[✔️] May 12, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Internal displacements, US climate troubles, Zombie, Dementia, Thermometers invented 1850. fossil-fueled dementia

[Richard Pauli]

/*May*//*12, 2023*/

/[ Internal displacement -- refugees that don't cross a border --  
Homeland Security News Wire ]/
*All-Time Record: 71 Million People Internally Displaced Worldwide*
Published 11 May 2023Share |
The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) around the world 
reached 71.1 million as of the end of 2022, an increase of 20 per cent 
from the previous year. Internal displacement is a global phenomenon, 
but nearly three-quarters of the world’s IDPs live in just 10 countries.

The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) around the world 
reached 71.1 million as of the end of 2022, an increase of 20 per cent 
from the previous year, according to the Internal Displacement 
Monitoring Centre’s annual report.

The number of movements in which people fled in search of safety and 
shelter, sometimes more than once, was also unprecedented in 2022. The 
figure of 60.9 million was up 60 percent from the previous year. The 
conflict in Ukraine triggered nearly 17 million displacements as people 
fled repeatedly from rapidly shifting frontlines, and monsoon floods in 
Pakistan triggered 8.2 million, accounting for a quarter of the year’s 
global disaster displacement.

“Today’s displacement crises are growing in scale, complexity and scope, 
and factors like food insecurity, climate change and escalating and 
protracted conflicts are adding new layers to this phenomenon,” said 
IDMC’s director, Alexandra Bilak. “Greater resources and further 
research are essential to help understand and better respond to IDPs’ 
needs”.

Internal displacement is a global phenomenon, but nearly three-quarters 
of the world’s IDPs live in just 10 countries - Syria, Afghanistan, the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ukraine, Colombia, Ethiopia, 
Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan - many as a result of unresolved 
conflicts that continued to trigger significant displacement in 2022.

Conflict and violence triggered 28.3 million internal displacements 
worldwide, a figure three times higher than the annual average over the 
past decade. Beyond Ukraine, nine million or 32 per cent of the global 
total were recorded in sub-Saharan Africa. DRC accounted for around four 
million and Ethiopia just over two million.

The number of disaster displacements rose by nearly 40 percent compared 
to the previous year, reaching 32.6 million, largely the result of the 
effects of La Niña which continued for a third consecutive year. South 
Asia record- ed the highest regional figure, surpassing East Asia and

the Pacific for the first time in a decade. In the Horn of Africa, the 
worst drought in 40 years triggered 2.1 million movements, including 1.1 
million in Somalia alone, while fueling acute food insecurity across the 
region.

The secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, Jan Egeland, 
described the overlapping crises around the world as a “perfect storm”.

“Conflict and disasters combined last year to aggravate people’s 
pre-existing vulnerabilities and inequalities, triggering displacement 
on a scale never seen before,” he said. “The war in Ukraine also fueled 
a global food security crisis that hit the internally displaced hardest. 
This perfect storm has undermined years of progress made in reducing 
global hunger and malnutrition.”

Better data and analysis are still needed to improve understanding of 
the relationship between food security and displacement, but IDMC’s 
report shows that the former is often a consequence of the latter and 
can have lasting impacts on both IDPs and host communities. 
Three-quarters of the countries that face crisis levels of food 
insecurity are also home to IDPs.

Shining light on this connection is key to understanding how IDPs are 
affected by disruptions to food systems, but also how future investments 
in food security will be essential to reaching solutions.

“There is an increasing need for durable solutions to meet the scale of 
the challenges facing displaced people,” Bilak said. “This spans the 
expansion of cash assistance and livelihood programs that improve IDPs’ 
eco- nomic security, through to investments in risk reduction measures 
that strengthen their communities’ resilience.”

https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20230511-alltime-record-71-million-people-internally-displaced-worldwide/
/

/- -/

/[ Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre ]/
*ALL-TIME HIGH OF 71 MILLION PEOPLE INTERNALLY DISPLACED WORLDWIDE*
11 May 2023, Geneva - The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) 
around the world reached 71.1 million as of the end of 2022, an increase 
of 20 per cent from the previous year, according to the Internal 
Displacement Monitoring Centre’s flagship annual report.
https://www.internal-displacement.org/media-centres/all-time-high-of-71-million-people-internally-displaced-worldwide


/
/

/[  Seth Borenstein for Living on Earth -- audio and transcript  - 
hazard is not a disaster ( humans make hazards into a disaster ) ]/
*U.S. Primed for Climate Troubles*
Air Date: Week of May 5, 2023
Because of its unique geography, the United States is particularly 
vulnerable to nearly every kind of weather-related disaster: tornadoes, 
hurricanes, wildfires, and more. And as Associated Press science writer 
Seth Borenstein explains to Living on Earth’s Aynsley O’Neill, these 
natural disasters are getting an unnatural boost with climate change.

    *Transcript*
    BASCOMB: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Bobby Bascomb.

    DOERING: And I’m Jenni Doering

    As we talked about before the break, a shift towards an El Nino
    weather pattern and record high ocean temperatures are troubling
    developments for much of the world, especially the United States.
    Thanks to our unique geography, the US is particularly vulnerable to
    nearly every kind of natural disaster. We have more tornadoes each
    year than any other country in the world. We are also prone to
    hurricanes, wildfires, and blizzards. These natural disasters are
    getting an unnatural boost with climate change and the US can expect
    to be ground zero for more destruction in the coming decades. For
    details we called up Seth Borenstein. He’s a science writer with the
    climate and environment team at the Associated Press. He spoke with
    Living on Earth’s Aynsley O’Neill.

    O'NEILL: So what geographical features make the United States so
    uniquely susceptible to extreme weather?

    BORENSTEIN: Well, you've got two oceans, the Atlantic and the
    Pacific. And then you have the Gulf of Mexico, which is a third
    coast. And then you have the Rocky Mountains right through the
    middle of the United States going north south. The United States is
    also in the mid latitudes, where you get the difference between the
    cold in the polar regions, and the hot in the tropics. And then you
    also have the Jetstream, which comes whizzing through. And it's
    along that Jetstream that's the instability. On one side of the
    Jetstream you have cold, and the other side, you have hot. I mean,
    you just look at the United States, it's almost like there's two
    weather patterns, one country. West is dry and getting drier and the
    East is wet and getting wetter. So all of those sort of combine in
    different ways to cause various weather extremes. I mean, tornadoes,
    hurricanes, wildfires, blizzards. You get nearly every possible one
    in the United States. And in many of them like tornadoes, you get it
    far more than anywhere else.

    O'NEILL: So lots of other countries will certainly have coastlines
    and huge mountain ranges, you know, the Himalayas or the Andes. And
    well, in places like Australia, they're just completely surrounded
    by water. So how do the weather hazards of these other countries
    compare to those of the United States?

    BORENSTEIN: Well, Australia does have some of those issues. But if
    you think about it, much of these changes also brew in the center.
    If you have hazards in the Australian Outback, it doesn't affect
    many people, because there are a few people. The other thing is
    Australia, it's not quite in the same place where you have sort of
    the Jetstream plunging through. China's another good one, I kept
    asking when I talked to scientists in terms of comparisons. But what
    China has is just the one major coast, and it doesn't get the mixing
    or clashing of air that the US gets. I mean, it's not to say that
    there aren't natural hazards anywhere else. It's just we get a wide
    variety.

    O'NEILL: Well, geography handed us a combination of dangerous
    ingredients. But our choices are also playing a role here. How are
    we exacerbating the situation?

    BORENSTEIN: The key here is these are not disasters in themselves.
    Meteorologists and disaster experts emphasize that all these weather
    extremes are hazards, but they're not disasters. What makes them
    disasters is the human factor. If you have a tornado ripping through
    the Kansas wheat fields, and there's no one there and no buildings,
    it's not really a big deal. It's not a disaster. It is just nature.
    But it's when there's people and buildings in the way that it
    becomes a disaster. And we are putting people in places that are a
    little more dangerous. Think of all the construction along the US
    Eastern and Gulf Coast, which are hurricane prone. People build on
    areas where they have had total losses. And then they get hurricane
    insurance, federally funded usually. And then they build again in
    the same place. And some of the scientists said, you know, we don't
    do building codes as well as we should. For example, in hurricane
    areas, you can buy hurricane clips, which are like $20 or so, $10 to
    $20. These are these metal clips you put on your roof beams to help
    attach and keep your roof during a hurricane. And many places don't
    require that. It's such a cheap thing. In Tornado Alley, some places
    cannot build basements, but basements are crucial, or some kind of
    tornado shelter. A little bit under 50% of deaths they find in
    tornadoes, are in mobile homes or manufactured houses. If you're
    going to have mobile homes, maybe mobile home parks should all come
    with tornado shelters for people to go to. I mean, nature has dealt
    us a really lousy hand in terms of geography, but then we have made
    it so much worse.

    O'NEILL: Well, the science tells us that climate change will be
    making storms worse, there'll be making them more common, more
    intense, but how exactly will they start changing in the case of
    something like a tornado or a hurricane?

    BORENSTEIN: So first, tornadoes, it's more of an issue of movement.
    So in the Great Plains, sort of considered Tornado Alley, computer
    models show tornadoes decreasing in frequency there but dramatically
    increasing eastward like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,
    Kentucky. And scientists have seen these trends starting to happen
    already. And eastward means more people, more poverty, more density,
    more trees. So you don't see the tornadoes coming. Like in Kansas or
    Oklahoma, you see them coming from miles away on, along the prairie.
    You know, if it's coming through Little Rock, there are trees in the
    way, you don't see a storm. And the scientists have found when
    there's tornado warnings, one of the first things people do is they
    go outside to take a look to see, ooh, is it dangerous looking. And
    then, and then if it looks dangerous, then they will go in the
    basement and take shelter. So if you can't see it because of trees
    and buildings, or if it's nighttime, and in the mid south, we're
    getting more tornadoes later at night, it's more dangerous. Then
    with hurricanes, most scientists are now saying more of the stronger
    hurricanes, and definitely wetter hurricanes. So wetter, slower,
    makes them more damaging. So it's not quite as easy as things being
    worse. It's just how they're getting worse.

    O'NEILL: Sometimes it feels like those of us who live in the United
    States are experiencing these extreme weather events, if you'll
    allow me to use hyperbole, every five minutes. What kind of toll do
    you think that has on the American people or the American psyche?

    BORENSTEIN: I think there's all sorts of possible tolls. But for a
    while, you say oh my god, this is happening every five minutes. And
    then after a while, oh, it's just another tornado killing just
    another 10, 15 people. There's a history in the US public of being
    shocked that stuff that happens, and then accepting lots of deaths
    as normal. School shootings. COVID. You know, it's shocking, it's
    shocking, and then suddenly, it's part of our daily lives. And in
    many ways, you know, if you think about it, weather disasters have
    become like that.

    O'NEILL: Well, what kind of progress if any, have we made in
    preparing for these disasters?

    BORENSTEIN: There are still some good news. For example, lightning
    deaths the last few years have been at record lows. It's, you know,
    10, 12 deaths a year. And in the 50s, and 40s, there were hundreds
    of deaths a year. And that's because of warning and education. And
    you know, everyone now knows if there's lightning, get off the golf
    course, get out of the water. One, people weren't educated in that
    before. And two, the warnings are so much better. So we're getting
    so much better about weather forecasts and warnings. The trouble is,
    there's a disconnect between the warnings out there and how people
    receive it, and what they do. And also, you know, at some point,
    there's only so much you can do.

    DOERING: Seth Borenstein is a science writer with the Climate and
    Environment Team at the Associated Press. He spoke with Living on
    Earth’s Aynsley O’Neill.

https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=23-P13-00018&segmentID=2&mc_cid=fb4e072dce&mc_eid=c0e3fd9032

/
/

//

/[ fears as from a grade B movie -- possible but implausible - requires 
optimism ]/
*Can Climate Change spark "The Last of Us" Zombie Pandemic? feat 
@MarenHunsberger*
ClimateAdam
May 11, 2023  #ClimateChange #zombiesurvival #thelastofus
The Last of Us tells the story of a fungal zombie apocalypse... 
triggered by climate change. So could this kind of pandemic actually 
happen? Could global warming see Pedro Pascal running for his life from 
the undead? And what are the other disease threats that climate change 
could trigger? From malaria, to new pandemics, to zombie viruses - the 
truth is worth a hard-hitting TV series of its own....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZAncRzEkQ



/[ standardized thermometer invented in //1850 //]/
*This iconic graph tracks how rapidly our planet is warming*. Yet every 
time it's shared on Twitter, someone always asks, "Why does it begin in 
1850?"
The answer is simple: it's when we first had enough thermometers to 
compute a truly representative global temperature average.
https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1656809512756715520



/[The news archive - a famous opinion about fossil-fueled dementia ]/
/*May 12, 2014*/
May 12, 2014:
• New York Times columnist Paul Krugman condemns the fossil-fueled 
dementia of the political right on climate, while Washington Post 
columnist Robert Samuelson sounds a note of extreme pessimism regarding 
our ability to address the climate crisis.

    Opinion
    *Crazy Climate Economics*
    Paul Krugman
    By Paul Krugman
    May 11, 2014
    Everywhere you look these days, you see Marxism on the rise. Well,
    O.K., maybe you don’t — but conservatives do. If you so much as
    mention income inequality, you’ll be denounced as the second coming
    of Joseph Stalin; Rick Santorum has declared that any use of the
    word “class” is “Marxism talk.” In the right’s eyes, sinister
    motives lurk everywhere — for example, George Will says the only
    reason progressives favor trains is their goal of “diminishing
    Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to
    collectivism.”

    So it goes without saying that Obamacare, based on ideas originally
    developed at the Heritage Foundation, is a Marxist scheme — why,
    requiring that people purchase insurance is practically the same as
    sending them to gulags.

    And just wait until the Environmental Protection Agency announces
    rules intended to slow the pace of climate change.

    Until now, the right’s climate craziness has mainly been focused on
    attacking the science. And it has been quite a spectacle: At this
    point almost all card-carrying conservatives endorse the view that
    climate change is a gigantic hoax, that thousands of research papers
    showing a warming planet — 97 percent of the literature — are the
    product of a vast international conspiracy. But as the Obama
    administration moves toward actually doing something based on that
    science, crazy climate economics will come into its own.

    You can already get a taste of what’s coming in the dissenting
    opinions from a recent Supreme Court ruling on power-plant
    pollution. A majority of the justices agreed that the E.P.A. has the
    right to regulate smog from coal-fired power plants, which drifts
    across state lines. But Justice Scalia didn’t just dissent; he
    suggested that the E.P.A.’s proposed rule — which would tie the size
    of required smog reductions to cost — reflected the Marxist concept
    of “from each according to his ability.” Taking cost into
    consideration is Marxist? Who knew?

    And you can just imagine what will happen when the E.P.A., buoyed by
    the smog ruling, moves on to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

    What do I mean by crazy climate economics?

    First, we’ll see any effort to limit pollution denounced as a
    tyrannical act. Pollution wasn’t always a deeply partisan issue:
    Economists in the George W. Bush administration wrote paeans to
    “market based” pollution controls, and in 2008 John McCain made
    proposals for cap-and-trade limits on greenhouse gases part of his
    presidential campaign. But when House Democrats actually passed a
    cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it was attacked as, you guessed it,
    Marxist. And these days Republicans come out in force to oppose even
    the most obviously needed regulations, like the plan to reduce the
    pollution that’s killing Chesapeake Bay.

    Second, we’ll see claims that any effort to limit emissions will
    have what Senator Marco Rubio is already calling “a devastating
    impact on our economy.”

    Why is this crazy? Normally, conservatives extol the magic of
    markets and the adaptability of the private sector, which is
    supposedly able to transcend with ease any constraints posed by,
    say, limited supplies of natural resources. But as soon as anyone
    proposes adding a few limits to reflect environmental issues — such
    as a cap on carbon emissions — those all-capable corporations
    supposedly lose any ability to cope with change.

    Now, the rules the E.P.A. is likely to impose won’t give the private
    sector as much flexibility as it would have had in dealing with an
    economywide carbon cap or emissions tax. But Republicans have only
    themselves to blame: Their scorched-earth opposition to any kind of
    climate policy has left executive action by the White House as the
    only route forward.

    Furthermore, it turns out that focusing climate policy on coal-fired
    power plants isn’t bad as a first step. Such plants aren’t the only
    source of greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re a large part of the
    problem — and the best estimates we have of the path forward suggest
    that reducing power-plant emissions will be a large part of any
    solution.

    What about the argument that unilateral U.S. action won’t work,
    because China is the real problem? It’s true that we’re no longer
    No. 1 in greenhouse gases — but we’re still a strong No. 2.
    Furthermore, U.S. action on climate is a necessary first step toward
    a broader international agreement, which will surely include
    sanctions on countries that don’t participate.

    So the coming firestorm over new power-plant regulations won’t be a
    genuine debate — just as there isn’t a genuine debate about climate
    science. Instead, the airwaves will be filled with conspiracy
    theories and wild claims about costs, all of which should be
    ignored. Climate policy may finally be getting somewhere; let’s not
    let crazy climate economics get in the way.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/krugman-crazy-climate-economics.html?smid=tw-share&smv2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-on-climate-change-we-have-no-solution/2014/05/11/24d767c6-d77d-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html


=======================================
*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/

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ 

/ to explore the archive 
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/20230512/c7119d75/attachment.htm>