[✔️] February 3, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Great Salt Lake evaporation., 1.5° C , James Hansen, .Bopp Citizen's United

Fri Feb 3 07:30:42 EST 2023

/*February 3, 2023*/

/[ evaporating greatness ]/
*Climate change and a population boom could dry up the Great Salt Lake 
in 5 years
*February 3, 2023...
- -
Scientists point to climate change and rapid population growth — Utah is 
one of the fastest growing states and also one of the driest — as the 
culprits. A recent scientific report from Brigham Young University 
warned that if no action is taken, the Great Salt Lake could go 
completely dry in five years...
- -
"We're talking about something that could potentially make these 
neighborhoods, I don't want to say uninhabitable, but for those that are 
vulnerable, for those that have lung issues, uninhabitable," Bitton says...
- -
Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers unveiled bills 
ranging from expanding turf-reduction programs in cities, to providing 
more incentives to farmers to divert less water from rivers that feed 
the lake. Some pledged to spend upwards of a half billion dollars to 
save the lake...
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1153550793/climate-change-and-a-population-boom-could-dry-up-the-great-salt-lake-in-5-years

/[ Rising fungi danger in a warming world  ] /
*Dangerous fungal illness rapidly spreading across country, doctors warn*
Valley fever is an infection of the lungs and causes respiratory 
symptoms like a cough, difficulty breathing, fever, and tiredness or 
fatigue. In rare cases, the Valley fever fungus can spread to other body 
parts and cause severe disease.
- -
SAN FRANCISCO – Doctors are warning of a dangerous fungal illness 
rapidly spreading across the country, especially affecting those living 
or visiting the California and Arizona areas.

If you think it sounds like something from the cutting room floor of 
"The Last of Us" series, where a parasitic fungal infection devastates 
mankind, there are some very base-level similarities.

Valley fever (also called coccidioidomycosis or "cocci") is a 
significant cause of pneumonia, said Dr. Brad Perkins, chief medical 
officer at Karius, a company that provides advanced diagnostics for 
infectious diseases.

"This is a fungus," said Perkins, a former Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention official who led the anthrax bioterrorism investigation. 
"Most causes of pneumonia are caused by bacteria. This is a fungus that 
lives in the soil and is breathed in dusty situations, whether it's a 
dust storm or around construction or excavation."...
- -

*Where is Valley fever found?*
The fungi that cause Valley fever are Coccidioides immitis and 
Coccidioides posadasiii, the CDC reports.

In the U.S., scientists have found C. immitis primarily in California, 
as well as Washington State. C. posadasii is found primarily in Arizona, 
as well as New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Texas, and portions of southern 
California.

According to the CDC, Southern California, particularly the southern San 
Joaquin Valley, and southern Arizona, including metropolitan Phoenix and 
Tucson, have the highest reported rates of Valley fever. The disease is 
likely also common in parts of West Texas and along the Rio Grande River.

Prevention is challenging, according to Perkins. Risk is mostly 
associated with travel to high-risk areas.

"People concerned about their risk of developing Valley fever should try 
to avoid dusty situations, mostly in the summer and in peak heat," 
Perkins said.
You should also see your doctor if you develop signs or symptoms of 
pneumonia.
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/valley-fever-lung-fungal-infection
- -
https://gizmodo.com/last-of-us-fungus-climate-change-health-1850061831

/[ Article in the Atlantic ]/
*1.5 Degrees Was Never the End of the World*
The most famous climate goal is woefully misunderstood.
By Emma Marris
FEBRUARY 1, 2023
How hot is too hot for planet Earth? For years, there’s been a consensus 
in the climate movement: no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above 
preindustrial levels. The figure comes from the Paris Agreement, a 
climate treaty ratified in 2016, and world leaders such as President Joe 
Biden bring it up all the time: “If we’re going to win this fight, every 
major emitter nation needs [to] align with the 1.5 degrees,” he said in 
November. Youth activists at the Sunrise Movement call 1.5 degrees a 
“critical threshold.” Even the corporate world is stuck on 1.5 degrees. 
Companies including Apple, Google, and Saudi Aramco—the world’s largest 
oil company—claim to be transitioning their operations in alignment with 
the 1.5 goal.

But here’s the thing: 1.5 degrees, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, isn’t 
based on any scientific calculation. It doesn’t represent a specific 
planetary threshold or ecological tipping point. It was first proposed 
during international climate negotiations as a moral statement, a rebuke 
of the idea that the world could accept some disruption and suffering in 
order to burn fossil fuels just a bit longer. That’s the takeaway of a 
new study on the history of the target from two French academics, 
Béatrice Cointe from the Centre for the Sociology of Innovation and 
Hélène Guillemot from the Centre Alexandre Koyré, both funded by the 
French National Centre for Scientific Research. From the perspective of 
the present, it’s a relief that 1.5 degrees doesn’t represent a 
scientific threshold, because we are almost certainly going to blow past 
it. As a rebuke, however, it may live on.

Nothing about the 1.5-degree target was inevitable. For decades, the 
number on the lips of most climate negotiators was 2 degrees Celsius, or 
about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. And you do still hear that number as the 
go-to target in some climate circles. But in the late 2000s, a 
negotiating bloc called the the Alliance of Small Island States argued 
that this was simply too much warming for their vulnerable nations. 
Their atolls would be overtopped by the sea; their coastal cities would 
flood. So they called for a lower target, and 1.5 seemed like a 
reasonable half-step down from 2 degrees.

 From there, 1.5 degrees gained momentum in diplomatic back channels and 
in conversations within think tanks, NGOs, and a group called the 
Climate Vulnerable Forum. But there was at that time very little science 
on the target; scientists were busy modeling higher levels of warming, 
which they considered more likely. A 2015 scientific panel hosted by the 
UN concluded that although the science on 1.5 was “less robust,” 
“efforts should be made to” set warming targets as low as possible. That 
year, after what Cointe and Guillemot characterize as “intense and 
difficult negotiations,” the new target was folded into the Paris 
Agreement, which calls for “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature 
increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this 
would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”

Science informs policy. But policy shapes science too. Most climate 
scientists thought staying under 1.5 degrees was unrealistic. But 
climate diplomats nevertheless asked the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) for a special report on what the planet would look 
like with 1.5 degrees of warming. A report was duly delivered in 2018, 
and it unsurprisingly suggested that, all things considered, 1.5 degrees 
Celsius would be less bad than 2 degrees Celsius. Which, duh. More 
warming is always worse.

Staying below 1.5 degrees, the IPCC scientists concluded, would be an 
extremely heavy lift that would require, among other things, slashing 
emissions about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030. This is the origin 
of the common idea that we have “12 years left” to stop climate change. 
The IPCC puts out lots of reports, but its report on 1.5 degrees remains 
its undisputed chart-topping banger. You can feel its influence in this 
speech that Greta Thunberg gave to the U.K.’s houses of Parliament in 
2019: “Around the year 2030,” she said, “10 years 252 days and 10 hours 
away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible 
chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the 
end of our civilization as we know it.”

In 2023, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is a fantasy. It is not 
happening. We have already warmed the planet more than 1.1 degrees 
Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit). Climate scientists say we could pass 1.5 
degrees Celsius within a decade. A December analysis by The Washington 
Post suggested that ending the century under 1.5 degrees Celsius without 
substantial mid-century overshoot would require reforestation on a 
mind-boggling scale, plus massive deployment of machines to suck carbon 
out of the air and cache it underground—technology that does not yet 
exist on a widespread scale—along with a near-total abandonment of 
fossil fuels like five minutes ago.

That we’re going to warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is not good, of 
course. The IPCC’s report on 1.5 degrees Celsius predicted more extreme 
heat, altered rain patterns, sea-level rise, increased wildfire, ocean 
acidification, and major hits to ecosystems such as arctic tundra and 
coral reefs as temperatures rise. But it is also probably not “the end 
of our civilization as we know it.” Waking up to 1.6 degrees Celsius 
won’t feel like we’ve crossed a threshold, because it isn’t one. It will 
feel similar to the hot, disrupted world we already inhabit—just worse. 
There are many possible futures inside the realistic range of warming 
possibilities; their contours depend not just on the level of warming as 
measured in degrees but on how we adapt.

The legacy of 1.5 degrees is complicated. The target seems to have 
prompted many people, such as Thunberg, to start or join activist groups 
to press for change. Some activists framed 1.5 degrees as a terrifying 
precipice that we are driving toward at top speed, and to the extent 
that it has felt like a point of no return, it has caused a fair amount 
of eco-anxiety, which research shows can lead to paralysis and 
apathy—the opposite of action. If people give up in despair when we 
cross the mark, the figure will have been counterproductive for the 
climate movement. For now, knowing whether it’s done more harm or good 
to the cause is impossible. Either way, 1.5 degrees will likely soon 
cease to be a target and become a historical fact.

But even then, the 1.5-degree target won’t be entirely obsolete. It has 
another function—governments that promised in the Paris Agreement to 
“pursu[e] efforts” to limit warming to 1.5 degrees can now be held 
accountable for breaking their promise. Enshrined in a legally binding 
treaty, 1.5 now represents what humanity should have accomplished. The 
target can be used as a basis for measuring the rich world’s moral 
failures—and justifying reparations (or “loss and damage,” as they are 
now referred to in climate-diplomacy circles) to the rest of the world. 
Today, 1.5 degrees is less a feasible target than a “diplomatic weapon,” 
Cointe and Guillemot write. It is also already being used in court to 
sue governments and force them to take more drastic measures to limit 
emissions. “In that sense, it has a use,” Cointe told me.

1.5 degrees is just a number: a little better than 1.6 degrees, a little 
worse than 1.4 degrees. But as a reference against which humanity’s 
failures can be judged, it will remain powerful.

Emma Marris is the writer of The Weekly Planet, a climate newsletter 
from The Atlantic. She is the author of Wild Souls: Freedom and 
Flourishing in the Nonhuman World.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/climate-change-paris-agreement-15-degrees-celsius-goal/672909/

/
/

///[ A classic video by the most respected climate scientist- Dr James 
Hansen  77 min video ]/
*James Hansen Critical Conversation Public Keynote*
Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment at the University 
of Illinois
7,053 views  May 11, 2021
On May 5, 2021, iSEE hosted a public keynote by James Hansen, Director 
of Columbia University’s Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions 
Program. This talk, and the May 6-7 iSEE Critical Conversation, were 
sponsored by the Alvin H. Baum Family Fund, directed by Joel Friedman 
and Erika Cornelison.

Title: “Global Climate Change: Implications for National and Global 
Energy Policies”
Abstract: The reality of human-caused global climate change is finally 
beginning to be appreciated by the public. The scientific and 
engineering communities, although long aware of the climate problem, 
failed miserably to affect energy policies in ways that could have 
minimized climate impacts. The greatest failure was adoption of 
renewable portfolio standards — rather than clean energy portfolio 
standards — and exclusion of nuclear power as a clean development 
mechanism. Science and engineering can still address climate and energy 
so as to minimize undesirable consequences of climate change, but it 
will require promptly overcoming political obstacles to effective 
policies. Hansen will describe the situation and provide some suggestions.

Hansen Bio: Formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space 
Studies, Hansen is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth 
Institute, where he directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness 
and Solutions. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space 
science program. His early research on the clouds of Venus helped 
identify their composition as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he 
has focused his research on Earth’s climate, especially human-made 
climate change. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change 
to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad 
awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National 
Academy of Sciences in 1995 and was designated by Time Magazine in 2006 
as one of the 100 most influential people on Earth. He has received 
numerous awards including the Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Roger Revelle 
Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the Blue Planet Prize. Hansen is 
recognized for speaking truth to power, for identifying ineffectual 
policies as greenwash, and for outlining actions that the public must 
take to protect the future of young people and other life on our planet.

The keynote led to a two-day Critical Conversation May 6-7, 2021, in 
which iSEE, the Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological 
Engineering, and Levenick iSEE Resident Scholar Denia Djokić explored 
issues around "The Role of Nuclear Power in Clean Energy Future."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC9l5Jj_9ZU

/[ Big money hiding, Citizen's United and disinformation, hidden 
influence, very advanced - 53 min video ]/
*How the Citizens United Decision Changed U.S. Political Campaigns (full 
documentary) | FRONTLINE*
FRONTLINE PBS | Official
Jan 31, 2023  #Documentary #CitizensUnited #CampaignFinance
How did the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision change 
political campaigns in America? In 2012, FRONTLINE and APM’s Marketplace 
investigated how the controversial ruling was playing out in Montana, an 
epicenter of the campaign finance debate. (Aired 2012)

This journalism is made possible by viewers like you. Support your local 
PBS station here: http://www.pbs.org/donate.

As this documentary, “Big Sky, Big Money,” explored, the Citizens United 
decision held that political spending is a form of protected speech, and 
let corporations and unions spend unlimited amounts of money in 
campaigns. But to avoid corruption, the court said the money can't go 
directly to candidates; it has to go to independent outside groups.

What did that mean in reality? As the 2012 election loomed, 
correspondent Kai Ryssdal traveled to Montana, then a battleground over 
campaign finance, and uncovered startling new evidence of outside 
interest groups’ influence on local campaigns. The documentary raised 
questions about how secret “dark money” was transforming U.S. politics, 
looked at a boom in ads made by tax-exempt nonprofits known as 
501(c)(4)s — which generally weren’t required to disclose their donors 
publicly — and probed evidence that appeared to show possible 
coordination with campaigns.

“Big Sky, Big Money” is a FRONTLINE production with American Public 
Media’s Marketplace in association with American University’s School of 
Communications Investigative Reporting Workshop. The writer, producer 
and director is Rick Young. The correspondent is Kai Ryssdal.

Explore additional reporting on "Big Sky, Big Money" on our website: 
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/big-sky-big-money/

#Documentary #CitizensUnited #CampaignFinance

Subscribe on YouTube: http://bit.ly/1BycsJW
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/frontlinepbs
Twitter: https://twitter.com/frontlinepbs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frontline
...

    CHAPTERS:
    Prologue - 00:00
    After Citizens United, a Boom in Campaign Spending by Outside Groups
    - 1:20
    A Rare Look Inside a Super PAC - 08:57
    ‘The Father of Citizens United’ on Secrecy in Campaign Spending - 19:43
    Montana Takes on the Supreme Court Over Citizens United - 27:56
    Did a 501(c)(4) Group Break the Law? - 39:41
    Credits - 51:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xxiIejOmSo

/[ News archive -a huge "natural gas" leak from an un-natural drilling. 
   Just call it methane. ]/
/*February 3, 2016*/
February 3, 2016:
The Los Angeles Times reports:*
**L.A. County files criminal charges over Porter Ranch gas leak*
BY PAIGE ST. JOHN, ALICE WALTON
FEB. 2, 2016

Reporting from Sacramento —  Southern California Gas Co. on Tuesday was 
charged with failing to immediately notify state authorities about the 
natural gas leak in Aliso Canyon.
L.A. County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey filed four misdemeanor criminal 
charges against the gas company, accusing it of releasing air 
contaminants and neglecting to report the release of hazardous materials 
until three days after the leak began Oct. 23.

“We will do everything we can as prosecutors to help ensure that the 
Aliso Canyon facility is brought into compliance. I believe we can best 
serve our community using the sanctions available through a criminal 
conviction to prevent similar public health threats in the future,” 
Lacey said in a statement.

The charges could result in a maximum fine of $25,000 a day for each day 
the leak went unreported, and $1,000 a day for each day the well has 
polluted the air. An arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 17 in Santa Clarita.

“We have just been notified of this filing and we are still reviewing 
it,” said Kristine Lloyd, a spokeswoman for the utility. “We have been 
working with regulatory agencies to mitigate the odors associated with 
the natural gas leak and to abate the gas leak as quickly as safety 
allows. We will defend ourselves vigorously through the judicial process.”

The leaking well has released about 80,000 metric tons of methane, and 
the amount continues to grow. Noxious fumes have driven residents out of 
more than 5,000 homes in nearby Porter Ranch and surrounding 
communities, the utility has said. Residents have complained of 
headaches, nosebleeds and nausea, which are short-term symptoms 
associated with the smell in the methane.

The criminal charges came hours after state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris 
joined those suing the gas company, saying the litigation was necessary 
to hold the utility accountable.

The attorney general’s action amends a civil suit filed in December by 
Los Angeles city and county officials in Superior Court. The revised 
joint complaint accuses the gas company of violating health and safety 
codes, public nuisance laws and hazardous materials reporting 
requirements, as well as engaging in unfair business practices. The suit 
seeks civil penalties, restitution and injunctions to enforce regulations.

Harris’ joining in the litigation brings to 11 the number of local, 
state and federal agencies now either investigating or suing the gas 
company. Her office is the only one that can press some claims, such as 
alleging statewide harm through greenhouse gas emissions.

“Quite frankly, it’s not litigation overkill at all,” said Los Angeles 
City Councilman Mitchell Englander, who represents communities affected 
by the leak. “The damage the gas has caused to residents, the 
environment, the economy, is unprecedented.”

Though the amount of gas escaping from the company’s Aliso Canyon 
underground storage field has fallen since peaking in late November, the 
utility does not expect to be able to attempt to stop the leak until 
late this month.

The lawsuit includes yet-unnamed corporate officers of the gas company 
who were in a position of responsibility to either prevent, or 
immediately correct, the leak. Southern California Gas is owned by 
Sempra Energy, a San Diego-based corporation whose board of directors 
includes Kathleen Brown, the sister of Gov. Jerry Brown.

In a press release, the attorney general’s office said it was best 
suited to coordinate multiple agency claims while seeking to force the 
gas company to address the environmental effects of such a large release 
of methane. The gas has a short lifespan in the atmosphere but has a 
powerful greenhouse effect in trapping the Earth’s heat radiation.

“Against the backdrop of California’s ongoing efforts to reduce 
[greenhouse gas] emissions generally, this leak is a monumental 
environmental disaster,” the lawsuit contends.

Harris’ office stated the attorney general “is already serving a crucial 
coordinating role” with state, federal and local agencies. Agency staff 
said that effort included mapping out what potential enforcement actions 
those agencies can take against the gas company.

The degree of behind-the-scenes coordination and lack of public 
involvement in the leak investigation disturbs some consumer advocates.

“This is a coup of government agencies working in secrecy, to figure out 
how they don’t step on each others’ toes,” said Jamie Court, president 
of Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit organization frequently 
involved in insurance and utility regulation. “The public needs to be 
part of this process. There are too many political alliances and 
allegiances here.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-attorney-general-lawsuit-aliso-canyon-leak-20160202-story.html 

paige.stjohn at latimes.com
alice.walton at latimes.com

=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news 
- a few are 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 personal 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/20230203/5b5d0bf0/attachment.htm>