<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 5, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[see a list of climate aware candidates]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.sunrisemovement.org/endorsements">2018
ENDORSED CANDIDATES</a></b><br>
Sunrise is a movement of young people uniting to stop the climate
crisis. We are building an army of young people to break the hold of
oil and gas CEOs on our politics and elect leaders who will protect
the health and wellbeing of all people, not just a wealthy few.<br>
<blockquote><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.sunrisemovement.org/nofossilfuelmoney">TELL
OUR LEADERS: TAKE THE NO FOSSIL FUEL MONEY PLEDGE</a><br>
Our politicians and candidates should reject contributions from
fossil fuel executives, lobbyists and their front groups and
protect our health, climate, and democracy instead. <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sunrisemovement.org/nofossilfuelmoney">https://www.sunrisemovement.org/nofossilfuelmoney</a><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sunrisemovement.org/endorsements">https://www.sunrisemovement.org/endorsements</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2018/10/place-russias-arctic-coast-has-most-dramatic-climate-change">This
place on Russia's Arctic coast has most dramatic climate change</a></b><br>
The town of Dikson and the surrounding Taymyr Peninsula has the most
rapid temperature increase in Russia, as well as an aggravating
melting of permafrost and nearby sea ice.<br>
Atle Staalesen<br>
October 02, 2018<br>
The new climate report from Roshydromet, Russia's state agency on
meteorology and environmental monitoring, leaves no doubt about the
serious changes now unfolding in the Arctic parts of the country.<br>
<br>
According to the document, the year 2017 was the third warmest ever
on record in the Arctic, and only 0.1 C degrees lower than the
record-beating 2011. And the further north, the bigger the
temperature increase. On altitudes of 70-85 degrees North, the air
was 2.7 C degrees warmer than the annual average since measurements
started in 1936. That includes the lion's share of the country's
Arctic coast, as well as the major archipelagos like Novaya Zemlya,
Franz Josef Land and the New Siberian Islands.<br>
<br>
On altitudes between 60-70 degrees North, the deviation was 1.8 C
degrees, the reports reads.<br>
<b>Warm Kara Sea</b><br>
According to Roshydromet, it is the Kara Sea that over the last 30
years has experienced the most dramatic boost in air temperatures.
Since 1998, the average temperatures in the area have increased with
as much as 4.95 C degrees.<br>
<br>
That has a serious effect on nature, as well as social and economic
conditions, in nearby settlements like Dikson on the Taymyr
Peninsula.<br>
The temperature data are based on information collected from the
country's 250 meteorological stations, as well as from buoys in
Arctic waters.<br>
<br>
The biggest temperature deviations in the whole country in 2017 were
found in the Kara Sea and the Chukchi Sea, and it was March month
that was the most staggering. The temperatures that month were as
much as up to 13 degrees higher than average, the data show...<br>
- - - - -<br>
<b>Melting permafrost</b><br>
The report from Roshydromet also includes alarming data about
melting of permafrost. According to the researchers, all measuring
points in the country's European parts of the Arctic in 2017 saw a
shrinking of the permafrost layer by about 10 cm. The biggest
melting was observed at measuring point in the Pechora River delta,
where the decrease was as much as 33 cm.<br>
<br>
Also in the western parts of Siberia, there is a major reduction of
the permafrost. In the area of Nadym, a key oil-producing town, the
researchers found a shrinking of the permafrost layer by as much as
38 cm, and five measuring points in the Yamal Peninsula showed a
decrease of between 12-26 cm.<br>
<br>
In Norilsk, the industrial city with a population of about 175,000,
the measurements showed that the local permafrost in the late summer
of 2017 had decreased by 22 percent compared with the previous
year...<br>
- - - <br>
Can lead to serious accidents<br>
Consequences for the worst affected areas can be dramatic, the state
agency on meteorology and environmental monitoring warns. All kinds
of infrastructure, including roads, pipelines, buildings and
industrial plants can loose functionality as the ground's ability to
carry the weight dwindles and a string of destructive processes sets
inn. <br>
<br>
As a result, infrastructure objects can be partly or fully
destroyed, and social-economic and environmental consequences can be
numerous and unpleasant. That includes oil spills and pollution with
dangerous chemical, biological and radioactive materials, the
researchers say.<br>
<br>
Among the objects most in danger are buildings and coastal
installations along the shores of the Arctic ocean, they add.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2018/10/place-russias-arctic-coast-has-most-dramatic-climate-change">https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2018/10/place-russias-arctic-coast-has-most-dramatic-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Paul Beckwith video lecture #2]<br>
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-Z08vuOw4">Part 2:
Profound Climate Mayhem With NO Arctic Sea-Ice</a></b><br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
Published on Oct 4, 2018<br>
In a few years we face a world with NO Arctic sea-ice. Profound
climate and weather changes will profoundly disrupt human societies,
eg. severe global food shortages. In previous videos I discussed
timeframes and trajectories for a zero sea-ice state, and a shift of
the center-of-cold by 17 degrees latitude. Now, and last video I
delve into heat capacity changes with spiking Arctic warming,
magnified ocean waves bringing heat from depth, destabilizing
Greenlands glaciers; also wind reversals, monsoon effects, and
bubbling methane.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-Z08vuOw4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-Z08vuOw4</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Finance pressure change]<br>
OCTOBER 4, 2018<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://news.stanford.edu/2018/10/04/new-research-program-focuses-financing-sustainability/">Stanford's
new Sustainable Finance Initiative to help unleash capital
needed for decarbonization</a></b><br>
A new Stanford program, supported by Bank of America, will fund
research to develop the finance and policy tools needed for the
transition to a decarbonized and climate-resilient global economy.<br>
BY MARK GOLDEN<br>
The global transition to low-carbon economies is dramatically
transforming the investment landscape, especially in the enormous
sectors of energy, agriculture and transportation. To unlock the
massive amount of capital needed for that transition, Stanford
University's Precourt Institute for Energy is launching a research
program to develop new economic and financial models to more
effectively manage risk and drive successful investment.<br>
The Sustainable Finance Initiative at Stanford will work with
leading public and private financial institutions, companies and
governments to engage Stanford researchers in economics, law,
business and computer science to accelerate the transition toward
decarbonization and climate resilience. Bank of America, a founding
member of Stanford's Strategic Energy Alliance, is supporting this
initiative.<br>
<br>
"A global expansion of capital deployment in low-carbon
infrastructure is one of the most important prerequisites to
building economies that will serve humanity for our children,
grandchildren and beyond," said Sally Benson, co-director of the
Precourt Institute and Stanford professor of energy resources
engineering. "We value the support and the knowledge of
collaborators like Bank of America as we all try to figure out the
technologies, finance and economic structures needed for this new
era in sustainability."<br>
<br>
For the energy sector alone, global investment needs to triple from
its current level to $2.3 trillion annually through 2040 to limit
global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, according to an
International Energy Agency study.<br>
<br>
"Significant barriers block capital deployment at anywhere near the
level needed, especially investments from economically developed
countries in economically developing economies," said Thomas Heller,
faculty director of the Sustainable Finance Initiative and professor
emeritus at Stanford Law School.<br>
<br>
"The fight for a sustainable Earth will be won largely in developing
economies, which are now massively investing in infrastructure
designed to operate profitably for decades," said Heller, an expert
in climate policies and laws as well as in economic development....<br>
- - <br>
The Sustainable Finance Initiative will work closely with Stanford's
Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance, which is led
by former Law School Dean Paul Brest along with Heller and Seiger.
Results of the Sustainable Finance Initiative's work will be made
public. For more information visit <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://energy.stanford.edu/sustainable-finance-initiative">https://energy.stanford.edu/sustainable-finance-initiative</a>.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://news.stanford.edu/2018/10/04/new-research-program-focuses-financing-sustainability/">https://news.stanford.edu/2018/10/04/new-research-program-focuses-financing-sustainability/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Every word seems important in these 5 classic speeches from
Morningstar Investment Conference ] <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870606/watch-jeremy-granthams-race-of-our-lives-speech.html">Watch
Jeremy Grantham's 'Race of Our Lives' Speech</a></b><br>
from June 2018 - video and transcript<br>
This video is part one of five from GMO's Jeremy Grantham's address
at the 2018 Morningstar Investment Conference. You can also watch
parts two, three, four, and five:<br>
<blockquote><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870607/grantham-part-2.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870607/grantham-part-2.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870608/part-3-effects-of-climate-change.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870608/part-3-effects-of-climate-change.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870609/part-4-sixth-great-extinction.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870609/part-4-sixth-great-extinction.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870600/part-5-gmos-portfolio-for-climate-change.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870600/part-5-gmos-portfolio-for-climate-change.html</a><br>
</blockquote>
<b>Jeremy Grantham: </b>In the interest of full disclosure, I
should say that I am all in on the topic of climate and toxic damage
to the environment; 98% of my net worth is either in two foundations
or is committed to it. Fortunately, I come from a vastly overpaid
industry, ours, and so that still leaves me enough to have two
houses and a Tesla Model 3, if they would just deliver it to me. I'm
going to give you first a broad overview of this topic, which I'll
read to save time, because if I ad lib all this we'll be here all
day. Then I'll give you lots of backup data with slides. <br>
<br>
You could call this presentation the story of carbon dioxide and
Homo sapiens. You may not know, but if we had no carbon dioxide at
all, the temperature of the Earth would be minus 25 degrees
centigrade, and we would be a frozen ball with no life except
bacteria perhaps. 200 to 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide has
taken us from that frozen state to the pretty agreeable world we
have today. CO2 is therefore, thank heavens, a remarkably effective
greenhouse gas. The burning of fossil fuels has played a very
central role in the development of civilization. The Industrial
Revolution was not really based on the steam engine, it was based on
the coal that ran steam engine. Without coal, we would have very
quickly run through all our timber supplies, and we would have ended
up with what I think of as the great timber wars of the late 19th
century. The demand for wood would have quickly denuded all of the
great forests of the world, and then we would have been back to
where we were at the time of Malthus, living at the edge of our
capability with recurrent waves of famine as every other creature on
the planet does. A few good years, the population expands and bad
years, you die off. <br>
<br>
A gallon of gasoline has at least 400 hours of labor equivalent. It
means that ordinary middle-class people have the power that only
kings used to have in the distant past. And what that has done, that
incredible gift of accumulated power over millions of years is to
catapult us forward in terms of civilization, in terms of culture
and science. It's created an enormous economic surplus with which we
could do these things for the first time in history. And above all
agriculture has benefited allowing our population to surge forward.
<br>
<br>
The sting in this tale however is that this has left us with 7.5
billion people going on 11 or so billion by 2100. And that can only
be sustained by continued heavy, heavy use of energy. Fossil fuels
will either run out, destroy the planet, or both. The only possible
way to avoid this outcome is rapid and complete decarbonization of
our economy. Needless to say, this is an extremely difficult thing
to pull off. It needs the best of our talents and innovation, which
almost miraculously, it may be getting. It also needs much better
than normal long-term planning and leadership, which it most
decidedly is not getting yet. Homo sapiens can easily handle this
problem, in practice; it will be a closely run race, the race of our
lives. I like to say never underestimate technology and never
underestimate the ability of Homo sapiens to screw it up. <br>
<br>
If the outcome depended on our good sense, if we had, for example,
to decide in our long-term interest to take 5% or 10% of our
GDP--the kind of amount that you would need in a medium-sized
war--we would of course decide that the price was too high I think,
until it would be too late. It is hard for voters to give up rewards
now to remove distant pain particularly when the pain is
deliberately confused by distorted data. It's also hard for
corporations to volunteer to reduce profits in order to be greener.
Given today's single-minded drive to maximize profits, it's nearly
impossible. <br>
<br>
But technology, particularly, the technology of decarbonization has
come leaping to help us. This is the central race. Technology in my
opinion will in one sense win. When we come back in 40 years, I'm
pretty confident that there will be a decent sufficiency of cheap
green energy on the planet. And in 80 years perhaps it's likely we
will have full decarbonization. Lack of energy, green energy will
not be the issue that brings us down. If only that were the end of
the story. The truth is we've wasted 40 or 50 years. We're moving so
slowly that by the time we're decarbonized and have reached a new
stability of plus two and a half to three and a half degrees
centigrade, a great deal of damage will have been done. And a lot
more will happen in the deeper future due to the inertia in the
environmental system, for even if we stop producing a single carbon
atom, ice caps, for example, will melt for centuries and ocean
levels will continue to rise by several perhaps many feet. <br>
<br>
I don't worry too much about Miami or Boston, that's just the kind
of thing that capitalism tends to handle pretty well. The more
serious problem posed by ocean level rise will be the loss of the
great rice producing deltas around the world--the Nile, the Mekong,
Bangladesh, Thailand, and others, which produce about a fifth of all
the rice grown in the world. They're all heavily populated areas.
The great Himalayan rivers, which support one and a half billion
people, depend on the normal springtime runoff of the glaciers which
are now diminishing in size at an accelerating rate.<br>
<br>
Agriculture is in fact the real underlying problem produced by
climate change. But even without climate change, it would be
somewhere between hard and impossible to feed 11.2 billion people,
which is the median U.N. forecast for 2100. It will be especially
difficult for Africa. With climate change, there are two separate
effects on agriculture. One is immediate, the droughts, the
increased droughts, the increased floods, the increased temperature
reduce quite measurably the productivity of a year's harvest. Then
there's the long-term, permanent effect, the most dependable outcome
of increased temperature is increased water vapor in the atmosphere,
currently up over 4% from the old normal. And this has led to an
increase, a substantial increase in heavy downpours. It is precisely
the heavy downpours that cause erosion.<br>
<br>
In a rain, even a heavy rain, the farmers are not stupid, they lose
very little. It's the one or two great downpours every year or two
that cause the trouble. We're losing perhaps 1% of our collective
global soil a year. We are losing about a half a percent of our
arable land a year. Fortunately, the least productive half a
percent. It's calculated that there are only 30 to 70 good harvest
years left depending on your location. In 80 years, current
agriculture would be simply infeasible for lack of good soil. We
have to change our system completely to make it sustainable. With
conservative farmers to deal with, it will take decades and we
haven't even started. <br>
<br>
One of the impressive parts of new technology though is in fact in
agriculture from intense data management where you know square meter
by square meter exactly what is going on to the isolation of every
single micro-organism that relates to the plant.<br>
<br>
This race too is finely balanced. A separate thread also closely
related to fossil fuels is that we've created a toxic environment
apparently, not conducive to life from insects to humans as we will
see. We must respond rapidly by a massive and urgent move away from
the use of complicated chemicals that saturate our daily life.
Finally, in terms of this introduction, a subtext to all of what I
have to say is that capitalism and mainstream economics simply
cannot deal with these problems. Mainstream economics largely
ignores natural capital. A true Hicksian profit requires that the
capital base be left completely intact and only the excess is a true
profit. And, of course, we have not left our natural capital based
intact or anything like it. The replacement cost of copper,
phosphate, oil, and soil and so on is not even considered. If it
were, it's likely that the last 10 or 20 years for the developed
world anyway has had no true profit at all, no increase in income,
but the reverse. <br>
<br>
Capitalism also has a severe problem with the very long term because
of the tyranny of the discount rate, anything that happens to a
corporation over 25 years out doesn't exist for them. Therefore,
grandchildren, I like to say, have no value. They the corporations
also handle externalities very badly. Even the expression "handle
badly" is flattering for often they don't handle them at all,
they're just completely ignored as are the tragedies of the commons.
We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse
our water, and treat air like an open sewer. We do it all off the
balance sheet and off the income statement. Indeed, sensible
capitalist response is deliberately slowed down by well-funded and
talented programs of obfuscation by what is called the merchants of
doubt, familiar in the past with tobacco particularly in the U.S.,
but here also the U.K.<br>
<br>
One of these merchants, Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT actually
went seamlessly from defending tobacco--where he famously puffed
cigarettes through his TV interviews--to denying most of the
problems of climate change. Let me just add this doesn't happen in
China or India, Germany, Argentina. This is unique to the three
English-speaking, oily countries--the US, the UK, and Australia.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870606/watch-jeremy-granthams-race-of-our-lives-speech.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870606/watch-jeremy-granthams-race-of-our-lives-speech.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870607/grantham-part-2.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870607/grantham-part-2.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870608/part-3-effects-of-climate-change.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870608/part-3-effects-of-climate-change.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870609/part-4-sixth-great-extinction.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870609/part-4-sixth-great-extinction.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870600/part-5-gmos-portfolio-for-climate-change.html">https://www.morningstar.com/videos/870600/part-5-gmos-portfolio-for-climate-change.html</a><br>
- - - -<br>
[textbook for public policy]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Politics-Governance-Response-Business/dp/1316632482/ref=sr_1_1">Beyond
Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change
(Business and Public Polic</a></b>y) <br>
Paperback – December 28, 2017<br>
by Michael P. Vandenbergh (Author), Jonathan M. Gilligan (Author)<br>
Private sector action provides one of the most promising
opportunities to reduce the risks of climate change, buying time
while governments move slowly or even oppose climate mitigation.
Starting with the insight that much of the resistance to climate
mitigation is grounded in concern about the role of government, this
books draws on law, policy, social science, and climate science to
demonstrate how private initiatives are already bypassing government
inaction in the US and around the globe. It makes a persuasive case
that private governance can reduce global carbon emissions by a
billion tons per year over the next decade. Combining an examination
of the growth of private climate initiatives over the last decade, a
theory of why private actors are motivated to reduce emissions, and
a review of viable next steps, this book speaks to scholars,
business and advocacy group managers, philanthropists, policymakers,
and anyone interested in climate change.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Politics-Governance-Response-Business/dp/1316632482/ref=sr_1_1">https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Politics-Governance-Response-Business/dp/1316632482/ref=sr_1_1</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Book review of Beyond Politics]<br>
<b><a
href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/12/18/beyond-politics/">Faced
with government inaction, private firms emerge as major players
in climate change mitigation</a></b><br>
By David G. Victor 18 December, 2017<br>
- - - -<br>
With a large number of diverse vignettes and case studies, the
authors show that the success of private governance hinges, in
particular, on what the behavioral sciences have learned about how
firms and households internalize change. The authors point to
factors such as labeling, flexible organizational structures, and
new types of markets as contributors to this new interdisciplinary
science of private governance.<br>
Particularly important is the book's attention to firms that have
become adept at realigning incentives across the whole supply chain.
Walmart is a standout, having achieved 28 million tons of emissions
reductions from 2010 to 2015, mainly through making their supply
chains and operations smarter and getting their suppliers to line
up.<br>
One of the strengths of this book is that the authors don't just
make the case for their view of a privately governed world. They
also grapple with the weaknesses of that approach. A chief concern
is whether private governance, for all its potential, might actually
make a difference to the climate problem.<br>
The authors seek to quantify the level of emissions reductions that
private governance could achieve in the real world—that is, not just
the technical potential of such an approach but what actual
implementation might look like in real organizations. They estimate,
for example, that almost 500 million metric tons per year of
CO2-equivalent emissions might be cut by households—a big number in
absolute terms, although small when one considers that total global
emissions are 100 times that level.<br>
One area for future work is to quantify these impacts dynamically.
Where successful private solutions emerge, it is reasonable to
presume that others will follow; good deeds will beget more success,
and a virtuous (and profitable) cycle of emissions cuts might
follow.<br>
Private governance could change the nature of government itself,
suggest Vandenbergh and Gilligan. It could also change how society
achieves justice and its lines of accountability. Work like this
helps reveal what is possible, even without formal governments doing
much or all the work.<br>
My guess is that the pendulum will need to swing back a bit toward a
view of governance that brings the state back in. But Vandenbergh
and Gilligan offer a sober and well-grounded reminder that real
change depends on much more than formal government.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/12/18/beyond-politics/">http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/12/18/beyond-politics/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Opinion: wake up Michael Moore]<br>
<b><a
href="https://tedglick.com/future-hope-columns/climate-denial-on-the-left/">Climate
Denial on the Left</a></b><br>
Michael Moore's "molotov cocktail to the system" movie, Fahrenheit
11/9, has a number of good things to say and good sections. I was
particularly appreciative of the sections on lead poisoning
criminality in Flint, Michigan, recent progressive electoral
victories and campaigns within the Democratic Party, and the West
Virginia teachers strike. His critique of the
Clinton/corporate/dominant wing of the Democratic Party was also on
target.<br>
<br>
However, I was appalled that there was virtually nothing about the
climate crisis. Out of the two hours, there might have been a
literal total of 10 seconds of footage about something related to
that huge, world-overarching issue.<br>
For example, the struggle at Standing Rock was nowhere to be found
in this progressive movie about US politics and progressive activism
since 2016.<br>
15 years ago I began my transformation from a progressive activist
and organizer primarily working in the arena of independent politics
into someone primarily working on the climate crisis. The impetus
for that life-change was a disastrous heat wave in western Europe in
August of 2003. 35,000 or more people died as a result of it. This
unprecedented, massive human tragedy caused me to spend the next
several months studying the reality of global heating, how bad it
is, how relatively close we are to climate tipping points, and who
was working against this looming world catastrophe.<br>
<br>
I was disturbed to learn that almost no one on the left and not that
many within the environmental community were doing so, at least on a
consistent basis. And so, in January of 2004, I started doing work
in this area, co-founding with Fr. Paul Mayer the Climate Crisis
Coalition and staying active ever since.<br>
<br>
It has been encouraging to see the growth of an activist climate
movement, an anti-racist climate justice movement and an inclusion
of the climate issue as a major one on the part of many groups
within the progressive movement. It was very significant that in his
history-making Presidential campaign in 2016 Bernie Sanders spoke
about this issue consistently and strongly. And there could be other
positive examples.<br>
So is Michael Moore's climate blindspot in this movie an exception
to the prevailing reality on the left?<br>
I think it's more complicated. Moore does get it on the climate
crisis on some level. In a tweet from him on March 28 last year he
wrote, "Historians in the near future will mark today, March 28,
2017, as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks
2 Donald Trump. Trump has signed orders killing all of Obama's
climate change regulations. The EPA is prohibited henceforth from
focusing on climate change."<br>
<br>
Actually, the threat of "the extinction of human life on earth"
began gathering steam (via coal burning on a mass scale) long before
Donald Trump. And though Obama did things to move us in the right
direction, they were in no way commensurate with the seriousness of
our situation.<br>
On a human level, I don't understand how someone who appreciates
this extinction threat, who understands how dire our situation is,
how profoundly this is a societal and ecological crisis of the
highest and most immediate magnitude, could "forget" to incorporate
this issue into a movie like Fahrenheit 11/9.<br>
<br>
But in addition, the fact is that a huge majority of the U.S.
American people, 80-85% consistently for many years, Democrats,
Independents and Republicans, support wind and solar. Conservative
landowners have joined forces with enviros, progressives and
Indigenous people to oppose the taking of their and others' land for
oil and gas pipelines and infrastructure. And with all of the fires
and storms and floods, extreme weather events, that just keep coming
and will be doing so for a long, long time, there is a realistic
basis for making political inroads among even conservatives if we
are there with them to help them deal with these fossil fuel
industry-fueled, destructive disasters.<br>
There really is no excuse, and many good reasons, for this issue
always being part of our work and our strategic and political
thinking and action.<br>
Maybe Michael Moore's next movie could be on the climate crisis?
Michael?<br>
<font size="-1">Ted Glick has been a progressive activist, organizer
and writer since 1968. Past writings and other information can be
found at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://tedglick.com">https://tedglick.com</a>, and he can
be followed on twitter at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/jtglick">https://twitter.com/jtglick</a>.</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://tedglick.com/future-hope-columns/climate-denial-on-the-left/">https://tedglick.com/future-hope-columns/climate-denial-on-the-left/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://youtu.be/99-v2Farbjs">This Day in Climate History
- October 5, 1988</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
October 5, 1988: Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D) and Indiana Senator
Dan Quayle (R) discuss global warming in the Vice Presidential
debate, with both men agreeing that the problem must be addressed
during the next four years; Bentsen suggests that natural gas and
ethanol might be alternatives to oil dependence. (49:33-52:45)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/99-v2Farbjs">http://youtu.be/99-v2Farbjs</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>