[✔️] February 26, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*February  26, 2022*/

/[ Politico Says he has a complicated legacy -- ]/
*Jim Inhofe may go in the books as the biggest denier of man-driven 
climate change, but he's got another big legacy: Forging deals in a 
partisan Senate. *
He famously counted liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer as a good friend.
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/02-25-2022/jan-6-interviews/

*
*

/[  He inflicted great distress and danger -- whether intentional or 
not, he is a top climate villain  ]/*
**Sen. James M. Inhofe, conservative critic of climate change, says he 
will retire
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/25/sen-james-m-inhofe-conservative-critic-climate-change-says-he-will-retire/*
*

*- - -*

/[ see the DeSmog Disinformation database ]/
*James Inhofe*
Credentials
BA, Economics, University of Tulsa, 1973.
Background
Senator James (Jim) Inhofe is the senior senator from Oklahoma and a 
member of the Republican Party. He is a ranking majority member and 
former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Inhofe has received almost $2 million in 
political contributions from the coal and oil industry. Koch Industries 
is Inhofe’s top contributor, having contributed at least $105,150 since 
1989. Murray Energy is the second-largest, at over $90,000.

In 2003, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported Inhofe had 
scored zero with the League of Conservation Voters since 1997 and “was 
the only senator to oppose Everglades restoration, and once compared the 
Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.”

Inhofe has made regular speeches rejecting mainstream climate science, 
and has consistently voted in favor of big oil companies on oil-related 
bills.

*Stance on Climate Change *
December 8, 2016

In his speech at the “At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy 
Summit,” put on by the Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy 
Foundation, Inhofe declared: [49]

“One of the smartest things the other side did is when they got rid of, 
they quit talking about, global warming and started talking about 
climate change. Don’t get caught in that trap. I’ve had to say this on 
the senate floor many times: That climate is changing. I mean, look at 
archaeologically, spiritually, scientifically. Climate always changes. 
Don’t put yourself in a category where they disqualify you for that 
reason.” [49]

March 31, 2015
“Who is the real embarrassment here?

“The debate on man-driven climate change is not over. Alarmists are 
distracting Americans from the pain the Obama administration’s 
regulations will inflict on our economy while failing to make a 
significant impact on climate change.

“Let’s not forget the words of MIT atmospheric physicist Richard 
Lindzen, who said carbon regulation is a bureaucrat’s dream because ‘if 
you control carbon, you control life’,” Inhofe wrote at USA Today. [8]

2003
Inhofe said in a speech on the Senate floor in 2003: “Wake up, America. 
With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be 
that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the 
American people? I believe it is.” [7]

“I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is 
a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the 
nation’s top climate scientists.” [9]

The “scientists” Inhofe mentioned included: Fred Singer, Richard 
Lindzen, David Wojick, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Paul Reiter, David 
Legates, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Sietz, as well as the 
signatories of both the Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition. [9]

*Key Quotes*
February 2018
According to an article in The Western Journal written by Michael 
Bastasch, Inhofe described Trump’s proposed gas tax as “wishful 
thinking”: [65]

“I know the comments that were made after that meeting and I know who 
made them,” Inhofe said. “And there was, I have to say, a lot of wishful 
thinking in his comments.”

“And when the president says, ‘Yes, everything’s on the table,’ and that 
would include an increase in the gas tax, he didn’t say it in those 
words, but everything is on the table,” Inhofe said. “And then the 
interpretation that this person had was ‘Ah, the president now wants to 
have a gas tax increase.’”

June 1, 2017
In an interview with CBS News, speaking about Trump’s withdrawal from 
the Paris Agreement, Inhofe pointed to climate change denier Richard 
Lindzen as an “authority” on climate science: [64]

“Richard Lindzen, who’s MIT, arguably the best authority in these 
circles, has said that all these things that they’re saying about the 
temperatures, these things, are not, are not accurate. The science is 
not real. And I think that the problem is that, you know, the scientists 
that are out there really concerned about doing the right thing are not 
being heard.”

December 8, 2016
Inhofe quoted prominent climate change denier Richard Lindzen during his 
speech at the ”At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit”:

“I always use my favorite quote of Richard Lindzen, which is that 
‘controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you 
control life.’ Control. That’s what they want.” [49]

“Keep in mind: the IPCC is the United Nations power plan. And it’s one 
that is – that’s where it all started. And It’s really important people 
understand that.“ [49]

“Things came out like the 97% consensus, which is a joke and has been 
pretty much disproven.“ [49]

“[The United Nations] have been behind the global warming movement since 
the 1970s. The 1970s. Stop and think about that.”
Speaking on the issue of climate change in the school system: “I can 
assure you, that’s one thing that, hand-in-hand, Scott Pruitt and I are 
going to try to do something to save our next generation.”
More at --
https://www.desmog.com/james-inhofe/*
*

*
*


/[ Long history of this case -- many past decisions  ] /

*In EPA Supreme Court case, the agency’s power to combat climate change 
hangs in the balance*
The case over carbon pollution from power plants ‘could well become one 
of the most significant environmental law cases of all time,’ one legal 
scholar says

By Robert Barnes and Dino Grandoni
Feb 25, 2022
President Biden’s ambitious plans to combat climate change, blocked by 
an uncooperative Congress, face an equally tough test next week at the 
Supreme Court. With the court’s conservative justices increasingly 
suspicious that agencies are overstepping their powers, the case’s 
outcome could not only reshape U.S. environmental policy but also call 
into question the authority of regulators to tackle the nation’s most 
pressing problems.

On Monday, the court takes up a years-long challenge from coal-mining 
companies and Republican-led states contesting the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to mandate sweeping changes to the way 
the nation’s power sector produces electricity, the nation’s 
second-largest source of climate-warming pollution.

West Virginia v. EPA comes before a Supreme Court that’s even more 
conservative than the one that stopped the Obama administration’s plan 
to drastically reduce power plants’ carbon output in 2016.

“This will undoubtedly be the most important environmental law case on 
the court’s docket this term, and could well become one of the most 
significant environmental law cases of all time,” said Jonathan H. 
Adler, an environmental law expert at Case Western Reserve University 
School of Law.

Environmental advocates fear the Supreme Court’s conservative majority 
could limit the Biden administration’s ability to curb carbon pollution 
from power plants before any regulation is written, and leave the United 
States short of its climate goals at a time when scientists suggest 
drastic cuts in emissions are needed to avert dangerous warming. The 
president wants the U.S. power grid to run entirely on clean energy by 2035.

“It’s hard to see why they took this case unless they were thinking 
about deploying it against the EPA’s ability to regulate existing power 
plants,” said Kirti Datla, director of strategic legal advocacy at 
Earthjustice, a law organization that works on environmental advocacy.

Supreme Court to hear cases that could limit Biden administration on 
climate change, immigration

The new court, bolstered by three justices chosen by former president 
Donald Trump, has sharply questioned whether federal agencies can make 
sweeping decisions with enormous economic and regulatory consequences. 
In separate decisions stopping the Biden administration’s plans for a 
vaccine-or-testing mandate for large employers and extending a 
nationwide eviction moratorium during the pandemic, the court’s 
conservatives said federal agencies have exceeded the authority granted 
to them by Congress.

Years of legal fights over the executive branch’s power to tackle 
climate change — and a monumental battle by the coal industry — have led 
to a regulatory stalemate. In 2016, the Supreme Court halted the Obama 
administration’s Clean Power Plan, which aimed to cut the power sector’s 
carbon dioxide emissions by a third by 2030. In 2021, a federal appeals 
court jettisoned the Trump administration’s less-stringent replacement.

Biden’s team has yet to issue its own plan for the power sector. For 
that reason, environmentalists took it as an “earthquake” when the 
Supreme Court accepted the case last fall, said Harvard Law School 
professor Richard Lazarus. It appeared to signal a move on the part of 
the court’s conservatives to delineate — and likely trim — the EPA’s 
powers before there were even regulations to review.

EPA officials under the Obama administration said the Clean Air Act 
gives the agency the authority to work with states to enact broad plans 
across the power sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Trump 
appointees, along with GOP-led states party to the lawsuit, counter the 
law gives the agency only the power to mandate changes at power plant 
sites themselves — or as both sides in the fight say, “inside the fence.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading the 
lawsuit against the EPA, said in a recent interview that the court 
should not hesitate to rule before Biden’s team is finished working on a 
power-plant regulation, slated to be revealed this summer.

“We have a federal government that wants to cut emissions in half by 
2030, and they’re going to be very aggressive in the issuance of those 
rules,” Morrisey said. “The damage would be done if the rulemaking would 
continue unabated. It has to be addressed right now.”

Yet even without federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions, it has been 
a tough decade for the coal industry. The economics of burning coal have 
deteriorated as power from cheap fracked gas and subsidized renewable 
energy flowed into the grid. At least 240 coal plants have retired since 
2012, according to the Sierra Club, an advocacy group.

Westmoreland Coal Co. — which kept homes warm during winters in the 19th 
century, powered locomotives at the start of the 20th and helped fuel 
America’s victory in World World II — ranks among the hard-hit mining 
firms. It began mining in Westmoreland County, Penn., in 1854, expanding 
operations across the Appalachian Basin before relocating its 
headquarters to Colorado in 1995. By 2017, it sold 49.7 million tons of 
coal dug from mines dotting the West, from Alberta, Canada, to Texas.

But some electricity providers that once bought its coal began switching 
to cleaner sources of fuel that don’t require expensive emissions 
controls. After going more than $1 billion into debt in 2018, the firm 
protected itself from creditors by filing for bankruptcy. Westmoreland 
Mining Holdings LLC, the company that emerged from those proceedings, is 
now suing the EPA.

“Looking back, the bankruptcy was a confluence of taking on too much 
debt and expanding too quickly in a market that severely underperformed 
expectations,” said Jeremy Cottrell, the firm’s general counsel. “The 
imposition of excessive and unreasonable regulations is never helpful to 
any business, and this was also playing out in the background in our 
industry around this period of time.”

But any lifeline the Supreme Court could throw coal producers would do 
little to halt the long-term decline of the industry, said Tom Sanzillo, 
director of financial analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and 
Financial Analysis.

“There’s no utility in the United States that’s going to hang its 
decision to whether or not to build a coal plant again based on the 
Supreme Court decision,” Sanzillo said, adding that a new Biden rule 
“might accelerate” the closures of coal plants.

Much of the rest of the corporate sector, having poured money into 
reducing its carbon footprint, is concerned about the federal government 
stepping back. In a brief filed last month, Apple, Tesla, Amazon and a 
dozen other companies said the EPA’s support is “necessary to avoid the 
worst impacts of climate change.” (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The 
Washington Post.)

Even a group of electric utilities that collectively serve more than 40 
million people asked the court not to tie the agency’s hands 
prematurely. The court, they wrote in a brief, risks “a ruling 
untethered to actual circumstances” driving changes in the power sector.

In early 2021, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 
said the EPA’s restrictive view of its powers under the Trump 
administration was not only wrong, but amounts to a dereliction of duty.

The Clean Air Act “lacks the straitjacket that the EPA imposes,” the 
judges wrote, saying the Trump administration’s view of the law depended 
on a “tortured series of misreadings.”

“The EPA has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate,” the decision 
concluded. “But it may not shirk its responsibility by imagining new 
limitations that the plain language of the statute does not clearly 
require.”

But Lazarus and others think that is a bolder reading of the law than 
the current court might affirm. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, 
representing the Biden administration, seems to agree.

While the administration said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA broad 
powers, she is arguing that the court should simply dismiss the case 
because there are no regulations in place for the justices to consider. 
Moreover, she suggests the Supreme Court can vacate the D.C. Circuit’s 
decision and postpone a definitive decision on the EPA’s powers until 
the new administration has acted.

The policy that sparked this battle — the Clean Power Plan — is now 
moot, since the market has done what regulators could not. “The targets 
were achieved way in advance, more than a decade before they would have 
been required,” said Carrie Jenks, executive director of Harvard’s 
Environmental & Energy Law Program.

But this case could resonate beyond environmental issues, since the 
Supreme Court’s conservatives have become more and more skeptical of 
federal agencies exercising their authority on a range of fronts. 
Pointing to what is called the “major questions” doctrine, the justices 
are insisting that Congress specifically authorize agency action that 
touches on significant issues.

“We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to 
exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the 
majority wrote in lifting the eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention last year.

Because the court is interpreting the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 
Congress could override whatever the court decides — in theory, at 
least. But an ideologically divided and partisan Congress has done 
little to address climate change or clarify the law.

Under Obama, a major bill capping greenhouse gas emissions nationwide 
passed the House in 2009 only to die in the Senate. Biden risks a 
similar fate with his climate and social-spending bill, “Build Back 
Better,” which has failed to win the necessary support of Sen. Joe 
Manchin III (D-W.Va.).

That leaves the executive branch with the Clean Air Act, written decades 
before scientists identified global warming as an urgent concern.

“This is a big case because it involves the statute that’s been central 
to the EPA’s work” on climate change, said Georgetown University Law 
Center Professor Lisa Heinzerling, who worked at the agency during the 
Obama administration. Invoking the “major questions” doctrine, she 
added, is “a huge potential wrecking ball for regulation.”

Democrats view the act’s provisions expansively — and have been shot 
down by conservative courts. Republicans argue that the law limits the 
agency’s authority, and liberal courts have pushed back.

“Congress’s failure to do its job has put immense pressure on the 
executive branch to come up with answers on its own, wherever it finds 
them,” Adler said. “And that in turn creates challenges for the courts, 
who are obligated to make sure the executive branch is only exercising 
the authority it’s actually been given.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/25/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia/



/[  IEA sees the Methane problem persists ] /
*Global Methane Tracker 2022*
Methane is responsible for around 30% of the rise in global temperatures 
since the Industrial Revolution, and rapid and sustained reductions in 
methane emissions are key to limiting near-term global warming and 
improving air quality.

The 2022 update of the IEA Global Methane Tracker provides, for the 
first time, a complete set of country-level estimates for methane 
emissions from the energy sector, making the Tracker an indispensable 
resource in the fight to bring down these emissions and implement the 
new Global Methane Pledge.

The energy sector – including oil, natural gas, coal and bioenergy – 
accounts for around 40% methane emissions from human activity. Tackling 
methane emissions from the energy sector represents one of the best 
near-term opportunities for limiting global warming because the pathways 
for reducing them are well known and often cost-effective. The oil and 
gas sector in particular has the know-how and resources to take quick 
action. The Global Methane Tracker details the available abatement 
measures and lays out the state of methane reduction policies and 
regulations across major emitters.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022

- -

/[ Press Release ]/
*Methane emissions from the energy sector are 70% higher than official 
figures*
23 February 2022
The IEA’s Global Methane Tracker shows emissions from oil, gas and coal 
are on the rise again, underscoring need for greater transparency, 
stronger policies and immediate action.
- -
Yet uncertainty over emissions levels is no reason to delay action on 
methane. Major reductions can be achieved with known technologies and 
with tried and tested policies that have been proven to work 
effectively. The Global Methane Tracker includes a new detailed policy 
explorer that provides examples of effective implementation and shows 
where these policies could be most impactful.

If all methane leaks from fossil fuel operations in 2021 had been 
captured and sold, then natural gas markets would have been supplied 
with an additional 180 billion cubic metres of natural gas. That is 
equivalent to all the gas used in Europe’s power sector and more than 
enough to ease today’s market tightness.

The intensity of methane emissions from fossil fuel operations range 
widely from country to country: the best performing countries and 
companies are over 100 times better than the worst. Global methane 
emissions from oil and gas operations would fall by more than 90% if all 
producing countries matched Norway’s emissions intensity, the lowest 
worldwide.

The Global Methane Pledge, launched in November by more than 110 
countries at the COP26 Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, marked an 
important step forward. Led by the European Union and the United States, 
its participants agreed to reduce methane emissions from human 
activities – including agriculture, the energy sector and other sources 
– by 30% by 2030. However, more major emitters need to join. Of the five 
countries with the largest methane emissions from their energy sectors – 
China, Russia, the United States, Iran and India – only the United 
States is part of the Pledge as things stand.

“The Global Methane Pledge must become a landmark moment in the world’s 
efforts to drive down emissions,” said Dr Birol. “Cutting global methane 
emissions from human activities by 30% by the end of this decade would 
have the same effect on global warming by 2050 as shifting the entire 
transport sector to net zero CO2 emissions.”
https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-from-the-energy-sector-are-70-higher-than-official-figures



/[  Fighting Year Round Fires ] /
*BC Wildfire Service moves to a year-round workforce*
The government of British Columbia intends to move to a year-round 
workforce for the Wildfire Service in the next fiscal year that begins 
April 1. In a February 22 presentation Minister of Finance Selina 
Robinson said, “$145 million in new funding will strengthen B.C.’s 
emergency management and wildfire services.  The BC Wildfire Service 
will shift from a reactive to a proactive approach by moving to a 
year-round workforce that will deliver all pillars of emergency 
management: prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.”
https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/02/24/bc-wildfire-service-moves-to-a-year-round-workforce/



[ My territory -- cough, cough ]

*How a Tacoma gas facility started a fight over climate change, 
sovereignty and human rights*
A Washington methane gas project is compounding a crisis of tribal 
consultation, pension funds and national immigration practices.

  “The salmon are sick in the water because of facilities like (PSE’s) 
that continue to pollute us and dump these toxic chemicals on top of us, 
day in and day out,” Puyallup member Dakota Case told High Country News 
in January.

In the Tideflats of Tacoma, Washington, beyond the masts of sailboats 
anchored in the Puyallup Tribe’s marina, pipelines emerge from the earth 
and snake their way inland. Their destination — an 8 million-gallon 
liquefied methane gas tank — was once considered by politicians to be 
the logical answer to the climate crisis. Now, it’s the center of a 
local controversy with international implications.

The tank, owned by Puget Sound Energy, is the product of a recent era of 
proposed climate solutions. In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency 
gave the shipping company TOTE Maritime a waiver to switch its 
operations to methane gas, also referred to as natural gas, in order to 
encourage it to lower the sulfur output from its diesel emissions. Two 
years later, PSE signed a contract with TOTE to supply its ships with 
gas. Against the express wishes of the Puyallup, the 14-story waterfront 
tank was born...

- -

PSE is owned by the Macquarie Group, a global financial services group, 
and a consortium of pension funds: the Alberta Investment Management 
Corporation, British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, the 
Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System, the Ontario Teachers’ 
Pension Plan and PGGM Vermogensbeheer B.V. of the Netherlands. The funds 
either declined to comment or didn’t respond to questions regarding the 
project's potential human rights violations. The pensioners themselves 
include public service employees from Canada and the Netherlands, and at 
least two are unhappy with the way their funds are being used.

James Rowe, a professor of environmental studies at the University of 
Victoria in British Columbia said these pension funds represent a 
massive amount of capital, which could be used either to accelerate or 
slow decarbonization. Rowe, who draws a pension from BCI, said it angers 
him that his retirement money is funding the methane gas facility, given 
that he teaches his students about the importance of climate action and 
respecting Indigenous sovereignty. Mary Lynn Young, a professor at the 
University of British Columbia, who recently co-authored a book on 
Indigenous representation in the media, was likewise concerned to learn 
her pension fund was being invested in the project. She told HCN that 
she is in the process of moving her funds to a fossil-free investment 
option offered by BCI.

But short of the city forcing PSE to pull the plug on the gas tank, 
there is no clear or immediate solution in the offing. The project 
instead leaves Tacoma as a near-perfect symbol of the climate crisis: An 
American city ignoring a sovereign Indigenous nation, waving a climate 
emergency declaration about in one hand, and a massive tank of methane 
gas in the other.

Rico Moore is a freelance journalist based in Port Townsend, Washington. 
Follow him on Twitter @ricocolorado.

https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/indigenous-affairs-energy-industry-how-a-tacoma-gas-facility-started-a-fight-over-climate-change-sovereignty-and-human-rights



/[  Opinion worthy of consideration ]
/*We Need an Outrage Outage*
By Tom Lewis --  February 16, 2022
The raging inflation that is grinding this country down is not monetary, 
it is rage inflation. Everybody, it seems, is outraged by everybody 
else; foaming at the mouth over tweets, texts, posts, remarks, books, 
40-year-old high school yearbook pictures, items of clothing, wearing or 
not wearing masks, getting or not getting vaccinated, race, religion, 
politics, real or imagined insults, assaults, and multiple other umbrages.

Not only has the number and frequency of rages increased exponentially, 
but the expression of them has intensified similarly. Today, an outrage 
not expressed by multiple death threats to the offender is considered 
hardly worth mentioning. Outraged Kens and Karens feel entitled to 
express their disgruntlement by accosting people in public places, 
waving guns at them (sometimes actually shooting them) and quite often 
sending an email describing in lurid detail the manner in which they 
intend to butcher the offender’s entire family.

This of course is a sure sign of a disintegrating society. A culture 
that cannot instill in its citizens restraint, that cannot maintain in 
the public square boundaries of civil discourse and behavior, by 
definition is not civilized. The larger the number of people who 
routinely participate in riots and mass shootings, who respond to any 
perceived affront with insults and vulgarities and guns, the fewer the 
people who stand between them and utter dissolution of society.

The question before us now is, once a culture has begun to spring leaks 
like ours has, once the behavior of ordinary people has deteriorated as 
has our population’s, how do you get back? How do you reboot decency and 
courtesy and tolerance and restraint when they have fled the scene?

As far as I know, you don’t.
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2022/02/16/we-need-an-outrage-outage/



/[looking back at a nice try that hit the carbon fuel Presidential wall  ]/
*On this day in the history of global warming February 26, 2001*

February 26, 2001: In a tense exchange with CNN "Crossfire" co-host 
Robert Novak, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman states that 
President George W. Bush will follow through on his September 2000 
campaign pledge to set firm limits on carbon emissions--a statement that 
Bush himself would effectively disavow a month later. Footage of the CNN 
exchange is included in the 2007 PBS "Frontline" documentary "Hot Politics."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/26/cf.00.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/


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


/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.