[✔️] May 28, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Sat May 28 08:47:09 EDT 2022
/*May 28, 2022*/
/[ SCOTUS ruled -- this is a positive win ] /
*Supreme Court Allows Greenhouse Gas Cost Estimates*
Louisiana and other Republican-led states challenged a federal working
group’s efforts to develop standards for agencies to use in quantifying
the harms caused by emissions...
- -
“An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately
determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when
conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions,” the
order said...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/politics/supreme-court-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
- -
/[ ruling allows wise behavior ]/
*Justices won’t block Biden policy on ‘social cost of carbon’*
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Biden
administration to use a higher estimate, challenged by Republican-led
states, for calculating damages to people and the environment from
greenhouse gas emissions.
The justices did not comment in refusing to put back in place an order
from a federal judge in Louisiana that had blocked the administration
from putting greater emphasis on potential damage from greenhouse gas
emissions when creating rules for polluting industries.
The approach uses the “social cost of carbon” to calculate future
climate damages to justify tougher restrictions for fossil fuels,
transportation and other industries.
The federal appeals court in New Orleans put the order on hold and
Louisiana led nine states in asking the high court to in to intervene.
The justices’ refusal to do so allows the administration to use an
interim standard of $51 in damages per ton of carbon dioxide emitted
while it works to update and possibly increase the cost per ton. The $51
figure was used by the Obama administration before the Trump
administration cut it to $7.
By itself, the estimate does not impose any new requirements, but it
could be used to justify tougher rules. The states would be free to
challenge any new regulations.
https://apnews.com/article/climate-us-supreme-court-government-and-politics-environment-efa3b0047998c18b21f7a61e32ab0e47
- -
/[ looking at some changes ahead -- following money into smart action ] /
*How an Organized Republican Effort Punishes Companies for Climate Action*
Legislators and their allies are running an aggressive campaign that
uses public money and the law to pressure businesses they say are
pushing “woke” causes.
By David Gelles and Hiroko Tabuchi - - May 27, 2022
In West Virginia, the state treasurer has pulled money from BlackRock,
the world’s largest asset manager, because the Wall Street firm has
flagged climate change as an economic risk.
In Texas, a new law bars the state’s retirement and investment funds
from doing business with companies that the state comptroller says are
boycotting fossil fuels. Conservative lawmakers in 15 other states are
promoting similar legislation.
And officials in Utah and Idaho have assailed a major ratings agency for
considering environmental risks and other factors, in addition to the
balance sheet, when assessing states’ creditworthiness.
Across the country, Republican lawmakers and their allies have launched
a campaign to try to rein in what they see as activist companies trying
to reduce the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet.
“We’re an energy state, and energy accounts for hundreds of millions of
dollars of tax revenue for us,” said Riley Moore, the West Virginia
state treasurer. “All of our jobs come from coal and gas. I mean, this
is who we are. This is part of our way of life here in the state. And
they’re telling us that these industries are bad.”
“We have an existential threat here,” Mr. Moore said. “We have to fight
back.”
In doing so, Mr. Moore and others have pushed climate change from the
scientific realm into the political battles already raging over topics
like voting rights, abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. issues. In recent months,
conservatives have moved beyond tough words and used legislative and
financial leverage to pressure the private sector to drop climate action
and any other causes they label as “woke.”
“There is a coordinated effort to chill corporate engagement on these
issues,” said Daniella Ballou-Aares, chief executive of the Leadership
Now Project, a nonprofit organization that wants corporations to address
threats to democracy. “And it is an effective campaign. Companies are
starting to go into hiding.”
The pushback has been spearheaded by a group of Republican state
officials that has reached out to financial organizations, facilitated
media appearances and threatened to punish companies that, among other
things, divest from fossil fuels.
They have worked alongside a nonprofit organization that has run
television ads, dispatched roaming billboard trucks and rented out a
Times Square billboard criticizing BlackRock for championing what they
call woke causes, including environmentalism...
- -
“We’re an energy state, and energy accounts for hundreds of millions of
dollars of tax revenue for us,” said Riley Moore, the West Virginia
state treasurer. “All of our jobs come from coal and gas. I mean, this
is who we are. This is part of our way of life here in the state. And
they’re telling us that these industries are bad.”
“We have an existential threat here,” Mr. Moore said. “We have to fight
back.”
In doing so, Mr. Moore and others have pushed climate change from the
scientific realm into the political battles already raging over topics
like voting rights, abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. issues. In recent months,
conservatives have moved beyond tough words and used legislative and
financial leverage to pressure the private sector to drop climate action
and any other causes they label as “woke.”
“There is a coordinated effort to chill corporate engagement on these
issues,” said Daniella Ballou-Aares, chief executive of the Leadership
Now Project, a nonprofit organization that wants corporations to address
threats to democracy. “And it is an effective campaign. Companies are
starting to go into hiding.”
The pushback has been spearheaded by a group of Republican state
officials that has reached out to financial organizations, facilitated
media appearances and threatened to punish companies that, among other
things, divest from fossil fuels.
They have worked alongside a nonprofit organization that has run
television ads, dispatched roaming billboard trucks and rented out a
Times Square billboard criticizing BlackRock for championing what they
call woke causes, including environmentalism...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/climate/republicans-blackrock-climate.html
- -
/[ 'Pay attention to global warming' - Larry Fink's letter ]/
*It’s Not ‘Woke’ for Businesses to Think Beyond Profit, BlackRock Chief
Says*
Larry Fink’s latest annual letter to corporate America clarifies, and
defends, his approach to social and environmental issues at the world’s
largest money manager.
Laurence D. Fink, the founder and chief executive of the investment
giant BlackRock, has become one of the most influential voices in
business over the past decade in pushing corporate leaders to think
beyond profits, to their social purpose.
Mr. Fink has delivered his words in annual letters that have drawn
remarkable attention, but also criticism from all corners: that he is
beholden to politically correct antibusiness activists, or that he is
co-opting these issues for marketing purposes.
On Monday night, he used his latest letter to corporate America to
clarify — and defend — his approach.
“Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics,” Mr. Fink wrote to the
chief executives of businesses that BlackRock has invested in. “It is
not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism.”
- -
Along with his push for companies to focus more on climate, he repeated
a call on governments and multinational organizations like the World
Bank to be more supportive of investments in green energy.
“Businesses can’t do this alone,” Mr. Fink wrote, “and they cannot be
the climate police.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/business/dealbook/larry-fink-blackrock-letter.html
- -
/[ on the other hand, criticizing Black Rock for not going far enough ] /
*BlackRock invests in climate destruction*
The climate crisis threatens life as we know it. We all face a global
emergency, but the finance industry has the power to lead the change we
need.
BlackRock is the world’s biggest asset manager, with USD $10 trillion in
assets under management. It’s also one of the world’s top investors in
climate destruction.
WITH POWER COMES RESPONSIBILITY
Global asset managers, like BlackRock, supply fossil fuel companies with
a steady stream of capital. They also invest heavily in companies
driving deforestation and back firms that undermine Indigenous rights.
Asset managers that continue to fund the climate crisis face exponential
risks, both environmental and financial. That’s BlackRock’s Big Problem...
- -
The solutions are bold, but possible
#1 Exclude climate-harming companies from active funds
#2 Expand pro-climate engagement and voting
#3 Adopt a global baseline climate standard for ESG
#4 Promote human and Indigenous rights
#5 Offer climate funds by default
"decisive action is our only chance for a viable future."
https://blackrocksbigproblem.com/
/[ She is a greatly respected historian of global warming -- clips from
interview w/ Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes -- audio and text - stream
and download ]/
*How to Save the Climate*
Living on Earth - May 13, 2022
The Earth is hurtling toward climate disaster as evidenced by many
scientific studies, including the latest results from the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet the world continues to
rely heavily on fossil fuels and drag its heels on transitioning to
clean energy. Harvard University Professor of the History of Science
Naomi Oreskes joins Host Steve Curwood to note climate change science is
unequivocal and why the paths to solving the climate crisis are
political and social.
*CURWOOD:* There is now a steady drumbeat of increasing climate peril.
Researchers at the UK’s Met Office have just reported there’s a 50-50
chance that sometime in the next four years there will be a year when
the average mean global near-surface temperature will exceed 1.5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels. A brief blip at that level does not
spell immediate disaster, scientists say, but if it becomes a long-term
trend we will be in deep trouble, which is why staying below a 1.5
degree increase is the target of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Met
Office report comes on the heels of dire warnings last month from the
UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC says we must
act before it is too late to avert a horribly overheated climate, yet
emissions keep rising, especially from huge amounts of methane linked to
the natural gas industry. We face an existential threat of historic
proportions, so we thought we’d call up a historian for some guidance.
Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard Professor of the History of Science. Naomi,
welcome to Living on Earth...
- -
*ORESKES:* The fossil fuel industry has a stranglehold on Washington,
DC. And it's not just the Republicans. I mean, we saw that this year
with Joe Manchin's, refusal to play ball. And if you think about it, why
are we even in a place where it comes down to one vote, right? There are
a lot of people in the Democratic Party who are too close to the fossil
fuel industry who are afraid of the fossil fuel industry, the fossil
fuel industry does, in fact, target people who stand up against them.
But if we don't stand up, then we've given up the fight without a fight.
And this is a fight. And it may be dirty, and it may be messy but you
know, we have to confront it. Because if we don't, well, then we're
looking at 2,3,4 degrees of climate change and massive damage, massive
losses...
- -
Democracy relies upon the assumption that we have access to good
information, and that we can have a free and full exchange of ideas
because people are operating in good faith. But if people are lying, and
if we're saturated by a sea of disinformation, propaganda, lies, half
truths, it makes it incredibly difficult for us as citizens to do our
job in a democracy. So I guess another part of this story, a bigger part
has to do with disinformation and social media and what steps we need to
take to address the spread of disinformation on social media. The myth
that many people have the idea that many Americans have that problems
are best solved by letting the market do its magic. History refutes it.
And so then the question is, why do so many people believe this idea,
which is so clearly refuted by experience? And the answer is propaganda.
And so we've tracked a 100 year propaganda campaign by American business
leaders to promote this free market ideology and to teach us to distrust
government. If we don't trust government, then I think we will not
actually be able to solve this problem, we really have to address the
root causes of people's distrust in government. And some of that, or at
least one of the major root causes is propaganda..
*CURWOOD:* How do we get from here to there?
*ORESKES: *Well, that's a great question. And again, if you look at
history, I think history tells us that bottom up social movements are
really important. And especially if you think about civil rights in
America, I like to think a lot about Rosa Parks, partly because she was
an ordinary person, but also because Rosa Parks didn't actually work
alone. But she was actually part of a social movement that had planned
that moment. It wasn't spontaneous. But it's really important for us to
understand, social change doesn't actually mostly come from individuals
working alone, it comes from individuals working together. And bottom up
social movements can be very, very powerful, especially then, if they
can be linked with articulate and charismatic leaders like Martin Luther
King, there's a role for all of us to play, we all need to get involved.
And we shouldn't just be sitting in our seats waiting for the Martin
Luther King of climate change to emerge, we should all be getting
involved to create that bottom up social movement, and to put pressure
on our political leaders, because we know they're getting the pressure
from the fossil fuel industry, but they're not getting the same kind of
counter pressure from ordinary citizens who care about this issue.
*CURWOOD:* So Professor Oreskes is what gives you hope in this situation?
*ORESKES: *What gives me hope is the fact that this thing can be solved.
There are the technologies, the innovations, the policies that we need
all exist, we know what they are, we don't have to invent some new
miracle technology. We don't have to invent some new miracle policy. We
have the tools at our disposal. We just have to use them.
*CURWOOD: *Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at
Harvard University. Thanks for taking the time with us today.
*ORESKES:* You're welcome. It's been a pleasure.
https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=22-P13-00019&segmentID=6
/[The news archive - looking back at battel propaganda ]
//*May 28, 2003*/
The New York Times reports on ExxonMobil's crucial role in the
climate-denial industry.
*Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming*
By Jennifer 8. Lee
May 28, 2003
Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming
over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations
for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research.
At the same time, the company, the world's largest oil and gas
concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups
that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming
and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide
emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.
Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations,
which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of
Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for
Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American
Legislative Exchange Council.
The organizations are modest in size but have been outspoken in the
global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest corporate
donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than 10 percent of
their annual budgets. While a few of the groups say they also
receive some money from other oil companies, it is only a small
fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.
''We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the
debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,'' said Tom
Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. ''There is this whole issue that
no one should question the science of global climate change that is
ludicrous. That's the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a
lot of trouble.'' He also noted, ''These are not single-agenda groups.''
The organizations emphasize that while their views align with
Exxon's, the company's money does not influence their policy
conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought out
in part because of their credibility. ''They've determined that we
are effective at what we do,'' said George C. Landrith, president of
Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that maintains that human
activities are not responsible for global warming. He says Exxon
essentially takes the attitude, ''We like to make it possible to do
more of that.''
Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget,
received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001,
according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth was
not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually spread over
three years.
The increase corresponds with a rising level of public debate since
the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, some of the
groups said. After President Bush rejected the protocol, a treaty
requiring nations to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, many
corporations shifted their attention to Washington, where the debate
has centered on proposals for domestic curbs on the emissions.
''Firefighters' budgets go up when fires go up,'' said Fred L.
Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron
Ebell, an analyst from the institute, spoke at last year's Exxon
shareholders' meeting, where he criticized a renewable energy
resolution proposed by a group of shareholders.
Exxon's backing of third-party groups is a marked contrast to its
more public role in the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group
formed in 1989 to challenge the science around global warming. The
group eventually disbanded when oil and auto companies started to
withdraw. As companies were left to walk their own path, Exxon
shifted money toward independent policy groups.
''Now it's come down to a few of these groups to be the good foot
soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,'' said Kert
Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which has tried to
organize an international boycott of Exxon.
Exxon's publicly disclosed documents reveal that donations to many
of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent from 2000
to 2002. And money to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a
conservative group that works with state legislators, has almost
tripled, as the policy debate has moved to the state level.
The gifts are minuscule compared with the $100 million, 10-year
scientific grant to Stanford, which is establishing a research
center that will focus on technologies that could provide energy
without adding to greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global
warming. Nevertheless, the donations in the tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of dollars are significant for groups with
budgets ranging from $700,000 to $4 million.
Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the
debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much of the
industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward the reality of
global warming. As Exxon has become isolated from its peers, it has
faced increasing pressure from shareholders and environmentalists.
BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco have developed strategies that
incorporate renewable energy, carbon trading and emissions reductions.
Among the initiatives that Exxon's money has helped is the Center
for Science and Public Policy. The two-month-old center is a one-man
operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill on two issues:
global warming and the health effects of mercury.
''We don't lobby, we educate,'' said Bob Ferguson, head of the
center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican Congressional
staff member. ''We try to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan and
nonideological.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list