<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 6, 2017</i></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/dutch-regulator-tasks-banks-and-insurers-on-climate-change-risk">Dutch
Regulator Warns Banks and Insurers to Factor In Climate Change</a></b><br>
Global warming increases chances of costly high-impact storms<br>
Central bank is working on developing climate stress tests<br>
Banks, insurers, and other financial institutions must do more to
take into account the risks posed by climate change to their
business, a Dutch Central Bank study said.<br>
As global warming increases the risk of extreme weather events,
regulators are giving more attention to its economic and market
implications, with estimates showing that a single high-impact storm
could cause damages of as much as 60 billion euros ($71 billion),
according to the report published on Thursday. The Netherlands,
which is largely below sea level, runs an inordinate risk of being
affected by such events.<br>
"Dutch insurers will have to deal with an increasing claims-burden
as a result of climate-related damage," the central bank said in the
report. "This in turn may lead to shock-induced price rises in
premiums. Furthermore, climate change is making it more difficult to
estimate the likelihood of extreme weather."<br>
The study also points out risks that may arise from the transition
to a low-carbon economy. A majority of financial institutions have
yet to include "all relevant energy label data in their risk
management systems," and this may undermine market acceptance and
the "value of office buildings that do not meet this requirement."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/dutch-regulator-tasks-banks-and-insurers-on-climate-change-risk">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/dutch-regulator-tasks-banks-and-insurers-on-climate-change-risk</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://thinkprogress.org/transcanada-scraps-energy-east-9d45aa211463/">After
climate crackdown, TransCanada scraps major tar sands pipeline</a></b><br>
Blame (or thank) Canada's regulatory board.<br>
After the Canadian government decided to look closely at the
potential climate impacts of the project, tar sands pipeline
developer TransCanada scrapped plans to build a pipeline from the
Alberta tar sands to the East Coast of Canada, where oil would have
been loaded on tankers bound for refineries in the Gulf Coast.<br>
In a press release Thursday, the company - which is also behind the
controversial Keystone XL project - said the decision to cancel the
Energy East project, a tar sands pipeline to New Brunswick, and the
Eastern Mainline project, a natural gas pipeline along the northern
side of Lake Ontario, came "after careful review of changed
circumstances."<br>
The Canadian National Energy Board told the company in late August
that the projects'<br>
environmental reviews would look at the total lifecycle greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions associated with the projects - including from
extracting, processing, transporting, refining, and eventually
burning the fossil fuels. <br>
"The Board typically considers direct GHG emissions from
construction and operations activities when assessing facilities
applications," the board wrote in a letter to TransCanada. "Given
increasing public interest in GHG emissions, together with
increasing governmental actions and commitments (including the
federal government's stated interest in assessing upstream GHG
emissions associated with major pipelines), the Board is of the view
that it should also consider indirect GHG emissions in its [National
Energy Board] Act public interest determination for each of the
Projects."<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thinkprogress.org/transcanada-scraps-energy-east-9d45aa211463/">https://thinkprogress.org/transcanada-scraps-energy-east-9d45aa211463/</a></font><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1CA19K-OCABS"><b>TransCanada
kills controversial Energy East Pipeline project</b></a><br>
...The decision to scrap the C$15 billion ($12 billion) project came
nearly a month after the company asked regulators to suspend the
application process in the face of tough official scrutiny...<br>
It heads off a broader political row over the project for Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, which was trying to
balance diversifying Canada's oil export markets with its commitment
to tackling climate change.<br>
Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) granted TransCanada a 30-day
suspension on Sept. 8, after the company said it needed to review
the impact of new assessment criteria that would consider the C$15.7
billion ($12.58 billion) project's indirect greenhouse gas
contributions...<br>
...environmental groups questioned the need for a pipeline they said
was at odds with Canada's commitment to tackle climate change.<br>
"This project was so wrong and so dangerous, its hard to believe it
was seriously contemplated," Gretchen Fitzgerald, national program
director of environmental organization the Sierra Club, said.<br>
"The emissions associated with new pipelines are inconsistent with
our climate imperative and the threat to waterways, wildlife, and
lands was enormous."<br>
Environmental Defence, one of the main groups campaigning against
the project, said new pipelines could not be justified at a time of
declining investment in the tar sands, pipeline overcapacity, and a
transition to renewable energy.<br>
Energy East was up for its second NEB review, after the first
stalled last year amid protests by environmentalists and after
revelations that regulatory panel members met privately with a
TransCanada consultant.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/transcanada-kills-controversial-energy-east-pipeline-project/article36498370/">https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1CA19K-OCABS</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.fastcompany.com/40474390/how-climate-change-is-making-hunger-worse-around-the-world">How
Climate Change Is Making Hunger Worse Around The World</a></b><br>
The annual Global Food Security Index is now tracking a country's
natural resource supply, and its resiliency in the event of a major
natural disaster. The conclusion: climate change is making it harder
to feed people.<br>
Since 2012, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the research arm of the
Economist group, has compiled a yearly assessment of the ability of
113 countries to feed their populations. This year, the Global Food
Security Index recorded a slip in food security for the first time
after four consecutive years of improvement; this trend is backed up
by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which found
that wars and climate-related disasters have left 38 million more
people undernourished than in 2015.<br>
The GFSI gets more granular, tracking the affordability,
availability, quality, and safety of food on a country-by-country
basis to come up with a comprehensive food security score. Around
60% of the 113 countries included in the GFSI saw their scores drop
this year. For the first time, the U.S. dropped from its place at
the top of the rankings, scoring 84.6 out of 100–a whole point less
than Ireland, whose comeback after its financial crisis of 2008 has
involved significant research and investment in supporting food
security.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.fastcompany.com/40474390/how-climate-change-is-making-hunger-worse-around-the-world">https://www.fastcompany.com/40474390/how-climate-change-is-making-hunger-worse-around-the-world</a></font><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country">Global Food
Security Index</a></b><br>
Explore countries<br>
Click map to view country profile<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country">http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country</a></font><br>
- <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41504155">Food
and farming policies 'need total rethink'</a></b><br>
<font size="-1">By Claire Marshall BBC News</font><br>
A big meeting in London will look at how reforms could help halt
species extinction, meet climate goals, limit the spread of
antibiotic resistance and improve animal welfare.<br>
The organisers of the Extinction and Livestock Conference say
diverse interests will be represented.<br>
They include multinational food corporations, native breed farmers,
neurologists and naturalists.<br>
McDonalds, Tesco and Compass will be rubbing shoulders with those
from the Sustainable Food Trust, Quorn and WWF. The 500 delegates
come from more than 30 countries.<br>
Their wide interests illustrate the complex and difficult issues
arising from global livestock production.<br>
'Catastrophic impacts'<br>
The two-day conference is being organised by Compassion in World
Farming (CiWF).<br>
The campaigning organisation warns that "there will be catastrophic
impacts for life on Earth unless there is a global move away from
intensive farming".<br>
The world is on track to lose two-thirds of its wildlife by the end
of this decade, largely because habitats have been destroyed to
produce food for humans.<br>
There has been a rise in so-called "superbugs" linked to the use of
antibiotics in farmed animals. And methane emissions from livestock
have made a significant contribution to climate change.<br>
CiWF CEO Philip Lymbery said: "Livestock production, the
environment, wildlife conservation and human health are all
interlinked, so it's vital that experts from each of these fields
work together to come up with practical solutions to stop this
before it's too late."<br>
CiWF believes that there should be a total rethink of food and
farming policies, enshrined in the framework of a UN Convention....<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41504155">http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41504155</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102017/greenpeace-rico-racketeering-lawsuit-environmental-activism-resolute-dakota-access-">Industry
Lawsuits Try to Paint Environmental Activism as Illegal Racket</a></b><br>
Logging and pipeline companies are using a new legal tactic to seek
damages from Greenpeace and other groups. The long-shot cases are
having a chilling effect.<br>
Then, on the last day of that month, Greenpeace and Stand were hit
with an unusual lawsuit brought by Resolute Forest Products, one of
Canada's largest logging and paper companies, that could cost the
groups hundreds of millions of dollars if Resolute wins.<br>
The timber company said the organizations, which for years had
campaigned against Resolute's logging in Canada's boreal forest,
were conspiring illegally to extort the company's customers and
defraud their own donors.<br>
Invoking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or
RICO, a federal conspiracy law devised to ensnare mobsters, the suit
accuses the organizations, as well as several green campaigners
individually and numerous unidentified "co-conspirators," of running
what amounts to a giant racket.<br>
"Maximizing donations, not saving the environment, is Greenpeace's
true objective," the complaint says. "Its campaigns are consistently
based on sensational misinformation untethered to facts or science,
but crafted instead to induce strong emotions and, thereby,
donations." Dozens of the group's campaign emails and tweets, it
said, constituted wire fraud.<br>
"As an NGO, that is a deeply chilling argument," said Carroll
Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law
(CIEL), which joined eight other groups to file an amici curiae
brief supporting a move to dismiss Resolute's case.<br>
<font size="+1"><a
href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3229327-Complaint.html"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; outline:
0px; font-weight: bold; font-family: "Open Sans",
sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Read
the filed complaint</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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; display: inline
!important; float: none;"><span> </span><span></span></span></font>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3229327-Complaint.html">https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3229327-Complaint.html</a><br>
The far-reaching lawsuit has seized attention across the
environmental advocacy and legal communities. Arguments are to be
heard in court next week.<br>
On Oct. 10, Greenpeace will ask a federal judge in California to
dismiss the case. The group submitted a similar motion last year in
Georgia, where the suit was originally filed. The Georgia judge
later moved the case to California, where two of the defendants are
based, saying Resolute had not provided any "factual basis from
which to infer that defendants committed fraud or extortion" in
Georgia. "Rather, the allegations in the complaint, at best, support
the inference that the defendants organized and held a protest in
Augusta."<br>
"It is very alarming that you can have plaintiffs like this,
representing corporate interests attacking legitimate critics doing
advocacy work by just drafting a complaint, throwing whatever in
there, stretching racketeering law and going after constitutionally
protected free speech by throwing labels out there basically trying
to criminalize legitimate advocacy work," said Tom Wetterer,
Greenpeace's general counsel.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102017/greenpeace-rico-racketeering-lawsuit-environmental-activism-resolute-dakota-access">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102017/greenpeace-rico-racketeering-lawsuit-environmental-activism-resolute-dakota-access</a>-<br>
</font>-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.stand.earth/latest/stand-me-october-10-moment-truth-trumpian-lawsuit">Stand
with Me on October 10: A Moment of Truth in Trumpian Lawsuit</a></b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.stand.earth/latest/stand-me-october-10-moment-truth-trumpian-lawsuit">https://www.stand.earth/latest/stand-me-october-10-moment-truth-trumpian-lawsuit</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/climate/trump-climate-change.html">Trump
Takes a First Step Toward Scrapping Obama's Global Warming
Policy</a></b><br>
WASHINGTON - The Trump administration will repeal the Clean Power
Plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to fight
climate change, and will ask the public to recommend ways it could
be replaced, according to an internal Environmental Protection
Agency document.<br>
The draft proposal represents the administration's first substantive
step toward rolling back the plan, which was designed to curb
greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, after months of
presidential tweets and condemnations of Mr. Obama's efforts to
reduce climate-warming pollution.<br>
But it also lays the groundwork for new, presumably weaker,
regulations by asking for the public and industry to offer ideas for
a replacement...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/climate/trump-climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/climate/trump-climate-change.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-10-people-world-climate-americans.html">Why
people around the world fear climate change more than Americans
do</a></b><br>
Phys.Org Public response can vary depending on what's going on
in the news that ... Merely substituting the term "global warming" –
now a politically charged ...<br>
When asked about major threats to their country, Europeans are more
likely than Americans to cite global climate change, according to a
recent Pew Research Center survey. Just 56 percent of Americans see
climate change as a major threat, versus an average of 64 percent of
Europeans surveyed.<br>
Why the difference? Like climate data itself, data regarding public
concern for climate change are "noisy." Public response can vary
depending on what's going on in the news that week. Surveys of these
types of surveys find no single explanation for how the public
perceives the threat of climate change.<br>
Of course, many explanations exist. As a climatologist who has
taught university classes and given public lectures on global
climate change for 30 years, I find it clear that public concern
about climate change has evolved dramatically over the past three
decades. In the U.S., now more than ever, it seems tied to ideology.<br>
A person's outlook on the world can also complicate matters.Another
recent Pew survey found that Americans are more likely to believe
they control their own destiny and that they "tend to prioritize
individual liberty, while Europeans tend to value the role of the
state to ensure no one in society is in need."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-10-people-world-climate-americans.html">https://phys.org/news/2017-10-people-world-climate-americans.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wegMuOHyyPw">Preparing
Aging Populations for Climate Change in British Columbia and
Beyond - Panel Session</a></b><br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/wegMuOHyyPw?t=33m11s">https://youtu.be/wegMuOHyyPw?t=33m11s</a>
Living close to highways<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wegMuOHyyPw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wegMuOHyyPw</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/10/1-5oc-geophysically-impossible-or-not/">1.5
degrees C: Geophysically impossible or not?</a></b><br>
4 October 2017<br>
Guest commentary by Ben Sanderson<br>
Millar et al's recent paper in Nature Geoscience has provoked a lot
of lively discussion, with the authors of the original paper
releasing a statement to clarify that there paper did not suggest
that "action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer
urgent", rather that 1.5 degrees C (above the pre-industrial) is not
"geophysically impossible".<br>
The range of post-2014 allowable emissions for a 66% chance of not
passing 1.5 degrees C in Millar et al of 200-240GtC implies that the
planet would exceed the threshold after 2030 at current emissions
levels, compared with the AR5 analysis which would imply most likely
exceedance before 2020. Assuming the Millar numbers are correct
changes 1.5 degrees C from fantasy to merely very difficult.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/10/1-5oc-geophysically-impossible-or-not/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/10/1-5oc-geophysically-impossible-or-not/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/nature/2017/10/crispr-can-gene-editing-help-nature-cope-climate-change">CRISPR:
can gene-editing help nature cope with climate change?</a></b><br>
CRISPR also holds the potential to pass these genetic changes on
down through the generations and make them permanent. As this
excellent RadioLab podcast episode explains, the technology is
capable of performing what it known as a "gene drive". This is when
scientists make sure an altered gene is inherited at a higher rate
than through natural reproduction alone. <br>
It can thus be used to create - or wipe out - entire features from a
species. Want modified mosquitos that are incapable of carrying
malaria to out-breed their natural cousins? Scientists have already
demonstrated this is possible in the lab. <br>
<font size="-2"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/nature/2017/10/crispr-can-gene-editing-help-nature-cope-climate-change">https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/nature/2017/10/crispr-can-gene-editing-help-nature-cope-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-10-global-doesnt-emissions.html">Global
warming doesn't stop when the emissions stop</a></b><br>
Our climate is out of balance: Increasing accumulation of CO2 in the
atmosphere has caused the Earth's temperature to increase by 0.8
degrees C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. ... even
if we stopped all emissions from fossil fuels tomorrow, the Earth
would still warm by a further 0.3 degrees C. In this interview,
Mauritsen explains why it will take millennia for the Earth to get
back into balance.<br>
We can see how far we are from the climate targets set out in the
Paris Agreement, which state that the Earth should not warm by more
than 1.5-2 degrees C. According to our study, there is a 13 percent
probability that we have already exceeded the 1.5 degrees C target.
We have also shown that, based on current emissions, we still have
30 years until the probability of staying under the 1.5 degrees C
target falls to 50 percent.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-10-global-doesnt-emissions.html">https://phys.org/news/2017-10-global-doesnt-emissions.html</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-04/dawn-of-solar-age-declared-as-pv-beats-all-other-forms-of-power">Solar
Grew Faster Than All Other Forms of Power for the First Time</a></b><br>
Renewables enjoyed record installations in 2016, IEA says<br>
Forecaster sees solar dominating the renewables industry<font
size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-04/dawn-of-solar-age-declared-as-pv-beats-all-other-forms-of-power">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-04/dawn-of-solar-age-declared-as-pv-beats-all-other-forms-of-power</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/_FpihogHAQM">(video)
Old People Don’t Care About Climate Change</a></b><b><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/_FpihogHAQM">
(humor, sarcasm) </a></b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/_FpihogHAQM">https://youtu.be/_FpihogHAQM</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-war-on-the-war-on-coal-338458691505#">This
Day in Climate History October 6, 2014 </a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
October 6, 2014: MSNBC's Chris Hayes airs the first part of a series<br>
on the politics of coal in the US.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-war-on-the-war-on-coal-338458691505#">http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-war-on-the-war-on-coal-338458691505#</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/united-mine-workers-prez-and-chris-hayes-spar-338418755664#">http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/united-mine-workers-prez-and-chris-hayes-spar-338418755664#</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msnbc.com/now/watch/kentucky--ground-zero-for-war-on-coal-338770499970#">http://www.msnbc.com/now/watch/kentucky--ground-zero-for-war-on-coal-338770499970#</a></font><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>