<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 7, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[mean]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise">Earth's
climate monsters could be unleashed as temperatures rise</a></b><br>
Graham Readfearn<br>
As a UN panel prepares a report on 1.5C global warming, researchers
warn of the risks of ignoring 'feedback' effects<br>
Fri 5 Oct 2018 <br>
This week, hundreds of scientists and government officials from more
than 190 countries have been buzzing around a convention centre in
the South Korean city of Incheon.<br>
They are trying to agree on the first official release of a report -
the bit called the Summary for Policymakers - that pulls together
all of what's known about how the world might be affected once
global warming gets to 1.5C.<br>
- - - <br>
On Monday morning, the summary document is expected to be released,
and there will be a cascade of headlines around the world.<br>
<br>
The report, being pulled together by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was one tiny part of the
Paris climate change agreement.<br>
From London to Shanghai, world's sinking cities face devastating
floods<br>
Read more<br>
<br>
As things stand, if you add up all the things that the 190-plus
countries have committed to do as part of that Paris deal, global
temperatures will probably go well above 3C.<br>
We're already at 1C of warming, so the extra half a degree isn't far
away - many scientists will say it's already locked in, while others
say there are plausible ways to stabilise temperatures at that
level.<br>
But in August, one of the world's leading scientific journals - the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - published a
"perspective" article that has become known as the "hothouse earth"
paper.<br>
There was no new science in the paper and while it was speculative,
it did raise fundamental questions about the ability of governments
around the world to stop the Earth from spiralling into a
"hothouse".<br>
"I think the dominant linear, deterministic framework for assessing
climate change is flawed" - Will Steffen<br>
- - - - -<br>
The problem lies with "feedbacks" - in the "supplementary
information" attached to the paper, Steffen and colleagues actually
listed 10 of them. With each, they include estimates of how much
extra CO2 and temperature they could add once you hit about 2C of
global warming.<br>
For example, the ability of the land and ocean to keep soaking up
CO2 could weaken, giving you an extra 0.25C of warming. Dieback of
trees in the Amazon and subarctic could give us another 0.1C.<br>
Permafrost, which is already starting to defy its name by not being
all that permanent, could release ever more methane and carbon that
might add a bit more warming again (0.09C is the estimate there).<br>
<br>
The point is that once you add them all up, you get close to 0.5C of
warming by the end of the century. Given we're already at 1C of
global warming, that makes the job of keeping warming "well below
2C" or even holding it at 1.5C much, much harder than it already is.<br>
And there's the rub.<br>
While governments have the means to affect how much CO2 gets
released through policies that radically cut the use of fossil
fuels, it would be much harder to get a grip on thawing permafrosts,
mass forest collapses or the loss of polar sea ice.<br>
By failing to get a grip on a thing that's feasibly under your
control, we end up risking the release a whole gang of other
monsters that we can't.<br>
<br>
This gets us to another big issue, says Steffen, because climate
models don't include some of these feedbacks. In essence, the warmer
things get, the less reliable the models become. <br>
He tells me: "I think the dominant linear, deterministic framework
for assessing climate change is flawed, especially at higher levels
of temperature rise.<br>
So, yes, model projections using models that don't include these
processes indeed become less useful at higher temperature levels.
Or, as my co-author John Schellnhuber says, we are making a big
mistake when we think we can "park" the Earth System at any given
temperature rise - say 2C - and expect it to stay there."<br>
<br>
For those who understand the idea of a carbon budget - where
scientists have calculated him much CO2 you could emit before
hitting certain temperature rises - it looks even meaner than before
if Steffen and his colleagues are right.<br>
<br>
But as they also point out, several of these feedbacks might have
"tipping points" that then set off a cascade of other issues.
Steffen says:<br>
<br>
"Even at the current level of warming of about 1C above
pre-industrial, we may have already crossed a tipping point for one
of the feedback processes (Arctic summer sea ice), and we see
instabilities in others - permafrost melting, Amazon forest dieback,
boreal forest dieback and weakening of land and ocean physiological
carbon sinks.<br>
<br>
And we emphasise that these processes are not linear and often
have built-in feedback processes that generate tipping point
behaviour. For example, for melting permafrost, the chemical process
that decomposes the peat generates heat itself, which leads to
further melting and so on."<br>
<br>
For the record, Steffen thinks the assumptions in climate models
that cuts in fossil fuel emissions will deliver relative cuts in
temperatures "is OK for perhaps lower temperature rises of 1.5 or
2C" but beyond that, he's sceptical.<br>
- - - <br>
Dr Glen Peters, an Australian scientist and climate modeller based
at the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway, also
thought some of the media coverage went too far with the doomsday
vibe.<br>
But he told me that while it was true that many of the feedbacks in
the paper were not well covered by climate models, this was partly
because they were not that well understood. <br>
I'll leave you with his thoughts:<br>
<blockquote> "The hothouse earth paper conjectures that many of
these feedbacks may interact like a domino effect, lead the Earth
system to spiral out of control to reach a new steady state very
different from today, and these processes may even start if we are
successful at meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement."<br>
"There is also an important timescale question, are we talking
decades or millennia, and that is very important for how society
may respond. While all the claims made in the hothouse earth paper
are justified, we simply don't have the data to verify if those
claims are true. While the paper put in plenty of language to
indicate its exploratory nature … many headlines and statements
went too far, indicating we had already gone too far and there was
no turning back."<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
[here's a comment from that Guardian article ]<br>
Kickthismobout<br>
Guardian Pick<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise#comment-121195255">I
can tell you where I live about 1 hour out of Melbourne</a> people
are crapping their pants for what we have coming, It is as dry as
sin here, many sensible folk have bush fire plans in action right
now.<br>
<br>
From farmers to an old aboriginal man I know, they say the signs are
there, the roos are everywhere as they come down from the dry hills
for food, the freeways and main roads have their dead bodies strewn
all over the side of them as they are hit by traffic. I often have
over 100 just in a small paddock behind me, never before have I seen
this, maybe later in the season, but not now, not this early.<br>
<br>
The aboriginal man I know says you don't see any duckings, magpies
now as active defending their nests, they know we are in for a
scorcher, that is his take I can only listen to his words.<br>
<br>
Farmers are moaning about lack or rain, everywhere you walk the
ground crunches under your feet, dams that rely on run off are at
their lowest, I know mine are.<br>
<br>
Yet still we have this debate, this waffle, what kind of disaster
will take to wake our bloody leaders up?<br>
Figures for bush fires:<br>
<blockquote>Between 1900 and 1970 there were 13 Major bush fires,
which is 1.85 per decade.<br>
1970 - 1980 - 4 Major bush fires<br>
1980 - 1990 - 3 Major bush fires<br>
1990 - 2000 - 7 Major bush fires<br>
2000 - 2010 - 16 Major bush fires<br>
2010 - 2016 - 25 Major bush fires (15 Major bush fires in total,
averaged out over projected decade, could be more).<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise#comment-121195255">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise#comment-121195255</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[The Nation gives advice]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.thenation.com/article/planet-earth-is-doomed-how-do-i-go-on/">Planet
Earth Is Doomed. How Do I Go On?</a></b><br>
By Liza Featherstone<br>
<blockquote>Dear Liza, <br>
<br>
With the recent heat waves and other climate-related problems, I
have become anxious and despondent about the future. In fact, I am
doubtful there will be much of one in 10 or 20 years. My anxiety
often keeps me glued to my computer, looking at more and more
stories, which tend to get more and more extreme. I have started
reading reports of human extinction within the next century, if
not sooner.<br>
<br>
I sometimes look for articles about the climate crisis that are
more positive; but, at best, that gives me a temporary reprieve
from the general tenor of the coverage. It makes it almost
impossible to do my work. And I can't avoid these stories, as I
teach a community-college course on sustainability. I have even
contemplated suicide. What should I do?<br>
<br>
--Doomed and Gloomed<br>
</blockquote>
Dear Doomed,<br>
<br>
You are not alone. Andrew Samuels, a Jungian psychoanalyst and a
professor at the University of Essex, tells me that therapists are
increasingly hearing from patients who are deeply disturbed by
climate change and are struggling to cope.<br>
<br>
First, get professional help. Call a suicide hotline whenever you
think of taking your own life. Samuels points out that you seem to
suffer from depression as well as anxiety. Depression is bound up in
loss: You may be mourning the planet and humanity as you might mourn
the death of a parent. Therapy helps with depression, and it could
also help change your addictive relationship to the Internet.<br>
<br>
Depression is also related to guilt. It "stems from ideas that one
has damaged or destroyed a loved other," Samuels observes. "That's
why a normal depression follows a bereavement. There is always more
that could have been done." Sometimes we absorb neoliberal guilt
over the environment--the feeling that climate change is our fault
because we drive a car or order from Amazon. "I think it is crucial
not to take full responsibility for what we have done to the
planet," Samuels says. "Sure, some individuals in the corporate and
political worlds are particularly careless and hence responsible.
But this doesn't apply to most of us."<br>
<br>
It's hard to think of a more collective problem than climate change.
Yet you seem to experience it as yours alone. Reading your letter,
Samuels observes: "This person seems so cut off and alone, an
atomized citizen."<br>
<br>
Climate change is too much for you--or any one of us--to handle.
Alone, we can neither cope with it emotionally nor save humanity
from its worst effects. "Part of the problem is that climate change
seems so big that it's hard to conceive that any individual action
on our part could work," the author and environmental activist Bill
McKibben points out. "When people ask me, 'What can I, as an
individual, do to save the planet?,' I say, 'The most important
thing you can do is be less of an individual.'"<br>
<br>
In other words: Become part of the environmental movement. Wherever
you live, yes, people are composting (which can certainly be
helpful, especially when multiplied millions of times), but even
more encouraging, they are organizing to put pressure on
corporations to stop polluting and on governments to change policy.
This is making a difference. As McKibben notes: "We've won a ton of
fights. There are lots of pipelines and coal ports that are not
getting built. We're increasingly powerful." <br>
<br>
When you join this movement, you'll help the planet and yourself.
When you meet your fellow activists, Samuels urges, admit to some of
the feelings you've described in your letter. They will empathize;
some of them have been there, too. "Just you and your computer is
not a productive and creative state of affairs," Samuels insists.
"Activism is good for your mental health."<br>
<br>
I, too, suffer from anxiety over the future of the planet, so your
letter has been a hard one for me to live with and to answer. One of
the reasons we feel anxious, though, is that we don't know what is
going to happen. If we knew that we were facing extinction within
our century, we would give up and grieve--or party in a bacchanalian
fashion. But we don't know. For people prone to anxiety like
ourselves, this uncertainty is hard to tolerate. But within that
uncertainty lies a measured but radiant hope.<br>
<br>
"Some things are going much better than we thought they would,"
McKibben says. To give just one example, the price of solar panels
has fallen by 90 percent. "Everything points to: If we want to solve
this problem, we can."<br>
<br>
This kind of optimism is not denial. "We're not going to be able to
stop global warming," McKibben acknowledges. "But we may be able to
save the civilization that our forebears have built."<br>
To do that, we need to reject despair and start fighting
together--for future humans and for ourselves.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.thenation.com/article/planet-earth-is-doomed-how-do-i-go-on/">https://www.thenation.com/article/planet-earth-is-doomed-how-do-i-go-on/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Sarcasm humor video]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/MUEtqAnPoP4">The
Nib: You Killed Smokey | 209.4</a></b><br>
Published on Jul 12, 2018<br>
Give a hoot!<br>
The political cartoonists of The Nib have teamed up for a new
animated series that strikes at the heart of our present-day
dystopia. In Season 1 we took you inside the sweatshop that produces
Trump's hair, met the brave, rich, white men who strip away our
reproductive rights, and got an exclusive look at our Illuminati
lizard overlords. Now Season 2 is here, and you're not wrong: things
are definitely getting weirder and worse, so we're in for lots more
fun. Featuring sizzling satire from the likes of Matt Bors, Jen
Sorensen, Matt Lubchansky, Emily Flake, and Keith Knight.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/MUEtqAnPoP4">https://youtu.be/MUEtqAnPoP4</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[blame the media, really blame them]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/09/how-the-media-encourages-and-sustains-political-warfare/?theclimate.vote">How
the media encourages -- and sustains -- political warfare</a></b><br>
Oppositional framing in news stories encourages oppositional
thinking in news audiences.<br>
By KYLE JENSEN AND JACK SELZER Sept. 28, 2018, 9 a.m. <br>
Since his inauguration, President Donald Trump has been waging war
against the American press by dismissing unfavorable reports as
"fake news" and calling the media "the enemy of the American
people." As a countermeasure, The Washington Post has publicly
fact-checked every claim that Trump has labeled as fake. In August,
The Boston Globe coordinated editorials from newspapers across the
nation to push back against Trump's attacks on the press. The
Associated Press characterized this effort as the declaration of a
"war of words" against Trump.<br>
<br>
News organizations might frame themselves as the besieged party in
this "war." But what if they're as much to blame as the president in
this back-and-forth? And what if readers are to blame as well?<br>
<br>
In an unpublished manuscript titled The War of Words, the late
rhetorical theorist and cultural critic Kenneth Burke cast the media
as agents of political warfare. In 2012, we found this manuscript in
Burke's papers and, after working closely with Burke's family and
the University of California Press, it will be published next week.<br>
<br>
In The War of Words, Burke urges readers to recognize the role they
also play in sustaining polarization. He points to how seemingly
innocuous features in a news story can actually compromise values
readers might hold, whether it's debating the issues further,
finding points of consensus, or, ideally, avoiding war.<br>
<br>
A book born out of the Cold War<br>
In 1939, just before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, Burke wrote an
influential essay, "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle,'" in which he
outlined how Hitler had weaponized language to foment antipathy,
scapegoat Jews, and unite Germans against a common enemy.<br>
<br>
After World War II ended and America's leaders turned their
attention to the Soviet Union, Burke saw some parallels to Hitler in
the way language was being weaponized in the United States. He
worried that the U.S. might remain on a permanent wartime footing
and that a drumbeat of oppositional rhetoric directed at the Soviet
Union was making the nation susceptible to slipping into yet another
war.<br>
<br>
Tormented by this possibility, he published two books, A Grammar of
Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives, in which he sought to to
inoculate Americans from the sort of political speech that, in his
view, could lead to a nuclear holocaust.<br>
<br>
The War of Words was originally supposed to be part of A Rhetoric of
Motives. But at the last minute, Burke decided to set it aside and
publish it later. Unfortunately, he never ended up publishing it
before his death in 1993.<br>
<br>
The thesis of The War of Words is simple and, in our view, holds up
today: Political warfare is ubiquitous, unrelenting, and inevitable.
News coverage and commentary are frequently biased, whether
journalists and readers are aware of it or not. And all media
coverage, therefore, demands careful scrutiny.<br>
<br>
To Burke, you don't have to launch social media missives in order to
participate in sustaining a polarized political environment.
Instead, the quiet consumption of news reporting is enough to do the
trick...<br>
- - - - <br>
"Imagine a passage built about a set of oppositions ('we do this,
but they on the other hand do that; we stay here, but they go there;
we look up, but they look down,' etc.)," he wrote. "Once you grasp
the trend of the form, [you see that] it invites participation
regardless of the subject matter…you will find yourself swinging
along with the succession of antitheses, even though you may not
agree with the proposition that is being presented in this form."<br>
<br>
Burke calls this phenomenon "collaborative expectancy" --
collaborative because it encourages us to swing along together, and
"expectancy" because of the predictability of each side's argument.
This predictability encourages readers to embrace an argument
without considering whether we find it persuasive. They simply sit
on one of two opposing sides and nod along.<br>
<br>
According to Burke, if you passively consume the news, swinging
along with headlines as the midterms unfold, political divisions
will likely be further cemented. However if you become aware of how
the media reports you're consuming seek to subtly position and
influence you, you'll likely seek out more sources and become more
deliberative. You might notice what's missing from a debate, and
what really might be motivating the outlet.<br>
<br>
To avoid getting sucked into a dynamic of two opposing, gridlocked
forces, it's important for all readers to make their consciousness a
matter of conscience.<br>
<font size="-1">Kyle Jensen is an associate professor of English at
the University of North Texas. Jack Selzer is a professor of
literature at Penn State. This article is republished from The
Conversation.The Conversation</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/09/how-the-media-encourages-and-sustains-political-warfare/?theclimate.vote">http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/09/how-the-media-encourages-and-sustains-political-warfare/?theclimate.vote</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Blurb for Young adult climate fiction]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://menafn.com/1097532691/A-Climate-Change-Call-to-Action-for-Young-AdultsSouth-Branch-Press">A
Climate Change Call to Action for Young Adults -- South Branch
Press</a></b><br>
Award-winning environmental writer Ned Tillman's new YA novel offers
young readers a practical, inspirational blueprint for how to deal
with the challenges of global climate <br>
COLUMBIA, Md. - Oct. 4, 2018 - PRLog -- Three-quarters of Americans
believe that there is solid evidence of climate change. <br>
What can we do about it? More importantly, what can young adults,
who will face its consequences head on, do about it? <br>
Award-winning environmental writer Ned Tillman's new YA novel The
Big Melt gives an unequivocal and inspirational answer. <br>
The Big Melt is set in the fictional town of Sleepy Valley, which is
similar in many ways to the town where you live. Things seem fine,
but no one is thinking about the future. Protagonists Marley and
Brianne wake up the day after their high school graduation, their
lives are turned upside down, and their plans for the future changed
forever. A series of climate catastrophes descends on Sleepy Valley,
and Marley and Brianne must struggle to save their town and the
world as they know it. Through their struggles, they find their
voices and purposes for living. <br>
"People say it's too big of a problem, and wonder how they can
possibly make a difference," Tillman told a Baltimore Sun reviewer.
<br>
The Big Melt shows its readers that their actions do matter. It
challenges us all to confront what is rapidly becoming the greatest
threat of the 21st century. This work of contemporary fiction will
inspire you to care, more than ever, about what could happen in your
town in the not-too-distant future. <br>
"Hope is woven all through this book and we need that," said
environmental educator Ann Strozyk. <br>
A Publishers Weekly / Booklife review said, "Tillman's novel is
certainly inspiring and unique…with a firm call to action for young
people." <br>
The Big Melt provides a list of a list of Earth-friendly actions
that readers can utilize in their own lives, as well as a discussion
guide to help spark conversation in classrooms and reading groups. <br>
Can fiction help save the Earth? <br>
Tillman told a reviewer, "If readers identify with the people in the
story and get inspired, I believe that it's just one more tool to
get us to where we need to be." <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://menafn.com/1097532691/A-Climate-Change-Call-to-Action-for-Young-AdultsSouth-Branch-Press">https://menafn.com/1097532691/A-Climate-Change-Call-to-Action-for-Young-AdultsSouth-Branch-Press</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Opinion from Seattle]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/i-sued-the-state-of-washington-because-i-cant-breathe-there-they-ignored-me?CMP=share_btn_link">I
sued the state of Washington because I can't breathe there. They
ignored me</a></b><br>
Jamie Margolin<br>
Summers in my home city of Seattle didn't use to be smoggy to the
point that they make me and my friends sick. Now they are - and that
violates our rights<br>
- - - - -<br>
There was a week in August where I didn't dare to step outside. It
was grey 24/7 - not from clouds, but from smoke. If I went outside,
it hurt to breathe, the air smelled funny, and I got a headache and
sore throat. This is not the way it used to be in my hometown.<br>
<br>
I'm able bodied, so for my friends with chronic health conditions,
it's even worse. A few had to go to the ER for respiratory
emergencies caused by the smoke. My city is suffocating every
summer. The whole Pacific Northwest can't breathe.<br>
<br>
In the US Constitution it says that everyone has the rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Washington state law says
that I have a "fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful
environment."<br>
<br>
But how am I supposed to live my life and pursue happiness when I
can't go outside in the summer and am living on a planet where
record-breaking storms, epidemic wildfires, and heat waves are
displacing, sickening, and killing thousands?<br>
<br>
That's why, with the help of the nonprofit organization, Our
Children's Trust, 12 other youth and I sued the State of Washington
for denying young people our constitutional rights to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness by actively worsening the climate
crisis.<br>
<br>
Last week we got a ruling from the court that was pretty much a
complete write-off to my generation and kids everywhere who
apparently now have to be "optimistic" and beg our leaders for
rights so basic as a livable planet. Rights that previous
generations were able to enjoy.<br>
<br>
The ruling granted the state's motion to dismiss our case. Instead
of supporting young people asking for a livable future, the state
fought tooth and nail to shut us down, and the court ruled in favor
of silencing the young people's pleas.<br>
<br>
What's even more disappointing is that the judge ignored the fact
that the legislature has already stated that the youth have a
"fundamental and inalienable" right to a "healthful environment."
Here is what the law says: "The legislature recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful
environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute
to the preservation and enhancement of the environment." This is the
only right the legislature has characterized as "fundamental and
inalienable."<br>
<br>
The judge who ruled on this case did not assume that the scientific
facts we put in the complaint were true, which is what he was
supposed to do. He instead relied upon his personal opinions and
outside sources for the proposition that the youth should be
"optimistic" about their futures and hope that the ruling generation
will change course. Optimistic. How in the world am I supposed to be
optimistic when I am literally being given warnings not to go
outside and breathe the air because it is unhealthy. Apparently he
neglected to look outside his window to see how wildfire smoke has
plagued our city.<br>
<br>
When youth try to take a stand, our leaders blatantly and explicitly
disregard our rights, pat us on the head, and give us the legal
equivalent of "you're cute, don't worry about a thing little kid,
we're taking care of it." But the Washington State government isn't
taking care of anything when it comes to climate action.<br>
<br>
My generation's right to a healthful environment is not an
"aspiration," as the judge said. My own legislature has already
recognized this as a right that must be protected: "The legislature
recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right
to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility
to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment."<br>
<br>
This is the only right the legislature has characterized as
"fundamental and inalienable." The constitution requires the
judicial branch to serve as a check and balance of executive and
legislative actions that are unconstitutional. This principle was
used to challenge laws that segregated African-American children in
public education, laws that prevented same-sex couples from marrying
and laws that prevent meaningful suffrage.<br>
Youth being harmed by climate change are entitled to the same kind
of consideration. We won't stop fighting until we get the change we
need and deserve.<br>
<font size="-1">Jamie Margolin is the founder and Executive Director
of Zero Hour<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/i-sued-the-state-of-washington-because-i-cant-breathe-there-they-ignored-me?CMP=share_btn_link">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/i-sued-the-state-of-washington-because-i-cant-breathe-there-they-ignored-me?CMP=share_btn_link</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Bloomberg on sea level rise]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem">Miami
Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First</a></b><br>
The city has another serious water problem.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?178547-2/california-recall-acceptance-consession">This
Day in Climate History - October 7, 2003</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
October 7, 2003: Arnold Schwarzenegger succeeds Gray Davis as the
governor of California after a highly controversial "recall
election." Schwarzenegger--who had been demonized by talk radio host
Rush Limbaugh in the weeks prior to the election as not being a
"real" conservative--would become one of the very few prominent
elected Republican officials urging action on climate change.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?178547-2/california-recall-acceptance-consession">http://www.c-span.org/video/?178547-2/california-recall-acceptance-consession</a><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>