[✔️] June 1, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | El Niño, Airlines charged, Sue big oil, blocking AI progress, Arnold seeks attention

[Richard Pauli]

/*June*//*1, 2023*/

/[ We must weather the climate  ]/
*A big El Niño is looming. Here’s what it means for our weather.*
How warm water in the Pacific shapes storms, droughts, and record heat 
around the world.
By Umair Irfan  May 30, 2023,

El Niño is the warm phase of the Pacific Ocean’s temperature cycle, and 
this year’s El Niño is poised to be a big one, sending shock waves into 
weather patterns around the world. It’s likely to set new heat records, 
energize rainfall in South America, fuel drought in Africa, and disrupt 
the global economy. It may already have helped fuel early-season heat 
waves in Asia this year...
- -
*What can we expect this year?*
El Niño typically picks up over the summer and shows its strongest 
effects over the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Right now, forecasts 
drawing on ocean buoys, sensors, satellite measurements, and computer 
models show that a strong one is brewing as the eastern Pacific Ocean 
steadily warms up just below its surface.

“The vast majority ... are assuming that we’re going to have a big El 
Niño this winter,” said Amaya. “I think we’re definitely expecting to 
break global temperature records this year.”

Part of what’s making this so jarring is that ENSO is coming out of an 
unusually long La Niña phase. They typically last one to two years, but 
the world has been in one since 2020. “There’s only been three 
triple-dip La Niñas in the last 50 years: One in 1973 to 76, one from 
1998 to 2001, and then this one,” said McPhaden. That has allowed more 
heat energy to accumulate in the ocean and may have helped cushion some 
of the warming due to climate change. However, the World Meteorological 
Organization noted that the past eight years were still the hottest on 
record.

So the warming water detected in the equatorial Pacific and the rebound 
from La Niña point toward a strong El Niño. “All the ingredients are in 
place and the soup is cooking,” McPhaden said. “The ocean is uncorked. 
All that heat that was stored below the surface of the ocean is going to 
come out.”..

The other big factor is that the planet itself is heating up. El Niño is 
part of a natural cycle. Human activity is amplifying some aspects of 
it, but not always in a straightforward way. Researchers expect that 
climate change will increase the chances of strong El Niño and La Niña 
events, but are still chalking out how they will manifest. Exactly how 
that extra heat is distributed across the ocean and the atmosphere will 
alter which regions see more rain, which ones will suffer drought, and 
where the biggest storms will land.

And while the rising El Niño this year will eventually cycle back to its 
cool phase, it won’t be enough to offset humanity’s consumption of 
fossil fuels. “What really matters from the long-term point of view is 
this relentless rise in greenhouse gas concentrations,” McPhaden said. 
“You cannot escape that there will be continued warming because of that.”

These forecasts, however, buy precious time to prepare. While El Niño 
can push some disasters to greater extremes, tools like early warning 
systems, disaster shelters, evacuations, and climate-resilient building 
codes can keep the human toll in check. It’s going to be a hot summer, 
but it doesn’t have to be a deadly one.
https://www.vox.com/climate/23738846/el-nino-2023-weather-heat-wave-climate-change-disaster-flood-rain 




/[  Airline flights deliver the very worst impacts of green house gases ]/
*Delta Air Lines faces lawsuit over $1bn carbon neutrality claim*
Patrick Greenfield
Tue 30 May 2023

US airline pledged to go carbon neutral but plaintiffs say it is relying 
on offsets that do almost nothing to mitigate global heating
In February 2020, the US airline announced plans to go carbon neutral, 
pledging $1bn to mitigate all greenhouse gas emissions from its business 
worldwide over the next decade. It included plans to purchase carbon 
credits generated from conserving rainforest, wetlands and grasslands 
along with decreasing the use of jet fuel and increasing plane efficiency.

The new legal action, filed in California on Tuesday, targets Delta’s 
statement that it is “the world’s first carbon-neutral airline”, a claim 
it has made in adverts, LinkedIn posts, in-flight napkins and comments 
by company executives, according to the lawsuit...
- -
The class-action lawsuit says Delta’s carbon neutrality claim is 
demonstrably false as it heavily relies on junk offsets that do nothing 
to counteract the climate crisis. It alleges that customers would have 
purchased Delta tickets believing they had no impact on the environment 
and many would not have bought them without the carbon neutrality claim.

A Delta spokesperson said: “This lawsuit is without legal merit. Delta 
is a vigorous advocate for more sustainable aviation, adopting 
industry-leading climate goals as we work towards achieving net-zero 
carbon emissions by 2050. Delta committed to carbon neutrality in March 
2020, and since 31 March 2022, has fully transitioned its focus away 
from carbon offsets toward decarbonisation of our operations, focusing 
our efforts on investing in sustainable aviation fuel, renewing our 
fleet for more fuel-efficient aircraft and implementing operational 
efficiencies.”...
- -
“This is more than a climate change case. This is also a business case. 
People are paying more for these greener products. If a company like 
Delta is raking that premium in by claiming they do it first and then 
doing a huge advertising blitz to try to get people flying again, we 
think that’s unfair to other companies that are buying higher-quality 
offsets or doing far better sustainability. And frankly, unfair to 
consumers.”

At the time Delta launched its plans to go carbon neutral in 2020, its 
chief executive, Ed Bastian, said: “There’s no challenge we face that is 
in greater need of innovation than environmental sustainability, and we 
know there is no single solution. We are digging deep into the issues, 
examining every corner of our business, engaging experts, building 
coalitions, fostering partnerships and driving innovation.”

The new lawsuit comes amid a wider regulatory crackdown on green claims 
in the UK and Europe. In New York, Evian is being sued over its carbon 
neutrality claim which relies on offsets. Danone, who own the water 
brand, has argued it should be thrown out and say the case “defies 
science and common sense”.

A judge will now decide whether or not to progress the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/30/delta-air-lines-lawsuit-carbon-neutrality-aoe 




/[ Use the courts  ]/
*More than two dozen cities and states are suing Big Oil over climate 
change – they just got a boost from the US Supreme Court*
Published: May 23, 2023
Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law & Graduate School
John Dernbach,  Professor of Law, Widener University
Honolulu has lost more than 5 miles of its famous beaches to sea level 
rise and storm surges. Sunny-day flooding during high tides makes many 
city roads impassable, and water mains for the public drinking water 
system are corroding from saltwater because of sea level rise.

The damage has left the city and county spending millions of dollars on 
repairs and infrastructure to try to adapt to the rising risks.

Future costs will almost certainly be higher. More than US$19 billion in 
property value, at today’s dollars, is at risk by 2100 from projected 
sea level rise, driven by greenhouse gas emissions largely from the 
burning of fossil fuels. Elsewhere in Honolulu County, which covers all 
of Oahu, many coastal communities will be cut off or uninhabitable.

Unwilling to have their taxpayers bear the full brunt of these costs, 
the city and county sued Sunoco LP, Exxon Mobil Corp. and other big oil 
companies in 2020.

Their case – one of more than two dozen involving U.S. cities, counties 
and states suing the oil industry over climate change – just got a break 
from the U.S. Supreme Court. That has significantly increased their odds 
of succeeding.

Suing over the cost of climate change
At stake in all of these cases is who pays for the staggering cost of a 
changing climate.
Local and state governments that are suing want to hold the major oil 
companies responsible for the costs of responding to disasters that 
scientists are increasingly able to attribute to climate disruption and 
tie back to the fossil fuel industry. Several of the plaintiffs accuse 
the companies of lying to the public about their products’ risks in 
violation of state or local consumer protection laws that prohibit false 
advertising...
- -
The governments in the Honolulu case allege that the oil companies “are 
directly responsible” for a substantial rise in carbon dioxide emissions 
that have been driving climate change. They say the companies should 
contribute their fair share to defray some of the costs.

The gist of Honolulu’s complaint is that the big oil companies have 
known for decades that their products cause climate change, yet their 
public statements continued to sow doubts about what was known, and they 
failed to warn their customers, investors and the public about the 
dangers posed by their products.

Were it not for this deception, the lawsuit says, the city and county 
would not be facing mounting costs of abating the damage from climate 
change.

Importantly, the complaint is based on state – not federal – law. It 
alleges that the defendants have violated established common law rules 
long recognized by the courts involving nuisance, failure to warn and 
trespass...
- -
*What happens next?*
The Honolulu case leads the pack at this point.

In 2022, the 1st Circuit Court in Hawaii denied the oil companies’ 
motion to dismiss the case based on the argument that the Clean Air Act 
also preempts state common law. This could open the door for discovery 
to begin sometime this year.

In discovery, senior corporate officers – perhaps including former Exxon 
Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who was secretary of state under Donald Trump – 
will be required to answer questions under oath about what the companies 
knew about climate change versus what they disclosed to the public..
https://theconversation.com/more-than-two-dozen-cities-and-states-are-suing-big-oil-over-climate-change-they-just-got-a-boost-from-the-us-supreme-court-205009


/
/

///[  AI helps research  ]/
*Halting generative AI advancements may slow down progress in climate 
research*
Francesca Larosa, Sergio Hoyas, Javier García-Martínez, J. Alberto 
Conejero, Francesco Fuso Nerini & Ricardo Vinuesa
Nature Climate Change (2023)Cite this article
Published: 29 May 2023  Altmetric

Metricsdetails

Large language models offer an opportunity to advance climate and 
sustainability research. We believe that a focus on regulation and 
validation of generative artificial intelligence models would provide 
more benefits to society than a halt in development.

Opening the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, the United Nations 
(UN) Secretary-General António Guterres delivered a sobering message 
that “we are flirting with climate disaster”, and that “every week 
brings a new climate horror story”. The data justify these statements: 
in 2022, global losses due to natural disasters amounted to US$270 
billion1, and the costs to adapt to current and projected changes are 
already estimated to be around US$300 billion a year by 2030 (ref. 2). 
To limit global warming to 1.5–2 °C above pre-industrial levels as 
decreed by the IPCC and agreed at COP21 in 2015, rapid decarbonization 
must start immediately. Scientists are calling for a narrative shift: it 
is a matter of urgency, and further delay is not a viable option3. There 
is a pressing need to halt greenhouse gas emissions and to invest in 
adaptation plans, and the climate emergency requires three simultaneous 
and fast actions to succeed: to operationalize research, to democratize 
knowledge and to develop holistic policies. These three actions can all 
benefit from the development, deployment and scale up of well-regulated 
artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The recent calls to pause progress 
in AI models that are more powerful than GPT-4 (ref. 4) and actions to 
stop their use5, as well as ongoing policy discussion, stimulate 
reflections about the impacts of these warnings and demand higher 
problematization — especially considering their applications to solve 
grand societal challenges such as climate change.

The research and practice AI community has animated a lively debate 
around the moratorium request that was published in March 2023 to pause 
the training of very large AI systems4. Although we share some of the 
concerns that the signatories rightfully flag, we feel that the letter’s 
proposed solution to pause progress can be misunderstood to imply a 
broader halt on AI development by the policy community. Furthermore, the 
letter does not open a holistic debate about implications of this 
temporary halt for other scientific communities. We believe that the 
risk is that some countries, not aware of the full picture of this 
debate, may halt developments in AI altogether. As a result, research on 
key areas could be slowed down by a moratorium that limits a tool that 
has become essential to advance knowledge on complex problems with 
hidden interactions, such as climate change.

*AI can operationalize, democratize and develop*
The science is clear: the impacts of global warming, rainfall changes, 
sea-level rise and extreme events will cascade across all sectors of 
society2. Biodiversity loss leads to direct human health impacts, as 
ecosystem services are altered in their functions and provisions6. 
Reduced ecosystem functionalities also affect the income and livelihoods 
of people around the world6. The inability to adapt to new climate 
conditions has serious societal implications in terms of mortality, 
labour supply, energy demand and economic productivity7, exacerbating 
tensions and conflicts8 and forcing millions into migration9. The 
failure to mitigate climate change with credible and timely policies 
triggers geopolitical tensions as energy security becomes a primary 
concern in a fossil-fuel-dependent world.

AI has become a powerful resource for the 17 Sustainable Development 
Goals (SDGs) of the UN10. In particular, the use of natural language 
processing (NLP) to tackle climate change research is promising11. For 
example, big-data analysis of the literature complements the IPCC 
assessment reports. It provides a cost-efficient method to update 
priorities in climate-change adaptation12 and to increase understanding 
of climate attribution2, leading to more timely identification of the 
inner complexities behind the climate–human interaction.

Beyond assessing, NLP can be used for the development of novel, shared 
and collective knowledge thanks to the potentialities of generative 
models. This feature does not come without controversies, however, and 
surely requires regulations. When large language models (LLMs) are 
pretrained on sentences and portions of texts produced by humans, they 
may generate conceptually new insights by combining single texts. Two 
important aspects of the AI models that are more powerful than GPT-4, 
which would be affected by the research halt, are the ‘context window’ 
and vision. The former enables analysis of much longer documents, 
facilitating the establishment of complex connections among different 
written sources. The latter allows analysis of images, which are 
essential in the type of documents that could be analysed using NLP. The 
AI systems targeted by the proposed moratorium are therefore precisely 
those that promise the best opportunity to find new solutions to 
research-related climate challenges. The produced outputs can be studied 
and complemented with two features that AI lacks: experience and 
factuality. This means that, rather than becoming “nonhuman minds that 
might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us”4, the AI 
models can offer support to human reasoning and human-informed judgements.

Moreover, NLP and LLMs also have the potential to support policy design. 
As inequality in both knowledge production and access is one of the 
biggest societal challenges of this era13, the development and 
deployment of AI tools contributes to democratizing information by 
collecting insights from non-obvious or unstructured data sources, such 
as policy reports, working documents and grey literature. As agents with 
bounded rationality, humans have a limited or partial understanding of 
the world. More importantly, humans lack access to the full set of 
possible alternatives and related consequences. This is particularly 
relevant as climate policies and strategies produce both spillovers and 
tradeoffs, leaving decision-makers exposed to unintended consequences. 
AI can support a more holistic understanding of the landscape in which 
decisions are taken10. First, NLP enables the identification of 
conflicting priorities that threaten the achievement of the SDGs14,15. 
Second, NLP methods contribute to assessing the alignment between 
nationally determined contributions and other sustainability goals16.

*Towards empowering regulation to master AI*
The above-mentioned promising avenues do not come without challenges. 
First, LLM training has both environmental and monetary costs. Estimates 
of the AI contribution to greenhouse gas emissions are controversial and 
recent assessments suggest that while helping the environment, AI also 
harms it: training GPT-3 (trained on 175 billion parameters) corresponds 
to 188 times the carbon emissions of a one-way air trip from New York to 
San Francisco17. At the same time, AI models help optimize energy 
consumption and increase efficiency in high-emitting sectors, leaving 
the accounting of net gains and damages an open question. Moreover, AI 
applications are widespread in several sectors, including those with 
limited, absent or opposite environmental benefits17. As the 
international community questions the use of these models, it is worth 
defining how AI can contribute to the public good.

Second, despite being misleadingly compared to human capabilities, 
generative AI and LLMs are not equivalent. As they do not have 
human-comparable experiences, these models ingest inputs as they 
encounter them, exposing users to potentially harmful or incorrect 
content. In the climate domain, these concerns are important — as 
climate misinformation threatens action and grows at an alarming rate18. 
Although the concerns around biases, mistakes and misinformation should 
not be overlooked, the refinement and continuous research, development 
and deployment of these resources contribute to the inclusion of new and 
diverse users and avoid relegating climate knowledge to an elite circle 
of (mostly) western-educated scientists. NLP and LLMs should not pose 
questions about what is ‘good’ or ‘fair’, which are highly subjective 
and embedded in local cultures. Instead, the focus should be on how AI 
enables or hampers power shifts19. In the climate domain, this is a 
crucial question and can guide the provision of climate finance, the 
discussions around loss and damage, and the negotiations on carbon 
pricing and carbon taxes. To answer the question of whether these models 
are spreading conceptual views that reflect the values and practices of 
certain groups and areas of the world, we need to validate, and not 
halt, these claims as in any trial-and-error scientific process.

Such improvements require engagement. Calls to regulate, rather than 
halt, AI technologies and their use have already resonated within and 
beyond the academic community20. Existing and legitimate concerns should 
not be turned into fears. Instead, they should be acknowledged and 
addressed — knowing the biases and limitations of the models will 
unleash the opportunities that come with them. The advocated six-month 
pause is not long enough to fully grasp how AI tools operate, but it 
could shed light on the risks and opportunities of AI. For instance, a 
key request that we support is that AI models should not be ‘black 
boxes’ but instead be open, transparent and verifiable. This is a 
prerequisite in order for AI to be trusted and to be improved by the 
research community. As in other historical, controversial cases (such as 
genetic technology, which also caused division), the international 
community is being called upon to participate in the debate on AI and 
climate change; climate research offers a great case study of how AI can 
be used to support societal progress. Advancements in LLMs and NLP can 
accelerate and scale up ‘urgent’ and ‘near-term integrated’ climate 
actions2. It is important to decide on the appropriate rules and 
procedures to regulate AI technologies. We call for a broader, 
science-based and holistic debate: a pause will just postpone it, and 
the root causes of the justified concerns won’t be addressed.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01686-5



/[ Arnold wants attention, but may be missing the point ]/
*Arnold Schwarzenegger: ‘No one gives a s--- about’ climate change — 
this is what it should be called instead*
MAY 30

    KEY POINTS
    -- “As long as they keep talking about global climate change, they
    are not gonna go anywhere. ‘Cause no one gives a s--- about that,”
    Arnold Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CBS’ “Sunday Morning.”
    -- “We’re talking about pollution. Pollution creates climate change,
    and pollution kills,” he said.
    -- While global investment in clean tech is increasing, so too are
    greenhouse gas emissions. And while concern among Democrats is
    rising, only 23% of Republicans say climate change is a major threat
    to the country’s well-being, according to the Pew Research Center.

Arnold Schwarzenegger says the global effort to mitigate the effects of 
climate change is being crippled by its fundamental communication problem.

“As long as they keep talking about global climate change, they are not 
gonna go anywhere. ‘Cause no one gives a s--- about that,” 
Schwarzenegger told CBS’ “Sunday Morning” correspondent Tracy Smith in a 
profile that aired Sunday.

“So my thing is, let’s go and rephrase this and communicate differently 
about it and really tell people — we’re talking about pollution. 
Pollution creates climate change, and pollution kills,” Schwarzenegger said.

The 75-year-old bodybuilder, actor, and former governor of California 
has become a public voice about climate change through his role as the 
host of the Austrian World Summit, a global climate change conference.

“I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” 
Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a 
healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.”

Anthropogenic global warming is caused by an increase of greenhouse 
gases, including carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is 
released when fossil fuels such as coal and oil are burned...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html 




/[The news archive - looking back disinformation battles]/
/*June 1, 2004 */
June 1, 2004: The Boston Phoenix's Dan Kennedy calls out the Boston 
Globe for running an op-ed by Jim Taylor of the Heartland Institute 
attacking the film "The Day After Tomorrow" without disclosing that the 
Heartland Institute is a front group for the fossil-fuel industry.

    *Boston Phoenix • Media Log Archives*
    Dan Kennedy's blog on media and politics • published by the Boston
    Phoenix from 2002 to 2005
    TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2004
    AND NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY. The Boston Globe recently announced
    that it will begin accepting ads on the op-ed page. A column today
    that attempts to debunk concerns about global warming, by one James
    M. Taylor, would appear to fall into that category. Unfortunately,
    the Globe presents it not as a paid ad but, rather, as an earnest
    opinion piece by someone who is identified only by the
    respectable-sounding title of "managing editor of Environment &
    Climate News."

    More about that in a moment. First, though, a few words about
    Taylor's wacky column, written ostensibly to make fun of the movie
    The Day After Tomorrow, a global-warming nightmare thriller. At
    first I figured Taylor would simply point out that the various
    global-warming scenarios are more complicated and less spectacular
    than Hollywood would have it. Within a few paragraphs, though,
    Taylor was espousing the most extreme views held by industry and its
    right-wing supporters. To wit: that if there is any global warming
    taking place at all, it is slight, and in any case will take place
    at night, while you're sleeping; and that the concomitant rise in
    carbon-dioxide levels is good for you. Taylor writes:

    Most recent and unbiased scientific research indicates that
    temperature change caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse
    gases will be moderate, perhaps 1 degree Celsius in the next
    century; most of the warming will occur at night and during the
    winter; and higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide
    (which plant life needs to thrive and survive) will lead to a
    greening of the planet that will enhance global food production.

    Now, in fact, the case for human-caused global warming is a bit more
    complicated than environmentalists would have you believe, which I
    discovered when I dipped my toe into this turbulent water nearly
    three years ago. But the overwhelming consensus of scientific
    opinion is definitely not on Taylor's side. The simple-minded
    virulence of Taylor's screed should have set off alarm bells when it
    arrived at the Globe. It certainly set off Media Log's alarms. And
    it took me no more than a few minutes on Google to learn that
    Taylor's piece never should have seen the light of day - except in
    one of those new op-ads.

    Environment & Climate News, as it turns out, is a publication of the
    Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a right-wing organization founded
    in 1984 that is "devoted to turning ideas into social movements that
    empower people." How nice. Scroll down its home page, and you will
    see that it promotes relatively benign, conservative-oriented causes
    such as school choice - and some truly out-there ideas, such as the
    notion that genetically modified crops are necessary to preserve
    water resources, that new air-pollution standards "will do
    significant economic harm but little environmental good," that the
    government should do nothing about the obesity epidemic, and that
    second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless.

    It gets better. According to Disinfopedia.com, the Heartland
    Institute's directors include current and retired officials of
    ExxonMobil, Amaco, General Motors, and Philip Morris. Its funding
    comes from ExxonMobil and a number of right-wing foundations,
    including the notorious John M. Olin Foundation and the Scaife
    Foundations. (As in Richard Melon Scaife, who reportedly once told a
    journalist attempting to ask him a question, "You fucking communist
    cunt, get out of here.") In addition, Heartland co-founder David
    Padden is a right-wing activist long involved in such organizations
    as the Cato Institute and the Center for Libertarian Studies.

    According to Bill Berkowitz, writing for WorkingForChange.com, "The
    Heartland Institute ... is one of the foremost right-wing purveyors
    of the carbon dioxide is good for you theory."

    Op-ed pages are where newspapers publish opinion pieces, and by
    their very nature the authors of those pieces are not expected to be
    as disinterested as, say, reporters who cover political campaigns,
    homicides, or the stock market. On the other hand, neither are op-ed
    editors supposed to publish discredited propaganda that's been
    bought and paid for by corporate and right-wing interests,
    especially when those interests are not disclosed.

    The Globe has been apologizing a lot lately, even when it shouldn't
    have. Well, Taylor's ridiculous piece is something that's definitely
    worth an apology.

Meanwhile, the Globe's advertising salespeople must be wondering how 
they'll ever manage to sell an op-ad when the editorial side is giving 
them away.

http://medialogarchives.blogspot.com/2004/06/and-now-rest-of-story.asp


=======================================
*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/20230601/51d8c3ce/attachment.htm>