[✔️] April 15, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*April 15, 2022*/

/[ This is a significant event in the Biden policy ] /
*Gina McCarthy, White House climate adviser, reportedly to step down*
Two sources reported that she was planning to leave her job in the 
coming months, being ‘frustrated by the slow pace of climate progress’...
- -
McCarthy has already delayed her departure, and told one Reuters source 
that she plans to leave as soon as next month.

White House spokesman Vedant Patel said on Thursday: “This is not true 
and there are no such plans under way and no personnel announcements to 
make.”
- -
“Gina and her entire team continue to be laser focused on delivering on 
President Biden’s clean energy agenda,” he said in an email...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/14/gina-mccarthy-departure-white-house-climate-adviser


/[  today's TV news reports weather and climate - 2 min video - I was 
born in Phoenix long ago ] /
*"Impact Earth": Phoenix TV Team Tackles Climate*
Apr 14, 2022
greenmanbucket
Amber Sullins, Chief Meteorologist at ABC 15 in Phoenix talks about the 
team approach her station is now taking to stories about climate change 
and climate solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXmJYICuHBk



/[  IPCC now warns of another human impact ] /
*Latest IPCC Reports Underscore Threat of Climate Disinformation*
APRIL 4, 2022

Michael Khoo is co-chair of the climate disinformation coalition at 
Friends of the Earth, and co-founder of UpShift Strategies. Phil Newell 
is Associate Director of Science Defense at Climate Nexus, a nonprofit 
climate and clean energy communications group. Deb Lavoy is a 
technologist and co-founder of Reality Team.

The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) confirm that “climate change is causing dangerous and widespread 
disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people,” 
urging that if we phase out fossil fuels quickly, we can stabilize the 
climate. The report released in February on adaptation notes “[r]hetoric 
and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of 
science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, 
uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent.” Today’s report 
on mitigation describes how “opposition from status quo interests” and 
“the propagation of scientifically misleading information” are 
“barriers” to climate action and have “negative implications for climate 
policy.”

Regular exposés reveal how intentional disinformation is spread on 
social media platforms, seeding falsehoods on everything from the 
expansion of renewable power, to the honest assessment of Texas power 
outages, to the causes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (yes, right 
wing personalities tried to blame environmental activist Greta Thunberg).

While the majority of Americans believe in climate change and want 
action to address it, companies such as Facebook, Google/YouTube, and 
Twitter enable the spread of disinformation to wide audiences, 
preventing progress. Vested interests increasingly use social media to 
flood the narrative, while the platforms profit. Disinformation is now a 
guaranteed byproduct, if not a central part, of social media companies’ 
business models.

Climate change disinformation is not new- it has a long history dating 
back to 1970s’ ad campaigns run by oil and gas companies, if not 
further. To hide its agenda, the fossil fuel industry created a web of 
shell companies and coalitions to fund “climate change counter-movement 
organizations.” Big Oil copied Big Tobacco, hiring the same lawyers and 
front groups to spread disinformation meant to block regulation. Funding 
for climate denial grew from $357 million in 2003 to $808 million in 
2018. Along the way, the industry learned to use social media to gain 
new audiences to advance its fringe views.

In February 2021, a Texas-focused climate disinformation campaign aimed 
to deflect blame for deadly power failures during a historic snow storm. 
This campaign illustrates how the disinformation ecosystem fanned the 
flames, as a single social media post became an official talking point. 
As massive infrastructure failures were killing hundreds, a Twitter user 
named “Oilfield Rando” posted an image of a helicopter de-icing a wind 
turbine, blaming renewables for the catastrophe. The image was a lie. It 
was from 2014, and from Sweden, but it quickly went viral anyway. In 
just four days, networks of professional climate deniers pushed it from 
Twitter to Facebook to Fox News to a talking point out of Texas Governor 
Greg Abbott’s mouth. Thanks to Facebook, and despite its fact-check 
promises, 99% of the false posts remained up and without so much as a 
warning label.

These sorts of efforts pay off. Research in the science journal Nature 
confirms that climate disinformation reduces climate literacy, increases 
social polarization, and can lead to a complete rejection of accurate 
information. It reinforces silence and cultivates distrust in 
scientists. The vast majority of this harmful content comes from a very 
small, highly coordinated network of actors. They expertly navigate the 
social media platforms that help amplify their content, giving it a 
false sheen of credibility, relevance, and importance. A whopping 69% of 
climate disinformation traffic on Facebook comes from just 10 accounts.

*Disinformation is not the only thing preventing climate action.* The 
previous U.S. president still calls it a hoax and social media 
companies’ ability to reach users has been oversold–which has fed into 
some hype and distrust in the overall problem of disinformation.

But disinformation functions like industrial-scale advertising–on which 
the fossil fuel industry spends millions a year on Facebook alone. In 
this model, the ads and disinformation are not intended to change 
individual decisions, but to create an environment of perpetual 
uncertainty, driven by false problems and distrust in real solutions. 
And it is this narrative that is amplified by social media companies, 
whose algorithms reward false content, and who give free passes to 
high-profile deniers.

Disinformation is a complex problem, but some aspects have very simple 
solutions. Social media companies can choose to stop giving the small 
group of disinformers a giant, algorithmically charged bullhorn to 
saturate the public with disinformation. We saw the effectiveness of 
this strategy when Twitter removed Donald Trump after he praised the 
insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Zignal Labs 
documented that his removal led to a 73% drop in election-related 
disinformation. Whether it’s climate or COVID, a few bad apples are 
spoiling the bunch.

There are emerging methods to debunk or pre-bunk disinformation. These 
are becoming more impactful and more cost-effective. Unfortunately, they 
are not yet funded at a scale to compete with the fossil fuel industry. 
And no inoculation strategy will ever be as effective as preventing 
intentional disinformation on platforms in the first place.

Social media companies have employed the traditional corporate PR 
approach of shifting responsibility to individuals for not being 
educated enough to detect disinformation. “The individual humans are the 
ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing,” Facebook CTO Andrew 
Bosworth told Politico’s Ina Fried last year. The companies offer new 
programs that promise to help factual information to compete with the 
disinformation, but in the realm of climate they are half-hearted.

For instance, Facebook launched the Climate Science Information Center 
in 2021 to help outcompete bad information with good, but analysis by 
the Institute for Strategic Dialogue during the COP26 climate summit 
showed that disinformation vastly overwhelmed the content from 
Facebook’s Center. If there were any evidence this strategy works, 
Facebook would shout that from the rooftops. Instead, Facebook gives 
vague platitudes with no real numbers on the overall percentage of 
disinformation that has—or hasn’t—been stopped. Twitter launched 
Birdwatch to make users responsible for policing bad content, but it has 
also not been successful in that end goal. It is worth noting, however, 
that Twitter’s moderated climate “Topic” has actually spawned a 
reasonable climate conversation. That’s what happens when you keep the 
bomb-throwers out of the debate room.

There is now an historic opportunity to protect the public from the 
companies that drive disinformation. Facebook has repeatedly been caught 
lying to Congress. Google/YouTube made public promises to reduce the 
monetization of climate disinformation—promises that researchers exposed 
as inadequate. Whistleblowers like Frances Haugen provided 
incontrovertible proof within 10,000 leaked documents that Facebook is 
well aware of the harms it causes. Its executives consistently choose to 
ignore recommendations from their own internal teams to reduce those 
harms, because implementing the recommendations would affect growth and 
profit, or limit the reach of Republicans. The public winds are shifting 
for big tech companies.

There are many regulatory options that could be used to rein in this 
wild-west dystopia. Social media companies–like most other 
industries–could disclose safety risks and injuries suffered as a result 
of their products. For platforms like Facebook that have been used to 
facilitate genocide in Myanmar, this is an essential and obvious step. 
The U.S. Congress is considering multiple policy options to demand 
transparency and accountability. The European Parliament is on the verge 
of passing the Digital Services Act—which will require tech company 
reporting and risk assessments—as well as adopting climate 
disinformation policies. Courts in France have already advanced a 
transparency lawsuit against Twitter. One sign of this inevitability is 
that many social media companies are starting to take voluntary, if 
inadequate, actions on climate disinformation.

Three simple policies for tech companies would start them on a real path 
to accountability and reform:

*1) Establish, disclose, and enforce policies *to reduce climate change 
and other forms of disinformation;

*2) Release all details* on the current labeling, fact-checking, and 
algorithmic ranking systems; and

*3) Disclose regular reports on the scale and prevalence* on the 
platform and mitigation efforts taken internally. The leaked Facebook 
files confirm that such data collection exists and has detailed climate 
denial.

 From the election integrity to trans rights to climate change, we’ve 
seen that disinformation has the ability to divide and harm us all. The 
only path to progress is to do the reverse: unite and demand social 
media companies disclose their data and be held accountable for their 
role in perpetuating this existential threat.
https://techpolicy.press/latest-ipcc-reports-underscore-threat-of-climate-disinformation/

- -

[ for instance from the Guardian last year ]
*The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing*
Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial 
messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual 
guide
by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes
18 Nov 2021
*Why is meaningful action to avert the climate crisis proving so 
difficult?* It is, at least in part, because of ads.

The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion 
dollar disinformation, propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate 
action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis 
and its solutions. This has involved a remarkable array of 
advertisements – with headlines ranging from “Lies they tell our 
children” to “Oil pumps life” – seeking to convince the public that the 
climate crisis is not real, not human-made, not serious and not 
solvable. The campaign continues to this day.

As recently as last month, six big oil CEOs were summoned to US Congress 
to answer for the industry’s history of discrediting climate science – 
yet they lied under oath about it. In other words, the fossil fuel 
industry is now misleading the public about its history of misleading 
the public.

We are experts in the history of climate disinformation, and we want to 
set the record straight. So here, in black and white (and color), is a 
selection of big oil’s thousands of deceptive climate ads from 1984 to 
2021. This isn’t an exhaustive analysis, of which we have published 
several, but a brief, illustrated history – like the “sizzle reels” that 
creatives use to highlight their best work – of the 30-plus year 
evolution of fossil fuel industry propaganda. This is big oil’s PR 
sizzle reel.

*Early days: learning to spin*
Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) was not self-conscious about the potential 
environmental impacts of its products in this 1962 advertisement touting 
“Each day Humble supplies enough energy to melt 7 million tons of glacier!”
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bc26f9877245599725835f964ef753296e43a155/0_0_2482_1630/master/2482.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=4ad5fb7810956e63f0bb74ae938c4084
The truth behind the ad: Three years earlier, in 1959, America’s oil 
bosses had been warned that burning fossil fuels could lead to global 
heating “sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York”.

Their knowledge only grew. A 1979 internal Exxon study warned of 
“dramatic environmental effects” before 2050. “By the late 1970s”, a 
former Exxon scientist recently recalled, “global warming was no longer 
speculative”.’
*‘Reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’*
In 1991, Informed Citizens for the Environment, a front group of coal 
and utility companies announced that “Doomsday is cancelled” and asked, 
“Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?” They complained 
about “weak” evidence, “non-existent” proof, inaccurate climate models 
and asserted that the physics was “open to debate”.
The truth behind the ads: Instead of warning the public about global 
heating or taking action, fossil fuel companies stayed silent as long as 
they could. In the late 1980s, however, the world woke up to the climate 
crisis, marking what Exxon called a “critical event”. The fossil fuel 
industry’s PR apparatus swung into action, implementing a strategy 
straight out of big tobacco’s playbook: to weaponize science against itself.

A 1991 memo by Informed Citizens for the Environment made that strategy 
explicit: “Reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”
*‘Emphasize the uncertainty’*
Mobil and ExxonMobil ran one of the most comprehensive climate denial 
campaigns of all time, with a foray in the 1980s, a blitz in the 1990s 
and continued messaging through the late 2000s. Their climate 
“advertorials” – advertisements disguised as editorials – appeared in 
the op-ed page of the New York Times and other newspapers and were part 
of what scholars have called “the longest, regular (weekly) use of media 
to influence public and elite opinion in contemporary America”.
*Economic scaremongering*
“Don’t risk our economic future,” implored the Global Climate Coalition, 
a front group for utility, oil, coal, mining, railroad and car 
companies. This 1997 ad also targeted the Kyoto negotiations and was 
part of a $13m campaign that was so successful that the White House told 
GCC: President Bush “rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you”...
- -
*It’s not our fault, it’s yours*
 From 2004 to 2006, a $100m-plus a year BP marketing campaign 
“introduced the idea of a ‘carbon footprint’ before it was a common 
buzzword”, according to the PR agent in charge of the campaign. The 
targets of this campaign were the “routine human activities” and 
“lifestyle choices” of “individuals” and the “average American 
household”. In 2019, BP ran a new “Know your carbon footprint” campaign 
on social media...
The truth behind the ads: Big oil’s rhetoric has evolved from outright 
denial to more subtle forms of propaganda, including shifting 
responsibility away from companies and on to consumers. This mimics big 
tobacco’s effort to combat criticism and defend against litigation and 
regulation by “casting itself as a kind of neutral innocent, buffeted by 
the forces of consumer demand”...
- -
*Greenwashing: talk clean, act dirty*
“We’re partnering with major universities to develop the next generation 
of biofuels,” said Chevron in 2007. This is also a top talking point of 
BP, ExxonMobil and others.
BP “developed an ‘all of the above’ strategy” for marketing energy from 
2006 to 2008, “before any presidential candidates spoke of the same”, 
according to BP’s PR lead.

Big oil continues to promote this narrative of “fossil fuel 
solution-ism’, including its “all of the above” language, on social 
media, in Congress and in paid-for, pretend editorials in the Washington 
Post. To make this spin stick, fossil fuel companies have been calling 
methane “clean” since at least the 1980s. “Natural gas is already 
clean,” said API Facebook ads and billboards last year...
- -
*Distorting reality in the 2020s and beyond*
A Shell TV ad last year featured birds in the sky, fields of wind and 
solar farms, the CEO of a Shell renewables subsidiary saying she’s “made 
the future far cleaner and far better for our children”, and not one 
reference to fossil fuels...
- -
Today, we’re all inundated with ads that leverage a combination of 
narratives, including those illustrated above, to present fossil fuel 
companies as climate saviors. It’s way past time we called their bluff.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing



/[  Why are we ignoring their future? ]/
*We’re Failing To Prepare Our Children for the Climate Fight*
Eleanor Cummins
April 13, 2022
The New Republic

Most schoolchildren get only an hour or two of climate education per 
year. It’s up to their parents to teach them optimism and action in the 
face of a daunting crisis.

Climate change is hurtling forward at frightening speed. And the 
American K-12 system still isn’t remotely prepared to teach children 
about what they’ll soon face. Today, the majority of students in U.S. 
schools get between zero and two hours of instruction per year about 
climate change—hardly enough time to discuss the political, cultural, 
and environmental ramifications of greenhouse gas emissions, let alone 
make space for the emotions elicited by such an existential threat. In 
some districts, climate education is actually disinformation, as 
teachers rely on materials created by the fossil fuel industry to 
mislead children on the origin of the problem and our possible futures.

The obstacles to quality climate education are manifold, according to 
Miseducation: How Climate Change Is Taught in America, a recent 
book-length investigation by journalist Katie Worth. Surveys suggest a 
majority of K-12 teachers in the United States still believe that 
scientists disagree about the anthropogenic origin of climate change, 
encouraging skepticism to seep into the classroom. Many districts rely 
on old, outdated textbooks that tend to minimize the crisis, if they 
touch on global warming at all. And teachers who support climate 
education in one classroom may find their work undermined by “skeptics” 
teaching the same kids later in the day.

There are signs of progress. As of 2019, for example, 86 percent of 
Americans agreed that climate change should be taught in school in some 
form. But just having a working knowledge of the carbon cycle would be 
insufficient for kids today, says Mary DeMocker, author of The Parents’ 
Guide to Climate Revolution. If we only teach kids the facts about the 
present crisis, “we’re burdening them with science in a way that’s 
fatalistic,” she told me. To foreclose solutions and sidestep politics 
is like saying, “Here, let us help you cultivate some resilience for 
your dismal future.” The real solution lies elsewhere—in radically 
redefining the priorities of American, and in particular, white 
American, parents, teachers, and other caretakers. Instead of preparing 
children for the workforce or to reach higher standards of living than 
the last generation, we need to support young people in cultivating both 
“resilience and resistance” for one of the toughest challenges humanity 
has ever faced, DeMocker says. In the process, the rest of us might also 
reap some of these qualities for ourselves.

In Lydia Millet’s 2020 novel, A Children’s Bible, a teenage narrator 
named Eve decides to do the thing she dreads most and inform her younger 
brother about climate change. “I have to tell you a new story now,” she 
begins. “But a real one. A story of the future, Jack.” The adults were 
greedy, the world is imperiled, and (so far) it’s only getting 
worse—you’ve heard this one before. But for Jack it is new and 
heart-breaking. “Later he wiped his eyes and squared his thin little 
shoulders,” Eve tells us. “My Jack was a brave boy.”

The parents in this book, as might be expected, are terrible. They drink 
and avoid the catastrophe unfolding before them; when avoidance is no 
longer an option, they drink more and despair. A hurricane hits, and 
it’s the kids who respond swiftly and smartly, eventually bringing 
(almost) everyone to relative safety. It is, in part, a parable, a story 
out of space and time. But A Children’s Bible is also a painfully 
familiar representation of the pressure young people feel to save the 
world—and the sense that adults have failed to join the fight.

A handful of picture books have emerged in recent years to help parents 
and educators teach kids about the climate crisis, from The Fog by Kyo 
Maclear (a metaphor for global warming) to The Polar Bears’ Home by Lara 
Bergen (a straightforward Arctic explainer). There’s also an expanding 
field of nonfiction writing to help adults process their feelings—and 
support the next generation of climate leaders. “As parents, we should 
be aware of this and try to repair that sense of betrayal that young 
people have toward older generations,” Britt Wray, the Human and 
Planetary Health Fellow at Stanford University and the London School of 
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and author of the forthcoming book 
Generation Dread: Finding Purpose in a Age of Climate Crisis, told me. 
“That’s why the truth is so important.”

Children today grow up knowing the stakes and mourning the injustice. 
Adults need to supply them, at bare minimum, with the means to act on 
those feelings.

The difficulty of teaching children about climate change mirrors this 
divide in the literature: Kids can get their hands on the raw materials, 
but if parents and educators lack frameworks for processing their own 
feelings about the crisis and channeling them into substantive action, 
where can their children’s knowledge and natural concern really go? 
While kids will be affected by climate change for the rest of their 
lives, they can’t vote or, in most cases, drive themselves to climate 
rallies, DeMocker says. As the founder of 350 Eugene, a local chapter of 
Bill McKibben’s international grassroots climate justice movement, 
DeMocker organized events for community members about how to address 
these problems locally. She found parents were uniquely suited to help, 
as they are invested in a long-term future for their kids but have the 
wisdom and legal rights their children lack—they just needed actionable 
advice. So DeMocker decided to keep a list, which ultimately grew to 
more than 100 items, all detailed in the The Parents’ Guide to Climate 
Revolution.

DeMocker’s morsels are many and varied, ranging from old standbys like 
planting trees to more aggressive plans for suing polluters—inspired, in 
part, by the plaintiffs in the Juliana v. United States case, six of 
whom are from Eugene. While kids are sure to encounter the climate 
crisis from friends, in classrooms and museums, and through popular 
media, and their questions deserve honest, age-appropriate answers, 
DeMocker believes parents should initially place the emphasis on 
fostering inner strength. “We need to protect [children’s] imaginations 
and we need to protect their hearts until they’re strong enough, when 
they’re teens, to really take on this crisis on this intellectual 
level,” she says.

As kids get older, what they know about the crisis will multiply and 
deepen. In the United States, many activists have been desperate merely 
to get people to “listen to the science” on climate change. But actually 
understanding that science—and being able to explain it to others and 
formulate plans of action based on it—would be even better, especially 
for kids who will never know a life without its effects. Even so, this 
most basic education must be done with sensitivity. One of Worth’s 
classroom visits, described in Miseducation, is useful here. Amid 
numerous stories of children failed by their schools, Worth describes 
how Kristen Del Real, a sixth-grade science teacher in Chico, 
California, has designed a resilience-minded course for her students. 
First, the 11- and 12-year-olds will learn about geological time. Then 
they observe how legume sprouts turn nitrogen into nutrients. Units on 
atmosphere, solar radiation, the greenhouse gas effect, and the weather 
system follow. “Once all those pieces are in place,” Del Real said, 
“when we get to global warming, the kids will just get it.”

Crucially, Del Real’s lessons don’t stop there. The final month of the 
school year in Del Real’s class is spent on “solutions projects,” where 
small groups of students apply their knowledge to develop proposals that 
will help solve the crisis—the most important step of all. “Usually, by 
the time they get to the solutions project, even the doubters understand 
the implications of a changing atmosphere,” Worth writes, “and [they] 
are eager to dream up answers.” The goal is to keep kids from getting 
crushed by the weight of the world and to work to ensure they’re 
actually up to the task of improving it.

I first learned about climate change in middle school, when our science 
teacher played a newly released documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. But 
I didn’t feel the climate crisis for another decade, when I began 
researching a project on changing rain patterns in the northeastern U.S. 
It’s not an overstatement to say that seeing the historic data 
change—and watching the projections extend out over the twenty-first 
century—eventually changed the course of my life and career. People 
younger than me don’t have the privilege of such a long learning curve; 
with apocalypse around every corner, a personal engagement with the 
science, let alone the history or politics of climate change, now 
follows the feelings of fear and grief prompted by the crisis. Children 
today grow up knowing the stakes and mourning the injustice. Adults need 
to supply them, at bare minimum, with the means to act on those feelings.

As a childless 25-year-old, I look back on my own climate education and 
feel as though I’m straddling two climate generations: those older than 
me, for whom disastrous change has (incorrectly) felt like a foregone 
conclusion, and the kids younger than me, for whom any change is 
(rightly) treated as meaningful progress. On September 20, 2019, for 
example, at the climate strike in New York City, I watched Jaden Smith 
and Willow perform and various speakers, including Greta Thunberg, take 
the stage. At some point, someone—I don’t remember who—spoke about how 
we, the crowd, would keep fighting no matter what, because 1.5 Celsius 
was better than two, but two was better than 2.5, and 2.5 was better 
than three. It was an obvious scientific fact, and yet as someone raised 
to think of even two degrees of warming as almost unthinkably 
catastrophic, I’d never felt it. But the teenagers around me, in their 
bucket hats and tank tops, nodded knowingly—they’d believed it all 
along. They’d come of age knowing the world is probably going to 
overshoot 1.5 degrees of warming—maybe even two. And they have every 
reason to fight for every fraction of a degree.

What black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking are you employing? Where 
is fatalism about the future holding you back?

To me, this moment revealed an important truth about what climate 
education really requires. Supporting kids as they face an endangered 
world requires adults to relocate their own optimism and reengage in the 
fight. “I’ve seen a lot of these articles on ‘how to help your kid with 
eco-anxiety,’ as if the parent isn’t also in the world,” Wray tells me. 
But children and their caretakers feed off each other’s emotions, and 
children rely on their caretakers to help them process complex feelings. 
When it comes to parenting, teaching, or otherwise supporting a child, 
“a key part of doing this well is doing your own inner work and 
investigation,” Wray says. What black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking 
are you employing? Where is fatalism about the future holding you back? 
What more can you be doing to build community?

These questions may, at times, be painful to ask. But Wray is confident 
they can help everyone work toward a better future. Parenting “with 
purpose and really committing to the joy of it—rather than fearing what 
may come—has an effect on your orientation toward what life is made of,” 
Wray tells me. If it takes a village to raise a child, then holistic, 
heartfelt climate education can and should change the village itself.

[Eleanor Cummins is a freelance science journalist based in New York. 
Eleanor Cummins @elliepses.]
https://portside.org/2022-04-14/were-failing-prepare-our-children-climate-fight



/{ this superb video has been taken down, it was quite disruptive as it 
clearly explained how anyone with access to sunlight could have full 
off-grid electric power.   This video may return -- s//how his other 
videos to your electrician ] /
*$1,585 MPP LV6548 Update and New Supplier: Is it a Clone?*
DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse
Watts24/7 6548: 
https://watts247.com/product/lv6548-6-5kw-120v-solar-inverter-4kw-250v-mppt-bms-ul1741-built-in-wifi/
Other all-in-one systems: 
https://www.mobile-solarpower.com/all-in-one-122448v-packages.html
0:00 LV6548 Discussion
5:51 Clone Review

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does off-grid solar confuse you? Check out my DIY friendly website for 
solar system blueprints and packages, and much more! 
http://www.mobile-solarpower.com/

Join our DIY solar community! #1 largest solar forum on the internet for 
beginners and professionals alike: https://www.diysolarforum.com

Check out my best-selling, beginner-friendly 12V off-grid solar book 
(affiliate link):
http://amzn.to/2Aj4dX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwnzYESPwQ /[keep checking this link or 
try his channel ]/


/[The news archive - looking back]/
*April 15, 2013*

InsideClimate News wins the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.

    ICN is the third web-based news organization to win national
    reporting honors, and the smallest among a trio that includes
    ProPublica and Huffington Post.

    By David Sassoon
    April 15, 2013
    nsideClimate News reporters Elizabeth McGowan, Lisa Song and David
    Hasemyer are the winners of this year’s Pulitzer Prize for national
    reporting.

    The trio took top honors in the category for their work on “The
    Dilbit Disaster: Inside the Biggest Oil Spill You’ve Never Heard
    Of,” a project that began with a seven-month investigation into the
    million-gallon spill of Canadian tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo
    River in 2010. It broadened into an examination of national pipeline
    safety issues, and how unprepared the nation is for the impending
    flood of imports of a more corrosive and more dangerous form of oil.

    The Pulitzer committee commended the reporters for their “rigorous
    reports on flawed regulation of the nation’s oil pipelines, focusing
    on potential ecological dangers posed by diluted bitumen (or
    “dilbit”), a controversial form of oil.”
    The recent ExxonMobil pipeline spill in Arkansas, which also
    involved heavy Canadian crude oil, underscores the continuing
    relevance of this ongoing body of work, as the White House struggles
    with reaching a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

    “It is enormously gratifying to have our work recognized with such a
    high honor, and I’m very proud of our entire team,” said David
    Sassoon, founder and publisher of InsideClimate News. “It’s a
    watershed moment for our non-profit news organization, a good day
    for environmental journalism, and a hopeful signal for the future of
    our profession.”

    InsideClimate News’ executive editor Susan White, who conceived and
    edited the project, said it succeeded because of the combined
    talents of the three reporters.

    “Elizabeth, Lisa and Dave believed deeply in these stories and were
    determined to do everything they could to make them clear and
    accessible to our readers,” White said. “Elizabeth’s ability to
    persuade people to talk, Lisa’s science background and Dave’s
    doggedness made it all work.”

    “The need to tell this story trumped all else,” said Stacy Feldman,
    co-founder and managing editor. “So we figured out how to
    successfully balance the daily demands of an online news
    organization with a deep dive and commitment of resources to this
    long-term project.”..

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130415/insideclimate-news-team-wins-pulitzer-prize-national-reporting

=======================================
*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/20220415/188d8cb6/attachment.htm>