<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>December 6, 2017</i></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://m.startribune.com/southern-california-fire-forces-evacuation-of-over-400-homes/461988293/?section=nation">California
communities under siege from wind-driven fires</a></b><br>
Fires are not typical in Southern California this time of year but
can break out when dry vegetation and too little rain combine with
the Santa Ana winds. Hardly any measurable rain has fallen in the
region over the past six months.<br>
Like the deadly October fires in Napa and Sonoma counties, the new
blazes were in areas more suburban than rural.<br>
Fires in those settings are likely to become more frequent as
climate change makes fire season a year-round threat and will put
greater pressure on local budgets, said Char Miller, a professor of
environmental analysis at Pomona College who has written extensively
about wildfires.<br>
"There are going to be far greater numbers that are going to be
evacuated, as we're seeing now," Miller said. "These fires are not
just fast and furious, but they're really expensive to fight."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://m.startribune.com/southern-california-fire-forces-evacuation-of-over-400-homes/461988293/?section=nation">http://m.startribune.com/southern-california-fire-forces-evacuation-of-over-400-homes/461988293/?section=nation</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/out-of-control-southern-california-brush-fire-grows-from-50-to-25000-acres-in-7-hours/">'Out
of control' Southern California fire explodes as growing blazes
force tens of thousands to flee</a></b><br>
VENTURA, Calif. - Ferocious fires tore through Southern California
on Tuesday, burning massive stretches of land in a matter of hours
and forcing tens of thousands of people from their homes.<br>
As firefighters in Ventura County grappled with an explosive blaze
northwest of downtown Los Angeles, others across the region
confronted additional fires that popped up during the day and forced
additional evacuations. Authorities issued ominous warnings of more
dangers to come during a "multi-day event" across the area, as
weather forecasters said the region faces "extreme fire danger"
through at least Thursday due to intense Santa Ana winds and low
humidity that could cause the fires to grow rapidly.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/out-of-control-southern-california-brush-fire-grows-from-50-to-25000-acres-in-7-hours/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/out-of-control-southern-california-brush-fire-grows-from-50-to-25000-acres-in-7-hours/</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/extreme-weeklong-fire-threat-puts-southern-california-edge">Extreme
Holiday-Season Fire Threat Puts Southern California on Edge</a></b><br>
.."Everything I've read (and experienced) points to RH (relative
humidity) as the more critical factor, and temperature as
influential largely through RH," Pyne told me in an email. "A fire
burns so hot that a few degrees of ambient temperature won't make
much difference. But fuel moisture - particularly in the 'fine
fuels,' like dead grass, pine needles, and fine branches on shrubs -
translates immediately into how well the landscape will burn.<br>
"Such fuels can respond within a few hours to changes in RH, which
is why most fires die down at night, and can even go out, and why a
rise in RH can dampen burning even in the absence of rain."<br>
Between October 1 and December 3, downtown Los Angeles averages
1.90" of rain, and San Diego averages 1.70" (based on the 1981-2010
climatological period)<br>
<b>-As of Sunday, Dec. 3, downtown Los Angeles had picked up 0.11"
of rain for the water year starting October 1.</b> That's the 14th
driest start to the water year in 141 years of recordkeeping in
downtown LA.<br>
<b>-San Diego received just 0.02" last month, putting it in the
top-ten driest Novembers in data going back to 1850.</b> Given
that October saw only a trace of rain, the water-year total (Oct. 1
to present) is also 0.02", which puts this year in a tie with 1962
for fourth-driest water year in records going all the way back to
1850.<br>
<font size="-1"><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/extreme-weeklong-fire-threat-puts-southern-california-edge">https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/extreme-weeklong-fire-threat-puts-southern-california-edge</a></span></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/05/air-pollution-harm-to-unborn-babies-may-be-global-health-catastrophe-warn-doctors">Air
pollution harm to unborn babies may be global health
catastrophe, warn doctors</a></b><br>
New UK research links toxic air to low birth weight that can cause
lifelong damage to health, raising fears that millions of babies
worldwide are being harmed<br>
The study analysed all live births in Greater London over four years
– over 540,000 in total – and determined the link between the air
pollution experienced by the mother and low birth weight, defined as
less than 2.5kg (5.5lbs). The scientists found a 15% increase in
risk of low birth weight for every additional 5 micrograms per cubic
metre (microgram/m3) of fine particle pollution.<br>
The average exposure of pregnant women in London to fine particle
pollution is 15microgram/m3, well below UK legal limits but 5
microgram/m3 higher than the WHO guideline. Cutting pollution to
that guideline would prevent 300-350 babies a year being born with
low weight, the researchers estimated. “The UK legal limit is not
safe and is not protecting our pregnant women and their babies,”
said Toledano.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/05/air-pollution-harm-to-unborn-babies-may-be-global-health-catastrophe-warn-doctors">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/05/air-pollution-harm-to-unborn-babies-may-be-global-health-catastrophe-warn-doctors</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Austin 350.org - a great speech by US House candidate Derrick
Crowe]<br>
<a href="https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM">(video) (Rep. Lamar Smith is
retiring) Derrick Crowe is running for the seat. </a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM">https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM</a>
32 mins <b><br>
</b><a href="https://youtu.be/vm2VWrvZBlM"><b>Derrick Crowe "State
of the Climate"</b></a><br>
<i>"This is the best, purest, most calm and tremendously positive
speech I've heard. Vote for Derrick Crowe. Before you do,
listen to him talk, listen again. Elect and promote and support
and help get his word out."</i><br>
<br>
<br>
[Chicago TV video WG9]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wgntv.com/2017/12/05/obama-to-address-mayors-summit-on-climate-change-in-chicago-today/">Obama
addresses mayors' summit on climate change in Chicago</a></b><br>
CHICAGO - Former President Barack Obama says cities, states and
nonprofit groups have emerged as "the new face of leadership" on
climate change.<br>
He briefly spoke Tuesday to a summit of mayors from around the world
gathered in Chicago to address concerns about climate change since
President Donald Trump rejected the Paris climate accord. The mayors
signed a charter that echoes portions of the 2015 Paris agreement.<br>
Obama didn't mention Trump by name, saying only that the U.S. was in
an "unusual" position as the sole country to reject the Paris
agreement.<br>
Trump announced earlier this year that the U.S. would pull out of
the Paris accord, which involves nations setting benchmarks to
reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. The U.S. won't technically
back out until 2020 because of legal technicalities.<br>
Mayors from more than 50 cities attended the summit, which began
Monday evening.<br>
Mexico City Mayor Angel Mancera says in a statement that his
sprawling capital of about 9 million is committed to combating
climate change through programs such as ensuring all residents have
access to alternative transportation like walking and cycling, as a
matter of land use policy. Mancera says the city is trying to
accelerate a transition to soot-free engines and procure
zero-emissions buses by 2025 with an overall zero-emissions goal for
most of the city by 2030.<br>
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee says rising water levels and affordable
housing are concerns for his city.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wgntv.com/2017/12/05/obama-to-address-mayors-summit-on-climate-change-in-chicago-today/">http://wgntv.com/2017/12/05/obama-to-address-mayors-summit-on-climate-change-in-chicago-today/</a></font><br>
-<br>
[Chicago mayors climate summit]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/BgSViSgZjIc">(video
12:51) Former President Obama speaks at climate summit</a></b><br>
CBS News<br>
Published on Dec 5, 2017<br>
Former President Barack Obama spoke in Chicago Tuesday about the
need to push forward against climate change, despite the current
administration's opposition. Watch his remarks at the North American
Climate Summit.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/BgSViSgZjIc">https://youtu.be/BgSViSgZjIc</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[NYTimes]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/world/americas/united-nations-migration-pact.html?_r=0">U.S.
Quits Migration Pact, Saying It Infringes on Sovereignty</a></b><br>
By RICK GLADSTONE<br>
The Trump administration has quit participating in talks on a
proposed United Nations agreement to improve ways of handling global
flows of migrants and refugees, describing it as a subversion of
American sovereignty.<br>
The administration's decision to renounce the talks on the
agreement, the Global Compact on Migration, was announced in a
statement Saturday night by the United States Mission to the United
Nations, surprising migrant-rights advocates who called it
shortsighted and counterproductive.<br>
Many said the decision appeared to reinforce what they called an
atmosphere of renewed American isolationism and exceptionalism at
the United Nations in the first year of the Trump White House.<br>
Trump administration officials said the decision was not an American
repudiation of cooperation with other countries but a rightful
defense of the government's power to determine who can enter the
United States....<br>
Migrant-rights advocates expressed a mix of shock and bafflement at
the Trump administration's announcement, asserting that nothing
proposed in the Global Compact would be mandatory. Some said the
absence of the United States from the agreement could worsen the
problems.<br>
"An unwillingness even to negotiate international principles for
safe, regular and orderly migration is a head-in-the-sand denial of
a basic reality of human history," said Bill Frelick, the refugee
rights program coordinator at Human Rights Watch.<br>
"Simplistic solutions like walls will not solve the complex problem
of unsafe, irregular, disorderly migration, demonstrating a callous
disregard for the lives of migrants and jaw-dropping
irresponsibility toward the community of nations," Mr. Frelick
said...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/world/americas/united-nations-migration-pact.html?_r=0">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/world/americas/united-nations-migration-pact.html?_r=0</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/we-have-met-the-climate-champions-and-they-are-young/">We
have met the climate champions, and they are young</a></b><br>
Posted on December 5, 2017 | Leave a comment<br>
Chloe Maxmin began climate activism at the age of 12. She formed a
Climate Action Club in high school. Later, as a college student, she
co-founded Divest Harvard, to persuade Harvard University to divest
its endowment from fossil fuels. And she founded First Here, Then
Everywhere for youth climate activists.<br>
I am not the hope of this world. She is.<br>
We, the old, are already suffering from man-made climate change.
When the streets of Miami flood on a sunny day, when a heat wave
destroys your wheat crop, when heavy rain literally washes your home
away, we pay a heavy price. For far too long, we have ignored the
warnings from the vast (yes, vast) majority of scientists,
especially climate scientists. Now we pay, and we have ourselves to
blame.<br>
The young also suffer. Some of them, the very young, are among the
most vulnerable. The consequences of man-made climate change are
going to get worse, a lot worse. We, the old, won't live to see the
worst. They, the young, will. And it's not their fault. It's ours.<br>
Those of us who do what we can to help, have made a difference
already. We have helped to show the way. But our efforts have been
inadequate, and now the U.S. government that we elected is the
biggest obstacle in the world. It's our fault.<br>
We "adults" need to do more, especially in the voting booth. Make
climate the #1 issue, above all others. Do it for yourself, do it
for your kids. Do it for everybody's kids.<br>
There's one more thing we need to do. Help them, the young, continue
and win their struggle. When they really get moving, the power of
their passion will be unstoppable. When the youth climate activist
movement comes down the road in your town, either help them along,
or get out of the way. We can't stop them. Thank God.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/we-have-met-the-climate-champions-and-they-are-young/">https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/we-have-met-the-climate-champions-and-they-are-young/</a></font><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://firstheretheneverywhere.org/">FIRST HERE, THEN
EVERYWHERE</a></b><br>
About First Here, Then Everywhere:<br>
First Here, Then Everywhere is an online hub founded by Chloe Maxmin
to highlight youth activism around the world. Today's youth are
often represented as future leaders. And therefore our voices are
not given the space and validation that they deserve right now. But
we are the leaders of today because we understand that our lives–now
and in the future–are intertwined with the climate crisis. We also
understand that we are not defined by crisis but rather by the
opportunities to rise up and stand up for all that we love.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://firstheretheneverywhere.org/">https://firstheretheneverywhere.org/</a><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest/six-reasons-why-protest-is-so-important">Six
reasons why protest is so important for democracy</a></b><br>
RICHARD NORMAN 4 December 2017<br>
This listicle is part of Right to Protest, a partnership project
with human rights organisations CELS and INCLO, with support from
the ACLU, examining the power of protest and its fundamental role in
democratic society. <br>
<b>1. People realise that they are not alone</b><br>
One way in which the establishment maintains its power is by
creating a dominant discourse from which dissidents' views are
excluded. If people think differently, they may feel isolated,
marginalised and powerless. Public demonstrations and marches
empower people by showing them that there are thousands of people
who think the same things.<br>
<b>2. By protesting, we alter the agenda and start a debate</b><br>
Those in power may try to ignore us, but if there are enough
protesters then they will feel the need to come up with reasons why
all of the protesters are wrong. That is when the debate begins and
argument becomes possible.<br>
<b>3. In an electoral democracy, protest provides an essential voice
for minority groups</b><br>
The classic theorists of representational government recognised that
universal suffrage and majority voting threaten to impose the
'tyranny of the majority' and override the rights of minorities.
Protests are a vital corrective to majority rule.<br>
<b>4. Sometimes we win!</b><br>
If there are enough protesters, the policies of those in power may
become unworkable. When the UK government introduce the flat-rate
Poll Tax in 1990, huge numbers of people protested and refused to
pay the tax. It became clear that prosecuting everyone who refused
would be impossible, chaos threatened, and the government abolished
the tax.<br>
<b>5. Sometimes we win in ways we had not intended or planned</b><br>
Political events are unpredictable. The protests against nuclear
cruise missiles at Greenham Common in the UK in the 1980s appeared
to have failed when the missiles were installed, but the protests
had forced the US and UK governments into saying that they had to
deploy the missiles only because the Soviet Union was doing the
same. When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union and
said that he was willing to make an agreement to withdraw all the
missiles, the Western governments could not go back on what they had
said. The missiles were withdrawn, and Greenham Common is now public
parkland.<br>
<b>6. Sometimes we win but it takes a generation or more</b><br>
At the time it may feel that it's going nowhere; that those in power
are stuck in a certain mindset and cannot change their thinking. But
then a new generation may come along, unencumbered by past thinking,
and see that the views of the protesters were just common sense.
Think of the huge turnaround in attitudes to gay people over a
couple of generations.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest/six-reasons-why-protest-is-so-important">https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest/six-reasons-why-protest-is-so-important</a><br>
See also: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest">https://www.opendemocracy.net/protest</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/paul-hoggett-rosemary-randall/sustainable-activism-managing-hope-and-despair-in-socia">https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/paul-hoggett-rosemary-randall/sustainable-activism-managing-hope-and-despair-in-socia</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/04/carbon-capture-essential-limiting-global-warming-no-one-knows-much-will-cost/">Carbon
Capture Is Essential To Limiting Global Warming, But No One
Knows How To Do It Or How Much It Will Cost</a></b><br>
December 4th, 2017 by Steve Hanley <br>
If conservatives are pissed off about global warming, their heads
are likely to explode when they find out that even reducing carbon
emissions to zero - which has almost no likelihood of happening
- won't be enough to keep the earth from dangerously overheating.
Even a 2 degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures will
result in catastrophic changes, including more powerful storms,
rising sea levels, famine and drought. Some climate scientists are
predicting double that amount of warming - or more.<br>
While we focus our attention on electric cars and renewable energy,
and celebrate advances in both, the truth is that humanity must not
only figure out how to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
but also how to remove much of what is already there. The technology
for doing so does not exist today and even if it did, the cost of
implementing it would be enormous. We are digging our graves with
every drop of fossil fuel we burn, but don't know how to stop.<br>
Glen Peters is a climate researcher at the Cicero Center for Climate
Research in Oslo. He has been the leader of the Global Climate
Project, which provides data to scientists worldwide, since 2001 and
was one of the most cited researchers in the scientific community in
2016. Peters is not especially optimistic about the future. He
thinks the goal of the Paris climate accords to limit global warming
to 1.5 degrees C is all well and good, but doesn't believe it is
technically, economically, or politically possible.<br>
He tells Norway's VG News, "There are media reports of images
showing wind turbines and solar panels. It is good and good, but
meeting the goals in the Paris agreement requires so-called negative
emissions - removing much of the CO₂ that has already been
released. The subject is little talked about, but politicians will
eventually come to understand what a huge task it is."<br>
Huge is hardly the right word. Peters says we need to be removing
ten billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year by
2050 - about 25% of current emissions. It would require a whole
new industry many times larger than the fossil fuel industry to
capture the carbon dioxide, compress it, and transport it safely to
storage areas. Several new carbon capture facilities would need to
be brought online every week for decades to make it all work.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/04/carbon-capture-essential-limiting-global-warming-no-one-knows-much-will-cost/">https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/04/carbon-capture-essential-limiting-global-warming-no-one-knows-much-will-cost/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/12/04/moodys-credit-climate-liability-lawsuits/">Credit
Warning Could Spur Cities to Consider Climate Liability Suits</a></b><br>
By Bobby Magill<br>
Moody's warned states and city governments in a report published
last week that they may see their credit ratings tumble if they fail
to begin adapting to rising seas, climbing temperatures and other
effects of climate change. With both their coastlines and credit
ratings threatened, the report may inspire more local governments to
consider who or what might be liable for their exposure to the
ravages of global warming.<br>
Already, the California cities of San Francisco, Oakland and
Imperial Beach, and San Mateo and Marin counties have sued
ExxonMobil, BP and other major fossil fuel companies for their
responsibility for climate impacts already damaging their
communities, including rising seas and more damaging extreme
weather.<br>
"Moody's now appears to confirm what others have long suspected:
state and local governments will suffer if their residents and
taxpayers have to pay the full costs of protecting roads, homes,
businesses and other infrastructure from the impacts of climate
change," said Vic Sher, a partner in the law firm involved in three
of those communities' lawsuits. "The lawsuits filed by Marin and San
Mateo Counties, the City of Imperial Beach, and others, are about
making sure that these communities have the resources to meet these
challenges, and assuring that the companies that caused the problem
pay their fair share of those costs."<br>
"Climate shocks," or catastrophic extreme weather events such as a
hurricane intensified by climate change that immediately wipes out
infrastructure and washes away a city's tax base, may factor into
its credit rating, Moody's said.<br>
"While we anticipate states and municipalities will adopt mitigation
strategies for these events, costs to employ them could also become
an ongoing credit challenge," Moody's Vice President Michael Wertz
said in a statement.<br>
The goal of liability lawsuits is for the courts to require major
oil companies to pay some portion of the cost of protecting
infrastructure and private property from global warming's impacts.<br>
Oakland and San Francisco by themselves have $49 billion in public
and private property sitting within 6 feet of today's sea level.
Research shows that seas may rise about 10 feet by the end of the
century, causing catastrophic damage as the ocean inundates the
coastline.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/12/04/moodys-credit-climate-liability-lawsuits/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/12/04/moodys-credit-climate-liability-lawsuits/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
LAW<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067949">Government
seeks scientists' doubts for climate court battle</a></b><br>
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter<br>
Climatewire: Monday, December 4, 2017<br>
Justice Department lawyers are quietly courting climate scientists
for a simmering legal fight that could have massive implications for
government global warming policies.<br>
In recent months, Department of Justice officials have met with Ken
Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist in the Department of Global
Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, as well as Judith
Curry, a professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology's
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences who has broken with many of
her colleagues in the field by questioning the extent of humanity's
role in climate change.<br>
The Justice Department officials questioned the scientists about the
level of certainty in climate science, possibly in an effort to help
formulate a legal argument that would maintain that climate change
is not enough of a dire threat to require immediate government
action. The case has the potential to be one of the first Trump
administration legal showdowns over climate science. For now, the
department is casting a wide net, consulting with climate
scientists, environmental law experts and economists, according to
the researchers.<br>
A children's climate change case, known as Juliana v. United States,
was filed in 2015 by 21 young plaintiffs who claimed their
constitutional rights had been violated by government inaction on
climate change. Earlier this year, just days before Trump took
office, the Obama administration Justice Department argued that
there is no widespread belief among scientists that the world's
climate becomes dangerous after passing the 350-parts-per-million
mark for atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key metric in the case.
Scientists have noted that the current level of CO2, which is about
410 ppm, has not been seen in at least 800,000 years.<br>
Where the Trump administration will take the argument, if the case
should proceed to trial, remains an open question. Trump and many
top Cabinet officials have rejected the mainstream scientific
consensus that humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented
pace.<br>
Phil Gregory, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, compared the
case to the famous Scopes monkey trial of 1925, when a high school
teacher fought for the right to teach human evolution in public
schools. The difference now, he said, is that this case would be a
showdown on climate science in a courtroom.<br>
Ultimately, the case could have even broader implications than an
upcoming "red team" climate debate exercise planned by U.S. EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt because it could yield future government
action on climate change, according to Gregory. He said his
plaintiffs have extensive evidence that glacial melt, coral reef
destruction and rising temperatures pose a grave threat to future
generations.<br>
"What we're going to have is the youth of America and their climate
scientists," he said. "The Trump administration can bring on any
scientist it wants, and we can have that debate based on evidence in
a courtroom, so it's better than the Scopes trial, because in the
Scopes trial, it wasn't limited to scientific evidence; they talked
about the Bible and waved that around."<br>
The next step in the case is oral arguments on Dec. 11 before the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The government,
through a writ of mandamus, wants a review of a 2016 decision by a
lower court not to throw the case out. If the government is not
granted that review, the case could eventually head to trial and
climate science could become a central part of a legal argument.<br>
Trump has dismissed climate change as a hoax, and chose a number of
Cabinet secretaries who question basic climate science. If the case
proceeds to trial, however, government lawyers would be forced to
argue that climate change does not pose an immediate threat,
something mainstream climate science long ago determined is
endangering humanity. There has been a significant focus from both
critics and supporters of the Trump administration on whether Pruitt
will challenge the endangerment finding, the legal undergirding of
EPA's climate rules.<br>
Taking on the endangerment finding would be a major legal fight,
requiring the creation of a mountain of alternative research to
challenge the significant body of peer-reviewed science that shows
humans are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace.<br>
'Put the science on trial'<br>
A few months ago, Justice Department lawyers went out to lunch with
Caldeira, he told E&E News.<br>
They asked if he would take the lead on assembling government
witnesses for the case. He said the lawyers are career officials,
holdovers from the Obama administration. The lawyers told Caldeira
they thought the case was weak, but that proving climate change
poses an irreversible harm to humanity would benefit the plaintiffs,
he said. Their position was that energy policy is something for the
legislative branch to grapple with, not the executive branch, he
said.<br>
The Justice Department likely reached out to Caldeira because he has
been critical of the case, because he does not think the courts are
the place to resolve climate policy. He said he would have worked
with the Obama Justice Department because he feels a duty as a
scientist to ensure that the best available research is used.<br>
But he declined the Justice Department's request for help, he said,
because he is concerned that his work would be distorted for
political means by the Trump administration.<br>
"Since so much science is publicly funded, scientists have some
responsibility to help have good science considered by the judicial
process," he said. "Things are terribly clouded because we have such
an awful president and such an awful administration, even efforts to
try to get good science into the process could result in negative
consequences."<br>
Caldeira is also concerned that if reputable scientists don't
participate in the case, the Justice Department could use contrarian
researchers to weaken established science.<br>
"You could easily imagine the Trump administration arranging things
to not having the best available science presented, but having a
perverted view of science presented," he said. "So I think there is
a conflict if all good scientists refuse to participate because they
don't want to collude with the Trump administration, then that
leaves only the hacks, and it's likely that the government's case
will be buttressed by hack science."<br>
A Justice Department spokesman declined comment. However, it appears
the department is still talking to researchers.<br>
Curry said last week that she was still interested in helping the
government with the case, but only if it took place in a nonpartisan
manner. Curry has broken from many in mainstream climate science by
casting doubt on the belief that humans are the primary driver of
climate change. She has also published a significant amount of
peer-reviewed research in major scientific journals, including on
the Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped
the region.<br>
"I'm prepared to give my best expert advice in a nonpartisan way;
they may not like some of it," she said. "You just have to give it
your best, deepest, most honest shot of explaining what's what, what
we don't know."<br>
The plaintiffs in the case have already submitted an expert review
by scientists, economists and other experts in the field that
clearly shows the threat climate change poses to future generations,
said Gregory, the co-counsel representing the plaintiffs. The
government has not submitted a report that would challenge
established climate science, and lawyers have essentially argued
that producing such a report would be too burdensome, he said.<br>
<b>"Our position all along has been to put the science on trial, and
we want for them to bring in recognized scientists and let those
individuals submit reports and testify before the courts; that's
exactly what we think should happen," he said. "Obviously what's
occurring now in our climate should not be decided by politicians,
but should be dictated by the best available science."</b><br>
Twitter: @scottpwaldman Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:swaldman@eenews.net">swaldman@eenews.net</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067949">https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067949</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Dave Roberts - Vox]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/5/16732772/emotion-climate-change-communication">Does
hope inspire more action on climate change than fear? We don't
know.</a></b><br>
On climate change communications, the science really isn't settled.<br>
Back in July, journalist David Wallace-Wells published a piece in
New York magazine called "<a
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">The
Uninhabitable Earth</a>," a nightmarish guided tour of the
worst-case scenarios for global warming. The piece proved incredibly
popular - it is the <a
href="http://nymag.com/nymag/letters/comments-2017-07-24/">most-read
story in the magazine's history</a> - but it also ignited heated
debate among those who think, talk, and write about climate change
for a living.<br>
The debate revolved around two distinct issues, though they were
often conflated or confused.<br>
The first has to do with the role of emotion in climate change
communication - specifically, whether Wallace-Wells's story was too
scary, or too pessimistic, in a way that would only serve to
demotivate or paralyze readers. The second has to do with the role
of climate scientists in refereeing public climate debates -
specifically, whether their authority extends to matters of tone,
emphasis, and intent.<br>
I wrote a <a
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism">piece
on all this</a> in July, and though the debate left me distinctly
unsatisfied, I planned to drop it there. However, there's a <a
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0021-9">new
commentary in Nature Climate Change</a> that addresses the first
issue (and can thereby help illuminate the second), so I'm going to
try one last time for some clarity on this.<br>
To make a long story short: We don't know much of anything about how
messages affect people, so everybody's better off just doing the
best they can.<br>
<b>Emotions in climate communications: it's complicated</b><br>
The Nature Climate Change article is called "Reassessing emotion in
climate change communication," and it's by Daniel Chapman, Brian
Lickel, and Ezra Markowitz, psychological and environmental
researchers at University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Their basic
point that, in the debate around Wallace-Wells's piece and similar
previous debates, people have characterized the role of emotion
rather too crudely...<br>
Most important, when attempting to trace the links between emotional
experiences and action, is the element of time. What matters in an
overall assessment of someone's disposition toward climate change is
not their raw feelings in the immediate aftermath of an emotionally
significant experience (living through a hurricane, say, or reading
a scary magazine story), but how those responses are reinforced and
strengthened (or not) over the course of the following days and
years.<br>
Any affective response will fade without reinforcement. It is not
cleverness that matters most in communication, but repetition.
Emotional experiences and messages need to be repeated over and over
again before they stick.<br>
"The immediate responses and longer-term consequences of an
emotionally evocative event," the authors write, "may or may not be
aligned, and may even differ dramatically...<br>
... broad uncertainty suggests humility - a humility advocates have
not always displayed. For instance, the authors cite a Washington
Post op-ed by climate scientist Michael Mann, Susan Joy Hassol, and
Tom Toles that claims "the most motivating emotions are worry,
interest and hope. Importantly, fear does not motivate, and
appealing to it is often counter-productive as it tends to distance
people from the problem, leading them to disengage, doubt and even
dismiss it." (In support, they link to a single survey.)<br>
Such categorical claims, Chapman, Lickel, and Markowitz write,
exceed what the evidence can bear. Even in meta-analytic studies on
communication in other fields, there are conflicting conclusions
about the role of fear. There's still not much evidence to draw
directly from climate communication, and what there is contains
ambiguous and contradictory findings.<br>
"The current evidence base and dominant approaches to studying
emotion in climate change communication," they write, "do not
support definitive, simplistic, and overly broad assertions about
the effect of specific emotions on climate change responses.<br>
<br>
The effects of a scary climate change story on a committed climate
change activist will be different than the effects on a
conservative. They might both feel the rudimentary feeling-state of
"fear" in the wake of the story, but that tells us very little about
how they will process it or how those feelings might be reinforced
or meliorated by subsequent messages or tribal signals.<br>
What we can say for sure is that there's unlikely to be any
all-purpose emotional recipe that will satisfy all customers. <br>
<br>
If you read the <a
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html">detailed,
annotated version</a> of the piece that Wallace-Wells subsequently
published, which traces virtually every sentence back to a specific
paper or interview with a scientist, you will recognize how
ludicrous that judgment is.<br>
The bunk of the critique was simple disagreement about whether
Wallace-Wells should have written the piece he did - a piece he
states up front is an explication of worst-case scenarios. Of course
it's not "realistic"; that's not what worst-case means. Of course it
emphasizes low-probability, high-impact outcomes; that is what
worst-case means.<br>
These kinds of critiques amount to scientists advising a journalist
what information to present, what to emphasize, and what impressions
and emotions to produce in readers.<br>
These simply aren't matters of hard climate science. They are
matters of rhetoric and communication, subjects on which training in
the physical sciences confers no special authority.<br>
<br>
All citizens have a right to speak. I talk about that stuff all the
time, and all I've got is a Masters in philosophy. The more the
merrier.<br>
But climate scientists, however confident and vocal they may be in
their judgments about communications, should be careful not to
smuggle subjective judgments under the banner of "scientific
critique." Their authority on climate science is not fungible; it
does not translate to other domains. One is not a "science denier"
if one disagrees with the rhetorical or policy judgments of climate
scientists.<br>
Passing subjective judgments about communications off as hard
science only makes it more difficult for the public to identify who
can be trusted. It is not ultimately up to scientists how people
communicate.<br>
<br>
What I take from the social science of climate-change communications
is that no one knows much of anything about what kinds of messages
and messengers have what kinds of long-term effects on behavior. At
the very least, these remain deeply subjective judgments.<br>
Given that, it seems the wise course of action on climate
communications is to encourage diversity, experimentation, and most
of all, a spirit of charity and the assumption of good faith toward
others who are attempting to tell the same story in different ways.<br>
<br>
On climate comms, I think people are better off trusting the ancient
art of Knowing Your Audience. Do what you're good at; speak to
people you think you might be able to reach. David Wallace-Wells was
good at reaching millions of casual magazine readers. Climate
scientist <a
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-katharine-hayhoe">Katharine
Hayhoe</a> is out talking to evangelicals and conservatives. Her
fellow climate scientist Michael Mann is delivering facts to <a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ2cCPRS-Q8">Bill Maher's
audience</a> (no mean feat). Bill McKibben is writing <a
href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bill-mckibben-winning-slowly-is-the-same-as-losing-w512967">evocative,
terrifying essays</a>. Al Gore is doing his 24 Hours of Reality
thing. Reporters at E&E and the New York Times climate desk are
staying on top of breaking news. Analysts at places like <a
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/">Carbon Brief</a> are bringing
the numbers and charts. Young activists are connecting climate
change to economic justice and urbanism. I'm writing wonky
explainers on clean energy. (And this is all just in the US, of
course.)<br>
<br>
The climate-o-sphere is full of people telling this big story in a
bunch of different ways, emphasizing different things, bringing
different levels of fear, hope, or dispassion to the task.<br>
<br>
So, yes, scientific accuracy is important. But we should also
remember that humans are complicated and diverse and need all sorts
of narratives, images, facts, tropes, and other forms of group
reinforcement to really get something this big. It's a lot to take
in, especially if, like most people, you don't think like a
scientist...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/5/16732772/emotion-climate-change-communication">https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/5/16732772/emotion-climate-change-communication</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>