[✔️] December 5, 2022 - Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 5, 2022*/

/[  from The Intercept  ] /
*Addressing Climate Change Will Not “Save the Planet”*
The dismal reality is that green energy will save not the complex web of 
life on Earth but the particular way of life of one domineering species.
Christopher Ketcham
December 3 2022
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FINDS itself in a terrifying place today, witness 
to mass extinction, helpless to stop the march of industrial Homo 
sapiens, the pillage of habitat, the loss of wildlands, and the 
impoverishment of ecosystems. Many of its leading figures are in 
despair. “I’m 40 years into conservation biology and I can tell you we 
are losing badly, getting our asses kicked,” Dan Ashe, director of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President Barack Obama, told me 
recently. “There are almost no reasons to be optimistic.”
This might explain the discipline’s desperate hitching of its wagon to 
the climate movement. Climate, after all, is the environmental cause du 
jour, eclipsing all other sustainability concerns, increasingly 
attractive as a rallying cry for a public that has canonized it as one 
of the major political, social, and economic issues of our time. 
Mainstream climate activism of the Bill McKibben variety points toward a 
grandly hopeful end within the confines of acceptable capitalist 
discourse: decarbonization of the global economy, with technologies 
driven by profit-seeking corporations subsidized by governments. Taking 
up this banner of optimistic can-do-ism, the environmental movement has 
convinced itself, and sought to convince the public, that with a 
worldwide build-out of renewable energy systems, humanity will power its 
dynamic industrial civilization with jobs-producing green machines while 
also — somehow — rescuing countless species from the brink.

“But this happens to be a lie,” Ashe told me. “The lie is that if we 
address the climate crisis, we will also solve the biodiversity crisis...
- -
Pondering these matters, Dan Ashe had arrived at a revelation that 
amounted to a conservation biologist’s worst nightmare. “I’ve come 
around to the idea that a lot of the diversity of life on Earth may be 
incompatible with human ambitions and aspirations. On the other hand,” 
he told me, “I can be very optimistic about climate because ultimately 
humanity is going to deal with carbon pollution. It’s an issue for our 
well-being. We can solve it by building machines and making money. 
That’s obvious in the Inflation Reduction Act. … But with the 
biodiversity crisis, you can’t solve it with machines, and it involves 
constraints on our making money. And history shows we aren’t very good 
at constraint.”
Ashe suggests that conservation biologists cease the empty claims about 
“saving the planet” with climate mitigation and start speaking truth: 
There is at present no plan, in any country, anywhere, on a global or 
national scale, to address extinctions, biodiversity crash, and habitat 
loss. The dismal reality is that with a green build-out, we will be 
saving not the complex web of life on Earth but the particular way of 
life of one privileged domineering species that depends for its success 
on a nature-ravaging network of technological marvels. Only once this 
truth is understood can honest decisions be made about what kind of 
world humanity wishes to inhabit in the age of ecological disorder.
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/
- -
[ author]
https://www.christopherketcham.com/?page_id=243



/[ A slightly radical, philosophical essay re-evaluates our condition - 
interesting discussions ]/
*Eleven wrong ideas about climate*
Many of them are full of good will and good intentions—the road to hell, 
as we know, is paved with them
Michael Löwy  -  October 20, 2022
In various speeches on climate and climate change, we find a large 
number of commonplace ideas, repeated a thousand times in all tones, 
which constitute wrong ideas. These lead, voluntarily or not, to 
ignoring the real issues, or to belief in pseudo-solutions. I am not 
referring here to negationist or denialist speeches, but to those that 
claim to be ‘green’ and ‘sustainable.’ These are assertions of a very 
diverse nature: some are real manipulations, fake news, lies, 
mystifications; others are half-truths, or a quarter of the truth. Many 
of them are full of good will and good intentions—the road to hell, as 
we know, is paved with them.

This is the road we are on: if we continue with business as usual—even 
if painted green—in a few decades we will find ourselves in a situation 
much worse than most of the circles of hell described by Dante Alighieri 
in his Divine Comedy.

The following eleven examples are just a few of the common mistakes to 
avoid.

    *1. We must save the planet*
    We see it everywhere: on billboards, in the press, in magazines, and
    in statements by political leaders. In fact, it is nonsense: the
    planet Earth is not at all in danger! Whatever the climate, it will
    continue to revolve around the sun for the next many millions of
    years. What is threatened by global warming are the many forms of
    life on this planet, including our own: the species Homo Sapiens.

    “Saving the planet” gives the false impression that it is something
    that is external to us, that is somewhere else, and that does not
    concern us, directly. People are not asked to worry about their
    lives, or their children’s lives, but about a vague abstraction,
    ‘the planet.’ No wonder that the least politicized people react by
    saying: I am too busy with my own problems to worry about ‘the planet.’

    *2. Do something to save the planet*
    This common mistake, infinitely repeated, is a variant of the
    previous formula.

    It contains a half-truth: it is necessary that each one personally
    contributes to avoid the catastrophe. But it conveys the illusion
    that it is enough to accumulate ‘small gestures’—turning off the
    lights, closing the tap—to avoid the worst. We thus
    evacuate—consciously or not—the necessity of deep structural changes
    in the current mode of production and consumption; changes that
    question the very foundations of the capitalist system, based on a
    single criterion: the maximization of profit.

    *3. The polar bear is in danger*
    It’s a picture that is everywhere, repeated over and over again: a
    poor polar bear trying to survive in the middle of drifting ice
    blocks. Certainly, the life of the polar bear—and of many other
    species in the polar regions—is threatened. This image may arouse
    the compassion of a few generous souls, but for most of the
    population it is a matter that does not concern them.

    But the melting of the polar ice is a threat not only to the brave
    polar bear, but in the long run to half, if not more, of humanity
    living in large cities by the sea. The melting of the immense
    glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica can raise the sea level by a
    few dozen meters. However, it only takes a few meters for cities
    like Venice, Amsterdam, London, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai
    and Hong Kong to be submerged. Of course, this will not happen next
    year, but scientists can only observe that the melting of these
    glaciers is accelerating. It is impossible to predict how fast it
    will happen; many factors are difficult to calculate for the moment.

    By putting forward only the poor polar bear, we hide that it is a
    terrifying affair which concerns us all.

    *4. The Global South is at risk of suffering a lot with climate change*
    It is a half-truth, full of good will: global warming will affect
    mainly the poor countries of the South, which are the least
    responsible for carbon emissions. It is true that these countries
    will be the most affected by climate disasters, hurricanes, drought,
    reduction of water sources, and so on. But it is not true that the
    countries of the North will not be affected, to a very large extent,
    by these same dangers: haven’t we seen terrible forest fires in the
    USA, in Canada, in Australia? Haven’t heat waves caused many victims
    in Europe? We could multiply the examples.

    If we maintain the impression that these threats only concern the
    peoples of the South, we will only be able to mobilize a minority of
    convinced internationalists. However, sooner or later it is the
    whole of humanity that will be confronted with unprecedented
    catastrophes. It is necessary to explain to the populations of the
    North that this threat weighs on them too, very directly.

    *5. By the year 2100, temperature may rise to 3.5 degrees (above
    pre-industrial period)*
    This is a statement that is, unfortunately, found in many serious
    documents. This seems to me a double error. From a scientific point
    of view, we know that climate change is not a linear process; it can
    have sudden ‘jumps’ and accelerations. Many dimensions of global
    warming have feedbacks, whose consequences are unpredictable. For
    example: forest fires emit huge amounts of CO2, which contribute to
    warming, thus intensifying forest fires. It is therefore very
    difficult to predict what will happen in four or five years. How can
    we pretend to predict a century away?

     From a political point of view: at the end of the century, we will
    all be dead, as well as our children and grandchildren. How can we
    mobilize people’s attention and commitment for a future that does
    not concern them, neither from near nor from far? So we should worry
    about the generations to come? Noble thought, argued at length by
    the philosopher Hans Jonas: our moral duty toward those not yet
    born. A small minority of very respectable people could be touched
    by this argument. For most ordinary people, what will happen in 2100
    is not a matter that interests them much.

    *6. By 2050 we will be carbon neutral*
    This promise of the European Union and of various governments in
    Europe and elsewhere is not a half-truth, nor is it naïve goodwill.
    There are two reasons why it is pure and simple mystification.

    Instead of committing now, immediately, to the urgent changes
    demanded by the scientific community (the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change) for the next three to four years, our governments
    promise wonders for 2050. This is obviously much too late. Besides,
    as governments change every four or five years, what guarantee is
    there for these fictitious commitments in 30 years? It is a
    grotesque way to justify present inaction with a vague promise in
    the distant future.

    Moreover, ‘carbon neutrality’ does not mean a drastic reduction of
    emissions, quite the contrary! It is a misleading calculation based
    on offsets, ‘compensation mechanisms’; company X continues to emit
    CO2, but plants a forest in Indonesia, supposed to absorb the
    equivalent of this CO2—if it does not catch fire. The ecological
    NGOs have already denounced the farce of offsets enough, I won’t
    cover the same ground here. But this shows the perfect mystification
    contained in the promise of ‘carbon neutrality.’

    *7. Banks finance renewable energies and thus participate in the
    ecological transition*
    This common method of green-washing is also deception and
    manipulation. Of course, banks and multinationals also invest in
    renewable energies, but precise studies by ATTAC and other NGOs have
    shown that this is a small—sometimes tiny—part of their financial
    operations: the bulk continues to go to oil, coal, gas. It is a
    simple question of profitability and competition for market shares.

    All ‘reasonable’ governments—unlike Trump, Bolsonaro and co.—also
    swear, in every tone, that they are committed to the ecological
    transition and renewable energies. But as soon as there is a problem
    with the supply of a fossil energy—gas recently, because of the
    aggressive Russian policy—they take refuge in coal, reactivating
    lignite power plants, or they implore the (bloody) royal family of
    Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.

    The fine speeches about the ‘ecological transition’ hide an
    unpleasant truth: it is not enough to develop renewable energies.
    First of all, renewable energies are intermittent: the Sun does not
    always shine in Northern Europe… Of course, technical advances exist
    in this field, but they cannot solve everything. And above all,
    renewables require mining resources that are likely to be exhausted.
    If the wind and the Sun are unlimited, it is not at all the case of
    the materials necessary to use them (lithium, rare earth metals). It
    will therefore be necessary to consider a reduction in the global
    consumption of energy, and a selective decrease: unimaginable
    measures within the framework of capitalism.

    *8. Thanks to carbon capture and sequestration technology, we will
    avoid the climate catastrophe*
    This is an argument that is increasingly used by governments, and it
    can even be found in some serious documents. It is the illusion of a
    technological miracle solution, which would save the climate,
    without the need to change anything in our (capitalist) mode of
    production and in our way of life.

    Alas, the sad truth is that these miraculous techniques of capture
    and sequestration of atmospheric carbon are far from being a
    reality. Certainly, a few attempts have been made, a few projects
    are underway here and there, but for the moment we cannot say that
    this technology is effective and operational. It has not yet solved
    the difficulties of either capture or sequestration (in underground
    regions impervious to leakage). And there is no guarantee that in
    the future it will be able to do it.

    *9. Thanks to the electric car, we will substantially reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions*
    This is another example of a half-truth: it is true that electric
    cars are less polluting than thermal cars (gasoline or diesel), and
    therefore less damaging to the health of urban residents. However,
    from the point of view of climate change, their record is much more
    mixed. They emit less CO2, but contribute to a disastrous
    ‘all-electricity’ situation. And yet, in most countries, electricity
    is produced with… fossil fuels (coal or oil). The reduced emissions
    of electric cars are ‘compensated’ by the increased emissions
    resulting from the higher consumption of electricity. In France,
    electricity is produced by nuclear energy, another dead end. In
    Brazil, it is the mega-dams that destroy forests and are therefore
    responsible for a poor carbon balance.

    If we want to drastically reduce emissions, we cannot avoid a
    significant reduction of private car traffic, thanks to the
    promotion of alternative means of transport: free public transport,
    pedestrian zones, cycle lanes. The electric car maintains the
    illusion that we can continue as before, by changing the technology.

    *10. It is through market mechanisms that we will succeed in
    reducing CO2 emissions*
    Among sincere environmentalists, this is an illusion; in the mouths
    of governments, it is still a mystification. Market mechanisms have
    proven their inefficiency in reducing greenhouse gases. Not only are
    they anti-social measures that make the working classes pay the
    price of the ‘ecological transition,’ but above all they are
    incapable of making a substantial contribution to limiting
    emissions. The spectacular failure of the ‘carbon markets’
    instituted by the Kyoto agreements are the best demonstration of this.

    It is not by ‘indirect’ or ‘incentive’ measures, based on the logic
    of the capitalist market, that we will be able to put a brake on the
    omnipotence of fossil fuels, which have kept the system going for
    two centuries. To begin with, it will be necessary to expropriate
    the capitalist energy monopolies, to create a public energy service,
    which will have as its objective the drastic reduction of the
    exploitation of fossil fuels.

    *11. Climate change is inevitable, we can only adapt*
    This kind of fatalistic assertion can be found in the mainstream
    media and among political ‘leaders.’ For example, Mr. Christophe
    Bechu, Minister of Ecological Transition in the new Macron
    government in France, recently declared:

    Since we will not be able to prevent global warming, no matter how
    hard we try, we must manage to limit its effects while adapting to it.

    This is an excellent recipe to justify inaction, immobility, and the
    abandonment of any ‘effort’ to try to avoid the worst. However, the
    IPCC scientists have clearly explained that if warming has indeed
    already started, it is still possible to avoid exceeding the 1.5
    degree red line—provided that we start immediately to reduce CO2
    emissions in a very significant way.

    Of course, we must try to adapt. But if climate change becomes
    uncontrollable and accelerates, ‘adaptation’ is only a decoy. How
    can we ‘adapt’ to temperatures above 50°C?

We could multiply the examples. All of them lead to the conclusion that 
if we want to avoid climate change, we must change the system and 
replace it by another form of production and consumption. This is what 
we call ecosocialism. But this is the subject of another text.

Michael Löwy, a philosopher and sociologist of Brazilian origin, is a 
member of the New Anti-capitalist Party in France and of the Fourth 
International. He is the author of many books, including The Marxism of 
Che Guevara, Marxism and Liberation Theology, Fatherland or Mother 
Earth? and The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin America. He 
is joint author (with Joel Kovel) of the International Ecosocialist 
Manifesto.

This article originally appeared on the Global Ecosocialist Network website.
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/eleven-wrong-ideas-about-climate


/[ Radio interview -- ask a Hollywood insider --- audiences seek hopeful 
messages - and stories that ignore climate change, will soon be ignored  ]/
*Climate change continues to be vacant in our movies and TV shows*
  December 2, 2022 Ryan Patrick Hooper
Sammy Roth is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times who focuses a lot 
on the energy beat, and recently wrote about this lack of climate change 
representation in media.
Ryan Patrick Hooper
One of the main things on young people’s minds these days is climate 
change. They worry about the future and their place in it. Some are at 
the perfect age where it feels like it’s too late to do anything about 
climate change, even though at the same time, it’s all they can think 
about.

When these younger generations reach 60 years old or so, will they have 
to spend their later years in life fighting in the water wars? We hope 
not. But they’re not alone in worrying about climate change and how it’s 
going to affect our lives in the future.

Usually, when something is rattling around our consciousness, it ends up 
in our arts, in our writing, in our paintings, in our TV shows and in 
our films. But a recent survey points out that this is not the case for 
the subject of climate change.

You might have a high profile film or two that turns it into a plot 
point, but statistically, it’s not something we’re seeing on our 
screens. So why is that?

Sammy Roth is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times. He focuses a lot 
on the energy beat, and he recently wrote about this lack of climate 
change representation in media, writing that, “The climate crisis is the 
biggest story of our time. So why isn’t the entertainment industry 
acting like it?” Roth joined CultureShift to talk about climate change 
representation in our movies and TV shows — and the lack thereof.

“If we don’t have some ability to be optimistic, if we don’t have some 
ability to envision a better, safer future, there’s no way we’re going 
to bring it about. I think that starts with our imagination.” — Sammy 
Roth, LA Times
https://wdet.org/2022/12/02/climate-change-continues-to-be-vacant-in-our-movies-and-tv-shows/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUeM1WI2xg

/
/

/
/

/[  Beckie is a young woman journalist, has assembled a nice video news 
show  ]/
*Dutch government plans to forcibly buyout farms, Greta and 600 young 
activists sue Sweden | Recap*
Beckisphere Climate Corner
107 views  Dec 3, 2022
If you like the work I do, please consider joining the Beckisphere 
Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/beckisphere or buying me a cup of 
coffee at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/beckisphere. Remember to talk 
about the climate crisis every day and support your local news 
organizations!

Source list- 
https://heavenly-sceptre-002.notion.site/Climate-Recap-Dec-3-90e500c2c76d4abdb55aa70a37a039ab
Timestamps-
00:00 Intro
00:47 Corporate solar
02:45 Clean energy labor abuses
04:50 Swedish lawsuit
06:36 Puerto Rican lawsuit
09:39 Personal ad
10:41 Germany + Qatar = LNG
11:52 Dutch farm buyout
14:43 Canada adaptation
17:00 Rue break
17:18 Alaska oil lease sales
19:16 CCS verification
21:08 Closing notes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUeM1WI2xg



/[  For our climate education --- basic history of climate science - 
video 31 mins]/
*Global Warming: An Inconvenient History*
Simon Clark
60K views  Nov 30, 2022
This is the story of how we discovered the planet was warming, and why. 
Learn the building blocks of climate science with Brilliant: 
https://www.brilliant.org/simonclark

The climate crisis is caused by a build up of carbon dioxide in the 
Earth's atmosphere, which traps energy and raises the planet's average 
temperature. This was discovered over the course of 200 years by a large 
cast of chemists, physicists, geologists, and other scientists. Some of 
them you may know, such as Joseph Fourier and Charles Keeling, but many 
of them are less well known. This video tells the remarkable story of 
men and women like Eunice Foote, Roger Revelle, Guy Callendar, and James 
Croll. But there's still more to be told! If you would like to see part 
2 of the story, focusing on the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, let me know in the 
comments.
- -
Our Biggest Experiment: https://geni.us/biggestexperiment
Discovery of Global Warming: https://geni.us/weartdiscovery
Firmament: https://geni.us/firmament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGtAilkWTtI



/[The news archive - looking back at early attempts to discuss morality ]/
/*December 5, 2007*/
December 5, 2007: In a monologue that clearly explains why he had spent 
the previous nineteen years claiming that climate change was a hoax, 
Rush Limbaugh declares:

"Can I give you a real simple reality? It may be controversial, but it's 
inarguable. This is a world that runs on fossil fuels, folks, and it's 
going to run on fossil fuels long after you and I and your grandkids are 
dead. Wind, solar, all pipe dream stuff, as we sit here and speak now. 
Would somebody explain to me what is so immoral about the leaders of 
this country attempting to maintain a supply and access to the fossil 
fuel that runs the world and runs our economy?...What I'm suggesting 
here is that even if a part of all of the strategy here [with the Iraq 
War] is to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices, what in the 
name of Sam Hill is wrong with that? What's the crime? Where's the 
immorality in it?"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/12/05/what_s_wrong_with_war_for_oil2


=======================================
*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/20221205/5dfa4d6f/attachment.htm>