[✔️] February 6, 2023- Global Warming News Digest |
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Mon Feb 6 08:34:53 EST 2023
/*February 6, 2023*/
/[ Grist's grit news says Puerto Rico goes RICO ]/
*How the Supreme Court could finally force Big Oil to face trial*
Dozens of cities and states sued oil giants for deceiving the public.
The Supreme Court could soon break these cases out of limbo.
Kate Yoder - Staff Writer
Published Feb 03, 2023
It’s been eight years since the world learned that “Exxon Knew.” The oil
giant had grasped the dangers of burning fossil fuels since 1977,
investigations showed, despite its long-standing public stance that the
science was “uncertain” and persistent efforts to block legislation that
would control carbon pollution. The revelations launched a wave of
lawsuits that aimed to put fossil fuel companies on trial for deceiving
the public about climate change.
In 2017, cities and counties in California started the trend by suing
dozens of oil, gas, and coal companies using state “tort” laws meant to
protect people from deceptive advertising. Attorneys general in other
states filed similar suits of their own, beginning with Rhode Island in
2018. It spurred speculation that Big Oil might face a reckoning for
misleading the public about the dangers of climate change, much as Big
Tobacco did in the 1990s after decades spent denying that smoking could
cause cancer.
In the ensuing years, not a single one of these consumer-protection
cases — now numbering nearly two dozen — made it to trial. They have
bounced around between federal and state courts, with oil companies
maneuvering to delay any action. “It says something about what the
industry thinks is the power of these cases, that it has kept these up
in procedural battles for over five years now,” said Karen Sokol, a law
professor at Loyola University in New Orleans...
- -
Some other routes to legal action have already been tried and abandoned,
such as New York state’s lawsuit that accused ExxonMobil of misleading
shareholders about climate change. In 2019, a judge ruled that the New
York state attorney general had failed to provide enough evidence that
Exxon broke the law. Since then, Exxon has used the ruling to support
the idea that the lawsuits against them are misguided. But the judge who
ruled in Exxon’s favor made clear at the time that the suit was “a
securities fraud case, not a climate change case
And there’s at least one completely new approach that doesn’t depend on
the Supreme Court’s ruling.
A first-of-its-kind lawsuit filed by 16 towns in Puerto Rico in November
accuses Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies of
colluding to conceal how their products contribute to climate change.
Their argument is that this collusion violated antitrust laws and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — a federal
law passed in 1970 to take down the Mafia.
Racketeering cases relying on RICO have not only taken down mobsters
like John Gotti and the Gambino crime family, but have also been
successful against the Hell’s Angels biker gang, the Key West police
department in Florida, as well as opioid manufacturers and tobacco
companies. The Puerto Rico lawsuit seeks to make companies pay billions
of dollars for the extensive damages that towns suffered during
hurricanes Maria and Irma in 2017.
Because the lawsuit was filed in federal court, it won’t be pulled into
the jurisdictional tug-of-war that has made other climate cases drag on
for years.
“They’ve made it easy to prove,” said Melissa Sims, an attorney at
Milberg, the Tennessee-based law firm representing the Puerto Rican
cities, “because unlike all the other racketeering cases that have been
on file, none of them included a written battle plan with a detailed
division of labor on how they were going to accomplish their deception.”
https://grist.org/accountability/supreme-court-state-climate-lawsuits-oil-exxon/
- -
/[ See the thick legal language of Puerto Rico RICO: ]/
*Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp.*
Filing Date: 2022
Case Categories: Adaptation Actions seeking money damages for losses
Common Law Claims
Principal Laws: Sherman Antitrust Act, Conspiracy, Failure to Warn,
State Law–Strict Liability, Common Law Consumer Fraud, Rule 7 of Puerto
Rico Rules Against Misleading Practices and Advertisements, Puerto Rico
Nuisance Statute (32 L.P.R.A. §2761), Strict Liability—Design Defect,
Negligent Design Defect, State Law—Unjust Enrichment, Racketeer
Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO)
Description: Lawsuit brought by municipalities in Puerto Rico seeking to
hold fossil fuel companies liable for losses resulting from storms
during the 2017 hurricane season and ongoing economic losses since 2017.
Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Docket number(s): 3:22-cv-01550 Court/Admin Entity: D.P.R.
*SUMMARY*
Puerto Rico Municipalities Filed Federal Suit Seeking Climate Change
Damages from Fossil Fuel Companies. Sixteen Puerto Rico
municipalities filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the
District of Puerto Rico seeking to hold coal, oil, and gas companies
liable for losses resulting from storms during the 2017 hurricane
season and ongoing economic losses since that time. The
municipalities brought the action on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of a proposed class of all of Puerto Rico’s municipalities.
The municipalities alleged that the defendants were responsible for
40.01% of all global industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1965
to 2017, and that these collective emissions were a “substantial
factor in the increase in intensity of the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane
Season.” The municipalities alleged that Puerto Rico “suffered
apocalyptic damage” from two of those storms—Hurricanes Irma and
Maria—which they alleged were intensified by climate change, “as
accelerated by Defendants’ consumer products and conduct.” The
plaintiffs contended that the defendants were liable because “they
knowingly caused and contributed to the worsening of the climate
change by producing, promoting, refining, marketing, and selling
fossil fuel products … that have caused and continue to cause the
devastating effects of climate change, while concealing and
misrepresenting the dangers associated with the use of fossil
fuel-based products, including the increased frequency of more
dangerous storms.” The complaint alleged a “corporate worldwide
strategy” to hide information linking the defendants’ products to
acceleration of climate change and to an increased likelihood “that
Puerto Rico and thus the Plaintiff Municipalities would be ravaged
by dangerous, deadly storms.” In addition to more intense storms,
the municipalities alleged other physical climate change impacts,
including coral reef degradation and “an unprecedented, massive
bloom of sargassum,” as well as social, educational, and economic
losses, including increased immigration from the municipalities and
damages to the agricultural industry. The municipalities asked that
the defendants pay costs the plaintiffs had incurred and would
continue to incur due to climate change. They also sought punitive
damages, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment interest, attorneys’
and expert witness fees and other costs, and other equitable,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief “to assure … an effective
remedy.” They asserted 14 causes of action under federal and Puerto
Rico law: claims of common law consumer fraud and conspiracy to
commit common law consumer fraud and deceptive business practices,
claims under Puerto Rico’s statute prohibiting false or misleading
advertisements and practices, claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal antitrust
claims, claims under Puerto Rico’s nuisance statute, strict
liability claims based on failure to warn and design defect, a
negligent design defect claim, and a cause of action for unjust
enrichment/restitution.
http://climatecasechart.com/case/municipalities-of-puerto-rico-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
/
/
/
/
/[ Western water now rare -- it's either deeply hidden, salty or up for
sale ] /
*Shrinking Colorado River hands Biden his first climate brawl*
California, Arizona and Nevada are among the states at odds over how to
divide the river's water — a fight among powerful political and economic
interests with dire consequences.
By ANNIE SNIDER
02/04/2023
A fracas among the seven states along the drought-stricken Colorado
River is forcing the first major reckoning for the Biden administration
over who should bear the pain of adapting to a changing climate.
At issue is whether it’s fair to use century-old rules, created during
an era of relative abundance, to ration water from the rapidly
shriveling river now that the West is on the precipice of climate
disaster. With California and its six neighbors locked in a dispute over
two competing approaches to divvying up the cuts in water deliveries,
whatever the administration decides will almost certainly end up in court.
The dispute is an early glimpse of the type of fights the U.S. will face
as the warming climate supercharges drought, wildfires, storms and
floods, forcing wrenching choices over which communities get protected.
Those decisions pose a political minefield — something President Joe
Biden’s Interior Department is learning from the fight over the West’s
most important river, which is creating existential risks for some of
the country’s most economically and politically powerful states and
industries.
The current feud centers on California, a longtime Democratic
stronghold, and Arizona, a newfound swing state that has proven crucial
to the party’s control of the White House and Senate.
The 1,450-mile long Colorado River made much of the West inhabitable,
and now supplies water to 40 million Americans from Wyoming to the
border with Mexico, as well as an enormously productive agricultural
industry. But climate change has shriveled its flows by 20 percent over
the past two decades, and for each additional degree of warming,
scientists predict the river will shrink another 9 percent.
Water levels at the system’s two main reservoirs are falling so fast,
the Interior Department has said that water users must cut consumption
by as much as a third of the river’s flows or risk a collapse that could
cripple their ability to deliver water out of those dams. That would
also cut off hydropower production that is crucial to the stability of
the Western grid...
- -
The state-level politics, alone, are a disaster for a Democratic
administration.
- -
And while the immediate fight is centered on Arizona and California, the
Upper Basin states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, which
backed Arizona’s approach, have their own interest in moving toward a
more flexible interpretation of century-old water rules. Climate change
is expected to soon make it impossible for them to deliver the legally
required amount of water to the Lower Basin without draconian cuts to
their own cities and tribes — an even bigger brawl that will have to be
fought out in the next two years.
But within each state, the fault lines aren’t always clear. Since
Western water law allows whoever claimed the water first to be first in
line, agricultural users often hold some of the strongest rights,
whereas cities and suburbs are almost always the first to take cuts...
- -
Adding to the pressure on the Biden administration is the fact that
lawmakers on Capitol Hill are increasingly jumping into the fray.
- -
The Biden administration won’t have to make any tough decision on who
wins and who loses just yet, though. First, the Interior Department will
need to publicly lay out exactly what effect the competing approaches
would mean to communities and ecosystems across the West if the next few
years turn out to be dry ones...
- -
Some of the state negotiators think this process of publicly detailing
the exact risks and costs to communities of the two competing concepts
could help energize the negotiations among the states.
If the analysis of California’s proposal shows the result would be
“drying up the Central Arizona Project [and] major metropolitan areas
and taking all of the water away from native American tribes, I think
the choices will become really stark,” said John Entsminger, Nevada’s
top Colorado River negotiator.
- -
“I definitely think there’s still a chance for a seven-state agreement,
and I think the modeling outputs that are going to be public could be
very helpful for helping drive some form of compromise,” he said.
Regardless of how the negotiations turn out and what Interior decides,
many legal experts expect the fight to ultimately land in court...
- -
Even more concerning to federal, state and local water managers is the
risk that a court decision, particularly from the conservative
supermajority on the Supreme Court, could end up curtailing the federal
government’s broad authorities to manage not just the Colorado River,
but waterways across the West. This would be occurring at a time when
climate change requires flexibility to adapt to hydrologic systems that
are evolving in unprecedented and unpredictable ways...
- -
“The court could impose real limits on its ability to adapt existing
laws to hydrologic and climatologic realities,” Larson said. “That’s
something that the Bureau of Reclamation doesn’t want to do for
practical reasons — climate change is changing our hydrologic systems
and we need to be able to adapt it — and also for institutional reasons.
No one likes to give up power.”...
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/04/colorado-river-biden-climate-change-water-00080990
/[ the structure of system seems to be revealed - text and audio ]/
*Congrats Exxon: You’re Killing It (Our Climate, That Is)*
KLAUS MARRE
02/05/23
https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/amazon_polly_74149.mp3?version=1675599074
On Tuesday, Exxon served a powerful reminder of why we are in this
predicament — and it takes neither artificial intelligence nor a genius
to connect the dots here: The oil giant announced that it had posted a
record profit of $56 billion in 2022. This means that, in the time it
takes you to finish this paragraph, Exxon will have made $50,000… from
killing the environment.
To add insult to injury (at least if you think that making the planet
uninhabitable is bad), the one damper on this excellent earnings report,
at least in Exxon’s view, was that the European Union imposed a windfall
tax of $1.3 billion on the company’s fourth quarter earnings.
The oil giant thinks that such a tax is “unlawful and bad policy.” We,
on the other hand, believe that tax should be much higher and that the
executives whose greed is killing the environment should be held to account.
To drive home the point of why all of this is really, really bad,
another study published Wednesday said that the problem isn’t a lack of
technologies that could prevent global warming but rather that we — both
as countries and individuals — just don’t care enough about this problem.
Finally, on Thursday, Shell also announced that it posted a record
profit, of $40 billion. In the story on this historic haul, the BBC
included this nugget: “Despite the move, Shell had said it did not
expect to pay any UK tax this year as it is allowed to offset
decommissioning costs and investments in UK projects against any UK
profits.”
And that really sums up the problem. As a society, we have made killing
profitable. In this case, “we” refers to the lawmakers who have been
bought and paid for by the dirty money of oil companies and other
polluters, arms manufacturers, and the tobacco industry (a study
published in 2019 showed that the latter, as well as the coal industry,
kills more people annually than it employs). There are plenty of others,
such as social media companies, who are profiting from creating misery
while escaping any semblance of accountability.
Together, they have ensured that making products designed to kill
people, destroy the environment, or create divisiveness is good business.
Perhaps the most obscene aspect of this week’s news is that Exxon’s
stock went down. Clearly, investors felt that the company hadn’t harmed
the environment enough. Maybe next time, gents!
The one positive is that this corporate (and personal) greed, combined
with a total disregard for the common good, can’t go on forever.
Allowing so few to profit off the suffering of so many is simply not
sustainable.
Unfortunately, neither is our environment. And, as the studies show, the
clock is not only ticking, it’s skipping ahead. Chances are that we
won’t fix these issues before millions of people lose their homes and
livelihoods because of climate change.
But at least the 1 percent will be a bit richer.
By the way, this isn’t a plea to abandon capitalism per se. The
innovations that a rewards-based economic system can spark will be
sorely needed in the future. It is only fair that the people who can
come up with solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems should be
rewarded… and then those rewards should be taxed heavily.
That’s a system that would work.
What clearly isn’t working, however, is the inhumane, cruel capitalism
that is being practiced now. It rewards those who have and not those who
can. And it does so at the expense of the only habitat we have.
It seems inevitable that the many will demand change at some point.
Sadly, it seems just as inevitable that it will be too late.
https://whowhatwhy.org/science/environment/congrats-exxon-youre-killing-it-our-climate-that-is/
/
/
///[ caused by increased carbon dioxide into the water - video ]/
*Climate change: what is ocean acidification?*
The Economist
41,232 views Feb 2, 2023
As carbon emissions change the chemistry of the seas, ocean
acidification threatens marine life and human livelihoods. How worried
should you be about climate change’s so-called “evil twin”?
00:00 The other carbon problem
00:50 How does the ocean’s deepest point reveal its past?
02:55 Why are baby oysters dying?
04:08 Is the ocean acidic?
05:21 What is causing ocean acidification?
06:01 Why are corals dissolving? / Will deep sea ecosystems survive?
08:35 A threat to human livelihoods
10:42 What are the ‘potato chips of the sea’?
12:04 What is the solution?
Sign up to our weekly science newsletter to keep up to date:
https://econ.st/3dMaWBt
How does Alaska’s nature reveal our past and future?
https://econ.st/3E0Jdrb
Watch our film on how chemical pollution is suffocating the sea:
https://econ.st/3CgQVwd
What can marine volcanic vents reveal about ocean acidification?
https://econ.st/3xYP7W5
Why are oysters getting smaller? https://econ.st/3ChRk1k
Watch our film to understand how carbon enters the ocean:
https://econ.st/3DXNkUT
Can the ocean solve climate change? https://econ.st/3SvswIy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVWZyDz--30
/[ Harvard Crimson reports from the Information battlegrounds ]/
*Harvard Misinformation Expert Joan Donovan Forced to Leave by Kennedy
School Dean, Sources Say*
Harvard Kennedy School Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf is forcing out online
misinformation expert Joan M. Donovan from her role at the Shorenstein
Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and ending her research
project, according to three HKS staff members with knowledge of the
situation.
MILES J. HERSZENHORN
February 2, 2023
Harvard Kennedy School Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf is forcing out online
misinformation expert Joan M. Donovan from her role at the Shorenstein
Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and ending her research
project, according to three HKS staff members with knowledge of the
situation.
Donovan was told she has until summer 2024 to end the Technology and
Social Change project and depart from her role at HKS, according to the
staff members. Donovan, who is not a tenure-track professor, has led the
project since its inception in 2019 and serves as the Shorenstein
Center’s research director. Donovan has also taught at HKS as an adjunct
lecturer in public policy.
In addition, Donovan was told her prominence at the school led Elmendorf
to end her time at the Shorenstein Center, two HKS staff members said.
HKS spokesperson James F. Smith confirmed in an emailed statement that
the project is ending.
“The Technology and Social Change project is winding down — through an
extended transition — because it does not have intellectual and academic
leadership by a full HKS faculty member, as required of all long-term
research and outreach projects at HKS,” Smith wrote.
As part of the School’s decision to end the Technology and Social Change
project, Donovan is not allowed to raise new funding, according to the
three HKS staff members. The project is also facing a hiring freeze and
spending constraints on existing funding, the staff members said.
Donovan declined to comment on her status at HKS and the termination of
her project.
Donovan received her Ph.D. in sociology and science studies from the
University of California San Diego in 2015, before joining the Data and
Society Research Institute in 2016, where she served as research lead on
a team studying media manipulation.
In 2019, Donovan joined the Shorenstein Center to serve as the director
and lead researcher of the Technology and Social Change project.
At Harvard, Donovan was a leading force in bringing the study of
misinformation and disinformation to prominence in academia. Donovan has
testified in front of House and Senate subcommittees on the spread of
misinformation online.
Tensions between Elmendorf and Donovan rose in fall 2021, according to
three HKS staff members, around when Donovan started to work on HKS’
Facebook archive project, fbarchive.org. The archive will provide
researchers and journalists with access to photos of documents obtained
by Frances B. Haugen, the 2021 Facebook whistleblower who disclosed
internal Facebook research on its technologies’ negative effects.
A year later, at the start of the fall 2022 semester, Donovan was
informed that the Technology and Social Change project would ultimately
end in summer 2024.
In mid-September 2022, HKS professor Latanya A. Sweeney joined Donovan
as co-principal investigator for the Technology and Social Change
project, the first time Donovan was not its sole head.
Donovan taught the HKS course Democracy, Politics and Institutions 622:
“Media Manipulation and Disinformation Campaigns” and co-authored a
widely-read study in July 2022 that found a plurality of participants in
the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were motivated by their support for
Trump. In September 2022, Donovan published a book titled “Meme Wars:
The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America”
about the online spread of right-wing media political conspiracy theories.
Smith, an HKS spokesperson, wrote in the statement that the school is
continuing to promote scholarship in the field of misinformation and
disinformation.
“Harvard Kennedy School is committed to the teaching and study of
misinformation and disinformation, and several faculty members are
leading significant projects that address these topics,” he wrote.
In a Thursday morning email obtained by The Crimson, Shorenstein Center
Director Nancy R. Gibbs wrote to center affiliates that the decision to
shut down the Technology and Social Change project was “solely driven”
by HKS policy of only allowing full professors to lead research projects.
“While there can be limited exceptions, those can't continue
indefinitely without a faculty member as the principal project leader
and academic head,” Gibbs wrote in the email.
Donovan declined to comment on the contents of the letter.
The Technology and Social Change project — which lists a team of more
than 25 people on its website including staff, fellows, contributing
researchers, and research assistants — has been led by Donovan since 2019.
Gibbs sent the email hours after The Crimson first reported that HKS
would end the Technology and Social Change project by summer 2024.
Gibbs wrote that other initiatives led by faculty members related to the
study of misinformation and disinformation would continue at the
Shorenstein Center, including the Facebook archive project and the
Misinformation Review, an online academic journal.
In recent weeks, Elmendorf has been the subject of controversy.
He faced backlash in January over his rejection of a fellowship for
former Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth. Elmendorf, who allegedly
blocked Roth over anti-Israel criticism, reversed his decision after
more than 1,000 Harvard affiliates signed an open letter calling for his
resignation.
—Staff writer Miles J. Herszenhorn can be reached at
miles.herszenhorn at thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @MHerszenhorn.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/2/2/donovan-forced-leave-hks/
- -
/[ Boston Globe report ]/
*Harvard winding down misinformation expert Joan Donovan’s research over
school policy*
By Anissa Gardizy Globe Staff, February 3, 2023,
The Harvard Kennedy School plans to wind down a research project led by
prominent misinformation expert Joan Donovan, who is the research
director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy.
Started in 2019, the Technology and Social Change Project studies how
media manipulation impacts public conversation, democracy, and society.
News of the project winding down, which was first reported by The
Harvard Crimson on Thursday, sparked backlash from researchers and
journalists on social media.
The work must end because of a school policy, which requires all
research projects be led by full faculty members, said Nancy Gibbs,
director of the Shorenstein Center, in an e-mail obtained by the Globe.
“While there can be limited exceptions, those can’t continue
indefinitely,” she wrote in a note to staff Thursday. “The decision to
wind the TaSC project down is solely driven by that policy, which has
been followed across the school for many years.”
In a separate e-mail sent to Shorenstein Center advisory board members
on Friday, Gibbs addressed the widespread attention the situation has
garnered.
“This just reminded me that people outside of academia (including me
before I came here) often don’t know the details about how the place
works or how research is organized and supervised,” she wrote.
Donovan declined to comment for this story.
Gibbs said in the e-mail to staff that Harvard Kennedy School dean Doug
Elmendorf told Donovan last summer that the Technology and Social Change
Project would need to wind down by June 2024, since research at the
school must be led by a faculty member. The project is fully funded
until then, but Elmendorf said Donovan could not expand with new
funding, staff, or large new initiatives.
During her time at Harvard, Donovan has become one of the most
high-profile researchers on online extremism, media manipulation, and
disinformation campaigns. She is regularly quoted by media outlets, has
testified before Congress, and recently published “Meme Wars,” a book
she coauthored with two other members of the Technology and Social
Change Project.
Though Harvard says its decision stems from a school policy, it has
prompted some people in academic and media circles to speak out about
the importance of Donovan’s work. Laura Edelson, a postdoctoral
researcher in computer science at New York University, said what was
done to Donovan is “frightening.”
“We’re in a race to study how and why social media is so vulnerable to
misinformation so we can make these systems safer,” Edelson wrote on
Twitter. “We need her research, and we need her.”
Taylor Lorenz, a tech columnist at the Washington Post, tweeted that
“This is absolutely horrible news, this team was doing essential work
demystifying the way bad actors manipulate the internet.”
Gibbs wrote in her e-mail that other work on misinformation at the
school will continue, such as at The Harvard Kennedy School
Misinformation Review and the Public Interest Tech Lab, which are run by
full faculty members.
Donovan received a PhD in sociology and science studies from the
University of California San Diego in 2015. Donovan led research on
media manipulation and platform accountability at the Data and Society
Research Institute in New York before coming to the Shorenstein Center
in 2018.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/03/business/harvard-winding-down-misinformation-expert-joan-donovans-research-over-school-policy/
- -
[ Other sources like the Harvard Crimson ]
*This is absolutely horrible news, this team was doing essential work
demystifying the way bad actors manipulate the internet*
thecrimson.com
Harvard Misinformation Expert Joan Donovan Forced to Leave by Kennedy
School Dean, Sources Say | News | The Harvard
https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1621182937042677760
[ some light humor, brief video - cute & we need a shopping guide for
information ]
*A recipe for trustworthy information*
The Conversation
Dec 19, 2022
How the magic is made at The Conversation: we take the research of
experts, add expert editing and cook up trustworthy journalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbK91C53g2c
/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*February 6, 2005*/
February 6, 2005: Chris Mooney points out the numerous falsehoods in the
recently released Michael Crichton novel "State of Fear."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes
=======================================
*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/20230206/7cc7783c/attachment.htm>
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list