<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>August 8, 2017</i></font><br>
<b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/shareholders-launch-worldfirst-lawsuit-against-commonwealth-bank-over-climate-change-risks/news-story/db39d5d2f712be35e7d760069d9e3237">Shareholders
launch 'world-first' lawsuit against Commonwealth Bank over
climate change risks</a><br>
</b>TWO shareholders have lodged a world-first lawsuit against the
Commonwealth Bank because it failed to mention climate change risk
in its annual report last year.<br>
Lawyers from Environmental Justice Australia today filed proceedings
in the Federal Court on behalf of shareholders Guy and Kim Abrahams,
with the case expected to test how companies should disclose
information about climate change risks in their annual report.<br>
The claim alleges that by not disclosing the risks posed to its
business, the bank failed to give a true and fair view of its
financial position and performance, as required by the Corporations
Act.<br>
The shareholders also claim the 2016 directors' report did not
adequately inform investors of climate change risks.<br>
They want an injunction to stop the bank making the same mistake in
future annual reports.<b><br>
</b><font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/shareholders-launch-worldfirst-lawsuit-against-commonwealth-bank-over-climate-change-risks/news-story/db39d5d2f712be35e7d760069d9e3237">http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/shareholders-launch-worldfirst-lawsuit-against-commonwealth-bank-over-climate-change-risks/news-story/db39d5d2f712be35e7d760069d9e3237</a></font><b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/commonwealth-bank-shareholders-sue-over-inadequate-disclosure-of-climate-change-risks">Commonwealth
Bank shareholders sue over 'inadequate' disclosure of climate
change risks</a><br>
</b><font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/commonwealth-bank-shareholders-sue-over-inadequate-disclosure-of-climate-change-risks">https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/commonwealth-bank-shareholders-sue-over-inadequate-disclosure-of-climate-change-risks</a></font><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html">Government
Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.</a><br>
By LISA FRIEDMAN <br>
</b>WASHINGTON - The average temperature in the United States has
risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have
been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping
federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump
administration.<br>
The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has
not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the
effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts
claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that
the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the
ability to predict the effects is limited.<br>
"Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the
atmosphere to the depths of the oceans," a draft of the report
states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.<br>
The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of
thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and
in the air. "Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human
activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping)
gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate
change," they wrote.<br>
The report was completed this year and is a special science section
of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally
mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has
signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting
permission from the Trump administration to release it.<br>
The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped
emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still
feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees
Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today. The
projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees
Celsius....<br>
Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is
possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The
field known as "attribution science" has advanced rapidly in
response to increasing risks from climate change....<br>
Additionally, the government scientists wrote that surface, air and
ground temperatures in Alaska and the Arctic are rising at a
frighteningly fast rate - twice as fast as the global average...<br>
"It is very likely that the accelerated rate of Arctic warming will
have a significant consequence for the United States due to
accelerating land and sea ice melting that is driving changes in the
ocean including sea level rise threatening our coastal communities,"
the report says...<br>
Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html</a><br>
<b>DOCUMENT:</b><br>
<b><a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html">Read
the Draft of the Climate Change Report</a></b><br>
A draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not
yet been made public but was obtained by The New York Times,
concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change
right now. The report was completed this year and is part of the
National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every
four years.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf">Download
original draft PDF</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf">https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails">US
federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change',
emails reveal</a></b><br>
Exclusive: series of emails show staff at Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service...<br>
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to
avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the
officials instructed to reference "weather extremes" instead.<br>
A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that
oversees farmers' land conservation, show that the incoming Trump
administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some
federal employees around climate change.<br>
A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists
terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace
them. "Climate change" is in the "avoid" category, to be replaced by
"weather extremes". Instead of "climate change adaption", staff
are asked to use "resilience to weather extremes".<br>
The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted,
with the term "reduce greenhouse gases" blacklisted in favor of
"build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency".
Meanwhile, "sequester carbon" is ruled out and replaced by "build
soil organic matter".<br>
In her email to staff, dated 16 February this year, Moebius-Clune
said the new language was given to her staff and suggests it be
passed on. She writes that "we won't change the modeling, just how
we talk about it - there are a lot of benefits to putting carbon
back in the sail [sic], climate mitigation is just one of them", and
that a colleague from USDA's public affairs team gave advice to
"tamp down on discretionary messaging right now".<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year">(study)
Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 trillon per year</a></b><br>
<b>A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty
fossil fuels</b><br>
Fossil fuels have two major problems that paint a dim picture for
their future energy dominance. These problems are inter-related but
still should be discussed separately. First, they cause climate
change. We know that, we've known it for decades, and we know that
continued use of fossil fuels will cause enormous worldwide economic
and social consequences.<br>
Second, fossil fuels are expensive. Much of their costs are hidden,
however, as subsidies. If people knew how large their subsidies
were, there would be a backlash against them from so-called
financial conservatives.<br>
A study was just published in the journal World Development that
quantifies the amount of subsidies directed toward fossil fuels
globally, and the results are shocking. The authors work at the IMF
and are well-skilled to quantify the subsidies discussed in the
paper.<br>
Let's give the final numbers and then back up to dig into the
details. The subsidies were $4.9 tn in 2013 and they rose to $5.3
tn just two years later. According to the authors, these subsidies
are important because first, they promote fossil fuel use which
damages the environment. Second, these are fiscally costly. Third,
the subsidies discourage investments in energy efficiency and
renewable energy that compete with the subsidized fossil fuels.
Finally, subsidies are very inefficient means to support low-income
households.<br>
With these truths made plain, why haven't subsidies been
eliminated? The answer to that is a bit complicated. Part of the
answer to this question is that people do not fully appreciate the
costs of fossil fuels to the rest of us. Often we think of them as
all gain with no pain.<br>
So what is a subsidy anyway? Well, that too isn't black and white.
Typically, people on the street think of a subsidy as a direct
financial cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below
the opportunity cost of the product (fossil fuel in this case)... <br>
Interested readers are directed to the paper for further details,
but the results are what surprised me. Pre-tax (the narrow view of
subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013.
But the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8
times larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous
values of 5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013. ..<br>
There are two key takeaway messages. First, fossil fuel subsidies
are enormous and they are costs that we all pay, in one form or
another. Second, the subsidies persist in part because we don't
fully appreciate their size. These two facts, taken together,
further strengthen the case to be made for clean and renewable
energy. Clean energy sources do not suffer from the environmental
costs that plague fossil fuels.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year</a><br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867">How
Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?</a></b><br>
- Fossil fuel <b>subsidies are large, amounting to 6.5% of global
GDP in 2015.</b><br>
- <b>Mispricing </b>from a domestic perspective accounts for the
bulk of the subsidy.<br>
- <b>Coal subsidies </b>account for the largest part (about half)
of global subsidies.<br>
- In absolute terms, subsidies are <b>highly concentrated in a few
large countries</b>.<br>
- The environmental, fiscal, and welfare <b>gains from subsidy
reform are substantial.</b><br>
<b>Summary</b><br>
This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and
environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a
broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below
supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.<br>
Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3
trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging
for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air
pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%,
and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in
2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion),
and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3
trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon
emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%,
while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global
GDP.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://climateandsecurity.org/responsibilitytoprepare/">(report)
A Responsibility to Prepare: Governing in an Age of
Unprecedented Risk and Foresight</a></b><br>
by Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia for Climate and Security
August 7, 2017<br>
<strong>Summary: </strong>The world in the 21st century is
characterized by both unprecedented risks and unprecedented
foresight. Climate change, population shifts and cyber-threats are
rapidly increasing the scale and complexity of risks to
international security, while technological developments are
increasing our capacity to foresee those risks. This world of high
consequence risks, which can be better modeled and anticipated than
in the past, underscores a clear responsibility for the
international community: A "Responsibility to Prepare." This
responsibility, which builds on hard-won lessons of the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework for preventing and
responding to mass atrocities, requires a reform of existing
governance institutions to ensure that critical, nontraditional
risks to international security, such as climate change, are
anticipated, analyzed and addressed systematically, robustly and
rapidly by intergovernmental security institutions and the security
establishments of nations that participate in that system...<br>
A Responsibility to Prepare agenda should be developed and adopted
by all nations, while adhering to the overarching principle of
"climate-proofing" security institutions at the international,
regional and national levels. That climate-proofing would include
mainstreaming, integrating, institutionalizing and elevating
attention to climate and security issues at these bodies, as well as
establishing rapid response mechanisms, and developing contingencies
for potential unintended consequences...<br>
Such an agenda - focused as it is on reforming security institutions
- would ensure that critical nontraditional challenges, such as
climate change, are appropriately managed as global security risks,
rather than as niche concerns. A practical fulfillment of the goals
and principles articulated in this Responsibility to Prepare
framework would increase the likelihood of more stable governance in
the face of rapid but foreseeable change...<br>
<b>CONCLUSION</b><br>
The destructive Thirty Years' War compelled European monarchs to
establish a nation-state system at Westphalia in 1648. The globally
devastating First and Second World Wars ultimately precipitated the
creation of an international order centered on the United Nations,
and its enforcement arm, the UN Security Council - a system designed
to protect the sovereignty of states against external aggression and
decrease the likelihood of conflict between states.40 This is the
world order we are still living in today...<br>
However, given the rapid rate of climatic change and the increasing
stress on global security that is likely to follow, this order will
have to adapt - and adapt quickly. The difference between today and
major global disruptions of the past is that we can spot impending
disasters earlier and more easily. Though the risks are
unprecedented, our foresight is unprecedented as well. Technological
developments have given us climate models, and predictive tools,
that enhance our ability to anticipate and mitigate risks. We need
to better utilize those tools, and better integrate them into
international, regional and national security institutions in order
to manage this new world...<br>
However, the window of opportunity to strengthen global governance
in a significantly altered geostrategic environment is narrowing.
Stalled or delayed actions may result in diminishing returns, and,
in the worst-case scenarios, difficult and potentially inhumane
choices in the face of continued strains on natural resources and
political will. This scenario is preventable.<br>
Whether or not the response to climate risks from the international
security community will be commensurate to the threat remains to be
seen. However, in the 21st century we cannot lean on the excuse
that we did not see the threat coming. We do see it coming, and that
foresight makes the Responsibility to Prepare an ironclad one.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climateandsecurity.org/responsibilitytoprepare/">https://climateandsecurity.org/responsibilitytoprepare/</a><br>
Full report PDF <a style="text-decoration: underline; color:
#2585B2;"
href="https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">full report</a><a style="text-decoration:
underline; color: #2585B2;"
href="https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">.</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf">https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/a-responsibility-to-prepare_governing-in-an-age-of-unprecedented-risk-and-unprecedented-foresight_briefer-38.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-storms-leave-dozens-injured-floods-submerge-parts/story?id=49063583">(ABC
video news) Tulsa storms leave dozens injured as floods submerge
parts of Kansas City and New Orleans</a></b><br>
A series of powerful storms, which included a confirmed tornado,
tore through Tulsa, Oklahoma overnight, damaging businesses and
leaving at least 26 people injured, according to a local hospital.<br>
The National Weather Service (NWS) of Tulsa issued warnings
overnight of thunderstorms, flash flooding, and a possible tornado
in the area. Photos released by the Tulsa Fire Department show parts
of the city shrouded in darkness with businesses and street signs
mangled.<br>
Meanwhile, flash flooding submerged parts of Kansas City and New
Orleans in water this weekend.<br>
Four to six inches of rain were reported across parts of Kansas
City, where highway I-35 had to be shut down.<br>
Photos posted on social media by The Missouri Department of Public
Safety show vehicles submerged up to the windows in water.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-storms-leave-dozens-injured-floods-submerge-parts/story?id=49063583">http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-storms-leave-dozens-injured-floods-submerge-parts/story?id=49063583</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CplLWZC6rmE">Maxine
Waters: #RussiaGate about Arctic Oil and Gas</a></b><br>
video from ABC The Political VIEW<br>
greenmanbucket Published on Aug 6, 2017<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CplLWZC6rmE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CplLWZC6rmE</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/lucifer-heat-wave-keeps-parts-eu-red-alert/">'Lucifer'
heat wave keeps parts of EU in red alert</a></b><br>
A taste of worse to follow in coming decades<br>
ROME: Swaths of southern Europe sweltered Saturday in a heatwave
that has claimed several lives, cost billions in crop damage and is,
scientists warned, a foretaste of worse to follow in coming decades.
At least five deaths in Italy and Romania have been attributed to
the extreme conditions since the heatwave set in around the start of
August.<br>
Unusually high, sometimes unprecedented temperatures are being
recorded across an area spanning much of the Iberian peninsula
(Spain and Portugal), southern France, Italy, the Balkans and
Hungary. Thermometer mercury has regularly risen above 40 degrees
Celsius (104 degrees Farenheit) across the affected areas,
exacerbating the impact of an extended drought and the lingering
impact of a July heatwave which sparked wildfires that claimed 60
lives in Portugal.<br>
Hospital admissions have spiked 15-20 percent in Italy, where at
least three people have died. Italians longing for the beach have
dubbed the hot spell "Lucifero", or Lucifer, after the biblical
archangel said to have been condemned forever to the flames of hell.
The latest victim was a woman whose car was swept away overnight by
an avalanche of water and mud as humid conditions near the Alpine
ski resort of Cortina d'Ampezzo broke into torrential rain. That
tragedy follows the deaths on Thursday of two pensioners, a
79-year-old woman and an 82-year-old man, who were caught up in
wildfires in, respectively, the central region of Abruzzo and near
Matera in the south of the country.<br>
Scientists meanwhile warned that deaths due to extreme weather in
Europe could increase fifty-fold from an estimated 3,000 per year
recently to 152,000 by the end of this century - if global warming
is not reined in. Southern Europe will suffer most and heatwaves
would account for 99 percent of the deaths, according to research
conducted for the European Commission and published in The Lancet
Planetary Health.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/lucifer-heat-wave-keeps-parts-eu-red-alert/">http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/lucifer-heat-wave-keeps-parts-eu-red-alert/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://c-spanvideo.org/program/USEnergyPolicy7">This Day
in Climate History August 8, 2005 </a>- from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
August 8, 2005: President George W. Bush signs the pro-fracking
Energy Policy Act into law. Six days later, Mark Hertsgaard
discusses the legislation on Air America's "EcoTalk with Betsy
Rosenberg."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://c-spanvideo.org/program/USEnergyPolicy7">http://c-spanvideo.org/program/USEnergyPolicy7</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=64861">http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=64861</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/ecotalkblog/2005/08/americas_energy.html">http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/ecotalkblog/2005/08/americas_energy.html</a><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>