<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>February 8, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[Dangerous misinformation]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/epa-head-scott-pruitt-says-global-warming-may-help-humans-flourish">EPA
head Scott Pruitt says global warming may help 'humans flourish'</a></b><br>
EPA administrator says 'There are assumptions made that because the
climate is warming that necessarily is a bad thing'<br>
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has
suggested that global warming may be beneficial to humans, in his
latest departure from mainstream climate science.<br>
Pruitt, who has previously erred by denying that carbon dioxide is a
key driver of climate change, has again caused consternation among
scientists by suggesting that warming temperatures could benefit
civilization.<br>
The EPA administrator said that humans are contributing to climate
"to a certain degree", but added: "We know humans have most
flourished during times of warming trends. There are assumptions
made that because the climate is warming that necessarily is a bad
thing.<br>
"Do we know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year
2100 or year 2018?" he told a TV station in Nevada. "It's fairly
arrogant for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100."<br>
Pruitt said he wanted an "honest, transparent debate about what we
do know and what we don't know, so the American people can be
informed and make decisions on their own".<br>
Under Pruitt's leadership, the EPA is mulling whether to stage a
televised "red team blue team" debate between climate scientists and
those who deny the established science that human activity is
warming the planet.<br>
Donald Trump has also repeatedly questioned the science of climate
change, tweeting during a cold snap in December that the US "could
use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to
protect against".<br>
The EPA itself is unequivocal that warming temperatures, and
resulting environmental changes, are a danger to human health via
heatwaves, smoke from increased wildfires, worsening smog, extreme
weather events, spread of diseases, water-borne illnesses and food
insecurity...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/epa-head-scott-pruitt-says-global-warming-may-help-humans-flourish">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/epa-head-scott-pruitt-says-global-warming-may-help-humans-flourish</a></font><br>
-[Las Vegas TV News]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news3lv.com/news/local/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-goes-one-on-one-with-news-3">EXCLUSIVE:
EPA Chief Scott Pruitt goes one-on-one with News 3</a></b><br>
video 12 mins <br>
LAS VEGAS (KSNV) - Chief Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency Scott Pruitt sat down with News 3's Gerard Ramalho
Tuesday morning to discuss a variety of issues, including mining
regulation, climate change, the Paris Climate Accord and President
Trump's desires to roll back coal regulation.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news3lv.com/news/local/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-goes-one-on-one-with-news-3">http://news3lv.com/news/local/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-goes-one-on-one-with-news-3</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[New South Wales, Australia]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/nsw-court-to-hear-landmark-challenge-to-coalmine-over-climate-change-impact">NSW
court to hear 'landmark' challenge to coalmine over climate
change impact</a></b><br>
Case brought by group from Hunter Valley town, which it says has
been devastated by Peabody Energy's Wilpinjong mine.<br>
In what is described as a landmark case, a New South Wales court
will be asked to overturn a decision to extend the life of a
coalmine on the grounds the state government failed to properly
consider the impact on the climate.<br>
The case is brought by a community group from the tiny Hunter Valley
village of Wollar, which it says has been devastated by the
development and gradual expansion of the Wilpinjong coalmine over
the past decade.<br>
Mine owner Peabody Energy won approval last April to further expand
the mine, which sits between the towns of Mudgee and Denman, to
extend its life by seven years to 2033...<br>
In a case starting on Thursday, the Wollar Progress Association will
argue the decision was unlawful as it did not properly consider the
impact of the increased greenhouse gas emissions, including
"downstream" emissions when the coal is burned in NSW and overseas
power plants....[more]<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/nsw-court-to-hear-landmark-challenge-to-coalmine-over-climate-change-impact">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/nsw-court-to-hear-landmark-challenge-to-coalmine-over-climate-change-impact</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Religion]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/07/churches-warn-firms-over-pay-gender-and-climate-change">Churches
warn firms over pay, gender and climate change</a></b><br>
Slash CEO income, bring more women on board and go low carbon,
Church Investors Group tells companies<br>
The group, which represents church organisations with combined
investment assets of about £17bn, has told companies listed on the
FTSE 350 index it will refuse to re-elect directors at firms failing
to make sufficient progress in key area<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/07/churches-warn-firms-over-pay-gender-and-climate-change">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/07/churches-warn-firms-over-pay-gender-and-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Video, Sea Level Rise Map ]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOGoF7HThg">3D Maps Show
Famous Landmarks Underwater</a></b><br>
Yale Climate Connections<br>
They show how higher sea levels could transform the National Mall,
Battery Park, and other sites.<br>
If global sea levels were to rise eight feet, landmarks such as the
National Mall in Washington, D.C., or Battery Park in New York City,
would be underwater. It's hard to imagine.<br>
But a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
finds that if emissions of carbon pollution continue unchecked
throughout this century, this extreme scenario is possible.<br>
To help people imagine what it would look like locally, the
nonprofit Climate Central created an overlay for Google Earth's 3D
maps. Users can zoom in and see renderings of flooded neighborhoods
and streets.<br>
Carl Parker is a meteorologist with The Weather Channel, which
shared some of these images online.<br>
Parker: "When you see these familiar places, being completely
covered by water, you start to really realize the impact of this."<br>
He hopes that reflecting on the consequences of this
worst-case-scenario will inspire people to take action to reduce
carbon pollution.<br>
Parker: "If people don't want to see truly profound changes to their
country, to their states, to their cities, we need to start moving
in a different direction."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/12/3d-maps-show-famous-landmarks-under-water/">https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/12/3d-maps-show-famous-landmarks-under-water/</a><font
size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOGoF7HThg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOGoF7HThg</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Winter Sports]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/07/golf-cricket-snowsports-threat-climate-change">Cricket
and golf join snowsports under threat from climate change</a></b><br>
Skiing industry in Scotland could be finished within 50 years<br>
Cricket hit by increased rainfall while links suffer coastal erosion<br>
The future of snowsports is under threat, according to a report into
the impact of climate change on grassroots and elite sport.<br>
Although it has been well below freezing as athletes prepared for
the Winter Olympics in South Korea this week, winter temperatures in
the Alps, where many British competitors train, could rise by up to
4C by 2100. By then, only six of the past 19 Winter Olympics venues
could be sufficiently cold to act as host cities.<br>
The Met Office has warned the skiing industry in Scotland could
collapse within 50 years as winters become too mild for regular
snowfall.<br>
The Team GB snowboarder Aimee Fuller, whose annual training venue in
Switzerland has undergone huge change in the past decade, said:
"Snowboarding is really susceptible to the impact of climate change
and we can see the impact on our sport in the mountains on a daily
basis."<br>
In the UK, the governing bodies of cricket and golf are growing
increasingly concerned about the effect of extreme weather related
to climate change. According to the England and Wales Cricket Board,
27% of England's home one-day internationals have been played with
reduced overs since 2000 because of rain. At least 175 days of play,
equivalent to around 16,000 overs, have been lost in five of the
past 10 years in the County Championship...<br>
Sea-level rise poses the most serious threat to golf in the UK,
including at St Andrews, known as the home of golf. Some believe a
20% decline in golf club membership since 2005 can be partially
ascribed to worsening weather trends.<br>
Steve Isaac, the director of sustainability at the R&A, said:
"Golf is impacted by climate change more than most other sports. We
are witnessing different types and timings of disease, pest and weed
outbreaks."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/07/golf-cricket-snowsports-threat-climate-change">https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/07/golf-cricket-snowsports-threat-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[psych]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/01/19/does-threat-of-climate-change-affect-mental-health/131436.html">Does
Threat of Climate Change Affect Mental Health</a></b><br>
In the study, UA researcher Sabrina Helm, an associate professor of
family and consumer science found that psychological responses to
climate change seem to vary based on what type of concern people
show for the environment. Individuals displaying the most concern
about the planet's animals and plants were also experiencing the
most stress.<br>
The researchers outline three distinct types of environmental
concern:<br>
-Egoistic concern is concern about how what's happening in the
environment directly impacts the individual; for example, a person
might worry about how air pollution will affect their own lungs and
breathing.<br>
-Altruistic concern refers to concern for humanity in general,
including future generations.<br>
-Biospheric concern refers to concern for nature, plants, and
animals.<br>
The findings appear in the journal<span> <i>Global Environmental
Change</i>. </span><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/01/19/does-threat-of-climate-change-affect-mental-health/131436.html">https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/01/19/does-threat-of-climate-change-affect-mental-health/131436.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[DESMOG]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-american-museum-natural-history-rebekah-mercer">Climate
Science Deniers Defend New York's American Museum of Natural
History From Calls to Drop Trustee Rebekah Mercer</a></b><br>
By Graham Readfearn<br>
With friends like climate science deniers and alt-right megaphones
like Breitbart, you have to wonder whether New York's iconic
American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) needs any enemies
right now.<br>
As the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/rebekah-mercer-natural-history-museum.html"
target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153,
204);">New York Times</a><span> </span>and<span> </span><a
href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370833-scientists-protest-over-trump-allys-position-at-natural-history"
target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153,
204);">others are reporting</a>, the museum is facing calls from
hundreds of scientists, its own curators, campaigners, and the
public to drop rich benefactor and major Trump funder and ally
Rebekah Mercer from its board of trustees.<font size="-1"><br>
</font>In a<span> </span><a
href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/04/delingpole-climate-bully-mob-tries-to-oust-trump-supporter-from-natural-history-museum/"
target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153,
204);">typically verbose screed</a><span> </span>on Breitbart,
climate science denier<span> </span><a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/james-delingpole" target="_blank"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">James
Delingpole</a><span> </span>called the scientists who had signed a
letter protesting Mercer's presence "basically frauds" and
"imbeciles."<br>
Now climate science deniers have begun to circulate their own "open
letter" calling for the<span> AMNH </span><span></span>to keep
Mercer on the board and "not to cave in to this pressure."..<br>
The<span> </span><a
href="https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/amnh18-feb4-petitionletter-1.pdf"
target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153,
204);">letter reads</a>: "The Earth has supported abundant life
many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future
generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth's atmosphere
with more carbon dioxide.<br>
<span class="dquo" style="margin-left: 0px;">"</span>Make no
mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery -
quite the contrary!"<br>
That statement itself is contradicted by every major scientific
institution in the world and thousands of scientific studies over
many decades.<br>
Many of that letter's signers are affiliated with groups funded by
Mercer's family foundation in recent years. There's retired
Professor<span> </span><a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer" target="_blank"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">Will
Happer</a> of the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/co2-coalition" target="_blank"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);"><span
class="caps" style="font-size: 0.9em;">CO2</span><span> </span>Coalition</a>; <a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen" target="_blank"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">Richard
Lindzen</a>, a fellow at the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/cato-institute" target="_blank"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">Cato
Institute</a>; and<span> </span><a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso" target="_blank"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">Craig
Idso</a>, the chairman of the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/center-study-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change"
target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153,
204);">Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change</a>.
<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-american-museum-natural-history-rebekah-mercer">https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-american-museum-natural-history-rebekah-mercer</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Denial]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial">Humans
need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial</a></b><br>
A new paper shows that climate myths consistently fail critical
thinking tests<br>
Dana Nuccitelli<br>
President Donald Trump points skyward before donning protective
glasses to view the solar eclipse, 21 August 2017, at the White
House in Washington<br>
Climate myths are often contradictory - it's not warming, though
it's warming because of the sun, and really it's all just an ocean
cycle - but they all seem to share one thing in common: logical
fallacies and reasoning errors.<br>
John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead have just published a
paper in Environmental Research Letters in which they examined 42
common climate myths and found that every single one demonstrates
fallacious reasoning. For example, the authors made a video breaking
down the logical flaws in the myth 'climate changed naturally in the
past so current climate change is natural.'<br>
Beating myths with critical thinking<br>
Cook has previously published research on using 'misconception-based
learning' to dislodge climate myths from peoples' brains and replace
them with facts, and beating denial by inoculating people against
misinformers' tricks. The idea is that when people are faced with a
myth and a competing fact, the fact will more easily win out if the
fallacy underpinning the myth is revealed. In fact, these concepts
of misconception-based learning and inoculation against myths were
the basis of the free online Denial101x course developed by Cook and
colleagues....<br>
The new paper published today suggests an even more proactive
approach to defeating myths. If people can learn to implement a
simple six-step critical thinking process, they'll be able to
evaluate whether climate-related claims are valid.<br>
<blockquote><b>Step 1: Identify the claim being made.</b> For
example, the most popular contrarian argument: "Earth's climate
has changed naturally in the past, so current climate change is
natural."<br>
<b>Step 2: Construct the argument by identifying the premises
leading to that conclusion. </b>In this case, the first premise
is that Earth's climate has changed in the past through natural
processes, and the second premise is that the climate is currently
changing. So far, so good.<br>
<b>Step 3: Determine whether the argument is deductive, </b>meaning
that it starts out with a general statement and reaches a
definitive conclusion. In our case, 'current climate change is
natural' qualifies as a definitive conclusion.<br>
<b>Step 4: Check the argument for validity;</b> does the
conclusion follow from the premises? In our example, it doesn't
follow that current climate change must be natural because climate
changed naturally in the past. However, we can fix that by
weakening the conclusion to "the current climate change may not be
the result of human activity." But in its weakened state, the
conclusion no longer refutes human-caused global warming.<br>
-<b>Step 4a: Identify hidden premises. </b>By adding an extra
premise to make an invalid argument valid, we can gain a deeper
understanding of why the argument is flawed. In this example, the
hidden assumption is "if nature caused climate change in the past,
it must always be the cause of climate change." Adding this
premise makes the argument logically valid, but makes it clear why
the argument is false - it commits single cause fallacy, assuming
that only one thing can cause climate change.<br>
<b>Step 5: Check to see if the argument relies on ambiguity. </b>For
example, the argument that human activity is not necessary to
explain current climate change because natural and human factors
can both cause climate change is ambiguous about the 'climate
change' in question. Not all climate change is equal, and the rate
of current change is more than 20 times faster than natural
climate changes. Therefore, human activity is necessary to explain
current climate change.<br>
<b>Step 6: If the argument hasn't yet been ruled out, determine
the truth of its premises. </b>For example, the argument that
"if something was the cause in the past, it will be the cause in
the future" is invalid if the effect has multiple plausible causes
or mechanisms (as with climate change). In our example, this is
where the myth most obviously falls apart (although it had already
failed in Step 4)....<br>
</blockquote>
Climate denial suffers badly from a lack of critical thinking, which
has spread all the way to the White House. Teaching people to think
critically can help prevent it from spreading even further.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[EcoWatch - psychology]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ecowatch.com/inspiring-climate-action-2531883295.html">4
Lessons Psychology Teaches Us About Inspiring Climate Action</a></b><br>
Changing the behavior of one person is hard enough-let alone
millions of citizens around the world. Find out what lessons
psychology can teach us about inspiring climate action...<br>
...what happens when understanding alone isn't enough?<br>
But education is the easy part. It's getting people to take action
that can be a challenge-and that's because changing people's
attitudes and behaviors is a daunting task...<br>
Social scientists of all kinds have studied the question of how to
change human behavior in many different contexts from public health
to public policy to environmental psychology and more. In the
climate context, environmental psychologists have begun exploring
this larger question by trying to understand why, for example, more
Americans aren't taking action with their votes and voices.
Especially when the majority agree that humans are causing climate
change...<br>
The reality is that changing the behavior of one person is hard
enough-let alone millions of citizens around the world. But
psychology can give us some insight into better ways to motivate
people to change their behavior and stand up for the planet we
share...<br>
That's why we've compiled four lessons from the field that any
activist can take and use to help inspire their friends, colleagues,
family members and more to act.<br>
<b>1. Connect the climate crisis to what's happening in real
communities to reduce psychological distance.</b><br>
Climate change is a unique issue because although millions of people
in the U.S. and around the world feel the drastic effects of it in
their daily lives, many people don't (yet).<br>
<blockquote> Why does this matter? Because of a construct known as
psychological distance. Psychological distance refers to things
that are not in our immediate reality or felt in the present
moment. For example, you might think about your first year of
marriage if you're still single (temporal distance), what
neighborhood or city you might buy a home in one day (spatial
distance), how your best friend or family member perceives you
(social distance) or how your career would be different if you had
studied a different major in college (hypothetical distance).<br>
<br>
Why is psychological distance relevant to the climate crisis?
Studies have found that people who believe the effects of climate
change are unlikely to happen to them or are more likely to affect
other people and regions of the world are less likely to be
concerned about solving it. In other words, if climate change
feels psychologically distant, you worry less about it in your
daily life and feel less urgency to take action.<br>
<br>
To bridge this gap, research suggests that we should discuss how
climate change affects communities and families on the local
level. That means calling attention to real-life examples of how
the climate crisis is affecting real people, especially in regions
experiencing extreme weather. From wildfires destroying homes in
the western U.S. to hurricanes damaging homes and businesses along
the Gulf Coast and southern U.S. to droughts affecting farms in
dozens of countries, it's clear that extreme weather is
devastating the livelihoods of many communities around the world.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>2. Make climate action a group experience to promote social
norms.</b><br>
Humans are pack animals. In 1943, American psychologist Abraham
Maslow created his Hierarchy of Needs, which proposed that humans
have certain needs that begin with the most basic needs (food,
sleep, safety) and end with ego-centered needs (self-esteem,
creativity).<br>
<blockquote> The hierarchy also proposed that once humans have their
physical and safety needs satisfied, the next need in the
hierarchy is belongingness. Put simply, humans are social beings
that respond to group norms, and for our ancestors, group
acceptance meant access to shared resources and feeling protected
from predators.<br>
<br>
Today, humans are just as keenly aware of social dynamics and
psychology tells us that we fear feeling socially rejected. That's
why the more we can make climate action the norm in our social and
family circles, the more likely others will join in.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>3. Talk about what we're gaining, not what we're losing, to avoid
loss aversion.</b><br>
The psychological concept of loss aversion is nothing new, but
behavioral scientists have started thinking about it more as it
relates to the climate movement. <br>
<blockquote>One study examined how framing climate change impacts
can affect attitudes and perceptions. In the experiment,
researchers presented different climate change impacts to
participants (sourced from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report), who then answered questions about
what they saw.<br>
The results showed that framing climate change impacts in a way
that highlights possible gains rather than losses increased
positive attitudes toward mitigation responses. Participants also
perceived climate change impacts as more severe when they were
framed as gains.<br>
<br>
So when talking about climate change with your friends and family,
explain how action is an opportunity. For example, America's Clean
Power Plan, which is now under threat by the Trump administration,
could lead to public health and climate benefits worth an
estimated $34 billion to $54 billion annually in 2030. Those are
some serious gains! If you agree, we invite you to add your name
to support the Clean Power Plan and stand up for clean energy.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>4. Give your friends real ways to take action to prevent
"environmental melancholia."</b><br>
We know that the climate crisis isn't just an environmental issue. <br>
<blockquote>Not only do the people who experience extreme weather,
warmer temperatures, drought, rising sea levels and other
devastating impacts feel psychological effects, but many people
are affected simply by hearing about the crisis or seeing
unsettling images in the news.<br>
<br>
<b>Dr. Renee Lertzman, a researcher who promotes climate change
activism inside the workplace, explains that people often
experience "environmental melancholia." She explained that
although we know the climate crisis is a threat, many people
feel anxious and powerless about how they can make a difference,
which can prevent them from doing something.</b><br>
<br>
By understanding that people may feel powerless when thinking
about the climate crisis, we should communicate and provide real
ways to take action and support them throughout the process. If
your friends or family members feel powerless or have anxiety
about getting involved, one way to help is to share helpful
content that gives them specific ways to take action. Our blog
post, Four Ways Anyone Can Take Climate Action, is a great place
to start.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>How You Can Make a Difference</b><br>
Humans are complicated and changing behavior is no easy task, but
thinking about how to overcome empathy or powerlessness is the first
step to getting others involved with the movement for solutions. If
you're ready to make a difference in your community, download our
Make It a Reality Action Kit now to get started. Our climate action
kit will give you a thorough look at the climate crisis and ways you
can participate in the fight for a bright, sustainable future.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ecowatch.com/inspiring-climate-action-2531883295.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/inspiring-climate-action-2531883295.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Vox - Dave Roberts]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate">A
beginner's guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy</a></b><br>
Is it the right target? Is it even possible?<br>
By David Roberts<br>
Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable
sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring
heat (geothermal), and plants.<br>
No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse
gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil,
dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages...<br>
A growing number of activists say it is within reach.....<br>
<b>It's not about whether to go to zero carbon, but how to get there</b><br>
The most important political division in the world of climate change
is between those who accept the urgency of the problem and those who
don't. Those who don't are in charge of the federal government these
days. Their energy plans are a celebration of fossil fuels.<br>
The debate over 100 percent renewable energy isn't about that
division. This is about a dispute among people who accept the
imperative to rapidly reduce carbon emissions, sufficient to hold
the rise in global average temperatures to less than 2 degrees
Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels. To hit
that globally agreed upon target requires "deep decarbonization" -
reducing total carbon emissions 80 to 100 percent - across the
globe, by mid-century or shortly thereafter...<br>
.<b>.electrifying everything. </b>Specifically, it will involve
doing two things at once: a) eliminating carbon emissions from the
electricity sector and b) moving as many other energy services as
possible (transportation, heating, and industry) over to
electricity...<br>
<b>The heart of the renewables challenge: compensating for
variability</b><br>
The entire dispute revolves around a simple fact: The most abundant
sources of carbon-free power, wind and sun, are variable. The sun is
not always shining; the wind is not always blowing...<br>
The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable
- the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as
needed... <br>
The dispute comes down to whether these problems can be solved
without nuclear and CCS (carbon capture and storage).<br>
<b>The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest</b><br>
It is possible to get substantial decarbonization using
well-understood technologies and policies.<br>
A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas
combined cycle power plants for coal plants. While that's going on,
you grow renewables and maintain your existing nuclear and
hydroelectric fleet. That is, practically speaking, how the US has
reduced carbon emissions in recent years.<br>
The strategy works great for a while. Natural gas plants are much
more flexible than coal plants, so they work as a nice complement to
variable renewable energy (VRE), balancing out variability...<br>
But in terms of deep decarbonization, the strategy eventually leads
to a cul de sac. Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half,
depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it's still a
fossil fuel. At least without CCS, it is incompatible with
decarbonization beyond 60 percent or so.<br>
The balancing act to achieve carbon-free electricity<br>
<b>Think of a carbon-free grid as a balance of two kinds of
electricity resources, dispatchable and non-dispatchable.</b><br>
As we noted earlier, non-dispatchable means VRE (variable renewable
energy) - on and offshore wind, solar PV, solar thermal,
run-of-river hydro, anything based on weather - that can't be turned
on and off...<br>
VRE can be made somewhat less variable by linking up resources over
a wide geographical area with more transmission lines. Over a large
enough area, it's usually sunny or windy somewhere. But in a
constrained grid, non-dispatchable resources generally need
balancing out with dispatchable resources.<br>
Dispatchable is a broad (and getting broader) category - it means
anything that grid operators can use to actively manage the balance
of electricity supply and demand...<br>
<b>There are three basic varieties:</b><br>
Dispatchable supply, i.e., power plants - in the low-to-no carbon
family, this includes nuclear (by far the most common, generating 11
percent of the world's electricity as of 2012), fossil fuels with
CCS, reservoir hydro, biomass (though it is controversial), and
geothermal.<br>
Dispatchable demand - increasingly, demand for power can be managed,
either reduced or shifted to different parts of the day/week.<br>
Energy storage - storage is interesting because, from a grid
operator's perspective, it can serve either as dispatchable demand
(absorbing surplus VRE) or dispatchable supply (releasing energy
during times of low VRE [variable renewable energy]). And there are
a growing number of ways to store energy. The oldest and highest
capacity is pumped hydro, whereby water is pumped uphill to store
energy and then run down through turbines to release it. (A company
in the American West is attempting a dry-land variation of this,
pushing giant blocks uphill on train tracks.) There are also
batteries, which are getting cheaper. And beyond that power can be
stored as heat (in, e.g., molten salt), as cold (in ice), or as
hydrogen (long story). This is also an area of furious research.<br>
<b>To nuke or not to nuke?</b><br>
The folks at the Solutions Project claim that we can - and, on the
basis of a full cost-benefit analysis that takes all environmental
impacts into effect, should - balance out VRE without recourse to
nuclear power or CCS. (Jacobson also excludes biomass, though
several other 100 percenters disagree with him on that.)<br>
Doing that will involve three things. <br>
<b>One, VRE will have to be massively overbuilt.</b> Because its
"capacity factor" (the amount of time it's running) is relatively
low, to fully meet demand, total capacity will have to far exceed
total demand, by multiples.<br>
<b>Two, transmission lines will have to be extended everywhere
across the globe</b>, to link VRE sources with demand and smooth
out supply. And distribution grids will need to be upgraded.
Quickly.<br>
<b>And three, remaining dispatchable resources - demand management,
storage, hydro, maybe biomass - will have to be radically,
radically scaled up.</b> In particular, storage is going to have
to grow exponentially...<br>
On the other side of the dispute are people, many of whom are energy
researchers, who simply don't believe that the above scenario is
feasible, or if it is, that it's the most economic or effective way
to get to zero carbon. They say nuclear and CCS should stay on the
table.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate">https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate</a><br>
<br>
<em></em><br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/bush-epa-recognized-global-warming-threat/">This
Day in Climate History February 8, 2011</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released a letter from (Stephen
Johnson, the EPA administrator) to Bush dated January 31, 2008, in
which Johnson informs the president that the agency has determined
that "the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to
propose a positive endangerment finding."<br>
<br>
In the letter, Johnson outlined a plan that he argues is "prudent
and cautious yet forward thinking," one that "creates a framework
for responsible, cost-effective and practical actions." This is the
first time this particular letter has been made public, though it
was pretty well known that the EPA had made an endangerment
determination but was blocked by the White House from following
through on it. The White House reportedly went so far as to refuse
to open an email that contained the endangerment finding and related
materials so that it wouldn’t have to act.<br>
<br>
Johnson concluded in his letter to Bush:<br>
<blockquote> After careful and sometime difficult deliberation, I
have concluded that it is in the Administration's best interest to
move forward with this plan in the next few weeks. I appreciate
the senior-level discussions that have enabled me to develop this
approach, and I look forward to working with other members of your
team to discuss details and a rollout.<br>
</blockquote>
Of course, that rollout never happened. Instead, the Bush
administration let the clock run down and left the final
endangerment determination to the next administration. The Obama
administration followed through with that finding in April 2009, an
action that triggered the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases that
began phasing in this year (2011). - Kate Sheppard<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/bush-epa-recognized-global-warming-threat/">https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/bush-epa-recognized-global-warming-threat/</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 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>