[✔️] April 16, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest#

[RP]

/*April 16, 2022*/

/[ a quick video briefing from a few climate scientist  from Peter 
Sinclair ]/
*Climate Scientists on Infrastructure and Extremes*/
/Apr 15, 2022
greenmanbucket
I interviewed a cross section of key scientists on the impacts that 
climate extremes are taking on infrastructure.  This video was presented 
to a group of local township, city and county officials, who more and 
more understand the challenges that climate change will present in their 
communities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0CgLAVkKrM/
/
/

/[  mis-interpreted - or mis-stated.  Certainly misunderstood ]/
*Climate change: Key UN finding widely misinterpreted*
By Matt McGrath - April 15, 2022
In the document, researchers wrote that greenhouse gases are projected 
to peak "at the latest before 2025".

This implies that carbon could increase for another three years and the 
world could still avoid dangerous warming.

But scientists say that's incorrect and that emissions need to fall 
immediately.
- -
But before they fall, emissions need to reach a peak - and it's in the 
text explaining this idea that the report becomes confusing.
"Global greenhouse gases are projected to peak between 2020 and at the 
latest by 2025, in global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5C," 
the summary states.

Most media outlets including the BBC concluded that meant emissions 
could rise until 2025 and the world could still stay under 1.5C.

"When you read the text as it's laid out, it does give the impression 
that you've got to 2025 which I think is a very unfortunate outcome," 
said Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research in 
Oslo, and an IPCC lead author.

"It's an unfortunate choice of wording. That is, unfortunately, going to 
potentially have some rather negative consequences."So what went wrong?...
- -
"The headline statement couldn't say emissions should have peaked 
already, and the governments wouldn't allow the report to say emissions 
should have peaked in 2020," said Dr Edward Byers, an IPCC contributing 
author from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

This led to a lengthy debate during the two-week long approval session 
between the scientists and government officials over the exact words to use.

"There were many discussions about whether words such as "now" or 
"immediately" can be used," said Dr Byers.

"Some parties or people had concerns that that this would soon be out of 
date. And if the report was read in the future then "immediately" 
doesn't mean anything."
"I don't personally agree with that so I think 'immediately' would have 
been the best word to use."

A major challenge in communicating complex messages about climate change 
is that the more simplified media reports of these events often have 
more influence than the science itself.

This worries observers who argue that giving countries the impression 
that emissions can continue to grow until 2025 would be a disaster for 
the world.

"We definitely don't have the luxury of letting emissions grow for yet 
another three years," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace.

"We have eight years to nearly halve global emissions. That's an 
enormous task, but still doable, as the IPCC has just reminded us - but 
if people now start chasing emissions peak by 2025 as some kind of 
benchmark, we don't have a chance."
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61110406

/
/

/
/

/[ ////brief video comment //from //Arizona //TV meteorologist //where 
the heat is the worst - a danger warning//]/
//*Amber Sullins: Climate-Pumped Heat Waves a "Silent Killer"*
**greenmanbucket
Amber Sullins is Chief Meteorologist for ABC 15 in Phoenix, and as a 
lifelong Arizonan, knows whereof she speaks about Heat waves.  100° for 
overnight temps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL1CfL4L7Bk
**

/
/

/
/

/[ Sherri Goodman is Senior Strategist and Advisory Board member at the 
Center for Climate and Security, Chair of the Board at the Council on 
Strategic Risks and Secretary General of the International Military 
Council on Climate and Security.]/
*Opinion: Why climate action holds the key to German securit*y
Germany must do everything it can to end its dependence on fossil fuels 
from Russia. That can be the impetus for a move toward greater climate 
and geopolitical security, says Sherri Goodman.
Date April 16, 2022
Author Sherri Goodman
Sheltering from air raid sirens in Kyiv last month, Ukrainian 
meteorologist Svitlana Krakovska said what we all know: climate change 
and the war on Ukraine are both rooted in fossil fuels, and our 
dependence on them.

This conflict is hastening a difficult but crucial transition for 
Germany. In recent years, it has made significant strides in recognizing 
climate's links with national security. This alone has not yet freed the 
country from the tether of Russian oil and gas.

The shocking force of Russia's invasion, financed by its grip on the 
world fossil fuel market, shows that Germany's national security depends 
on securing energy resilience and greater independence. That German 
officials already understand this connection is reflected in the 
remarkable decision to increase the German defense budget in response to 
Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Greater energy resilience and 
independence can only happen by relying less on fossil fuels and the 
volatile global markets they are traded in.

While economic sanctions aim to curtail Russia, in truth German 
officials estimate that it may take until 2024 to fully end reliance on 
Russian natural gas, implying that European nations are still equipping 
Putin with the treasure he needs to wage war in Ukraine. Gazprom, 
Russia's state-controlled gas producer, is Europe's largest gas supplier 
and reported record earnings last year.
It reminds us that fossil fuel overdependence is a threat multiplier: it 
means that war threatens Germany's energy security, triggering an 
imminent cost of living crisis for Germans, and doubts about the 
country's long-term prosperity. At the same time, Germany's dependence 
on Russian fossil fuels is like a fire accelerant to the war in Ukraine 
and makes it more difficult to stop.

The smart security move is a rapid growth of renewables and other 
technologies that will reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas. Of 
course, Germany and other countries in Europe have a very near-term need 
to replace Russian gas with more reliable suppliers to meet immediate 
energy needs. The US is stepping up, with its recent commitment to help 
the EU diversify gas supplies in alignment with climate objectives and 
reducing demand for natural gas overall.  But this short-term supply 
solution should not be allowed to shape the future...
- -
Germany has made a good start in its journey towards decarbonizing its 
energy use and sources. Finance Minister Christian Lindner's 
announcement that "green energy is freedom energy," and an unprecedented 
€100 billion ($107 billion) security and defense investment alongside a 
€90 billion climate booster on top of the existing €110 billion climate 
protection budget, are positive signs.

The next step in protecting Germany's security interests is an 
all-hands-on-deck approach to the clean energy transition because it's 
the only way to guarantee Germany's energy security, protect the 
country's interests and accelerate innovation in microgrids, better 
batteries, and more...
- -
*All hands-on-deck approach*
Even when Germany is powered by clean energy, it will still rely on 
finite commodities like rare earths, a small but vital component of 
renewable energy technology like solar cells. Learning from this crisis 
means looking carefully at how conflict and trade disruption could 
threaten the supply chains we rely on for energy and reducing reliance 
on malign actors for their source.

Transatlantic cooperation will be critical. As it pursues decarbonized 
energy, Germany will need the US to join it in boosting innovation in 
renewable energy. US-led investments in clean energy, and a majority for 
an approved national plan, will provide the market certainty needed to 
scale up wind and solar energy and green hydrogen technology. And as 
NATO develops its latest assessment of the security environment and 
plans its response, the alliance will need to consider the role of 
decarbonized energy and emission cuts as a powerful lever for global 
security.

War in Ukraine is a humanitarian disaster, and a frightening display of 
the threat Putin's Russia poses to the rest of the world. It's a wake-up 
call that shows Europe what it needs to do to both enable a 
climate-secure future and a more secure Europe. If the governing 
coalition responds decisively to end its dependence on Russian fossil 
fuels, it could also be the catalyst for a safer and more climate-secure 
Germany.
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-why-climate-action-holds-the-key-to-german-security/a-61478822
//

/
/

/
/

/[  understanding dangerous impact of climate misinformation  -- an 
important podcast - 57 mins ] /
*BREAKING DOWN CLIMATE MISINFORMATION WITH AMY WESTERVELT AND JOHN COOK*
April 15th, 2022
Fossil fuel companies have spent decades casting doubt in public about 
climate facts that their own scientists validated in internal company 
research. These tactics have included a concerted effort to recast 
political speech, banned and regulated in some contexts, as protected 
free speech, giving corporations more leeway in broadcasting their messages.

John Cook is a postdoctoral research fellow with the Climate Change 
Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Australia. He says 
the most common climate misinformation in the U.S. centers on climate 
policy being harmful, expensive or ineffective:

“Ultimately, its goal is to delay climate action and maintain the
status quo. And you will find that no matter what the argument is,
the conclusion is always the same: whether they're arguing climate
change isn’t real, therefore we shouldn’t act. Or climate change
isn’t caused by humans, therefore, we shouldn’t act. Or solutions
won’t work, therefore we shouldn’t act.”

These tactics and arguments evolve over time. “I think what's most 
potent right now is culture war type misinformation,” Cook says. 
“Arguments that other people who care about climate change, who are 
trying to get climate action… painting them as different to us and 
they’re trying to take away our lifestyle or impinge on our freedom…The 
more tribal and polarized it becomes the harder it is to get progress.”

But Cook says we can combat such arguments with critical thinking, by 
identifying and challenging tactics such as cherry picking information, 
the “magnified minority” and false dichotomies. This week’s episode is a 
special collaboration with Amy Westervelt, an award-winning journalist 
and creator of the podcast Drilled. She brings us the backstory of the 
corporate free speech argument fossil fuel companies are now using to 
defend their efforts to spread climate misinformation. As she reports, 
while most people think the debate over corporate free speech in America 
started with the Citizens United case in 2010, it actually has roots 
back in the late 1960s with Mobil Oil and its “issue advertising” program.

  “The idea came from Mobil’s VP of Public Affairs, Herb Schmertz, as a 
way to counter widespread criticism of oil companies in the press,” 
Westervelt reports. Mobil worked with the New York Times to create the 
“advertorial,” running a piece in the op-ed section every week.

Mobil tried the same tactic with commercial TV stations but CBS and ABC 
told them no, describing the ads as propaganda and a violation of 
various ethics policies and maybe even some FCC laws. So Mobil fought 
back, defending corporate rights to “free speech.”

After a couple of Supreme Court decisions, Westervelt reports that 
today, oil companies are using that defense in climate liability 
lawsuits, arguing that their public statements discouraging climate 
action are protected by the first amendment.

Related Links:
How oil companies rebranded deceptive climate ads as ‘free speech’ 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/10/oil-companies-corporate-free-speech-laws-climate-litigation

John Cook’s “Cranky Uncle” Critical Thinking Game https://crankyuncle.com/

Shell’s Climate of Concern video https://crankyuncle.com/
https://www.climateone.org/audio/breaking-down-climate-misinformation-amy-westervelt-and-john-cook 




/[ Dave Roberts -- in a superb conversation with expert microeconomist - 
57 min interview ]/
*Volts podcast: Elizabeth Popp Berman on the "economic style of 
thinking" that consumed US policy*
Everybody's trying to think like an economist. Ew.
David Roberts
April 15, 2022
Back when I started paying attention to climate policy discussions, in 
the mid-2000s, one thing I immediately noticed is how keen mainstream 
environmentalists were to develop and champion “market-friendly” 
policies, the kind of policies that harnessed competition and choice and 
incentives. Everyone in center-left policy discussions seemed to be 
constantly auditioning for some imagined panel of economists. They were 
desperate to pass muster.

In part it could be explained as a response to conservatives, who by 
then had mainstreamed the myth that “command and control” environmental 
regulations are unduly burdensome. (In fact, the environmental 
regulations put in place in the 1960s and ‘70s are some of the most 
successful in US history, producing benefits wildly in excess of their 
costs, saving millions of lives in a way that arguably boosted rather 
than hampered economic growth.) Environmentalists were keen to find 
bipartisan solutions, to build a consensus from the center out, and they 
thought that the emphasis on market-based policies would attract support 
from Republicans. (Spoiler: it did not.)

But it wasn’t a purely defensive move. There was sincere enthusiasm for 
the project of treating climate change like an equation to be solved in 
the most efficient way possible, like math, bypassing the agonizing 
issues of political economy and sidelining mushy, subjective talk of 
values and rights. It wasn’t imposed on the center-left; the center-left 
embraced and internalized it.

That has changed somewhat, but not all that much, and it may end up 
constraining Biden just like it constrained Obama...
So imagine my surprise as I looked through sociologist Elizabeth Popp 
Berman’s new book: Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced 
Equality in U.S. Public Policy. It turns out this kind of thinking — 
what Berman calls “the economic style of reasoning” — has taken over not 
just environmental policy but the entire US policy bureaucracy, to 
dismal results. It’s as much something Democrats have done to themselves 
as anything forced by the right.

One always enjoys having one’s priors validated by scholars of much 
greater distinction than oneself, so I was delighted to read the book 
and equally delighted to chat with Berman about the economic style, how 
it came to dominate, and what might come after.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-elizabeth-popp-berman?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNjgzNTA5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo1MTc2MjQ1OSwiXyI6IkVkZkpiIiwiaWF0IjoxNjUwMDM5MDk5LCJleHAiOjE2NTAwNDI2OTksImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xOTMwMjQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.WlzYbVbX0yWhHBpjFlOli5VjMfWsPKRaVwJ5VwqG3vA&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&s=r#play

- -

/[ Consider her book ]/
*Thinking like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. 
Public Policy*
Elizabeth Popp Berman
The story of how economic reasoning came to dominate Washington between 
the 1960s and 1980s—and why it continues to constrain progressive 
ambitions today
For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by 
tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly 
ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, 
and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an 
Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive 
way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in 
Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to 
dramatically narrow debates over public policy today.

Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this 
way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and 
policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its 
advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict 
with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on 
corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had 
spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, 
healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing 
waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades 
to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for 
economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.

A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to 
its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical 
lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, 
Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require 
abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully 
advocating new ways of thinking about policy.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167381/thinking-like-an-economist



/[//excellent CBS video --//great irony that you may first see 
advertisements, often for gasoline-powered cars  ]/
*Demise of the golden toad shows climate change's massive extinction 
threat: "Absolutely terrifying"*
APRIL 14, 2022
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/golden-toad-extinct-climate-change/



/[ a big landslide in the BC mountains, not witnessed by any human - it 
happened] /
*BC’s giant landslide serves as warning for other parts of the world*
Apr 2, 2022
Global News
No one saw a massive landslide in a remote valley on B.C.’s central 
coast back in late 2020, but it was detected as far away as Australia.
In a few seconds, 50 million tonnes of rock dropped from a mountainside 
into Elliott Lake.

The results of a new study show it triggered a tsunami 100 metres tall. 
The study also has some startling findings including how fast that wave 
was moving.

Glaciers in central B.C. are melting faster than almost anywhere else in 
the world.
As Ted Chernecki reports, researchers fear the event is a red flag for 
any region where glaciers are melting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11jNGgQqYyg


/[  video discussion with author  ] /
*FIRE and FLOOD: A People’s History of Climate Change, from 1979 to the 
Present*
April 14, 2022
Commonwealth Club of California
Join us for an online talk with environmental journalist Eugene Linden.

In his new book, Fire and Flood, Linden examines the role of business 
interests in muddying messages from scientists and derailing attempts to 
galvanize the public. He tells a story of big monied interests doing 
what they do to protect short-term profits against longer-term threats. 
One of the through-lines of the book is the insurance industry’s 
response to climate change, which for a long time was painfully slow, 
but recently has pivoted quite dramatically. Florida and California are 
seeing the housing insurance sector retreat from entire regions because 
of the unmanageable risks of fire and flood—some believe that the 
housing markets in parts of those two states are another bad season or 
two away from collapse. In a larger sense, big business, which for so 
long has been a woeful headwind to needed change, is waking up to the 
need to act very quickly now, as the long term has become the near term 
with terrifying speed.

Eugene Linden is an award-winning journalist and author on science, 
nature and the environment. He is the author of nine books of 
non-fiction and one novel. His previous book on climate change, Winds of 
Change, explored the connection between climate change and the rise and 
fall of civilizations and was awarded the Grantham Prize Special Award 
of Merit. For many years, Linden wrote about nature and global 
environmental issues for Time, where he garnered several awards, 
including the American Geophysical Union’s Walter Sullivan Award.

Eugene Linden
Journalist; Author, Fire and Flood

In Conversation with Andrew Dudley
President and CEO, Earth; Co-Host and Producer, "Earth Live"; Chair, 
People & Nature Member-Led Forum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkpBizCFYo



/[  Looks like nature will have to find a new heat-loving plant ] /
*Even the Cactus May Not Be Safe From Climate Change*
More than half of species could face greater extinction risk by 
midcentury, a new study found, as rising heat and dryness test the 
prickly plants’ limits.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/climate/cactus-climate-change.html

/
/

/[ really. really?  Such bragging is rude and crude behavior ]/
*They derailed climate action for a decade. And bragged about it.*
New research sheds light on the Global Climate Coalition’s efforts to 
block legislation.
Kate Yoder -- Staff Writer -- Apr 15, 2022

In 1989, just as leaders around the world were starting to think 
seriously about tackling global warming, the National Association of 
Manufacturers assembled a group of corporations — utilities, oil 
companies, automakers, and more — united by one thing: They wanted to 
stop climate action. It was called, in Orwellian fashion, the Global 
Climate Coalition.

With 79 members at its height in 1991, the coalition helped lay the 
groundwork for efforts to delay action on climate change for decades to 
come. It would not just deny the science, but also argue that shifting 
away from fossil fuels would hurt the economy and the American way of 
life. The coalition lobbied key politicians, developed a robust public 
relations campaign, and gave industry a voice in international climate 
negotiations, all to derail efforts to limit carbon emissions. Its 
arguments were so successful that they’re still employed today, or, more 
perniciously, simply taken for granted.

“This was all developed in the 1990s, and we can prove it,” said Robert 
Brulle, a sociologist at Brown University. In a new paper published in 
the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Politics, Brulle details the 
untold history of corporate America’s earliest efforts to block climate 
legislation, supported by recently uncovered documents.

Based on conversations with lawyers, Brulle believes his report could be 
helpful in lawsuits to hold corporations responsible for heating up the 
planet. “It would be used to basically document that this has been a 
long-term, corporate objective and that they should be held liable for 
the damages — that their political actions resulted in the fact that we 
didn’t deal with climate change,” he said.
Before the Global Climate Coalition formed in 1989, chemical companies 
had been ordered to phase out substances that were damaging the ozone 
layer under the Montreal Protocol, signed by the United States in 1987. 
They hoped to avoid a repeat with carbon dioxide. In the summer of 1988, 
James Hansen, then the NASA Administrator, had testified before 
Congress, raising the alarm that the “greenhouse effect” was already 
having discernible effects, with much worse to come.

The Global Climate Coalition wasn’t the only organization trying to 
thwart climate action in the late 1980s. There was the similarly named 
Global Climate Council and the International Petroleum Industry 
Environmental Conservation Association led by Exxon — but it was the 
first and largest to do so. The coalition included oil giants like Shell 
and Chevron as well as other companies that had a stake in keeping 
fossil fuels alive, such as the railroads that transported coal and the 
steelmakers that used it in production. Utilities like Duke Power 
Company were heavily dependent on coal and made up the biggest share of 
members. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler manufactured internal 
combustion engines that ran on petroleum, so they joined the coalition, 
too. The roster also included the National Mining Association, Dow 
Chemical Company, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

A newly unearthed, undated document from E. Bruce Harrison — a public 
relations expert who helped the coalition tailor its messages to avoid 
environmental regulations — describes how the Global Climate Coalition’s 
“aggressive campaign” influenced the debate and watered down policies. 
Brulle calls it a “brag sheet.”

“GCC has successfully turned the tide on press coverage of global 
climate change science, effectively countering the ecocatastrophe 
message and asserting the lack of scientific consensus on global 
warming,” Harrison wrote.
He claimed that the coalition had “actively influenced” congressional 
debates over carbon taxes to avoid “strict energy taxes,” and had 
affected the Clinton administration’s decision “to rely on voluntary 
(rather than mandatory) measures” to reduce emissions in its 1993 
National Action Plan, required under an international climate treaty 
hashed out in Rio de Janeiro the year before. The Global Climate 
Coalition had influenced the Rio treaty, too — a National Association of 
Manufacturers business activity report in 1992 congratulated itself on a 
“strong and effective presence” during the Rio negotiations and 
celebrated that the final product did not include binding emissions 
reductions...
The new documents show how close the international community came to 
regulating carbon emissions. At the first Conference of Parties in 
Berlin in 1995, for instance, world leaders agreed to institute 
mandatory emissions requirements in two years. Corporations saw this as 
an impending disaster. “Dozens of UN agencies, international 
organizations and environmental special interest groups are driving 
events — regardless of economic costs and remaining scientific 
uncertainties — toward a conclusion that is inimical to the interests of 
the GCC and the U.S. economy,” read the coalition’s communications plan 
for 1994-1995.

In 1997, the coalition worked with Senators Robert Byrd, a Democrat from 
West Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, to pass an 
amendment setting strict criteria for an international climate accord. 
The Senate unanimously supported the resolution, which stipulated that 
any agreement would need to include emissions reductions from developing 
countries (a nonstarter for international negotiations) and could not 
cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. It was essentially a rejection 
of the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required countries to cut carbon 
emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The treaty was signed 
by President Bill Clinton in 1997, but the Senate refused to ratify it, 
and President George W. Bush withdrew from the accord after he took 
office in 2001.

A few months later, White House staff met with the Global Climate 
Coalition and congratulated the corporate group. “POTUS rejected Kyoto, 
in part, based on input from you,” said the talking points prepared for 
Paula Dobriansky, at the time the Under Secretary of State for Global 
Affairs and the lead negotiator on U.S. climate policy. Its mission 
accomplished, the Global Climate Coalition disbanded in 2002.

“This is a really skillfully executed public relations and influence 
campaign that ran a good 12 years, and it achieved enormous success,” 
Brulle said. “And it set a template for how to do this, and how to win, 
on climate change.” The coalition accomplished all this on a budget of 
between $500,000 and $2 million a year.
Part of the strategy was to emphasize the economic cost of acting on 
climate change without the broader context. In 1989, the first year of 
its existence, the Global Climate Coalition commissioned an economic 
analysis that calculated that cutting carbon emissions 20 percent within 
a decade would push up Americans’ power bills by 15 percent. It was the 
start of a tried-and-true approach to blocking restrictions on carbon 
emissions by exaggerating upfront costs: a calculus that ignores the 
health benefits, as well as the long-term savings of not turning the 
planet into an oven.

Similar arguments are still stalling climate legislation today. Senator 
Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, has said he can’t support 
Build Back Better, President Joe Biden’s package of climate and social 
policy programs because of the trillion-dollar sticker price. This 
narrow kind of economic analysis of costs and benefits has become the 
dominant way politicians assess climate policy. “Only now are we 
starting to show its historical basis as a kind of a rhetoric to counter 
environmentalism,” Brulle said.

The Global Climate Coalition was also an early adopter of what has been 
called the “China excuse” — the idea that the United States, the world’s 
largest historic emitter of carbon dioxide, shouldn’t cut emissions 
unless developing countries like China and India did too. The coalition 
used this argument as far back as 1990, when it argued during a 
congressional testimony that any global agreement should require 
developing countries to reduce emissions.

Another element of the Global Climate Coalition’s messaging strategy was 
to paint fossil fuels as a symbol of abundance, integral to the American 
way of life. While the coalition was working to derail the Kyoto 
Protocol in 1997, it put out an advertisement with a large photo of 
smiling children alongside the line “Don’t risk our economic future.” It 
warned that signing the global agreement “would force American families 
to restrict our use of the oil, gasoline, and electricity — that heats 
and cools homes and schools, gets us to our jobs, and runs our factories 
and businesses.”

It’s similar to a recent ad from Energy Transfer Partners, the company 
behind the Dakota Access pipeline. The commercial follows two people 
getting ready for a date and meeting outside a bar — and then rewinds 
the whole thing, missing key elements. “That connection was brought to 
you by petroleum products,” a man says. “But what if we lived in a world 
without oil and natural gas?” With a poof, hair gel disappears, contacts 
fade away, and the frame of the car hits the cement without its tires. 
On the game playing on a screen behind the couple in the restaurant, the 
football vanishes a second before getting kicked.

Such advertisements could be considered the legacy of the Global Climate 
Coalition. “When you look at the propaganda and the amount of studies 
that they put in, yeah, they attack science,” Brulle said, “but I think 
they did a lot more talking about the economic impacts and the threats 
to the American way of life that all of this represented.”
https://grist.org/accountability/how-the-global-climate-coalition-derailed-climate-action/



/[The news archive - looking back]/ *
**April, 16 2009*
On MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," Janeane Garofalo observes:
"Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that is 
their bread and butter.  If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox News 
goes down the toilet, you know, very, very fast...They‘re been doing 
this for years.  That‘s why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this 
venture; it is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb-down a certain 
segment of the electorate."
(5:27-5:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAAHMDpk7Ik

=======================================
*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.