[✔️] October 4, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Emotions of 1.5, Obstreperous youth, Russia and climate justice, coastal dangers, $-ESG, Calif sues oil companies, 2009 India
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Wed Oct 4 08:12:09 EDT 2023
/*October 4*//*, 2023*/
/[ be not crippled by examining emotions ]/
*Many scientists don’t want to tell the truth about climate change.
Here’s why*
October 03, 2023
Barbara Moran
- -
The real question, he said, is whether we overshoot 1.5 C by a little
bit and come back down, “Or whether we go blasting through one and a
half degrees, go through even two degrees and keep on going.”
Why is overshooting 1.5 C inevitable? Physics. There’s a nearly linear
relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and
the average global temperature. More CO2 in the sky means a warmer
world. It’s like pouring water into a bucket — keep pouring it in,
eventually the bucket overflows.
Our carbon bucket will overflow in about nine years; by the
early-to-mid-2030s, we’ll be living in a post-1.5 C world. Unless we
quickly cut carbon emissions to zero. Last I checked, that’s not
happening...
- -
I think that 1.5 C has moved from “ambitious goal” to “magical
thinking.” And the scientists are telling themselves a story to stave
off despair.
- -
After this report came out, something weird happened. Unlike the blunt
Dr. Thorne, most climate scientists (and journalists) didn’t change how
they publicly spoke about 1.5 C. Admitting defeat could risk
“demotivation” said Pascal Lamy, the commissioner of the Climate
Overshoot Commission. Scientists kept saying things like: “We need to
act now to stay below 1.5” or “it’s getting harder, but still
technically possible.”
Technically possible? Like, if aliens appear with magic tools that fix
climate change?...
- -
I do it, too. The other day I was telling my 13-year-old son about the
near-certain death of most of the world's coral reefs when his eyes
welled with tears. So, I stopped. I told him that the coral reefs will
be OK — even though I know that’s not true. And I know lying is the
wrong thing to do.
The facts of the climate crisis are truly terrifying. The reality of
what we’re facing keeps me up at night. But I don’t think staving off
the very warranted despair is helping anybody. So, I’m here to tell
climate scientists — and my fellow climate journalists — to knock it off.
I think climate scientists (and journalists) are underestimating people.
If you treat people like children who can’t handle the truth, they will
behave like children. Like teenagers, actually, wasting time like it’s
in endless supply. Yes, there are plenty of people who prefer denial.
But I bet just as many want the truth, painful as it is. We deserve a
shot at rising to the occasion.
Climate experts talk a lot about “cathedral thinking.” It’s the idea of
working towards long term goals — like a medieval cathedral. These goals
require vision, shared commitment, and decades, even centuries, of
planning. The planners and builders don’t live to see the end product,
but future generations reap the rewards.
It’s an inspiring idea. Something maybe only humans could divine. But
here’s the thing: cathedral thinking also requires a firm grasp of
facts. A cathedral built on fantasy won’t stand for long.
If my son and his friends think the coral reefs will be OK, the reefs
are doomed. If he knows the truth, maybe he’ll become a biologist who
tries to save them. When people know what they’re up against, many will
be sad — I’m sad! — but then they can prepare.
That’s the only way we’ll make it.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2023/10/03/1-5-degrees-celcius-un-climate-change-report-barbara-moran
/[ targeting obstreperous youth ]/
*Montana is appealing a major climate change ruling that favored youth
activists*
Politics Oct 2, 2023
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The office of Montana’s Republican attorney general
is appealing a landmark climate change ruling that said state agencies
aren’t doing enough to protect 16 young plaintiffs from harm caused by
global warming.
The state filed notice on Friday that it is going to appeal the August
ruling by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, who found the Montana
Environmental Policy Act violates the plaintiffs’ state constitutional
right to a clean and healthful environment. The 1971 law requires state
agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of proposed
projects and take public input before issuing permits.
Under a change to MEPA passed by the 2023 Legislature, the state
Department of Environmental Quality does not have to consider the effect
of greenhouses gases when issuing permits for fossil fuel projects
unless the federal government declares carbon dioxide a regulated pollutant.
The plaintiffs argued they were already feeling the consequences of
climate change, with smoke from worsening wildfires choking the air they
breathe and drought drying rivers that sustain agriculture, fish,
wildlife and recreation. The state argued that the volume of greenhouse
gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant
compared to the world’s emissions.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/montana-is-appealing-a-major-climate-change-ruling-that-favored-youth-activists
/[From the Moscow Times ]/
*In Historic First, Russian Activists Appeal to European Rights Court
for Climate Justice
*Russia’s first-ever climate litigation case is currently moving through
the European Court of Human Rights as activists make a last-ditch
attempt to challenge the president and the government for failing to
meet global climate goals.
The case, brought by Russia’s oldest independent human rights
organization the Moscow Helsinki Group, along with the environmental
group Ecodefense and 18 individuals, signals how wide-reaching the trend
of climate litigation has become, even in countries with dysfunctional
judicial systems.
On Sept. 16, 2022, Russia's Supreme Court received an unexpected appeal:
20 plaintiffs turned to the highest judicial institution in the country
to challenge the actions of President Vladimir Putin and the government
concerning climate policy.
In a groundbreaking move in a country where climate change sits at the
margins of public discourse, the Moscow Helsinki Group, Ecodefense and
18 individuals initiated the first-ever climate litigation case in
Russian history.
Contesting Putin’s decree on greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030
and the government's low-carbon strategy by 2050, the plaintiffs argue
that Russia, the world’s fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter, was
aware of the risks posed by climate change for decades — yet failed to
adequately respond.
Meanwhile, the planet’s heating is already acutely affecting Russia,
bringing more intense heat waves and wildfires, extreme weather, the
spread of infectious diseases and the thawing of permafrost, among other
consequences.
The plaintiffs said Russia’s government was violating citizens’
constitutional rights and putting an “indeterminate number” of lives at
risk, and called for stronger emissions-reduction measures in line with
the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to keep warming within 1.5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
When the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit in a matter of days,
refusing even to consider its merits, the plaintiffs were not surprised,
having had little hope in the Russian justice system from the very
beginning.
"Russian courts do not have the independence needed … to take on such
cases,” Russian human rights lawyer Grigory Vaypan told The Moscow
Times. “It's a politically sensitive case for the court because it
entertains the possibility of making a decision against the president
and the government.”
“Considering that the foundation of the Russian economy is fossil fuels,
it takes a lot of courage if you are a Russian judge to tackle such a
case,” he said. “We did not see such courage.”
In response to the Russian court's dismissive handling of the climate
case, the group went to its Plan B: lodging the same lawsuit with the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in September 2023.
Although Russia terminated its involvement with the European Convention
on Human Rights in September 2022, the case remains admissible to the
Strasbourg-based court as it was filed domestically before the
termination date. Additionally, it pertains to potential violations with
negative effects that continue to the present.
"We see a very straightforward approach embedded in any strategy adopted
by the Russian government. It aims at maintaining business as usual,
which means increasing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, no
matter what,” Ecodefense co-chairman Vladimir Slivyak told The Moscow
Times. “This directly contradicts the very essence of combating climate
change and preventing its catastrophic consequences."...
- -
The lawsuit also stands out because several plaintiffs faced repressions
from the Russian government after taking legal action domestically.
Climate and political activist Arshak Makichyan was stripped of his
Russian citizenship last year, while the Moscow Helsinki Group was
dissolved in January — complicating its efforts to be an applicant to
the ECHR.
"We are filing a complaint with the ECHR not only regarding the main
[climate] issue but also regarding the state's violation of our
plaintiffs' right to file a complaint with the ECHR [by shutting them
down],” Vaypan said. “Russia differs from other countries where climate
litigation is underway in that instead of addressing climate change, it
persecutes those attempting to draw attention to this problem."
Pavel Sulyandziga, a representative of the indigenous Udege nation and
president of the Batani International Indigenous Fund for Development
and Solidarity, left Russia seven years ago due to criminal cases
related to his human rights activism. He felt compelled to join the
lawsuit nonetheless, recognizing that climate change disproportionately
impacts indigenous communities.
On the frontlines of global warming in the Russian Arctic, indigenous
peoples are already witnessing changes in their surrounding environment.
These include sharp temperature fluctuations affecting their ability to
safely travel across frozen waterways, or winter rains which cover snow
with ice and make it impossible for reindeer to graze.
“In Yakutia and on the Taimyr Peninsula, representatives of the
indigenous community have faced the disappearance of lakes where they
used to fish," Sulyandziga told The Moscow Times. “Hunters and reindeer
herders suspect that the glaciers at the bottom of the lakes have
melted, causing the water to simply vanish."
He also noted the emergence of previously unseen small trees in the
Russian tundra, which is altering the migration patterns and traditional
orientation of indigenous peoples.
All these changes have profound impacts on the traditional way of life
for these communities, but the Russian government “hardly thinks about
this issue,” Sulyandziga concluded.
However, Economic Development Minister Maxim Reshetnikov said in
September that the country plans to update its 2030 greenhouse emissions
reduction goal next year. He added that climate change is “one of the
long-term global challenges” on which the Russian president, government
and relevant agencies are focusing.
"Despite the sanctions, we maintain the pace of work on this [climate]
track. It's a cross-cutting priority that affects investment growth,
enhances corporate cooperation and drives innovation," Reshetnikov said.
With actual progress on Russia’s climate targets yet to be seen, the
plaintiffs are not content with officials’ promises. And amid escalating
pressure on environmental activism in recent years, the ECHR could be
the activists’ last resort to make Russia’s leadership take the climate
crisis seriously — lest they are forced to wait for a future government.
"We don't expect the current Russian authorities to comply with the
ECHR's decisions. But in our view, it's essential not to conflate the
current Russian government with Russia as a state, which is a party to
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement,”
Vaypan said.
“If the European court instructs Russia as a state to ensure a reduction
in emissions, that obligation will persist regardless of the current
Russian authorities' stance."
An expert in the field, who requested anonymity for security reasons and
who was not involved in the lawsuit, noted that assessing the legal
consequences of the lawsuit remains challenging given the present
circumstances.
However, the expert underscored the case's significance in shaping
societal attitudes and values regarding climate change.
“[These values] should become dominant in society,” they said. “Without
them, any legal decisions or business practices in the field lose their
effectiveness.”
The first climate rulings from the ECHR, which is currently considering
several climate cases, could significantly impact global climate debate
and policies. Likewise, the potential ECHR ruling stands to impact
Russia, even though the country is formally removed from the court.
"The point [of the case] is that the future will come,” Slivyak said.
“And I believe that it is the not-so-distant future when Russia will
have to shape a sound climate policy. If there is an ECHR decision at
that time, it could prove very useful.”
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/02/in-historic-first-russian-activists-appeal-to-european-rights-court-for-climate-justice-a82623
/[ Ooops, forgot to flush ]
/*A hidden climate danger threatens coastal communities
*BY TODD WOODY
BLOOMBERG
A little-known climate threat lurks under our feet: rising groundwater
that could release toxic chemicals from more than 132,000 contaminated
sites in coastal areas of the U.S. In a first-of-its-kind study,
researchers estimated the number of polluted industrial sites and mapped
them to areas likely to experience groundwater inundation due to rising
seas.
"A lot of people don't realize that the ocean actually extends under the
land in coastal areas, so as the ocean rises, it pushes up the
groundwater toward the surface,” said Kristina Hill, an associate
professor at the University of California at Berkeley and the lead
author of the paper, which was published in the journal Earth’s Future.
Factories, fuel stations, military bases and other industrial facilities
have left surrounding soil contaminated with carcinogenic chemicals and
heavy metals. Some became Superfund sites — areas whose cleanup is
overseen by the federal government. Far more are managed by individual
states.
When groundwater rises toward the surface, whether from sea level rise
or increasingly intense climate-driven storms, those contaminants can
leach into it and spread to other waterways, potentially poisoning
people and wildlife. Benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE) and other
cancer-causing chemicals known as volatile organic compounds can
vaporize and enter homes, schools and businesses through sewer pipes or
cracks in building foundations.
In 2020, administrators temporarily shuttered a high school in Oakland,
California, after TCE was discovered in groundwater beneath the
building. They feared it would vaporize and contaminate the air inside.
Hill and her colleagues identified 326 Superfund sites vulnerable to
groundwater rise in coastal areas. In the San Francisco Bay Area, they
found more than 5,000 state-managed toxic sites near the coast and
extrapolated that there may be more than 132,000 such sites nationwide.
They used elevation as a proxy for groundwater, determining that
contaminated sites located below 10 meters are at risk from flooding.
California, New York and New Hampshire are most vulnerable due to the
size of Superfund sites and coastal areas in those states, according to
the researchers.
Analyzing demographic data, the researchers found that contaminated
areas subject to groundwater rise are disproportionately located near
communities of low-income residents and people of color.
"I think these communities deserve to be at the front of the line to
have those soils fully remediated,” said Hill, who studies sea level
rise and other climate impacts on urban hydrology.
Jacob Carter is a research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists
who has analyzed potential impacts of sea level rise on toxic sites and
formerly worked on climate-related Superfund issues at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
"I think this is a very significant study,” said Carter, who was not
involved in the research. "If you look at toxic remediation plans, they
generally don't mention sea level rise and other climate change issues
and they’re typically not planning for these things.”
Climate-related groundwater rise can scramble the calculus on cleaning
up toxic sites. Rehabilitating these locations can drag on for years, if
not decades, and the high cost of removing soil has resulted in it being
left in place at many sites, covered by an impermeable clay or concrete
cap meant to contain the contamination.
Now, though, the threat is from below. "Capping seemed like a great
strategy back in the '80s as it was like putting an umbrella over the
chemicals, protecting them from water and from movement,” said Hill.
"But now the water is coming up from below so the umbrella doesn't work.”
One challenge, according to Hill, is that most states have not mapped
coastal groundwater. One state that has is California. In 2022, for
instance, regulators ordered the owner of a Bay Area Superfund site
slated to be redeveloped as a housing project to assess whether it
should change its toxic cleanup plan, given the potential for sea
level-related groundwater rise.
"I don't think too many policymakers are likely aware of the impact of
rising groundwater or other climate change impacts on toxic sites or
maybe even if these sites exist in their area,” said Carter. "These are
some of the most dangerous chemicals known to mankind and we should be
doing everything we can in our power to prevent their release.”
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/environment/2023/10/02/oceans/rising-groundwater-toxic-chemical-release/
- -
/[ Ooops, time to plan ahead ]/
*Rising Coastal Groundwater as a Result of Sea-Level Rise Will Influence
Contaminated Coastal Sites and Underground Infrastructure*
K. Hill, D. Hirschfeld, C. Lindquist, F. Cook, S. Warner
21 September 2023
Abstract
Sea-level rise (SLR) will cause coastal groundwater to rise in many
coastal urban environments. Inundation of contaminated soils by
groundwater rise (GWR) will alter the physical, biological, and
geochemical conditions that influence the fate and transport of
existing contaminants. These transformed products can be more toxic
and/or more mobile under future conditions driven by SLR and GWR. We
reviewed the vulnerability of contaminated sites to GWR in a US
national database and in a case comparison with the San Francisco
Bay region to estimate the risk of rising groundwater to human and
ecosystem health. The results show that 326 sites in the US
Superfund program may be vulnerable to changes in groundwater depth
or flow direction as a result of SLR, representing 18.1 million
hectares of contaminated land. In the San Francisco Bay Area, we
found that GWR is predicted to impact twice as much land area as
inundation from SLR, and 5,282 additional state-managed sites of
contamination may be vulnerable to inundation from GWR in a 1.0 m
SLR scenario. Increases of only a few centimeters of elevation can
mobilize soil contaminants, alter flow directions in a heterogeneous
urban environment with underground pipes and utility trenches, and
result in new exposure pathways. Pumping for flood protection will
elevate the saltwater interface, changing groundwater salinity and
mobilizing metals in soil. Socially vulnerable communities are
disproportionately exposed to this risk at both the national scale
and in a regional comparison with the San Francisco Bay Area.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023EF003825
[ a very adult action ]
*Money managers are shifting their attitude to ESG as ‘realism’ sets in,
says S&P’s Dan Yergin*
PUBLISHED MON, OCT 2 2023
Lee Ying Shan
In the second quarter of this year, investors have pulled $635 million
from U.S. sustainable funds, according to funds research firm Morningstar.
That racks up a total outflow of $11.4 billion from these sustainable
funds in the past year.
The planned transition toward renewables is still in focus for the
energy industry, and technology such as hydropower, solar, biofuels and
many others remain key as the world seeks to move away from a
carbon-intensive system.
But it’s an endeavor that requires not just the right technological
capabilities, but a hefty amount of capital too, said S&P Global’s Vice
Chairman Dan Yergin.
And that means that some fund managers are beginning to dial back on
their ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) pledges, he
told CNBC on the sidelines of the ADIPEC energy conference Monday,
noting that many renewables projects are being slowed down or paused.
“If you’re in a money management business, you do need returns,” said
Yergin.
- -
Global investments in energy transition technologies last year reached
$1.3 trillion. But the International Renewable Energy Agency says that
yearly investments must more than quadruple in order to limit global
temperature rises to the key 1.5 degree Celsius level.
“The IRA [The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act] in terms of scale and money
that is being poured in, there is nothing to compare it to .. Second
thing is, cost of capital goes up — that’s affecting renewables. And
thirdly, if you look at what’s happening in terms of costs of supply
chains ... So there’s technology and there’s a realism of money,” Yergin
added.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/02/companies-want-esg-but-returns-too-says-sps-dan-yergin.html
/[ they knew, California will sue - transcript and video report ]/
*California sues oil companies for exacerbating climate change*
Sep 20, 2023
California claims the five biggest oil and gas companies knew that using
their products led to climate change, but then spent decades misleading
the public. The lawsuit says extreme weather fueled by climate change
has caused billions of dollars in damages in the state and these
companies should pay for some of that damage. California Attorney
General Rob Bonta joins William Brangham to discuss.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/california-sues-oil-companies-for-exacerbating-climate-change
- -
/[ Read the full transcript ]/
*Amna Nawaz:*
California is suing big oil.
It's the latest lawsuit targeting fossil fuel companies over their role
in climate change. And it comes during Climate Week, one of the largest
annual events designed to focus on the problem and in tandem with the
meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.
William Brangham has the details on this case.
*William Brangham:*
California claims the five biggest oil and gas companies,
ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP, as well as the
American Petroleum Institute, knew that using their products led to
climate change, but then spent decades misleading the public.
The lawsuit says extreme weather fueled by climate change has caused
billions of dollars in damages in the state, and these companies
should pay for some of that damage.
Joining us now is California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Attorney General, thank you so much for being here.
You're arguing that these companies knew all along that burning coal
and oil and gas would exacerbate climate change, and there's, as you
cite in your suit, plenty of documentary evidence that they knew
that. And you're arguing that they weren't forthcoming about that
knowledge.
What are you alleging that their silence actually meant?
*Rob Bonta (D), California Attorney General: *They were actually
very active in pushing forward and advancing the deception.
They knew 50, 60, 70 years ago that their fossil fuels that they
were selling created climate change. They predicted with terrifying
certainty where we would be today, with extreme weather events, with
dries getting drier and hots getting hotter and wets getting wetter,.
Their internal memos, their industry-commissioned studies, their
speeches internally to one another all said this. And they were very
active in their deception. What do I mean? They worked with front
groups. They supported and funded front groups with great
climate-supportive names like Global Climate Coalition to undermine
the climate science that they knew was inaccurate, that they knew
the actual truth.
Internally, they acknowledged that they talked about it, and they
pushed out into the public science that would dilute that truth,
that would undermine it, that would cast doubt, so they could profit
to the tune of billions and billions of dollars over many, many
years, just profiting $200 billion last year.
So they also knew about clean energy pathways forward. They knew
about carbon sequestration. They knew about things that could have
put our planet on a better pathway. But they chose to ignore those,
to push those down and push and lift up fossil fuels, all for
profit. So they lied to the people of California.
So we're asking them to put billions of dollars into an abatement
fund to mitigate future environmental damage and to provide for
resiliency and adaptation going forward.
*William Brangham:*
Let's say that they had been more frank about their understanding of
climate change. What would you have wanted those companies back then
to have done differently?
*Rob Bonta:*
Be truthful, very simple. Don't lie, don't deceive, don't hide from
the public clean energy pathways forward, and don't hide from the
public the existential threat that fossil fuels created in terms of
climate change and extreme weather and damage to the environment.
With full knowledge, the people could make choices about their
future, our planet's future, our children's and grandchildren's
future. Perhaps choices would have been different, like doubling
down and investing on clean energy and phasing out of fossil fuel.
Who knows?
But they should not have lied. They should have told the truth. They
affirmatively lied to the people of California time and time again
with their editorials that they produced. Their marketing arm, the
industry association, the American Petroleum Institute was very
involved with this, with the faux science that they put out, all
meant to make people believe something different than what the
actual truth was, that we were on a pathway towards disaster as a
state and, frankly, as a nation and a world.
*William Brangham:*
The American Petroleum Institute put out a statement about your
suit, saying in part — quote — "This ongoing coordinated campaign to
wage meritless politicized lawsuits against a foundational American
industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction. Climate
policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not the court system."
What do you make of that argument, that, in fact, it is incumbent
upon senators, governors, presidents to determine policy, energy
policy, and that going after a private company is inappropriate?
*Rob Bonta:
*
That entire statement by the American Petroleum Institute is
entirely in character with the statements that they have made over
the last number of decades.
That statement is a distraction. That statement is not true. That
statement wants you to focus on other things besides the actual
truth. There will be and there is an entirely separate and
independent pathway for action in this space that is pointed out by
the American Petroleum Institute.
That is something different than what we're doing. It's for Congress
and legislative bodies to make policy about climate change. And they
are. The Biden administration has been a great leader in this space.
But our lane, a separate lane, is the lane of legal accountability
in court.
The state of California is suing big oil in state court for the
damage that they have caused. This is not a policy lawsuit. This is
a straight-up legal cause of action that has remedies in court.
Cases like this have been brought before against the tobacco
industry, against the lead paint industry, against the opioid
industry, when entire industries hurt people time and time again in
great numbers and at great scale and lie about it.
This is not new.
*William Brangham:*
Governor Newsom has said that the damage caused by this deception,
as he puts it, by these oil companies, is incalculable.
So, how do you calculate the role that a given oil company might
have contributed to a drought, a wildfire, a storm in California?
How do you do that?
*Rob Bonta:*
We think it's in the range of tens of billions to hundreds of
billions of dollars in ongoing damage going forward. That's the sort
of big picture estimate.
We will need experts, scientists to look at attribution of different
damage to the different defendants and looking at causation to
determine the specifics. And so that will take time. We will get
more evidence and information through the course of the lawsuit and
make those determinations throughout the course of the lawsuit down
the road.
*William Brangham:*
All right, Attorney General Rob Bonta of the state of California,
thank you so much for being here.
*Rob Bonta:*
Thanks for having me.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/california-sues-oil-companies-for-exacerbating-climate-change
/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*October 4, 2009
*/October 4, 2009: The New York Times reports on India's efforts to
address climate change:
"India’s public stance on climate change is usually predictable —
predictably obstinate and unwilling to compromise, at least
according to many industrialized nations. But at the United Nations,
India’s delegation toned down its usual criticisms of the
industrialized world, presented new plans to reduce India’s
emissions and sought to reposition the country, in the words of the
environment minister, as a 'deal maker,' not a 'deal breaker.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/asia/04climate.html?_r=0
=== Other climate news sources ===========================================
**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 -- and carries no images
or attachments which may originate from remote servers. Text-only
messages 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/20231004/26c50a8d/attachment.htm>
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list