<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>December 3, 2017<br>
</i></font> <br>
[Prospect]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://prospect.org/article/gop-tax-plan-pulls-plug-renewable-energy">GOP
Tax Plan Pulls the Plug on Renewable Energy</a></b><br>
SAM ROSS-BROWN DECEMBER 1, 2017<br>
Both versions of the GOP tax plan could deal a devastating blow to
solar and wind production. <br>
The GOP tax reform plan barreling toward a vote in the Senate could
deal a devastating blow to the renewable energy industry. Unlike the
more draconian House version, the Senate bill does not slash
renewable tax credits directly, but it does impose steep taxes on
the companies that help finance renewable development. Leaders in
the wind and solar sector warn that such hikes would undercut the
industry's most important financing tools.<br>
"Almost overnight, you would see a devastating reduction in wind and
solar energy investment and development," Gregory Wetstone, the head
of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said in <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.acore.org/resources/press-releases/6305-acore-awea-cres-and-seia-submit-joint-letter-calling-on-senate-to-repair-provisions-that-undermine-renewable-energy-in-the-senate-tax-bill">a
statement</a>.<br>
When Senate Republicans released their tax plan two weeks ago,
renewable advocates were initially relieved. The House bill,
released in early November, proposed cutting the Production Tax
Credit (PTC) for renewables by a third, eliminating the Investment
Tax Credit for solar production, and repealing the electric vehicle
purchase credit.<br>
The renewable industry depends on these credits to attract new
investment and lower production costs. The American Wind Energy
Association <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.awea.org/HouseTaxProposal2017?utm_source=Energy-Pulse+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8001cf2138-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_11_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9761cf3f21-8001cf2138-48653265">warned</a>
that the House bill would threaten 50,000 jobs and more than $50
billion in planned investment in the wind sector alone. (However,
the bill does include a generous <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies">$15
billion subsidy</a> for coal, oil, and gas companies.)<br>
The Senate version makes no changes to renewable credits, but other
parts of the bill would be just as damaging. A new proposal, the
Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), targets multinationals that
stash money overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Under the proposed
change, these corporations would lose many of the deductions they
typically claim.<br>
But the tax would also effectively cancel out the renewable credits
enjoyed by the multinationals that play a major role in financing
renewable projects. Typically, when companies like Goldman Sachs or
Facebook invest in a renewable energy project, they get a portion of
the profits along with a renewable tax credit. On average, these
agreements make up between <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/158454/us-tax-equity-market-could-shrink-under-senate-tax-bill?utm_source=vuture&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171122%20base%20erosion%20tax_23%20november%202017">40
percent and 60 percent</a> of the capital costs for new solar or
wind projects.<br>
If BEAT swallows up those credits, corporations may be far less
likely to invest in renewable energy projects, which could deal a
severe blow to solar and wind energy production. BEAT would also
apply retroactively, threatening existing renewable projects. <br>
In a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.acore.org/images/publications/ACORE_AWEA_CRES_SEIA_LetterOnSenateTaxBill_Nov29.pdf">joint
letter </a>to Senate leaders, representatives from four major
renewable trade associations expressed alarm at these "extremely
problematic" tax provisions. "Not surprisingly, major financial
institutions have indicated that, under such a regime, they would no
longer participate in tax equity financing," the group warned. "The
tax equity marketplace would collapse under these provisions,
leading to a dramatic reduction in wind and solar energy investment
and development."<br>
The states that voted for Trump produce nearly 70 percent of wind
energy, while 85 percent of existing wind projects are in GOP-held
congressional districts.<br>
Ironically, such cuts would disproportionately hurt Trump country:
The states that voted for Trump produce nearly 70 percent of wind
energy, while 85 percent of existing wind projects are in GOP-held
congressional districts.<br>
The tax plan threat comes on the heels of a <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf">landmark
Lazard study</a> that appeared before the Senate released its
bill. Researchers concluded that building new utility-scale
renewable projects in certain regions can be cheaper than existing
fossil fuel sources. But the authors also stressed that such
progress depends on the renewable tax credits.<br>
Both GOP tax bills follow the familiar pattern propping up the
fossil fuel industry while sowing deep uncertainty about the future
of renewables. At a time when solar and wind development has never
been more critical - or more profitable - President Trump and his
congressional allies are pushing a tax regime that would compromise
America's ability to fight the global climate crisis.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://prospect.org/article/gop-tax-plan-pulls-plug-renewable-energy">http://prospect.org/article/gop-tax-plan-pulls-plug-renewable-energy</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-12-giant-west-antarctic-iceberg-disintegrates.html">Giant
West Antarctic iceberg disintegrates</a></b><br>
An animation of the giant iceberg that calved off the Pine Island
Glacier in West Antarctica just over two months ago shows an
unexpected break up.<br>
Satellite images revealed a 100-square-mile iceberg calving from
Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier (PIG) in September. The calving
event did not come as a complete surprise, but is a troubling sign
for future sea-level rise. Scientists expected the iceberg to drift
far out into the Southern Ocean before breaking up. However, it got
stuck, probably impeded by thick sea ice, before it started to
disintegrate into many smaller icebergs.<br>
Dr Robert Larter, a marine geophysicist at British Antarctic Survey,
who flew over the PIG rift last season during his research cruise
with the German Alfred Wegener Institute, explains:<br>
"What we're witnessing on Pine Island Glacier is worrying. We're now
seeing changes in the calving behaviour of the ice shelf, when for
68 years we saw a pattern of advance and retreat resulting in the
calving of a single large iceberg which left the ice front to
approximately the same place. The calving of icebergs in 2001, 2007
and 2013 are well-documented. Each calving event returned the ice
front to more or less the same position and the ice shelf flowed
into the sea again. But with continuing thinning it was clear that
sooner or later there would have to be a change to this pattern –
and this is what we are witnessing now.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-12-giant-west-antarctic-iceberg-disintegrates.html">https://phys.org/news/2017-12-giant-west-antarctic-iceberg-disintegrates.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[New Yorker radio]<b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/praying-for-tangier-island-and-barry-blitts-presidents">(audio)
Praying for Tangier Island 21:00</a></b><br>
Tangier Island is washing out to sea, and its residents may be among
the first American refugees of climate change. But that's not how
they see the loss of their island.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/praying-for-tangier-island-and-barry-blitts-presidents">https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/praying-for-tangier-island-and-barry-blitts-presidents</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.monbiot.com/2017/12/01/driven-mad/">How the
waste and inefficiency of neoliberalism attacks our children's
health</a></b><br>
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 29<sup>th</sup>
November 2017<br>
Deregulation, the government and the newspapers assure us, saves
money and time and reduces frustration. That's the theory. But, as I
see every day, it doesn't quite work like this.<br>
My youngest daughter's school has been trying to protect its
children from the toxic cloud in which they work and play. The
teachers <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2017/03/05/car-sick/">know
how much damage</a> traffic pollution does to <a
href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306770/">their lungs</a>, hearts
and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26825441">brains</a>.
They know that it <a
href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001792">reduces
their cognitive development</a>, their <a
href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2016/6/EHP299.acco.pdf">ability
to concentrate</a> and their <a
href="http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/outdoor/air-pollution/children-and-air-pollution.html">capacity
for exercise</a>. They know it's a minor miracle that no one has
yet been crushed by the cars jostling to get as close as possible to
the school gates. But thanks to the government's refusal to
legislate, there is little they can do. Far from freeing us from
effort, the absence of regulation wastes everybody's time.<br>
At my suggestion, the school invited <a
href="https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/">the charity Living
Streets</a> to come in and enthuse the children about walking or
cycling to school. I attended the first assembly at which one of
their organisers spoke. She was lively, funny and captivating. With
the help of a giant puppet and the promise of badges if they joined
in, the children went wild for her, and for the cause. The school,
led by its committed headteacher, has done everything it can to
support the scheme.<br>
For a few weeks, it worked. Everyone noticed the difference. No
longer were cars mounting the pavement – and almost mounting each
other – outside the gates. The children were using their legs,
families were talking to each other on the way. But the cars have
crept back in, and now, though the clever and catchy programme
continues, we're almost back where we started: school begins and
ends under a cloud.<br>
Some of the drivers are the people who were elbowing in before;
others occupy the space vacated by those who respect the scheme.
Living Streets will keep returning, but, now that the first flush of
enthusiasm has abated, sustaining the programme will be harder.<br>
Aside from the damage to our children's health, it's the redundancy
of it all that gets to me. The government could solve much of this
problem at a stroke, with a duty on councils to impose the kind of
parking ban around schools at arrival and departure times that <a
href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14706064.Call_for_school_traffic_ban_as_Edinburgh_introduces_permanent_exclusion_zones/">parts
of Edinburgh</a> and <a
href="http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-09-05/solihull-schools-parking-ban/">Solihull
now use</a>. Technologies such as numberplate recognition cameras
and rising bollards (both of which allow residents and drivers with
a disability card to pass, while excluding others) can make
enforcement automatic.<br>
Without this intervention, headteachers all over the country have to
take on the issue one car at a time. Add up their efforts and you're
likely to find that this pointless replication runs into hundreds –
perhaps thousands – of times the public labour that government
action would require. If there is one group of people whose time is
both stretched and socially valuable, it is headteachers.<br>
Some schools have lobbied their councils for traffic restriction
orders, generally without success. But why should we have to fight
the same battle borough by borough for our children's health? Why
should their lung capacity be subject to a postcode lottery?<br>
The lack of regulation also creates social tension. When I have
gently asked other parents not to park in front of the school gates
– making the passage difficult and dangerous for other families, and
pumping pollution straight into our children's faces – the outcome
is rarely positive. Last month a lollipop lady employed by a school
in Colchester to protect the children from traffic resigned because
of <a
href="http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/15602339.Lollipop_lady_quits_after_being_targeted_by_angry_parents/">the
threats and abuse she received</a> from a few parents. Despite her
uniform, she could exercise only moral power, which simply bounces
off some people. "Our children are now yet again at risk when
crossing the road," the headteacher remarked.<br>
I've begun to realise that getting as close to the gates as possible
is not just about minimising the need to walk. It's also about being
seen in your new car. The bigger it is, the greater the incentive to
be seen. This could explain why some parents drive 100 metres to the
school every morning. By the time they find a parking place, they
could have walked back and forth three times.<br>
Self-regulation works well in a commons – <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/27/rich-assets-resources-prosperity-commons-george-monbiot">a
resource controlled and managed by a community</a>. But the
streets are not a commons. They are a state asset, that is treated
as <a
href="http://www.monbiot.com/1994/01/01/the-tragedy-of-enclosure/">a
free for all</a>. When the state owns a resource but won't control
it, the community has neither the right nor the power to regulate
its use. All that is left is voluntarism. The efforts of those who
try to defend the common good are undermined by free riders. Without
regulation, the most selfish and anti-social people dominate.<br>
The government's efforts are pathetic. Its <a
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603527/cycling-walking-investment-strategy.pdf">cycling
and walking investment strategy</a> is based on this rousing
vision: "we want more people to have access to safe, attractive
routes for cycling and walking by 2040." Yes, 2040. They bailed out
the banks in hours. But our children's health can wait until they
have children of their own. It intends to <a
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603527/cycling-walking-investment-strategy.pdf">halve
its feeble investment</a> in cycling and walking between now and
2021.<br>
When I have raised this issue on social media I've been told "well
it's your fault for living in a posh part of London." But I don't
live in London, and the school has one of the poorest catchments in
the county. Personal contract purchase for cars has helped to
universalise this issue (as well as <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/10/car-loans-personal-contract-plans-vehicle-financial-crisis-pcp">threatening
another sub-prime crisis</a>). Almost every school gate is now
shrouded in pollution.<br>
Air pollution <a
href="http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/28882/7/Barnes%20and%20Chatterton%20%25282016%2529%20An%20environmental%20justice%20analysis%20of%20exposure%20to%20traffic-related%20pollutants%20in%20England%20and%20Wales%20%2528FINAL%2529.pdf">disproportionately
affects poorer communities</a>, exposing their children to yet
another disadvantage, as their lungs and brains are stunted. <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/22/nearly-40-million-people-live-in-uk-areas-with-illegal-air-pollution">One
study suggests</a> that 38 million people here – 59% of the
population – are immersed in pollution above the legal limit. Only
those who can afford to live in villages and the leafy suburbs
escape.<br>
The state's failure to regulate has not delivered freedom. It has
delivered waste and inefficiency, helplessness and frustration, a
loss of trust in each other, and of belief in our democratic power
to improve our lives. Far from releasing us, it has snarled us up in
traffic. And it leaves a massive public health issue unaddressed, at
whose scale we can only begin to guess. Our children choke on the
government's refusal to govern.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.monbiot.com/2017/12/01/driven-mad/">http://www.monbiot.com/2017/12/01/driven-mad/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Scientific American]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-might-speed-up-climate-change/">El
Nino Might Speed Up Climate Change</a></b><br>
Scientists have evidence that El Nino boosts CO2 levels, and they
are pinning down how<font size="-1"><br>
</font>Every two to seven years, abnormally warm water in the
Pacific Ocean causes an atmospheric disturbance called El Nino. It
often makes extreme weather worse in various places around the
world: greater floods, tougher droughts, more wildfires. Now
scientists have new evidence indicating El Nino conditions might
also add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as well as lessen
the ability of trees to absorb the greenhouse gas...<br>
As a carbon booster, El Nino could hasten rising temperatures,
bringing the world to dangerous thresholds sooner than thought. It
could also enhance feedbacks between climate and vegetation that
could reduce plants' ability to absorb CO2 in non-Nino years as
well. If bad droughts or wildfires kill many trees, for example,
forests and their carbon sequestering potential may take centuries
to recover, if ever...<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-might-speed-up-climate-change/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-might-speed-up-climate-change/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Phys.Org]<br>
<b><a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-11-global-co2.html">Study
discovers why global warming will accelerate as CO2 levels rise</a></b><br>
Global warming is likely to speed up as the Earth becomes
increasingly more sensitive to atmospheric CO₂ concentrations,
scientists from the University of Reading have warned.<br>
In a new study, published this week in the prestigious journal PNAS,
the scientists explain that the influence of increasing levels of
atmospheric CO2 on global warming will become more severe over time
because the patterns of warming of the Earth's surface will lead to
reduced cloud cover in some sensitive regions and less heat being
able to escape into space.<br>
Evidence suggests that the upper level of the Earth's atmosphere
warms faster than the surface in response to CO2 levels. However,
the new study shows that as CO2 levels increase further, the rate of
warming in the upper levels slows in comparison with that closer to
the Earth's surface.<br>
Reduced contrast in temperature between the upper and lower levels
of the atmosphere causes decreased low altitude cloud cover over
some areas of the Earth's oceans, leading to more sunlight reaching
the sea surface, and therefore a more rapid rise in sea surface
temperatures.<br>
These conditions also impede the loss of heat from the atmosphere
into space, contributing to the accelerated surface warming in
response to rising CO2 concentrations.<br>
These results emphasise the importance of rapidly reducing human
caused emissions of greenhouse gases to avoid the worst impacts from
ongoing climate change as discussed at the recent COP23 meeting in
Bonn that builds upon the 2017 Paris climate agreement.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-11-global-co2.html">https://phys.org/news/2017-11-global-co2.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Scientific American (blog)]<br>
<b><a
href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/doom-and-gloom-scenarios-on-climate-change-wont-solve-our-problem/">Doom-and-Gloom
Scenarios on Climate Change Won't Solve Our Problem</a></b><br>
Reframing the situation from one of despair to one of opportunity
could help to resolve the conflicts over climate change<br>
About 80 percent of media coverage of climate change, and 90 percent
of coverage of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, framed the subject in terms of disaster, according to a <a
href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Climate%2520Change%2520in%2520the%2520Media.pdf">2013
study</a> by James Painter, head of the Journalism Fellowship
Program at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Some
particularly hysterical <a
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html"
target="_blank">recent pieces</a> have even proclaimed that
changes will occur so rapidly that the world will be <a
href="https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/"
target="_blank">uninhabitable</a> (and we will all be dead) in the
next 10 years.<br>
This tone and communications tactic is likely to be ineffective.
Decades of psychology research reveal that individuals are extremely
poor at assessing future negative consequences of current behaviors.
Individuals tend to employ emotion, rather than facts, to make
judgements, suggesting that warnings about the impact of climate
change might not be adequately evaluated by skeptics. Discussions of
climate change instead should be reframed to highlight opportunities
for change and possibilities for cultivating environmental and
economic benefit.<br>
If there is any hope of changing minds and behaviors on this crucial
issue, those of us driving discussions of climate change have a
responsibility to engage climate skeptics. Appeals using more
optimistic language might be our best strategy for doing so.
Reframings must steer clear of the endless quibbling over minor
details of climate science findings and instead repackage forecasts
into more digestible and immediate material. Such a strategy could
revive dialogue and transform skeptics into allies. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/doom-and-gloom-scenarios-on-climate-change-wont-solve-our-problem/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/doom-and-gloom-scenarios-on-climate-change-wont-solve-our-problem/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://climatestate.com/2017/12/02/climate-state-is-back/">(YouTube
video ) Climate State is Back!</a></b><br>
... the channel is back and that is important, because it is the
largest with the scope on climate science, featuring hundreds of
videos on that subject.<br>
We want to thank all of you who shared our recent coverage on this
issue in their social network, and especially we want to thank all
the people from all over the world, who signed our petition. Thank
You, you made a difference!<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/IKVj_AUw0Y0">Glaciers
Accelerate Toward Sea and may Speed Up further</a><br>
Two of the frozen continent's fastest-moving glaciers are shedding
an increasing amount of ice into the Amundsen Sea each year.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/IKVj_AUw0Y0">https://youtu.be/IKVj_AUw0Y0</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://climatestate.com/">http://climatestate.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/380473">This Day in
Climate History December 3, 2009</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
December 3, 2009: MSNBC host Keith Olbermann calls out the hosts of<br>
the Fox News Channel program "Fox and Friends" for selectively
editing<br>
a segment of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" to imply that host
Jon<br>
Stewart rejected the evidence of human-caused climate change.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/380473">http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/380473</a></font><br>
<font size="+1"><i><br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<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>