<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>September 25, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[MediaMatters: while science is stronger, news coverage is weaker]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/24/National-TV-news-is-still-failing-to-properly-incorporate-climate-change-into-hurricane-co/221423">National
TV news is still failing to properly incorporate climate change
into hurricane coverage</a></b><br>
ABC did not mention climate at all during Florence, while CBS, PBS,
CNN, and MSNBC did worse than last year during Harvey<br>
TED MACDONALD <br>
A Media Matters analysis of Hurricane Florence broadcast news
coverage from September 7-19 found that ABC failed to air a single
segment that mentioned the links between climate change and
hurricanes like Florence, while NBC aired one segment and CBS aired
two. PBS NewsHour also aired two. A review of weekday, prime-time
coverage of Florence on the three major cable news networks found
that MSNBC ran four segments that mentioned climate change in the
context of hurricanes, and CNN ran two. Fox aired six segments, but
these either downplayed or outright dismissed the link between
climate change and hurricanes. Overall, coverage was down from a
year ago: The majority of the networks mentioned the connections
between hurricanes and climate change in fewer segments than they
did while covering Hurricane Harvey last year.<br>
<br>
Florence brought historic levels of rainfall and destruction to the
Carolinas. Scientists say that climate change worsened these
effects.<br>
- - - - <br>
video report
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2018/09/21/61706/cbs-thismorning-09152018-berardelli">https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2018/09/21/61706/cbs-thismorning-09152018-berardelli</a><br>
video report
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2018/09/21/61708/pbs-newshour-09192018-climate">https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2018/09/21/61708/pbs-newshour-09192018-climate</a><br>
- - - - -<br>
Scientists say that climate change is exacerbating some of the worst
effects of hurricanes like Florence. Climate scientist Jennifer
Francis of the Rutgers Climate Institute told Bloomberg:<br>
<blockquote><b>Warming oceans, a more rapidly warming arctic,
melting ice sheets are all contributing in various way to
conditions like what we're observing now. ... It's favoring slow
moving weather patterns, more intense tropical storms and
heavier downpours. And they're all more likely as we continue to
warm the Earth.</b><br>
</blockquote>
- - - -<br>
Prime-time cable: CNN and MSNBC mentioned climate change less often
during Florence coverage than they did last year during Harvey<br>
We also analyzed prime-time, weekday shows on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox
News from September 7-19. CNN and MSNBC both aired fewer segments
that discussed climate change in the context of hurricanes than they
did during Hurricane Harvey. Fox aired the same number as last year,
but its coverage was even more dismissive of climate science now
than it was in 2017.<br>
<br>
CNN aired two segments that discussed the links between climate
change and hurricanes, down from five such segments that ran during
Harvey coverage. Both of the climate mentions occurred on September
11, when CNN commentators only briefly raised the topic during
broader discussions. CNN Senior Political Analyst Ron Brownstein
mentioned on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer that hurricanes
are influenced by the changing climate, while CNN Political
Commentator Van Jones made a similar point on Cuomo Prime Time.<br>
<br>
MSNBC aired four segments that discussed the links between climate
change and hurricanes, down from five that ran during Harvey
coverage. The September 13 episode of All In With Chris Hayes
featured a substantive and informative segment with meteorologist
Eric Holthaus -- the best of the prime-time cable segments we
analyzed. Holthaus began the discussion by stating, "Florence is a
huge hurricane. I mean, this is one of the largest hurricanes that
we've ever seen in the Atlantic. And you can't really talk about
this without talking about climate change." He explained that
intense rain and storm surge fueled by climate change were major
components of the storm. The other MSNBC mentions of climate change
occurred in the context of broader discussions: one more on the
September 13 All In episode; one on the September 13 episode of
Hardball with Chris Matthews; and one on the September 11 episode of
The Beat with Ari Melber.<br>
<br>
Fox News aired six segments that mentioned climate change in its
Florence coverage, but all of them were dismissive of the issue.
That's slightly worse than last year during Harvey, when Fox also
aired six such segments, only five of which were dismissive of the
links between climate change and hurricanes.<br>
Of Fox's six segments that mentioned climate change this year, two
featured well-known climate deniers who disputed any connections
between climate change and hurricanes: The September 13 episode of
Hannity included commentary from meteorologist Joe Bastardi, and the
September 14 episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight featured
meteorologist Roy Spencer. In the other four Fox segments, hosts
took aim at a Washington Post editorial that called President Trump
complicit in extreme weather because his administration has been
rolling back climate protections. Three of these attacks came from
Sean Hannity -- on September 12, 13, and 14 -- and the fourth from
Greg Gutfeld on September 12...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/24/National-TV-news-is-still-failing-to-properly-incorporate-climate-change-into-hurricane-co/221423">https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/24/National-TV-news-is-still-failing-to-properly-incorporate-climate-change-into-hurricane-co/221423</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[No corners on a globe]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/climate-change-where-to-move-us-avoid-floods-hurricanes">Where
should you move to save yourself from climate change?</a></b><br>
- -- -<br>
Much of the east coast will look dicey if the seas rise at such a
pace that they'll be 6ft higher by the end of the century, but
plenty will rest on local decisions made to shield residents from
flooding. New York City, for example, is flanked by rising water and
is already stiflingly hot in summer, but a multibillion-dollar
strategy to build flood defenses and buy out vulnerable areas should
help stave off the worst impacts.<br>
<br>
Climate resiliency is a growing focus for many towns and cities that
fret about expensive clean-up costs from disasters, shading people
from the heat or dealing with an eroding tax base should residents
decide to uproot and head somewhere safer.<br>
<br>
The scope of these climate considerations is vast, touching on
everything from transport links to the availability of flood
insurance. Jesse Keenan, a climate adaptation expert at Harvard
University, said that he likes Buffalo, New York, and Duluth,
Minnesota, as climate refuges as they tick many of the appropriate
boxes.<br>
<br>
"Their sources of energy production are stable, they have cooler
climates and they have access to plenty of fresh water," Keenan
said.<br>
<br>
"They also have less vulnerability to forest fires, as compared to
somewhere like the Pacific north-west. They also have a legacy of
excess infrastructural capacity that allows them to diversify their
economy in the future. Land prices are cheap and they have a
relatively well-educated and skilled labor force."<br>
<br>
These safe havens are more of a fantasy wishlist for many
moderate-to low-income people as property and rental values rise in
desirable areas. Others won't want to leave more vulnerable parts of
the US due to more umbilical links, to family and jobs and a sense
of home.<br>
<br>
"As we saw after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Maria, communities
that are able to move can do so, especially if family and friends do
the same," said Shandas. "Those with less resources are left
behind."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/climate-change-where-to-move-us-avoid-floods-hurricanes">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/climate-change-where-to-move-us-avoid-floods-hurricanes</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
[What about that campsite on the lake?]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/where-to-live-to-avoid-natural-disaster-climatologists-2018-8">We
asked 11 climate scientists where they'd live in the US to avoid
future natural disasters - here's what they said</a></b><br>
Aria Bendix Sep. 1, 2018<br>
2017 was a record year for natural disasters in the US, with 16
severe weather events causing at least $306 billion in damages.
While 2018 portends to be less destructive, it has already seen its
fair share of catastrophe: As of July 9, six storms have each
generated at least $1 billion in losses...<br>
The following cities were recommended by climatologists as some of
the least vulnerable to disaster.<br>
<blockquote>Tulsa, Oklahoma...<br>
Boulder, Colorado...<br>
San Diego, California...<br>
Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota<br>
Sacramento, California<br>
Charlotte, North Carolina<br>
Portland, Oregon...<br>
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania...<br>
and- - Anywhere but Hawaii...<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/where-to-live-to-avoid-natural-disaster-climatologists-2018-8#pittsburgh-pennsylvania-8">https://www.businessinsider.com/where-to-live-to-avoid-natural-disaster-climatologists-2018-8#pittsburgh-pennsylvania-8</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[US as source of refugees]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/climate-refugees-new-orleans-houston-hurricane-katrina-hurricane-harvey"><font
size="-1">Meet the 'climate refugees' who already had to leave
their homes</font></a></b><br>
- - -<br>
We are called climate refugees, but I hate that term. "Refugee"
suggests something with no clear plan or action but we have a clear
plan and are doing this as a unified tribe. Most people believe we
have to move because of climate change and also because the oil
companies dug canals that allowed salt water to intrude further.
It's like we've hit the fast forward button on the environment.<br>
We will be the first ones to face this in the modern US but we won't
be the last. It's important for us to get it right so other
communities know that they can do it, too...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/climate-refugees-new-orleans-houston-hurricane-katrina-hurricane-harvey">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/climate-refugees-new-orleans-houston-hurricane-katrina-hurricane-harvey</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2018/9/20/intellectual-property-and-climate-change">Intellectual
Property and Climate Change</a></b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2018/9/20/intellectual-property-and-climate-change"><br>
</a></b>Zachary Eldredge - September 20, 2018<br>
In climate politics, we are faced with the immense task of rapidly
restructuring the global economy to function on an entirely
different basis. Such a task is impossible without a near-complete
technological revolution. We will need to efficiently produce and
store cheap, clean energy; to engineer new, efficient machines for
both personal use and industrial production; and to discover new
modes of agriculture capable of feeding humans without destroying
the earth...<br>
- - - -<br>
Patents have provided a robust system for encouraging technological
growth. The 20th century saw both a robust patent system, with over
five million US design patents granted, and rapid technological
development in the United States. Indeed, under capitalism, this is
how research must happen -- the promise of future gains incentivize
private investment by owners of capital. Theoretically, a strong
patent system is necessary in this situation, and we should be wary
of undermining it and potentially discouraging investment in
R&D. But a key feature of the patent system, even when it works
on its own terms, is the temporary monopoly it grants in exchange
for public disclosure. A patent in the US applies for twenty years,
and the inventor must disclose all the invention details in the
application. The climate does not have twenty years. We cannot wait
until 2038 for new green technologies to become available and
affordable worldwide. Therefore, we must be actively working on
finding a new balance between the return on investments into
research and the exclusionary rights that are granted to encourage
that investment.<br>
<br>
None of this is news to the people at risk -- technology transfer
and intellectual properties have been key elements of international
talks. The UN's 1993 non-binding Agenda 21, a blueprint for
sustainable development in the 21st century, included the
recommendation of: "the undertaking of measures to prevent the abuse
of intellectual property rights, including rules with respect to
their acquisition through compulsory licensing." Similar discourse
has since surrounded climate talks, but neither the Kyoto nor Paris
agreements contain any mention of patents or intellectual property
rights. As such, despite widespread calls from poorer countries to
incorporate intellectual property relief measures, no international
framework for addressing this technical imbalance exists at the
moment. However, the key role that technological advancement will
play in averting climate catastrophe is reflected in the Paris
Agreement's five-year review structure, which recognizes that rapid
technological progress implies a periodic re-calibrating of climate
goals.<br>
<br>
The remedy is clear: we must begin taking aggressive action to break
patents that hinder a just transition away from fossil fuels,
whether nationally or internationally. It is not enough to hope that
the market incentives a patent provides will stimulate the correct
technological development, because the timescale of patent
protection is too long for the climate emergency. Action is required
sooner rather than later. Nor can we rely on the rich to be
generous. Elon Musk, in an era of sunnier media relations, announced
that he would open Tesla's patents and was roundly praised for it.
We should view this as akin to all other billionaire philanthropy: a
worthy gesture utterly too small to make the necessary difference.
Unsurprisingly, Musk continued seeking patents on other aspects of
his business, such as battery production, suggesting that his prior
commitment to "open source hardware" was simply marketing. <br>
<br>
Instead of relying on the benevolence of the odd tech baron, we can
open patents directly. This both directly addresses the problems
that arise when a patent is abused and discourages future abuse.
There are two legal mechanisms which make this possible in the
United States. The first is a term in the Bayh-Dole Act known as
"march-in" rights. This gives the federal government the right, for
publicly-funded inventions, to "march-in" and license the patent to
other producers of its choosing. Thus, the patent exclusivity is
broken. One condition which must be met to justify this action is
that "action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs."
Climate change is among the largest public "health or safety needs"
which could possibly exist, so there is ample reason to believe that
the legal basis for this type of patent seizure has been met. <br>
<br>
The second legal mechanism is less direct, and lies in the law that
defines the US government's liability for patent infringement. Under
US law, the remedy for a patent holder in response to government
patent infringement is suit in federal court for "reasonable"
compensation. Rather than prevent the use of a technology, all a
patent holder can ask for is that compensation, which can be well
below the amount they would have extracted from the market. This
approach could be described as "asking forgiveness, not permission."
Rather than invoke any direct claim on the patent (as the government
has for Bayh-Dole march-in rights), the government can use the
technology immediately and pay damages later. Although this may
imply that the government needs to directly be involved in the
production, the law is clear that contractors or others acting with
government authorization are protected...<br>
- - - -<br>
Patent-breaking alone won't fix climate. It's an ecomodernist
fallacy to believe that if only we invent the right device, we can
solve the climate crisis. Patent-breaking done today, however,
accomplishes two goals. First, regardless of our ideals, there is a
physical world we must act in now. We must act soon to avoid
"technological lock-in," a pattern where our investments today set
us on courses for the future, such as the construction of pipelines
that imply future natural gas production. Every green technology or
sustainable infrastructure we build now buys us more time for growth
and progress as as we work towards full decarbonization. Second,
social transformation begins by bridging the system we have now,
where research is done to maximize the market returns to a company,
with a system where research can be done to benefit humanity with an
emphasis on what good a technology can do rather than what it sells
for. It's a bridge whose foundations lie in current law, and whose
mechanisms we can implement with a combination of popular pressure
to act on climate, international demands, and the support of
technological workers themselves. <br>
<br>
In climate politics, we must act on every time scale at once: we
must think about emissions in the next year while simultaneously
restructuring our economy over the course of the next thirty or
forty years for complete decarbonization. The climate crisis
necessitates immediate, actionable policy that leads naturally into
a long-term decarbonization plan. Systems of scientific solidarity
like patent-breaking can form the basis for moving beyond the
original frameworks of intellectual property. If we take climate
mobilization seriously, these are the readily-deployed initiatives
and plans which we must include in our first volley of actions.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2018/9/20/intellectual-property-and-climate-change">https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2018/9/20/intellectual-property-and-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Parody music by old geezers with great talent]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://parodyproject.com/environmentally-resigned-parody-of-gentle-on-my-mind/">ENVIRONMENTALLY
RESIGNED – Parody of Gentle On My Mind</a></b><br>
Every day Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is in office, he works to
destroy our public lands and waters at the expense of our
communities. He needs to be "environmentally resigned." He proposed
gutting Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.
He wants to massively ramp up oil and gas drilling off our coasts.
And he's trying to slash protections for the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. There are already 14 federal investigations into
Zinke's decision-making, misuse of funds, and potential corruption.<br>
And while we're at it we need to get rid of Acting EPA Administrator
Andrew Wheeler, who has proposed a dramatic weakening of protections
against pollution that currently prevent 100,000 tons of methane
pollution and 30,000 tons of smog-forming chemicals annually, and we
need these protections now more than ever.<br>
- - - video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJjclRiwXpo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJjclRiwXpo</a>
Parody of Gentle on My Mind by John Hartford<br>
<b>LYRICS to ENVIRONMENTALLY RESIGNED</b><br>
<blockquote>It's knowing that the truth will have a cost<br>
that causes some people to balk,<br>
and makes them tend to leave their sleeping brains<br>
rolled up and stashed behind their couch,<br>
where they sit and watch the corporate news<br>
controlled by those who profit <br>
from a system that pollutes both earth and mind.<br>
It keeps us on the backroads<br>
cut off from the solutions<br>
and we're left environmentally resigned.<br>
<br>
It's knowing that the atmospheric C02<br>
affects the planet's climate,<br>
with levels at the highest that they'e been<br>
over the last 3 million years.<br>
While it's true that we could fix it,<br>
the inherent threat to profit<br>
seems to make it so we're always disinclined.<br>
What use will all that money be<br>
when the planet can't sustain us<br>
and the earth's environmentally resigned.<br>
<br>
They're clinging to some dead beliefs <br>
while rapid changes happen all around us,;<br>
Believing something someone said<br>
that blames it on some faction they despise. <br>
It's just knowing that the world<br>
could be impacted with disaster,<br>
like an earthquake and a hurricane combined,<br>
and to them it wouldn't indicate<br>
that something was amiss,<br>
'cause they're environmentally resigned.<br>
<br>
It makes some people mad to say that<br>
humans could affect the course of nature. <br>
Go ahead and check the comments<br>
that you'll find below this post. <br>
I rest my case.<br>
How can we find solutions<br>
when the truth is being purposefully maligned?<br>
When things get to their worst<br>
they'll still deny we caused it. <br>
We'll be environmentally resigned.<br>
<br>
It's knowing that the truth will have a cost<br>
that causes some people to balk,<br>
and makes them tend to leave their sleeping brains<br>
rolled up and stashed behind their couch,<br>
where they sit and watch the corporate news<br>
controlled by those who profit <br>
from a system that pollutes both earth and mind.<br>
It keeps us on the backroads<br>
cut off from the solutions<br>
and we're left environmentally resigned.<br>
</blockquote>
SOURCE MATERIAL<br>
"Gentle on My Mind" was written by John Hartford, and it was the
recipient of four Grammy Awards in 1968, which included Best Folk
Performance, Best Country & Western Song (Songwriter), Best
Country & Western Solo Vocal Performance and Male and Best
Country & Western Recording, which went to American country
music singer Glen Campbell for his version of Hartford's song.<br>
<br>
The song was released in June 1967 as the only single from the album
of the same name. It was re-released in July 1968 to more success.
Glen Campbell's version received over 5 million plays on the radio.
Campbell used "Gentle on My Mind" as the theme to his television
variety show, The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour between 1969 and 1972.
<br>
<br>
Dean Martin's version, recorded in 1968, was a major hit in the
United Kingdom; three versions of the song, Campbell's, Martin's and
Patti Page's, all reached the top ten of the U.S. easy listening
chart in 1968. The song was ranked number 16 on BMI's Top 100 Songs
of the Century.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://parodyproject.com/environmentally-resigned-parody-of-gentle-on-my-mind/">https://parodyproject.com/environmentally-resigned-parody-of-gentle-on-my-mind/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nypost.com/2014/09/25/harpers-story-stokes-backlash-from-pbs/">This
Day in Climate History - September 25, 2014</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
September 25, 2014:<br>
New York Times columnist Gail Collins observes:<br>
<blockquote>"There was a time, children, when the parties worked
together on climate-change issues. No more. Only 3 percent of
current Republican members of Congress have been willing to go on
record as accepting the fact that people are causing global
warming. That, at least, was the calculation by PolitiFact, which
found a grand total of eight Republican nondeniers in the House
and Senate. That includes Representative Michael Grimm of New
York, who while laudably open-minded on this subject, is also
under indictment for perjury and tax fraud. So we may be pushing 2
percent in January.<br>
<br>
"This is sort of stunning. We're only looking for a simple
acknowledgment of basic facts. We'll give a pass to folks who
accept the connection between human behavior and climate change,
but say they don't want to do anything about it."<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/opinion/gail-collins-the-politics-of-climate-change.html?ref=opinion&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/opinion/gail-collins-the-politics-of-climate-change.html?ref=opinion&_r=0</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
PBS announces that it will cease advertising in Harper's magazine,
in apparent retaliation for a recent article detailing PBS's ties to
billionaire climate-change denier David Koch.<br>
<blockquote>One of the themes of the Harper's article is the
protests that have broken out among PBS supporters worried over
the secretive and conservative-leaning David Koch, who has a seat
on the public broadcasting station in Boston, WGBH. The station is
one of the crown jewels in the PBS system.<br>
<br>
The article, by Eugenia Williamson, details a long history of
money woes at PBS that began even in the heady days of its
founding by President Lyndon Johnson.<br>
<br>
And, she claims the corporate sponsors and board members can often
influence what does and does not get aired.<br>
<br>
"I thought they'd be mad and maybe write a letter to the editor,
or propose a debate," said MacArthur.<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nypost.com/2014/09/25/harpers-story-stokes-backlash-from-pbs/">http://nypost.com/2014/09/25/harpers-story-stokes-backlash-from-pbs/</a></font><br>
<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>