<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 1, 2017</i></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2017/09/30/puerto-rico-grid-in-ruins-can-solar-help/">Puerto
Rico Grid in Ruins. Can Solar Help?</a></b><br>
It's been over a week since Maria tore through Puerto Rico, leaving
a tangle of transmission lines in its wake. The hurricane knocked
out all of the island's electricity, just weeks after Irma took down
electricity for 1 million people. Thousands still hadn't had their
electricity restored when the second storm arrived.<br>
This week, Tesla announced it would send Powerwall storage packs to
help restore power. And on Friday, the Solar Energy Industries
Association (SEIA) <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.seia.org/disaster-response">posted an
announcement </a>about its effort to coordinate with solar
companies to donate equipment and installation services.<br>
In the event of a giant storm like Maria, microgrids and
smaller-scale electricity generation would have made it more
difficult to decimate the entire system.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2017/09/30/puerto-rico-grid-in-ruins-can-solar-help/">https://climatecrocks.com/2017/09/30/puerto-rico-grid-in-ruins-can-solar-help/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/29/16377806/mckibben-effect">The
McKibben effect: a case study in how radical environmentalism
can work</a></b><br>
Extreme proposals can shift polarized debates.<br>
Updated by David Roberts<br>
The question can be boiled down to this: When a radical faction
makes extreme policy demands, what effect does it have on the larger
policy debate?<br>
Does it discredit the moderates on the same side, by association? Or
does it legitimate them, by contrast? Do advocates for cocaine
legalization tarnish advocates for marijuana legalization, by making
"legalization" in general seem radical? Or do they have the effect
of making marijuana legalization seem like the safe, centrist
choice?<br>
Based on their behavior, the two US political parties have different
answers to these questions.<br>
The hard-right conservative movement that began building in the
1960s has now entirely colonized the GOP. Right-wing media, which
has no incentive to compromise and every incentive to stoke outrage,
is in the driver's seat. The imperative for Republican politicians,
most of whom come from safe seats, is to satisfy their radicals,
lest they face a primary challenge.<br>
The left has always been more wary of its activists. The
relationship between the party and the left end of the spectrum is
notoriously contentious, as was rehearsed repeatedly throughout the
Obama years and yet again in the 2016 primary.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/29/16377806/mckibben-effect">https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/29/16377806/mckibben-effect</a></font><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2957590">Bill
McKibben's Influence on U.S. Climate Change Discourse: Shifting
Field-level Debates Through Radical Flank Effects</a></b><br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
This paper examines the influence of radical flank actors in
shifting field-level debates by increasing the legitimacy of
pre-existing but peripheral issues. Using network text analysis, we
apply this conceptual model to the climate change debate in the U.S.
and the efforts of Bill McKibben and 350.org to pressure major
universities to "divest" their fossil fuel assets. What we find is
that, as these new actors and issue entered the debate, liberal
policy ideas (such as a carbon tax), which had previously been
marginalized in the U.S. debate, gained increased attention and
legitimacy while the divestment effort itself gained limited
traction. This result expands theory on indirect pathways to
institutional change through a discursive radical flank mechanism,
and suggests that the actual influence of Bill McKibben on the U.S.
climate debate goes beyond the precise number of schools that divest
to include a shift in the social and political discourse.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2957590">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2957590</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
(YouTube interview)-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB4mR5XTDg0">Crossing
Climate Change's Event Horizon: The Point Of No Return For
Humanity (Prof. Daniel Rothman)</a></b><br>
Thom talks with Climate Scientist, Professor Daniel Rothman on the
point of no return for climate change, at what point will we not be
able to turn things around? <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB4mR5XTDg0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB4mR5XTDg0</a></font><br>
-<br>
MIT news article<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.mit.edu/2017/mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-0920">Mathematics
predicts a sixth mass extinction</a></b><br>
By 2100, oceans may hold enough carbon to launch mass extermination
of species in future millennia.<br>
He then determined that the critical rate applies only beyond the
timescale at which the marine carbon cycle can re-establish its
equilibrium after it is disturbed. Today, this timescale is about
10,000 years. For much shorter events, the critical threshold is no
longer tied to the rate at which carbon is added to the oceans but
instead to the carbon's total mass. Both scenarios would leave an
excess of carbon circulating through the oceans and atmosphere,
likely resulting in global warming and ocean acidification.<br>
The century's the limit<br>
From the critical rate and the equilibrium timescale, Rothman
calculated the critical mass of carbon for the modern day to be
about 310 gigatons.<br>
He then compared his prediction to the total amount of carbon added
to the Earth's oceans by the year 2100, as projected in the most
recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The
IPCC projections consider four possible pathways for carbon dioxide
emissions, ranging from one associated with stringent policies to
limit carbon dioxide emissions, to another related to the high range
of scenarios with no limitations.<br>
The best-case scenario projects that humans will add 300 gigatons of
carbon to the oceans by 2100, while more than 500 gigatons will be
added under the worst-case scenario, far exceeding the critical
threshold. In all scenarios, Rothman shows that by 2100, the carbon
cycle will either be close to or well beyond the threshold for
catastrophe.<br>
"There should be ways of pulling back [emissions of carbon
dioxide]," Rothman says. "But this work points out reasons why we
need to be careful, and it gives more reasons for studying the past
to inform the present."<br>
This research was supported, in part, by NASA and the National
Science Foundation.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news.mit.edu/2017/mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-0920">http://news.mit.edu/2017/mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-0920</a></font><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO-mrPfY48">(YouTube) On
A Scale Of One To Ten What Will Climate Change Do To The Planet?
(w/Guest Peter Wadhams)</a></b><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO-mrPfY48">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO-mrPfY48</a></font><br>
-<br>
(YouTube video) The Big Picture RT<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzVMV-Yj2qo">Climate
Apocalypse?</a></b><br>
Published on Sep 26, 2017<br>
Professor Peter Wadhams ScD, Professor of Ocean Physics / Head of
the Polar Ocean Physics Group-Department of Applied Mathematics and
Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, UK RE: A Farewell to
Ice: A Report from the Arctic. We could be just eighteen years away
from a climate apocalypse...<br>
For more information on the stories we've covered visit our websites
at thomhartmann.com - freespeech.org - and RT.com. You can also
watch tonight's show on Hulu - at Hulu.com/THE BIG PICTURE and over
at The Big Picture YouTube page. And - be sure to check us out on
Facebook and Twitter!<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzVMV-Yj2qo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzVMV-Yj2qo</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
Earth101 videos<br>
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mixlKIuT0tA">Why 2
degrees C? The Range and the Risks - an Earth101 short (9:25)</a></b><br>
Published on Sep 29, 2017<br>
Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf talks about the role of the Paris
Agreement in 2015, why we need to aim higher if we want to keep
global temperature increase at or below 2 degrees C, and the
catastrophic problems we will be faced with if we fail to do so.<br>
Stefan Rahmstorf obtained his PhD in oceanography at Victoria
University of Wellington in 1990. He has worked as a scientist at
the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at the Institute of Marine
Science in Kiel and since 1996 at the Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research. His work focuses on the role of the oceans in
climate change. <br>
In 1999 Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship
Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation. Since 2000 he
teaches Physics of the Oceans as a professor at Potsdam University.
Rahmstorf served from 2004–2013 in the German Advisory Council on
Global Change (WBGU) and was one of the lead authors of the 4th IPCC
Assessment Report.<br>
Dr. Rahmstorf has published over 100 scientific papers (30 in
leading journals such as Nature, Science and PNAS) and co-authored
four books. Available in English are Our Threatened Oceans (2009,
with Katherine Richardson) and The Climate Crisis (2010, with David
Archer).<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mixlKIuT0tA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mixlKIuT0tA</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
(YouTube video) Thom Hartmann Program<br>
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JfQMAQL-Kw">Will
Humanity Survive the Next 50 Years Of Climate Change? (w/Guest
Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan)</a></b><br>
Published on Sep 26, 2017<br>
Thom is joined by top climate scientist, Dr. Veerabhaadran
Ramanathan (Distinguished Professor-Scripps Institution Of
Oceanography, UC San Diego & UNESCO Professor Of Climate &
Policy, TERI University, New Delhi, India) to discuss the
possibility that climate change could lead to human extinction in
the next 50 years. What can we do to fight global climate change
before it gets too late? <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JfQMAQL-Kw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JfQMAQL-Kw</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092017/solar-tariff-threat-looming-questions-homeowners-buying-itc-ruling-trump">Solar
Panel Tariff Threat: 8 Questions Homeowners Are Asking</a></b><br>
If the ITC ruling leads to tariffs on cheap solar imports, it could
send shock waves through the market. What would that mean for solar
prices and jobs?<br>
<b>How expensive could solar get?</b><br>
Expect sticker shock if the Trump administration imposes the kind of
temporary tariff and price floor that Suniva has proposed.<br>
An<span> </span><a
href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-costs-are-hitting-jaw-dropping-lows-in-every-region-of-the-world"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">analysis
by GTM research shows</a><span> </span>the prices for big
utility-size solar would double in 2018—in effect, turning the clock
back six years as prices return to their 2012 levels.<br>
But the price of residential rooftop systems wouldn't double in that
scenario, because the price of the solar module is only a small
fraction of the price of an installed system. Labor, supply chain
costs, permitting and other so-called "soft costs" account for most
of the money homeowners have to lay out when they go solar.<br>
A 15 percent jump in residential solar system prices would be more
likely, based on the latest average price figures from<span> </span><a
href="https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">the
U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.</a><br>
For a 5.7-kilowatt solar rooftop system, that would mean an increase
from $16,000 to about $18,400. For comparison, as recently as 2010,
the price of such a system would have been about $41,270, according
to NREL's analysis.<br>
<b>How likely is a solar price hike?</b><br>
The ITC ruling tips the balance in favor of a tariff that most
industry observers believe President<span> </span><a
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/donald-trump"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;"><strong
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">Donald Trump</strong></a><span> </span>was
inclined to impose anyway.<br>
<b>My state is pro-solar. Will things be different?</b><br>
Maybe. Currently, rooftop solar energy is cost-competitive with
conventional electricity from the grid in 43 states, according to<span> </span><a
href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/suniva-dispute-could-halt-two-thirds-of-us-solar-installations"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">GTM
Research</a>. A price floor and tariffs could eliminate solar's
advantage in 17 of those states.<br>
<b>Should I buy now, before solar prices jump?</b><br>
That may not be so easy. One Phoenix, Arizona, installer told<a
href="http://www.npr.org/2017/08/22/544544791/in-solar-trade-dispute-will-proposed-tariffs-cost-industry-jobs"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;"><span> </span>NPR</a><span> </span>that
there's "a sort of panic buying mode in the marketplace right now,"
with installers scrambling to stock up on panels. That could
disproportionately hurt consumers in the residential market.<br>
<b>Would this mean the government is trying to discourage me from
going solar?</b><br>
No—oddly enough, the government will still be offering generous
solar incentives, with the current investment tax credit.<span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 15px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !
important; float: none;"></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial; display: inline ! important; float: none;"></span><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.seia.org/research-resources/impacts-solar-investment-tax-credit-extension">The
investment tax credit </a>is set to phase out after 2019. But so
would the protective tariffs, under the section of the trade law
that's being invoked.<br>
<b>Is there a difference between leasing and buying?</b><br>
For several years, leasing arrangements by companies like SolarCity,
Sunrun, Sungevity and others, drove the residential solar
market—making it easy for residents to benefit from rooftop
installations without a big upfront outlay of cash.<br>
Just as a consumer who leases an electric car doesn't see the tax
break but does enjoy the cheap fuel, a homeowner who goes that route
ends up with seemingly free panels on the roof and a much lower
electric bill, possibly even running the meter backwards.<br>
<b>So, what's the bottom line?</b><br>
... instead of focusing on the uncertainties in Washington,
consumers should look closer to home.<br>
"Are you in a state where there's already a lot of solar being put
on your neighbors homes?" he asks. "If so, that means solar is
already fairly attractive. From there, how much it is actually going
to change is going to be a state by state calculus." <br>
GTM is projecting nationwide residential solar sales will be down 30
percent from previous projections, with continued strong sales in
markets like California and Arizona, but progress stalling in
toehold states like Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.<br>
"For states where solar was on the cusp of being viable, the
timeline will be set back," Honeyman said.<br>
<b>Is there anything else to consider? </b> <br>
No matter where you live or what the Trump administration decides to
do about imported solar panels, it's carbon-free electricity at a
time when science says the world must wean itself off fossil energy.
And in the long run, price pressures point only downward for a
technology whose fuel, sunshine, will always be free. The
technology's main selling point is something you can bank on, even
while future policy and prices are up in the air.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092017/solar-tariff-threat-looming-questions-homeowners-buying-itc-ruling-trump">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092017/solar-tariff-threat-looming-questions-homeowners-buying-itc-ruling-trump</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.44781/title.vic-mensa-explains-how-donald-trump-is-making-the-fight-against-global-warming-harder#">Vic
Mensa Explains How Donald Trump Is Making The Fight Against
Global Warming Harder</a></b><br>
September 29, 2017 | 4:11 PM<br>
video <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/7eSgWqDIHhM">HipHopDX
gets to speak with Mensa during one of two benefit shows with
Tidal. </a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/7eSgWqDIHhM">https://youtu.be/7eSgWqDIHhM</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.44781/title.vic-mensa-explains-how-donald-trump-is-making-the-fight-against-global-warming-harder#">https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.44781/title.vic-mensa-explains-how-donald-trump-is-making-the-fight-against-global-warming-harder#</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/01/warm_enough_for_you_120159.html">This
Day in Climate History October 1, 2013</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
October 1, 2013: Syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson writes:<br>
"Skeptics and deniers can make all the noise they want, but a
landmark<br>
new report is unequivocal: There is a 95 percent chance that<br>
human-generated emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases<br>
are changing the climate in ways that court disaster.<br>
"That's the bottom line from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<br>
Change, which Monday released the latest of its comprehensive,<br>
every-six-years assessments of the scientific consensus about
climate<br>
change. According to the IPCC, there is only a 1-in-20 chance that<br>
human activity is not causing dangerous warming.<br>
"You may like those betting odds. If so, let's get together for a<br>
friendly game of poker, and please don't forget to bring cash."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/01/warm_enough_for_you_120159.html">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/01/warm_enough_for_you_120159.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i> </i></font><font
size="+1"><i> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="a%20href=%22mailto:contact@theClimate.Vote%22">Send
email to subscribe</a> to this mailing. </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>