[✔️] June 19, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Sun Jun 19 09:44:58 EDT 2022
/*June 19, 2022*/
/[ take note of the changes ]/
*Heat wave in Europe sets records as wildfires break out*
Jacob Knutson - Andrew Freedman
June 18, 2022
An unusually intense early-season heat wave is bringing scorching
temperatures to Western and Central Europe, with highs near or above 104
degrees Fahrenheit (40°C) recorded in parts of Spain and France over the
weekend.
Why it matters: The World Meteorological Organization warned Friday that
this heat wave is a preview of the future, as heat waves are starting
earlier in the year and are becoming more frequent and severe as a
result of human-caused climate change.
Prolonged, extreme heat is deadly, especially for vulnerable populations
like the elderly, infants, children and people with chronic diseases.
By the numbers: Spain's meteorological agency said Friday that it was
the earliest heat wave in over 40 years, while France's weather service
said it was the earliest ever to hit the country.
Biarritz, France, broke its all-time heat record on Saturday with a high
of 109.2°F (42.9°C), according to meteorologist Scott Duncan. That
exceeded its previous all time record by 4.14°F, which itself is
unusual, since typically such long-term records are broken by smaller
margins.
On Saturday, a staggering 203 monthly high temperature records were
beaten or tied in France, along with 18 records for the hottest
temperature observed for any day of the year, according to extreme
weather specialist Maximiliano Herrera.
The nation's hottest temperature on Saturday was 110.1°F (43.4°C) at
Pissos, in southwestern France where "red" warnings were in place for
extreme heat.
Zoom in: In a post on Twitter, Herrera described the heat wave as
"catastrophic" due to its intensity.
Monthly heat records were also broken in Switzerland and Germany on
Saturday, according to Herrera.
Spain's weather service said temperatures could reach maximum
temperatures of 107°F (42°C) in the northeast Saturday, while large
parts of the country could reach a maximum of around 104°F (40°C).
At San Sebastien, Spain, along the Bay of Biscay, the high on Saturday
reached 110.3°F (43.5°C), for an all-time record, Herrera tweeted.
Météo-France said that multiple weather stations across the country
recorded temperatures that broke heat records on Friday as well.
Our thought bubble: This heat wave is shattering all-time records during
a time of year that is not the seasonal peak, which may exacerbate its
public health impacts since people are not yet accustomed to mid-summer
temperatures.
Climate change is making extreme heat events far more likely and severe,
with several heat waves in Europe attributed in large part to human
emissions of greenhouse gases.
One of the first heat wave attribution studies, in fact, detailed the
role that climate change played in a deadly heat wave in France that
occurred in 2003.
The big picture: Amid the heat, forest fires have erupted in Catalonia,
Spain.
One near Baldomar, around 87 miles northeast of Barcelona, has burned
around 2,470 acres after starting on Thursday, though several thousand
acres are threatened.
Other fires have broken out in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France as
temperatures have soared.
The high heat put much of Spain country under high or extreme risk of
wildfire on Saturday.
What's next: The heat is expected to subside in France on Sunday and
move into Germany, though Spain, Poland and Austria will still have
abnormally high temperatures for several days, according to the
Washington Post.
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/18/europe-heat-wave-wild-fires-france-spain
- -
/[ Global leadership is angry ]/
*UN Chief: Fossil Fuel Companies “Have Humanity by the Throat”*
António Guterres likens their climate inaction to Big Tobacco’s denial
of smoking-cancer links.
FIONA HARVEY
Fossil fuel companies and the banks that finance them “have humanity by
the throat,” the UN secretary general has said, in a “blistering” attack
on the industry and its backers, who are pulling in record profits amid
energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war...
- -
He said: “We seem trapped in a world where fossil fuel producers and
financiers have humanity by the throat. For decades, the fossil fuel
industry has invested heavily in pseudoscience and public relations—with
a false narrative to minimize their responsibility for climate change
and undermine ambitious climate policies.”...
- -
Guterres is understood to be furious that, six months after the Cop26
climate summit, and after three dire reports from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change—the “starkest warning yet” from climate
scientists—countries and businesses are ignoring the science and
squandering opportunities to put the world on a greener path, when
renewable energy is cheaper and safer than fossil fuels.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/06/un-chief-fossil-fuel-companies-have-humanity-by-the-throat/
/[ 3 min video opinion from WION - West Asia ]/
*Conflict and climate change: How will West Asia transition to green
energy? | World Climate Tracker*
7,619 views Jun 18, 2022 West Asia is no stranger to climate change
but with the COP27 just six months ago, what are the region's goals?
Global climate talks are coming to the hottest and driest part of the
planet, a region which is being battered by heat waves, sandstorms and
water crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6n9vwffhME
/[ let us count the ways...]/
*Infertility, heart failure and kidney disease: How does climate change
impact the human body?*
By Lauren Crosby Medlicott June 18, 2022
Human pressures on the global environment are wreaking havoc on our
planet, but they are also an increasingly significant threat to human
health. Climate change is the ‘greatest threat to human health in
history’, far greater than risks posed by viruses and diseases.
We need the same urgency to treat climate change as when everyone jumped
to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Otherwise - our health is due for a
downward spiral in coming years.
Here are just 10 ways we’re already seeing climate change impacting the
human body – some you may expect, while some are more discreet.
10. Heat stress on the heart...
9. Sleep disruption...
8. Respiratory Issues...
7. Kidney damage...
6. Aggravated allergies...
5. Damage to heart circulation...
4. Infertility...
3. Malnutrition...
2. Mental health...
1. Microplastics found in our bodies...
*How can we take action?*
As we become more and more aware of the impact climate change has on our
health, there is hope that action will be taken to change the future.
The Paris Agreement holds countries to account to limit global warming
to below 2 degrees Celsius. Scientists and activists are offering
solutions to mitigate risks. Governments are being challenged to act,
and quickly. There is hope.
But without urgent action, human health will continue to be adversely
affected by climate change and the fate of future generations looks grim.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/18/infertility-heart-failure-and-kidney-disease-how-does-climate-change-impact-the-human-body
/[ opinion NYT letters - one college philosophy course said yes, maybe
just one ]/
*Is It Ethical to Have Children Amid the Climate Crisis?*
Readers offer different views, discussing Tolstoy, Bill McKibben,
adoption, the Supreme Court and more in their arguments.
June 18, 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/opinion/letters/children-climate-crisis.html
/[ great Dave Roberts podcast interview ] /
Jun 17, 2022
*Volts podcast: Dan Pfeiffer on the Democratic Party's megaphone problem*
No message can succeed if it doesn't reach the intended audience.
You probably know Dan Pfeiffer best as one of the hosts of the wildly
successful Pod Save America podcast, part of the growing Crooked Media
empire of which he is a co-founder. Or perhaps you know him as the
author of the Message Box newsletter, where he dispenses communications
advice to left-leaning subscribers.
But before he was a new media mogul, Pfeiffer was in the thick of
politics as a top aide on Obama’s campaign and then in Obama’s White
House, where he ran communications and strategy.
Pfeiffer has seen the media war between the parties play out, and he has
seen Democrats lose messaging battles again and again. He has first-hand
experience of the growing power of the right-wing media machine to
spread disinformation, set the agenda for the rest of the media, and
deflect accountability.
Now he has written a book on the subject: Battling the Big Lie is an
extended examination of the growing imbalance between the conservative
movement’s massive media megaphone … and the left’s lack of one.
Listeners know that I have been obsessed with this imbalance for as long
as I’ve been following politics, so I was super geeked to talk with
Pfeiffer about how right-wing media grew, how it successfully
intimidated both mainstream media and social media companies, and how
Democrats can begin building a comparable megaphone of their own, before
it’s too late.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-dan-pfeiffer-on-the#details
/[ James Hansen is the grandfather of climate science activism - Lise
Susteren is our caring grandmother advisor . ] /
*Carbon Dioxide Is a Pollutant. Please Help Establish That Fact.*
May 2022 Temperature Update
17 June 2022
James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy
CO2 fits perfectly EPA’s definition of a chemical substance that
presents “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”
Congress, with strong bipartisan agreement, established the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA; acronym pronounced tosca) in 1976 and –
with bipartisan support again – strengthened the law in 2016. This law
has been used successfully to phase out or reduce many substances,
including asbestos, lead in paint, PCBs, and CFCs[1]. EPA has broad
latitude in how to achieve reductions and can work with other agencies
for that purpose.
Citizens may petition EPA on the need to address a pollutant under TSCA.
EPA must respond to a petition within 90 days. Yesterday several of
us[a] delivered to EPA a petition[2] for phase out of greenhouse gas
(GHG) pollution to restore a stable and healthy climate. The prospects
for EPA to accept their obligation will be much improved if we can
present them with an impressive list of endorsers of the petition.
Please examine the petition and consider adding your name as an endorser
of the petition. United States citizens are especially relevant as
endorsers, but there is also value in support of world citizens for what
is a global problem.
- -
It’s expecting a lot to ask young people to understand what their
political leaders are doing, but as we mentioned in last month’s
temperature update, that seems to be necessary, and young people have
tremendous potential political power.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/carbon-dioxide-is-a-pollutant-please-help-establish-that-fact?e=c4e20a3850
/[ Robinson Meyer in the Atlantic ] /
*A Hotter, Poorer, and Less Free America*
In the next few weeks, Senate Democrats could fall short—for arguably
the third time in 30 years—of passing a climate deal. What will that
mean for the planet and the country?
By Robinson Meyer - - JUNE 15, 2022
For the past 18 months, Senate Democrats have been trying to find a
climate deal acceptable to all 50 of their members. The main obstacles,
so far, have been Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the owner of a
coal-trading company, who wants any deal to reduce the federal budget
deficit, and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who refuses to increase
tax rates, the easiest way to satisfy Manchin’s deficit-reduction goal.
Senators are now back at the negotiating table, trying to work within
the rules Manchin has insisted on.
But their timeline is dwindling. Last month, an environmental lobbyist
told me that if the talks did not produce a framework deal by Memorial
Day, then he didn’t think they would succeed at all. No such deal came
together. Now only about 17 working days remain before Congress’s August
recess. Reconciliation, the parliamentary procedure that senators use to
pass legislation with 51 votes, gobbles up floor time, so even if
Manchin does agree to a deal, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer may
not be able to get it to a final vote before the clock runs out.
So it seems possible, even probable, that sometime in the next three or
four weeks, Schrodinger’s climate deal will turn out to have been dead
all along. Democrats may not admit defeat until the last day of
September, when this year’s reconciliation resolution expires.
At that point, the record will be clear. Even though President Joe Biden
described climate change as one of the country’s “four historic crises”
during the campaign, his administration—like the Obama administration
before it—will have failed to pass a climate bill. Come November,
Democrats will likely lose one or both houses of Congress. And the
United States will stumble into a fourth decade without significant
legislative climate policy—or even a coherent energy policy.
So for the sake of mental preparation, if nothing else, it’s worth
asking: What will happen then? Over the past few days, I’ve asked this
question of energy analysts and climate scholars.
Some of them have found it too depressing to contemplate. Others have
shrugged. Even setting the legislative uncertainty aside, this year has
been one of the most destabilizing moments for energy markets this
century. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has inaugurated a new price regime
for fossil fuels: Oil is now trading at all-time highs in most major
currencies, and America’s liquid-natural-gas exports are helping create
a single, global price for the commodity. Even coal prices are soaring.
“Who the hell knows?” Danny Cullenward, the policy director at the think
tank CarbonPlan, told me. “My crystal ball is cloudier than it’s been in
a long time.”
But we can make some safe bets. If Congress fails to pass climate
legislation, the effects won’t be felt immediately outside of a few
areas. (They may include fossil-fuel prices, which could stay elevated
for longer.) But over the coming decade, the world will wind up a
hotter, poorer place. Carbon emissions will remain high, and the basic
framework of the Paris Agreement on climate change may start to crumble.
The United States, in particular, would be left measurably worse.
Although the country has never been a responsible actor on climate
change, its peculiar inability to pass any significant legislative
climate policy would set back its self-conception, international
reputation, and economic mojo. At this point, not having a national
energy and climate policy is like not having an internet policy in the
1990s—so strange that it makes the entire system look diseased and
antique. While fossil fuels remain essential to today’s economy, the
next stage of economic development is unmistakably decarbonized and
electrified. Without the kind of robust policy support on offer in
Europe or China, America’s climate-friendly companies will not be able
to keep up. And so the country will fall behind.
Don’t get me wrong: Even then, the United States will remain rich, well
educated, and integrated into the global economy, although intensifying
wildfires and other climate disasters will eat away at its housing
stock, industrial base, and treasured Pax Americana. But the country
will be worse off—less wealthy, less at ease, less free—than it could
have been. Oil and gas prices will still dictate the shape of American
budgets; climate-driven inflation will intensify. And the American
public’s understanding of the future will remain clouded—by a
public-policy problem first recognized more than 30 years ago by
President George H. W. Bush
The country, in short, will stagnate. And stagnation is a choice.
The most immediate consequence is straightforward. The country will
build less zero-carbon infrastructure than if the climate package had
passed. Utilities will erect fewer wind and solar farms, and consumers
will buy fewer electric vehicles. Fewer Americans, too, will switch to
efficient induction stoves or heat pumps. The bill’s delay has already
put hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in clean energy on
hold. If the bill fails, some of that spending will be canceled.
That cancellation won’t dent only the growth of hippie-dippie
renewables. The reconciliation bill’s tax credits had an innovative
design, subsidizing all sources of zero-carbon electricity production,
not just wind and solar. This design was a large part of why economists
at the University of Chicago and the Rhodium Group, an energy-research
firm, projected that the tax credits could produce as much as $1.5
trillion of economic surplus by 2050. In their absence, all zero-carbon
power would suffer: Existing nuclear-power plants may shut down earlier
than they otherwise would, and some new nuclear and geothermal power
plants will never get built.
That lack of capital turnover will ripple across the economy. Because
fewer Americans will switch to zero-carbon technologies, they will need
more fossil fuels, keeping energy prices elevated for longer. Every
electric-vehicle driver, after all, is one less buyer of gasoline; every
heat-pump owner is one less buyer of natural gas.
That means that the United States will release more carbon pollution
than it would otherwise, accelerating global warming and ocean
acidification. Don’t get me wrong: The country will not immediately
become a cartoonish, smoggy wasteland like in The Lorax, with
smokestacks coughing untold amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. (At
least, it won’t soon become any more of a climate villain than it is
today.) But as its chronic carbon addiction runs its course, its
environment and economic fundamentals will get worse.
- -
Even beyond the climatic consequences, the failure to pass a climate
bill will make people sicker and hurt the local environment. Because
fossil-fuel-burning cars, factories, and power plants also produce
conventionally toxic forms of pollution, America’s air will carry more
particulate matter, tiny shards of ash that can poison the heart, lungs,
and brain. By 2030, some 25,000 more Americans will die than if the bill
had passed, according to Princeton’s energy-policy analysis project.
Those are the direct and most straightforward consequences of the
climate deal’s failure, the ones that suggest themselves just by
extending current trends into the future. But as the disease of
stagnation progresses, other, more dire symptoms will begin to appear.
In the coming days, the Supreme Court will rule on a landmark case that
could gut the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate
greenhouse-gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. Without a
reconciliation deal, the Court’s ruling will determine whether there’s
any hope of making the 2030 goal. If the Court preserves most, or even
part, of the agency’s power, then the Biden administration can still
attempt ambitious climate regulation over the next two years, requiring
utilities, carmakers, and perhaps even industrial facilities to cut
their climate pollution. And because fossil fuels are so expensive right
now, and renewables are so cheap, the agency could justify deep cuts to
carbon pollution when conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
- -
Would that be enough to meet the 2030 targets? Gina McCarthy, the White
House’s climate czar, has claimed that even with no additional
legislation, the government can still hit them. But energy experts are
skeptical. “It’s just hard to see all of that happening,” Larsen, the
Rhodium Group analyst, told me. “I agree with Gina McCarthy when she
says that the federal government has all the tools it needs. But without
hundreds of billions of [federal] investment, it makes it 10 times
harder to use all the tools in a way that makes it likely the targets
would be reached by 2030.” State governments would also have to step up,
he said, passing far more sweeping clean-energy rules than even
California or New York have on the books today.
And that’s the good outcome. If the Court’s entrenched conservative
majority kneecaps the EPA, then the White House will be out of options,
and American climate activism will likely take a grim turn. Progressives
will have watched the collapse of their legislative and regulatory
routes to cut carbon pollution, and the ongoing Republican backlash to
corporate activism will foreclose their ability to green even their
workplaces. Just as President Donald Trump’s win electrified campus
activists, a resounding defeat for climate action could empower those
climate campaigners who are already eager to blow up pipelines.
By contrast, if the tax credits pass, “you start to see a world where
with some of these emerging technologies, like [direct air capture] or
hydrogen, the U.S. has a competitive head start and has the potential to
get into a dominant position,” Larsen said.
The most likely outcome might be a mix of these scenarios. Some new
climate-tech start-ups may build their first facility here, because last
year’s bipartisan infrastructure law authorized more than $11.5 billion
for demonstration direct-air-capture and hydrogen projects. But that
money can’t necessarily help build a company’s third, fourth, or fifth
facility, and when it comes time to scale up, those same firms may go
abroad. “Nobody’s going to build a scale-up business on a
fingers-crossed hope that there’s a tax credit at the end of the
decade,” Larsen said.
“We’re talking about $1 [trillion] to $4 trillion a year in investments
due to energy transition,” Nemet added. “If that spending happens
elsewhere, or U.S. firms don’t do that hiring, that’s a lost
opportunity.” It could also be a national-security blunder. Look at the
role that batteries and other climate tech have played in the war in
Ukraine, where soldiers have used small drones to drop grenades on
Russian trenches and fired anti-tank rockets from e-bikes. In a future
conflict, having the industrial capacity and engineering know-how to
mass-manufacture such gadgets could prove decisive.
Even if the U.S. forgoes that investment, Nemet’s largest fear is that
the transition will happen too slowly. Even the most conservative
assessments say that the world will need to use technology to remove one
to three gigatons of carbon every year by the middle of the century.
That implies an almost unimaginable level of technological growth given
what exists today. “For direct air capture to reach one gigaton a year
in 2050, it would have to grow at 40 percent a year, every year, from
now to 2050,” he said. Solar deployment, by contrast, has grown 30
percent a year for 40 years, according to Nemet’s research. “And solar’s
been kind of miraculous that way, so we’d have to go a little faster,”
he said. Even cellphones grew only 15 percent per year at their peak.
“If we’re talking about taking our foot off the gas a little bit in the
U.S., that’s gonna make it harder” to meet those targets, Nemet told me.
Democrats might get another few chances to pass some climate policy in
the coming decade, even if this effort fails. Historically, the party
has found more success by tacking energy policy onto other legislative
vehicles—such as a must-pass defense or budget bill—rather than
separating it out. That could prove true again now. The first
opportunity might come after the midterm elections this year, when a
lame-duck Congress could pass a bipartisan “tax extenders” package that
pushes each party’s cherished tax policies forward. Even if that passes,
though, it will likely cover only another year or two, and it won’t
restore the tax credits to their highest historical levels, as a
reconciliation deal could. It also won’t make the existing set of tax
credits, which favor wind or solar specifically, more technology-neutral.
Two milestones stand out after that. The first will arrive next year,
when Congress will review agricultural policy and pass a new version of
the Farm Bill. The last draft of the Build Back Better proposal included
$27 billion to encourage soil-based carbon-capture techniques; that
money could be slotted into the Farm Bill. After that, the next
opportunity won’t arise until 2025, when most of the major provisions in
the Trump tax credits will expire and Congress will debate whether to
renew them. Democrats could propose to extend certain Trump-era reforms
in exchange for some clean-energy tax credits. But taking advantage of
that moment will require Democrats to hold on to some shred of power at
the federal level.
And even then, climate policy will matter less than it does now.
Companies are deciding where to locate their manufacturing plants now,
not in 2025. One of Manchin’s favored policies in the package, a tax
credit that encourages firms to build new factories, could shift their
decision about where to locate their facilities, but it has to come in
the next few years, before those decisions are locked in.
Perhaps one of the biggest risks is that the country’s energy system
remains stuck for years to come. Public markets are trapped in a moment
of Hamlet-like indecision about energy: Investors can forecast the end
of global oil-demand growth, which makes them unwilling to fund efforts
to increase oil supply, but they also can’t fund the rapid scale-up of
renewables and other clean-energy technology without public support.
(High interest rates will make such a build-out even harder.) Consumers
are stuck in the resulting gap, facing higher energy prices across the
board as money dawdles between fossil fuels and clean energy. Without
clear, muscular policy that makes a zero-carbon energy system all but
inevitable, industrial firms could just sit around for years, waiting
for a better investment signal.
More widely, the failure will speak to the sclerosis of American
governance. If Congress cannot bring itself to pass a climate bill, this
will be the second time in a row that Democrats have controlled the
presidency and both houses of Congress and failed to get a climate deal
done: In 2010, President Barack Obama could not coax a bipartisan
climate bill through the Senate. Arguably, this is the third time that
the Senate will have killed climate legislation: Bill Clinton’s Btu tax,
which died in 1993, would have amounted to a kind of approximate carbon
tax. But this will not just be a Democratic problem: Barring the
intercession of the courts, neither party has been able to accomplish
many of its governance objectives lately.
Of course, this history is not yet written: Senate Democrats could still
hustle a deal together in the next week or two. But the outlook is not
good. In retrospect, what might amaze our descendants is that there were
so many ways to tackle climate change through policy. The problem was
amenable to progressive and conservative values; whether you believed in
conquering nature or mothering it, you could find a plausible remedy to
the carbon problem. But our politicians chose none of them. They opted
for perhaps the worst possible path of all—they bickered while the world
burned.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/06/congress-climate-change-infrastructure-policy/661293/
/[The news archive - looking back nearly 20 years at how we knew what to
do ]/
/*June 19, 2003 */
June 19, 2003:
The New York Times reports:
"The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft
report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing
by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising
global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/us/report-by-epa-leaves-out-data-on-climate-change.html
- -
The AP reports:
"The chief goal in a White House plan to study global warming is
learning more about natural causes of climate change, drawing
criticism from environmentalists who say reducing industrial carbon
emissions is the real problem.
"The new 10-year, $103 million plan to speed up research in some
high-priority areas was released Thursday by Commerce Secretary Don
Evans and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who pointed to $4.5
billion in government spending on climate change-related programs...
"The first of the 364-page plan's five goals is to study the
'natural variability' in climate change. The second is to find
better ways of measuring climate effects from burning fossil fuels,
industrial production of warming gases and changes in land use.
"Other goals are to reduce uncertainty in climate forecasting; to
better understand how changes in climate affect human, wildlife and
plant communities; and to find more exact ways of calculating the
risks of global warming, according to plan summaries obtained by The
Associated Press.
"But environmentalists said the administration was focusing too much
on natural causes and reopening scientific issues already well studied."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-plan-draws-heat/
=======================================
*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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list