[✔️] November 19, 2022 - Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Sat Nov 19 10:12:14 EST 2022
/*November 19, 2022*/
/[ when and where will you retire? ]/
*‘Do You Really Want to Rebuild at 80?’ Rethinking Where to Retire.*
It’s a small yet noticeable shift, experts say — but climate change is
causing retirees to start reconsidering moves to disaster-prone dream
locales.
By Susan B. Garland
Nov. 18, 2022
For a decade, Melissa and Guy Hoagland, both retired physicians in their
60s, had split their time between their homes on a barrier island in
Florida and in Half Moon Bay, a small coastal city in the San Francisco
Bay Area.
But the intensifying drought and wildfires in Northern California and
escalating hurricanes and storm surges along the Southeastern coastline
drove the couple to sell both houses.
Mulling the idea of living permanently in Southern California, the
Hoaglands moved into a rental house in San Diego in 2019 after selling
their West Coast property. But climate risks there, including drought
and rising sea levels, put an end to that plan as well...
The couple began to search for a safer place. They pored over climate
data, including projections of rising temperatures, availability of
fresh water and the northward expansion of tropical diseases. In 2022,
they moved to Asheville, N.C., hoping to buy a house there.
A small but growing number of older people like the Hoaglands are taking
climate change into account when choosing a retirement destination, real
estate agents and other experts say. Armed with climate studies, many
retirees are looking for communities that are less likely to experience
extreme weather events, such as wildfires, drought and flooding.
David Dew, a real estate broker who sells homes near the Rappahannock
River in and around White Stone, Va., said a larger number of retired
clients were voicing concerns about weather patterns. With many
waterfront properties in minimal danger of flooding there, the area is
attracting retirees from the flood-ravaged Outer Banks of North Carolina
as well as other Atlantic Ocean communities, he said.
“At first, they will say they want big views and deep water, but then
they ask whether a hurricane or a nor’easter will wipe out the dock,”
Mr. Dew said. “They want to be on the water but more protected.”
In an analysis of nearly 1.4 million home sales along Florida’s coasts,
for example, University of Pennsylvania researchers found that the sales
volume of homes in areas where 70 percent of developed land was less
than six feet above sea level dropped by up to 20 percent between 2013
and 2018, while sales rose on less-vulnerable coastal land. Prices on
homes in riskier areas declined between 2018 and 2020...
“We loved living along the coast, but we knew that life there was not
sustainable for us in our old age,” Melissa Hoagland said.
The lead researcher, Benjamin Keys, a professor of real estate and
finance at the university’s Wharton School, said the biggest sales
declines occurred in Florida coastal communities where retirees from the
Northeast — particularly those who lived in counties exposed to
Hurricane Sandy in 2012 — tended to move.
“It seems like Northeast retirees were looking at retirement
differently,” Dr. Keys said. “On one hand, you have a strong demographic
pull of baby boomers who are looking for warmer climate, and on the
other hand, there is a newfound appreciation of climate risks.”
Florida coastal home sales and prices spiked during the pandemic as
buyers fled urban living for warmer climes. But Dr. Keys said he
expected the prepandemic trends would resume as fewer people feared
living in densely populated areas and as remote work declined.
*Aging and Climate Change Collide*
Extreme weather can be particularly dangerous, and even deadly, for the
elderly, who are more likely to have chronic medical conditions and
disabilities, according to numerous studies.
Three-quarters of residents who died in the 2018 Camp Fire, which
destroyed the Northern California community of Paradise, were 65 and
older. Well over half of the record-high 323 people who died from
heat-related causes in Arizona’s Maricopa County in 2020 were at least
50. And two-thirds of the people who died in Florida during Hurricane
Ian in September were 60 and older.
Frailty and cognitive impairments make it difficult for older people to
evacuate and prepare their homes for disasters. Older people are also
more likely than younger people to die from heat stroke. Extreme heat
and wildfire smoke can worsen diabetes, heart disease and lung conditions.
“The ability to see a doctor during a king tide could be hard,” said
Mathew Hauer, an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State
University in Tallahassee, using a term for exceptionally high tides.
“And an ambulance may not be able to get to you.”
These health-related dangers are certain to increase as rising sea
levels coincide with the growing elderly population along the coasts,
Dr. Hauer said.
In an analysis of all coastal counties in the United States, Dr. Hauer
predicted that the proportion of people over 65 who lived in coastal
communities would steadily rise, to about 37 percent of the population
in 2100, compared with 16 percent today. That population would comprise
older people moving in and younger people remaining into their later years.
“Two trends we know are happening — the impact of climate change at the
same time the world is aging,” Dr. Hauer said. “Those two trends, I’m
afraid, will crash head-on, and we will see more catastrophic impacts
than if either one had happened.”
The Hoaglands said their stress was mounting as the climate risks on
both coasts grew.
They moved to Florida in 1992 to raise their four children and practice
medicine (Melissa, 64, as a pathologist and Guy, 65, as an internist).
In 2011, they bought a house in the Bay Area, where Melissa had gone to
medical school and had always dreamed of returning. They retired early,
living in California in the summers and Florida in the winters.
Over the years, in Florida, hurricanes and storm surges up the Indian
River threatened their home on a barrier island near Melbourne. During
one storm, water jumped over a road within several feet of their house.
“Drainage was a problem on the roads,” Guy said. “I noticed the
localized flooding was higher than it ever was.”
At the same time, wildfires, which were becoming more frequent, were
spreading smoke in the Bay Area. An avid hiker, Guy began carrying an
inhaler to help with exercise-induced asthma.
These health-related dangers are certain to increase as rising sea
levels coincide with the growing elderly population along the coasts,
Dr. Hauer said.
In an analysis of all coastal counties in the United States, Dr. Hauer
predicted that the proportion of people over 65 who lived in coastal
communities would steadily rise, to about 37 percent of the population
in 2100, compared with 16 percent today. That population would comprise
older people moving in and younger people remaining into their later years.
“Two trends we know are happening — the impact of climate change at the
same time the world is aging,” Dr. Hauer said. “Those two trends, I’m
afraid, will crash head-on, and we will see more catastrophic impacts
than if either one had happened.”
The Hoaglands said their stress was mounting as the climate risks on
both coasts grew.
They moved to Florida in 1992 to raise their four children and practice
medicine (Melissa, 64, as a pathologist and Guy, 65, as an internist).
In 2011, they bought a house in the Bay Area, where Melissa had gone to
medical school and had always dreamed of returning. They retired early,
living in California in the summers and Florida in the winters.
Over the years, in Florida, hurricanes and storm surges up the Indian
River threatened their home on a barrier island near Melbourne. During
one storm, water jumped over a road within several feet of their house.
“Drainage was a problem on the roads,” Guy said. “I noticed the
localized flooding was higher than it ever was.”
At the same time, wildfires, which were becoming more frequent, were
spreading smoke in the Bay Area. An avid hiker, Guy began carrying an
inhaler to help with exercise-induced asthma.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/business/where-to-retire-climate-change.html
- -
/[ now, what about migration ]/
*Is the world ready for mass migration due to climate change?*
By Gaia Vince
17th November 2022
With up to three billion people expected to be displaced by the effects
of global warming by the end of the century, should it lead to a shift
in the way we think about national borders, asks Gaia Vince?
- -
Meanwhile, most countries in the Global North are facing a demographic
crisis in which people are not having enough babies to support an ageing
population. Managed mass migration could thus help with many of the
world's biggest problems, reducing the number of people living in
poverty and climate devastation, and helping northern economies build
their workforce.
But the main barrier is our system of borders – movement restrictions
either imposed by someone's own state or by the states they wish to
enter. Today just over 3% of the global population are international
migrants. However, migrants contribute around 10% of global GDP or
$6.7tn (£5.9tn) – some $3tn (£2.6tn) more than they would have produced
in their origin countries. Some economists, such as Michael Clemens at
the Center for Global Development in the US, calculate that enabling
free movement could double global GDP. In addition, we would see an
increase in cultural diversity, which studies show improves innovation.
At a time when we have to solve unprecedented environmental and social
challenges, it could be just what is needed.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221117-how-borders-might-change-to-cope-with-climate-migration
/[ Now, about that climate anxiety we have, accept it and use it ]/
*How to use anxiety to your advantage*
By Tracy Dennis-Tiwary
18th October 2022
From "eco-anxiety" to "FOMO", modern life seems a stressful place to
be. But psychologist Tracy Dennis-Tiwary explains why the emotion can be
a good thing.
Today, we seem to be living in the age of anxiety. Google Trends shows
that searches for the word anxiety have increased over 300% since 2004.
Anxiety is on our minds, with good reason. As much as 31% of the US
population will experience an anxiety disorder at one point in their
lives, which can range from generalised anxiety disorder to panic
disorder and social anxiety disorder – which is one of the most common
types.
Outside of medical diagnoses, the word also seems to have slipped into
our vernacular. It has usurped stress as our language placeholder for
feeling uncomfortable – anxious about giving a presentation, about going
on a blind date, about starting a new job. The word has become
ubiquitous and absorbed meaning, amoeba-like, to encompass everything
from dread to pleasant anticipation. Too often, the mere use of it casts
these experiences in a negative light, infusing them with threat and a
touch of the not-quite-right.
Then there are anxiety disorders – they are the most common of the
mental health diagnoses, more common than depression and addiction.
Hundreds of millions of people across the world will be diagnosed with
an anxiety disorder in their lifetime. Rates of these disorders,
especially among the young, continue to rise, as they have been for well
over two decades. Yet, there are dozens of validated therapies, 30
different anti-anxiety medications, hundreds of excellent self-help
books, and thousands of rigorous scientific studies. While they
certainly can help individuals, why have these solutions failed to
reduce the scale of the problem so spectacularly?
As I put forward in my book, Future Tense, one reason for this failure
is that mental health professionals, myself included, have
unintentionally misled people about the nature of anxiety in the past –
a misunderstanding that has harmed us. I propose a new, more helpful and
hopeful approach to understanding and living with anxiety in the 21st
Century – to use it to your advantage.
Negative emotions like anxiety have long gotten a bad rap – irrational
at best, destructive at worst. The ancient Roman poet Horace wrote over
2,000 years ago, anger is a short madness. But over the course of the
past 150 years, starting with Darwin's The Expression of Emotion in Man
and Animals, we have actually come to understand that emotions like
anger, fear, and anxiety are more advantageous than dangerous. Like the
opposable thumb and language, emotions are tools for survival, forged
and refined over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to protect
and ensure that humans can thrive. They do this by providing two things:
information and preparation...
Anxiety is information about the uncertain future: something bad could
happen, but something good could still happen, too. Anxiety is waiting
for your Covid test to come back positive or negative, or anticipating
that difficult conversation with your boss that might go well or might
go completely sideways. Anxiety isn't, however, information about
certain and present threats – that's fear, like seeing a shark fin rise
out of the water mere yards away from where you're swimming. Fear
primarily prepares us to fight, take flight, or freeze, whereas anxiety
is a civilisation builder. It prepares us to persist, remain vigilant,
and act in ways that avert future disaster but also can make positive
possibilities into reality...
- -
Unlike an infectious disease or cancer, avoidance and suppression of
anxiety will almost certainly amplify it, while simultaneously exacting
an opportunity cost by preventing us from finding productive ways to
cope and to build skills of emotional resilience. This is the vicious
cycle of anxiety, spiralling it out of control: feeling anxiety as
dangerous, fearing it, and ultimately fleeing from it through
suppression and avoidance...
- -
The key problem for someone diagnosed with an anxiety disorder is not
that they experience intense anxiety, it's that the tools they have at
their disposal to turn down the dial on those feelings are causing
functional impairment. This gets in the way of self-care, working,
connecting with others, and living a fulfilling life. Changing our
approach to anxiety can help no matter where we are on the spectrum of
anxiety. And we're all on it somewhere.
Over 180 years ago, the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote:
"Whosoever learns to be anxious in the right way has learned the
ultimate." We are all born anxious. The work of being human is to learn
that although anxiety can be hard, sometimes terrifying, we can learn to
make it an ally, a benefit, and a source of ingenuity. When we rescue
anxiety, we will rescue ourselves.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221017-how-to-use-anxiety-to-your-advantage
/[ DW News from COP27 - video report ] /
***Climate summit: Germany demands China to pay into climate damage fund
| DW News*
DW News
Nov 18, 2022
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Thursday urged countries to
stop "finger pointing" as the COP27 climate talks draw to a close.
Egyptian negotiators said talks, which are due to end on Friday, are
likely to go on overnight, as diplomats struggle to reach an agreement.
Germany says China must contribute to a compensation fund rather than
benefiting from it.
Developing countries are demanding that a "loss and damage" fund be
established to help poorer nations— which are responsible for a
significantly smaller share of global CO2 emissions — deal with the
consequences of climate change. The Group of 77+ developing countries at
the UN, alongside China, proposed the establishment of a global loss and
damage fund.
Western countries have criticized China's position on the proposal, as
it does not see itself as a donor with responsibility, despite being the
highest greenhouse gas emitter in terms of sheer volume.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has demanded China pay more
money to help poorer countries deal with climate crises. "It is true
that we in Europe and North America as industrialized countries bear the
responsibility for the climate damage of the recent past and also most
of the present with our fossil-based prosperity," Baerbock said.
"But all the major emitters of today bear responsibility for the climate
damage of the future — all states can now show that they are ready for
more ambition and more solidarity," she added. EU climate chief Frans
Timmermans said the EU was open to the proposal, but that it should be
discussed among a "mosaic" of options that includes existing financial
instruments. A draft proposal on phasing out fossil fuels presented at
the COP27 also encourages a "phase-out" of the use of coal, while
avoiding mentioning oil and gas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6SxmwyDeE
/[new from the Pew Research Center ]/
*How Religion Intersects With Americans’ Views on the Environment*
Responsibility for the Earth is part of many U.S. Christians’ beliefs,
but so is skepticism about climate change
BY BECKA A. ALPER
NOVEMBER 17, 2022
Most U.S. adults – including a solid majority of Christians and large
numbers of people who identify with other religious traditions –
consider the Earth sacred and believe God gave humans a duty to care for
it, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
But the survey also finds that highly religious Americans (those who say
they pray each day, regularly attend religious services and consider
religion very important in their lives) are far less likely than other
U.S. adults to express concern about warming temperatures around the globe.
The survey reveals several reasons why religious Americans tend to be
less concerned about climate change. First and foremost is politics: The
main driver of U.S. public opinion about the climate is political party,
not religion. Highly religious Americans are more inclined than others
to identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, and Republicans
tend to be much less likely than Democrats to believe that human
activity (such as burning fossil fuels) is warming the Earth or to
consider climate change a serious problem.
Religious Americans who express little or no concern about climate
change also give a variety of other explanations for their views,
including that there are much bigger problems in the world today, that
God is in control of the climate, and that they do not believe the
climate actually is changing. In addition, many religious Americans
voice concerns about the potential consequences of environmental
regulations, such as a loss of individual freedoms, fewer jobs or higher
energy prices.
Finally, climate change does not seem to be a topic discussed much in
religious congregations, either from the pulpit or in the pews. And few
Americans view efforts to conserve energy and limit carbon emissions as
moral issues...
- -
The new survey, conducted April 11-17, 2022, finds that about
three-quarters of religiously affiliated Americans say the Earth is
sacred. An even greater share (80%) express a sense of stewardship –
completely or mostly agreeing with the idea that “God gave humans a duty
to protect and care for the Earth, including the plants and animals.”
Two-thirds of U.S. adults who identify with a religious group say their
faith’s holy scriptures contain lessons about the environment, and about
four-in-ten (42%) say they have prayed for the environment in the past year.
These views are common across a variety of religious traditions. For
example, three-quarters of both evangelical Protestants and members of
historically Black Protestant churches say the Bible contains lessons
about the environment. Upward of eight-in-ten members of those two
groups say God gave humans a duty to protect and care for the Earth. And
about eight-in-ten U.S. Catholics and mainline Protestants, as well as
77% of members of non-Christian religions, say the Earth is sacred.
But Christians, and religiously affiliated Americans more broadly, are
not as united in their views about climate change. While majorities of
all the large U.S. Christian subgroups say they think global climate
change is at least a somewhat serious problem, there are substantial
differences in the shares who consider it an extremely or very serious
problem – ranging from 68% of adults who identify with the historically
Black Protestant tradition to 34% of evangelical Protestants. And half
or fewer people surveyed in all major Protestant traditions say the
Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity, including 32%
of evangelicals...
- -
These activities tend to be reported by similar shares of Americans
across religious traditions and among the religiously unaffiliated, save
for eating less meat. More than half of Americans (57%) who identify
with non-Christian religions say they eat less meat to help the
environment, compared with fewer than half of Christians and religious
“nones.” Evangelicals are the least likely to say they eat less meat to
help protect the environment (31%). Members of non-Christian religions
also are the most likely to say they use less plastic to help the
environment (83%).
When it comes to participating in activities that help address climate
change, a quarter of Americans say they have done at least one of the
following activities in the past 12 months (prior to when these
questions were asked in April 2021): donated money to an organization
focused on addressing climate change; contacted an elected official to
urge them to address climate change; volunteered for an activity focused
on addressing climate change; or attended a protest or rally to show
support for addressing climate change.
Religiously unaffiliated adults (31%) are more likely than those who are
affiliated with a religion (22%) to report having performed any of these
activities in the name of climate change, although members of
non-Christian religions are most likely to have done at least one of
these things (41%). There also is variance across Christian traditions,
with members of the historically Black Protestant tradition (28%) more
likely than evangelicals (13%) to engage in these activities.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/11/17/how-religion-intersects-with-americans-views-on-the-environment/
- -
/[ more info ]/
*Other findings from the new survey include:*
U.S. congregations appear to be more likely to focus on other –
perhaps more personal – ways of helping the community, rather than
cleaning up public places or protecting the environment. Among all
U.S. adults who attend religious services at least once or twice a
month, a large majority (85%) say their congregation has a group
that helps people who need food, clothing or shelter, and just over
half (55%) say their house of worship helps people with alcohol or
drug problems. Fewer (41%) say their congregation has a group
dedicated to helping clean up public places or protecting the
environment, and just 17% say they are personally involved in that
group.
Among U.S. adults who attend religious services at least monthly,
46% say their congregation has recycling bins, 43% say their house
of worship takes steps to be more energy efficient and 8% say it
uses solar power.
Fully seven-in-ten Americans say they find meaning in nature (71%),
including 38% who find a great deal of meaning from spending time
outdoors. There is relatively little variation by religious
affiliation on this question. For example, 74% of mainline
Protestants, 71% of Catholics and religious “nones,” and 70% of
evangelical Protestants say they draw meaning from nature and the
outdoors. But members of historically Black Protestant churches, who
are among the most concerned about climate change, are the least
likely to derive at least quite a bit of meaning from spending time
outside (56%).
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/11/17/how-religion-intersects-with-americans-views-on-the-environment/
/[ Rap artist Baba Brinkman 3:38 min
/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76TBVpZkT0 /]/
*Offsetters – Baba Brinkman Music Video*
Baba Brinkman
Sep 28, 2022
When organizations go "carbon neutral", the hardest emissions to curb
are generally 'offset' with carbon removal and pollution reduction
projects where cuts can be made more affordably, leading to a massive
'carbon market' trading in credits of various kinds. Can we trust it?
And does it actually make net emissions go down, or is it the ultimate
greenwash?
Whatever you believe about the industry, the offsetters are not backing
down.
Further reading:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/are-carbon-offsets-joke-response-comedian-john-oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76TBVpZkT0
- -
/[ possibly my favorite ]/
*Control Systems – Baba Brinkman Music Video*
Baba Brinkman
Aug 30, 2022
Understanding mental health requires a clear view of how the brain was
designed by natural selection, and what it was designed to accomplish.
Consultant Randolph M. Nesse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5-LrrVP4gI
/
/
/[ showing the importance of field scientists! ]/
*Climate change: Melting glaciers could release tonnes of bacteria*
By Steffan Messenger
BBC Wales Environment Correspondent
Vast amounts of bacteria could be released as the world's glaciers melt
due to climate change, scientists have warned.
Potentially harmful pathogens are among the thousands of microbes that
could leak into rivers and lakes.
Researchers at Aberystwyth University said their study highlighted the
need to act quickly to curb global warming.
They studied meltwater from eight glaciers across Europe and North
America and two sites in Greenland.
Glaciers are huge bodies of slowly moving ice that have formed over
hundreds or thousands of years. As the planet heats up, they are melting
at a worrying rate - causing sea levels to rise.
The team at Aberystwyth University estimated the situation could result
in more than a 100,000 tonnes of microbes, such as bacteria, being
released into the environment over the next 80 years - a number
comparable to all the cells in every human body on earth
Microbiologist Dr Arwyn Edwards said the study showed clearly for the
first time the "vast scale" of micro-organisms living on the surface or
locked inside Earth's glaciers.
"The number of microbes released depends closely on how quickly the
glaciers melt, and therefore how much we continue to warm the planet,"
he said.
The team's calculations are based on a "moderate" warming scenario, as
developed by the IPCC, an international panel of climate experts.
This would see global temperatures rise by between 2C and 3C on average
by 2100.
As the flow of microbes into rivers, lakes, fjords and seas increases,
there could be "significant" impacts for water quality, Dr Edwards
explained.
But this would be followed within decades by the microbe tap being
turned off, as the glaciers disappear completely.
He said: "Globally there are 200,000 catchments of note that are fed by
glacial meltwater and some of these are very sensitive environments that
are poorly developed in terms of organic carbon and nutrients.
"In others there's a lot of economic activity and billions of human
beings whose livelihoods depend on water that ultimately comes from
those glaciers.
"We think of glaciers as a huge store of frozen water but the key lesson
from this research is that they are also ecosystems in their own right."
Thousands of different micro-organisms are found growing on glaciers, or
stored inside, he said, with some that may be harmful to humans.
"The risk is probably very small, but it requires careful assessment."
Glaciologist Dr Tristram Irvine-Fynn said more research was needed:
"Over the coming decades, the forecast 'peak water' from Earth's
mountain glaciers means we need to improve our understanding of the
state and fate of (these) ecosystems.
"With a better grasp of that picture, we could better predict the
effects of climate change on glacial surfaces and catchment
biogeochemistry."
The Aberystwyth academics' findings are published in the journal Nature
Communications Earth & Environment this month.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-63655140
/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*November 19, 2010 */
November 19, 2010: In a Washington Post article, former Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY) asks, "Can the party of Reagan accept the science of
climate change?"
By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010
Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on
Washington, I couldn't help thinking about an issue I hope our party
will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their
minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line:
denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and
that they are largely due to human activities.
National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP
Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is
either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican
House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the
findings of our country's National Academy of Sciences, national
scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the
world's climate scientists.
Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they
are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists
are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of
information or misinformation.
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to
climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are
legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the
dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists
and their findings.
In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and
nonpartisan National Academy concluded that "a strong, credible body
of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is
caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a
broad range of human and natural systems." Our nation's most
authoritative and respected scientific body couldn't make it any
clearer or more conclusive.
When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top
scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were
experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for
scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke
in probabilities, ranges and concepts - always careful to
characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was
speculative. Today, climate scientists - careful as ever in
portraying what they know vs. what they suspect - report that the
body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate
change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything
produced by the scientific community.
While many in politics - and not just of my party - refuse to accept
the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of
some of our nation's most prominent businesses have taken a
different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by "tree
huggers" sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step
by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa,
Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler
signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the
president and Congress to act, saying "in our view, the climate
change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks
for the U.S. economy."
There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that
should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate
change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The
current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only
clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding,
droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are
consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They
are an ominous harbinger.
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather
than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We
shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged
through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member
of any party should look the other way when the basic operating
parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express
doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited
for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should
understand that wholesale, ideologically based or
special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that
in the long run, it's also bad politics.
What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced
scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was
proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals.
That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike
many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn't deny the
existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to
address them.
The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence
that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation
does not change that fact.
The writer, a Republican, represented New York's 24th District in
Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project
on Climate Science.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805451.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/
/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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20221119/bacb1e88/attachment.htm>
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list