<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<b><font size="+1">June 3, 2017</font></b><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/angela-merkel-and-the-insult-of-trumps-paris-climate-accord-withdrawal">Trump's
Insulting Paris Accord Withdrawal</a></b><br>
By Amy Davidson<br>
Angela Merkel seems to have had it with Trump, his flashy contempt
for the climate deal, and his disrespect of his fellow world
leaders.<br>
<font size="-1">"</font>The time in which we could fully rely on
others is a bit in the past," Merkel said. "I have experienced that
in the past several days. And, because of that, I can say now that
we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own
hands-naturally, in friendship with the United States of America, in
friendship with Great Britain, as good neighbors wherever that may
work, with Russia and other countries." It was striking that America
was just another name on the list. Merkel continued, "But we must
understand that we must fight for our future, as Europeans, for our
own fate-and that I will gladly do with you." The "you" there was
the Germans in the tent.<br>
On this, she was speaking to the German mainstream. Her opponent in
the September elections, Martin Schulz, the leader of the more
left-of-center Social Democratic Party, gave a speech at a Party
gathering in a far less measured tone, in which he directly called
Trump's treatment of "our Chancellor" unacceptable, indeed
unbearable. He later called Trump "a destroyer of all Western values
such as we have never before experienced in this form."..<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/angela-merkel-and-the-insult-of-trumps-paris-climate-accord-withdrawal">http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/angela-merkel-and-the-insult-of-trumps-paris-climate-accord-withdrawal</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://theconversation.com/are-we-overreacting-to-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-78741">Are
we over reacting to US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on
climate?</a></b><br>
Nives Dolsak, University of Washington; Aseem Prakash, University of
Washington<br>
The Trump administration has already sought to reverse several
Obama-era climate change policies. Pro-environment people should now
focus on threats to state climate actions.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://theconversation.com/are-we-overreacting-to-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-78741">https://theconversation.com/are-we-overreacting-to-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-78741</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4">(video)
Mitigate, Adapt, or Suffer. Connecting Global Change to Local
Impacts and Solutions - May 17, 2017</a></b><br>
Dr Katharine Hayhoe<br>
Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses
on developing and applying high-resolution climate projections to
understand what climate change means for people and the natural
environment. <br>
Katharine spoke at the Climate Change Science Institute at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Her presentation touched on the science and
policy of climate change, the kind of impacts we may see globally
and locally, what options and information we have to be prepared for
these changes, and ways that non-scientists can effectively to
discuss these issues with the general public.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4</a><br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNHTt0d8QTMX1hoVqBbSMegB1lly7g
sig2-LbKx-Z35ENVodRwH8TTOHg did--4518931967974627202"
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-giant-iceberg-breaking-off-2017-6"
id="MAA4BUgFUABgAWoCdXM" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);
text-decoration: none;"><span class="titletext"
style="font-weight: bold;">A giant crack in Antarctic ice is
'days or weeks' from breaking off a Delaware-size iceberg</span></a></h2>
</div>
- A giant crack in one of Antarctica's largest ice shelves is about
to break off a Delaware-size block of ice.<br>
- The crack in the ice shelf, called Larsen C, has forked toward the
Southern Ocean and is growing rapidly.<br>
- Scientists think a glacier behind the ice block could destabilize
after the calving event.<br>
An Antarctic ice shelf that has existed for thousands of years is
about to shed a 1,000-foot-thick block of ice that's roughly the
size of Delaware.<br>
New satellite images show that an enormous crack or rift in the
Larsen C ice shelf has suddenly forked and accelerated toward the
Southern Ocean. Scientists can't say exactly when the rift will snap
off the block, which makes up about 10% of Larsen C's total area.
However, Dan McGrath, a scientist with the US Geological Survey,
says it won't be long.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-giant-iceberg-breaking-off-2017-6">http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-giant-iceberg-breaking-off-2017-6</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/01/why-abandoning-paris-climate-agreement-is-bad-for-america-trump/">Why
Abandoning Paris Is a Disaster for America</a></b><br>
...how Trump's rejection of the global climate change agreement is a
monumental blunder.<br>
... But the decision to remove the United States from the
long-negotiated, hard-fought, international agreement is no
sideshow. This is about what's in the best interests of American
prosperity and security.<br>
The president's justifications for leaving the agreement are also
just plain wrong.<br>
First, contrary to the president's assertions, America's hands are
not tied and its sovereignty is not compromised by the Paris climate
pact. The Paris agreement is an accord, not a treaty, which means
it's voluntary. The genius (and reality) of the Paris agreement is
that it requires no particular policies at all - nor are the
emissions targets that countries committed to legally binding. <br>
The second big lie is that the Paris agreement will be a job killer.
In fact, it will help the United States capture more 21st-century
jobs...<br>
<b>The Trump administration is hastening catastrophic effects of
climate change.</b> Scientists and economists now state with
confidence that the failure to act to arrest and mitigate global
climate change will have devastating global consequences, including
for young Americans alive today and for their children and
grandchildren. ..<br>
Heading off the worst effects of climate change requires global
action: Action by one country alone, no matter how powerful, cannot
address the threat. But our country, one of the world's two largest
carbon emitters, does have significant power to improve not just our
own climate, but the world's - and Trump's decision takes us in the
wrong direction. That's especially tragic in light of the signature
achievement of the Paris Agreement, which was to get every country
on board; now China and India have made the same commitments the
United States and other highly developed countries have. It binds us
all together through a political agreement - but the strength of
that agreement depends on all of us meeting our nationally
determined responsibilities.<br>
<b>Trump is abdicating U.S. leadership and inviting China to fill
the void.</b> It will give Chinese and other countries' companies
a leg up in the growing and competitive green economy, putting U.S.
companies at a serious disadvantage. <br>
<b>Withdrawing from Paris will damage U.S. standing in the world. </b>Pulling
out of Paris will call into question the word of the United States
and weaken our ability to call on other countries to work with us on
other global threats, such as global terrorism and global pandemics<br>
<b>Pulling out of Paris means Republicans own climate catastrophes.
</b>Just as President Barack Obama bequeathed to the Trump/Paul
Ryan/Mitch McConnell team a workable framework for ensuring health
care coverage, President Trump inherited a workable framework for
global climate action. The Republicans have chosen to pour sand in
the gas tank of Obamacare, using the levers of government to attempt
to make the Affordable Care Act fail even as they themselves fail to
deliver a real alternative.<br>
<b>Trump's pulling out of Paris means that the rest of us are called
upon to do more - and we will.</b> Even as the White House
abandons the pact, there are plenty of ways for Americans to advance
its goals. Many state and local governments are already tackling
energy efficiency and emissions reductions. California, the
sixth-largest economy in the world, will not abandon its emission
standards.....<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/01/why-abandoning-paris-climate-agreement-is-bad-for-america-trump/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/01/why-abandoning-paris-climate-agreement-is-bad-for-america-trump/</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world">Donald
Trump's "Screw You" to the World</a></b><br>
By John Cassidy<br>
The President represented the Paris Agreement as the work of
scheming foreigners, conspiring against the United States...<br>
This was Trumpism in its full glory-the world as a conspiracy
against its sole superpower, a country that accounts for a quarter
of global G.D.P. and about forty per cent of global personal wealth.
"At what point does America get demeaned?" Trump demanded, his voice
rising. "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"<br>
The answer is that the laughing stopped a good while back. What once
seemed like a punch line-Donald Trump in the White House-is now an
everyday reality that the rest of the world is trying to deal with.
After this latest display of nihilism, it only seems more alarming.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world">http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-on-trump-business-advisory-council-2017-2/">Here
are the 17 executives who met with Trump for his first business
advisory council,</a></b> Business Insider, Feb 3, 2017<br>
<span style="font-weight: 400;"><br>
<b><a
href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/priya/musk-quits-trumps-advisory-councils-after-paris"
moz-do-not-send="true">Elon Musk Quits Trump's Advisory
Councils After President Pulls US From Paris Accord</a></b><b>,</b>
Buzzfeed, June 1, 2017.<br>
<span style="font-weight: 400;"></span></span><span
style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;"><b><br>
</b><b><a
href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/media/disney-ceo-bob-iger-trump-advisory-board/"
moz-do-not-send="true">Disney CEO Bob Iger quits Trump
advisory team as 'matter of principle'</a></b><b>,</b> CNN
Money, June 2, 2017</span></span><br>
<b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/white-house-debate-paris-never-climate-change/">White
House debate on Paris was never about climate change</a></b><br>
The wrangling between Trump's advisors was always about how best to
burn more fossil fuels<br>
By Graham Readfearn<br>
As United States President Donald Trump was deliberating his
country's future in the Paris climate deal, there were two internal
camps marshalling their arguments.<br>
But the wrangling in the White House was not a debate about climate
change. It was over how best to burn more fossil fuels.<br>
In one corner were the fossil fuel apologists, the climate science
denialists and the network of conservative think tanks that have
used conflicted cash to keep their arguments flowing.<br>
For them, leaving the United Nations pact would help the US regain a
competitive advantage and put their economic prosperity first. The
costs of climate change impacts were never factored, because for
them, they do not exist.<br>
In the other corner, there were groups who, on the face of it,
seemed unlikely bedfellows.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/white-house-debate-paris-never-climate-change/">http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/white-house-debate-paris-never-climate-change/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNGXvGLHryTmkyoFE6-vcjEWyDW65g
sig2-fCh9K3agQyzvSLk2OST-MQ did--5807111497192073468"
href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/02/531223294/a-farm-journalist-tells-farmers-what-theyd-rather-not-hear-about-climate-change"
id="MAA4DEgAUABgAWoCdXM" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);
text-decoration: underline;"><span class="titletext"
style="font-weight: bold;">A Farm Journalist Tells Farmers
What They'd Rather Not Hear About<b style="font-weight:
bold;"> Climate Change</b></span></a></h2>
</div>
When President Trump announced this week that he was taking the
United States out of the Paris climate agreement, there were swift
and vocal reactions from many industries -- but most of the
organizations that represent American agriculture were silent.<br>
<b>Do you see attitudes in farm country changing at all?</b><br>
Slowly and surely, I think. Part of the challenge that farmers have
right now is the fact that even if the administration tells us that
we're not going to do anything differently, there's a push down the
supply chain to lower emissions. It starts at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart
is telling food suppliers that I want lower emissions, and lower
fertilizer use on corn acreage, it's getting back to the farmer.
You've got companies like Cargill and Unilever that have made these
commitments to lower emissions and lower water use. So farmers are
going to be asked to make these changes, but nobody is going to be
paying them more for it. And this is what's lost when you don't have
a policy.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/02/531223294/a-farm-journalist-tells-farmers-what-theyd-rather-not-hear-about-climate-change">http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/02/531223294/a-farm-journalist-tells-farmers-what-theyd-rather-not-hear-about-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNFeH6EjZRdm-NOAuo2lnh0cd7tBmg
sig2-t6yUQLqJTXDikw9pnimiBQ did-624293365359766557"
href="http://gizmodo.com/how-to-watch-todays-sean-spicer-shitshow-with-special-1795759717"
style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); text-decoration: none;"><span
class="titletext" style="font-weight: bold;">How to Watch
Today's Sean Spicer Shitshow, With Special Guest Scott
Pruitt From the EPA</span></a></h2>
</div>
The briefing is streaming on YouTube and on Facebook and is
scheduled to start at 1:30pm Eastern, 10:30am Pacific time. And
while the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica doesn't have an official
time zone, a crack in it has grown 11 miles in just six days and<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/06/01/massive-iceberg-break-off-antarctica-crack-expands-11-miles/102385980/">
it's about to break off completely</a>. So let's just call that
o'shit o'clock.<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmMOUzbN3w">(video) Press
Briefing with Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Administrator of
the EPA Scott Pruitt</a></b><br>
White House Press Briefings are conducted most weekdays from the
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the West Wing<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmMOUzbN3w">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmMOUzbN3w</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://gizmodo.com/how-to-watch-todays-sean-spicer-shitshow-with-special-1795759717">http://gizmodo.com/how-to-watch-todays-sean-spicer-shitshow-with-special-1795759717</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet">(Sarcasm)
Calling Earth a "Loser," Trump Vows to Make Better Deal with New
Planet</a></b><br>
Andy Borowitz<br>
"Earth is a terrible, very bad planet," he told the White House
press corps. "It's maybe the worst planet in the solar system, and
it's far from the biggest."<br>
Trump blasted former President Barack Obama for signing deals that
committed the United States to remain on the planet Earth
indefinitely. "Obama is almost as big a loser as Earth," Trump said.
"If Obama was a planet, guess what planet he'd be? That's right:
Earth."<br>
When asked which planet he would make a new deal with, Trump offered
few specifics, saying only, "The solar system has millions of
terrific planets, and they're all better than Earth, which is a
sick, failing loser."<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet">http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet</a><br>
</font><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9"><br>
</a><font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9">This
Day in Climate History June 3, 1977</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9">
</a>- from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
<font size="+1"><b>Climate Peril May Force Limits On Coal and Oil,
Carter Aide Says<br>
</b></font> <font size="+1">In the New York Times, </font><font
size="+1"><b> Walter Sullivan </b>reports:<br>
</font><font size="+1">To avoid accumulation in the air of
sufficient carbon dioxide to cause major climate changes, it may
ultimately be necessary to restrict the burning of coal and other
fossil fuels, according to Dr. William D. Nordhaus of the
President's Council of Economic Advisers.<br>
This would limit the dependence on coal that, under present
policy, is to replace rapid expansion of nuclear energy.<br>
Dr. Nordhaus, who is on leave from his post as professor of
economics at Yale University, told this week's spring meeting of
the American Geophysical Union in Washington that by early in the
next century, the burning of coal, oil and as might have to be
curtailed by taxation or rationing.<br>
He said he was speaking as an individual and not presenting a
Government policy. He has been investigating the climatic and
economic implications of carbon dioxide accumulation, having also
worked on the problem at the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis near Vienna.<br>
<br>
He cited estimates that if the trend toward heavy use of fossil
fuels continued, by early in the next century the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere will have doubled. This, it has been
proposed, could make the worldwide climate warmer than at any time
in the last 100,000 years..<br>
Dr. Nordhaus's argument was based in part on calculations by Dr.
Wallace S. Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont‐Doherty
Geological Observatory, who also presented a report. Each ton of
coal or other fossil fuel burned, he said, produces three tons of
carbon dioxide.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Gas Acts Like Greenhouse Glass</b><br>
In the atmosphere carbon dioxide acts much like the glass of a
greenhouse. It readily permits the passage of sunlight, warming
the earth, but it inhibits the escape of heat into space as
infrared radiation.<br>
While carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by absorption
into the oceans and incorporation into trees and other plants,
these processes have been unable to keep pace with the addition of
the gas from smokestacks, automobile exhaust and other sources.<br>
If, as now seems likely, the development of nuclear energy is
slowed in favor of heavier coal consumption, a more rapid rise in
atmospheric carbon dioxide must be expected. While there is still
muchuncertainty as to how much of an increase could occur without
major influences on climate, Dr. Nordhaus proposed that within 40
years severe restraints might become necessary.<br>
He cited Dr. Broecker's estimate that by 1985 to 1990, there will
have been a 20 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide,
leading to a mean global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit.
This would still be within the range of naturally occurring
changes over the last 100,000 years, Dr. Nordhaus said.<br>
In that period, which included the last ice age, the fluctuations
remained within 10 degrees, but the current climate is near the
upper (warmer) limit of that range. Dr. Nordhaus referred to an
analysis by Dr. Syukuro Manabe and R. T. Wetherald at Princeton
University's Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, which predicted a rise of
almost six degrees if the carbon dioxide doubles.<br>
<br>
<b>Serious Consequence Feared</b><br>
This would exceed the fluctuations of the last 100,000 years,
deduced from analysis of ocean sediments and cores from ice sheet
drill holes, and could have serious consequences. Dr. Nordhaus
also noted that the Princeton studies indicated a far more marked
warming in the polar regions than near the Equator.<br>
In the long run, as noted by Dr. Broecker, this could melt polar
ice, raising sea levels enough to flood many coastal cities and
food producing areas.<br>
To limit the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air to an
increase of 100 per cent, he suggested an escalating tax schedule
that would impose 14 cents a ton of released gas in 1980,
increasing to $87.15 a ton by 2100.<br>
This would force energy consumers to shift to other sources, such
as nuclear energy, which he termed presently “the only proven
large‐scale and low‐cost alternative.” The shift from carbon‐based
fuels would not reach major proportions until about 40 years
hence.<br>
By then energy sources now at an early stage of development, such
as solar power and atomic fusion, might be able to contribute
electric power and noncarbon fuels.<br>
<br>
Since the United States contributes 10 to 20 percent of the carbon
dioxide, any solution must be international, Dr. Nordhaus said. It
will be “expensive, but not unthinkable,” he added.<br>
</font><font color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9">http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15FC355D167493C1A9178DD85F438785F9</a></font><font
size="+1"><i><br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i> </i></font><font
size="+1"><i> You are encouraged to forward this email </i></font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small>. </small><small><b>** Privacy and Security: </b>
This is a text-only mailing that carries no images which may
originate from remote servers. </small><small> Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
</small><small> </small><br>
<small> By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used
for democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes. </small><br>
<small>To subscribe, email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
with subject: subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject:
unsubscribe</small><br>
<small> Also you</small><font size="-1"> may
subscribe/unsubscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a></font><small>
</small><br>
<small> </small><small>Links and headlines assembled and
curated by Richard Pauli</small><small> for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels.</small><small> L</small><small>ist
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>