<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>May 9, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[Most registered voters (<b>73%) think global warming is happenings</b>]<br>
[A majority of registered voters<b> (59%) think global warming is
caused mostly by human activities</b>]<br>
[A majority of registered voters <b>(63%) are worried about global
warming</b>]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu">Yale Program on
Climate Change Communication</a></b><br>
Today we are pleased to release <b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018">a
new report on Politics & Global Warming in the United States</a></b>.
We find that since Fall 2017, Republican registered voters have
become more convinced that human-caused global warming is happening,
are more worried, and are more supportive of several climate
policies.<br>
Among Republican registered voters, belief that global warming is
happening has increased 4 percentage points, while belief that it is
mostly human-caused has increased 9 percentage points since the Fall
of 2017. Republicans are also more worried about global warming than
they were in the Fall (+5 points).<br>
- - - - -<br>
It appears that the "Trump Effect" - in which Republican opinions on
climate change declined after the 2016 election - has bottomed out.
Republican opinions have rebounded - in some cases to new record
highs. Republican support for strict carbon dioxide limits on
existing coal-fired power plants increased 9 points and support for
requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a revenue-neutral carbon tax
rose 7 points since Fall 2017.<br>
- - - -<br>
More broadly, public support for a variety of climate and clean
energy policies remains strong and bipartisan. Large majorities of
registered voters support:<br>
<blockquote>Funding more research on renewable energy (87% support),
including 94% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 79% of
Republicans.<br>
Generating renewable energy on public land (86% support),
including 91% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 81% of
Republicans.<br>
Providing tax rebates to people who purchase energy-efficient
vehicles or solar panels (85% support), including 91% of
Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 77% of Republicans (+6 points
since Fall 2017).<br>
Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (81% support), including
91% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans (+8
points since Fall 2017).<br>
</blockquote>
Few registered voters think the United States should use more coal
(12%; 6% of Democrats, 14% of Independents, and 18% of Republicans)
or oil in the future (11%; 7% of Democrats, and 16% of both
Independents and Republicans).<br>
By contrast, solid majorities of registered Democrats, Independents,
and Republicans say the United States should use more solar energy
(80%; 84% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans)
and wind energy in the future (73%; 82% of Democrats, 75% of
Independents, and 62% of Republicans).<br>
Regarding the 2018 Congressional election, 38% of registered voters
say a candidates' position on global warming will be very important
when they decide who they will vote for. When asked how important 28
different issues would be in determining who they vote for in the
2018 election, registered voters ranked global warming 15th overall.
But among liberal Democrats, global warming was voting issue #4,
after healthcare, gun policies, and environmental protection more
generally.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018">http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Video reports from Bonn Conference]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://enb.iisd.org/2018/05/09/env-bonn-climate-change-conference-april-may-2018-coverage-for-tuesday-8-may-2018/">ENV
/ Bonn Climate Change Conference - April-May 2018 / Coverage for
Monday, 7 May 2018</a></b><br>
IISD Reporting Services is producing daily Earth Negotiations Videos
(ENV) from the Bonn Climate Change Conference - April/May 2018. Our
video team is reporting daily from the meeting, bringing you updates
on key issues, and insights through featured interviews with
high-level delegates and participants.<br>
Produced by Asheline Appleton and filmed/edited by Felipe Ruiz.<br>
IISD's video for Monday, 7 May 2018, is available at: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb48-env/monday-7-may-2018/?autoplay">http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb48-env/monday-7-may-2018/?autoplay</a><br>
You may find our written reports and photographs for this meeting
at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb48/">http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb48/</a><br>
ENV / Daily Coverage for the Bonn Climate Change Conference -
April/May 2018 / Coverage for Monday, 7 May 2018<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://enb.iisd.org/2018/05/09/env-bonn-climate-change-conference-april-may-2018-coverage-for-tuesday-8-may-2018/">http://enb.iisd.org/2018/05/09/env-bonn-climate-change-conference-april-may-2018-coverage-for-tuesday-8-may-2018/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/record-floods-show-world-has-changed-and-n-b-must-adapt-scientists-say-1.3918250#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=GSEmail&_gsc=GLcw6dO">Record
floods show world has changed and N.B. must adapt, scientists
say</a></b><br>
Michael Tutton, THE CANADIAN PRESS - Published Monday, May 7, 2018 <br>
New Brunswick's record-breaking floods are a jarring reminder
climate change is bringing a watery future that will wash away old
patterns of life and force many to higher ground permanently, say
environmental scientists and hydrologists.<br>
"The reality is that people expect the world to be the way it was,
but it's not," said Louise Comeau, a professor at the University of
New Brunswick and member of a national panel on climate change
adaptation.<br>
When the waters recede, the provincial and federal governments must
frankly inform homeowners the future holds more of the same, says
hydrologist John Pomeroy, director of the global water futures
program at the University of Saskatchewan.<br>
"Sometimes people, when they've been flooded out, it's a good time
to offer to buy them out and remove the homes from the dangerous
location," Pomeroy said in an interview.<br>
New Brunswick is suffering through record flooding, with rising
waters forcing the closure of the Trans-Canada Highway between
Moncton and Fredericton and many people being forced out of their
homes.<br>
"The floods look like they're getting larger," said Pomeroy, who is
working on a fresh models for mapping future floods, in tandem with
a network of university scientists studying the nation's largest
rivers.<br>
The hydrologist says the public needs to understand historical
levels of water flow are no longer guides to the future.<br>
Sudden temperature flips from frigid April snowstorms to 26 C, as
occurred during the spring runoffs in parts of New Brunswick, are a
feature of climate change that encourage flooding, he said.<br>
The province's legislative committee on climate change cited
computer models predicting that by 2100, New Brunswick's mean annual
temperature will increase by as much as 5 C, while more intense rain
and snow will increase the amount of moisture hitting the ground.,,<br>
- - - - <br>
"New Brunswick seems to rush to address risk when it's happening,
and then, after the event subsides, the province relaxes and waits
for its next disaster."<br>
Jason Thistlethwaite, an assistant professor at the University of
Waterloo's faculty of the environment, said in an interview part of
the problem is that municipalities set zoning regulations and
collect property tax revenue but it's Ottawa that is paying the
lion's share of disaster relief.<br>
"It's good to produce the information (flood plain maps), but
ultimately it's hard for a municipality to impose development
requirements when their primary source of revenue is property taxes
from new development," he said.<br>
The province must move more quickly to create a common set of
standards on new development for all towns and cities to obey, he
said.<br>
The federal government must also refine its approach, he argues,
tying disaster relief funding to requirements that homeowners move
out of areas doomed to see repeated floods.<br>
<font size="-1">More at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/record-floods-show-world-has-changed-and-n-b-must-adapt-scientists-say-1.3918250#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=GSEmail&_gsc=GLcw6dO">https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/record-floods-show-world-has-changed-and-n-b-must-adapt-scientists-say-1.3918250#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=GSEmail&_gsc=GLcw6dO</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/kfile-ken-isaacs-presser-answer/index.html">Trump's
pick for top UN migration job gave misleading answers on tweets
critical of climate change</a></b><br>
(CNN)<br>
Ken Isaacs, the Trump administration's nominee to lead the United
Nations migration agency, told reporters Friday that he believes in
climate change and said a tweet questioning it was taken out of
context.<br>
However, a CNN KFile review of his tweets shows that Isaacs
repeatedly and forcefully cast doubt on climate science in the past.<br>
In a news conference at the United Nations Friday, Isaacs, when
asked about climate denial in his tweets said, "The context that I
made that -- this is the last time I'm going to comment on the
tweets, you know, y'all can ask me questions all day long, but I've
done deep in-depth interviews on this. The context of the tweet was
a conference that was held in Paris about climate change and
terrorism....<br>
<blockquote><font size="-1"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;
font-weight: 700;">Here's what Isaacs tweeted about climate
change:</strong></font><br>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph" style="box-sizing: border-box;
margin-bottom: 15px; font-weight: 300; font-size: 1.2rem;
line-height: 1.66667; margin-right: 0px; color: rgb(38, 38, 38);
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(254, 254, 254); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><font size="-1">In<span> </span><a
href="https://i.imgur.com/mtNXYsR.png" target="_blank"
style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(48, 97, 243);
text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s;">August 2015</a>,
Isaacs shared an article that reported President Barack
Obama's climate change agenda as the most important issue on
his agenda, along with the caption "[T]his should scare us
all!"<br>
In<span> </span><a href="https://i.imgur.com/Tf25BKF.png"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">December 2016</a>, Isaacs retweeted a post about air
pollution in China and said that it was the issue people
should care about, not climate change, and, "This foul air
will kill millions before #climate ever changes."<br>
In<span> </span><a href="https://i.imgur.com/tVQ1yF7.png"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">February 2017</a>, Isaacs shared a tweet from
prominent climate change skeptic Steven Goddard and asked him
whether the ignorance of experts could be applied to those who
believe climate change is influenced by human activity.<br>
In<span> </span><a href="https://i.imgur.com/soSYTTb.png"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">August 2017</a>, Isaacs shared a tweet from Goddard
that accused government scientists of lying about the extent
to which global warming had melted the polar ice caps and sea
ice.<br>
Also in<span> </span><a href="https://i.imgur.com/BwF2Q8N.png"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">August 2017</a>, Isaacs retweeted an account that
said that climate change was "all a hoax" going back to the
1970s when some media outlets speculated about a coming ice
age. The idea that there was widespread scientific belief in
the 1970s about a new ice age is common among climate change
skeptics, though in reality scientific concern over global
cooling was limited.<br>
In<span> </span><a href="https://i.imgur.com/NQqqDwX.png"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">September 2017</a>, Isaacs dismissed scientific
concern over climate change because meteorologists weren't
able to accurately predict the path of storms, tweeting:
"Scientists can't predict a path of visible storm yet certain
of manmade climate change"<br>
Later in<span> </span><a
href="https://i.imgur.com/wMG03E2.png" target="_blank"
style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(48, 97, 243);
text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s;">September
2017</a>, Isaacs responded to a<span> </span><a
href="https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/909917494034432000"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">tweet</a><span> </span>from<span> </span><em
style="box-sizing: border-box;">Democracy Now!</em>, again
criticizing scientists for failing to predict the path of
hurricanes yet still raising alarms about climate change,
saying: "A crock! Meteorologists can not even predict the path
of a hurricane when they can see the thing and measure it. But
scientist (sic) read climate?"<br>
In<span> </span><a href="https://i.imgur.com/5aqOrkI.png"
target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(48, 97, 243); text-decoration: none; transition: color
0.2s;">September 2017</a>, Isaacs shared a Goddard tweet
again, which said that "Global warming is an idiotic
superstition, and the people pushing it should be treated as
the morons which they are."</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/kfile-ken-isaacs-presser-answer/index.html">https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/kfile-ken-isaacs-presser-answer/index.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[thar she blows!] <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://northofboston.wickedlocal.com/news/20180508/north-atlantic-right-whales-spotted-in-marblehead-waters">North
Atlantic right whales spotted in Marblehead waters</a></b><br>
Wicked Local North of Boston<br>
By Mary Reines - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mreines@wickedlocal.com">mreines@wickedlocal.com</a>
<br>
A pod of North Atlantic right whales were spotted feeding in
Marblehead waters, remarkably close to Devereux Beach, for a number
of days at the end of April and into May. On Friday, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) representatives came
to the beach to answer questions about the large mammals, which by
that point had moved north to Gloucester.<br>
"We were surprised that they hung out as long as they did," said
NOAA Public Affairs Specialist Kate Swails.<br>
It's not the first time whales have been spotted on the North Shore.
Photographer Mark Garfinkel captured images of a lone right whale
near Swampscott and Nahant for the Boston Herald two years ago.
Terri Tauro, department administrator for the Marblehead
Harbormaster, said she had seen pilot whales (the largest of the
oceanic dolphins) off Devereux Beach two or three years ago.<br>
Still, whales in Marblehead are rare.<br>
"It is unusual," Tauro said.<br>
For many locals, it was their first time seeing whales so close to
home. Marblehead resident J. Danielle Wehunt saw them when she
brought her young daughters to play at the beach last Wednesday. She
had never seen whales before and said the experience was
"awe-inspiring."...<br>
"They were doing little flips," Wehunt said. "It felt like they were
putting on a little show for us."<br>
Lifelong 'Header Becca Kenneally saw a tail and some spouting off
Devereux Beach on the morning of May 2.<br>
"I feel like it's a sacred brush with nature, and I hope they are
OK," she wrote in an email. "I want them to thrive and live where
they are meant to."<br>
- - - - -<br>
As a precaution, all vessels and swimmers must stay at least 500
yards away from a whale, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. Penalty
fines range from $500 to $1000, with a $750 harassment fee,
according to NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Officer Jason Berthiaume.<br>
Since the whales left Marblehead, they are likely heading east, or
north toward Canadian waters, according to Mayo. They travel like
this to feed on mile-long patches of surface plankton on the top
foot of the water, enabling viewers to see the tops of their heads,
tails and spouts.<br>
"It's an opportunity to see one of the rarest large mammals on earth
and certainly the rarest of the large whales," he said. "People
should enjoy it."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://northofboston.wickedlocal.com/news/20180508/north-atlantic-right-whales-spotted-in-marblehead-waters">http://northofboston.wickedlocal.com/news/20180508/north-atlantic-right-whales-spotted-in-marblehead-waters</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[financial warning] <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/08/investors-of-30-trillion-think-climate-change-not-a-hoax/">Investors
of $30 trillion think climate change not a hoax</a></b><br>
The Mercury News<br>
By Mathew Carr | Bloomberg News<br>
President Donald Trump may think climate change is a hoax, but
investors managing some $30 trillion of assets are increasingly
prodding the world's biggest polluters to come up with stronger
green strategies.<br>
HSBC Global Asset Management and Legal & General Group Plc are
among the 250 wealth managers in a group known as the Climate Action
100+ that are asking the companies they own to bring their
investment programs in step with the Paris Agreement on limiting
global warming...<br>
Investors Prod Climate Polluters As Trump Unpicks Paris Deal -
Financial Advisor Magazine <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/08/investors-of-30-trillion-think-climate-change-not-a-hoax/">https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/08/investors-of-30-trillion-think-climate-change-not-a-hoax/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Video ANIMATION]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/559790/jeff-vandermeer">Annihilation,
Utopia, and Climate Change</a></b><br>
May 07, 2018 | 53 videos - Video by The Atlantic<br>
"I'm not a fan of fiction that's totally hopeless," says Jeff
VanderMeer, author of Annihilation, in an interview with The
Atlantic, animated in the video above. "You find ways of documenting
the world as it is, [with its] beauty, and you wind up redefining
utopia and dystopia." VanderMeer goes on to explain how, in writing
fiction about climate change and environmental crises, he hopes to
"push us out of our complacency."<br>
"We can't live the way we live now," he says, "but there are ways in
which we can live in a useful and interesting and comforting and
satisfying way within what's happening."<font size="-1"><br>
</font><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="Jeff%20VanderMeer%20on%20%27Annihilation,%27%20Utopia,%20and%20Climate%20Change">Video
Jeff VanderMeer on 'Annihilation,' Utopia, and Climate Change</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/fr7ERELf_EU">https://youtu.be/fr7ERELf_EU</a><font
size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/559790/jeff-vandermeer/">https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/559790/jeff-vandermeer/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Toasty warm Arctic in 2016]<br>
<b><a
href="https://mashable.com/2018/05/08/arctic-heat-wave-2016-climate-change/#m0VCQWY.GZqR">Extreme
2016 Arctic heat wave stoked by climate change and low sea ice</a></b><br>
Just days before Christmas in 2016, the North Pole was 50 degrees
above its usual winter temperature. The top of the world was just
above freezing. <br>
Unusually warm air had smothered the Arctic throughout that year,
and now a recently published report, led by government scientists at
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), found
that it's nearly impossible to explain the intensity of this warmth
simply by normal fluctuations in weather.<br>
A heating event like this isn't natural, they argue - it's largely
human-induced, specifically by the greenhouse gases emitted by human
industry and trapped in the atmosphere...<br>
- - - -<br>
Arctic weather in 2016 may have often been abnormal or anomalous,
but to many scientists, it's becoming all too common.<br>
"It is not only astonishing to see how large the warm anomaly in the
Arctic is from day to day compared with other regions on Earth,"
Jason Briner, who researches global climate change at the University
of Buffalo and had no involvement in the research, said in an email.
<br>
"It is also remarkable how persistent the extreme warm weather is in
the Arctic. In fact, the warm weather events are so persistent that
we can no longer call it weather, but we have no choice but to call
it a new climate state." <font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mashable.com/2018/05/08/arctic-heat-wave-2016-climate-change/#m0VCQWY.GZqR">https://mashable.com/2018/05/08/arctic-heat-wave-2016-climate-change/#m0VCQWY.GZqR</a><br>
</font> <br>
<br>
[Just Checking]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/05/08/how-to-ask-questions-of-opponents-of-climate-change-policies-to-expose-ethical-problems-with-cost-and-scientific-uncertainty-arguments/">ETHICS
and CLIMATE: How to ask questions of opponents of climate change
policies to expose ethical problems with cost and scientific
uncertainty arguments </a></b><br>
Most arguments against climate change laws and policies are based on
unacceptable costs or scientific uncertainty, arguments that hide or
ignore ethical problems with these arguments, Thia video explains
how to ask questions of those who oppose climate change policies on
the basis of cost or scientific uncertainty which questions are
designed to expose ethical problems with these arguments.<br>
The list of questions referenced in the video follows:<br>
Questions to be asked of those opposing government action on climate
change on the basis of cost to the economy, cost to specific
industries, or job destruction.<br>
When you argue that governments should not adopt policies to reduce
ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the
basis that climate policies will impose unacceptable costs on
national economies, destroy specific industries, or kill jobs:<br>
Do you deny high-emitting nations not only have economic interests
but also duties and obligations to nations and people most
vulnerable to climate impacts to limit their ghg emissions to their
fair share of safe global emissions?<br>
Do you deny that a high emitting nation needs to take responsibility
for the harms to human health and ecological systems on which life
depends which the nation is causing in other nations<br>
Do you deny the applicability of the well-established international
norm that polluters should pay for consequences of their pollution?<br>
Do you agree that a nation's climate change policy is implicitly a
position on how high atmospheric concentrations of ghgs should be
allowed to rise?<br>
Do you agree that a national ghg emissions target must be understood
as implicitly a position on a global emissions reduction pathway
necessary to stabilize atmospheric ghg concentrations at safe
levels?<br>
Do you agree that no nation has a right kill other people or destroy
the ecological systems on which life depends simply because reducing
ghg emissions will impose costs on the high-emitting nation?<br>
Do you agree that nations which emit ghgs at levels beyond their
fair share of safe global emissions have a duty to help pay for
reasonable adaptation needs and unavoidable damages of low-emitting
vulnerable countries and individuals who have done little to cause
climate change?<br>
Do you agree that the costs of inaction on climate change must be
considered by nations who refuse to reduce their ghg emissions to
their fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of cost to
them?<br>
Given that the United States has for over twenty-five years failed
to adequately respond to climate change because of alleged
unacceptable costs to it and that due to delay ghg emissions
reductions now needed to avoid potentially catastrophic climate
change are much steeper and costly than what would be required if
the United States acted twenty-five years ago, is it just for the
United States to now defend further inaction on climate change on
the basis of cost<br>
<b>Questions to be asked of those opposing national action on
climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty.</b><br>
When you argue that nations such as the United States or states,
regional, or local governments, businesses, organizations, or
individuals that emit high levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) need not
reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global
emission because of scientific uncertainty about adverse climate
change impacts:<br>
On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the
United States Academy of Sciences and over a hundred of the most
prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those
with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the
American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society,
and the Royal Society of the UK and according to the American
Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do
peer-reviewed research on climate change which conclusions holds
that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused,
and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in
parts of the world, and that the international community is running
out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.<br>
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are some remaining
scientific uncertainties about climate change impacts, are you
arguing that no action of climate change should be taken until all
scientific uncertainties are resolved given that waiting to resolve
uncertainties before action is taken will virtually guarantee that
it will too late to prevent catastrophic human-induced climate
change harms to people and ecological systems around the world?<br>
Given that waiting until uncertainties are resolved will make
climate change harms worse and the scale of reductions needed to
prevent dangerous climate change much more daunting, do you deny
that those who are most vulnerable to climate change's harshest
potential impacts have a right to participate in any decision about
whether a nation should wait to act to reduce the threat of climate
change because of scientific uncertainty?<br>
Should a nation like the United States which has much higher
historical and per capita emissions than other nations be able to
justify its refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of
safe global emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given
that if the mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly
running out of time to prevent warming above 2.0 degrees C, a
temperature limit which if exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear
climate change.<br>
If you claim that there is no evidence of human causation of climate
change are you aware that there are multiple "fingerprint" studies
and "attribution" studies which point to human causation of observed
warming?<br>
When you claim that the United States or other nations emitting high
levels of ghgs need not adopt climate change policies because
adverse climate change impacts have not yet been proven, are you
claiming that climate change skeptics have proven in peer reviewed
scientific literature that human-induced climate change will not
create harsh adverse impacts to the human health and the ecological
systems of others on which their life often depends and if so what
is that proof?<br>
If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in
peer-reviewed journals that human-induced warming is not a very
serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that
human-induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer
the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate
change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous
warming, do you agree that those responsible for rising atmospheric
ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg
emissions are safe?<br>
Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) the United States in 1992 agreed under
Article 3 of that treaty to not use scientific uncertainty as an
excuse for postponing climate change policies, do you believe the
United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take
action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?
Article 3 states:The Parties should take precautionary measures to
anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and
mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account
that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be
cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest
possible cost. (UNFCCC, Art 3)<br>
Do agree if a government is warned by some of the most prestigious
scientific institutions in the world that activities within its
jurisdiction are causing great harm to and gravely threatening
hundreds of millions of people outside their government's
jurisdiction, government officials who could take steps to assure
that activities of their citizens do not harm or threaten others
should not be able escape responsibility for preventing harm caused
by simply declaring that they are not scientists?<br>
If a nation such as the United States which emits high-levels of
ghgs refuses to reduce its emissions to its fair share of safe
global emissions on the basis that is too much scientific
uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human-induced
climate change actually seriously harms the health of tens of
millions of others and ecological systems on which their life
depends, should the nation be responsible for the harms that could
have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier?<br>
By Donald A. Brown<br>
Scholar In Residence and Professor<br>
Widener University Commonwealth Law School<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dabrown57@gmail.com">dabrown57@gmail.com</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/05/08/how-to-ask-questions-of-opponents-of-climate-change-policies-to-expose-ethical-problems-with-cost-and-scientific-uncertainty-arguments/">https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/05/08/how-to-ask-questions-of-opponents-of-climate-change-policies-to-expose-ethical-problems-with-cost-and-scientific-uncertainty-arguments/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://grist.org/article/murdoch/">This Day in Climate
History - May 9, 2007</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
May 9, 2007: Grist.org reports on News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch's
plans to make his company carbon-neutral and conscious of climate
risk, plans that apparently did not involve ending the Fox News
Channel's fixation on attacking climate science.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://grist.org/article/murdoch/">http://grist.org/article/murdoch/</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html">Archive
of Daily Global Warming News</a> </i></font><i><br>
</i><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a></span><font
size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i><br>
</i></font></i></font><font size="+1"><i> <br>
</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>