<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 10, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[societal resilience]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.salon.com/2018/10/09/mental-health-problems-linked-to-climate-change/">Mental
health issues linked to climate change</a></b><br>
Temperatures rising and the fear of more natural disasters is
affecting our mental health, a new study says<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.salon.com/2018/10/09/mental-health-problems-linked-to-climate-change/">https://www.salon.com/2018/10/09/mental-health-problems-linked-to-climate-change/</a><br>
<br>
</font><br>
[ValveTurners case dismissed, warning persists]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/valve-turner-case-a-mistrial-but-also-a-warning-for-direct-action-activists-20170202">"Valve
Turner" Case a Mistrial, but Also a Warning for Direct Action
Activists</a></b><br>
Criminal sabotage was one of the charges for Ken Ward, who with
fellow activists in Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota shut down
pipelines carrying tar sands oil.<br>
- - - -<br>
On Oct. 11, Ward and fellow activists in Minnesota, Montana, and
North Dakota shut down pipelines carrying tar sands oil into the
United States. The orchestrated action earned them the nickname the
"Valve Turners," and was described by Reuters as "the biggest
coordinated move on U.S. energy infrastructure ever undertaken by
environmental protesters." Ward's trial, which began Monday, was the
first for the five activists who had a direct hand in turning
valves. Several others, including media members who were present
only to document the action, also face charges.<br>
<br>
Ward cut two chains to stop the flow of oil through Kinder Morgan's
Trans Mountain pipeline. He was initially charged with trespass,
burglary, assemblage of saboteurs, and criminal sabotage. That this
last charge--a rarely invoked law drafted to quell labor protests in
the early 20th century--was dusted off for this case may be an
ominous sign of the times and a harbinger of the inclemency future
activists should expect in this new era.<br>
<br>
To date, conservative legislators in 10 states, including
Washington, are considering new laws that would chill protest.
Proposed legislation ranges from attempts to stifle free speech, as
seen in North Carolina Sen. Dan Bishop's bid to make heckling
politicians a crime, to laws that would excuse violence, like the
proposal under consideration in North Dakota that would protect
motorists who inadvertently run over protesters blocking roads and
highways. These proposals sprouted during the Standing Rock protests
that grew to challenge authorities through autumn and early winter.
Now, in a season of mass activism following President Trump's
inauguration, anti-protest bills are spreading across the country...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/valve-turner-case-a-mistrial-but-also-a-warning-for-direct-action-activists-20170202">https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/valve-turner-case-a-mistrial-but-also-a-warning-for-direct-action-activists-20170202</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
<font size="-1">@dechristopher<br>
Among other restrictions for jurors overnight, the judge urged
them not to engage in protest or try to reenact the action in
question. That gives me a new bar for a best case scenario for a
civil disobedience trial. #ClimateTrial<br>
Tim DeChristopher</font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Understatement]<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/09/whats-not-latest-terrifying-ipcc-report-much-much-much-more-terrifying-new-research"><b>What's
Not in the Latest Terrifying IPCC Report? The "Much, Much, Much
More Terrifying" New Research on Climate Tipping Points</b></a><br>
"This is the scariest thing about the IPCC Report -- it's the
watered down, consensus version."<br>
Jon Queally - staff writer<br>
If the latest warnings contained in Monday's report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which included
pronouncements that the world has less than twelve years to
drastically alter course to avoid the worst impacts of human-caused
global warming and that nothing less than keeping all fossil fuels
in the ground is the solution to avoid future calamities--have you
at all frightened or despondent, experts responding to the report
have a potentially unwelcome message for your already over-burdened
heart and mind: It's very likely even worse than you're being told.<br>
<blockquote>"The IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing
feedback loops could push the climate system into chaos before we
have time to tame our energy system." <br>
--Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate<br>
</blockquote>
After the report's publication there were headlines like: "We have
12 years to act on climate change before the world as we know it is
lost. How much more urgent can it get?" and "Science pronounces its
verdict: World to be doomed at 2C, less dangerous at 1.5C" and "A
major new climate report slams the door on wishful thinking."<br>
But as Jamie Henn, co-founder and the program director for the
international climate group 350.org, stated in a tweet on Tuesday,
the <b>"scariest thing about the IPCC Report" is the fact that
"it's the watered down, consensus version. The latest science is
much, much, much more terrifying."</b><br>
This is very possibly true and there is much scientific data and
argument backing this up. As Henn and Mann both indicate, the IPCC
report is based on the consensus view of the hundreds of scientists
who make up the IPCC – and its been consistently true that some of
the most recent (and increasingly worrying) scientific findings have
not yet found enough support to make it into these major reports
which rely on near-unanimous agreement...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/09/whats-not-latest-terrifying-ipcc-report-much-much-much-more-terrifying-new-research">https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/09/whats-not-latest-terrifying-ipcc-report-much-much-much-more-terrifying-new-research</a><br>
- - - - - <br>
[In TheAtlantic]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/how-to-understand-the-uns-dire-new-climate-report/572356/">How
to Understand the UN's Dire New Climate Report</a></b><br>
It tries to find hope against a backdrop of failure.<br>
ROBINSON MEYER - OCT 9, 2018<br>
- - - -<br>
The report articulates what seems, from the vantage point of 2018,
like a best-case scenario for climate change. It describes what the
world will look like if it warms by only 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or
1.5 degrees Celsius, by the end of this century. Meeting that target
would require humanity to abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the
next decade or two: an economic transition so abrupt that, in the
IPCC's words, it "has no documented historic precedents."...<br>
- - - -<br>
The report articulates what seems, from the vantage point of 2018,
like a best-case scenario for climate change. It describes what the
world will look like if it warms by only 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or
1.5 degrees Celsius, by the end of this century. Meeting that target
would require humanity to abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the
next decade or two: an economic transition so abrupt that, in the
IPCC's words, it "has no documented historic precedents."...<br>
- - - -<br>
Nowhere are its prescriptions more glaring than around coal. By
2050, it warns that coal must generate no more than 7 percent of
global electricity. Today, coal generates about 40 percent of the
world's power.<br>
<br>
But more than 1,600 new coal plants are due to come online worldwide
in the next few decades, most under contract from Chinese companies.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has tried to create new
subsidies for coal companies. It has also moved to weaken or repeal
pollution regulations limiting airborne neurotoxins, as well those
reducing greenhouse-gas emissions--rules that attracted the ire of
coal companies...<br>
- - - -<br>
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, told me that
the report as a whole should be seen as a re-appraisal of where
we're heading as a planet. "It's like we had a medical issue. The
physician had diagnosed it. But now they're worried it might be
worse than we thought," she said. "So we go back and do a complete
work over, every type of test we can imagine."<br>
<br>
The new prognosis is stirring. A world that warms by 3.6
degrees--and not 2.7 degrees--will find that its problems
metastasize out of scale with that seemingly small difference. In
the hotter world, the number of people affected by water scarcity
will double. Twice as many corn crops will perish in the tropics.
The size of global fisheries will drop by 50 percent. And 99 percent
of the world's coral reefs will perish...<br>
- - - -<br>
"A lot of the reason it's been so challenging to turn the corner on
climate change is it will mean that some of the folks who are in
positions of power and privilege won't maintain that privilege,"
Field said. "We have a huge number of special interests that benefit
from making the transition slower rather than faster."<br>
<br>
Even lacking that clause, the new report might set the stage for the
next stage of the climate challenge. As every climate scientist will
tell you, the battle to prevent climate change entirely has already
been lost. But the battle to blunt its effects--to manage it, as
humanity manages the threats of hunger, poverty, war, disease, and
other afflictions, and to choose a better, cooler future--has just
begun.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/how-to-understand-the-uns-dire-new-climate-report/572356/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/how-to-understand-the-uns-dire-new-climate-report/572356/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[looking to the future]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vbJAFgX7g&t=74s">Fran
Ulmer: After the Arctic Ice Melts</a></b><br>
World Affairs<br>
Published on Jun 1, 2018<br>
Sea ice in the Arctic is getting thinner and thinner each year. As
the ice melts away, shipping lanes will expand and create new
opportunities for ships to use faster and more direct routes. Beyond
international trade, countries are eager to start development
projects and gain access to natural resources. We can see that
warmer temperatures will increase activity in the Arctic, but we
should also consider what this activity entails.<br>
<br>
Competition and conflict may arise as countries eye this region. No
other nation is more prepared for polar enterprises and protecting
untapped natural resources than Russia. The US is also interested in
this region for its oil reserves, though this has concerned Canada
due to environmental factors. These three nations, along with
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, are all part of the
Arctic Council. This governing body is responsible for ensuring the
region is safe by encouraging nations to reduce gas emissions and
protecting biodiversity. However, it seems these goals will be more
challenging as the Arctic becomes more accessible.<br>
<br>
How will member states of the Arctic ensure the region remains safe?
Should we expect a period of greater uncertainty as countries and
companies increase their presence and vie for space in the Arctic?
In terms of the value of untapped natural resources, will
development projects allow countries like Russia to gain a stronger
foothold in the world?<br>
<font size="-1">The Honorable Fran Ulmer, Chair of the US Arctic
Research Commission and current Visiting Professor at Stanford's
School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences, joins us for
a discussion on the challenges facing the Arctic region.<br>
SPEAKER: Fran Ulmer - Chair, United States Arctic Research
Commission</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vbJAFgX7g&t=74s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vbJAFgX7g&t=74s</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[methane]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbZwyMI4Vs">HFCs and
Methane Emissions are Growing Again</a></b><br>
Climate State<br>
Published on Aug 13, 2018<br>
2016 presentation overview of the science and the latest findings on
black carbon by Drew Shindell, Chair of the CCAC SAP and Professor
of Climate Science at Duke University, and A. R. Ravishankara,
Professor of Chemistry and Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State
University, who gives an overview of the latest findings on methane
and HFCs.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbZwyMI4Vs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbZwyMI4Vs</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Rand study shy about international politics]<br>
The Public Health Impacts of Gaza's Water Crisis<br>
Analysis and Policy Options<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2500/RR2515/RAND_RR2515.pdf">Read
Online </a><br>
Gaza has long had water and sanitation challenges, but today it is
in a state of emergency. Its dual water crisis combines a shortage
of potable water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene with a lack of
wastewater sanitation. As a result, over 108,000 cubic meters of
untreated sewage flow daily from Gaza into the Mediterranean Sea,
creating extreme public health hazards in Gaza, Israel, and Egypt.
While these problems are not new, rapidly deteriorating
infrastructure, strict limitations on the import of construction
materials and water pumps, and a diminished and unreliable energy
supply have accelerated the water crisis and exacerbated the
water-related health risks. Three wars between Israel and Hamas
since 2009 and intra-Palestinian rivalry between Hamas and Fatah
have further hindered the rehabilitation of Gaza's water and
sanitation sectors.<br>
- - -<br>
This report describes the relationship between Gaza's water problems
and its energy challenges and examines the implications of this
water crisis for public health. It reviews the current state of
water supply and water sanitation in Gaza, analyzes water-related
risks to public health in Gaza, and explains potential regional
public health risks for Israel and Egypt. The authors recommend a
number of steps to ameliorate the crisis and decrease the potential
for a regional public health disaster that take into consideration
current political constraints. The audience for this report includes
stakeholders involved in Gaza, including the Palestinian, Israeli,
and Egyptian governments, various international organizations and
nongovernmental organizations working on the ground in Gaza, and the
donor community seeking to rehabilitate Gaza.<br>
- - - <br>
<b>Key Findings</b><br>
Gaza's young and growing population lacks water not only for
drinking but also for hygiene and sanitation<br>
More than a quarter of all reported disease in Gaza is caused by
poor water quality and access.<br>
Chemical and biological contamination could lead to bacterial
(cholera, Salmonella, Shigella), parasitic (Giardia), and viral
(polio, viral meningitis) infections.<br>
If present trends continue, Gaza and the surrounding region are at
risk of a disease outbreak or another water-related public health
crisis.<br>
<b>Recommendations</b><br>
Increase the quantity and consistency of Gaza's electricity supply
through infrastructure and other investments such as advancing the
"161kV Line;" upgrading and expanding the electricity transmission
network to and inside Gaza; restoring the fuel storage tank at the
Gaza Power Plant and connecting it to a natural gas pipeline;
investing in solar energy; developing the Gaza Marine gas field;
increasing the supply of purchased power from Egypt; ensuring
consistent supply of electricity for the Khan Yunis Short-Term
Low-Volume desalination plant; and improving fee collection to cover
the ongoing cost of electricity.<br>
Increase Gaza's water supply and improve wastewater treatment,
including by increasing water purchases from Israel; expanding
desalination capacity; improving water storage and distribution
systems; investing in household and industrial wastewater treatment;
distributing chemicals and spare parts for household treatment
systems; constructing more wastewater treatment plants; using
treated wastewater to recharge the aquifer; repairing the wastewater
collection system, and connecting all of Gaza residents.<br>
Protect public health and promote hygiene and sanitation practices
by preventing and preparing for disease outbreaks (e.g., cholera
vaccinations and rehydration salt packets); maintaining basic health
services; promoting more-rigorous hygiene and sanitation education
in schools; and creating a regional pandemic task force to prevent a
disease outbreak and implement containment.<br>
Reduce implementation barriers and work within political differences
through creating a follow-up mechanism on donor pledges; increasing
funds for public health risk mitigation initiatives; relaxing
restrictions on access and movement; and identifying trusted third
parties to mediate political disputes over payments for water and
electricity.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2515.html">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2515.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[opinion from Kevin Anderson]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/09/what-does-science-demand-global-energy-transformation-focus-inequality-consumption">What
Does Science Demand? A Global Energy Transformation With Focus
on Inequality of Consumption</a></b><br>
Until human society is prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in
consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise
beyond 1.5 and 2C<br>
by Kevin Anderson<br>
The University of Manchester's Professor Kevin Anderson responds to
today's report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.<br>
<br>
The IPCC report meticulously lays out how the serious climate
impacts of 1.5C of warming are still far less destructive than those
for 2C. Sadly, the IPCC then fails, again, to address the profound
implications of reducing emissions in line with both 1.5 and 2C.
Dress it up however we may wish, climate change is ultimately a
rationing issue.<br>
<br>
The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards
the lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters – professors and
climate academics amongst them. Almost 50% of global carbon
emissions arise from the activities of around 10% of the global
population, increasing to 70% of emissions from just 20% of
citizens. Impose a limit on the per-capita carbon footprint of the
top 10% of global emitters, equivalent to that of an average
European citizen, and global emissions could be reduced by one third
in a matter of a year or two.<br>
<br>
<b>To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2C of warming requires
a transformation in the productive capacity of society,
reminiscent of the Marshall Plan.</b><br>
<br>
Ignoring this huge inequality in emissions, the IPCC chooses instead
to constrain its policy advice to fit neatly within the current
economic model. This includes, significant reliance on removal of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much later in the century, when
today's senior scientists and policy makers will be either retired
or dead. Conjuring up such futuristic 'negative emission
technologies' to help achieve the virtually impossible 1.5C target
is perhaps understandable, but such intergenerational buck-passing
also dominates the IPCC's 2C advice.<br>
<br>
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2C of warming requires a
transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of
the Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the
high-carbon lifestyles of the top 20% will need to shift rapidly to
deliver a fully decarbonised energy system. No more second or very
large homes, SUVs, business and first-class flights, or very high
levels of consumption. Instead, our economy should be building new
zero-energy houses, retrofitting existing homes, huge expansion of
public transport, and a 4-fold increase in (zero-carbon)
electrification.<br>
<br>
The Paris Agreement notes how it will take a little longer for
poorer countries to fully decarbonise, raising the bar still further
for the UK, USA and other wealthy nations. Even for 2C the maths
points to such nations moving to zero-carbon energy by 2035-2040,
with poorer nations following suit a decade later. For 1.5C, such
'real' 2C mitigation will need to be complemented with planetary
scale negative emissions. Whilst the IPCC's 1.5C report rightly
emphasises the urgent need to research these speculative
technologies, it continues to run scared of the economic elephant
dominating the room. Until the IPCC (and society more generally) are
prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption and hence
emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and 2C –
bequeathing future generations the climate chaos of 3C, 4C or even
higher.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/09/what-does-science-demand-global-energy-transformation-focus-inequality-consumption">https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/09/what-does-science-demand-global-energy-transformation-focus-inequality-consumption</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[History revealed in<b> bold text</b>]<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">This
Day in Climate History - October 10, 2009</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
October 10, 2009: In a New York Times opinion piece, Senators John
Kerry and Lindsey Graham express confidence that bipartisan
climate-change legislation will receive 60 votes in the Senate.
Graham would later disavow support for such legislation, setting the
stage for its demise in 2010.<br>
<blockquote><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Yes
We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)</a></b><br>
By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM - - <b>OCTOBER. 10, 2009</b><br>
Washington<br>
<br>
<b>CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress
passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly
approaching zero.</b> The divisions in our country on how to
deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough
new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause
global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost
to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant
about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.<br>
<br>
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States
cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are
also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate
legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy
future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and
create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce
pollution.<br>
<br>
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that
adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change
solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from
now -- with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.<br>
<br>
It's true that we come from different parts of the country and
represent different constituencies and that we supported different
presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents.
But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make
America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis
facing the world.<br>
<br>
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine
bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put
forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats
and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this
legislation. We're looking for a new beginning, informed by the
work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before
Congress.<br>
<br>
<b>First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
economy and national security.</b> That is why we are advocating
aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that
cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major
emitters through a market-based system that will provide both
flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance
without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs
overseas.<br>
<br>
<b>Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind
and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power</b>, our
single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power
needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are
to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison
cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of
nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that
maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure
financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage
serious investment in research and development to find solutions
to our nuclear waste problem.<br>
<br>
<b>Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get
serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil</b>. For
too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts
and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity
generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we
will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental
goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States
should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this
reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies
that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.<br>
<br>
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional
onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration -- work that was
started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any
exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive
manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.<br>
<br>
<b>Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas</b>.
China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in
clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs.
There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to
countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this
reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in
countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our
obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong
incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental
protections.<br>
<br>
<b>Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses --
and ultimately consumers -- from increases in energy prices</b>.
The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling
for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard
important industries while they make the investments necessary to
join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term
transition costs associated with any climate change legislation,
costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the
long-term gain will be enormous.<br>
<br>
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency
strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the
military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to
sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security.
In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and
poverty that could put our nation at risk.<br>
<br>
<b>Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not
pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration
will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new
regulations. </b>Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher
and they certainly will not include the job protections and
investment incentives we are proposing.<br>
<br>
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing
a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency
regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative
process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a
panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can
pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with
Congressional action.<br>
<br>
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put
America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to
sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that
the rest of the world join us in producing a new international
agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future
generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an
energy-independent nation.<br>
</blockquote>
John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey
Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.<br>
A version of this op-ed appears in print on October 11, 2009, on
Page WK11 of the New York edition with the headline: Yes We Can
(Pass Climate Change Legislation). <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html">Archive
of Daily Global Warming News</a> </i></font><i><br>
</i><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a></span><font
size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i><br>
</i></font></i></font><font size="+1"><i> <br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i>To receive daily
mailings - <a
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request">click
to Subscribe</a> </i></font>to news digest. </i></font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small> </small><small><b>** Privacy and Security: </b>
This is a text-only mailing that carries no images which may
originate from remote servers. </small><small> Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
</small><small> </small><br>
<small> By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used
for democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes. </small><br>
<small>To subscribe, email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
with subject: subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject:
unsubscribe</small><br>
<small> Also you</small><font size="-1"> may
subscribe/unsubscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a></font><small>
</small><br>
<small> </small><small>Links and headlines assembled and
curated by Richard Pauli</small><small> for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels.</small><small> L</small><small>ist
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>