<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>May 29, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
SEVERE FLOODING | Ellicott City, Maryland<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/us-weather/maryland-baltimore-ellicott-city-rain-flood-emergency-evacuations/102433">Catastrophic
flooding hits Baltimore suburb: Surreal video</a></b><br>
Monday, May 28, 2018 - Heavy rain and severe flooding made streets
in Ellicott City, Maryland look like a river on Sunday (May 27).<br>
Videos uploaded to social media showed completely flooded streets,
stranded cars and people trapped in buildings looking through
windows as water flowed by. <br>
Local media reported up to 8 inches of rain had fallen on Ellicott
City in only two hours. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan declared a
state of emergency. <br>
"It's really, truly devastating. I would say it's as bad or worse
than the storm two years ago," said Hogan in a press conference
Sunday.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/us-weather/maryland-baltimore-ellicott-city-rain-flood-emergency-evacuations/102433">https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/us-weather/maryland-baltimore-ellicott-city-rain-flood-emergency-evacuations/102433</a></font><br>
- -- - <br>
[India]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://thewire.in/environment/aside-from-battling-climate-change-were-not-doing-enough-to-adapt-to-it">Aside
From Battling Climate Change, We're Not Doing Enough to Adapt to
It</a></b><br>
Credit ratings agencies must evaluate the impact of climate change
on urban local bodies and reassess their access to cheap credit.<br>
Last week, a dust storm raged over Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan,
killing over 100 people and raising concerns over extreme weather
events and their causal links to anthropogenic climate change.<br>
There have been two major types of policy responses to climate
change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation addresses the root
causes and focuses on reducing future greenhouse gas emissions,
while adaptation seeks to lower current risks posed by the effects
of climatic change. Even if we successfully reduce emissions over
the next decade, adaptation will still be necessary to deal with the
short- to medium-term risks associated with carbon emissions
released over the last century - including protecting ourselves
against freak weather events like dust storms.<br>
Other measures include building defences to protect against
sea-level rise, deploying early warning systems against cyclones,
revising building codes, diversifying crops, installing
micro-irrigation systems and increasing penetration of weather
insurance.<br>
Costs of delaying adaptation<br>
According to an <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/india-most-vulnerable-country-to-climate-change">HSBC
repor</a>t published in March 2018, India is among those nations
considered most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The
highest risks are concentrated among low-income groups living in
houses that are more easily damaged by wind and water hazards during
extreme weather events.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thewire.in/environment/aside-from-battling-climate-change-were-not-doing-enough-to-adapt-to-it">https://thewire.in/environment/aside-from-battling-climate-change-were-not-doing-enough-to-adapt-to-it</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Opinion]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.cnet.com/news/green-energy-renewables-governments-climate-change/">When
it comes to climate change, our governments are letting us down</a></b><br>
Commentary: At the cutting edge of green energy tech, there's a
common thread: Governments aren't doing enough to secure our future.<br>
Mark Serrels - May 25, 2018<br>
We're heading in the wrong direction. We're ignoring the
possibilities. <br>
Based on current data, Australia is expected to miss the targets set
out by the Paris climate accord -- a UN agreement designed to help
curb global greenhouse emissions -- by 26 percent to 28 percent. In
July 2017, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement
completely to "save jobs."<br>
We're heading in the wrong direction. We're ignoring the
possibilities. A future powered entirely by renewable energy is not
only within reach, it's already possible. Countries like Iceland,
Costa Rica, Albania, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Zambia and Norway are
already at 99 percent or 100 percent.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.cnet.com/news/green-energy-renewables-governments-climate-change/">https://www.cnet.com/news/green-energy-renewables-governments-climate-change/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Good idea]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://phys.org/news/2018-05-limiting-global-millions-dengue-fever.html">Limiting
global warming could avoid millions of dengue fever cases</a></b><br>
May 28, 2018, University of East Anglia<br>
Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C could avoid around 3.3
million cases of dengue fever per year in Latin America and the
Caribbean alone - according to new research from the University of
East Anglia (UEA).<br>
A new report published today in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS) reveals that limiting warming to the goal
of the UN Paris Agreement would also stop dengue spreading to areas
where incidence is currently low.<br>
A global warming trajectory of 3.7 degrees C could lead to an
increase of up to 7.5 million additional cases per year by the
middle of this century.<br>
Dengue fever is a tropical disease caused by a virus that is spread
by mosquitoes, with symptoms including fever, headache, muscle and
joint pain. It is endemic to over 100 countries, and infects around
390 million people worldwide each year, with an estimated 54 million
cases in Latin America and the Caribbean.<br>
Because the mosquitoes that carry and transmit the virus thrive in
warm and humid conditions, it is more commonly found in areas with
these weather conditions. There is no specific treatment or vaccine
for dengue and in rare cases it can be lethal.<br>
<font size="-1">Read more at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2018-05-limiting-global-millions-dengue-fever.html#jCp">https://phys.org/news/2018-05-limiting-global-millions-dengue-fever.html#jCp</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
[Climate Denier Roundup]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/25/indulge-conspiracy-theories-deniers-might-warm-climate-consensus">Indulge
Them on Conspiracy Theories, And Deniers Might Just Warm to
Climate Consensus</a></b><br>
Friday, May 25, 2018<br>
A new study in the AMS journal Weather, Climate and Society suggests
that there's an interesting way to soften denier rejection of the
consensus on climate change: validate their conspiracy theories.<br>
The approach outlined in the study is pretty simple. The researchers
asked nearly 500 people to what extent they agreed with the
sentiment that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy, along with a
few other simple questions, like their political orientation. Then
they gave respondents information about the consensus on climate
change.<br>
But before the consensus message was delivered, the test subjects
were also told that "a majority of people acknowledge that on many
topics, powerful people work to mislead citizens for bad purposes.
Yet human induced climate change is not one of those topics."<br>
Finally, people were asked to what extent they think climate change
is caused by humans, as opposed to being a natural phenomenon.
Researchers also asked if respondents would be interested in hearing
more information about human-induced climate change.<br>
The hoax believers shown the statement that conspiracies exist then
became more accepting of human causation than those conspiracy
theorists who weren't shown the reaffirming statement.<br>
On its face, it's a counterintuitive finding. How does validating
conspiracies make people less likely to embrace them? The study
doesn't delve into the psychology, but does suggest that offering
that reassurance that sometimes conspiracies exist may make
respondents "feel less motivated to defend their prior belief or
worldview and be more open to consensus scientific information."<br>
This hypothesis does make some sense. We know that denial is a
psychological defense mechanism that's triggered by unwanted
information. By indulging people's natural skepticism and
understanding that not all those with power use it for good, we can
perhaps offer a bit of preemptive comfort before delivering the
consensus message.<br>
In other words, conspiracy theorists/climate deniers may gain
intellectual flexibility from feeling like they're in a safe space
rather than under attack. The acknowledgement that that yes,
conspiracies exist but no, climate change isn't one of them, perhaps
functions like something of an olive branch. It's recognition that
it's not totally insane to think that perhaps a group is lying about
the climate for their own gain.<br>
Because, to be fair, that is definitely a thing that happens …<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/25/indulge-conspiracy-theories-deniers-might-warm-climate-consensus">https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/25/indulge-conspiracy-theories-deniers-might-warm-climate-consensus</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[Game Theory]<br>
National Geographic Magazine<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/embark-essay-tragedy-of-the-commons-greed-common-good/"><b>What
a Simple Psychological Test Reveals About Climate Change</b></a><br>
If everyone's success depended on it, would you share - or be
selfish?<br>
By Dylan Selterman<br>
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of
Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But
every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want
two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points?<br>
I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an
exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals
make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an
ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50
years ago this summer, describing what he called "the tragedy of the
commons." Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own
self-interest without regard for society, the effects can be
catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th-century convention of "the
commons" - a cattle-grazing pasture that villagers shared - to warn
against the overexploitation of communal resources.<br>
<blockquote>Garrett Hardin defined 'the tragedy of the commons' as
many individuals acting in their own self-interest without regard
for society. The effects can be catastrophic.<br>
</blockquote>
I'm hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the
classroom exercise, Hardin's ideas, and our planet's most pressing
problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between
two points or six points of extra credit - but there's a catch. I
stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose
six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are
analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin's analysis),
or any natural resource.<br>
<br>
According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives
for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this
logic the student's rational choice would be to pick six points,
just as the shepherd's rational choice would be to use as much
grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal
consumption aren't greedy - they're strategic.<br>
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is
overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water
shortages, or climate change.<br>
A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their
consumption, we'd have sustainability. As many of my students say,
"If everyone chooses two points, we'll all get the points." And yet,
for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class - of
the dozens I taught - stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the
other classes failed.<br>
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve
Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time
when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class
failed too - and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly
frustrated with my peers who had chosen six.<br>
In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise - "WHAT KIND
OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS" - and his lament went viral. People around
the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean
it's human nature to be greedy and selfish?<br>
Test-Takers Dylan Selterman teaches students about the tragedy of
the commons with this extra-credit exercise:<br>
Choose zero, two, or six points to be added to your final paper
grade. If more than 10 percent of you choose six points, no one will
receive any points. If you choose zero points, you cancel out one of
the six-point choosers, who will receive no points.<br>
In his class in fall semester 2017, how did students respond? Read
on.<br>
<blockquote><br>
ZERO POINTS<br>
Devin Porter, 21, sociology major<br>
"I took the class to get something out of it, not necessarily for
the grade. When we didn't get the extra credit, I felt bad for the
people who really needed it, but I wasn't too surprised. People
who chose two made the obvious choice - everyone eats. People who
chose six thought they could get away with it."<br>
<br>
TWO POINTS<br>
Robin Bachkosky, 19, nursing major<br>
"I thought I made a pretty beneficial choice for the class and
myself, one that wouldn't necessarily put the class to any
disadvantage but would give me some extra credit. I was a little
disappointed that I didn't get any extra credit just because some
of the other kids were selfish and weren't satisfied with two
points."<br>
<br>
SIX POINTS<br>
Gunleen Deol, 18, information systems and psychology major<br>
"I thought that the majority of people would choose two and felt
that the rational decision for me to make would be the one that
maximizes my personal benefit, which would be six. Considering how
my choice affected the rest of the class made me wish that I had
chosen two instead."<br>
<br>
The class failed the exercise.<br>
</blockquote>
Actually most people aren't. But it's very tricky to get people to
cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After
all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more
water or choosing six points), why shouldn't I? But if we all think
this way, eventually we'll all lose.<br>
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference - that if we
teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might
not. I've been skeptical about this idea. When my student's tweet
went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn't be able to use the
exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I
laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even
after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the
challenge to get the extra-credit points.<br>
<br>
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students,
about 80 percent, choose two points - just as most people choose to
cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what's
right. But that alone won't solve our problems, so we need to think
creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions.<br>
<blockquote>In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of
finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific
literature on social groups and introduced a third option:
Students could choose two points, six points - or zero points.
That's right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each
student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers
(selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total
number of six-point choosers by one.<br>
1.71 Earths<br>
<br>
Global Footprint Network calculates the date each year when
humans' demand on nature - for food, wood, fiber, and carbon
dioxide absorption - exceeds what Earth can regenerate in a year.
In 2017 that "Earth Overshoot Day" was the earliest on record -
and humans used roughly 1.71 Earths' worth of resources.<br>
<br>
2017: 1.71 Earths<br>
Overshoot Day: August 2<br>
<br>
2011: 1.69 Earths<br>
August 4<br>
<br>
2001: 1.38 Earths<br>
September 22<br>
<br>
1991: 1.29 Earths<br>
October 10<br>
<br>
1981: 1.16 Earths<br>
November 11<br>
<br>
1971: 1.03 Earths<br>
December 20<br>
</blockquote>
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for
themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take
too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called
altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and
Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up
some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave
selfishly in a group context - and doing so in the belief that every
individual profits from increased cooperation.<br>
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point
option, and sometimes that's all it takes. Just a handful of people
can make a huge difference - that is, a few self-sacrificing
students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to
below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has
dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half
my classes receive the extra-credit points. In my opinion this is a
remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without
anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it
was available was enough to increase cooperation.<br>
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a
classroom, won't we need much larger action to curb global problems
like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it's about
collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example,
recently I started volunteering with Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL),
an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and
dividend. This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels
and distribute the money raised back to American households (to
protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce
fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive
to use - so reducing consumption would be better for both our
wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers
and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts - again,
collective action - we gain allies in Congress and the public. By
early this year the House's bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had
70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across
the country.<br>
As I write these words, I'm sitting next to my three-month-old
daughter, Amelia. Though the planet faces daunting problems, I'm
determined to help her have a bright future - so I have to believe
that action by even a few people can make a significant difference.
A few students can help an entire class of hundreds gain a leg up in
the course. A few people who recycle or compost can have a
contagious effect on others' lifestyles. A few politicians' votes
can alter national and international policies that affect millions.<br>
The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains
today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving
the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and
hopeful lines from the Beatles: "All the world is birthday cake / so
take a piece / but not too much."<br>
<font size="-1">Dylan Selterman is a lecturer at the University of
Maryland, College Park, and former editor in chief of the
psychology magazine In-Mind. He lives in Washington, D.C. </font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/embark-essay-tragedy-of-the-commons-greed-common-good/">https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/embark-essay-tragedy-of-the-commons-greed-common-good/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Candidates]<br>
<b><a href="http://www.314action.org/endorsed-candidates-1/">314
Action is proud to endorse these scientists and other STEM
leaders who will fight to protect science and stand up to
climate deniers.</a></b><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.314action.org/endorsed-candidates-1/">http://www.314action.org/endorsed-candidates-1/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/deniers-go-berserk-on--science-guy--454188611636">This
Day in Climate History - May 29, 2015</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
May 29, 2015: On CNN and MSNBC, Bill Nye declares that
mainstream-media entities should start covering climate change
comprehensively in the wake of the extreme weather events in Texas
and Oklahoma.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/05/29/cnns-costello-and-bill-nye-texas-floods-show-ne/203816">http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/05/29/cnns-costello-and-bill-nye-texas-floods-show-ne/203816</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/deniers-go-berserk-on--science-guy--454188611636">http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/deniers-go-berserk-on--science-guy--454188611636</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>