[✔️] December 4. 2022 - Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Sun Dec 4 07:23:05 EST 2022
/*December 4, 2022*/
/[ putting more faith in the courts -- ]/
*Puerto Rican Cities Sue Fossil Fuel Companies in Major Class-Action,
Climate Fraud Case*
Municipalities aim to hold industry liable for damages from catastrophic
2017 hurricanes.
Dana Drugmand - Dec 2, 2022
Nearly 25 years ago, oil major Shell predicted in an internal 1998
report that a class-action lawsuit would be brought against fossil fuel
companies following “a series of violent storms.” That prediction is
finally coming true: A group of Puerto Rican communities, which were
ravaged by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, are suing Shell and other
fossil fuel producers in a first-of-its-kind, class action climate
liability lawsuit.
The groundbreaking case — filed November 22 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico — is the first climate-related class
action lawsuit in the United States filed against the fossil fuel
industry to target the industry with federal charges of racketeering. It
alleges that the fossil fuel defendants engaged in a coordinated,
multi-front effort to promote climate denial and defraud consumers by
concealing the climate consequences of fossil fuel products in order to
inflate profits.
Sixteen Puerto Rican municipalities are suing as a class or
representatives on behalf of the more than 60 municipalities on the
island that all experienced devastating losses from the 2017 hurricanes.
The case demands that fossil fuel companies pay for damages associated
with catastrophic storms, beginning with the 2017 hurricanes, and their
lingering impacts, arguing that these disasters are worsened by climate
change...
- -
*A “New Front in the Climate Liability War”*
The lawsuit brings more than a dozen legal claims under federal and
Puerto Rican law, such as consumer fraud, violation of Puerto Rican
consumer protection rules, and violation of federal antitrust law.
Notably, it also alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute designed to fight
organized crime or other corrupt conduct.
RICO has been successfully used to hold the tobacco industry accountable
for lying about the health hazards of their products, and has been
applied in litigation against opioid and auto manufactures. Until now,
it had yet to be asserted in a climate liability lawsuit, although
several Democratic senators have previously called for a federal probe
of Big Oil that could result in potential racketeering litigation.
- -
Representatives for several of the oil company defendants said in
emailed statements that this litigation is a “baseless distraction” and
that climate solutions must be reached through “smart policy from
governments” rather than courts.
“Addressing a challenge as big as climate change requires a truly
collaborative, society-wide approach. We do not believe the courtroom is
the right venue to address climate change,” Shell spokesperson Anna
Arata said in a statement.
A lawyer for Chevron also described the climate crisis as a societal
challenge resulting from “worldwide conduct” of consumers, including
Puerto Ricans.
“Residents and public officials in Puerto Rico rely every day on oil and
gas to live and work on the island, power their homes, become a tourist
destination, and grow their economy. This lawsuit is one in a series of
suits that attempt to punish a select group of energy companies for a
challenge that is the result of worldwide conduct stretching back to the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution,” said Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.,
of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, counsel for Chevron Corporation.
A 2021 peer-reviewed study by Harvard researchers Naomi Oreskes and
Geoffrey Supran, however, suggests that these kinds of statements are
part of a misleading narrative framing that downplays the gravity of the
climate crisis, normalizes dependency on oil and gas, and focuses blame
on individual consumers. According to the study, which examined
communications from ExxonMobil, “These patterns mimic the tobacco
industry’s documented strategy of shifting responsibility away from
corporations—which knowingly sold a deadly product while denying its
harms—and onto consumers.”
ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment on the new lawsuit
from Puerto Rico.
Boutrous added: “Chevron believes the claims alleged are legally and
factually meritless, and will demonstrate that in court.”
But if the federal racketeering litigation that determined that tobacco
companies had committed fraud on a massive scale is any indication, the
fossil fuel companies could be in real legal peril with this new RICO
litigation.
“Tobacco opened the door to using RICO, and let’s face it—RICO was
enacted to fight organized crime,” said Sharon Eubanks, an attorney who
previously led the U.S. Justice Department’s successful RICO litigation
against Big Tobacco in United States v. Philip Morris USA, et al. “That
seems to be what we have here with Big Oil as well.”
https://www.desmog.com/2022/12/02/puerto-rico-climate-liability-lawsuit-racketeering-fraud-shell-bp-chevron-exxon/
- -
/[ Today is more than 12 years later -- ]/
*Greenpeace Releases 20-Year History of Climate Denial Industry*
James Hogganon Mar 26, 2010
https://www.desmog.com/2010/03/26/greenpeace-releases-20-year-history-climate-denial-industry/
- -
/[ An old lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court - is worth a simple
review ]/
*Listed Claims against the Carbon Fuel Industry accepted in Federal
District Court 2007*
Kivalina vs. Exxon,et al 2007
The... claims are directly from the 2007 filing of Kivalina v.
Exxon, et al . The facts were never in dispute, but the case was
rejected for standing.
*D. Civil Conspiracy Allegations*
1. The Use of Front Groups
189. There has been a long campaign by power, coal, and oil
companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming.
Defendants ExxonMobil, AEP, BP America Inc., Chevron Corporation,
ConocoPhillips Company, Duke Energy, Peabody, and Southern
(“Conspiracy Defendants”) participated in this campaign. Initially,
the campaign attempted to show that global warming was not
occurring. Later, and continuing to the present , it attempts to
demonstrate that global warming is good for the planet and its
inhabitants or that even if Geopoliticus child watching the birth of
the new manthere may be ill effects, there is not enough scientific
certainty to warrant action. The purpose of this campaign has been
to enable the electric power, coal, oil and other industries to
continue their conduct contributing to the public nuisance of global
warming by convincing the public at-large and the victims of global
warming that the process is not man-made when in fact it is.
190. The campaign has been conducted directly by the Conspiracy
Defendants, and through trade associations such as the Edison
Electric Institute (“EEI”) (which represents the electric power
industry), the National Mining Association (which represents the
coal industry), and the Western Fuels Association (which represents
coal-burning utilities that own Wyoming coal fields). The industries
have also formed and used front groups, fake citizens organizations,
and bogus scientific bodies, such as the Global Climate Coalition
(“GCC”), the Greening Earth Society, the George C. Marshall
Institute, and the Cooler Heads Coalition. The most active company
in such efforts is and has been defendant ExxonMobil.No danger
ahead, OK to pass me!
191. The tactics employed in this campaign include the funding and
use of “global warming skeptics,” i.e. professional scientific
“experts” (many of whom are not atmospheric scientists) who
regularly publish their marginal views expressing doubts about
numerous aspects of climate change science in places like the Wall
Street Journal editorial page but rarely, if ever, in peer-reviewed
scientific journals. The skeptics are frequently quoted in
newspapers such as the Washington Times and are offered up to
numerous mainstream unsuspecting, news outlets as scientific experts
in order to sow doubt among the public about global warming... [more]
http://novote4energy.org/
/[From the misinformation battlegrounds -- bad messages from a worsening
network ] /
*#ClimateScam: denialism claims flooding Twitter have scientists worried*
Many researchers are fleeing the platform, unnerved by the surge in
climate misinformation since Musk’s chaotic takeover
Oliver Milman
@olliemilman
Fri 2 Dec 2022
Twitter has proved a cherished forum for climate scientists to share
research, as well as for activists seeking to rally action to halt oil
pipelines or decry politicians’ failure to cut pollution. But many are
now fleeing Twitter due to a surge in climate misinformation, spam and
even threats that have upended their relationship with the platform.
Scientists and advocates have told the Guardian they have become
unnerved by a recent resurgence of debunked climate change denialist
talking points and memes on Twitter, with the term #ClimateScam now
regularly the first result that appears when “climate” is searched on the
Twitter has fired content management teams, dismantled the platform’s
sustainability arm and lifted bans on several prominent users with
millions of followers, such as Donald Trump and the rightwing
commentator Jordan Peterson, who has espoused falsities about the
climate crisis. The changes have been too much to bear for some climate
experts.
“Since Musk’s takeover I have ramped down my own use of Twitter, using
it less both to look for news and to share science,” said Twila Moon, a
scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center who said she was
worried that years of connections formed between scientists could
“crumble” if trust in Twitter collapses.
“Folks noticing a rise in climate denialism and disinformation is
particularly worrying and I am concerned that it could slow climate
action in ways that are devastating to economies, communities and
health,” she said.
Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at University of
Pennsylvania, said he has no immediate plans to depart Twitter but he’s
noticed that climate disinformation has “become a bit more on the nose,
with climate deniers who had been deactivated making a reappearance, and
climate denial getting somewhat more traction”.
Mann has created a profile on Mastodon, a new social media site seen as
an alternative to Twitter, and has been joined by a cadre of other
climate scientists dismayed by Musk’s tenure. “I don’t think I’m getting
much value from being on Twitter now, there are more interesting
conversations happening at Mastodon,” said Bob Kopp, a Rutgers
University climate scientist who expressed alarm at Twitter ending its
policy on Covid-19 misinformation, which he said “tends to go hand in
hand” with climate denialism.
Musk, a self-proclaimed defender of free speech and previously lauded by
environmentalists due to his leadership of the electric car firm Tesla,
has said that Twitter “obviously cannot become a free-for-all
hellscape”. But his recent actions suggest “that he is interested in
creating a massive, worldwide cage fight. If it comes to that, we’ll
take a pass,” according to Ed Maibach, an expert in climate
communications at George Mason University who claimed that many people
in the climate community have discussed leaving the site.
- -
Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and media personality who was
reinstated to Twitter by Musk following a ban, has recently become
fixated upon climate change, often firing off a dozen tweets or more in
a single day on the issue to his 3.5 million followers.
The rightwinger has shared debunked theories that excess carbon dioxide
is beneficial to the world, that “automotive freedom” is under threat
from efforts to reduce pollution from cars and that climate campaigners
want to “wreak envious and narcissistic havoc”.
“Peterson is a big one because his brand extends beyond the environment
but now he’s doubling down on climate,” said King. “We’ve seen time and
again these accounts that espouse climate denial and delay also spread
misinformation on other topics, such as electoral fraud, racial politics
or reproductive rights.”
While false claims about the climate crisis have been deployed for
decades by the fossil fuel industry and various conservative figures,
there is some evidence there has been a rise in polarization over
climate on social media over the past two years. A recent study by
researchers in the UK and Italy found there was a fourfold increase in
“contrarian” rightwing climate conversations on Twitter during the UN
Cop26 climate talks last year, compared with the same summit held in 2015.
The increase in minority voices on climate, who make claims such as that
people favoring climate action are somehow hypocrites or that reducing
emissions is pointless or expensive, is being fueled by well-known
rightwing politicians in the US and Europe turning their fire on climate
activists who have become more prominent in recent years, the
researchers said.
“We’ve entered a new era of conversation around climate change, where
there is diminished trust and no interaction between groups who
disagree,” said Andrea Baronchelli, co-author of the study and a
researcher at City University London. “If you’re in one camp, you aren’t
necessarily exposed to the views of the other camp, other than to mock
them.”
For climate scientists, this breakdown has raised fears that previously
mainstream online spaces like Twitter will be ceded to conspiracy
theorists and others without any expertise of global heating. Kim Cobb,
a climate scientist at Brown University, has moved to Mastodon, too, but
lamented that it feels “fairly tame and pretty nerdy” compared with Twitter.
“As someone who followed lots of women scientists, and scientists of
color, I’m noticing the absence of these treasured voices,” she said.
“Maybe they’ve left Twitter, or maybe they’ve fallen silent, or maybe
the network has deteriorated to the point that I’m just not seeing them
being retweeted by mutuals. Twitter is a shadow of its former self when
it comes to climate change.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/02/climate-change-denialism-flooding-twitter-scientists
/[ from an Inconvenient Apocalypse ]/
*Four Hard Questions: Size, Scale, Scope, Speed*
To address ecological crises, it’s time to leave behind those who are
holding us back.
by Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen
The Progressive Magazine, December 2022/January 2023
This essay is adapted from An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental
Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity (Notre Dame Press,
2022). https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203665/an-inconvenient-apocalypse/
People are sometimes reluctant to ask questions when they suspect that
they will not like the answers.
How many churchgoers who have doubts about their congregation’s doctrine
decide to squelch their questions out of fear of losing friends and
community? How often do people in intimate relationships avoid
confronting tension because they know a problem cannot be resolved? How
many people have delayed a trip to the doctor because they know
that an examination may lead to a diagnosis they do not want to deal with?
Here is an exercise for all of us: For one day, pay attention to all the
forms of denial you practice and that you see others practicing. How
many times do we turn away from reality because it is too hard at that
moment to face? Dare we list the things that scare us into silence?
We all have personal experience with this hesitancy to face reality. At
some point in our lives, we all have avoided hard questions, precisely
because they are hard.
What we experience individually is also true of society. There are hard
questions that, collectively, we have so far turned away from, either
because we have no answers or because we will not like the answers that
are waiting for us. Contemporary societies face problems for which there
likely are no solutions if we are only willing to consider solutions
that promise no dramatic disruption in our lives. Hard questions often
demand that we acknowledge the need for
dramatic change.
Our ecological crises cannot be waved away with the cliché that
necessity is the mother of invention, implying that human intelligence,
perhaps in combination with market incentives, will produce magical
solutions. We believe that the most productive way to face today’s
hardest questions is to focus not only on human creativity but also on
human limitations. The techno-optimists emphasize the former, betting
that we can do anything we set our minds to. Those who lean toward
nihilism focus on the latter, suggesting that there is no way off the
path to ruin. We believe that responsible planning requires careful
consideration of both humanity’s potential and its propensities—not only
what can get us out of trouble but also what got us into trouble in the
first place.
Four hard questions that are essential to confront now are: What is the
sustainable size of the human population? What is the appropriate scale
of a human community? What is the scope of human
competence to manage our interventions into the larger living world? At
what speed must we move toward different living arrangements if we are
to avoid catastrophic consequences?
When we have raised these issues in conversation, the most common
response is that while these hard questions may be interesting, they
have no bearing on what is possible today in real-world struggles for
justice and sustainability. The implication is that such questions
either somehow do not really matter or are too dangerous to ask.
We have heard this not only from people within the conventional
political arena but also from environmentalists and activists on the
left. Their argument generally goes something like this: The questions
raise issues that most people simply will not engage with and suggest a
need for changes that most people simply will not make. Sensible
environmentalists and activists know that you cannot expect people to
think about such huge questions when they face the everyday problems
of living, and making a living, which take up most of their time and
energy. And what is the point of thinking about these things anyway,
when we all know that politicians can only move so far and so fast in
our political system? Why ask questions and offer policies that are
certain to be ignored?
Sensible people, we have been told, are those who accept the Overton
Window. Named after the late Joseph P. Overton from the Mackinac Center
for Public Policy, the idea is that politicians “generally only pursue
policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate
policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other
policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they
champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.”
That can be a useful concept for thinking about what laws might be
passed today, but it becomes an impediment to critical thinking when
people use it to avoid hard, but necessary, questions that cannot be
put off forever. When confronting questions of size, scale, scope, and
speed, we encourage people to climb out of the Overton Window to get a
wider view of the world, to think not about how human political
processes limit what actions are possible today (which they do) but
about what the larger living world’s forces demand of us (which dictate
the material conditions in which we live our lives).
When attempting to come to terms with biophysical realities, refusing to
look beyond the Overton Window guarantees collective failure. That
window certainly exists in the realm of environmental policy—politicians
fear the loss of support if they move too far, too fast. But that does
not exempt anyone from asking the hard questions. The environmental
policies that are possible today are important, but we also must
recognize that we likely face a dramatically different set of choices in
a far more challenging tomorrow. And that tomorrow is not as far away as
we might want to believe.
We realize that asking these four hard questions in the mainstream
political arena today is nearly impossible, and that the key actors in
our current political system will not engage them anytime soon. But to
cite these impediments as a reason not to ever grapple with these
questions in any context is not sensible. It’s an indication of moral
and intellectual weakness. The nineteenth-century Austrian writer Marie
von Ebner-Eschenbach put it succinctly: “There are instances in which to
be reasonable is to be cowardly.”
The four questions are so complex that detailed answers are beyond our
capacities, but that does not render them irrelevant. With these
caveats, we assert the following rough conclusions as a place to start
the necessary conversations.
In terms of size, the Earth’s ecosystems can sustainably support far
fewer than eight billion people, even if everyone were consuming far
less energy and material than they do today. For scale, we will have to
learn to live in
smaller and more flexible political and social units than today’s
nation-states and cities. On scope, we are far less capable of
controlling modern technology than we think, and we cannot manage the
current high-energy/high-technology infrastructure we have created for
much longer. Regarding speed, we must move faster than we have been, and
faster than it appears we may be capable of.
We believe that more and more people are willing to climb out of the
Overton Window. We constantly meet people who are tired of being told
they must be “sensible.” If we can refuse to be limited by other
people’s fears—if we can see beyond both a naive techno-optimism and a
corrosive nihilism—we create space for a conversation about these
questions without having to pretend that we have all the answers. We can
make realistic assessments, drawing on science and human history. But we
have to be willing to drop sunny-side-of-the-street fantasies captured
in phrases such as “the impossible
will take a little while” and “necessity is the mother of invention,”
while at the same time refusing to slip into a paralyzing despair.
- -
Wes Jackson is president emeritus of The Land Institute. Robert Jensen
is an emeritus professor at the University of Texas at Austin. They are
the authors of An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse,
Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity, from which this essay is
drawn. Jensen can be reached at at rjensen at austin.utexas.edu.
https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203665/an-inconvenient-apocalypse/
/[ every choice makes a difference ]/
*Culture shift: Young workers prioritize companies with green policies
over salaries*
Kana Ruhalter
Boston University Statehouse Program
BOSTON — Despite a labor shortage that has companies desperately looking
to hire and an economy wreaking havoc on bank accounts, young people are
increasingly hesitant — or outright against — working for a firm that
does not have climate-friendly policies.
The cultural shift in attitudes from that of prior generations shows
that Gen Z and younger millennials are factoring in more than just
wealth when making life decisions.
Earlier this month, the Boston Foundation held a virtual forum to
analyze the Inaugural Boston Climate Progress Report conducted by
Northeastern University researchers. They found that Boston is on the
path to failure to achieve its key climate goal: net-zero greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050
https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/climate-change/2022/12/03/young-workers-prefer-to-work-for-companies-with-climate-change-policies/69685052007/
/[ Isn't today Sunday? ]/
*A Biblical Basis for Christian Engagement*
"Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment"
Executive Summary
Overview
"Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment" is an
updated report
showing how climate change impacts the world’s most vulnerable. The
2022 report
explores the biblical basis for Christian engagement, the science of
climate change, how
climate change affects the poor, and practical ways to move forward.
Each section
includes a reflection from an expert and a real life example from
someone working on the issues.
*Section 1: A Biblical Basis for Christian Engagement*
Evangelicals look to the Bible for guidance in all areas of life.
Though the Bible does not tell us specifically how to evaluate
scientific reports or respond to a changing environment, it does
offer several helpful principles: Care for creation, love our neighbors
and witness to the world. Bishop Timothy Clarke shares why
climate change is an issue the faith community must address.
*Section 2: A Changing Environment*
This section looks at the science underlying our understanding of
climate, discusses
research about the future of Earth’s climate, considers how to
untangle scientific
controversies, and includes the perspective of a Christian climate
scientist, Thomas
Ackerman. Mitch Hescox and Jessica Moerman describe the impact of
warming and
air pollution on children’s health.
*Section 3: How Climate Affects People in Poverty*
This section details how climate change affects people in poverty,
discussing natural
disasters, health outcomes, adaption and mitigation costs,
conflicts, and displacement,
among other issues. Christopher Shore, Jenny Yang and Lanre
Williams-Ayedun share
what they have experienced in other parts of the world.
*Section 4: What Should We Do?*
The threats we face are real, and the needs can feel overwhelming.
Christians can
respond in many ways through both individual and collective action,
including in areas
of discipleship, supporting others’ work, stewardship and advocacy.
As an
advocate, Galen Carey lists seven practical ways to make a difference.
https://www.nae.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Loving-the-Least-of-These_Executive-Summary.pdf
- -
https://www.nae.org/biblical-basis-christian-engagement/
/[ Yale program on Climate Change Communication ]/
*What Do Video Gamers Think About Global Warming?*
*Executive Summary*
This report describes global warming beliefs, attitudes, policy
preferences, and behaviors among U.S. adults who play video games (n =
2,034). The survey was conducted from May 30 – June 7, 2022.
Video games have become one of humanity’s favorite forms of
entertainment, with an estimated 3 billion players worldwide. People of
all ages, nationalities, genders, and socioeconomic statuses play, and
it is this broad and extensive reach that creates an enormous
opportunity to address climate change. This study helps lay a foundation
for engagement that the gaming community can build on.
Key findings from this study include the following:
Global Warming Attitudes & Risk Perceptions
About three in four video gamers (73%) think global warming is
happening, and the majority of video gamers (56%) understand that
global warming is mostly human-caused. These proportions are nearly
identical to the proportions in the U.S. population overall, as
measured in the Climate Change in the American Mind study conducted
in April and May of 2022 (72% believe global warming is happening,
56% believe it is human-caused).
Seven in ten video gamers (70%) say they are either “somewhat” or
“very” worried about global warming, compared with 64% of the U.S.
population overall.
Video gamers feel a range of emotions related to global warming.
Half or more video gamers say they feel either “very” or
“moderately” interested (68%), sad (57%), afraid (54%), disgusted
(54%), angry (52%), hopeful (53%), or outraged (50%) when thinking
about global warming. In comparison, fewer U.S. residents overall
say they feel most of these emotions related to global warming
(interested, 62%; disgusted, 51%; sad, 51%; afraid, 46%; angry, 44%;
outraged, 42%; hopeful, 38%).
About half of video gamers (48%) either “strongly” or “somewhat”
agree that they have personally experienced the effects of global
warming, compared with 43% of U.S. residents overall. By contrast,
only about one in three (33%) video gamers say that global warming
is harming people in the U.S. “right now,” which is much lower than
the proportion of U.S. residents overall who say so (48%).
Most video gamers think global warming will harm plant and animal
species (74%), future generations of people (72%), people in
developing countries (69%), the world’s poor (69%), people in the
U.S. (67%), people in their community (60%), their family (58%), and
themselves personally (56%). These proportions are similar to the
U.S. population overall, although the percentage who think global
warming will harm them personally is higher among video gamers than
among the U.S. population overall (47%).
Who Should Act on Global Warming?
About half of video gamers are at least “moderately confident” that
people from the gaming community, working together, can affect what
local businesses (52%), corporations (52%), their state government
(50%), the federal government (49%), or their local government (48%)
does about global warming.
Most video gamers (56%) say that the gaming industry has a
responsibility to act on global warming, and it should do what it
can to reduce its own carbon emissions.
Additionally, more than four in ten video gamers (45%) think the
video gaming industry should be doing either “much more” (14%) or
“more” (31%) to address global warming.
Most video gamers (54%) think global warming should be either a
“very high” or “high” priority for the president and Congress.
Additionally, about six in ten video gamers (61%) think developing
sources of clean energy should be either a “very high” or high
priority. These proportions are about the same as the U.S.
population overall (51% and 61%, respectively).
Personal and Collective Actions to Limit Global Warming
More than half of video gamers (59%) say they either “probably” or
“definitely” would sign a petition about global warming. Many video
gamers also say they would volunteer their time (49%) or donate
(48%) to an organization working on global warming, contact
government officials about global warming (45%), or meet with an
elected official or their staff (41%). The proportion of video
gamers who say they would engage in these actions is higher than the
U.S. population overall, where half or fewer say they would sign a
petition (51%), volunteer (32%), donate (31%), contact officials
(29%), or meet with an elected official (27%).
Additionally, more than four in ten video gamers (44%) would support
an organization engaging in non-violent civil disobedience against
corporate or government activities that make global warming worse,
and 38% would personally engage in such non-violent civil
disobedience. In contrast, only 27% of U.S. residents overall say
that they would support non-violent civil disobedience, and 17% say
they would personally engage in it.
A majority of video gamers (52%) say they are either “probably”
(25%) or “definitely” (19%) willing to join a campaign to convince
elected officials to take action to reduce global warming or are
currently participating in such a campaign (7%). In contrast, only
27% of U.S. residents overall say they would participate in a
campaign for climate action, and only about 1% say they are
currently doing so.
About half of video gamers (49%) say they have rewarded companies
that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their
products one or more times in the past 12 months. More than four in
ten video gamers (43%) say they have punished companies that are
opposing steps to reduce global warming by not buying their products
one or more times.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-do-video-gamers-think-about-global-warming/toc/2/
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-do-video-gamers-think-about-global-warming/
/[The news archive - looking back at attitudes, platitudes and platters
of meat. ]/
/*December 4, 2008*/
December 4, 2008:
• Washington Post writer Ezra Klein calls upon climate activists to
highlight the role meat consumption plays in fueling the climate crisis.
Ben Adler has an excellent article in this month's American Prospect
detailing the environmental movement's curious silence on meat. For a
bunch of folks willing to tell you that greenhouse gases will crisp the
earth and kill countless human beings, they seem oddly afraid of
advocating one of the simplest and most powerful meliorating steps:
Why are environmental groups and even politicians willing to tell
Americans to drive smaller cars or take the bus to work but
unwilling to tell them to eat less meat? If you live in a recently
built suburb you must drive most places whether you wish to or not.
Walking or public transit simply isn't an option. But you could stop
buying ground beef and start buying veggie burgers tomorrow, saving
yourself some money and sparing yourself some cholesterol in the
process. And yet no one, other than a small cadre of lonely fringe
activists like Hartglass, devotes much energy to making the
connection. Food experts and environmentalists generally worry that
Americans might react with hostility similar to Boris Johnson's if
asked to put down their hamburgers.
[...]
But while politicians may have reason to fear the meat lobby,
environmental groups are supposed to push the political envelope.
They began calling for caps on carbon emissions in the late 1990s,
before it was politically palatable, and both major party candidates
for president endorsed cap-and-trade in 2008. Many people see their
car or truck as a part of their identity, but that hasn't stopped
the Sierra Club from ensuring that every American is aware of the
environmental threat their vehicle poses. And yet, the major
environmental groups have been unwilling to push the meat issue.
"I don't know of anyone in the environmental community that has
taken a stance of 'we support no meat consumption because of global
warming,'" says Tim Greef, deputy legislative director for the
League of Conservation Voters. Adds Nierenberg, "It's the elephant
in the room for environmentalists. They haven't found a good way to
address it."The Sierra Club's list of 29 programs -- which includes
such relatively small-bore issues as trash-transfer stations (they
threaten "quality of life and property values") -- does not include
any on the impact of meat consumption. Their main list of things you
can do to help prevent global warming mentions hanging your clothes
out to dry instead of using a dryer but makes no mention of eating
less meat. "The Sierra Club isn't opposed to eating meat, so that's
sort of the long and short of it. [We are] not opposed to hunting,
not opposed to ranching," says Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the
Sierra Club, the nation's oldest and largest grass-roots
environmental organization.
Of course not. Then they'd seem like effete coastal elitists. But when
the Sierra Club is afraid of being called effete coastal elitists, it's
not really clear where that leaves you. Someone needs to push the
envelope on this stuff, and it may as well be the professional tree
huggers. It's their job to be called environmentalists. The PB&J
Campaign is great, but they need some support.Anyway, read Adler's article.
http://prospect.org/article/are-cows-worse-cars-0
=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news
- a few are email delivered*
=========================================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**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
==================================
*T*he 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 at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
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 personal 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/20221204/5689a121/attachment.htm>
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list