[✔️] Jan 13, 2024 Global Warming News | Salon, Ecosystem restoration, Review population. Trends Permafrost, Overshoot behavior lab, Grumpy doomerist men, 2004 Bush scorn

[Richard Pauli]

/*January*//*13, 2024*/

/[ there are no corners on a globe, from the magazine Salon ]/
*"Nobody and nowhere will be safe": Experts say we can't hide from 
climate change*
In the movies, heroes can outrun the apocalypse. But in the real world 
there's no exit from the climate crisis
By MATTHEW ROZSA
PUBLISHED JANUARY 12, 2024
In science fiction movies that imagine a climate catastrophe, characters 
are often driven to flee disastrous conditions and retreat to a safer 
place to live. Whether the seeking a mysterious territory of Dryland in 
"Waterworld" or fleeing from all northern latitudes in "The Day After 
Tomorrow," pop culture foregrounds the notion that one can somehow "run 
away" from climate change. It is a tantalizing idea, a seeming off-ramp 
from the oppressively bleak reality of the near future, which may well 
include a seriously overheated planet where life in some places becomes 
unsustainable levels. Mainstream media outlets like Time and Business 
Insider have added to climate-migration speculation with articles about 
the supposed best places to live.
But as various scientific experts told Salon in recent interviews, 
"climate migration" is not realistic for much of the world's population, 
and the premise that we can run away from climate change is false in the 
first place.

"Uprooting yourself and your family to move to another part of the world 
can take a huge amount of financial resources — which the wealthy have 
access to and the poor do not," explained Dr. Charlotte A. Kukowski, a 
postdoctoral research associate at the Cambridge Social Decision-Making 
Lab, and Dr. Emma Garnett, a researcher in the Sustainable and Healthy 
Food Group. The two scientists co-authored a recent study in the journal 
Nature Climate Change that focused on the importance of "tackling 
inequality" as our societies strive to move toward net-zero carbon 
emissions. Both in that article and in emails to Salon, Kukowski and 
Garnett noted "a further unjust barrier to poorer people relocating: 
many countries have income thresholds for a number of visas," including 
the U.K., where they live.
Of course, legal barriers are only one of many logistical and practical 
obstacles to climate emigration, at least for most human beings without 
considerable wealth at their disposal.

"It's hard for most people to find the available energy, time and mental 
bandwidth to voluntarily move somewhere else, especially to avoid a 
diffuse threat that is getting gradually stronger every year," Dr. Peter 
Kalmus, a NASA climate scientist, wrote to Salon. "Moving is expensive, 
and poorer people around the world are perhaps becoming less welcome in 
other nations as authoritarianism and fascism rise around the world." 
(Kalmus made clear he was speaking for himself, not for NASA or the 
federal government.)

Dr. Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution 
for Science's Department of Global Ecology, told Salon about his 2020 
paper for the European Geosciences Union (co-authored with another 
scientist) which concluded that India is the nation with the largest 
potential number of people who might want to relocate due to climate 
change. But the cruel reality is that most of the Indian population will 
simply lack the financial means to do this.
"Very few people have died of starvation with money in their pockets," 
Caldeira wrote to Salon. "Climate change hits hardest those with empty 
pockets." Caldeira pointed to scholarly research which has found that 
people from low-income countries who are able to emigrate are 
overwhelmingly from the more affluent classes. "Migration is an option 
for people with money in their pockets," Caldeira added. "Migration 
takes resources. The subsistence farmer who is starving to death due to 
heat- and drought-induced crop failures does not have the resources 
necessary to partake in international travel."
Yet even for the small percentage of people who do have the funds to 
travel anywhere in the world, most scientists agree that the idea of 
running away from climate change (as fictionalized in the recent TV 
miniseries "A Murder at the End of the World") is illusory. This 
phenomenon is literally impacting the entire planet, they insist, and in 
that sense no place is "safe" from climate change.
"Nobody and nowhere will be safe," Dr. Michael E. Mann, a professor of 
earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, told 
Salon by email. "Less food, water and space is a recipe for heightened 
conflict and instability, and increasingly extreme weather events will 
interrupt supply chains and food distribution systems."
Kalmus echoed that observation, saying that the multiple disasters of 
the last few years should make it clear that "there is no safe place." 
He continued, "Temperature is just too fundamental and inescapable, and 
drives so many process changes in the Earth system — everything is 
connected." The only valid distinctions, Kalmus said, are about places 
that are particularly unsafe, citing Miami and Phoenix as two cities 
where he has "no plans to move."

Kukowski and Garnett added that, generally speaking, the regions that 
will be worst impacted by climate change are also heavily populated 
areas where millions of low-income people face a difficult struggle 
ahead. "Nowhere is 'safe' from climate change but of course many people 
in certain parts of the world are more vulnerable than others," they 
wrote by email. "Tragically, those who are least responsible for climate 
change are the ones most at risk: namely low-income people in low-income 
countries in the global south. Low-lying regions such as Bangladesh are 
particularly vulnerable to storm surges and climate change-induced 
sea-level rise."

Some parts of the world are undeniably at less short-term risk than 
others, Kukowski and Garnett added. "That gives some of the super rich 
the idea that they can bunker down in a bunker in New Zealand and aren’t 
in this with the rest of us, and unfortunately that’s true to some 
extent." People who have money are disproportionately likely to live in 
cooler climates rather than tropical ones, and are also likely to be 
nearer the end of their lifespans rather than the beginning. So they 
have a much higher chance of leading relatively comfortable lives 
without enduring the worst of climate change.
If climate change affected individuals and rich societies in 
proportionate terms, relative to the amount of emissions they had 
created, "we wouldn't be in this mess," Kukowski and Garnett continued. 
"The rich, powerful and highly emitting would be personally incentivized 
to solve the crisis," They did observe the irony behind the fact that 
many wealthy and powerful people continue to purchase property in 
coastal regions that are vulnerable to storm surges and sea-level rise, 
describing that as "not a particularly sensible decision." But he more 
important issue, they said, is "making sure those whose primary 
residences are particularly vulnerable to climate change are given the 
support to relocate if they wish. We also need to ensure that emissions 
align with fair shares so that the rich do not continue to drive 
unprecedented levels of climatic change and associated extreme weather 
events."

Mann had harsh words for conservatives and so-called climate skeptics 
who try to deflect attention from the global crisis by criticizing the 
carbon profiles or real estate decisions of prominent liberals like 
Barack Obama and John Kerry. "It’s total bull***t and they know it," he 
wrote by email. "One of the most dishonest arguments I’ve seen. Barack 
Obama and John Kerry aren’t harming anyone. Climate deniers, with their 
crocodile tears and bad-faith charges of hypocrisy, are harming everyone."
https://www.salon.com/2024/01/12/nobody-and-nowhere-will-be-safe-experts-say-we-cant-hide-from-climate-change/



/[ video offers an excellent high-level overview of COP ]/
*Food Security through the Restoration of Ecosystems*
Facing Future
Jan 12, 2024  #CommonlandFoundation #EcoRestoration #Isaias
Securing the global food system is critical to human survival. 
Agriculture has an enormous impact on all ecological functions of our 
planet. Through #CommonlandFoundation and #EcoRestoration Camps,  John 
D. Liu and Willem Ferwerda guide a movement to restore hydrological 
cycles, degraded soils and ecosystems at scale, creating new communities 
in the process.
Vegan activist, #Isaias Hernandez, advocates for more support and 
attention to young climate activists whose future rests on the 
resilience of nature and on transformative human action to bring about 
the restoration of nature.

Hosted and edited by Raya Salter

As mentioned in the program:
https://www.ecosystemrestorationcommunities.org/
https://commonland.com/

For more information on the state of our planet, visit the FacingFuture 
Library at https://facingfuture.earth/library
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkvCrmHC3L0

- -

/[ How are we doing?  Reviewing population. ]/
*We Must Restore Nature*
Facing Future
Nov 2, 2023  #population
#PhoebeBarnard, founding director of the Stable Planet Alliance and co- 
producer of the upcoming documentary, #TheClimateRestorers, explains why 
we can’t simply shift, even if the world agreed to do it, from fossil 
fuels to electricity. We must restore nature in order to remove billions 
of tons of carbon and bring down global temperatures to safer levels, 
while also addressing the twin issues of #population and the over 
consumption of our planet’s finite resources.

For more about the Climate Restorers documentary:
https://www.backtoourfuture.net/

For more about Phoebe's work:
https://www.stableplanetalliance.org/...

For more information on the state of our planet,  visit the FacingFuture 
Library at https://facingfuture.earth/library.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_in-4T7JBA



/[ Beware the Sleeping Giant - 31 min video conversation - a powerful 
discussion on the trends and  extremes ]/
*A Sleeping Giant: Why Permafrost is a Climate Threat | The Agenda*
TVO Today
Jan 17, 2022
Permafrost covers a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land and stores 
twice as much organic carbon as Earth's atmosphere currently holds. What 
happens when it starts to thaw? The Agenda examines the climate threat 
of thawing permafrost, and why northern roads and communities find 
themselves on shaky ground.
About half of Canada's land mass is permafrost. And some fear it's a 
ticking time bomb for climate change.
With us for more, in Pasadena, California, Kimberley Rain Miller, 
climate scientist at the that is a jet propulsion lab working on the 
Arctic methane project. She is also a professor at the University of Maine.
In Wood's Hole Massachusetts, in cape cod, John Holdren, former science 
advisor to President Barack Obama and research professor at Harvard 
university's Kennedy school of
government. And in our nation's capital, Antoni Lewkowicz, professor of 
geography, environment and geomatics at the University of Ottawa. Let me 
set up our discussion with a bit of a fact file here: The Arctic is 
warming three  times faster than the planet as a whole. Permafrost 
covers a quarter of the northern hemisphere's land and stores around 1.5 
trillion metric tons of organic carbon -- that's twice as much as 
earth's atmosphere currently holds.  And most of this carbon is the 
remains of ancient life encased in frozen soil for up to
hundreds of thousands of years. Okay. That's a bit of background...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic90sLO3c_g



/[ a unique organizatio/n ]
*Overshoot Behaviour Lab*
Addressing anthropogenic ecological overshoot through the development of 
large-scale social change interventions.
https://merzinstitute.org/overshoot-behaviour-lab/



/[ Doomerism... exhaustion of grumpy old men ]/
*How to Quit the Doomosphere: Collapse Chronicles Welcomes the Artist 
Formerly Known as Vegematic*
Collapse Chronicles
Jan 12, 2024  DUNNELLON
In today's Chronicle of the Collapse, we welcome Chris, of the new 
YouTube channel, The Aging Hippie Conspiracy, to talk about his recent 
narrow, harrowing escape from the Doomosphere. For your trip down memory 
lane:
/[Buy the World a Coke] /https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM&t=0s
- -
Thank you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBOdq6TGGo

/- -
/

/[ Please, someone rewrite lyrics ]
/*Coca-Cola, 1971 - 'Hilltop' | "I'd like to buy the world a Coke"*
Project ReBrief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM&t=0s



/[The news archive - the Scorn Bush ]/
/*January 13, 2004 */
January 13, 2004: "The Price of Loyalty," Ron Suskind's profile of 
former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, is released. The book recounts 
O'Neill's numerous conflicts with the George W. Bush administration, 
noting that O'Neill's efforts to have the administration act 
aggressively on carbon pollution were met with scorn.

    BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 9 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush reversed
    his campaign position on global climate change after taking office.
    This shift was a result primarily because pro-oil and pro-gas
    production interests with the administration pushed for it,
    according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in the recent
    book "The Price of Loyalty," by Ron Suskind.

    Much of the controversy about the book has centered on the Bush
    budget and tax policies when O'Neill was at Treasury, but a
    substantial portion also offers insight into the formation of the
    president's attitudes toward climate change and the environment.

    The climate change issue was a major contributor to the resignation
    of former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine
    Todd Whitman, which seemed to be orchestrated by Vice President
    Richard Cheney, O'Neill wrote.

    O'Neill retained about 19,000 files from his service in the Bush
    administration, and author Suskind has taken the unusual step of
    posting some of them on the Internet, with the promise of more to
    come. Among the first documents are some pertaining to the Bush
    climate change policy and how it evolved between the campaign and
    the eventual U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto climate change agreement.

    Despite administration rhetoric about making decisions based on
    sound science, as O'Neill told Suskind, science had little to do
    with it.

    Because his 2000 presidential opponent, Vice President Al Gore, had
    staked out global warming as a key issue, Bush asserted during
    presidential debates that "global warming needs to be taken very
    seriously."

    According to Suskind: "Bush's proposed energy policy, issued shortly
    before the debates, proposed mandatory reduction targets for 'four
    main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon
    dioxide.' Conservatives and energy executives were outraged. The Oil
    and Gas Journal declared that 'regulation of CO2 as an air pollutant
    is a bad idea that belongs on the outer fringes of environmental
    extremism.'"

    Once in office, Bush at first seemed to have no policy at all on
    climate change. Preparing for an international meeting in Trieste,
    Italy, on the issue, Whitman got agreement from Bush aides to list
    carbon dioxide as a "toxic substance," which would allow the United
    States -- the world's biggest CO2 producer -- to regulate it. While
    the policy sounded firm, Whitman's discussions with the
    administration "were mostly her blind stabs at deducing the mind of
    the president," Suskind wrote.

    O'Neill also tried to come up with a position on climate change and
    Kyoto, Suskind noted, that would consider the scientific evidence
    "to attempt to find single set of blended, shared facts" rather than
    an array of competing sets that gridlock debate.

    A letter then was sent from four Republican senators -- Chuck Hagel
    of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho, Jesse Helms of North Carolina,
    and Pat Roberts of Kansas. The letter, a copy of which is on the
    Suskind Web site, asked for "clarification of your administration's
    policy on climate change ... we need to have a clear understanding
    of your administration's position on climate change, in particular
    the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the
    Clean Air Act."

    Whitman viewed this as frontal assault on her attempts to regulate
    CO2. O'Neill thought this was an area where science and fact could
    generate rational policy.

    "The Hagel letter looked suspicious to both of them," Suskind wrote.
    "The timing, the tone, the emphasis on the senator's desire to work
    with the administration on a 'comprehensive national energy
    strategy,' with all the environmental issues as a subordinate clause
    beneath the dictates of energy and economics."

    O'Neill saw Cheney at work. It is Cheney's style, O'Neill said, to
    "quietly select an issue, counsel various participants, manufacture
    the exchange of seemingly impromptu letters or reports ... and then
    guide unfolding events toward the intended outcome."

    Whitman got an appointment with the president where she didn't even
    get a chance to make her case.

    "Christie, I've already made my decision," the president was quoted
    as saying.

    Bush added he would oppose Kyoto because it "was an unfair and
    ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns."

    This reversal of Bush's campaign position went further than anyone
    expected -- probably further even than the senators expected him to go.

    "Energy production is all that matters," Whitman said, according to
    O'Neill. "He couldn't have been clearer."

    O'Neill's conclusion was the entire affair had been orchestrated by
    Cheney.

    "The Cheney M.O., start to finish," Suskind wrote.

    "A decade of dialogue about the evidence of climate change and
    responsible international response was shattered, along with the
    hard work to find a middle ground between economic progress and
    environmental good sense -- a conversation that had been progressing
    with sound results since Nixon created EPA," Suskind continued.

    In the O'Neill version of events, the Bush reversal on climate and
    Kyoto was devoid of scientific input. The science policy advisory
    group that O'Neill and Whitman wanted to create to establish the
    factual baseline on global warming was never created, and the
    abandonment of Kyoto was made without substantive scientific input.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/02/09/Climate-CO2-policy-Bush-Cheney-style/UPI-96341076366045/ 




=== 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/20240113/7fbe7c21/attachment.htm>