<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>February 5, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[Climate Vote]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/portland_could_see_global_warm.html">Portland
could see global warming-related sales tax on fall ballot</a></b><br>
OregonLive.com-Feb 2, 2018<br>
Portland voters could get the chance this fall to weigh in on a
proposed tax on sales at powerhouse national retailers operating
inside city limits. The surcharge is intended to fund initiatives to
put a dent in global climate change. The city attorney released an
official ballot title for a proposed measure Friday.<font size="-1">...<br>
</font>The petition would amend city code to apply a 1 percent tax
to all Portland sales by large corporations except medicine, health
care and certain groceries. Companies would be affected if they have
at least $1 billion in annual sales and sales of $500,000 within
Portland city limits. It's not clear how much money the surcharge
would raise.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/portland_could_see_global_warm.html">http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/portland_could_see_global_warm.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Tennis match 104 degrees F]<br>
<b><a
href="http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-open-slammed-for-heat-rule-farce/news-story/3671e6e2ce83b956e4c0ffa3672c2ef5">Australian
Open slammed for heat rule farce</a></b><br>
(104 degrees F) <br>
AUSTRALIAN Open organisers have been slammed for an unthinkable
dereliction of duty that put players' lives at risk as temperatures
soared yesterday.<br>
The torturous conditions were having a serious effect on both
players, but particularly Monfils. The Frenchman was pushed to
breaking point as he tried to find shade at every opportunity and
take longer breaks between points, telling the chair umpire he
needed more than the allotted 25 seconds.<br>
He received medical attention and at one stage left the court, such
was his distress.<br>
"I'm sick to the stomach," Monfils said. "I'm tired and dizzy.<br>
"I'm going to collapse."<br>
But he was forced to play on under the blazing sun as the roof
remained open on Rod Laver Arena....<br>
Dr Kathryn Bowen, a senior research fellow at the Australian
National University (ANU) specialising in climate and health, was
watching the match and said common sense should have prevailed, at
least closing the roof to shield the players somewhat from the heat.<br>
"When you can see the impacts (of the weather) on a person are as
acute as they are that's when you need to look at this more
subjectively and respond in a humane fashion," Dr Bowen told
news.com.au.<br>
"We don't need to bring out our thermometers. It's clear they're
both suffering.<br>
"It becomes a perverse game if it doesn't respond to their stress.
They're under significant heat stress now and the officials really
need to be able to make these calls quickly and with full
autonomy."..<br>
The Australian Open's official Twitter account said the match was
not halted because play "needed to be consistent with the outside
courts so some don't get an unfair advantage".<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-open-slammed-for-heat-rule-farce/news-story/3671e6e2ce83b956e4c0ffa3672c2ef5">http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-open-slammed-for-heat-rule-farce/news-story/3671e6e2ce83b956e4c0ffa3672c2ef5</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Lecturer:]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180204/lecturer-policymakers-must-be-pushed-to-address-climate-change">Policymakers
must be pushed to address climate change</a></b><br>
Sarasota Herald-Tribune<br>
As have others spreading the word about climate change, Musil
contends that, if their constituents demand action, elected
policymakers at all levels will have to respond. "The bottom line is
we need to get engaged as citizens,"...<br>
Starting with the 2018 election cycle, Musil hopes more voters will
chose mayors, governors and legislators who express commitments to
promote renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions (which
scientists cite as the cause of global warming) — despite Trump's
withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement to reduce the
use of fossil fuels.<br>
He believes the United States is not devoting enough money and
resources to the study of climate change. Meanwhile, many of this
nation's climate scientists have gone to Europe, especially France,
where they can find support for their research.<br>
He acknowledges many skeptics and naysayers regard what research has
been done to be flawed. Yet he thinks they tend to listen to "paid
hacks" whose studies can be "connected to fossil fuel corporations."<br>
When Carson wrote about the dangers of DDT, the pesticide industry
fought back with claims that "we'd live like savages" without it
being sprayed in neighborhoods, Musil said.<br>
If Americans will become more active in expressing their concerns
about climate change and insist on voting accordingly, the
politicians will be willing to do the same, Musil said.<br>
"An aroused citizenry can make a difference."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180204/lecturer-policymakers-must-be-pushed-to-address-climate-change">http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180204/lecturer-policymakers-must-be-pushed-to-address-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Politics]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-climate-change_us_5a738c19e4b0905433b2834d">Democrats
Lack A Bold National Climate Change Plan In The Trump Era, And
It Shows</a></b><br>
The party's rebuttal this week to the president's State of the Union
address ignored what should be a progressive core issue for the
party.<br>
By Alexander C. Kaufman<br>
If you think the partisan divide over health care is intense, it's
even worse when it comes to climate change... Yet Democrats, at
least on a national level, remain scattered, without a strategy to
deal with what they regularly call the most pressing issue of a
lifetime.<br>
At no point was this more clear than on Tuesday. In the first of two
back-to-back snubs, Democrats on the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works spent comparatively little time grilling
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt on
climate change during his first appearance before the panel since
his confirmation nearly a year ago. They chose instead to focus on
local pollution issues.<br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size:
18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial;">Later that night, the official response to President
Donald Trump's first State of the Union address ignored climate
change...</span>only aghast Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) inveighed:
"How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union
speech and not mention climate change?"<br>
Voters are overwhelmingly in favor of climate action. Fifty-eight
percent of voters agreed that the federal government should regulate
business to protect the environment and believed that efforts to do
so would create jobs, according to 2016 results from American
National Election Studies. Twenty percent were neutral on the
question, and just 22 percent said they believed regulation would
not do much to help the environment and would cost jobs...<br>
"There's a desire among Democrats to describe their positions in a
way that gets 80 percent approval, unobjectionable and something
people won't criticize," said Jeff Hauser, a veteran progressive
Democratic operative. "But you'd be better off with 60-40 percent,
where your 60 percent is more passionate and you're tricking the
other side into arguing it."<br>
"That is part of the argument for why you discuss climate and the
environment in a more provocative and detailed way," he added. "That
forces the conversation onto terms that get the other side to engage
in an issue you ultimately win and create an actual mandate to act
upon your findings."..<br>
Yet, despite ranking low on surveys of voter priorities, climate and
environmental issues poll exceptionally high among many registered
voters who don't regularly show up at the polls, especially Latinos
and young people whom the Democrats could easily target. To
Nathaniel Stinnett, a campaign operative who now runs the
Environmental Voter Project, a group seeking to increase turnout
among "environmental super voters," this offers the possibility of a
new, winning bloc...<br>
"These are the people who need a little extra nudge to get off the
sidelines," Stinnett said. "Having a candidate clearly differentiate
herself or himself from the crowd and talk about an issue not a lot
of people are talking about, they could drag new voters into the
electorate. That's going to be enormously important in 2018."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-climate-change_us_5a738c19e4b0905433b2834d">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-climate-change_us_5a738c19e4b0905433b2834d</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[CO2 Hubris]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates">How
Bill Gates aims to clean up the planet </a></b><br>
It's nothing much to look at, but the tangle of pipes, pumps, tanks,
reactors, chimneys and ducts on a messy industrial estate outside
the logging town of Squamish in western Canada could just provide
the fix to stop the world tipping into runaway climate change and
substitute dwindling supplies of conventional fuel.<br>
It could also make Harvard superstar physicist David Keith,
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and oil sands magnate Norman Murray
Edwards more money than they could ever dream of.<br>
The idea is grandiose yet simple: decarbonise the global economy by
extracting global-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) straight from the
air, using arrays of giant fans and patented chemical whizzery; and
then use the gas to make clean, carbon-neutral synthetic diesel and
petrol to drive the world's ships, planes and trucks.<br>
The hope is that the combination of direct air capture (DAC), water
electrolysis and fuels synthesis used to produce liquid hydrocarbon
fuels can be made to work at a global scale, for little more than it
costs to extract and sell fossil fuel today. This would
revolutionise the world's transport industry, which emits nearly
one-third of total climate-changing emissions. It would be the
equivalent of mechanising photosynthesis.<br>
The individual technologies may not be new, but their combination at
an industrial scale would be groundbreaking. Carbon Engineering, the
company set up in 2009 by leading geoengineer Keith, with money from
Gates and Murray, has constructed a prototype plant, installed large
fans, and has been extracting around one tonne of pure CO2 every day
for a year. At present it is released back into the air...<br>
But that will not be enough. To avoid runaway climate change,
emissions must then become "net negative", with more carbon being
removed than emitted.... <br>
The achilles heel of all negative emission technologies is cost.
Government policy units assume that they will become economically
viable, but the best hope of Carbon Engineering and other direct air
extraction companies is to get the price down to $100 a tonne from
the current $600. Even then, to remove just 1% of global emissions
would cost around $400bn a year, and would need to be continued for
ever. Storing the CO2 permanently would cost extra.<br>
Critics say that these technologies are unfeasible. Not using the
fossil fuel and not producing the emissions in the first place would
be much cleverer than having to find end-of-pipe solutions, say
Professor Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, and Glen Peters, research director at the
Centre for International Climate Research (Cicero) in Norway...<br>
In a recent article in the journal Science, the two climate
scientists said they were not opposed to research on negative
emission technologies, but thought the world should proceed on the
premise that they will not work at scale. Not to do so, they said,
would be a "moral hazard par excellence".<br>
Instead, governments are relying on these technologies to remove
hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere. "It is
breathtaking," says Anderson. "By the middle of the century, many of
the models assume as much removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by
negative emission technologies as is absorbed naturally today by all
of the world's oceans and plants combined. They are not an insurance
policy; they are a high-risk gamble with tomorrow's generations,
particularly those living in poor and climatically vulnerable
communities, set to pay the price if our high-stakes bet fails to
deliver as promised." According to Anderson, "The beguiling appeal
of relying on future negative emission technologies is that they
delay the need for stringent and politically challenging policies
today - they pass the buck for reducing carbon on to future
generations. But if these Dr Strangelove technologies fail to
deliver at the planetary scale envisaged, our own children will be
forced to endure the consequences of rapidly rising temperatures and
a highly unstable climate."<br>
Kris Milkowski, business development manager at the UKCCSRC, says:
"Negative emissions technology is unavoidable and here to stay. We
are simply not moving [to cut emissions] fast enough. If we had an
endless pile of money, we could potentially go totally renewable
energy. But that transition cannot happen overnight. This, I fear,
is the only large-scale solution."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Future Risk]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/climate/exxon-global-warming.html">Exxon
Studies Climate Policies and Sees 'Little Risk' to Bottom Line</a></b><br>
...the report underscored how the company is grappling with the
transition to stricter policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions, a
shift various analysts and climate advocates say will pose a mortal
threat to the fossil fuels industry. A paper published in Nature in
2015 estimated that, for the world to have a 50-50 shot at staying
below 2 degrees Celsius of warming, the world would have to avoid
burning most of the coal reserves currently beneath the ground, half
the natural gas, and about one-third of the oil.<br>
Exxon laid out a more optimistic view. Oil and natural gas, the
company's mainstays, will "continue to play a critical role in
meeting the world's energy demand," the company said in its
report...<br>
Exxon's vast fossil fuel reserves "face little risk" of being left
in the ground, the company said. Less than 5 percent of its reserves
would be affected under a 2-degree scenario, the company estimated.
Under that scenario, Exxon sees the world's oil consumption dropping
only slowly in the next two decades or so, and sees demand for
natural gas rising slightly.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/climate/exxon-global-warming.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/climate/exxon-global-warming.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[Beetles shrinking]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5329093/Global-warming-shrinking-insects.html#ixzz569yZG3rU">Global
warming is shrinking insects: Study reveals the four largest
beetle species in Canada have shrunk 20% in the last 45 years in
an attempt to survive hotter temperatures</a></b><br>
- Global warming is causing animals to shrink their body size in
order to survive<br>
- Most of the evidence for organisms shrinking has come from
laboratory work<br>
- However, the latest study looks at how creature's are shrinking
the real-world<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5329093/Global-warming-shrinking-insects.html#ixzz569yZG3rU">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5329093/Global-warming-shrinking-insects.html#ixzz569yZG3rU</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[Annual Review of Political Science]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801?journalCode=polisci">Social
Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in
the United States</a></b><br>
Vol. 20:189-208 (Volume publication date May 2017)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801</a><br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
The issue of climate change poses something of a puzzle. For all the
attention accorded the issue, climate change/global warming has
spawned surprisingly little grassroots activism in the contemporary
United States. Drawing on social movement theory, the author seeks
to explain this puzzle. The prevailing consensus among movement
scholars is that the prospect for movement emergence is facilitated
by the confluence of three factors: the expansion of political
opportunities, the availability of mobilizing structures, and
cognitive and affective mobilization through framing processes. The
author then applies each of these factors to the case of climate
change, arguing that (a) awareness of the issue developed during an
especially inopportune period in American politics, (b) the
organizations that arose to address the issue were ill suited to the
kind of grassroots mobilization characteristic of successful
movements, and (c) the amorphous nature of the issue played havoc
with efforts at strategic framing.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801?journalCode=polisci">http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801?journalCode=polisci</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100811144431/http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=1514&year=1990&month=all">This
Day in Climate History February 5, 1990</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
February 5, 1990: Addressing a special IPCC gathering in Washington,<br>
D.C., President George H. W. Bush acknowledges the reality of<br>
human-caused climate change, but says that solutions to the problem
of<br>
a warming planet must not inhibit worldwide economic growth.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100811144431/http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=1514&year=1990&month=all">http://web.archive.org/web/20100811144431/http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=1514&year=1990&month=all</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://c-spanvideo.org/program/PresidentialAddress28">http://c-spanvideo.org/program/PresidentialAddress28</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-05/news/mn-275_1_global-warming">http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-05/news/mn-275_1_global-warming</a><br>
</font><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 news clippings. </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>