[✔️] January 22, 2023- Global Warming News Digest - rocket man, geoengineering banned, gulf stream

[Richard Pauli]

/*January  22, 2023*/

/[ Opinion reporting from Davos  -  video 5 mins/]
*Climate Limits, Johan Rockström at Davos 2023*
Peter Carter
22 views  Jan 21, 2023
Interview of Johan Rockstrom by DW TV at Davos 2023 World Economic 
Forum. The 2023 WEF top risk (yet again) is Climate action failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iff0rc6qI0g



/[ just physics  - understating our situation  14 min video is a 
simplification ]/
*Can the Gulf Stream Collapse?*
Sabine Hossenfelder
97,378 views  Jan 21, 2023  #physics #climatechange #science
- -
That the Gulf stream might collapse is one of the scariest consequences 
of climate change for us here in Europe, at least if you believe the 
headlines. In this video I'll explain why the Gulf stream can't 
collapse, what the headlines really mean, and what climate change might 
do to Europe.

👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free!  ➜ 
https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yN...

    00:00 Intro
    00:49 Westerlies and Easterlies
    04:12 The Gulf Stream
    06:32 The Jet Streams
    08:52 The AMOC
    11:34 What Might Happen?
    13:07 Learn Physics With Brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnVWUIhQ8dE



/[ first ban on this dangerous behavior -]/
*Mexico Bans Solar Geoengineering After Startup Stunt*
Make Sunsets said it released sulfur-filled balloons in Baja California 
Sur to counteract global warming. The Mexican government isn't happy.
By Lauren Leffer
Mexico is cracking down on experiments in solar geoengineering. The 
controversial proposed climate solution, in which aerosol particles are 
released into the upper atmosphere to reflect the Sun’s heat, will no 
longer be allowed to take place in the country, the Mexican Ministry of 
Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) announced last week.

Both large-scale and in-development projects involving solar engineering 
are to be halted, via coordination between the Mexican environment 
ministry and the country’s National Council of Science and Technology, 
the news statement noted. The goal of the new policy is to “protect 
communities and environments.”

The nationwide ban comes on the heels of climate tech startup Make 
Sunsets’ claims that it released weather balloons filled with sulfur 
dioxide particles from an unspecified location in the Mexican state of 
Baja California Sur—without any sort of dialogue or approval Mexican 
authorities. The startup’s co-founder, Luke Iseman (formerly of Y 
Combinator and numerous other startups that seem to have floundered or 
been abandoned), said in a December interview with MIT Technology Review 
that he’d conducted two test balloon launches in April 2022.

But Iseman has contradicted his own claims since then. In a follow-up 
report from The Wall Street Journal, published Thursday, Iseman changed 
his story to “a single weather balloon.” And in a Wednesday blogpost 
from Make Sunsets, the company floated the possibility that it never 
actually released any sulfur balloons at all. “Make Sunsets will share 
all information about its activities in Mexico to date (if any) with... 
responsible agencies,” the startup wrote. “Make sunsets will cease its 
operations in Mexico (if there were any),” the post continues.

Gizmodo reached out to Make Sunsets for more information but did not 
receive a response.

Regardless of whether or not Iseman and Make Sunsets actually did what 
they claimed, the alleged stunt drew widespread criticism and concern 
from scientists and policy experts alike. Though solar geoengineering is 
a simple enough concept, safe implementation of the theoretical climate 
change remedy is a complex issue.

Blocking out sunlight via sulfur particles could trigger rapid and 
significant global shifts in precipitation that could leave some parts 
of the planet flooded and others arid, according to past research. If 
not managed properly, solar geoengineering could lead to even more 
erratic and rapid changes in temperature than we’re currently 
experiencing under climate change. And the use of sulfur, specifically, 
would likely damage Earth’s crucial ozone layer.

Then, there’s the geopolitical implications of a country or rogue actor 
deciding to go ahead and change the stratosphere’s composition without 
international buy-in.

For all of these reasons and more, it’s probably not in Mexico’s favor 
to allow this sort of unregulated geoengineering experimentation on its 
soil. The ministry’s press statement cites a United Nations moratorium 
on geoengineering that Mexico and nearly 200 other countries (though not 
the U.S.) agreed to in 2010—as well as the risk of dangerous climactic 
consequences. “There are enough studies that show that there would be 
negative and unequal impacts associated with the release of these 
aerosols,” wrote the environment ministry.

All that said, Iseman’s experiment (if it happened) probably wasn’t 
enough to impact much of anything. From a scientific perspective, it 
wasn’t even much of an experiment. The Make Sunsets founder previously 
told MIT Tech Review that he doesn’t know if the balloons released made 
it high enough in the atmosphere to distribute their sulfur in the 
correct place. And Harvard geoengineering researcher David Keith said 
that such a small amount of particles would likely have no effect on the 
climate.

Iseman is reportedly disappointed by Mexico’s decision. “I expected and 
hoped for dialogue,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “I’m surprised by 
the speed and scope of the response,” he added. Prior to the ban, Make 
Sunsets indicated it planned to fly three more balloons from Southern 
Baja this month. Now, that presumably won’t happen. But the perpetual 
founder isn’t giving up. “One of my dreams is that we could, in some 
distant future, grow Make Sunsets legally and responsibility,” he said 
to the WSJ.

And maybe Iseman would have better luck back in the U.S., which hasn’t 
co-signed any pesky UN agreements to not block out the Sun. In 2022, the 
Biden Administration announced it’s developing a five-year plan for 
geoengineering research. If the ~$750,000 in venture capital money that 
Make Sunsets raised isn’t enough, perhaps in the near future, the 
company could apply for some federal funding.
https://gizmodo.com/mexico-bans-solar-geoengineering-make-sunsets-stunt-1850006544



/[ Elon straps-on the rocket boosters of twitter -- his misinformation 
company ]/
*Climate misinformation ‘rocket boosters’ on Musk’s Twitter*
By DAVID KLEPPER
Jan 19, 2023/
/WASHINGTON (AP) — Search for the word “climate” on Twitter and the 
first automatic recommendation isn’t “climate crisis” or “climate jobs” 
or even “climate change” but instead “climate scam.”

Clicking on the recommendation yields dozens of posts denying the 
reality of climate change and making misleading claims about efforts to 
mitigate it.

Such misinformation has flourished on Twitter since it was bought by 
Elon Musk last year, but the site isn’t the only one promoting content 
that scientists and environmental advocates say undercuts public support 
for policies intended to respond to a changing climate.

“What’s happening in the information ecosystem poses a direct threat to 
action,” said Jennie King, head of climate research and response at the 
Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based nonprofit. “It plants 
those seeds of doubt and makes people think maybe there isn’t scientific 
consensus.”

The institute is part of a coalition of environmental advocacy groups 
that on Thursday released a report tracking climate change 
disinformation in the months before, during and after the U.N. climate 
summit in November.

The report faulted social media platforms for, among other things, 
failing to enforce their own policies prohibiting climate change 
misinformation. It is only the latest to highlight the growing problem 
of climate misinformation on Twitter.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, allowed nearly 4,000 
advertisements on its site — most bought by fossil fuel companies — that 
dismissed the scientific consensus behind climate change and criticized 
efforts to respond to it, the researchers found.

In some cases, the ads and the posts cited inflation and economic fears 
as reasons to oppose climate policies, while ignoring the costs of 
inaction. Researchers also found that a significant number of the 
accounts posting false claims about climate change also spread 
misinformation about U.S. elections, COVID-19 and vaccines.

Twitter did not respond to questions from The Associated Press. A 
spokesperson for Meta cited the company’s policy prohibiting ads that 
have been proven false by its fact-checking partners, a group that 
includes the AP. The ads identified in the report had not been fact-checked.
- -
Tweets containing “climate scam” or other terms linked to climate change 
denial rose 300% in 2022, according to a report released last week by 
the nonprofit Advance Democracy. While Twitter had labeled some of the 
content as misinformation, many of the popular posts were not labeled.

Musk’s new verification system could be part of the problem, according 
to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, another 
organization that tracks online misinformation. Previously, the blue 
checkmarks were held by people in the public eye such as journalists, 
government officials or celebrities.

Now, anyone willing to pay $8 a month can seek a checkmark. Posts and 
replies from verified accounts are given an automatic boost on the 
platform, making them more visible than content from users who don’t pay.

When researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate analyzed 
accounts verified after Musk took over, they found they spread four 
times the amount of climate change misinformation compared with users 
verified before Musk’s purchase.

Verification systems are typically created to assure users that the 
accounts they follow are legitimate. Twitter’s new system, however, 
makes no distinction between authoritative sources on climate change and 
anyone with $8 and an opinion, according to Imran Ahmed, the center’s 
chief executive.

“We found,” Ahmed said, “it has in fact put rocket boosters on the 
spread of lies and disinformation.”
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-science-social-media-a7e2e3214abb4470dcb6e2837aa39c2e




/[ Keep an eye on the courts -- clips from the Guardian  ]/
*Exxon’s predictions about the climate crisis may have increased its 
legal peril*
Several US states say news that Exxon scientists predicted global 
heating accurately strengthens their lawsuits against company
Oliver Milman
@olliemilman
Fri 20 Jan 2023
Further revelations of the extent of Exxon’s historical knowledge of the 
unfolding climate crisis may have deepened the legal peril faced by the 
oil giant, with several US states suing the company for alleged 
deception, claiming their cases have now been strengthened.

A research paper published last week found that from the 1970s onwards, 
Exxon climate scientists “correctly and skillfully” predicted climbing 
global temperatures, rising by around 0.2C a decade due to the burning 
of fossil fuels, often matching or surpassing the accuracy of 
projections by independent outside scientists...

Geoffrey Supran, lead author of the new study, which was gleaned from a 
trove of internal documents and published scientific papers, said it was 
“breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what 
subsequently happened.

Despite this knowledge, Exxon executives spent several decades 
downplaying or denying the climate impact of its business practices, 
helping stymie action to curb the use of fossil fuels and prevent 
dangerous global heating. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief 
executive of Exxon, said climate models were “not competent” and “not 
that good”.

More than a dozen states and municipalities have launched lawsuits 
against Exxon, other oil companies and trade associations, claiming that 
by concealing their awareness of climate change they committed fraud or 
false advertising. Several Exxon foes now believe their legal pursuit of 
the company has been bolstered by the latest analysis of its climate 
science work.

“The study’s findings expand the robust public record of the fossil fuel 
industry’s deception surrounding their products’ contribution to climate 
change, and are consistent with what we alleged in our lawsuit,” Matthew 
Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, told the Guardian. “This study 
only increases our resolve to hold them accountable in court.”

A spokesman for Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, said 
the new research “confirms the need to hold defendants accountable for 
their deception”.

Several jurisdictions declined to comment on their ongoing cases against 
Exxon, including Delaware, New York City and Massachusetts, where the 
state’s supreme court last year dismissed a claim by the company that it 
was being pursued for political reasons and must face trial over 
accusations it broke consumer protection laws and deceived investors by 
covering up its knowledge of the climate crisis...

Exxon has maintained that it has followed the best available science at 
any given time and has denied lying to the public in order to protect 
its business model. “I don’t believe companies should lie and I would 
tell you that we do not do that,” Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, 
told a congressional hearing in 2021. Woods has said that Exxon now 
accepts that climate change is real and that it supports the goals of 
the Paris climate agreement.

The Texas-based oil giant has deep pockets for a protracted legal battle 
– in October it announced a quarterly profit of nearly $20bn (£16bn), 
almost matching the earnings of the tech behemoth Apple – and has sought 
to have challenges tossed out of court or have them heard at the 
federal, rather than the state, level, in the belief this will lead to a 
more sympathetic outcome for the company.

But some legal experts have warned that the latest details of Exxon’s 
long-term knowledge of global heating, which was first revealed to the 
public via reporting in 2015, could spell trouble for the business.

“The recent study provides additional quantifiable evidence and a new 
level of detail concerning the length and scale of the misinformation, 
which is likely to present further difficulties for the company in this 
regard,” said Karen Hutchinson, commercial litigation lawyer at UK law 
firm Stewarts.

Alyssa Johl, vice-president of legal at the Center for Climate 
Integrity, said that Exxon “pretty much nailed these predictions with 
incredible accuracy. That cannot be refuted at this point.” Johl said 
the research helps establish the “two very important pieces to the 
puzzle” in the cases against Exxon – that the company knew about the 
causes and consequences of climate change and that it then actively 
concealed and denied it.

A spokesman for Exxon said: “This issue has come up several times in 
recent years and in each case our answer is the same: those who talk 
about how ‘Exxon knew’ are wrong in their conclusions.” The spokesman 
quoted a New York judge, Barry Ostrager, who found in 2019 that Exxon’s 
executives were “uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their 
duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible”.

But the claims that Exxon intimately knew of the looming climate 
emergency more than 40 years ago are of little surprise to Ed Garvey, 
now a semi-retired geochemist who worked for Exxon from 1978 to 1983, 
taking carbon dioxide measurements from oil tankers.

Garvey said that he and his scientific colleagues at Exxon were “very 
much aware of the problem” of global heating within the first year of 
his stint at the company. He said the company hired elite-level 
scientists and used cutting-edge technology to determine future 
temperature trends, so the accuracy of the science was to be expected.

“The scientific leaders at Exxon very much saw this as a big deal that 
could impact the bottom line of the company and have ramifications for 
the whole globe,” Garvey said. “We thought we’d deliver the news that we 
couldn’t continue like this to the board and that Exxon might diversify.

“It was never in question to us that human activity was causing the 
climate to change. It’s really reprehensible that they had this 
knowledge and then said: ‘We have no need to change course at all.’ I 
find it immoral for them to say that there was uncertainty. It’s beyond 
the pale. I can’t reconcile myself with it, other than they just didn’t 
care.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/exxon-climate-crisis-lawsuits-documents



/[ free link to the NYTimes quiz on reducing carbon footprint - simple, 
quick and informative -]/
*Quiz: What’s the Best Way to Shrink Your Carbon Footprint?*
" Although estimating the carbon footprint of specific actions is not an 
exact science, we can raise awareness about actions that most 
researchers agree are necessary to slow climate change.

Specifically, we need to fight influential misperceptions. Recycling is 
one example; so is misinformation around electric vehicles. Many 
Americans believe that electric cars are more expensive to maintain than 
gas-fueled cars. In fact, electric cars are often cheaper to own over 
their lifetimes. And tax credits in the recently signed Inflation 
Reduction Act should significantly reduce the cost of buying an electric 
vehicle. These facts are worth bringing up around the dinner table 
because preemptively refuting misinformation is one of the most 
effective ways to counter its spread.

While governments and businesses have the most power to reverse climate 
change, perhaps the best thing we can do as individuals is to hold them 
accountable, dispel influential myths and shift our collective attention 
to the actions that matter most. Although the jury is still out on the 
effectiveness of throwing soup at famous artworks, we know that 
switching to clean energy, flying less and adopting a plant-based diet 
are some of the most effective ways to help save our planet."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/opinion/how-reduce-carbon-footprint-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=juvv12P_KyxIvNRtrBozAa97DY9ADrmUOjAosRiViQWdxptW-IjmTUwpD14hJCxpvNPa_ZXkIpDWO9GpB7sdhZ-QljvWwCIv4INeW5G-ugpmd8DU_iF_TlmsD7vLYje3DtJqZb5J7JCZwCBJ_JM99hw_2GKYlnsVfRxAYk1uEofEknakCDCpIOSFVkUgYAfhPA2XKKrnKEgcNDWeUEvMUaUbGt2Y-ONHfn_tYPTLrPyr_8-_PBkF-F2SZNQjEOk0_SpdRdxBYSA7Y9SCeXvy6onD-gwzRWXcrTs3v-ZiRd4ePeiMIr2_b1bH_t1G4xOLu9KnW5ma3nNbTET38_fa7ftZ2EUUmEv8hSN0Mjo8WNCcSWMKiddAOhIOKz5mQkC_TW-XvlA&smid=share-url

- -

/[ book by the author of The Quiz ]/
*Foolproof**
**Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity*
by Sander van der Linden (Author, University of Cambridge)
- -
In Foolproof, one of the world’s leading experts on misinformation lays 
out a crucial new paradigm for understanding and defending ourselves 
against the worldwide infodemic.

With remarkable clarity, Sander van der Linden explains why our brains 
are so vulnerable to misinformation, how it spreads across social 
networks, and what we can do to protect ourselves and others. Like a 
virus, misinformation infects our minds, exploiting shortcuts in how we 
see and process information to alter our beliefs, modify our memories, 
and replicate at astonishing rates. Once the virus takes hold, it’s very 
hard to cure. Strategies like fact-checking and debunking can leave a 
falsehood still festering or, at worst, even strengthen its hold.

But we aren’t helpless. As van der Linden shows based on award-winning 
original research, we can cultivate immunity through the innovative 
science of “prebunking”: inoculating people against false information by 
preemptively exposing them to a weakened dose, thus empowering them to 
identify and fend off its manipulative tactics. Deconstructing the 
characteristic techniques of conspiracies and misinformation, van der 
Linden gives readers practical tools to defend themselves and others 
against nefarious persuasion—whether at scale or around their own dinner 
table.
https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393881448/about-the-book/description



/[ unvented gas stoves are instantly dangerous to mind and body  ]/
*I Hate to Say It, but We Should Ban Gas Stoves*
The appliances are outdated and dangerous. We should look into changing 
that.
By Molly Taft
Jan 18, 2022
- -
Gas stoves are one of those things where, the more you learn about them, 
the freakier they become. When you think about it, it’s kind of wild 
that we’ve all accepted the idea that it’s normal to have an appliance 
that actively spews fossil fuels inside our homes (and one that 
occasionally leads to deadly explosions at that). There’s a mounting 
body of evidence that these appliances are, in fact, extremely bad for 
our health. Gas stoves are big sources of nitrogen dioxide, which 
damages the respiratory system. They also leak benzene, a chemical known 
to cause cancer. Just last month, a study found that gas stoves could be 
linked to one in eight cases of childhood asthma in the U.S. That all 
seems like a high price to pay for the pleasure of cooking on a gas range.

And all this is before we even get into the climate stuff. Turns out 
that getting rid of something that is affecting our health could also 
help the environment. Americans’ use of gas stoves, research has found, 
really adds up: more than one-third of people in the U.S. use gas 
stoves, and all those appliances leak the greenhouse gas equivalent of 
500,000 cars each year.

The scariest part, for me, is that a staggering amount of these 
emissions happen when the stove is off: A study published last year 
found that more than 75% of the stoves’ emissions happen when they’re 
not in use. Even if we don’t ban them altogether, at the bare minimum we 
ought to discuss regulation and improvements to tighten efficiency and 
safety. As we’re transitioning the world to electric vehicles and 
thinking about how to phase out fossil fuels entirely, electrification 
is a natural fit for this conversation.

In light of the overwhelming evidence about their impact on our health 
and climate, it’s easy to forget why people are so fussed about a 
possible change in their kitchen. One of the main outcries appears to be 
the idea that cooking is less effective or enjoyable on an electric 
range than a gas one—which seems, frankly, like a pretty dumb argument 
to put up against the idea that your stove could give your kid asthma. 
My bad cooking experiences at my parents’ house aside, there seem to be 
a whole host of opinions on this, ranging from professional chefs who 
say electric is “less efficient” than gas, to home-cooking superstar 
Alison Roman, who hosted an impromptu “ask me anything” on Twitter to 
extol the virtues of her electric range. It’s also important to note 
that the oil and gas industry has a documented history of working with 
restaurateurs to escalate anti-electric opinions, meaning that the pro 
chefs who do enjoy their electric ranges have had their perspectives 
drowned out by industry money propping up the opposing side.

The opinions of professional chefs aside, it’s incredibly strange how 
this whole conversation seems to have turned GOP politicians—many of 
whom look like the extent of their cooking is microwaving a personal 
pizza or drizzling salad dressing onto checks from fossil fuel 
companies—into diehard home cooking defenders. Sure, restaurateurs can 
have serious discussions about the pros and cons of gas versus electric. 
But, seriously, Ron DeSantis, what are you cooking at home that has you 
so worried about the quality of your range? I’d think that your busy 
schedule stripping gay people of their right to exist in Florida would 
be a little too packed to leave room to cook your way through Julia Child.

Proposing regulations on imports or future bans on gas ranges doesn’t 
mean the government is coming to rip the stove out of your wall—just 
that it may have some influence on the types of appliances you can 
install in the future. We should certainly consider the practicalities 
of making a big change like banning a certain appliance; there are real 
conversations to be had about making electric ranges efficient and 
available to everyone. Starting this year, the Inflation Reduction Act 
will make millions of dollars in rebates available to lower-income 
households to help them install new electric appliances, including 
electric stoves.

Mandating changes to problematic appliances is nothing new. 
Refrigerators used to spew toxic gasses; hairdryers used to blow 
asbestos directly into people’s faces. It’s a pretty simple proposition 
for the Consumer Product Safety Commission—which some politicians have 
suggested defunding as a result of this hoopla—to suggest updates and 
changes to technology when the evidence calls for it. It’s very clear 
from the butch pro-stove merch that GOP politicians have started hawking 
that stoves are a symbol of what is known around the climate community 
as petro-masculinity: the idea pushed by the right that climate fixes 
are a threat to American culture. Instead of caving to this macho 
insanity, climate advocates should double down and own the fact that 
this is something we should do.

I may be too harsh on my parents’ range. The things I don’t like about 
it can either be chalked up to unfamiliarity or model design—and those 
are pretty simple issues to solve. My mom and I cooked lots of delicious 
meals on it together over the holidays, and it’s really cool to watch 
water boil so damn quickly. If this is the future of stoves, I think 
I’ll adapt just fine.
https://gizmodo.com/why-ban-gas-stoves-1850000240


/[Video, audio and text archive looking at Richard Nixon and the 
environment -- and an early mention of "reparations"]/
/*January 22, 1970 */
January 22, 1970: In his State of the Union address, President Nixon 
declares:

    "The great question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our
    surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to
    make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our
    land, and to our water?

    Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and
    beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of
    this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young
    Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences
    of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to
    prevent disaster later.

    Clean air, clean water, open spaces-these should once again be the
    birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be.

    We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and
    neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high.
    Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature,
    and now that debt is being called.

    The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most
    comprehensive and costly program in this field in America's history.

    It is not a program for just one year. A year's plan in this field
    is no plan at all. This is a time to look ahead not a year, but 5
    years or 10 years--whatever time is required to do the job.

    I shall propose to this Congress a $10 billion nationwide clean
    waters program to put modern municipal waste treatment plants in
    every place in America where they are needed to make our waters
    clean again, and do it now. We have the industrial capacity, if we
    begin now, to build them all within 5 years. This program will get
    them built within 5 years.

    As our cities and suburbs relentlessly expand, those priceless open
    spaces needed for recreation areas accessible to their people are
    swallowed up--often forever. Unless we preserve these spaces while
    they are still available, we will have none to preserve. Therefore,
    I shall propose new financing methods for purchasing open space and
    parklands now, before they are lost to us.

    The automobile is our worst polluter of the air. Adequate control
    requires further advances in engine design and fuel composition. We
    shall intensify our research, set increasingly strict standards, and
    strengthen enforcement procedures-and we shall do it now.

    We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property,
    free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences.
    Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources,
    which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw
    garbage into our neighbor's yard.

    This requires comprehensive new regulations. It also requires that,
    to the extent possible, the price of goods should be made to include
    the costs of producing and disposing of them without damage to the
    environment.

    Now, I realize that the argument is often made that there is a
    fundamental contradiction between economic growth and the quality of
    life, so that to have one we must forsake the other.

    The answer is not to abandon growth, but to redirect it. For
    example, we should turn toward ending congestion and eliminating
    smog the same reservoir of inventive genius that created them in the
    first place.

    Continued vigorous economic growth provides us with the means to
    enrich life itself and to enhance our planet as a place hospitable
    to man.

    Each individual must enlist in this fight if it is to be won.

    It has been said that no matter how many national parks and
    historical monuments we buy and develop, the truly significant
    environment for each of us is that in which we spend 80 percent of
    our time--in our homes, in our places of work, the streets over
    which we travel.

    Street litter, rundown parking strips and yards, dilapidated fences,
    broken windows, smoking automobiles, dingy working places, all
    should be the object of our fresh view.

    We have been too tolerant of our surroundings and too willing to
    leave it to others to clean up our environment. It is time for those
    who make massive demands on society to make some minimal demands on
    themselves. Each of us must resolve that each day he will leave his
    home, his property, the public places of the city or town a little
    cleaner, a little better, a little more pleasant for himself and
    those around him.

    With the help of people we can do anything, and without their help,
    we can do nothing. In this spirit, together, we can reclaim our land
    for ours and generations to come.

    Between now and the year 5000, over 100 million children will be
    born in the United States. Where they grow up--and how will, more
    than any one thing, measure the quality of American life in these
    years ahead.

    This should be a warning to us.

    For the past 30 years our population has also been growing and
    shifting. The result is exemplified in the vast areas of rural
    America emptying out of people and of promise--a third of our
    counties lost population in the sixties.

    The violent and decayed central cities of our great metropolitan
    complexes are the most conspicuous area of failure in American life
    today.

    I propose that before these problems become insoluble, the Nation
    develop a national growth policy.

    In the future, government decisions as to where to build highways,
    locate airports, acquire land, or sell land should be made with a
    clear objective of aiding a balanced growth for America.

    In particular, the Federal Government must be in a position to
    assist in the building of new cities and the rebuilding of old ones.

    At the same time, we will carry our concern with the quality of life
    in America to the farm as well as the suburb, to the village as well
    as to the city. What rural America needs most is a new kind of
    assistance. It needs to be dealt with, not as a separate nation, but
    as part of an overall growth policy for America. We must create a
    new rural environment which will not only stem the migration to
    urban centers, but reverse it. If we seize our growth as a
    challenge, we can make the 1970's an historic period when by
    conscious choice we transformed our land into what we want it to become.

    America, which has pioneered in the new abundance, and in the new
    technology, is called upon today to pioneer in meeting the concerns
    which have followed in their wake--in turning the wonders of science
    to the service of man.

    In the majesty of this great Chamber we hear the echoes of America's
    history, of debates that rocked the Union and those that repaired
    it, of the summons to war and the search for peace, of the uniting
    of the people, the building of a nation.

    Those echoes of history remind us of our roots and our strengths.

    They remind us also of that special genius of American democracy,
    which at one critical turning point after another has led us to spot
    the new road to the future and given us the wisdom and the courage
    to take it.

    As I look down that new road which I have tried to map out today, I
    see a new America as we celebrate our 200th anniversary 6 years from
    now.

    I see an America in which we have abolished hunger, provided the
    means for every family in the Nation to obtain a minimum income,
    made enormous progress in providing better housing, faster
    transportation, improved health, and superior education.

    I see an America in which we have checked inflation, and waged a
    winning war against crime.

    I see an America in which we have made great strides in stopping the
    pollution of our air, cleaning up our water, opening up our parks,
    continuing to explore in space.

    Most important, I see an America at peace with all the nations of
    the world.

    This is not an impossible dream. These goals are all within our reach.

    In times past, our forefathers had the vision but not the means to
    achieve such goals.

    Let it not be recorded that we were the first American generation
    that had the means but not the vision to make this dream come true.

    But let us, above all, recognize a fundamental truth. We can be the
    best clothed, best fed, best housed people in the world, enjoying
    clean air, clean water, beautiful parks, but we could still be the
    unhappiest people in the world without an indefinable spirit--the
    lift of a driving dream which has made America, from its beginning,
    the hope of the world.."

http://youtu.be/5LpspwT0ZwA ( start about 24 minutes in )

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-the-congress-the-state-the-union-2




=======================================
*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/20230122/11e6125c/attachment.htm>