[✔️] June 4, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*June 4, 2022*/

/[ WAPO headline shows how we adjust to reality ]/
*Climate change is forcing schools to close early for ‘heat days’*
With no air conditioning and no money to install it, districts are 
sending students home
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/06/04/school-heat-days-climate-change//
/

/
/

/
/

/[ follow the money for short term - then follow your mind ]/
*Fossil-Fuel Shares Lead the Stock Market. How Awkward.*
If you want to make money in the market but also be a responsible 
citizen in a warming world, you’re in a tough spot. But there are some 
promising options, our columnist says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/business/stock-market-energy-climate-change.html



/[  do you know what our current CO2 level is?  ] /
*Carbon Dioxide Levels Are Highest in Human History*
Humans pumped 36 billion tons of the planet-warming gas into the 
atmosphere in 2021, more than in any previous year. It comes from 
burning oil, gas and coal...
- -
To reach the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius, emissions 
must reach “net zero” by 2050, meaning sharp cuts, with any remaining 
emissions balanced out by absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans and 
vegetation. If the world approached that target, the rate of increase in 
carbon dioxide levels would slow down and the Keeling Curve would 
flatten out.

If emissions were completely eliminated, Dr. Tans said, the Keeling 
Curve would start to fall, as the oceans and vegetation continued to 
absorb the existing carbon dioxide from the air. The decline in 
atmospheric concentration would continue for hundreds of years, although 
progressively more slowly, he said.

At some point an equilibrium would be reached, he said, but carbon 
dioxide concentrations in both the atmosphere and oceans would be higher 
than preindustrial levels and would remain that way for thousands of years.

Over such a long time scale, sea levels could rise significantly as 
polar ice melts and other changes could take place, like the conversion 
of Arctic tundra to forests.

“It’s that long tail that is really worrisome to me,” Dr. Tans said. 
“That has the potential to really change climate.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/climate/carbon-dioxide-record.html
- -
/[  for CO2 levels bookmark this site ]/
*420.23  parts per million (ppm) **Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA)*
https://www.co2.earth/



/[ Voice of America report  ]/
*Five Ways Climate Change Is Making Poor People Poorer*
May 25, 2022
Steve Baragona
Heat waves like the ones roasting South Asia this year don't just sap 
people's strength. They drain people's finances in ways that are not 
always obvious.

It's one of the ways climate change is weighing on the economy and 
making poor people poorer.

"These effects are global, they are pronounced, and they are 
persistent," said Teevrat Garg, an economist at the University of 
California-San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy.

South Asia is especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate 
change-driven heat waves. But temperature extremes are becoming more 
common worldwide as the planet warms.

*1. Too hot to work*
March and April were the hottest or near-hottest months on record across 
South Asia.

Climate change made this heat wave about 100 times more likely, 
according to the U.K. Met Office.

The heat has been brutal for farmers, construction workers and anyone 
who has to work outside. That's about half the workforce in South Asia.

"Wage laborers like us work despite the heat," Indian construction 
worker Kushilal Mandal told Agence France-Presse in April. "We won’t be 
able to eat if we don’t work."

At these temperatures, heatstroke and even death are real risks.

Many work sites shut down early. But that means lost wages.

The U.N. International Labor Organization says that in 2030, hours lost 
to heat worldwide will be the equivalent of losing at least 80 million 
full-time jobs.

*2. Lower earnings for outdoor work*
It doesn't take a full work stoppage to hurt workers' wages. People just 
can’t do as much when it's hot.

In a study Garg co-authored, workers in Indonesia in a hot, sunny 
environment were 8% less productive than those in a shady environment 
that was about 3 degrees cooler. Doubling wages did not increase 
productivity.

"It's not about workers feeling icky or lazy or just like, 'I don't want 
to work because it's hot,' " Garg said. "It's that heat is representing 
binding constraints on workers' ability to do their job."

*3. Factory slowdowns*
Heat affects workers even if they are not exerting themselves. High 
temperatures slow down factory workers, too.

"We think of manufacturing as a thing that occurs inside. But inside 
doesn't mean protected from heat. It doesn't mean air conditioning," 
said World Bank economist Patrick Behrer.

Studies as far back as 1915 show factory workers paid by the piece earn 
less at higher temperatures. Even call center workers get less done in 
hot conditions.

"It's harder for you to pay attention. It's harder for you to focus. You 
get tired more easily," Behrer said. "All of those things feed through 
to reductions in productivity."

*4. Workplace injuries*
More than wages can be at risk.

"Because you're paying less attention to what you're doing or you're 
more tired, you're much more likely to injure yourself," Behrer said.

On very hot days, workers are about 10% more likely to be injured on the 
job than on a cool day, Behrer and colleagues found in a study.

That could mean lost wages for the day, or it could be more serious. "If 
you get hurt on the job, that can be a permanent change in your life," 
Behrer said.

*5. Poverty traps**
*Poorer areas are more vulnerable to the impacts of rising temperatures 
than wealthier areas, researchers have found. Workers tend to be in 
industries that are more exposed to heat. And poor people often can't 
afford air conditioning. These inequalities are expected to worsen with 
global warming.

High temperatures also lower crop yields, which lower household incomes 
in largely agrarian economies such as those of South Asia.

The effects can be passed on to children in these rural households. Garg 
and colleagues found that students score lower on math and reading tests 
the year after a hot year, perhaps because their families had less money 
to spend on education, or even on food or health.

Societies can adapt to hotter temperatures. Factories, for example, can 
buy air conditioning.

But that's money they won't spend on better equipment or hiring more 
workers, Garg noted.

"Adaptation is not free. It's expensive. It's costly," he said. "And in 
general we find that the poorer you are, the more expensive it is."

Social safety net programs can help. Garg and colleagues, for example, 
conducted a study focused on a safety net program in India that 
supplemented income in rural areas. Since heat waves did not affect farm 
households’ budgets as much, the effect of heat on students’ test scores 
was smaller.

With heat waves becoming more common, demand for safety-net programs is 
growing.

"Countries are already paying for climate change," Garg said, "because 
the demand on social protection is rapidly increasing as we get more and 
more hot days."

"When we think about climate investments, [typically] we're thinking 
about seawalls and green energy. And all of that's quite important. But 
... safety net [programs] are going to play a huge role for low- and 
middle-income populations," he said.
https://www.voanews.com/a/five-ways-climate-change-is-making-poor-people-poorer/6583279.html



/[  from the World Health Organization 
https://www.who.int/news/item/03-06-2022-why-mental-health-is-a-priority-for-action-on-climate-change 
] /
*Why mental health is a priority for action on climate change*
3 June 2022
New WHO policy brief highlights actions for countries
Climate change poses serious risks to mental health and well-being, 
concludes a new WHO policy brief, launched today at the Stockholm+50 
conference. The Organization is therefore urging countries to include 
mental health support in their response to the climate crisis, citing 
examples where a few pioneering countries have done this effectively.

The findings concur with a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC), published in February this year. The IPPC 
revealed that rapidly increasing climate change poses a rising threat to 
mental health and psychosocial well-being; from emotional distress to 
anxiety, depression, grief, and suicidal behavior.

“The impacts of climate change are increasingly part of our daily lives, 
and there is very little dedicated mental health support available for 
people and communities dealing with climate-related hazards and 
long-term risk,” said Dr Maria Neira, Director of the Department of 
Environment, Climate Change and Health at WHO.

The mental health impacts of climate change are unequally distributed 
with certain groups disproportionately affected depending on factors 
such as socioeconomic status, gender and age. However, it is clear that 
climate change affects many of the social determinants that are already 
leading to massive mental health burdens globally. A 2021 WHO survey of 
95 countries found that only 9 have thus far included mental health and 
psychosocial support in their national health and climate change plans.

“The impact of climate change is compounding the already extremely 
challenging situation for mental health and mental health services 
globally. There are nearly 1 billion people living with mental health 
conditions, yet in low- and middle-income countries, 3 out of 4 do not 
have access to needed services” said Dévora Kestel, Director of the 
Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse at WHO. “By ramping up 
mental health and psychosocial support within disaster risk reduction 
and climate action, countries can do more to help protect those most at 
risk.”

The new WHO policy brief recommends five important approaches for 
governments to address the mental health impacts of climate change:

    -- integrate climate considerations with mental health programmes;
    -- integrate mental health support with climate action;
    -- build upon global commitments;
    -- develop community-based approaches to reduce vulnerabilities; and
    -- close the large funding gap that exists for mental health and
    psychosocial support.

“WHO’s Member States have made it very clear mental health is a priority 
for them. We are working closely with countries to protect people’s 
physical and mental health from climate threats,” said Dr Diarmid 
Campbell-Lendrum, WHO climate lead, and an IPCC lead author.

Some good examples exist of how this can be done such as in the 
Philippines, which has rebuilt and improved its mental health services 
after the impact of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 or in India, where a national 
project has scaled up disaster risk reduction in the country while also 
preparing cities to respond to climate risks and address mental health 
and psychosocial needs.

The Stockholm Conference commemorates the 50th anniversary of the UN 
Conference on the Human Environment and recognizes the importance of 
environmental determinants for both physical and mental health.

Note to editors
WHO defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which every 
individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the stresses 
of life, can work productively and fruitfully and is able to make a 
contribution to her or his community”.

WHO defines mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) as “any type 
of local or outside support that aims to protect or promote psychosocial 
well-being and/or prevent or treat mental disorder”.
https://www.who.int/news/item/03-06-2022-why-mental-health-is-a-priority-for-action-on-climate-change



/[  Changing activist -- Bill McKibben appears to have soured  ] /
By Timothy Egan -- May 31, 2022
*THE FLAG, THE CROSS, AND THE STATION WAGON*
A Graying American Looks Back at His Suburban Boyhood and Wonders What 
the Hell Happened
By Bill McKibben

In his writings, his many speeches and bullhorn exhortations, Bill 
McKibben comes across as one of the least cynical people on the 
battlefield of public opinion. He’s passionate about solving problems 
others have given up on, about building a better world and particularly 
about climate change, the issue that has made him the Paul Revere of 
alarm about our fevered planet.

Growing up, he actually sang “Kumbaya” around a campfire — “always 
earnestly,” he says. He won the Gandhi Peace Award and the Thomas Merton 
Award. One day, perhaps, he’ll win the real Nobel to go with the 
so-called alternative Nobel, which he’s already been awarded, the Right 
Livelihood Award. As is sometimes said about effective 
environmentalists, he’ll make a great ancestor.

His latest book is a slim cri de coeur about the rot at the base of his 
biographical foundations. McKibben finds his country, his religion and 
the suburban lifestyle of his youth to be so flawed that he’s ready to 
divorce much of his past.

“I’m curious about what went so suddenly sour with American patriotism, 
American faith and American prosperity — the flag, the cross and the 
station wagon,” he writes. “I’m curious if any of that trinity can, or 
should, be reclaimed in the fight for a fairer future.”

He doesn’t stay curious for long. This memoir reads like an extended 
argument against the idea — oft cited by Martin Luther King Jr. and 
Barack Obama, among others — that the arc of the moral universe is long 
but it bends toward justice. He says at one point, in reference to how 
that phrase applies to the evolution of religion, that “it’s just as 
easy to make the opposite argument from history: that Christianity is a 
baleful force, baptizing oppression and sanctifying the unspeakable.”

McKibben knows better than most that narrative shapes policy and that 
mass movements rarely succeed without a story to embrace. Anyone not in 
McKibben’s camp seems unlikely to join if the takeaway message is: Your 
country, your religion and your neighborhood all suck.

He comes by his conclusions after dutiful re-examination of an 
idealized, middle-class American boyhood. He was raised in Lexington, 
Mass., about a dozen miles from Boston but a world away from the churn 
of the big city. The cradle of the American Revolution, young McKibben’s 
habitat was steeped in history. While still in high school, he donned a 
tricorn hat and guided tourists around the landmarks in the town where 
colonists revolted against the world’s mightiest empire, in the first 
engagement of the War of Independence.

America’s birthing was a glorious story, “clean and brave” — noble men 
rebelling against an “unjust and arbitrary power” in the name of freedom 
and equality and self-determination. In 1976, his scout troop raised the 
flag over Lexington Green at the start of the Bicentennial celebration. 
As he says, “I came by my patriotism honestly.”

But much later in life this story takes on a different meaning to 
McKibben. He laments that some of the New England revolutionaries were 
slaveholders. There was a place name not far from his old neighborhood 
where a rebellious enslaved man was hanged and tarred, his body 
displayed in an iron cage as a warning. McKibben is greatly influenced, 
as well, by Nikole Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project, which seeks to reframe 
American history by putting slavery at the center of the narrative. 
McKibben does note that many historians took issue with Hannah-Jones’s 
original contention that one of the main reasons the colonists went to 
war was to protect slavery. (The phrasing was later changed to “some of 
the colonists.”)

No matter. McKibben has shed his long-held view of America’s founding. 
“Because let’s be real: Right now all that talk about equality, and 
farmers standing up to kings, and so on — the talk that was so appealing 
to me when I was a guide, and which still stirs me when I read it — is 
hard to take seriously in a country that has turned out as unequal as 
the one in which we live.”

Of course, you could argue that flawed people still produce lasting 
change for the betterment of humanity, a pattern for much of history. 
Behind the stirring words of many a brave and enlightened soul is 
someone doing something dastardly. What matters is the longevity of the 
ideas.

For McKibben, one revisionist view led to another. “Once the thread 
tugging begins, of course, it continues; that is its nature, and before 
long your warm and cozy sweater is full of raveling holes.”

Another hole is religion. He goes over well-trod ground on the collapse 
of mainstream Christianity’s role in American life, one of the greatest 
cultural changes of the modern era. Again, it’s slavery — or the role 
that some early American Protestant leaders played in keeping America’s 
original sin alive — that deeply troubles him. Also, while faith leaders 
joined Dr. King in the civil rights movement, many could not persuade 
their congregations in places like Lexington to allow more affordable 
housing in town. McKibben is particularly scornful of the evangelicals 
who took up the cause of Donald Trump’s Big Lie about a stolen election. 
As he notes, among the rioters who invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6 were 
people chanting, “Christ is king.”

Christianity, says McKibben, who was raised a mainline Protestant, 
“works better as a counterculture.”

The third pillar to fall in McKibben’s trilogy of failure is the suburb. 
The $30,000 homes of his Lexington childhood are worth more than $1 
million today — and in many cases, they’ve been replaced by McMansions, 
he says. The rich, e.g. homeowners, have only gotten richer by virtue of 
passing the time. The single-family home is an energy glutton, built 
around the car, and thus a huge contributor to the melting polar 
icecaps. The people who live in these houses, while voting for liberal 
Democrats, have consistently resisted attempts to make Lexington a more 
dense, built-up place. This “structural racism,” as McKibben calls it, 
only adds to inequality. McKibben’s solution is to build more apartments.

But Lexington is more complicated than that. While African Americans 
make up only 1.3 percent of the population, the city has a higher 
concentration of Asians than nearly any other city in Massachusetts: 30 
percent, which McKibben doesn’t mention. Is this structural racism, or 
the free market, or both, or neither?

Throughout the book, McKibben seems defensive in his national and 
personal teardown. He mentions several times that his largely privileged 
life was built on the suffering of others. “That’s not wokeness,” he 
says. “That’s history.” You could argue that it’s a bit of both.

In the end, McKibben urges fellow graying boomers to make up for their 
sins. Seniors vote in higher percentages than those in other age 
brackets. And even if most gave their vote to Trump — twice! — they can 
use their outsize power for positive change. They can actively work to 
change zoning laws, allowing higher-density development into the 
suburbs. They can re-examine their history, as he has done, as fuel for 
righteous reform.

His solutions, though no less sincerely offered than his mea culpas, 
seem like quick add-ons. I suspect what McKibben really wants, given the 
awe he still has for the power of the American Revolution, is another 
shot heard around the world. If the past that he laments is future, that 
won’t happen for some time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/05/us/president-distances-himself-from-global-warming-report.html

/
/

/
/

/[ Dave Roberts and Chris Hayes -- two smart men in conversation ] /
*Volts podcast: Chris Hayes on how his politics have changed since 2015*
How to think about America's grim current trajectory.
JUN 3, 2022
Volts is a podcast about leaving fossil fuels behind. I've been 
reporting on and explaining clean-energy topics for almost 20 years, and 
I love talking to politicians, analysts, innovators, and activists about 
the latest progress in the world's most important fight. (Volts is 
entirely subscriber-supported. Sign up!)
I often reflect on a particular moment in the summer of 2015. It was not 
long after the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal across the nation 
in Obergefell v. Hodges. And America was in the middle of one of its 
regular fights over Confederate monuments and flags, which were being 
pulled down by progressives across the country.

One afternoon I ran across a cartoon — I think it was on Facebook? — 
showing a Confederate flag being lowered and the LGBTQ flag being raised 
in its stead.

Hot damn, I thought. Maybe we really do get it right eventually.

I now think back on that moment as the peak of my belief in what you 
might call the Obama creed, which the nation's first black president 
repeated in one way or another in virtually every speech: that the 
essence of America is its continuous struggle toward the egalitarian 
ideals of its founding. Again and again it delays and falls short and 
takes two steps back, but it never stops striving, improving, bit by 
hard-fought bit. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

To a first approximation, everything that has happened since then has 
sucked. We fell into the ugly 2016 Democratic nomination fight, followed 
by the ugly presidential election, then four years of daily insults to 
dignity and compassion by Trump, then a plague that we bungled in 
countless ways and that has killed more than a million of us, and now, 
the Supreme Court is systematically dismantling the pillars of the 
modern administrative state while Biden and the Democrats fumble their 
way through a slow-motion catastrophe, setting up an openly seditious 
Republican Party to seize near-total power in the coming two elections.

To put it mildly, these developments have been rough on the Obama creed, 
at least for me and many people I know. Much of what Obama himself did 
was crushed or reversed by Trump, and Biden has barely begun rebuilding 
from the wreckage. More than that, America's reactionary minority seems 
ascendent. And its intentions are clear: to follow Viktor Orban's lead 
in Hungary. To whittle democracy down until it's entirely hollow, 
one-party rule in all but name. It finds echoes in similar reactionary 
backlashes currently rising in nations across the globe.

Is America redeemable? Is white Christian patriarchy ready and willing 
to destroy the country before it gives up power? Is the arc of history 
bending, or is it merely flailing back and forth, with no larger purpose 
or pattern? Is modern multi-racial, multi-cultural democracy still a 
viable long-term project?

To help ponder these weighty questions, I've turned to the inimitable 
Chris Hayes, who, as they say, needs no introduction. You've seen his 
shows on MSNBC, you've listened to his podcast, you've read his essays 
and books, you know that he is one of the leading liberal voices of our 
time. He’s also a friend. We are part of the same generation of 
journalists, living through the same dumpster fires, seeing the same 
patterns, and our paths have crossed regularly over the years. I’ve also 
been on several of his shows! We go way back.

I’ve always felt that Chris and I share similar political and 
intellectual instincts — one of the few people at the commanding heights 
of US journalism and punditry about whom I can say that — so I’m curious 
to hear how his political outlook has changed since 2015, whether he 
still believes in the Obama creed, and what he thinks is coming in 
America’s near future.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-chris-hayes-on-how?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&utm_medium=email&s=r#details



/[The news archive - looking back at the suppression of important 
information ]/
/*June 4, 2002 */
June 4, 2002: President George W. Bush dismisses an EPA report on the 
threat of human-caused climate change, deriding what he called "the 
report put out by the bureaucracy."
*President Distances Himself From Global Warming Report*
By Katharine Q. Seelye
June 5, 2002
Under intense criticism from conservatives, President Bush distanced 
himself today from a report by his administration concluding that humans 
were to blame for far-reaching effects of global warming on the environment.

The report, drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and reviewed 
by several other agencies and the White House, was sent to the United 
Nations early last week. The report said the United States would be 
substantially changed in the next few decades by global warming, 
although it called for no rapid response. Reporters asked Mr. Bush about 
the report today.

''I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,'' he said. He said he 
still opposed the Kyoto treaty, which Japan ratified today. The treaty 
calls for the mandatory reduction of greenhouse gases by industrial nations.

Critics across the political spectrum said that Mr. Bush was trying to 
appear more moderate to environmentalists while signaling to 
conservatives and industry that he would not promote the views contained 
in the report.

Mr. Bush's spokesman emphasized that the report carried numerous caveats 
about the uncertainty that still exists about the science of climate change.

Ari Fleischer, the spokesman, obviously anticipating a question about 
the report at the daily White House briefing, said: ''There is 
'considerable uncertainty' -- that's in this recent report -- relating 
to the science of climate change. This report submitted to the United 
Nations also recognizes that any 'definitive prediction of potential 
outcomes is not yet feasible' and that 'one of the weakest links in our 
knowledge is the connection between global and regional predictions of 
climate change.' ''

Instead of the Kyoto treaty, Mr. Bush has called for voluntary measures 
that would allow gas emissions to continue to rise, with the goal of 
slowing the rate of growth.

But in this report, the administration said for the first time that the 
United States would be significantly affected by global warming in the 
next few decades. The report alarmed conservatives and representatives 
of various industries, especially utilities that rely on old 
technologies, and they accused Mr. Bush of flip-flopping on an important 
issue.

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk-show host, today called Mr. 
Bush ''George W. Al Gore,'' a reference to former Vice President Al 
Gore, who has long been concerned about global warming. But the moniker 
seemed to be an effort to deride Mr. Bush for adopting what many 
conservatives view as Mr. Gore's environmental extremism and to 
compliment the president for undercutting Mr. Gore on his signature issue.

''All of this takes Al Gore's No. 1 issue away from him,'' Mr. Limbaugh 
told listeners. He predicted that the Senate majority leader, Senator 
Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, and the House minority leader, 
Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, would be 
''banging their heads against the wall'' because the report might 
pre-empt them from making a political issue of global warming.

Christopher C. Horner, a lawyer in Washington and senior fellow at the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group, said 
today that Mr. Bush had distanced himself from the report ''because of 
concern from the right that he was going to accept the European 
environmental world view, that he had changed his mind as the report 
indicated he had.''

Mr. Horner said Mr. Bush could not possibly accept the premise of the 
report without also saying that the United States would do something 
about it. ''It was obvious to him that it's not tenable to say yes, 
we're aggressively killing the planet and then not do something 
aggressive about it,'' he said. ''Our fear was that he would have to 
take severe action,'' after years of promising that he would not.

But he said Mr. Bush was now in more of a bind because he could not 
dismiss the report as the product of bureaucrats without responding to 
it. The implication in Mr. Bush's dismissal, he said, was, ''There goes 
Governor Whitman again,'' a reference to Christie Whitman, the 
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who has sometimes 
been at odds with Mr. Bush over approaches to environmental problems.

Joe Martyak, a spokesman for Mrs. Whitman, said that was an incorrect 
interpretation. The report said nothing new, Mr. Martyak said, and Mrs. 
Whitman ''agrees with the president that his plan is the best approach 
to dealing with greenhouse gasses.''

Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said that Mr. 
Bush's response today reflected the difficult political position the 
report put him in. ''This is the same naked politics that this 
administration has exhibited on every major environmental issue,'' Mr. 
Clapp said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/05/us/president-distances-himself-from-global-warming-report.html 




=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, here are a few daily summariesof global warming 
news - 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/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.