[✔️] November 21, 2022 - Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*November 21, 2022*/

/[ UN Climate Change tweet  ] /
*UN Climate Change*
@UNFCCC
#COP27 reached a breakthrough agreement on a new “Loss and Damage” fund 
for vulnerable countries.
It also resulted in countries delivering a package of decisions that 
reaffirmed their commitment to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.
https://twitter.com/UNFCCC/status/1594242371696345089

- -

/[ Official UN Climate Press Release ]/
*COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage” Fund for 
Vulnerable Countries*
20 November 2022
UN Climate Change News, 20 November 2022 – The United Nations Climate 
Change Conference COP27 closed today with a breakthrough agreement to 
provide “loss and damage” funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by 
climate disasters.

“This outcome moves us forward,” said Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change 
Executive Secretary. “We have determined a way forward on a decades-long 
conversation on funding for loss and damage – deliberating over how we 
address the impacts on communities whose lives and livelihoods have been 
ruined by the very worst impacts of climate change.”

Set against a difficult geopolitical backdrop, COP27 resulted in 
countries delivering a package of decisions that reaffirmed their 
commitment to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above 
pre-industrial levels. The package also strengthened action by countries 
to cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the inevitable impacts of 
climate change, as well as boosting the support of finance, technology 
and capacity building needed by developing countries.

Creating a specific fund for loss and damage marked an important point 
of progress, with the issue added to the official agenda and adopted for 
the first time at COP27...
-- -
“We have a series of milestones ahead. We must pull together, with 
resolve, through all processes, may they be national, regional, or 
others such as the G20. Every single milestone matters and builds 
momentum,” said Stiell. “The next step for change is just around the 
corner, with the United Arab Emirates’ stewardship of the First Global 
Stocktake. For the very first time we will take stock of the 
implementation of the Paris Agreement. It will independently evaluate 
the progress we have made and if our goals are adequate. It will inform 
what everybody, every single day, everywhere in the world, needs to do, 
to avert the climate crisis.”

Stiell reminded delegates in the closing plenary that the world is in a 
critical decade for climate action. A stark report from UN Climate 
Change underpinned his remarks, as well as discussions throughout the 
two-week conference. According to the report, implementation of current 
pledges by national governments put the world on track for a 2.5°C 
warmer world by the end of the century. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change indicates that greenhouse gas emissions must decline 
45% by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C...
- -
The conference heard many announcements:

    Countries launched a package of 25 new collaborative actions in five
    key areas: power, road transport, steel, hydrogen and agriculture.

    UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced a USD 3.1 billion
    plan to ensure everyone on the planet is protected by early warning
    systems within the next five years.

    The UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero
    Commitments published a report at COP27, serving as a how-to guide
    to ensure credible, accountable net-zero pledges by industry,
    financial institutions, cities and regions.

    A G7-led plan called the Global Shield Financing Facility was
    launched at COP27 to provide funding to countries suffering climate
    disasters.

    Announcing a total of USD 105.6 million in new funding, Denmark,
    Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the
    Walloon Region of Belgium, stressed the need for even more support
    for the Global Environment Facility funds targeting the immediate
    climate adaptation needs of low-lying and low-income states.

    The new Indonesia Just Energy Transition Partnership, announced at
    the G20 Summit held in parallel with COP27, will mobilize USD 20
    billion over the next three to five years to accelerate a just
    energy transition.

    Important progress was made on forest protection with the launch of
    the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership, which aims to unite
    action by governments, businesses and community leaders to halt
    forest loss and land degradation by 2030.

https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries



/[ Novel application --- use the motion of the ocean to desalinate 
water  video ]/
*Zero Energy Cost Fresh Water. How do they do that?*
Just Have a Think
Nov 20, 2022
By 2050, fresh water may be inaccessible to as many as a billion people. 
Current desalination methods will be using vast amounts of energy to 
keep up by then,  producing no less than 5% of total global greenhouse 
gas emissions, not to mention untold harm to marine ecosystems from 
outflow of concentrated brine solution into the open sea. If we could 
solve those problems then the future would look a bit brighter. And now 
we can...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5RG13AG4Bo
- -
/[company web site]/
What we do
We combine the ocean’s seawater with its own wave energy to provide 
freshwater to coastal populations & industries without compromising the 
environment.
Our solution increases resilience to climate change while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and water costs.
https://www.onekawater.com/



/[ MIT says ]/
*These three charts show who is most to blame for climate change*
Getting to the bottom of which countries have contributed most to 
climate change is complicated, but a few pieces of data can help.
By Casey Crownhart
November 18, 2022
- -
Central to these negotiations is a question: Who is responsible for 
climate change? The issue is complicated, but a few pieces of data about 
current and past emissions can begin to answer it.

Greenhouse-gas emissions reached their highest-ever level in 2021, with 
global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels topping 36 billion 
metric tons. China is currently the highest emitter, followed by the US. 
Combined emissions from the European Union are the next largest, with 
India and Russia following.

Data on current emissions doesn’t tell the whole story on climate 
responsibility, though. “Countries are massively unequal in terms of the 
extent to which they’ve caused climate change,” says Taryn Fransen, a 
senior fellow in the global climate program at the World Resources 
Institute, a research nonprofit.

Climate change is the result of the total concentration of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere. And carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas 
driving climate change, stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

So researchers also look at historical emissions: the sum of a country’s 
contributions over time. The US is by far the largest historical 
emitter, responsible for over 20% of all emissions, and the EU is close 
behind. China falls to third when climate pollution is tallied this way, 
with about half the US’s total contribution.

The US and EU’s long history with fossil fuels is what puts those 
regions at the heart of discussions about loss and damages, especially 
because burning fossil fuels helped them grow. “Economies that have been 
strong for many years tend to be strong because they benefited from 
those early greenhouse-gas emissions,” Fransen says. It’s clear that the 
richest countries in the world had, and continue to have, an outsize 
climate impact, she says.

***Future responsibility*
Total emissions can help inform decisions about who should pay what for 
climate damages. But addressing climate pollution in developing nations 
where emissions are rising fast even though they have ben low 
historically will also be key to slowing global warming. “We cannot 
solve climate change without China and India and every other major 
emitter dramatically reducing their emissions,” Fransen says. Some 
nations might need more time to reach net-zero emissions, but they’ll 
eventually need to get there to meet global climate goals.

It’s also important to consider per capita emissions, Fransen says. For 
example, it’s clear that India, while one of the world’s top emitters, 
is still responsible for far less per person than other emissions leaders.

In a globalized world, assigning blame to individual countries for 
climate change isn’t always straightforward. International 
transportation, for example, isn’t typically included in any one 
country’s emissions total.

This issue also arises for manufacturing hubs like China, says Robbie 
Andrew, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate 
Research in Norway. Under international definitions, countries are 
generally assigned responsibility for emissions within their borders, 
even if they’re making products that will get used elsewhere, Andrew says.

Understanding where emissions are coming from, and how that’s changed 
over time, can give us a clearer picture of how to cut emissions and 
deal with the effects of climate change. But any one piece of data will 
likely fall short of representing the urgent, messy reality of the task 
ahead. Put simply, Andrew says, “there’s no easy answer.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/18/1063443/responsible-climate-change-charts/



/[  From Inside Climate News ]/
*How Should We Think About the End of the World as We Know it?*
“Yes, it’s a catastrophe,” Elizabeth Weil writes of climate change. “And 
no, you would not be better off if you continued to tell yourself 
otherwise.”
By Kiley Bense
November 19, 2022

In the 14th century, the Italian poet Petrarch wrote a letter to a 
friend in Avignon, describing his sense of “foreboding” after an 
earthquake shook the foundations of Rome’s churches. “What should I do 
first, lament or be frightened?” he asked. “Everywhere there is cause 
for fear, everywhere reason for grief.”

The earthquake was only one in a series of calamities endured in the 
poet’s lifetime to that point: floods, storms, fires, wars and finally, 
“the plague from heaven that is unequaled through the ages,” the dreaded 
Black Death, which would eventually kill more than a third of Europe’s 
population.

In his letter, Petrarch was distressed by the suffering of the present, 
but he was equally worried about what it meant for the future. His fears 
were “not only about the quaking of land but its effect on minds.”
- -
"In the meantime, any lingering traces of cynicism will vanish in the 
town of Crawfordsville, where children in the Waco school district will 
eventually turn on computers and study under lights powered 90 percent 
by solar energy. Inspired by local farmers, who now use solar energy to 
help power some of their operations, the district’s move to solar energy 
will not only cut carbon emissions but also result in enough savings to 
keep open the town’s once financially threatened school doors."

Six hundred years after Petrarch grappled with the apocalyptic tremors 
of his own time, the effect of catastrophe on minds is the subject of 
several new articles published in the last few weeks by The New York 
Times, The Washington Post, and New York Magazine, all of them concerned 
with the end of the world as we know it. They’re tackling a question at 
the heart of our collective (in)ability to confront an existential 
threat: How should we think about—and through–the global disaster that 
is climate change?

After years of rising sea levels, warming temperatures, and mass 
extinction, why has this question bubbled to the American cultural 
surface now? For one perspective, I asked Elizabeth Weil, whose essay 
“How to Live in a Catastrophe” appeared in New York Magazine last week. 
She believes the flurry of writing on the topic is connected to the 
increasingly devastating extreme weather of the 2020s. “The idea that we 
weren’t already in the middle of the climate crisis just fell away,” she 
said. “You couldn’t deny it anymore.”

Since 2020, the Doomsday Clock has ticked ever closer to midnight. We 
are in a moment that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists calls “both 
perilous and unsustainable,” listing among its reasons for alarm the 
fallout from the climate crisis, fears of nuclear war in Ukraine, and 
the Covid-19 pandemic. On climate change, the Scientists’ verdict on 
humanity’s response is “lots of words, relatively little action,” an 
assessment that negotiations at COP27 have done little to prove wrong.

Ranking climate change as number two on his list of “Top 10 Existential 
Worries,” Joel Achenbach confesses in the Washington Post that he is 
“cautiously optimistic,” positing that how you think about existential 
threats comes down to your faith in humanity–or lack thereof. “Do you 
believe, fundamentally, in the human race?” he asks.

Writing “Beyond Catastrophe” in the Times, David Wallace-Wells also 
finds reasons for optimism in 2022. With the aid of newly cheap 
renewable energy and a “truly global political mobilization,” 
Wallace-Wells envisions “a new climate reality” for humanity and the 
planet that will make true neither “the most terrifying predictions” nor 
“the most hopeful.”

In her essay, Weil consults activists and scholars, searching for 
strategies that others have deployed when confronted with the cataclysms 
of the past. “This isn’t the first time in human history when the world 
has been completely overwhelming,” she said, of her reasons for writing 
the piece. (Petrarch would agree: he describes the late 1340s as a 
period of such misery that “new forms of evil are inconceivable.”)

Weil’s piece considers the “intelligent sabotage” advocated by thinkers 
like the Swedish eco-Marxist Andreas Malm, author of “How to Blow Up a 
Pipeline,” as well as the “tools of religion” advanced by ecophilosopher 
Timothy Morton, and the “ritual comfort” of performances like a glacier 
funeral staged by anthropologists Cymene Howe and Dominic Boyer in 
Iceland in 2019. They installed a plaque, titled “A letter to the 
future,” with this message:

This monument is to acknowledge

that we know what is happening

and what needs to be done.

Only you know if we did it.

Knowing what needs to be done is one thing; having the will to do it is 
another. We are not experiencing this catastrophe in the same way or at 
the same pace. Some of us are still in the anger and bargaining phases 
of climate grief, while others have moved well past acceptance.

On a trip to Iceland this August, I stood on the edge of an aquamarine 
lagoon that is fed by the melting Breiðamerkurjökull glacier. 
Icebergs–glittery fragments broken off from the dying glacier–floated 
by, banded with volcanic ash, a record of Iceland’s ancient eruptions. I 
asked a few of the Icelanders who were working there as tour guides how 
they felt about this place. To me, the scene was both transfixing and 
tragic; the lagoon exists like this because of climate change, and for 
all its dazzling beauty, it is also a disturbing portent. But the 
Icelanders didn’t see it like I did, maybe because in their country it 
has long been impossible to ignore how rapidly we are shredding the 
fabric of the natural world. They do not have the luxury of shock. 
Watching the crowds of tourists snapping photos of seals frolicking in 
the water, their response was stoic. “This is just how it is,” one of 
them said.

The truth about catastrophe is that even in its tumultuous midst, we 
mostly forge ahead, sloughing off our terror. We adapt, we rebuild, and 
we convince ourselves that the fates of our neighbors will not befall 
us. When everything familiar is crumbling around us, our first instinct 
is so often to cling to any scraps of normalcy that remain. You could 
see this instinct clearly in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic; 
around the world, panic soon gave way to grim routine.

On the other hand, as Weil points out in her piece, there is nothing 
irrational about catastrophizing when you’re living through a genuine 
catastrophe. “Yes, it’s a catastrophe,” she writes. “And no, you would 
not be better off if you continued to tell yourself otherwise.” In order 
to avoid the pitfalls of denial and despair, we will need to chart a 
practical path through the ambiguous abyss that lies between optimism 
and doom. “We’re going to have to live with hope,” Weil said. “And we’re 
going to have to live with a lot of fear.” To safely evacuate a burning 
building and put the fire out, you need to communicate the urgency of 
the emergency; you also need to project confidence and encourage calm.

This is another way to think through catastrophe: seek solace in the 
clarity of action. Weil recounts Günther Anders’ reimagining of the 
Great Flood, where Noah appears before the people in mourning dress, 
telling them that they have already died because total catastrophe will 
soon be upon them. That night a carpenter comes to his workshop and 
offers to build an ark so that Noah’s terrible vision “may become 
false.” A future that seemed preordained is altered through work.

Anders’ story is like the common proverb that warns against the folly of 
relying only on faith when you are in danger. “Call on God, but row away 
from the rocks,” is one version in English, though similar warnings 
exist in other languages and cultures. Faith in the human spirit might 
be a necessary balm to the mind in catastrophe, but balm alone can’t 
save us from ourselves. Hope without action is just a wish.

In another of Petrarch’s letters, he comforts his correspondent with a 
quotation from Virgil. “Hold on,” he writes, “and find salvation in the 
hope of better things.” Our hopes for the future should not be pinned on 
preserving the tattered, unequal status quo. “Change is scary, and big 
change is really scary, but our world is not perfect. It’s very, very, 
very far from it,” Weil said in our interview. “What if change truly 
does bring us to a better place? Even though we’re terrified?”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19112022/warming-trends-how-should-we-think-about-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/


/[ Deep and serious doomscrolling  - from Radio Ecoshock  - text and 
audio from October ]/
*Climate Endgame*
Posted on October 26, 2022, by Radio Ecoshock
Climate catastrophes continue to mount. New paper “Climate Endgame: 
Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios” with Lead author Luke 
Kemp. Then Greenland ice expert Jason Box warns Earth is already 
committed to at least another foot of sea level rise, from Greenland 
alone, no matter what we do.
I’m Alex Smith. Welcome to Radio Ecoshock.
Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality 
https://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_221026_Show.mp3
or Lo-Fi https://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_221026_LoFi.mp3
-
*LUKE KEMP: CLIMATE ENDGAME*
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. Climate disasters struck 
repeatedly this year, with eye-popping heat records across the Northern 
Hemisphere. Scientists ask: why don’t we study the harsher reality. What 
happens if planet Earth smashes past the two degrees C, going over 3 
degrees by the end of this century? That possibility is growing, but 
officials and institutions are still in denial.

We have a landmark new paper titled: “Climate Endgame: Exploring 
catastrophic climate change scenarios”. The Abstract for this paper 
asks: Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal 
collapse or even eventual human extinction? So far, mainstream 
institutions have avoided asking those questions. Now they must.

The authors include former advisor to Angela Merkl (and the Pope) 
Joachim Schellnhuber, plus Radio Ecoshock guests Johan Rockstrom from 
Sweden and the UK’s Timothy Lenton. These are senior serious scientists 
with a warning: we gravely underestimated climate risks. Now have to 
consider global warming beyond 3 degrees C.

 From the UK, we reached the lead author, Dr. Luke Kemp. With his PhD in 
International Relations from Australian National University, Luke is a 
Research Associate at the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential 
Risk.

Listen to or download this half hour interview with Dr. Luke Kemp in CD 
Quality https://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_Kemp.mp3
  or Lo-Fi https://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_Kemp_LoFi.mp3
Each report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gets worse, 
with more frightening predictions. Kemp explains why this group of 
experts say they have not gone far enough. In 2019, Kemp’s co-author Tim 
Lenton led a study into “tipping cascades”. But has this possibility 
been digested into institutional science?

*“irreversible transition to Hothouse Earth”*
The “Climate Endgame” paper also worries about an “irreversible 
transition to Hothouse Earth”. Few of us can imagine what is Hothouse 
Earth is like. And the science of physics and natural systems suggest 
there is a point where humans could not stop that march to a hotter 
planet. Unlike many other works, this paper includes an open discussion 
on the possibility of mass casualties due to climate-driven extremes, 
including a loss of 10% or even 25% of the current human population

Of course humans will react to continuing climate-driven threats. Maybe 
we will make it worse. Luke Kemp also published on the possibilities and 
pitfalls of deploying sulfur particles into the air to create a 
temporary cooling shade over Earth, or parts of the planet. 
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a type of geoengineering called 
“SRM” for Solar Radiation Management. In our interview, Kemp relays some 
serious implications and possible downsides to SRM. In my opinion, 
humans will probably become desperate and willful enough to try almost 
anything to stop climate catastrophe – probably within a decade?

SEE: A. Tang, L. Kemp, A fate worse than warming? Stratospheric aerosol 
injection and catastrophic risk. Front. Clim. Sci.3, 1–17 (2021).

This new Climate Endgame paper in the Proceedings of the National 
Academy describes four reasons we should worry more about climate 
catastrophe, not just climate change. One is the history of previous 
transitions back and forth from icehouse Earth to hothouse Earth. 
Second, they say: “…climate change could directly trigger other 
catastrophic risks, such as international conflict, or exacerbate 
infectious disease spread, and spillover risk.”

This is a kind of breakthrough in this paper. Previously, scientists 
tried to provide scenarios based on natural systems, geology and so 
forth. It was like saying: “Here is the science. How humans react is 
your problem. That is beyond science.” But when we need to predict 
complex systems, human actors are obviously major actors in the climate 
future. For those who want to try long-range plans for governments and 
corporations, we cannot pretend that humans are not part of equations 
for possible futures. This team investigates ways to include the 
interplay of human civilization and natural systems.

Now the world is so-interconnected, financial experts worry about a 
global financial crash as never before seen. Or maybe a nuclear war 
erupts. Can we handle those human crisis – even while a climate shift is 
delivering repeated extreme weather bombs, higher seas, and drought?
*
**COMPOUND HAZARDS LEFT OUT*
 From the “Climate Endgame” paper:

“...this is how risk unfolds in the real world. For example, a cyclone 
destroys electrical infrastructure, leaving a population vulnerable to 
an ensuing deadly heat wave (4). Recently, we have seen compound hazards 
emerge between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. As the IPCC 
notes, climate risks are becoming more complex and difficult to manage, 
and are cascading across regions and sectors.”

*HOW FAR IS WAY TOO FAR?*
 From the “Climate Endgame” paper:

“UN Secretary-General António Guterres called climate change an 
‘existential threat.’ Academic studies have warned that warming above 5 
°C is likely to be ‘beyond catastrophic’ , and above 6 °C constitutes 
‘an indisputable global catastrophe’.”

*THE CULTURE OF UNDERESTIMATION*
 From the “Climate Endgame” paper:

“Why the focus on lower-end warming and simple risk analyses? One reason 
is the benchmark of the international targets: the Paris Agreement goal 
of limiting warming to well below 2 °C, with an aspiration of 1.5 °C. 
Another reason is the culture of climate science to “err on the side of 
least drama”, to not to be alarmists, which can be compounded by the 
consensus processes of the IPCC. Complex risk assessments, while more 
realistic, are also more difficult to do.”

This paper also provides a chart defining terms like “risk cascade”, 
“Extinction risk”, “Societal collapse” and “Global catastrophic threat”. 
We are just beginning the language needed just to describe novel risks 
in a destabilized future.

MIT Professor Daniel Rothman published two key papers on thresholds of 
catastrophe and extinction. I interviewed him after each one. See my 
notes and links below for those.

Unrelenting heating, weather disruption, and human conflict – all take 
place on a planetary platform which repeatedly goes to life-threatening 
extremes with or without humans. What happens if we add natural shocks, 
like multiple eruptions of volcanoes, or long-cycle weather variations, 
to the rough and ready mix we already experienced these past few years? 
Those big ticket natural events might cool Earth down for a few years 
(volcanoes) before even more heat emerges from our continuing emissions. 
Or a true once-in-a-hundred-year super El Nino might push us to a new 
hot stage within a year.

Those are just some of the reasons we need real emergency action to 
slash fossil emissions as soon as possible. This is a great must-read 
Open Access paper in one the top journals, PNAS, the Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences. In conclusion, this group of noteworthy 
scientists are calling for “An IPCC Special Report on Catastrophic 
Climate Change” as a way to kick-start global research into real hazards 
of rapid climate change.
https://www.ecoshock.org/2022/10/climate-endgame.html



/[ Paper mentioned above -- from PNAS  Open ]/
*Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios*
Luke Kemp https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-4335 ltk27 at cam.ac.uk, Chi Xu 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1841-9032, Joanna Depledge, +7, and Timothy 
M. Lenton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-7498Authors Info & Affiliations
Edited by Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
Cambridge, MA; received May 20, 2021; accepted March 25, 2022
August 1, 2022
119 (34) e2108146119
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108146119
*Abstract*

    Prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case
    scenarios. Yet, for climate change, such potential futures are
    poorly understood. Could anthropogenic climate change result in
    worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At
    present, this is a dangerously underexplored topic. Yet there are
    ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a
    global catastrophe. Analyzing the mechanisms for these extreme
    consequences could help galvanize action, improve resilience, and
    inform policy, including emergency responses. We outline current
    knowledge about the likelihood of extreme climate change, discuss
    why understanding bad-to-worst cases is vital, articulate reasons
    for concern about catastrophic outcomes, define key terms, and put
    forward a research agenda. The proposed agenda covers four main
    questions: 1) What is the potential for climate change to drive mass
    extinction events? 2) What are the mechanisms that could result in
    human mass mortality and morbidity? 3) What are human societies'
    vulnerabilities to climate-triggered risk cascades, such as from
    conflict, political instability, and systemic financial risk? 4) How
    can these multiple strands of evidence—together with other global
    dangers—be usefully synthesized into an “integrated catastrophe
    assessment”? It is time for the scientific community to grapple with
    the challenge of better understanding catastrophic climate change.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119



/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*November 21, 2015 */
November 21, 2015:
In a New York Times op-ed, Jeff Biggers observes:

"Negotiators en route to the United Nations conference on climate change 
in Paris, scheduled to begin later this month, should take a detour on 
rural roads here in Johnson County. A new climate narrative is emerging 
among farmers in the American heartland that transcends a lot of the old 
story lines of denial and cynicism, and offers an updated tale of 
climate hope.

"Recent polls show that 60 percent of Iowans, now facing flooding and 
erosion, believe global warming is happening. From Winneshiek County to 
Washington County, you can count more solar panels on barns than on 
urban roofs or in suburban parking lots. The state’s first major solar 
farm is not in an urban area like Des Moines or Iowa City, but in rural 
Frytown, initiated by the Farmers Electric Cooperative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/iowas-climate-change-wisdom.html?ref=opinion


=======================================
*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/20221121/f5d5cc75/attachment.htm>