...
- -
https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/styles/scale_w1024/s3/static/D8Image/2022/03/21/2021%20climate%20broadcast%20study%20%281%29.png?VersionId=7Blkhaj9RIO7lYDVHCDVj0ZARySxqNT6&itok=JXZQh5W3
*Key Findings:*
- - Total broadcast news climate coverage in 2021 tripled from 2020:
Morning news shows, evening news shows, and Sunday morning shows on
corporate broadcast TV networks aired nearly 22 hours of combined
climate coverage in 2021 — a total of 1,316 minutes across 604 segments.
This is more than triple the amount of climate coverage in 2020, when
these networks aired just 380 minutes across 221 segments.
- -Every network significantly increased its 2021 climate coverage from
2020: CBS led, with the most total coverage across its morning news,
evening news, and Sunday political shows, airing a combined 569 minutes
(nearly nine and a half hours) across 220 segments in 2021, compared to
just 125 minutes and 73 segments in 2020. NBC aired 383 minutes (nearly
six and a half hours) of climate coverage across 196 segments in 2021,
compared to just 159 minutes and 94 segments the previous year. ABC
aired 323 minutes (nearly five and a half hours) of climate coverage
across 175 segments in 2021, compared to 90 minutes and 50 segments the
year before...
- -
- - A summer of global extreme weather, President Joe Biden’s climate
agenda, and the COP26 climate conference were major drivers of climate
coverage in 2021:
Thirty-three percent of nightly news segments — 60 out of 181 — included
discussion of summer extreme weather events. In addition, 13% of
segments (24) discussed COP26, while 9% of segments (16) included
discussion of the climate components of Biden’s “Build Back Better”
infrastructure plan.
- - Twenty-three percent of morning news segments — 84 out of 363 —
included discussion of summer extreme weather events. COP26 was
discussed in 11% of segments (39), while the climate components of
Biden’s infrastructure plan were discussed in 7% of segments (24).
- - Despite the increase in coverage from 2020, networks failed to cover
climate change consistently throughout the year — 66% of climate
segments aired in the last six months of 2021, with 42% of all climate
segments on broadcast news in 2021 airing in the months of September,
October, and November. ..
- -
https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/styles/scale_w1024/s3/static/D8Image/2022/03/21/2021%20climate%20broadcast%20study%20%282%29.png?VersionId=_puDbqh2b0zNU91ly8ShaT_TegKJHpp1&itok=hIiqXkRI
However, some problematic trends continued to materialize in the quality
of corporate broadcast news coverage of climate change, including, for
at least the fifth year in a row, an overwhelming proportion of white
men featured as guests in climate coverage, even though people of color
are most impacted by the crisis. And while broadcast networks did a
decent job of covering key moments and events in 2021 overall, their
climate coverage throughout the year was uneven...
https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2021
*- -*
/[greater coverage of Media Matters studies ]/*
**Over a decade of corporate broadcast TV news climate change coverage*
Special PROGRAMS
WRITTEN BY MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Corporate broadcast news’ reporting on climate change has waxed and
waned over the past 11 years, illustrating the challenge of keeping the
media's attention to the crisis elevated – and consistent.
https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/styles/scale_w1024/s3/static/D8Image/2022/03/21/Climate%20Change%20coverage.png?VersionId=8j4RpL0E8oSImIxoweKK841llmlcQQsP&itok=bCR2xcQo
The harmful practice of giving climate deniers a platform to cast doubt
about the existence of climate change or downplay the severity of the
crisis is seemingly gone from broadcast TV news. However, the
predominance of both white and male guests continues to mark a
dispiriting trend in climate coverage, neglecting the disproportionate
impacts that climate change has on both women and people of color. The
toll of historic extreme weather events and unprecedented “code red”
warnings from the scientific community have finally started to erode
broadcast TV news’ reticence to characterize disasters like 2021’s
Hurricane Ida as proof that climate change is happening here and now –
rather than portraying the crisis as a far-off calamity. Though coverage
of these events still fails to point to the need to take climate action
and hold accountable those obstructing it...
- -
https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/over-decade-corporate-broadcast-tv-news-climate-change-coverage
/[ about anti-information - the destruction of information - how does
this apply to global warming? ]/
*“Disappeared”: Chris Hedges Responds to YouTube Deleting His 6-Year
Archive of RT America Shows*
STORY APRIL 1, 2022
YouTube has deleted the entire archive of “On Contact,” an
Emmy-nominated television show by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Chris Hedges which was hosted on the Russian government-funded news
channel RT America. We speak with Hedges, who connects the YouTube
censorship of his show to a growing crackdown on dissenting voices in
American media. “There’s less and less space for those who are willing
to seriously challenge and question entrenched power,” says Hedges, who
says “opaque entities” like YouTube shouldn’t have the power to take
down outlets like RT America, despite the channel’s source of funding.
“Are we better off not hearing what Russia has to say?” asks Hedges.
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/1/on_contact_chris_hedges_youtube_russia
- -
/[ 10 min video segment ]/
*"Disappeared": Chris Hedges Responds to YouTube Deleting His 6-Year
Archive of RT America Shows*
Democracy Now!
YouTube has deleted the entire archive of "On Contact," an
Emmy-nominated television show by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Chris Hedges which was hosted on the Russian government-funded news
channel RT America. We speak with Hedges, who connects the YouTube
censorship of his show to a growing crackdown on dissenting voices in
American media. "There's less and less space for those who are willing
to seriously challenge and question entrenched power," says Hedges, who
says "opaque entities" like YouTube shouldn't have the power to take
down outlets like RT America, despite the channel's source of funding.
"Are we better off not hearing what Russia has to say?" asks Hedges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1LU-nV11dg
- -
/[ This has not been widely reported in mainstream media, but is shocking ]/
*Hedges: On Being Disappeared*
by EDITOR
March 28, 2022
*Hedges: On Being Disappeared*
The entire archive of six years of my show On Contact has been removed
by YouTube.
By Chris Hedges / Original to ScheerPost
The entire archive of On Contact, the Emmy-nominated show I hosted for
six years for RT America and RT International, has been disappeared from
YouTube. Gone is the interview with Nathaniel Philbrick on his book
about George Washington. Gone is the discussion with Kai Bird on his
biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Gone is my exploration with
Professor Sam Slote from Trinity College Dublin of James Joyce’s
“Ulysses.” Gone is the show with Benjamin Moser on his biography of
Susan Sontag. Gone is the show with Stephen Kinzer on his book on John
Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles. Gone are the interviews with the social
critics Cornel West, Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Gerald Horne, Wendy Brown,
Paul Street, Gabriel Rockwell, Naomi Wolff and Slavoj Zizek. Gone are
the interviews with the novelists Russell Banks and Salar Abdoh. Gone is
the interview with Kevin Sharp, a former federal judge, on the case of
Leonard Peltier. Gone are the interviews with economists David Harvey
and Richard Wolff. Gone are the interviews with the combat veterans and
West Point graduates Danny Sjursen and Eric Edstrom about our wars in
the Middle East. Gone are the discussions with the journalists Glenn
Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Gone are the voices of those who are being
persecuted and marginalized, including the human rights attorney Steven
Donziger and the political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal. None of the shows I
did on mass incarceration, where I interviewed those released from our
prisons, are any longer on YouTube. Gone are the shows with the
cartoonists Joe Sacco and Dwayne Booth. Melted into thin air, leaving
not a rack behind.
I received no inquiry or notice from YouTube. I vanished. In
totalitarian systems you exist, then you don’t. I suppose this was done
in the name of censoring Russian propaganda, although I have a hard time
seeing how a detailed discussion of “Ulysses” or the biographies of
Susan Sontag and J. Robert Oppenheimer had any connection in the eyes of
the most obtuse censors in Silicon Valley with Vladimir Putin. Indeed,
there is not one show that dealt with Russia. I was on RT because, as a
vocal critic of US imperialism, militarism, the corporate control of the
two ruling parties, and especially because I support the Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, I was blacklisted. I
was on RT for the same reason the dissident Vaclav Havel, who I knew,
was on Voice of America during the communist regime in Czechoslovakia.
It was that or not be heard. Havel had no more love for the policies of
Washington than I have for those of Moscow.
Are we a more informed and better society because of this wholesale
censorship? Is this a world we want to inhabit where those who know
everything about us and about whom we know nothing can instantly erase
us? If this happens to me, it can happen to you, to any critic anywhere
who challenges the dominant narrative. And that is where we are headed
as the ruling elites refuse to respond to the disenfranchisement and
suffering of the working class, opting not for social and political
change or the curbing of the rapacious power and obscene wealth of our
oligarchic rulers, but instead imposing iron control over information,
as if that will solve the mounting social unrest and vast political and
social divides.
The most vocal cheerleaders for this censorship are the liberal class.
Terrified of the enraged crowds of QAnon conspiracy theorists, Christian
fascists, gun-toting militias, and cult-like Trump supporters that grew
out of the distortions of neoliberalism, austerity, deindustrialization,
and the collapse of social programs, they plead with the digital
monopolies to make it all go away. They blame anyone but themselves.
Democrats in Congress have held hearings with the CEOs of social media
companies pressuring them to do more to censor content. Banish the
troglodytes. Then we will have social cohesion. Then life will go back
to normal. Fake news. Harm reduction model. Information pollution.
Information disorder. They have all sorts of Orwellian phrases to
justify censorship. Meanwhile, they peddle their own fantasy that Russia
was responsible for the election of Donald Trump. It is a stunning
inability to be remotely self-reflective or self-critical, and it is
ominous as we move deeper and deeper into a state of political and
social dysfunction.
What were my sins? I did not, like my former employer, The New York
Times, sell you the lie of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, peddle
conspiracy theories about Donald Trump being a Russian asset, put out a
10-part podcast called the Caliphate that was a hoax, or tell you that
the information on Hunter Biden’s laptop was “disinformation.” I did not
prophesize that Joe Biden was the next FDR or that Hillary Clinton was
going to win the election.
This censorship is about supporting what, as I.F Stone reminded us,
governments always do – lie. Challenge the official lie, as I often did,
and you will soon become a nonperson on digital media. Julian Assange
and Edward Snowden exposed the truth about the criminal inner workings
of power. Look where they are now. This censorship is one step removed
from Joseph Stalin’s airbrushing of nonpersons such as Leon Trotsky out
of official photographs. It is a destruction of our collective memory.
It removes those moments in the media when we attempted to examine our
reality in ways the ruling class did not appreciate. The goal is to
foster historical amnesia. If we don’t know what happened in the past,
we cannot make sense of the present.
“The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen,” Hannah
Arendt warned. “What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other
dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have
an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the
consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody
believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very
nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to
rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a
lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great
number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people
that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is
deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to
think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you
please.”
I am not alone. YouTube regularly removes or demonetizes channels, which
happened to Progressive Soapbox, without warning, usually by arguing
that the content contained videos that violated YouTube’s community
guidelines. Status Coup, which filmed the January 6 storming of the
Capitol, was suspended from YouTube for “advancing the false claims of
election fraud.” My video content, by the way, primarily consisted of
book covers, quotes from passages of books and author photos, but it got
disappeared anyway.
The deplatforming of voices like mine, already blocked by commercial
media and marginalized with algorithms, is coupled with the pernicious
campaign to funnel people back into the arms of the “establishment”
media such as CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. In the
US, as Dorothy Parker once said about Katharine Hepburn’s emotional
range as an actress, any policy discussion ranges from A to B. Step
outside those lines and you are an outcast.
The Ukraine war, which I denounced as a “criminal war of aggression”
when it began, is a sterling example. Any effort to put it into
historical context, to suggest that the betrayal of agreements by the
West with Moscow, which I covered as a reporter in Eastern Europe during
the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with the expansion of NATO might
have baited Russia into the conflict, is dismissed. Nuance. Complexity.
Ambiguity. Historical context. Self-criticism. All are banished.
My show, dedicated primarily to authors and their books, should have
been, if we had a functioning system of public broadcasting, on PBS or
NPR. But public broadcasting is as captive to corporations and the
wealthy as the commercial media, indeed PBS and NPR run commercials in
the guise of sponsorship acknowledgements. The last show on public
broadcasting that examined power was Moyers & Company. Once Bill Moyers
went off the air in 2015, no one took his place.
A few decades ago, you could hear independent voices on public
broadcasting, including Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Howard Zinn,
Ralph Nader, Angela Davis, James Baldwin, and Noam Chomsky. No more. A
few decades ago, there were a variety of alternative weeklies and
magazines. A few decades ago, we still had a press that, however flawed,
had not rendered whole segments of the population, especially the poor
and social critics, invisible. It is perhaps telling that our greatest
investigative journalist, Sy Hersh, who exposed the massacre of 500
unarmed Vietnamese civilians by US soldiers at My Lai and the torture at
Abu Ghraib, has trouble publishing in the United States. I would direct
you to the interview I did with Sy about the decayed state of the
American media, but it no longer exists on YouTube.
https://scheerpost.com/2022/03/28/hedges-on-being-disappeared/#comments
/[The news archive - looking back]/
*April 4, 2002*
The New York Times reports:
"President Bush signed an executive order last year that closely
resembles a written recommendation given to the administration two
months earlier by the American Gas Association, according to
documents released by the Bush administration.
"The executive order called for the creation of an interagency
energy task force to accelerate the time it takes for government
agencies to review corporations' applications for permits for
energy-related projects, like power plants and the exploration of
oil and natural gas on public lands. Mr. Bush signed the order last May.
"The language in Mr. Bush's executive order is similar to a passage
in a proposed energy bill sent in March 2001 to the Energy
Department by officials at the American Gas Association, the trade
group that represents large natural gas companies and has given more
than $500,000 to the Republican Party since 1999."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/politics/04ENER.html
=======================================
*More daily summaries*
---------------------------------------
*Climate Nexus https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*The Daily Climate Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts,
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters too
more at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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/20220404/db9ac2cf/attachment.htm>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list