<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>April 7, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[Risk message]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/06/mark-carney-warns-climate-change-threat-financial-system">Mark
Carney warns of climate change threat to financial system</a></b><br>
Bank of England governor says firms must acknowledge risks to avoid
'catastrophic impact'<br>
The governor of the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/bankofenglandgovernor"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(136, 1, 5); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important;
border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition:
border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Bank of England</a><span> </span>has
warned of the "catastrophic impact" climate change could have for
the financial system unless firms do more to disclose their
vulnerabilities.<br>
Telling banks and insurers they would need to provide more
information about the risks they might face from climate change,<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/mark-carney"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(136, 1, 5); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important;
border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition:
border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Mark Carney</a><span> </span>said
failure to do so would have damaging effects for financial
stability.<br>
He said the finance industry could be forced into making rapid
adjustments if they did not gradually expose where their climate
change risks might lie, which he said could trigger steep losses.<br>
The governor warned of a "climate Minsky moment", referring to the
work of the economist<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/22/comment.business"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(136, 1, 5); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important;
border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition:
border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Hyman Minsky</a>, whose analysis was
used to show how banks overreached themselves before the 2008
financial crisis.<span> </span><br>
"Given the uncertainties around climate, not everyone will agree on
the timing or scale of the adjustments required … [but] the right
information allows sceptics and evangelists alike to back their
convictions with their capital," Carney said.<br>
Speaking at a summit of central bank governors in Amsterdam, Carney
said there were growing opportunities for firms to finance the
transition to a low carbon economy. He said new technology
investments and long-term infrastructure projects would need to be
financed at roughly quadruple the current rate.<br>
His intervention comes as Threadneedle Street ramps up its
assessment of how well insurers are identifying, measuring and
mitigating weather-related risks this year.<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/12/hurricane-harvey-irma-damages-insurance-claims-hiscox-natural-disasters"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(136, 1, 5); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important;
border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition:
border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Insurers were exposed to steep
losses<span> </span></a>by extreme weather events, such as<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hurricane-harvey"
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(136, 1, 5); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important;
border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition:
border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Hurricane Harvey</a>, in the US last
year.<span>.. <br>
</span><font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/06/mark-carney-warns-climate-change-threat-financial-system">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/06/mark-carney-warns-climate-change-threat-financial-system</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[used to be 37 inches per year, but since 2014 it's 44 and last year
it was 47 inches]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/04/seattle-thinks-it-knows-rain-climate-change-begs-to-differ/557291/">Seattle
Thinks It Knows Rain. Climate Change Begs to Differ.</a></b><br>
A city known for precipitation may be unprepared for the flooding
that climate change has in store...<br>
Thunderstorms and downpours are historically rare in Seattle, which
actually receives less annual rainfall than Miami. Most of its
precipitation comes in the form of an inescapable drizzle. More of a
mist, really. The city's stormwater infrastructure is built with
these steady, low volumes in mind.<br>
However, a recent study found a significant rise in the number of
heavy rains in recent decades, and climate models predict an
increase in both the frequency and intensity of what officials call
extreme weather events: deadly deluges that, within 24 hours, are
capable of overwhelming water drainage infrastructure to cause
flooding and send raw sewage into nearby waterways....<br>
...a worst-case-scenario, 1,000-year-event in which an atmospheric
river loaded with moisture slides in off the Pacific and stalls
above Seattle for a week.<br>
The impacts to the city and especially to its surrounding rivers,
which could see 25 inches of rain, would be catastrophic, he
said-and "we are very much due."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/04/seattle-thinks-it-knows-rain-climate-change-begs-to-differ/557291/">https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/04/seattle-thinks-it-knows-rain-climate-change-begs-to-differ/557291/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Is there hope?]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-best-hope.html">Climate
Change's Best Hope</a></b><br>
By Ana Aceves - 4.04.18 NOVA Video promo for April 18th show<br>
The one thing Katherine Hayhoe wishes we did about climate change.<br>
<blockquote><b>Katherine Hayhoe:</b> I think one of the biggest
questions we all have when it comes to climate change is: is there
hope?<br>
People often ask me well what can I do, I am just one person how
could I make a difference?<br>
If there is one thing that I wish everybody would do is talk about
it.<br>
I am suggesting that we talk about why it matters. What do I care
about passionately that is being affected by a changing climate?
Does it relate to my kids, does it relate to something I love
doing like birding or fishing or even hunting? Does it relate to
the economy or national security or the community or the place
where I live?<br>
Let's talk about what it means to us and then let's also talk
about solutions because there are amazing solutions.<br>
<b>Onscreen:</b> Energy-efficient homes, wind, solar, smarter
building codes, planting trees, nuclear, electric cars, eat less
meat, carbon-capture, biofuel<br>
<b>Hayhoe:</b> When it comes to climate change we feel as if it is
this giant boulder standing dead still and nobody is trying to
push that boulder uphill to fix the problem.<br>
The reality is that that giant boulder is already starting to
roll.<br>
It's got hundreds, thousands, even millions of hands we just need
a few more hands to get it rolling faster, but it is moving in the
right direction.<br>
When we look at what is happening with people, that's where I find
hope.<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-best-hope.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-best-hope.html</a></font><b>
<br>
</b><i>[NOVA, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/ombudsman/2016/12/21/the-climate-is-changing-will-nova/">with
controversy,</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor">receives
considerable support</a> from </i><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations">the
David H Koch Fund for Science</a></i><i>]</i><b><br>
</b>- - - - -<br>
[Hint: Koch influence]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05/why-white-evangelicals-dont-care-about-climate-change/">Why
White Evangelicals Don't Care About Climate Change</a></b><br>
The evangelical community has been coming in for a lot of criticism
in recent months, much of it from religious leaders and
conservatives. They seem to be unmoved by the president's constant
berating of Muslims, people of color, refugees, Jews, gays, and any
others who are not typically associated with the evangelical
community. Actually, make that the white evangelical community, more
than 80% of whom voted for Donald Trump...<br>
The appeal of Donald Trump to white evangelicals was the subject of
a recent op-ed piece by Michael Gerson, a Republican and a
conservative who is a regular contributor to the Washington Post.
Under the title Trump Evangelicals Have Sold Their Soul, Gerson
writes, "The problem with Trumpism is not only the transparent
excuses it offers (and requires others to accept) for shoddy and
offensive behavior. As I argue in the Atlantic , the deeper issue is
the distinctly non-Christian substance of President Trump's values.
His unapologetic materialism. His tribalism and hatred for "the
other." His strength-worship and contempt for 'losers,"' which smack
more of Nietzsche than of Christ." Gerson's article in the Atlantic
is hard hitting, detailed, and well worth reading...<br>
<b>Behind The Pulpit? The Koch Brothers</b><br>
No one begrudges anyone the ability to practice their religious
beliefs in any way they see fit. It's built right into the
Constitution. What is objectionable is when someone tries to cram
their religion down someone else's throat. What most people don't
realize is that the rights protected by the first ten amendments
carry with them an implied right from speech, religion, guns, and so
forth. Just as you have the right of free speech, so do I have the
right not to be forced to listen to what you have to say.<br>
Scratch the evangelicals who are parading around the corridors of
power in Washington, DC, these days and you will find many of them
are backed by the Koch Brothers. No one knows if either one of those
old crocks attends church on a regular basis, but they have latched
on to the evangelical movement and embraced it in a cynical attempt
to solidify their political power.<br>
- - - - -<br>
<b>The Cornwall Alliance</b><br>
Using funding from Koch Brothers front organizations like the
Heritage Society and the Heartland Institute, the hard-line
conservatives have banded together in what is called the Cornwall
Alliance, formerly known as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. In
2013, it published a manifesto called Resisting The Green Dragon. In
it, the group says, "False prophets promise salvation if only we
will destroy the means of maintaining our civilization. No more
carbon, they say, or the world will end and blessings will cease.
Pagans of all stripes now offer their rival views of salvation, all
of which lead to death."..<br>
The organization that would eventually become the Cornwall Alliance
began in 1999 as a project of the Acton Institute, which has
received millions from Donors Capital, Donors Trust, the National
Christian Foundation, and private foundations controlled by the
Koch, DeVos, and Bradley families. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/Splinter-Evangelical-network-graphic-570x442.png">(See
chart)</a><br>
...<br>
A Koch funded video message: <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/vAA2sLtzXJM">Resisting
the Green Dragon full promo</a></b><br>
CornwallAlliance<br>
Published on Oct 15, 2010<br>
What's so wrong about environmentalism? Certainly caring for the
earth is a mandate from God. The problem is when the earth becomes
God - a danger that is becoming all too prevalent in today's
society.<br>
Resisting the Green Dragon is a 12-part series designed to inform
and motivate the church regarding this important - and surprisingly
far-reaching - issue.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ResistingTheGreenDragon.com">www.ResistingTheGreenDragon.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/vAA2sLtzXJM">https://youtu.be/vAA2sLtzXJM</a><br>
...<br>
This article is not meant to demonize white evangelicals. It is
intended to demonize the Koch Brothers and their ilk. It is meant to
promote a discussion, one that gets us talking to each other rather
than past each other. Beliefs are hard things to argue against, but
if we refuse to listen to each other, there is no hope of preventing
the United States from becoming a Kochtocracy.<br>
The most delicious irony of all would be if the Koch Brothers turn
out to be the Anitchrist evangelicals fear. Wouldn't a real
Antichrist dress himself up in the trappings of a true Christian to
seduce the faithful? Food for thought...<br>
<font size="-1">more at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05/why-white-evangelicals-dont-care-about-climate-change/">https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05/why-white-evangelicals-dont-care-about-climate-change/</a></font><br>
- - - - - - <br>
[for example]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298">How
Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God<br>
</a></b>Those billions are paying off. Not only have the people
who funded Cornwall successfully stopped the government from
pursuing policies that might make the lives of people who are living
with the consequences of climate change a little bit better, but
under the Trump administration their lackeys are actively working to
dismantle what little progress has been made. When Drollinger
teaches that God's covenant with Noah means that the consequences of
climate change not only will not but in fact cannot be as
devastating as scientists believe, he echoes a lengthy essay
published by the Cornwall Alliance in 2009 that lays out the same
argument. Typical of the organization's style, it appears to the
casual observer like any policy paper drawn up at one of D.C.'s many
think tanks and nonprofits; in reality, the document blends
quotations from scripture with pseudo-scientific data-citing, for
example, the Mercer-funded Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
During Pruitt's confirmation hearing, Republican Sen. John Barrasso
favorably cited Beisner and the Cornwall Alliance's support for the
Oklahoma attorney general.<br>
- - - <br>
"A guy who has given full-throated defenses of coal has told me
privately, 'Coal is dead. We know that. We're just trying to figure
out how to move on.' Meanwhile he keeps on talking about coal," Rep.
Inglis told me. "Members of Congress are afraid of the people they
represent, but they're terrified of the activists within their own
party, because that's who takes you out in a primary."...<br>
<font size="-1">more at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298">https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Taxes push change] <b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406">Carbon
taxes could make significant dent in climate change, study finds</a></b><br>
Several different carbon-pricing approaches would help reduce
emissions, and some would be fair as well, researchers report.<br>
David L. Chandler - MIT News Office <br>
Putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the use of
fossil fuels, coupled with returning the generated revenue to the
public in one form or another, can be an effective way to curb
emissions of greenhouse gases. That's one of the conclusions of an
extensive analysis of several versions of such proposals, carried
out by researchers at MIT and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL).<br>
What's more, depending on the exact mechanism chosen, such a tax can
also be fair and not hurt low-income households, the researchers
report.<br>
The analysis was part of a multigroup effort to apply sophisticated
modeling tools to assess the impacts of various proposed
carbon-pricing schemes. Eleven research teams at different
institutions carried out the research using a common set of starting
assumptions and policies. While significant details differed, all
the studies agreed that carbon taxes can be effective and, if
properly designed, need not be regressive.<br>
- - - -<br>
The actual Paris agreements involved a range of different targets by
different nations, but overall, Reilly said, the carbon-pricing
scheme is predicted to exceed the targets for emissions reductions
for 2030 and 2050, "so that's a healthy reduction." But even at the
lowest end of the policies they studied, with a $25-per-ton initial
tax," that "would be adequate to meet the U.S. pledge in Paris" for
2030. But the rate of increase is important, the study says: "Five
percent a year is sufficient. One percent a year is not."<br>
Reilly says "all these tax scenarios at worst meet U.S. commitments
for 2030, and the $50 tax is well exceeding it." Many experts say
the Paris Agreement alone will not be sufficient to curb
catastrophic consequences of global climate change, but this single
measure would go a long way toward reducing that impact, Reilly
says.<br>
<font size="-1">more at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406">http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[whines and murmurs]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/06/chevron-exxon-bp-shell-climate-consensus-liability/">Four
More Oil Giants Acknowledge Climate Consensus to Federal Judge</a></b><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">By Amy
Westervelt</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">The four oil
companies that did not speak at a U.S. District Court judge's<span> </span></span><a
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 500;"><span
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">climate tutorial</span></a><span
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;"><span> </span>two
weeks ago filed the responses the judge had ordered during that
hearing. All four filed similar statements this week, all
reflecting a general acceptance of the climate change assessments
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">The tutorial
had been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to
educate him as he considers the<span> </span></span><a
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/09/20/san-francisco-oakland-lawsuit-climate-change-bp-exxon-shell/"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 500;"><span
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">climate liability
cases</span></a><span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight:
400;"><span> </span>filed against the five major oil companies by
the cities of Oakland and San Francisco. Four companies remained
silent that day: Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP and ExxonMobil. Only
Chevron attorney Ted Boutrous spoke and Alsup told the other
attorneys,<span> </span></span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;
font-weight: 400;">"You can't get away with sitting there in
silence and then saying later, 'Oh, he [Boutrous] doesn't speak
for us.'"</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">The four oil
companies said in their responses that because they had already
moved to have the case dismissed, that justified their lack of
participation in the tutorial. Shell also referenced its separate
motion to dismiss on the basis that it is a foreign company. But
the companies' responses also called Boutrous' reliance on IPCC
reports "an appropriate source of information for the Court to
consider to further its understanding of the timeline and science
surrounding climate change."</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">Exxon,<span> </span></span><a
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/29/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-ny-mass-schneiderman-healey/"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 500;"><span
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">having lost its
suit</span></a><span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight:
400;"><span> </span>challenging the fraud probes by the attorneys
general of Massachusetts and New York, filed a slightly different
response than the others, affirming some but not all of Boutrous'
presentation. In its statements for the court, Exxon placed the
responsibility for inaction on carbon emissions at the feet of the
government, not the fossil fuel industry.</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">While Exxon
called the IPCC reports a useful scientific reference, the company
said it doesn't agree with every IPCC statement, and that the
science is not relevant to the company's motion to dismiss. That
motion argues that federal law preempts the state law the
plaintiffs originally cited in the lawsuit, and that previous
climate change tort cases, such as<span> </span></span><a
href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2012/09/26/9th-circuit-affirms-dismissal-in-kivalina-v-exxonmobil/"
style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 500;"><span
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">Kivalina v.
ExxonMobil</span></a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;
font-weight: 400;">, ruled that federal common law cannot be used
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. </span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">Meanwhile, the
case's plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, taking a cue
from Alsup's jurisdictional ruling that kept the cases in federal
court instead of California court, where they had been originally
filed. They added federal common law claims, as well as additional
information on climate impacts, what defendants knew about the
causes and consequences of climate change (and when). They
included information from scientist Richard Heede's </span><a
href="http://carbonmajors.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit;
background-color: transparent; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);
text-decoration: none; font-weight: 500;"><span style="box-sizing:
inherit; font-weight: 400;"><span></span>Carbon Majors report</span></a><span
style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">, which pinpointed
the major sources of anthropogenic CO2 and methane emissions since
the 1850s, indicating how much of the CO2 and methane in the
atmosphere is attributable to each company.</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">"Defendants are
collectively responsible, through their production, marketing, and
sale of fossil fuels, for over 11 percent of all the carbon and
methane pollution from industrial sources that has accumulated in
the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution," the
new complaint reads.</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">Because four of
the companies based their motions to dismiss on lack of
jurisdiction (only Chevron has an active refinery in California),
the plaintiffs added additional detail linking the defendants'
emissions to global sea level rise as well as the rising of San
Francisco Bay.</span><br>
<span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 400;">Alsup has also
ordered the defendants to respond to four additional questions
regarding their motions to dismiss. He also scheduled a hearing on
those motions for May 24.</span><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/06/chevron-exxon-bp-shell-climate-consensus-liability/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/06/chevron-exxon-bp-shell-climate-consensus-liability/</a></font><br>
- - - - -<br>
[background]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/">In
Climate Tutorial, Oil Industry Doubles Down on Science
Uncertainty</a></b><br>
By Amy Westervelt<br>
In a<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/15/california-climate-liability-judge-william-alsup/">
climate science tutorial</a> in San Francisco on Wednesday, U.S.
District Court <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wha">Judge William Alsup</a>
pushed both defendants and plaintiffs in the San Francisco and
Oakland climate liability cases to answer dozens of questions about
the state of climate science. But the five-hour hearing all boiled
down to one fundamental question: At what point was it clear
man-made CO2 emissions were putting the climate on a path toward
destruction?<br>
It was the concept of scientific certainty, more so than the science
itself, that Alsup seemed to be probing. He asked questions ranging
from why various ice ages happened to which are the best renewable
energy sources to whether we should have chosen to rely more on
nuclear energy back in the 1950s.<br>
Predictably, the defendants argued that the science on the causes
and impacts of climate change has been too uncertain to lay the
blame at their feet. The plaintiffs relied on three scientific
experts who described the data from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and even more recent science and how
climate models from as far back as the 1950s mapped out impacts the
world is seeing today...<br>
<font size="-1">more at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/</a></font><br>
- - - - - <br>
[Shell was briefed years ago]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060078213">Documents show
Shell grappled with climate change years ago</a></b><br>
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter<br>
Climatewire: Thursday, April 5, 2018<br>
Two decades ago, a group of researchers envisioned a violent storm
ripping through the East Coast with such force that it would
transform young people into climate activists, spark lawsuits and
cause government leaders to turn on fossil fuel companies.<br>
They were only off by two years. They also worked for Shell Oil Co.<br>
In 1998, Shell researchers wrote <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf">an
internal memo</a> about future scenarios that could harm their
business. They determined that "only a crisis can lead to a
large-scale change in this world," according to the memo, recently <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://decorrespondent.nl/5563/shellknew-in-deze-interne-documenten-kun-je-zelf-lezen-wat-shell-sinds-1986-weet-over-klimaatverandering/613092667-fad068b1">uncovered</a>
by De Correspondent with a trove of company documents.<br>
The scenario planning process was based on climate science,
political realities and economic projections. It suggested that a
major storm on the East Coast in 2010 could turn public opinion
against Shell and other oil and gas conglomerates, while pushing
governments toward strict environmental regulations and investments
in renewable energy...<br>
- - - -<br>
Like other energy companies, Shell also has been a member of
lobbying and trade groups that promote climate skepticism and oppose
climate policy, including in recent years. The company was part of
the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that raised doubt
about mainstream climate science, until 2015. Shell rescinded its
membership because of the organization's position on climate
science. In the 1990s, as world leaders were crafting some of the
first international climate agreements, Shell joined the Global
Climate Coalition, an industry group that battled against climate
policy. Shell also backed the American Petroleum Institute, which
had a coordinated campaign in the 1990s to sow public doubt about
climate change....<br>
- - - - <br>
"The threat of climate change remains the environmental concern with
by far the greatest significance for the fossil fuel industry,
having major business implications," researchers wrote in a 1994 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_04.pdf">company
report</a> titled "The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect."<br>
<blockquote>The documents show that Shell was unwilling to position
itself to address the risks it was grappling with internally and
instead chose to embrace uncertainty in science, said Peter
Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief climate
scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He said the
solution Shell has drawn on is that the world needs more oil and
gas, not that the findings laid out in the internal documents
require additional investments into other forms of energy.<br>
</blockquote>
"There is still a reluctance, even to this day, to lay out a plan to
say, 'Here's what we're going to do to get to net zero emissions,
because we know it's necessary and we want policies in place that
support that,'" Frumhoff said. "So they're still hedging their bets,
despite the fact that they knew more than 40 years ago of the
serious risks and internally recognized the need for action in a
precautionary sense that is obviously a hell of a lot more urgent
today."<br>
<font size="-1">more at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060078213">https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060078213</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
[read the 1988 Shell memo]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf">1988
Group Scenarios - summary</a></b><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf">https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/05/document_cw_02.pdf</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Lamar Smith dominated]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won">The
War on Science Is Over. </a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won">The
Republicans Won.</a></b><br>
New Republic<br>
How the Trump administration made Texas Congressman Lamar Smith's
dreams come true<br>
By EMILY ATKIN<br>
Like many of his peers in the GOP, the Texas congressman has long
distrusted the scientific evidence that humans are causing climate
change. And ever since he became chairman of the House Science
Committee in 2013, he's used his position to try to undermine that
science, as well as the science ... And ever since he became
chairman of the House Science Committee in 2013, he's used his
position to try to undermine that science, as well as the science
behind air pollution-namely by pushing two bills that would
radically change how the Environmental Protection Agency is allowed
to use science and receive scientific advice to craft regulations...<br>
The most consequential sign of Smith's victory came last month, when
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sat down with a reporter for the
conservative Daily Caller News Foundation* to announce significant
changes to the way the agency uses science. No longer would the EPA
use scientific research that includes confidential data to develop
rules intended to protect human health and the environment. "We need
to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the
record," Pruitt said. "Otherwise, it's not transparent. It's not
objectively measured, and that's important."<br>
- - - - - - <br>
When Pruitt implements this policy, he'll be disqualifying "the main
body of science that EPA has historically used" to justify limiting
air pollutants, said David Baron, the managing attorney for
Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization. That body
of science, for instance, supports the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standard, which restricts the amount of mercury and other heavy
metals that coal plants can emit. It also supports the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, which control emissions of soot,
ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead.
And the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature regulation to curb
greenhouse gas emissions, is backed by science about the health
impacts of particulate matter.<br>
- - - - - - <br>
Even with a Democratic wave in 2018, reversing the damage done by
the Trump administration will prove difficult for as long as he's
president. That's why environmentalists are putting their hopes in
the legal system-but also fearing the worst. If the courts uphold
the EPA's rationale for repealing and replacing pollution
regulations, "it could be devastating," Baron said. The impacts of
even a few years of weakened air pollution regulations would fall
disproportionately on low-income and minority communities, leading
to premature deaths-at least according to the scientific literature
that Pruitt wants the EPA to ignore....Though Pruitt's plan has not
yet been implemented, Baron says its eventual impact cannot be
overstated. "It's going to make it extremely difficult for EPA to do
its job of protecting people from dangerous air pollutants," he
said.<br>
What is clear is that the war on science has been won, and its
opponents must now wage a war of their own. They need their own
Lamar Smith.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won">https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Opinion]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/will-kids-save-us-climate-change">Will
the Kids Save Us From Climate Change?</a></b><br>
Today's young people are finally realizing just how much power their
voices actually wield. These millennial climate activists have every
intention of using it.<br>
March 23, 2018 Jeff Turrentine <br>
It's long been a favorite pastime of American adults to fret over
the character and fortitude of the next generation, those teens and
early twentysomethings who will one day assume the mantle of our
nation's leadership. Until recently, the chief gripe against our
current cohort of young people was that they were self-absorbed: too
dazzled by their selfies and Instagram feeds to look beyond
themselves at the world's problems.<br>
<br>
But the events of the last month have changed the way we look at
young people. In the aftermath of the Parkland school shootings,
we've witnessed the youth-led #NeverAgain movement blossom-a
movement that may well end up leading to the kinds of cultural and
policy shifts many gun control advocates have been trying to achieve
for decades. From the standpoint of public visibility, there
probably hasn't been a better time to be an outspoken young activist
since the late 1960s.<br>
<br>
Today's kids have capital, and they're spending it with increasing
sophistication on a range of causes across the progressive sphere.
The Sunrise Movement, for example, is a small but rapidly growing
grassroots organization made up almost entirely of these energized
teens and twentysomethings. If we're lucky, it will continue to
expand until it has met its stated goal of "building an army of
young people to make climate change an urgent priority across
America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on
our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and
wellbeing of all people."<br>
<br>
Since forming the group two years ago, Sunrise members have been
busy blending social media–friendly climate activism with the far
less visible work involved in getting climate-conscious leaders into
public office. One day might find them loudly protesting an event
sponsored by oil and gas lobbyists inside the Trump International
Hotel in Washington, D.C., or filling a time capsule with messages
of hope and concern about the climate in New York City's Washington
Square Park as camera crews from MTV and other media outlets look
on. The next day might find them organizing in any one of the five
states (New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida)
that they've currently designated as their battlegrounds, toward
their ultimate goal of replacing incumbents beholden to the fossil
fuel industry with leaders who have promised to make climate action
a priority.<br>
<br>
Yet another important aspect of their work involves outreach to
other young people, going into high schools and leading discussions
on climate change that emphasize, in the words of volunteer Ben
Bristol, how "climate is a justice issue, something that affects
people, places, and communities."<br>
<br>
I meet Bristol, 23, in a Brooklyn coffee shop on his day off. By his
estimation, he tells me, he's connected with more than a thousand
students in the Northeast over the past four weeks, making the case
for climate action as a form of socially responsible rebellion
against a corrupt elite-a message that definitely resonates with his
teenage audiences. "Kids are already suspicious of the
establishment," he says. "They have strong opinions and rebellious
streaks."<br>
<br>
By framing the fight for the planet as a battle between underdogs
and moneyed special interests, Bristol and his fellow Sunrise
"speakers," as they're known, are able to tap into reservoirs of
youthful passion and energy, turning students into student
activists. "When you're a high schooler, environmentalism too often
just means recycling programs and classroom lessons on
sustainability," he says. But teenagers are growing more aware of
their collective power, and they desperately want to be a part of
the solution. "The chance to think about that problem - and
themselves - in political terms is new for them. Even for students
who study politics or history or government, activism isn't really a
dimension of their curriculum."<br>
<br>
A typical event at a high school might begin with an overview of
current science on climate change, move into a discussion of how
students are seeing and experiencing climate change within their
community, then segue into a lesson on how fossil fuel companies
exert their influence over lawmakers through campaign contributions.
"We talk about how a few people with an incredible amount of wealth
are able to block action, how they profit at the expense of our
health and safety," says Bristol. "And then we get to the part about
Sunrise, what we're doing. And that's when we get to say to these
kids: 'This is why we have to take over.'"<br>
<br>
In acknowledgement of how social justice initiatives are continuing
to intersect in the Trump era, the Sunrise Movement pitches itself
to students as an entry point into activism more generally. Those
about to graduate from high school are encouraged to sign up for the
organization's Sunrise Semester, which gives budding activists the
opportunity to work in battleground states while "getting the skills
and resources they'll need to become an organizer and a force for
change in whatever community they may end up serving down the road,"
Bristol says.<br>
<br>
"We're empowering young people to be leaders," he says. To which the
only response can be: Thank God. If we're going to make it through
the Anthropocene alive, we're going to need all the help we can get.<br>
<font size="-1">onEarth provides reporting and analysis about
environmental science, policy, and culture.</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/will-kids-save-us-climate-change">https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/will-kids-save-us-climate-change</a></font><br>
- - - - - - - <br>
[Youth vanguard]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.sunrisemovement.org/who-we-are">Sunrise
Movement</a></b><br>
Sunrise is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of
good jobs in the process.<br>
We're building an army of young people to make climate change an
urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of
fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand
up for the health and wellbeing of all people.<br>
We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate
crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in
classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country.
Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us - if
we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and
reclaim our democracy.<br>
We are not looking to the right or left. We look forward. Together,
we will change this country and this world, sure as the sun rises
each morning.<br>
<b>SUNRISE PRINCIPLES</b><br>
These are guidelines of our movement which we all commit to uphold.
Any action that does not embody these principles is not a Sunrise
action.<br>
<blockquote><b>We are a movement to stop climate change and create
millions of good-paying jobs in the process. </b>We unite to
make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the
corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics,
and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all
people.<br>
<br>
<b>We grow our power through talking to our communities.</b> We
talk to our neighbors, families, religious leaders, classmates,
and teachers, in order to spread our word. Our strength and work
is rooted in our local communities, and we are always growing in
number.<br>
<br>
<b>We are Americans from all walks of life</b>. We are of many
colors and creeds, from the plains, mountains, and coasts. A
wealthy few want to divide us, but we value each other in our
differences and we are united in a shared fight to make real the
promise of a society that works for all of us.<br>
<br>
<b>We are nonviolent in word and deed.</b> Remaining nonviolent
allows us to win the hearts of the public and welcomes the most
people to participate. We need maximum participation in order to
achieve our goals.<br>
<br>
<b>We tell our stories and we honor each other's stories.</b> We
all have something to lose to climate change, and something to
gain in coming together. We tell our individual stories to connect
with each other and understand the many different ways this crisis
impacts us.<br>
<br>
<b>We ask for help and we give what we can</b>. We all have
something to offer to the movement. Some of us give time through
volunteering anywhere from 1 to 50 hours per week. Some of us give
money. Some of us donate housing or meeting space. We invite our
community into the movement by asking for the help we need.<br>
<br>
<b>We take initiative</b>. Any group of 3 people can take action
in the name of Sunrise. We ask for advice - not permission - from
each other to make this happen. To make decisions, we ask
ourselves, "does this bring us closer to our goal?" If yes, we
simply do the work that is exciting and makes sense.<br>
<br>
<b>We embrace experimentation and we learn together.</b> We
welcome imperfection, share innovations, and learn through honest
mistakes followed by honest conversations that help us move
forward together. If we see something we don't like, we contribute
with something we do like, modeling an alternative.<br>
<br>
<b>We take care of ourselves, each other, and our shared home.</b>
We maintain our health of body, mind, spirit, and environment to
the best of our ability so that we can maintain a strong movement
together. We respect that for each of us this looks different. <br>
<br>
<b>We stand with other movements for change</b>. Stopping climate
change requires winning and holding power at every level of
government. This is a huge job and we can't do it alone. When it
makes sense, we work with other movements who share our values and
are also working to win political power.<br>
<br>
<b>We shine bright. </b>There are hard and sad days, to be sure.
This isn't easy work. But we strive to bring a spirit of
positivity and hope to everything we do. Changing the world is a
fulfilling and joyful process, and we let that show.<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sunrisemovement.org/principles">https://www.sunrisemovement.org/principles</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Justice for the future in Columbia]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/colombia-amazon-climate-change-deforestation/">Colombian
Court Orders Government to Stop Deforestation, Protect Climate<br>
</a></b>By Ucilia Wang<br>
An appeals court in Colombia on Thursday reversed a lower court
decision and ruled that the country's government, from the president
to local municipalities, must create and implement plans within five
months to stop deforestation in the Amazon.<br>
The court, in 4-3 ruling, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.dejusticia.org/en/en-fallo-historico-corte-suprema-concede-tutela-de-cambio-climatico-y-generaciones-futuras/">also
said</a> that the Amazon enjoys legal rights and protection under
the law, an unusual but not unprecedented concept. Colombia's
Constitutional Court ruled last year that the heavily polluted <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://news.mongabay.com/2017/05/colombias-constitutional-court-grants-rights-to-the-atrato-river-and-orders-the-government-to-clean-up-its-waters/">Atrato
River in northwestern Columbia has rights</a> to protection and
conservation. With that opinion, the court ordered the government to
clean up the river, which was contaminated by mercury mining.<br>
"We were thrilled with the result. The ruling was beautifully
written, and it's refreshing and novel on the importance of nature,
not only for humans but also its intrinsic value. And it recognizes
the rights of the future generations," said Camila Bustos, a
researcher with Dejusticia, the advocacy group that brought the
Amazon case. It was filed on behalf of 25 young people, ages 7 to
26, in January.<br>
The young plaintiffs <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/02/01/colombia-government-protect-climate-amazon/">asked
the court </a>to protect their constitutional rights to life, a
healthy environment, and food and water by ordering the government
to honor its commitment to tackling climate change, including
stopping the country's worsening deforestation....<br>
more at: <font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/colombia-amazon-climate-change-deforestation/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/colombia-amazon-climate-change-deforestation/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/07/global.warming/">This
Day in Climate History - April 7, 1998 </a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
April 7, 1998: Fourteen years before Superstorm Sandy, CNN notes: <br>
<blockquote>"Global warming and resulting rising sea levels have the
potential to put much of New York City and other low-lying areas
at risk of severe flooding, according to a study conducted by
Columbia University researchers.<br>
<br>
"Subways, airports and low-lying coastal areas could experience
flooding if global warming produces more violent storms and higher
sea levels, as expected, said Vivien Gornitz, associate research
scientist at Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/07/global.warming/">http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/07/global.warming/</a><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>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i>To receive daily
mailings - <a
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request">click
to Subscribe</a> </i></font>to news digest. </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>