[✔️] February 20, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*February  20, 2022*///
//

//[  legal actions on the rise ]///
//As/
//

    - climate damages mount
    - those damages become measurable
    - evidence of malfeasance mounts
    - current actions grow increasingly inadequate
    - calls for justice & accountability rise

climate litigation will grow worldwide. Here's a quick overview:
https://twitter.com/BenFranta/status/1491857471115186191?

- -

/[  new attention to courts - rise of strategic litigation - DeSmogBlog ] /
*A Growing Wave of Litigation Spurs Climate Action*
A new report suggests that lawsuits alleging false or misleading 
“climate-washing” claims are increasing and “pushing the cause forward.”

By Stella Levantesi -- on Feb 14, 2022
In France, three non-governmental organizations sued the oil company 
Total over alleged “inadequate” environmental and human rights 
assessments of its oil project in Uganda and Tanzania. In Australia, a 
student filed a consumer complaint with Ad Standards against the 
financial services organization HSBC for claiming to support the 
protection of the Great Barrier Reef despite its links to fossil fuel 
operations. In South Africa, three civil society organizations launched 
a case alleging that the government’s plans to obtain new coal power 
threaten various constitutional rights.

These are just a handful of the hundreds of cases of climate litigation 
that have arisen worldwide over the past few years. These cases signal a 
move away from the idea that only scientific experts can speak for 
climate change, and other professionals, including lawyers, “are pushing 
the cause forward,” historian and climate accountability researcher 
Benjamin Franta argues.

Franta co-authored a new report examining the growing trend of climate 
litigation, published in January by the Climate Social Science Network, 
an international network of social science scholars headquartered at 
Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society. Globally, the 
number of climate-change-related lawsuits has more than doubled since 
2015. Between 1986, when the first climate lawsuit was filed, and 2014, 
approximately 800 cases were brought. In the past six years alone, more 
than 1,000 cases have hit courts. This growth of litigation has even 
inspired a new podcast from investigative journalist Amy Westervelt, 
host of the popular Drilled podcast; Damages, launching this week, will 
follow the swarm of climate cases currently working through courts 
worldwide.

According to Franta, this shift is indicative, in part, of how evident 
the impacts of climate change have become in recent years. But it also 
reflects a deeper evolution in the politics of climate change and in the 
attitude of activists, social scientists, media professionals, and lawyers.
“I think the last 10 years has seen a growth in a worldview that says 
the problem is not just fossil fuels as a thing, but the fossil fuel 
industry as an actor, that this industry has agency and they have made 
decisions to entrench fossil fuels and, and in doing so, have made the 
problem much, much worse,” Franta said. “It’s one of the reasons I think 
these lawsuits have emerged when they have, because of that greater 
attention on the fossil fuel industry.”

In fact, the fossil fuel industry’s climate denial and obstruction 
efforts have been so effective that they long obscured these companies’ 
roles in causing the climate crisis. But that began to change with the 
#Exxonknew investigation in 2015 and actions like the divestment 
movement, which was “unique,” Franta said, because “it focused 
specifically on the fossil fuel industry as the origin of the problem.”

Although the actions of states, governments, financial institutions, and 
others also drive climate change, many lawsuits thus far have focused on 
fossil fuel companies’ efforts to spread misleading advertising and 
messaging. Deceptive advertising can come in different forms, but 
greenwashing — “unsubstantiated or misleading” claims about an actor’s 
sustainability performance — is perhaps one of the most common.

*From Greenwashing to Climate-Washing*
Legal complaints alleging greenwashing aren’t new. According to the CSSN 
report, the first legal claims of greenwashing regarded companies 
marketing products as environmentally sustainable while making 
“misleading environmental claims.”

Instead, today, many legal cases are brought on the grounds that 
marketing campaigns, for example, are misleading or overstating 
performance in the context of climate change. The report refers to this 
gap between PR and real climate commitments as “climate-washing,” and 
gives the example of fossil fuel companies and major polluters that 
adopt communication strategies to create the perception that their 
activities are part of the solution to climate change, rather than the 
primary cause. A major advertising theme for fossil fuel companies, 
according to Franta, is portraying their positive impact on developing 
countries or stating misleading energy transition objectives.

“When a company like Exxon says, ‘We invested $100 million last year in 
renewables,’ even if that is true, it can be misleading because they 
omitted the context, which is, ‘But last year we invested $20 billion in 
fossil fuels,” Franta said.

According to the report, climate-washing can go beyond specific 
environmental issues. The difference between greenwashing and 
climate-washing is similar to “viewing climate change as an 
environmental issue, versus seeing it as a human-rights or a civil 
rights issue,” Franta said. “Both frames are relevant.”

The report also argues that climate-washing cases are likely to 
increase, especially if net-zero pledges, which it says have been 
accused of “giving license to a ‘burn now, pay later’ approach to 
tackling climate change,” are not backed by tangible action.

According to Franta, climate-washing lawsuits are considered “strategic” 
litigation because the claimants’ motives go beyond individual concerns 
and aspire to push forward broader societal changes. A Grantham Research 
Institute (GRI) report found that strategic litigation is on the rise, 
suggesting that climate litigation as “an activist strategy” is becoming 
increasingly popular. The report argues that the goals of claimants in 
strategic cases include creating public awareness and encouraging public 
debate, changing the behaviors of government and industry players, and 
advancing climate policies.

*Pushing for Prevention*
Climate-washing frames climate litigation in a new way, and it may be 
useful to keep polluters in check in relation to climate goals. More 
generally, climate litigation has become a fundamental instrument to 
enforce political climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement.

According to the GRI report, litigation that is aligned with climate 
objectives is “seeing success” especially in the past 12 months, with 
cases such as Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell alleging that 
Shell’s contributions to climate change violate Dutch and human rights 
law. In May 2021, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its 
emissions by 45 percent by 2030, relative to 2019, across all 
activities. Although Shell is appealing this decision, this case is 
historically important because it established precedent: For the first 
time, a court demanded a change in policy from a polluting company, 
instead of compensation.

During an online seminar organized by the non-profit L’Affaire Climat, 
Roger Cox, attorney on the Shell case, said lawsuits based on preventive 
action, like this one, which aim to get an actor to change its course 
rather than pay damages, have a better chance of success. However, Cox 
warned that preventive action cannot work in all cases, and that “any 
pressure is good.”

“I think there will be a mutually reinforcing effect where different 
countries will pursue different legal strategies and different kinds of 
remedies, and they’re gonna play off of each other,” Franta said. “In 
the United States, the idea is that by making somebody pay for the 
damage, you’re also preventing them from engaging in that behavior in 
the future, because you’re deterring them from doing that.”

“Of course, damages are sometimes irreversible. Many of the impacts [of 
climate change] are irreversible,” Franta added, “so they can’t be 
completely remedied by money, and that’s an argument in favor of an 
injunction.”

Climate cases are also increasingly targeting financial actors and the 
private sector. In April 2021, the non-profit ClientEarth filed a 
lawsuit against the Belgian National Bank for failing to meet climate 
and human rights requirements when “purchasing bonds from fossil fuel 
and other greenhouse-gas intensive companies.”

This is not an isolated example. According to the GRI report, today 
there is more diversity in the arguments being used in climate cases, 
incorporating themes of greenwashing, due diligence, fiduciary duty, or 
even human rights law.

In October 2021, for example, the non-governmental organization All Rise 
filed a request asking the Office of the Prosecutor of the International 
Criminal Court (ICC) to open an investigation into Brazil’s President 
Jair Bolsonaro for crimes against humanity resulting from increasing 
deforestation and other related activities in the Amazon. This is one of 
many climate-related lawsuits that alleges violations of human rights. 
According to Franta, this can be an effective approach because 
international human rights principles and laws can be enforced and 
incorporated in climate change lawsuits.

Regardless of what argument cases rely on, Franta believes the rise in 
climate-related litigation is the consequence of different social, 
cultural, and political processes. But, above all, it stems from an 
agency vacuum. People, especially young people, know that politicians 
aren’t acting on climate like they should, Franta explained, and legal 
instruments are crucial drivers of change.

“Faith in the national and international governance to deal with 
[climate change] is eroding, a lot of young people especially see it’s 
not working,” Franta added. “So I think that’s also why they’re looking 
for alternatives, from social movements to lawsuits to other creative 
ways to engage professionally to try to address the problem.”
https://www.desmog.com/2022/02/14/climate-litigation-greenwashing-climatewashing-lawsuits-shell-bolsonaro/ 


- -

/[  from the American Bar Association ] /

December 22, 2021
*Climate litigation rising: Hot spots to watch*
Benjamin Franta, JD, PhD

The legal profession’s concern over climate change isn’t new (the first 
climate lawsuit was filed in 1986),  but what is new is the 
unprecedented scale and diversity of claims related to climate change 
across the United States and internationally. Since 2015, over 1,000 new 
climate-related cases have been brought worldwide, and the cumulative 
number of cases has more than doubled.  Most of these cases sit in U.S. 
courts, but they span nearly 40 countries around the world.

*As climate change litigation grows, its complexity does, too*. Many 
academic centers have been established to track, inform, and interface 
with climate lawsuits, such as Columbia University’s Sabin Center for 
Climate Change Law, New York University’s Climate Litigation 
Accelerator, and the University of Oxford’s Sustainable Law Programme.  
For busy lawyers, getting a handle on this emerging growth area can be a 
challenge. Here are hot spots to watch as climate litigation expands 
worldwide.

*American tort and consumer protection law flexes its muscle*
Since 2017, more than 20 suits have been filed against oil and gas 
companies by governmental entities across the United States, including 
seven by state attorneys general.  These suits generally allege 
historical and ongoing unlawful deceptive conduct by the defendants, 
including concealment of internal knowledge regarding global warming, 
affirmative misrepresentations of climate science, and ongoing deception 
regarding the defendants’ activities and fossil fuel products.  Much of 
the historical evidence supporting these cases has been developed within 
the last decade by academics, journalists, and other researchers, and 
the evidentiary basis for the plaintiffs’ claims continues to expand.  
Nineteen of these suits remain ongoing, and their number has grown 
steadily, with four filed in 2021.
For the most part, these suits fall into two categories: cost recovery 
and consumer protection. Thirteen cost recovery suits are ongoing under 
various causes of action including public nuisance, private nuisance, 
negligence, trespass, failure to warn, design defect, conspiracy, and 
unjust enrichment.  These suits seek compensation for climate adaptation 
costs, such as sea walls, on the theory that the defendants’ allegedly 
unlawful conduct substantially contributed to those costs. (A recent 
study, for example, estimated the cost of sea walls to protect from sea 
level rise to be at least $400 billion nationwide by 2040.)  Because sea 
level rise is easily attributable to global warming, most of these suits 
have been filed by coastal cities, counties, and states, although 
ongoing advances in climate attribution science suggest that cost 
recovery suits may soon expand in geographic scope and the types of 
damages claimed.

Thirteen consumer protection cases also remain ongoing (seven seek both 
cost recovery and consumer protection).  These suits are brought under 
state consumer protection statutes barring misleading consumer-facing 
communications and other unfair business practices. The evidentiary 
basis for these actions is similar to that for cost recovery suits, 
although the applicable statutes often don’t require a showing of 
damages and instead carry a civil penalty for each instance of 
materially misleading communication. These statutes helped undergird 
successful litigation against tobacco and opioid companies in the 1990s 
and 2010s, respectively.

Since 2017, these cost recovery and consumer protection suits have 
largely been occupied with pretrial motions, and no case has yet reached 
the merits. Plaintiffs, however, have generally prevailed against venue 
and dismissal motions, and at least some of these cases are expected to 
go to trial in 2022.

*Paris injunctions*
Outside the United States, another legal approach has gained 
considerable traction: suits against governments and corporations 
seeking injunctions ordering alignment with the Paris Agreement. The 
Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change adopted in 
2015, seeks to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or 1.5 degrees 
Celsius, if possible (global warming has already reached 1.1 degrees 
Celsius).  The treaty is legally binding procedurally but not in terms 
of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. However, because over 190 
countries are party to the agreement, it provides a consensus regarding 
the level to which global warming should be limited, if possible.

In 2013, the Dutch foundation Urgenda filed suit against the Dutch 
government, alleging that the country’s inadequate GHG reduction 
policies violated the human rights of Dutch citizens. The Hague District 
Court agreed, ordering the government to set policies to reduce national 
GHG pollution by 25 percent by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels), which was 
affirmed by The Hague Court of Appeals and ultimately, in 2019, the 
Dutch Supreme Court. The courts based their decision on the minimum GHG 
reduction the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had determined 
was necessary to prevent global warming of 2 degrees Celsius, as well as 
Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Building from the Urgenda decision, in 2019 the Dutch foundation 
Milieudefensie and co-plaintiffs filed suit against Royal Dutch Shell, 
seeking a similar injunction ordering the multinational fossil fuel 
company to align its business operations with the goals of the Paris 
Agreement. Milieudefensie based its claim on the Netherlands’ duty of 
care law (Dutch Civil Code Book 6, section 162) as well as Articles 2 
and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2021, The Hague 
District Court ruled for the plaintiffs, ordering Royal Dutch Shell to 
reduce GHG pollution across its entire product chain (including sold 
products) by 45 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.  The decision 
marked the first time a business enterprise was held liable for its 
contribution to global warming. Royal Dutch Shell has indicated it plans 
to appeal.

*The Milieudefensie court examined the climate problem in detail and 
issued a number of significant holdings, including that:*
international human rights and other international legal frameworks, 
such as the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational 
Enterprises, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are properly 
considered when applying domestic duty of care standards in the context 
of climate change;
the goals of the Paris Agreement represent an accepted and reasonable 
standard for assessing corporate action with respect to climate change;
fossil fuel companies have an affirmative duty, separate from and 
additional to the duties of governments and other parties, to take 
action to meet climate goals;
the obligations of fossil fuel companies extend through the entire 
business value chain, including sold products (often called “Scope 3” 
emissions);
emissions produced by fossil fuel companies (including sold products) 
are sufficiently substantial for legal adjudication;
the existence of current regulations on GHG pollution does not absolve 
fossil fuel companies of additional obligations found by courts;
the shared interest in avoiding dangerous climate change outweighs the 
financial interests of fossil fuel companies;
courts have a role in adjudicating disputes about climate change, and 
legislatures and other political processes are not exclusive vehicles 
for addressing climate; and
for choice of law purposes, adoption of corporate plans and policies at 
company headquarters in a particular country may represent a source of 
damage to human rights and the environment, even if the company operates 
internationally.
Actions seeking injunctions based on duties of care have spread 
throughout Europe. In 2018, the French nonprofit Notre Affaire à Tous 
and other plaintiffs filed suit against the French government under the 
French Charter for the Environment and the European Convention for the 
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, seeking various 
remedies including injunctions to compel compliance with the goals of 
the Paris Agreement and nationwide adaptation to climate change. 19 In 
2021, the administrative court of Paris ordered the state to take 
immediate action to comply with its existing climate commitments, which 
include a 40 percent reduction in GHG pollution by 2030 (compared to 
1990 levels) and carbon neutrality by 2050.
Similarly, in 2021 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in 
response to a suit brought by German youth under the Basic Law (the 
country’s constitution), found Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act 
inadequate to protect human rights, ordering the government to pursue 
measures consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement and holding 
that “one generation must not be allowed to consume large parts of the 
CO2 budget under a comparatively mild reduction burden if this would at 
the same time leave future generations with a radical reduction burden . 
. . and expose their lives to serious losses of freedom.”  Building off 
this ruling, Greenpeace Germany is currently seeking a Paris Injunction 
against Volkswagen, the world’s second largest car manufacturer.  A 
similar suit has been filed in Italy (against the government) and will 
be heard in December 2021.
*
**Broad horizons ahead*
The United States and Europe aren’t the only places where action is 
heating up. In 2021, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that 
governmental decision makers have a duty of care toward children in the 
country to avoid causing them harm through global warming pollution, a 
decision that may significantly impact fossil fuel project approvals in 
Australia going forward.  And recently, Vanuatu announced it will seek 
an advisory opinion on climate change from the International Court of 
Justice, which may influence domestic and international courts worldwide.

For any lawyer interested in corporate accountability, human rights, the 
environment, or the fate of the world, climate litigation is an area to 
watch and engage. The drivers behind these suits—worsening global 
warming, growing evidence of corporate malfeasance, advances in science 
allowing attribution of impacts and damages, increasing viability of 
non-fossil energy systems, and broadening psychological and political 
salience of climate—all point toward more action in the future. As the 
world continues to heat up, climate litigation will, too.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2021-2022/january-february-2022/climate-litigation-rising/

- -

/[  for more info    ]
/*Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources*
The ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER) fosters the 
success of a diverse community of environmental, energy, and resources 
lawyers, advisors, law students, and decision-makers and provides a 
premier forum for the exchange of ideas and information.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/


/[ video show by George Monbiot 33 min ]/
*MONBIOSIS with George Monbiot: Ep5 - Scientists Speaking Out*
Jan 13, 2022
George Monbiot
Monbiosis -  George Monbiot tackles key themes in the climate debate, 
setting out the challenges and proposing a radical agenda for how we can 
meet them.

Episode 5 - George discusses Scientists Speaking Out with guests:

    Dr. Julia Steinberger - Professor of Societal Challenges of Climate
    Change at the University of Lausanne
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/JKSteinberger
    Website: https://profjuliasteinberger.wordpres...

    Dr. Aaron Thierry - Ecological scientist, science communicator and
    environmental campaigner
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/ThierryAaron
    Website: https://www.footprintconference.co.uk...

    Dr. Emily Grossman - Internationally acclaimed science author,
    public speaker and TV personality
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrEmilyGrossman
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dremilygros...
    Personal website: https://www.emilygrossman.co.uk/
    Scientists for Extinction Rebellion: https://www.scientistsforxr.earth/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguqyo-abOo



/[   what an XR rally speech sounds like  YouTube 60 min  ] /
*XR Project 3.5 Look Up, Step Up Talk - Northampton | Extinction 
Rebellion UK*
Feb 18, 2022
Extinction Rebellion UK
Project 3.5 is a campaign within Extinction Rebellion designed to get 
the UK movement behind a programme of mobilization grounded in simple 
scalable tools - door knocking or leafletting, public talks and 
follow-up phone calls.

In consultation with experts from Momentum, The Social Practice and The 
Green New Deal, we are working to test our theory of change and mobilize 
3.5 percent of the population towards nonviolent civil resistance - 
that’s roughly 2.3 million people in the UK.

Endorsement: The Yale Program on Climate Communication and the Center 
for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University

Following COP26 it is clearer than ever that millions of people on the 
streets in nonviolent civil resistance is the answer - to do that XR 
needs to grow fast.

Find out how to get to work with Project 3.5 here: https://xrb.link/o68xq9g

See the Project 3.5 Reading List here: https://xrb.link/Wy28P6
- -
Extinction Rebellion UK: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/xrebellionuk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/XRebellionUK/
Map of UK XR groups: https://map.extinctionrebellion.uk/
International: https://rebellion.global/

    1. Tell The Truth
    2. Act Now
    3. Beyond Politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsZ3yeoDAc



/[ Australia delivers a briefing ]/
*ANU Climate Update 2022 - Part 1 - State of our Climate*
Feb 10, 2022
ANU Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions
ANU Climate Update 2022 will present an overview of how our climate is 
changing and how we are responding to these changes in Australia and 
around the world.

Part 1 will summarise the latest climate research, including a snapshot 
of newly released data on how our climate changed in 2021.

Part 2 will discuss the implications of the latest round of UN climate 
negotiations, COP26, held in Glasgow in November 2021. Presentations 
will focus on three critical issues – namely targets for emission 
reduction by 2030, how we can adapt to climate change in Australia and 
options for addressing climate change related loss and damage, 
particularly for developing economies.

This annual event brings together experts, policymakers, students, 
industry and the community to discuss the state of our climate and what 
can be done to tackle climate change.

Program - ANU Climate Update 2022
Part 1 - State of our Climate – 3-4pm

0:00 Moderator - Dr Helen Cleugh, Post Retirement Fellow, Commonwealth 
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO); and Honorary 
Professor, The Australian National University Institute for Climate, 
Energy & Disaster Solutions

6:03 Global Climate Overview 2021 - Prof Mark Howden, Director, The 
Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster 
Solutions
36:00 Audience Q&A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EObz2gSJHJo



[The news archive - looking back]
*On this day in the history of global warming February  20, 2001*

February 20, 2001: Scientist and writer Donella "Dana" Meadows, perhaps 
best known for the 1972 book "The Limits of Growth" and the syndicated 
column "The Global Citizen" (in which she addressed such issues as 
climate change), passes away at 59.

    *Donella Meadows, 59, Author, And Advocate for Environment*
    By Wolfgang Saxon - Feb. 22, 2001

    Dr. Donella Hager Meadows, an author, educator and advocate for the
    environment, died Tuesday at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in
    Lebanon, N.H. She was 59 and lived in Hartland Four Corners, N.H.

    The cause was bacterial meningitis, said Prof. Jack E. Shepherd Jr.,
    a friend and colleague at Dartmouth, where she was an adjunct
    professor of environmental sciences.

    Dr. Meadows, known as Dana, was a MacArthur Fellow and the lead
    author of ''The Limits of Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's
    Project on the Predicament of Mankind,'' published in 1972. The book
    delivered a simple message: either civilization or growth must end.

    The book stated that continued population and industrial growth
    would exhaust the world's minerals and steep the planet in lethal
    levels of pollution.

    If trends continued unchanged, the authors said, the limits of
    growth would be reached within 100 years. They urged ''deliberate
    checks'' on economic and population growth.

    Their thesis was sharply disputed at the time, but the book sold
    nine million copies and was translated into 28 languages. It was
    produced by an interdisciplinary team at Massachusetts Institute of
    Technology and financed by the Club of Rome, an international
    research organization that studies ''the complex of problems
    troubling men of all nations,'' like poverty, alienated youth and
    monetary disruptions.

    In 1992, she and her co-authors, Jorgen Randers and Dr. Dennis L.
    Meadows, her former husband, published an update, ''Beyond the
    Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future.''

    Based partly on new computer simulations, the book warned that
    unless human activity changed, humans would ''overshoot'' the
    carrying capacity of the planet in decades.

    Both books remain in print, as does a selection from ''The Global
    Citizen,'' the weekly syndicated column she wrote.

    Dana Meadows was born in Elgin, Ill., and graduated from Carleton
    College in Minnesota in 1963. She received a doctorate in biophysics
    from Harvard University in 1968.

    She was a researcher in the Department of Nutrition at M.I.T. when
    ''The Limits of Growth'' report was written.

    She later taught and researched at centers in Hawaii, Austria and
    Norway. In 1972, she joined an interdisciplinary program at
    Dartmouth, the Resource Policy Center, rising to associate professor.

    She and her former husband founded the International Network of
    Research Information Centers, in which they organized training
    programs and workshops in resource management in Europe, Central
    America, Africa, Asia and the United States. In 1994, the John D.
    and Catherine MacArthur Foundation, known for its ''genius grants,''
    selected her for a fellowship and awarded her $320,000 over five years.

    Dr. Meadows is survived by her parents, Phebe Quist of Tahlequah,
    Okla., and Don Hager of Palatine, Ill.; and a brother, Jason Hager
    of Waterford, Wis. Her former husband lives in Durham, N.H.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/22/us/donella-meadows-59-author-and-advocate-for-environment.html

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/


/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.