[✔️] October 9, 2023- Global Warming News Digest |Wildfire workers, Al Gore, Hagens taps Tolkein, Dave Roberts super battery, Anora Energy, 1996

[Richard Pauli]

/*October *//*9, 2023*/

/[ Wildfire workers seeking recognition ]/
*Hotshots working under an ‘unsustainable system’*
Author Hunter Bassler
October 8, 2023
The first-ever review of the interagency hotshot crew program found that 
hotshots have been working under an “unsustainable system” and 
recommended 50 changes to improve current labor conditions.

The review, requested by the National Interagency Hotshot Crew Steering 
Committee, began on July 16, 2021, and the report was finalized in August.
“The hotshot program is at a crossroads. In a time where more wildland 
firefighting capacity is needed, applicant lists for hotshot crews are 
less robust and the workforce is diminishing,” the report says. “If 
these challenges are not addressed in a timely manner, the current 
unsustainable system may leave crews unable to provide the leadership, 
expertise, and capabilities required in today’s wildland fire environment.”

The report summed up its recommendations in 12 points, which included:

      * Develop a specific wildland firefighter job series and increase pay
      * Provide a $40,000 minimum annual supply budget to each crew
      * Require a three-day rest and recuperation period
      * Allow crewmembers to attend personal events
      * Modify the hiring process
      * Start an outreach program to increase recruitment
      * Create a 30-day process to fill key vacancies
      * Update and clarify the Standards for Interagency Hotshot Crew
        Operations (SIHCO) so they are no longer misinterpreted by host
        units
      * Create an annual charter and program of work for the hotshot
        crew program to further limit gaps between leadership and the field
      * Update the repair and procurement processes for hotshot vehicles
      * Develop a minimum facility standard for hotshot crew facilities
      * Add housing, modify housing costs and create a consistent
        housing policy
      * The review addressed potential challenges to meeting the
        recommended changes, including lack of investment, systemic
        pushback, and cultural norms. Hotshot crew superintendents also
        said they’d prefer freedom and flexibility to make decisions for
        their own crews.

Without the recommended changes, the committee said agencies may not be 
able to sustain the current number of crews.

“It is important to acknowledge that while the fundamental reasons 
hotshot crews exist have not changed, the environment they operate in 
has,” the report said. “Unprecedented environmental challenges and 
increased social and political expectations contribute to IHCs finding 
themselves in high demand and short supply.”

The committee said similar reviews should be conducted by other program 
managers before the recommendations are broadly applied.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2023/10/08/hotshots-working-under-an-unsustainable-system/



/[  interview with Al Gore /The New Yorker Radio Hour /- - audio ]/
*Al Gore on the Climate Crisis: “We Have a Switch We Can Flip”*
October 6, 2023
By David Remnick
-
Despite months of discouraging news about extreme weather conditions, 
the former vice-president Al Gore still believes that there is a 
solution to the climate crisis clearly in sight. “We have a switch we 
can flip,” he tells David Remnick. The problem, as Gore sees it, is that 
a powerful legacy network of political and financial spheres of 
influence are stubbornly standing in the way. “When ExxonMobil or 
Chevron put their ads on the air, the purpose is not for a husband and 
wife to say, ‘Oh, let’s go down to the store and buy some motor oil.’ 
The purpose is to condition the political space so that they have a 
continued license to keep producing and selling more and more fossil 
fuels,” Gore says. He notes that the upcoming United Nations climate 
conference is presided over by an oil executive. And yet Gore remains 
cautiously optimistic. Plus, the singer and actor Rubén Blades tells The 
New Yorker’s Graciela Mochkofsky about his unlikely journey from law 
school to Latin music icon.
-
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/tnyradiohour/episodes/al-gore-climate-crisis-we-have-switch-we-can-flip

- -

/[ New Yorker transcript text of the interview -- article ]
/*Al Gore Doesn’t Say I Told You So*
The former Vice-President revisits his early advocacy for the 
environment, assesses the impact of Elon Musk, and explains his optimism 
about two existential crises.
By David Remnick
October 6, 2023
-
There was always the possibility that Al Gore, after making the 
hideously painful decision to concede the contested 2000 Presidential 
election to George W. Bush, would have to live out the remainder of his 
life as both a tragic loser and a tragic hero—someone who stood down in 
the name of the orderly transition of power. Gore resisted self-pity by 
projecting mordant good humor. “Hi, I’m Al Gore,” he would tell 
audiences. “I used to be the next President of the United States.” Or, 
in slightly darker moods, he’d say, “You know the old saying: you win 
some, you lose some—and then there’s that little-known third category.”

In the years to come, Gore made targeted criticisms of the Bush 
Administration—particularly of the war in Iraq—and became a kind of 
evangelist on the issue of climate change. His interest in ecological 
issues was evident as early as 1976, when he was elected to Congress as 
a young Democrat from Tennessee; in 1992, he published “Earth in the 
Balance,” which called for a “Global Marshall Plan” to protect the 
environment.

In 2006, instead of seeking some other political office, he collaborated 
with the writer and director Davis Guggenheim on the film “An 
Inconvenient Truth,” delivering a kind of lecture-with-slides on the 
environmental disasters that the world would face if people and 
governments remained indifferent to the price of burning fossil fuels. 
In 2007, Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were 
together awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, “for their efforts to build 
up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.”

Gore is an investor in green-technology businesses—a fact that regularly 
provokes criticism for alleged conflicts of interest—and he continues to 
write about the threat of climate change; promote the work of 
nonprofits, such as the Climate Reality Project and Climate TRACE; and, 
generally, campaign for governments, institutions, and individuals to 
act to prevent the worst.

Recently, as the warmest summer in recorded history was coming to an 
end, I spoke with Gore, who was in New York while the U.N. General 
Assembly was meeting. During our conversation, which has been edited for 
length and clarity, the former Vice-President discussed the fossil-fuel 
industry’s influence in politics, the U.N.’s climate efforts, and his 
hopes for America’s political will. Gore is seventy-five and lives in 
Nashville and also, as he put it, “on the road.” Our conversation also 
appears on The New Yorker Radio Hour.

Well, here we are. The last time I saw you, you came to The New Yorker 
and Condé Nast to talk about climate—this was probably ten years ago. 
And you were in the mode of warning, pushing, just as you had even years 
before, with “An Inconvenient Truth.” And now we’re through the summer 
of 2023, and anybody has to recognize that this is not a matter of the 
future—this is a matter of now. The climate crisis is now. We’re living 
in it. How do you assess what you saw—what we all saw—in the summer, all 
across the world?

Well, as you say, it now seems obvious to almost everyone that the 
severity of the crisis has reached a new level of intensity. 
Climate-related extreme events have become so common and so dangerous 
that people who wanted to dismiss it are now waking up to the reality 
that we’re facing. And, of course, the underlying substance is shocking. 
We’re still using the sky as an open sewer for the heat-trapping, 
gaseous pollution that we spew into it at the rate of a hundred and 
sixty-two million tons every single day. And we know how to solve it. We 
have the means to solve it. I’ve used the metaphor of flipping a switch, 
and some people have objected to that. But, really, we have a switch we 
can flip.

Describe what the switch is, what the political means are, and what 
stands in the way.

The climate crisis is really a fossil-fuel crisis. There are other 
components of it, for sure, but eighty per cent of it is the burning of 
fossil fuels. And scientists now know—and this is a relatively new 
finding, a very firm understanding—that, once we stop net additions to 
the overburden of greenhouse gases, once we reach so-called net zero, 
then temperatures on Earth will stop going up almost immediately. The 
lag time is as little as three to five years. They used to think that 
temperatures would keep on worsening because of positive-feedback 
loops—and some things, tragically, will. The melting of the ice, for 
example, will continue, though we can moderate the pace of that; the 
extinction crisis will continue without other major changes. But we can 
stop temperatures from going up almost immediately, and that’s the 
switch we need to flip. And then, if we can stay at true net zero, half 
of all human-caused greenhouse-gas pollution will fall out of the 
atmosphere in twenty-five to thirty years. So we can start the long and 
slow healing process almost immediately, if we act.

What’s required?

We have to find a way to shift out of our dependence on fossil fuels: 
coal, oil, and gas. And, of course, the fossil-fuel industry, and the 
financial institutions that have grown codependent on them—

*The banks—*

The banks and the other large lenders, and associated industries, have, 
for more than a hundred years, built up a legacy network of political 
and economic influence. Shockingly, they have managed to convert their 
economic power into political power with lobbying, and campaign 
contributions, and the revolving-door phenomenon—where fossil-fuel 
executives go into the government.

I mean, the last President of the United States made the C.E.O. of 
ExxonMobil the Secretary of State. It’s almost hard to believe, but that 
is a symbol of how fossil-fuel companies have penetrated governments 
around the world. When ExxonMobil or Chevron puts its ads on the air, 
the purpose is not for a husband and wife to say, “Oh, let’s go down to 
the store and buy some motor oil.” The purpose is to condition the 
political space so that they have a continued license to keep producing 
and selling more and more fossil fuels.

Well, you’re not only an evangelist for climate change; you also are a 
politician, a seasoned politician.

*I’m a recovering politician.*

You’re looking better already. Tell me, why is it impossible for 
politicians to run on this successfully? What are the barriers 
preventing a day-to-day politician, on the state or national level, from 
making this an effective electoral cause?

The polluters have gained a high degree of control over the processes of 
self-government. I’ve often said that, in order to solve the crisis, we 
have to pay a lot of attention to the democracy crisis. Our 
representative democracy is not working very well. We have a dual 
hegemonic ideology called democratic capitalism, and the democracy part 
of our ideology has been cannibalized, to some extent, by economic 
actors, who have found ways to convert wealth into political influence. 
Wealth has always had its usefulness in the political sphere, but much 
more so in an era in which the candidate who raises the most money, and 
can buy the most media presence, almost always wins the election. And 
there’s been kind of evolutionary pressure as to people who go into 
politics: people who don’t want to put up with that kind of routine shy 
away from it now. Those who like it are more likely to run and get elected.

It seems to me that, until alternative energy sources are cheap enough 
and ubiquitous enough to overcome the price and ubiquity of fossil 
fuels, you’re always going to have a problem. Bill McKibben will 
argue—as you do, I think—that those sources of energy are around, and, 
no matter what you may think of Elon Musk as a matter of character, that 
electric cars are on their way. How far away are we, in technological 
and financial terms, from being able to overwhelm fossil fuels?

Well, we’re getting closer and closer. I’ll give you one statistic. If 
you were asked what percentage of the new electricity generation in the 
most populous country in the world—India—came from solar and wind last 
year, you might be surprised to hear that the answer was ninety-two per 
cent. Globally, eighty-eight per cent of all the new electricity 
generation last year was from renewables—eighty per cent from solar and 
wind. And yet we are still building more fossil-fuel facilities. There 
is now more money going into renewables than into fossil fuels, but the 
base of fossil-fuel generation is so large that it continues.

And, yes, Elon Musk single-handedly advanced the distribution of 
electric vehicles by fifteen, twenty years. Really quite a remarkable story.

You give him a lot of credit.

Oh, of course. As you said, whatever you think of him, he’s done a lot 
of good things.

But are you troubled by Elon Musk as a tribune for the cause?

Well, sure, sure. I mean, I have known him for a long time, and like 
some other of his longtime friends I have been puzzled and concerned by 
the U-turn he’s taken on some very fundamental issues. But electric 
vehicles made up nearly twenty per cent of all the new vehicles sold 
last year, and all of the big auto companies have long since shifted 
their R. & D. budgets and their focus to trying to compete in the 
electric-vehicle space. It will be a bumpy transition, but it is well 
under way.

So, how do you do that from the White House, from Congress? What do you 
want to see Joe Biden do? And can he do it—does he have the political 
and rhetorical capacity to do it effectively?

What Joe Biden did last year, in passing the so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act, which is really a climate bill, was the most 
extraordinary legislative achievement of any head of state and any 
country in history. However, we are still permitting fossil-fuel 
production on public lands. What would be the political cost for him of 
bringing it to a halt on public lands? Significant—and it can’t be 
blinked away, because of, again, the influence of the fossil-fuel 
industry. They have taken over one of our two major political parties, 
lock, stock, and oil barrel. It’s really quite shocking. But, as someone 
wrote, Mother Nature is staging an intervention, and I think we’re quite 
close to crossing a political tipping point.

Now, economists, to a person, will say that a carbon price is essential, 
whether in the form of a tax, or a fee, or whatever, but it’s seen as a 
political-

*Death.*

Death. I have the scars to prove it. I succeeded in January, 1993, at 
persuading the incoming Clinton-Gore Administration to put a carbon tax 
in our first budget proposal. And it passed the House of 
Representatives, and then was killed in the Senate. A decade and more 
later, Barack Obama succeeded in getting a so-called cap and trade, 
which is an indirect price on carbon, passed by the House, and again it 
died in the Senate.

But we now have seen the European Union innovate, and come to something 
called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which has appeal in the 
U.S. as well. It can be a back door to a more global carbon price. There 
are seventy-three jurisdictions around the world that have already 
enacted a form of a carbon tax. Most of them are too small and too weak, 
but they can be scaled up. I think we’re close to seeing a carbon tax. 
Look, at the African Climate Summit, the first ever, the leaders in 
Africa said, We need to have a carbon tax. And we need to devote the 
money to helping developing countries gain access to private capital 
markets so that they can participate in this clean-energy revolution; 
they’ve been walled off from it.

Yet another climate summit is coming up, this time in the Middle East. 
It seems odd who is leading it. How do you feel about that?

Yeah, it’s absurd. This year, the annual United Nations Climate 
Conference is in the United Arab Emirates, and they have named the head 
of their national oil company, Sultan al-Jaber, as the president of the 
conference. I think it’s—

[Laughs.] What does that portend?

Well, I think that it takes off a disguise that has masked the reality 
for quite some time. It’s absurd to put the C.E.O. of one of the largest 
and, by many measures, least responsible oil and gas companies in the 
world in charge of the climate conference. At last year’s conference, in 
Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, the delegates from oil and gas companies 
outnumbered the combined delegations of the ten most climate-affected 
nations. The year before, in Glasgow, the fossil-fuel delegates 
outnumbered the largest national delegation. They have dominated this 
U.N. process the same way they’ve dominated so many state governments in 
the U.S., and the national government much of the time.
Advertisement

It goes back to the weakness of the United Nations as an institution. It 
has been that way since its creation. It’s the best we’ve got, so we 
have to make the best of it. COP1, the first of these annual 
conferences, took place three years after the Earth Summit, in Berlin. 
The young environment minister of Germany, Angela Merkel, was the 
president of COP1. The first order of business was to adopt the rules, 
including for how the world was going to make decisions. The default 
procedure was something called consensus, which is the same as 
unanimity, unless the president of the COP recognizes someone who is 
trying to object.

And so the petrostates—and in effect the fossil-fuel industry—have had a 
veto over anything the world community tried to do on fossil fuels. Even 
the great Paris agreement, which was a genuine achievement, could not 
use the phrase “fossil fuels.” Last year, there was a movement by the 
European Union and others to phase out fossil fuels—to begin the 
phaseout. And Saudi Arabia said, No, I’m sorry, we won’t permit that—you 
have to have our permission, and we will not grant you our permission. 
Sorry, world. We can’t even talk about fossil fuels.

*It’s insane.*

It’s insane. It’s utterly insane. Now, we can change those rules. 
Three-quarters of the nations could vote to change the rules and give a 
supermajority the political power to adopt binding resolutions. It’s a 
tough challenge, for sure. But we have to do it, and we have to find a 
way to do it. You’re right that, even if a supermajority of the nations 
gained the ability to pass binding resolutions, they’re not really 
binding if nations like Russia or Saudi Arabia—or the U.S.—want to just 
ignore them. But we can establish the so-called direction of travel. We 
can establish a new and strong consensus in the world that in order to 
save humanity’s future we have to phase out fossil fuels. I’m not saying 
it’s easy. It’s not easy. It’s the toughest thing humanity has ever 
tried to do.

Aren’t we losing the race miserably?

I would define it in different terms. Yes, we are. The crisis is still 
getting worse, faster than we are implementing the solutions. However, 
we are gaining momentum, and we’re gaining momentum so rapidly that I’m 
convinced we will soon be gaining on the crisis itself.

Is that your natural optimism speaking, or is it the facts? Do they back 
you up?

Well, I am temperamentally optimistic.

If I ask Elizabeth Kolbert, I get quite a different answer. She does 
everything she can to prevent despair, which is the unforgivable sin, 
but it creeps in.

Well, the old cliché “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” should be 
joined by “Despair ain’t just a tire in the trunk.” Despair is just 
another form of climate denial. We don’t have time for it. The stakes 
are so high.

Just look at the climate migrants. There are many examples of this 
already. People from Central America coming through Mexico to the 
southern border of the U.S.—that’s driven by climate. You’ve got Viktor 
Orbán, and you’ve got ultranationalism rising in so many places. The 
Lancet Commission, which is widely respected, says that in this century 
we may have one billion climate migrants crossing international borders. 
That could threaten our capacity for self-governance.

So we have to act. We have no choice, really. There are obstacles to 
move out of the way. It’s not fair, perhaps, to ask the fossil-fuel 
companies to solve this crisis. They’re incentivized to keep on burning 
more fossil fuels. But it is fair to ask them to stop disrupting and 
blocking the efforts of everyone else to solve it.

You mentioned democracy early on. It is well known, at least to people 
of a certain age, that after challenging the results in 2000 you 
painfully, elegantly, and with grace conceded. We saw what we saw with 
January 6th. And now we face the possibility of that being a permanent 
condition, something that could happen over and over again, the way 
we’re now seeing impeachment as a kind of political weapon being used in 
the Republican House. You were prescient about the environmental crisis. 
Did the crisis of democracy take you by surprise?

No. Well, I wrote a book called “The Assault on Reason,” in 2007. It 
began with a notation that many Americans were asking the question, What 
has happened to America? It has been building for quite some time. But I 
think that the love people have for freedom, for self-determination, and 
for self-government is reawakening, and people are—

You think it’ll prevail?

I do. Again, I’m temperamentally optimistic. We don’t have time to 
wallow in despair. We’ve got work to do, and the stakes have never been 
higher. It’s hard to find words adequate to this challenge. I wish, so 
deeply, that I could find the words to inspire in others the burning 
passion for saving our country and making it, in Lincoln’s phrase, “the 
last best hope”; and revivifying the promise that America has always 
held for the world, with all of our contradictions and weaknesses and 
failures. But it relies upon the willingness of the American people to 
wake up, and fight to save our democracy, and to save the future of 
humanity. This all sounds so dire—but it is. ♦
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/al-gore-doesnt-say-i-told-you-so


/[  A little bit of Tolkein Rings metaphor -- video - understanding our 
predicament - with humor, maybe ]
/ *One Ring to Rule Them All | Frankly #45*
Nate Hagens
Oct 6, 2023
Recorded October 2 2023
Description

    In this Frankly, Nate refers to a favorite timeless book series,
    “The Lord of the Rings”, to describe ‘the nine rings for mortal men’
    - evolutionary behavioral tendencies that are common among humans
    but become counterproductive within the context of our modern
    culture. These traits combine to drive the growth of the
    Superorganism - but they are pulled forward by the ‘one ring to rule
    them all’, which today is the positive feedbacks of power resulting
    from the synergy of agricultural surplus, fossil energy, money, and
    now Artificial Intelligence accelerating it all. Can this out of
    control power dynamic be broken and redirected away from the
    influence of this “One Ring”?  How do we strategize and prepare for
    the future given this cultural compulsion to amass power as we
    approach the Great Simplification? Can ‘wisdom’ counter 'intelligence'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXgIAQZu3I4


/[ Dave Roberts - talks with up-and-coming power providers ]/
*A super-battery aimed at decarbonizing industry*
A conversation with Andrew Ponec of Antora Energy.
David Roberts
Oct 6, 2023
Back in March, I did a podcast on the possibility of using wind and 
solar electricity to decarbonize industrial heat, which represents fully 
a quarter of all human final energy consumption. The trick is to 
transform the variable energy from wind and solar into a steady, 
predictable stream of heat by using some form of heat battery.

The idea is that heat batteries will charge when renewables are cheap or 
negatively priced, around midday when all the solar is online, and then 
use the stored heat to displace natural gas boilers and other fossil 
fuel heat sources in industrial facilities.

Among other things, this vision represents a huge opportunity for 
renewable energy developers — industrial heat is effectively a brand new 
trillion-dollar market for them to play in. And they can often enter 
that market without waiting in long interconnection queues to connect to 
the grid.

Andrew Ponec

Anyway, that episode, which I highly encourage you to listen to at some 
point, was with the CEO of a thermal battery company call Rondo. In it, 
I mentioned another thermal storage company whose technology caught my 
eye: Antora Energy.

Like Rondo, Antora is part of the broad “box of rocks” category, but its 
tech can do some things that, for the time being, no other thermal 
battery can do.

I don’t want to say much more here — discovery is half the fun — but I 
will say I’m as geeked about this technology as I have been about 
anything in ages. I’ve been thinking about it ever since I first heard 
about it three or four years ago. Now the company has launched its first 
commercial-scale system! So I’ve brought Antora co-founder and CEO 
Andrew Ponec on the pod to talk through how it works, what it can do, 
and how it could transform industrial heat markets.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-super-battery-aimed-at-decarbonizing?utm_campaign=email-post&r=e3p5r&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#details

- -

/[ Anora Energy is the company ]/
*We deliver zero-carbon industrial heat and power*
Antora Energy is electrifying heavy industry with thermal energy storage 
for zero-carbon heat and power. Our mission is to stop climate change 
for the future of humanity.

*We’re turning sunshine and wind into 24/7 heat and power, cheaper than 
fossil fuels.*
We make it possible and profitable to fully rely on renewable energy for 
industrial processes. Antora’s thermal batteries soak up excess solar 
and wind electricity and use it to heat blocks of carbon so they glow 
like inside a toaster. This thermal energy is then delivered to 
customers as electricity or industrial process heat up to 1500°C, on demand.
https://antoraenergy.com/



/[The news archive - looking back at Al Gore in 1996 ]/
/*October 9, 1996*/
October 9, 1996: Vice President Al Gore and former Representative Jack 
Kemp discuss the environment in the Vice Presidential debate, with Kemp 
bizarrely accusing Gore of promoting "fear of the climate" and embracing 
an "anti-capitalistic mentality," while Gore defends the Clinton 
administration's first-term environmental accomplishments.
      (60:13--70:50)
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/74250-1




=== 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/20231009/9ea86f2e/attachment.htm>