<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>July 16, 2017</i></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://futurism.com/former-nasa-climate-chief-warns-that-earth-could-become-practically-ungovernable/">Climate
Change Could Make The Earth "Practically Ungovernable"</a></b><br>
It's time to get serious.<br>
DOM GALEON, FUTURISM 15 JUL 2017<br>
Former NASA climate chief James Hansen believes climate change's
most dangerous effect will be a continuous rise in sea levels and
not necessarily the increase in temperatures.<br>
Because so many people live in coastal cities, the mass migrations
inland that will follow this rise could leave the world in
ungovernable chaos.<br>
Simply fixating on the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">potential
negative effects of climate change</a> instead of focusing on
efforts to combat it <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://futurism.com/alarmism-will-not-help-us-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/">will
not help our planet</a>. However, climate change predictions are
the reason these efforts matter, and they provide valuable insights
as to how we should take action.<br>
Hansen asserts that a carbon tax could help stabilize the economy as
the world transitions away from fossil fuels, but the important
thing is that this transition happens. Without serious efforts on
every level, from the individual to the institutional, we stand no
chance of preventing climate change from wreaking havoc on our
planet.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-could-make-the-planet-practically-ungovernable">https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-could-make-the-planet-practically-ungovernable</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://futurism.com/former-nasa-climate-chief-warns-that-earth-could-become-practically-ungovernable/">https://futurism.com/former-nasa-climate-chief-warns-that-earth-could-become-practically-ungovernable/</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<font color="#000099"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.co2.earth/"><font color="#000099">"</font>The
world cannot stabilize what it does not watch.<font
color="#000099">"</font></a></b></font><br>
Year 2100 Projections - Where will proposal form the climate
negotiations lead?<br>
ClimateInteractive.org Based on climate action pledges of UN
member countries<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.co2.earth/">https://www.co2.earth/</a><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463">Why
the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than weather
records suggest</a></b><br>
One of the key questions about climate change is the strength of the
greenhouse effect. In scientific terms this is described as "climate
sensitivity". It's defined as the amount Earth's average temperature
will ultimately rise in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels.<br>
Climate sensitivity has been hard to pin down accurately. Climate
models give a range of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO₂, whereas
historical weather observations suggest a smaller range of 1.5-3.0℃
per doubling of CO₂.<br>
In a new study published in Science Advances, Cristian Proistosescu
and Peter J. Huybers of Harvard University resolve this discrepancy,
by showing that the models are likely to be right...<br>
According to their statistical analysis, historical weather
observations reveal only a portion of the planet's full response to
rising CO₂ levels. The true climate sensitivity will only become
manifest on a time scale of centuries, due to effects that
researchers call "slow climate feedbacks"...<br>
"This illustrates the problem with using historical weather
observations to estimate climate sensitivity - it assumes the
response will be linear. In fact, there are factors in the future
that can push the curve upwards and increase climate variability,
including transient reversals that might interrupt long-term
warming. Put simply, temperatures have not yet caught up with the
rising greenhouse gas levels."...<br>
A study led by climatologist James Hansen concluded that climate
sensitivity is about 3℃ for a doubling of CO₂ when considering only
short-term feedbacks. However, it's potentially as high as 6℃ when
considering a final equilibrium involving much of the West and East
Antarctic ice melting, if and when global greenhouse levels
transcend the 500-700ppm CO₂ range...<br>
Climate change is unlikely to proceed in a linear way. Instead,
there is a range of potential thresholds, tipping points, and points
of no return that can be crossed during either warming or transient
short-lived cooling pauses followed by further warming.<br>
Humanity's release of greenhouse gases is unprecedented in speed and
scale. But if we look far enough back in time we can get some clues
as to what to expect. Around <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=136084&pt=2&p=148709">56
million years ago</a>, Earth experienced warming by 5-8℃ lasting
several millennia, after a sudden release of methane-triggered
feedbacks that caused the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-last-great-global-warming/">CO₂
level rise to around 1,800ppm</a>...<br>
Yet even that sudden rise of CO₂ levels was <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends">lower by a large
factor</a> than the current CO₂ rise rate of 2-3ppm per year. At
this rate, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract">unprecedented
in Earth's recorded history of the past 65 million years</a> (with
the exception of the consequences of asteroid impacts), the climate
may be entering truly uncharted territory.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463">https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract">Cenozoic
mean greenhouse gases and temperature changes with reference to
the Anthropocene</a></b><br>
Authors Andrew Glikson<br>
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13342 <br>
<blockquote>Abstract<br>
Cenozoic greenhouse gases (GHG) variations and warming periods
underscore the extreme rates of current climate change, with major
implications for the adaptability and survivability of terrestrial
and marine habitats. Current rise rate of greenhouse gases,
reaching 3.3 ppm CO2 per year during March 2015-2016, is the
fastest recorded since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event (PETM)
when carbon release to the atmosphere was about an order of
magnitude less than at present. The ice core evidence of
concentration of (GHG) and temperatures in the
atmosphere/ocean/cryosphere system over the last 740 kyr suggests
that the rate of rise in GHG over the last ~260 years, CO2 rates
rising from 0.94 ppm yr−1 in 1959 (315.97 ppm) to 1.62 ppm yr−1 in
2000 (369.52 ppm) to 3.05 ppm yr−1 in 2015 (400.83 ppm),
constitutes a unique spike in the history of the atmosphere...
(clip) <br>
</blockquote>
The accumulation of carbon, including cellulosein trees, grasses,
soils and bogs, methane hydrate andmethane clathrate deposits in
bogs, sediments and per-mafrost, when combined with oxygen emitted
by photosynthesis, sets the stage for flammable land surfaces,
repeatedly ignited by lightning, instantaneous combustion of peat
and by volcanic eruptions. Under high O2, partial pressure even
moist vegetation can be ignited (Bowman et al., 2009). Burial of
carbon in sediments has stored the fuel over geological periods,
buffering the surface inventory of combustible material, pending the
arrival of the Homo sapiens.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html"><br>
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)</a></b><br>
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, R/GMD, 325 Broadway, Boulder,
CO 80305-3328<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:James.H.Butler@noaa.gov">James.H.Butler@noaa.gov</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Stephen.A.Montzka@noaa.gov">Stephen.A.Montzka@noaa.gov</a><br>
Updated Spring 2017<br>
The AGGI is a measure of the climate-warming influence of long-lived
trace gases and how that influence has changed since the onset of
the industrial revolution. The index was designed to enhance the
connection between scientists and society by providing a normalized
standard that can be easily understood and followed. The warming
influence of long-lived greenhouse gases is well understood by
scientists and has been reported by NOAA through a range of national
and international assessments. Nevertheless, the language of
scientists often eludes policy makers, educators, and the general
public. This index is designed to help bridge that gap. The AGGI
provides a way for this warming influence to be presented as a
simple index.<br>
An Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) has been defined as the ratio
of the total direct radiative forcing due to long-lived greenhouse
gases for any year for which adequate global measurements exist to
that which was present in 1990. 1990 was chosen because it is the
baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol. <font size="-1"
color="#666666"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html">https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://saveepa.wordpress.com/">Former
Civil Servants Release Practical Guide for Resisting Trump
Proposals to Dismantle Public Protections</a></b><br>
DENVER - The Trump Administration's assault on federal rules that
protect the public is in full swing. President Trump may be having
trouble getting Congress to adopt his agenda, but he has more
control over federal agencies and he's using it to roll back health,
environmental, consumer, workplace and other protections. In
response, former federal employees today are issuing <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.saveepaalums.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RM-Guide.7-13-17-.pdf">a
guide to help Americans resist the Trump deregulatory agenda</a>
through the federal public comment process and other forms of
activism.<br>
Developed by Save EPA - an all-volunteer, Denver-based group of
former EPA employees - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.saveepaalums.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RM-Guide.7-13-17-.pdf">"A
Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump De-Regulatory Agenda</a>"
is a how-to manual for Americans who want to engage with and
communicate their views to all federal agencies proposing to
rescind, weaken or delay rules that protect the public. Modeled
after the Indivisible Guide for holding Congress accountable, Save
EPA's guide offers insights and<br>
advice for making agencies listen.<br>
"We know that many Americans are deeply disturbed by the
Administration's campaign to roll back rules that protect the health
of our families, a clean environment, the safety of workers, and the
fairness of our economy," said Joni Teter, a leader of the Save EPA
group. "We want to help Americans sound the alarm about the
dangerous and counterproductive actions that are being taken, in
ways that can help make a difference."<br>
Save EPA's guide:<br>
+ debunks standard claims for rolling back regulations<br>
+ provides basic information about how regulations are made<br>
+ offers advice about how to participate effectively in the
rulemaking process<br>
+ suggests complementary tactics to be used outside the rulemaking
process<br>
+ describes how to find out about deregulatory actions and provides
links to<br>
organizations tracking those actions<br>
+ provides links to other helpful guides and materials<br>
Its release comes on the heels of a New York Times report on Monday
that the Trump<br>
Administration's effort to aggressively scale back government
regulations is being<br>
conducted in large part out of public view and often by political
appointees with deep<br>
industry ties and potential conflicts of interest. That article
makes clear the imperative<br>
<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" class="">It is m</span><span
style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" class="">odeled after</span> <a
href="https://www.indivisibleguide.com/" target="_blank"
style="outline: transparent solid 1px;" class="">Indivisible</a>'s
guide holding Congress accountable, it serves as <span style="color:
rgb(51, 51, 51);" class="">a how-to manual </span>for Americans
who want to engage with and communicate their views to all federal
agencies. <br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://saveepa.wordpress.com/">https://saveepa.wordpress.com/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/michael-oppenheimer-10-percent-chance-we-meet-paris-targets.html"><br>
<b>'Personally, I Would Rate the Likelihood of Staying Under Two
Degrees of Warming As Under 10 Percent': Michael Oppenheimer on
the 'Unknown Unknowns' of Climate Change</b></a><br>
"Conventional wisdom doesn't have a good reputation anymore."<br>
<b>What kind of warming is likely? I know that there are so many
factors that go into that, including how we adapt; what is the
likelihood we stay below two degrees?</b><br>
I think the likelihood that we stay below two degrees even with
diligent efforts was relatively small - maybe 20 percent, in my view
- before the Trump withdrawal from Paris. And the likelihood is now
increased markedly that we're not going to make the two degrees.
Personally I would rate the likelihood as under 10 percent. So I
think we need to be prepared for a world where we are going to have
eventually a large sea-level rise, for a world in which we have
extended episodes of unbearable excess heat, for a world where
eventually crop yields will decline significantly in parts of the
world and cause food-security problems that go over the edge at
least periodically, and that means more starvation and malnutrition.
Where natural ecosystems like coral reefs, some of them, are going
to be doomed. We're probably already bought into a world we're not
going to like very much - and the likelihood of other surprising
outcomes is increasing markedly. One of the ones that's already been
pointed to that is of special concern is a shutdown or slowing of
the ocean conveyor belt.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/michael-oppenheimer-10-percent-chance-we-meet-paris-targets.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/michael-oppenheimer-10-percent-chance-we-meet-paris-targets.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201">Three
years to safeguard our climate</a></b><br>
Christiana Figueres and colleagues set out a six-point plan for
turning the tide of the world's carbon dioxide by 2020.<br>
In the past three years, global emissions of carbon dioxide from the
burning of fossil fuels have levelled after rising for decades. This
is a sign that policies and investments in climate mitigation are
starting to pay off. The United States, China and other nations are
replacing coal with natural gas and boosting renewable energy
sources. There is almost unanimous international agreement that the
risks of abandoning the planet to climate change are too great to
ignore.<br>
The technology-driven transition to low-carbon energy is well under
way, a trend that made the 2015 Paris climate agreement possible.
But there is still a long way to go to decarbonize the world
economy. The political winds are blustery. President Donald Trump
has announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris
agreement when it is legally able to do so, in November 2020...<br>
The magnitude of the challenge can be grasped by computing a budget
for CO2 emissions - the maximum amount of the gas that can be
released before the temperature limit is breached. After subtracting
past emissions, humanity is left with a 'carbon credit' of between
150 and 1,050 gigatonnes (Gt; one Gt is 1 × 109 tonnes) of CO2 to
meet the Paris target of 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C (see
go.nature.com/2rytztf). The wide range reflects different ways of
calculating the budgets using the most recent figures...<br>
At the current emission rate of 41 Gt of CO2 per year, the lower
limit of this range would be crossed in 4 years, and the midpoint of
600 Gt of CO2 would be passed in 15 years. If the current rate of
annual emissions stays at this level, we would have to drop them
almost immediately to zero once we exhaust the budget. Such a 'jump
to distress' is in no one's interest. A more gradual descent would
allow the global economy time to adapt smoothly.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201">https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/14/15959968/climate-change-teenager">Why
aren't politicians doing more on climate change? Maybe because
they're so old.</a></b><br>
I'm a teenager. Unlike the average member of Congress, I'll have to
live with the devastation of climate change.<br>
Our country's leaders have a problem, and it's called apathy.<br>
There is no such thing as a "climate change denier" - only a person
who doesn't understand the problem enough to care. Climate change is
happening, and it's our cars, our cows, and our factories that are
warming the earth and slowly bringing disaster. Which is why it
makes me so upset that such a large number of our politicians
consistently deny climate change and promote irresponsible corporate
actions.<br>
I'm a 16-year-old from Cincinnati. "Climate change" was always a
term I heard people toss around, but I didn't think much of it until
freshman year when my debate team was assigned the topic of carbon
taxes. I was practically forced into doing hours of research on
climate change, and as I became aware of the devastating
consequences that are just on the horizon, I became passionate about
protecting future generations from the mess we created. And I got
really angry at our politicians for their consistent inaction.<br>
Far too many politicians are apathetic about climate change<br>
Why don't our politicians care? Maybe because they won't be here to
experience the real consequences of climate change.<br>
Why don't our politicians care?<br>
My answer to this question came last fall, when I realized that the
average senator is 62 years old, and the average House member is 57.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/14/15959968/climate-change-teenager">https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/14/15959968/climate-change-teenager</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
(Opinions from Australia)<br>
<b><a
href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-climate-change-scare-campaign-most-politicians-wont-go-near-20170713-gxahjc.html">The
climate change scare campaign most politicians won't go near</a></b><br>
Jacqueline Maley <br>
You can tell the coal-fanciers within the Coalition are panicked.
Not content with scaremongering about rising electricity prices,
they are now invoking the greatest carbon price of them all - death.<br>
On Thursday morning Liberal MP Craig Kelly said people would die of
cold this winter because renewable energy was putting up electricity
prices.<br>
Both elements of this outlandish statement were baseless and wrong,
but instead of that disqualifying Kelly from the debate, it served
only to burnish his credentials for it.<br>
Because when it comes to climate change policy, if you're not
scaring people, preferably age pensioners - a magical category of
voter who can ill afford bill hikes and will never live to see the
effects of dangerous climate change - you're just not doing it
right.<br>
The greatest thing about this scare campaign? You don't even have to
make up the facts.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-climate-change-scare-campaign-most-politicians-wont-go-near-20170713-gxahjc.html">http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-climate-change-scare-campaign-most-politicians-wont-go-near-20170713-gxahjc.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties">Tobacco
companies tighten hold on Washington under Trump</a></b><br>
Top White House figures - including the vice-president and health
secretary - have deep ties to an industry whose donations began
pouring in on day one<br>
Tobacco companies have moved swiftly to strengthen their grip on
Washington politics, ramping up lobbying efforts and securing
significant regulatory wins in the first six months of the Trump
era.<br>
Day one of Donald Trump's presidency started with tobacco donations,
senior figures have been put in place within the Trump
administration who have deep ties to tobacco, and lobbying activity
has increased significantly.<br>
"As in so many areas, the promise to drain the swamp has been an
extraordinary hypocrisy," said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who
supported anti-tobacco legislation and was one of the US attorneys
general to broker a hundred-billion-dollar settlement with tobacco
companies in the 1990s. "Many of his appointees have deep
commitments to the tobacco industry," he said.<br>
"Tobacco industry influence in Washington is pervasive, in many
different ways," Blumenthal said. "They have an active presence on
the Hill, they meet frequently with administrative agencies, on
hugely significant issues such as regulation of e-cigarettes,
tobacco packaging and warnings."<br>
America's largest cigarette manufacturers, Reynolds American and
Altria Group, donated $1.5m to help the new president celebrate his
inauguration. The donations allowed executives to dine and mingle
with top administration officials and their families.<font size="-1"
color="#666666"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.kuenselonline.com/climate-change-a-challenge-to-water-energy-and-food-nexus/">Climate
change, a challenge to water, energy and food nexus</a></b><br>
July 6, 2017 News Leave a comment 1,137 Views<br>
Although South Asian countries have potential to generate energy and
water available for food production, climate change remains a
challenge.<br>
At the SAARC regional consultation meeting on water, energy and food
nexus in Thimphu on July 4, the director of climate change center
with the university of agriculture in Pakistan, Prof Muhammad
Zulfiqar (PhD) said, food and water are essential for existence
whereas, energy is the key to human development. "Access to these
resources and their sustainable management are the basis for
sustainable development."<br>
Bhutan, he said, has the potential to generate 30,000 megawatt of
electricity with 72 percent of the country's population already
having access to electricity. Bhutan also has the potential to
generate an average of four kWh/m2/day of solar energy.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.kuenselonline.com/climate-change-a-challenge-to-water-energy-and-food-nexus/">http://www.kuenselonline.com/climate-change-a-challenge-to-water-energy-and-food-nexus/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://wp.me/p2dVD-2qM">(rant-like
opinion) Scott Pruitt and the Whiny Crybaby Losers</a></b><br>
New post on Open Mind by tamino<br>
Scott Pruitt wants to replace science with a 3-ring circus <br>
Scott Pruitt, new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
wants a "red team/blue team debate" about global warming. That's
where two sides argue different opinions on some topic, and at its
best it brings greater clarity about the issue. In this case, red is
"The consensus of climate scientists is wrong," blue is "The
consensus is right."<br>
We've already had this debate, for over 100 years, right where it
should take place: the scientific literature and scientific
conferences. The red team lost. Big time. But they are sore losers,
whiny little crybabies.<br>
The whiny crybaby losers have a champion: Scott Pruitt. He doesn't
just want a "red team/blue team" debate, he wants one broadcast on
TV. That kind of "debate" is bad for truth, good for lawyer-type
rhetoric. It won't matter who's right or wrong, just who can be more
charismatic and/or persuasive to the general public.<br>
This charade will be nothing but a 3-ring circus. The only thing it
will accomplish is to provide lots of 10-second soundbites to be
endlessly repeated on Faux news.<br>
How about a red team/blue team debate - on TV - to decide whether or
not cigarettes cause cancer?<br>
If Scott Pruitt and the rest of the Trump administration were in the
pockets of big tobacco, that's what we'd get. But they're in the
pockets of fossil fuel money - so this is what we get.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wp.me/p2dVD-2qM">http://wp.me/p2dVD-2qM</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/al_gore-1992dnc.htm">This
Day in Climate History July 16, 1992</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
July 16, 1992: At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Senator
and Vice-Presidential nominee Al Gore notes:<br>
“I've spent much of my career working to protect the environment,
not only because it is vital to the future of my State of Tennessee,
our country and our earth, but because I believe there is a
fundamental link between our current relationship to the earth and
the attitudes that stand in the way of human progress. For
generations we have believed that we could abuse the earth because
we were somehow not really connected to it, but now we must face the
truth. The task of saving the earth's environment must and will
become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world.<br>
“And just as the false assumption that we are not connected to the
earth has led to the ecological crisis, so the equally false
assumption that we are not connected to each other has led to our
social crisis.”<br>
He also declares that President George H. W. Bush and Vice
President Dan Quayle “embarrassed our nation when the whole world
was asking for American leadership in confronting the environmental
crisis. It is time for them to go.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/27161-1">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/27161-1</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/al_gore-1992dnc.htm">http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/al_gore-1992dnc.htm</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<i><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>