<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>November 29, 2017<br>
</i></font> <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/reject-oil-by-train-terminal-for-vancouver-wash-state-panel-urges-gov-inslee/">Reject
oil-by-train terminal for Vancouver, Wash., state panel urges
Gov. Inslee</a><br>
</b>Seattle Times - A state energy council, in a unanimous Tuesday
vote, recommended that Gov. Jay Inslee reject a permit for a major
new crude-by-rail oil terminal in Vancouver, Washington.<br>
The action could doom a project that has sought to bring more Bakken
Shale crude from North Dakota and Montana to West Coast refineries
in a bid that backers say would reduce dependence on foreign oil.<b><br>
</b>The project has faced fierce resistance, in part because of
concerns over derailments and fires from trains that would carry the
crude oil. The permitting review that began in 2013 was the longest
in Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council history and drew some
250,000 public comments.<br>
Based on the vote, taken during a brief afternoon meeting, a written
recommendation will be drafted and sent to Inslee, who will have 60
days to decide whether to accept or reject the council
recommendation.<br>
The Vancouver Energy terminal would service an average four oil
trains a day. That petroleum would be loaded onto vessels for
delivery to Washington and California refineries.<br>
The terminal is one of a series of high-profile fossil-fuel projects
proposed in Washington state in recent years, all of which have
faced strong headwinds from environmentalists seeking to block these
developments and accelerate a transition to renewable energy.<br>
"We are extremely disappointed, especially after a review of more
than four years in a process that state law says should take one
year," said Jeff Hymas, a spokesman for the Vancouver Energy
project, in a written statement. The council "has set an impossible
standard for new energy facilities.<br>
This decision sends a clear anti-development message that will have
a chilling effect on business in the state of Washington."<br>
Environmentalists are looking to Inslee to accept the council's
recommendation and kill the permit...<b><br>
</b>The prospect of 28 additional oil trains traveling through
Western states each week helped galvanize opponents.<br>
Derailments and explosions rank among the big concerns, with a
series of high-profile derailments and fires during the past half
decade underscoring the risks of oil trains. Those included a July
2013 derailment by the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic that killed 47
people and a June 2016 incident on the Oregon side of the Columbia
River Gorge that caused no injuries but prompted a partial
evacuation of the town of Mosier after four derailed cars caught
fire.<b><br>
</b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/reject-oil-by-train-terminal-for-vancouver-wash-state-panel-urges-gov-inslee/">https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/reject-oil-by-train-terminal-for-vancouver-wash-state-panel-urges-gov-inslee/</a><br>
-<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.standuptooil.org/"><b>EFSEC
UNANIMOUSLY REJECTS OIL TERMINAL: GOVERNOR INSLEE HAS FINAL CALL</b></a><br>
Energy Council Joins Washington's Attorney General, City of
Vancouver, Tribal Nations, and Hundreds of Thousands of
Washingtonians in Opposing Largest Oil Train Terminal in U.S.<br>
November 28, 2017 (Olympia, WA) – Today the Washington Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) unanimously recommended
denial of the Tesoro Savage oil terminal in Vancouver, Washington.
The final decision falls to Governor Jay Inslee, and community
leaders from around the region are calling on Governor Inslee to
deny the proposal swiftly, ending a four-year saga over the massive,
360,000-barrel-per day oil train terminal. A final written
recommendation will be issued on December 19th....<br>
"EFSEC followed the law that requires it to balance the need for
this project against protection of human health and the
environment," said Kristen Boyles, the Earthjustice attorney
representing community and environmental groups before the agency.
"Tesoro Savage failed this standard, and we trust Governor Inslee
will agree."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.standuptooil.org/">http://www.standuptooil.org/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.standuptooil.org/resolutions-and-statements/">http://www.standuptooil.org/resolutions-and-statements/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112017/kathleen-harnett-white-senate-confirmation-ceq-vote-trump-climate-change-carbon-dioxide">300
Scientists Oppose Trump Nominee: 'More Dangerous Than Climate
Change is Lying'</a></b><br>
Kathleen Hartnett White's nomination for the top White House
environment post is set for a Senate committee vote on Wednesday.<br>
By Staff, InsideClimate News<br>
More than 300 scientists wrote to the Senate on Tuesday opposing
Kathleen Hartnett White's nomination to the top White House
environment post. They cited the importance of scientific integrity
and wrote that they oppose her nomination "because one thing more
dangerous than climate change is lying."<br>
On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
scheduled to vote on White's nomination to head the Council on
Environmental Quality. The next step would be a confirmation vote by
the full Senate, where approval would place a fossil fuels industry
supporter and vocal denier of mainstream climate science at the
center of federal interagency policy discussions on energy and
environment. <br>
Also up for a vote in the committee meeting is Andrew Wheeler, a
coal lobbyist who President Donald Trump picked to be second in
command at the Environmental Protection Agency.<br>
White, a fellow of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation
and former head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
has written extensively against regulation of carbon dioxide, which
she calls "the gas of life." She has also written in favor of
increasing the use of fossil fuels and has criticized the Endangered
Species Act.<br>
"As scientists and scholars, we are alarmed by Ms. Hartnett White's
actions and statements, particularly, her recent assertion that
carbon dioxide is not a harmful pollutant," the scientists wrote in
their letter to senators. "There is unanimous agreement across
peer-reviewed climate science that carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases released by human activities are contributing to
the harmful effects of climate change. To state otherwise in the
face of overwhelming evidence is simply unsupportable."..<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112017/kathleen-harnett-white-senate-confirmation-ceq-vote-trump-climate-change-carbon-dioxide">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112017/kathleen-harnett-white-senate-confirmation-ceq-vote-trump-climate-change-carbon-dioxide</a></font><b><br>
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/27/american-leaders-should-read-their-official-climate-science-report">American
leaders should read their official climate science report</a><br>
</b><b>The United States Global Change Research Program report
paints a bleak picture of the consequences of climate denial</b>The
United States Global Change Research Program recently released <a
href="http://www.globalchange.gov/" data-link-name="in body link"
class="u-underline">a report</a> on the science of climate change
and its causes. The report is available for anyone to read; it was
prepared by top scientists, and it gives an overview of the most up
to date science. <br>
If you want to understand climate change and a single document that
summarizes what we know, this is your chance. This report is
complete, readily understandable, and accessible. It discusses what
we know, how we know it, how confident we are, and how likely
certain events are to happen if we continue on our business-as-usual
path. <br>
To summarize, our Earth has warmed nearly 2 degrees F (1 degree C)
since the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Today's Earth is
the warmest it has ever been in the history of modern civilization.<br>
<a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/30/new-data-gives-hope-for-meeting-the-paris-climate-targets"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline">There is some
hope</a> in this report. Even with recent economic growth, the
rate at which we emit greenhouse gases has not risen as fast as the
past. This means it is possible to have a healthy economy and a
healthy environment. ..<br>
For those who say dealing with climate change is too expensive, they
repeat <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline">a myth</a>. In
fact, ignoring climate change is much more expensive then dealing
with it. Had we taken action years ago when scientists first warned
us of the problem we would be well on our way to effective
mitigation. We've lost valuable years to the denialists. The more
time we waste, the more expensive this problem will be in both lives
and dollars.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/27/american-leaders-should-read-their-official-climate-science-report">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/27/american-leaders-should-read-their-official-climate-science-report</a></font><b><br>
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2017/11/28/climate-scientists-now-have-legal-allies/">(Video)
Climate Scientists Now Have Legal Allies</a><br>
</b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://vimeo.com/241749687">New
video</a> from Climate Science Legal Defense fund features several
of my interviews with well known scientists who have been targeted
by the anti-science movement. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://vimeo.com/241749687">https://vimeo.com/241749687</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2017/11/28/climate-scientists-now-have-legal-allies/">https://climatecrocks.com/2017/11/28/climate-scientists-now-have-legal-allies/</a><b><br>
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/climate-change-creating-generation-of-child-brides-in-africa">Why
climate change is creating a new generation of child brides</a></b><br>
As global warming exacerbates drought and floods, farmers' incomes
plunge – and girls as young as 13 are given away to stave off
poverty<br>
by Gethin Chamberlain (words and photographs)<br>
It was the flood that ensured that Ntonya Sande's first year as a
teenager would also be the first year of her married life. Up to the
moment the water swept away her parents' field in Kachaso in the
Nsanje district of Malawi, they had been scraping a living.
Afterwards they were reduced to scavenging for bits of firewood to
sell.<br>
So when a young man came to their door and asked for the 13-year
old's hand in marriage, the couple didn't think about it for too
long, lest he look elsewhere. Ntonya begged them to change their
minds. She was too young, she pleaded. She didn't want to leave. But
it was to no avail. Her parents sat her down and spelled it out for
her: the weather had changed and taken everything from them. There
was not enough food to go around. They couldn't afford another mouth
at the table.<br>
That night she lay down in bed for the first time with the man she
had never seen before and followed the instructions of her aunt, who
had coached her on the important matter of sex. Ten months later,
she gave birth to their first daughter...<br>
Around 1.5 million girls in Malawi are at risk of getting
married because of climate change. That's a huge number...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/climate-change-creating-generation-of-child-brides-in-africa">https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/climate-change-creating-generation-of-child-brides-in-africa</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
The <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission"><b>Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission</b> (<b>FERC</b>) </a>is the
United States federal agency that regulates the transmission and
wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce
and regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate
commerce. FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural
gas pipelines, natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural
gas (LNG) terminals, in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower
projects.<br>
FERC is composed of five commissioners who are nominated by the U.S.
President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. There may be no more
than three commissioners of one political party serving on the
commission at any given time. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission</a><br>
-<br>
<b>NATURAL GAS</b><br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067235">The East
Coast's pipeline wars: A cheat sheet</a></b><br>
Ellen M. Gilmer, Jenny Mandel and Saqib Rahim, E&E News
reporters<br>
Energywire: Monday, November 27, 2017 <br>
The expansion of natural gas infrastructure along the East Coast has
created a seemingly endless queue of new pipeline battles involving
landowners, environmentalists, states and the federal government...<br>
Here's a breakdown of some of the most interesting projects to help
you avoid getting your wires - er, pipelines - crossed.<br>
<b>Constitution</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 126 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Northeast Pennsylvania to central New York<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Company wants FERC to waive a state-issued
water permit<br>
The fate of this project might not just be a matter of laws and
regulations; it may also be a battle of political wills. Democratic
Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York has held up a number of high-profile
gas projects, including the Constitution pipeline. For its part,
Williams Cos. Inc., the lead sponsor of the project, is banking on
favorable treatment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.<br>
It all began early last year, when New York regulators denied
Constitution a water permit required by the Clean Water Act.
Williams challenged that decision in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. The court let New York's decision stand, but it declined to
rule on a critical issue Williams had asked about: whether New York
had ceded that authority to the feds by taking too long to review
the project.<br>
Now Williams is asking FERC to find "waiver" so that it can start
construction on the nearly $700 million project. CEO Alan Armstrong
has said the company is pressing FERC and the Trump administration
to overrule New York, and lobbying records confirm that
representatives for Williams have held meetings with the White House
and federal agencies.<br>
For now, Williams doesn't see the pipeline going online before 2019.
"Plenty of fight left in this dog, and I think we're well-positioned
for it," Armstrong told analysts this month. "But we've got - we
will have a fight on our hands, I suspect."<br>
<b>Northern Access</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 99 miles and associated infrastructure<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Northwest Pennsylvania to western New York<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Company appealing New York permit denial at
2nd Circuit, at FERC and in state court<br>
National Fuel Gas Co., the lead sponsor of the Northern Access
project, launched a bevy of legal challenges after New York
regulators denied its water permit this year. But even the company's
president and CEO, Ronald Tanski, has conceded that "it's anyone's
guess when we might get an answer."<br>
The roughly half-billion-dollar project would beef up the pipelines
and other infrastructure that send gas across the Pennsylvania
border into the Buffalo area. It had approvals from FERC and
Pennsylvania regulators, but the April decision by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation left it one permit
shy.<br>
National Fuel Gas is challenging New York's denial in the 2nd
Circuit, and it's also asking FERC to declare state authority
"waived." But as Tanski has acknowledged to investors, some of the
pivotal legal questions are getting worked out in other cases, such
as the Valley Lateral project in New York. Northern Access has no
official service date...<br>
<b>Valley Lateral</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 7.8 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Connects Millennium Pipeline Co.'s main line
to a power plant in Orange County, N.Y.<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Construction halted pending arguments at
2nd Circuit<br>
What could have been a routine approval for a $39 million fuel line
to a power plant has evolved into a high-stakes case with a
federalist twist.<br>
The brouhaha began in August, when the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation denied a water permit that Millennium had
to get under the Clean Water Act. Millennium protested to FERC,
saying New York had taken longer to reach that decision than the
statute allowed: a year.<br>
FERC agreed, saying New York had waived its authority to do the
review and that Millennium could go ahead.<br>
Not so fast, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.<br>
New York has argued to the federal court that it was within its
one-year period when it denied Valley Lateral in August. It simply
disagrees with the company on when it got a complete application.
And it thinks states' interpretations on this issue trump
Washington's.<br>
Now New York, FERC and Millennium will meet in the 2nd Circuit to
debate this little piece of the Clean Water Act. They'll attempt to
resolve a question that will be significant for other interstate gas
pipeline projects.<br>
<b>PennEast</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 120 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Northeast Pennsylvania to central New Jersey<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Awaiting final approval at FERC before
reapplying to New Jersey<br>
First proposed in 2014, the roughly billion-dollar project would
connect gas fields in the Marcellus Shale to New Jersey, a state
that gets more power from gas than any other fuel. But the project
hit a speed bump in June when state regulators under Republican Gov.
Chris Christie blocked the project's application for a water
certificate required under federal law.<br>
PennEast says it's preparing to reapply, but the delay could be
costly. Democrat Phil Murphy won convincingly in this month's
gubernatorial election, and he enters office with Democratic
majorities in the statehouse and ambitious plans for renewable
energy.<br>
If Murphy sets up anti-pipeline leadership at the state Department
of Environmental Protection, New Jersey could become the next front
in the pipeline wars. But if his union supporters convince him
otherwise, Murphy could just as soon let the project proceed. He
takes office in January.<br>
<b>Atlantic Sunrise</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 183 miles and multiple expansions and
upgrades<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Southern Pennsylvania to northern
Pennsylvania and upgrades across East Coast network<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Approved by FERC; under construction<br>
Atlantic Sunrise encompasses new construction in Pennsylvania and an
array of upgrades along the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Co. LLC system that runs down the Eastern Seaboard to the Gulf
Coast.<br>
The $3 billion project has attracted the most pushback in
Pennsylvania, where landowners, environmentalists and a group of
Catholic nuns have led opposition. The Adorers of the Blood of
Christ sued FERC over its approval of the pipeline, arguing that
routing the line across their land violates their religious rights.
A district court dismissed their claim, and it's now on appeal.<br>
Environmentalists have raised various other challenges to the
project, including whether Pennsylvania regulators properly
considered its impacts and whether FERC acted beyond its authority
when it issued orders related to the pipeline without a quorum.<br>
Atlantic Sunrise opponents had brief success earlier this month,
securing a construction freeze. The victory was short-lived,
however, and the freeze lasted only two days. The other challenges
are pending, and additional lawsuits are expected...<br>
<b>Nexus</b><b><br>
</b><b> </b><strong>Length:</strong> 255 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Eastern Ohio to southeastern Michigan<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Approved by FERC; under construction<br>
The $2 billion Nexus pipeline in Ohio has been a hotbed of legal
challenges since before it was approved. Landowners filed a novel
lawsuit in May, arguing that FERC's practice of granting eminent
domain authority to pipeline developers is unconstitutional. That
case is still pending in federal court in Ohio.<br>
Nexus has also spurred a challenge to a longtime FERC practice of
issuing "tolling orders" that extend the agency's deadline for
responding to rehearing requests. That lawsuit has been sidelined
for now, but environmentalists will likely raise the issue again...<br>
<b>Rover</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 713 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> From processing plants in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia and Ohio to delivery points in Ohio and Michigan<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Some segments in service, others under
construction; completion expected in early 2018<br>
The $4.2 billion Rover project to move up to 3.25 billion cubic feet
of gas from Mid-Atlantic shale plays is being developed by Energy
Transfer Partners LP, the company behind the heavily protested
Dakota Access oil pipeline.<br>
The project had problems with drilling fluid leaks and other
environmental issues in Ohio almost as soon as construction started
this spring, and the state of Ohio is suing Energy Transfer Partners
on charges that it violated state air and water protection laws.
West Virginia regulators also briefly stopped construction on the
project, and Energy Transfer Partners is operating under
construction limitations from FERC.<br>
FERC also has an ongoing investigation into whether the company used
unapproved ingredients in its drilling fluid mix. <br>
<b>Mountain Valley</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 303 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Northern West Virginia to southern Virginia<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Approved by FERC; state permits pending<br>
The $3.5 billion Mountain Valley project is being developed by
Pittsburgh-based EQT Corp. and partners to carry shale gas from West
Virginia to markets in Virginia. The project has been controversial
in Virginia, with pushback from environmentalists and landowner
groups, and is the subject of a legal challenge that says the use of
eminent domain for the pipeline violates landowners' constitutional
rights and the Natural Gas Act.<br>
The project is also notable for an unusual situation in West
Virginia, where developers first secured state water permits only to
see them withdrawn by the state Department of Environmental
Protection in response to charges that the state's review was
inadequate. State officials initially said they intended to review
the permits but instead opted to waive their right to regulate the
project's water quality impacts, a decision that shifts the
responsibility onto the Army Corps of Engineers.<br>
<b>Atlantic Coast</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 600 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Northern West Virginia to eastern Virginia
and North Carolina<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Approved by FERC; state permits pending<br>
Atlantic Coast is a $5.1 billion project developed by four energy
companies - Dominion Resources Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Piedmont
Natural Gas Co. Inc. and Southern Company Gas - to deliver
Mid-Atlantic shale gas to local markets in Virginia and North
Carolina. It has faced strong local opposition in both states and
was a point of debate in a fierce governor's race in Virginia.
Democrat Ralph Northam, who largely dodged taking a position on the
project but once supported it, won that race...<br>
<b>Sabal Trail</b><br>
<strong>Length:</strong> 515 miles<br>
<strong>Route:</strong> Eastern Alabama to central Florida<br>
<strong>Status:</strong> Partially in service; FERC is conducting
supplemental review<br>
Sabal Trail is most notable for sparking a legal battle that forced
FERC to take a closer look at the project's climate change
impacts...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067235">https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067235</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i">Demystifying
Climate Risk, Volume I:</a></b><br>
This book (196 pp.) is a distillation of the First Annual
International Technical Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in
Wells, Maine, USA. It is organized into three major themes, namely:
environmental, health and societal impacts; the special case of
Africa; and advances in education.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i">http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64130">View
Extract</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64130">http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64130</a><br>
This book is a distillation of the First Annual International
Technical Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in Wells, Maine,
USA. It is organized into three major themes, namely: environmental,
health and societal impacts; the special case of Africa; and
advances in education.<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii">Demystifying
Climate Risk, Volume II:</a></b><br>
This book (306 pp.) is a distillation of the First Annual
International Technical Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in
Wells, Maine, USA. It is organized into four major themes, namely:
the Montreal Protocol; industry and infrastructure concerns;
sustainability and strategic planning; and climate science and
informing business risk.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii">http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64131">View
Extract</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64131">http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64131</a><br>
This book is a distillation of the First Annual International
Technical Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in Wells, Maine,
USA. It is organized into four major themes, namely: the Montreal
Protocol; industry and infrastructure concerns; sustainability and
strategic planning; and climate science and informing business risk.<br>
The premise of both books is that, long before the 2015 Paris
Agreement, many professionals from diverse fields were working to
solve the problems of human-caused climate change. The 1987 Montreal
Protocol is now in support of a key emission reduction goal of the
Agreement. It was time for the seasoned leaders who implement the
Protocol, the world's most successful treaty for atmospheric
protection, to share their knowledge and wisdom with the next
generation before that expertise was lost. The purpose of bringing
these communities of practice together is to leverage the many
successes to date to inspire future innovations through 'lessons
learned'; ensure that new or updated regulations are timely
communicated and economically executed; and identify opportunities
for related sustainable development.<br>
The titles, Demystifying Climate Risk, Volumes I and II, are
available through Amazon and other online retailers or through the
publisher, Cambridge Scholars, and their network of distributors
including Bertram, Gardners, Baker & Taylor, Ingram, YBP,
Inspirees and MHM Limited.<br>
The editor, Dr. LeBlanc, also serves as Adjunct Professor at the
University of New England on the Biddeford, Maine USA campus in the
Environmental Studies Department.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i">http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii">http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/how-do-we-decide-when-give-in-climate-change">Should
homeowners give in to climate change?</a></b><br>
When deciding whether to rebuild homes destroyed by fire or floods,
some homeowners are throwing in the towel....<br>
It's important that we recognize these losses for what they are,
especially in light of decisions that are made about what to do with
homes in low-lying, flood-prone areas that have been destroyed over
the course of this year in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico - or those
houses that were recently razed in wildfire zones in California and
Oregon. How do we make the decision not to rebuild a home or
neighborhood?..<br>
It's an intellectual and scientific question, but also one about
ethics and morality. Others questions should be: How comfortable are
we in putting first responders in harm's way to rescue people who
refuse to evacuate or insist upon rebuilding? Are we willing to ask
some people to give up their homes for the good of the community?
How do we best support those people who make this decision on their
own or are forced to? What is fair compensation for requiring people
to leave their homes due to disaster-avoidance?...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/how-do-we-decide-when-give-in-climate-change">https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/how-do-we-decide-when-give-in-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html">Archive
of Daily Global Warming News</a> </i></font><i><br>
</i><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a></span><font
size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i><br>
</i></font></i></font><font size="+1"><i><br>
<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>