<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 28, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[California leads]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article220664720.html">'Wrong
way to go, Donald.' Brown rips Trump over cars, climate change</a></b><br>
BY DALE KASLER - October 26, 2018 <br>
California officials Friday launched their formal opposition to the
Trump administration's effort to roll back ambitious rules limiting
greenhouse gas emissions from trucks and cars, saying the
president's plan will cost American consumers in the long run.<br>
<br>
"Wrong way to go, Donald," Gov. Jerry Brown said, speaking to
reporters at an R Street overlook near I-5. "Get with it. Bad, to
put it in the vernacular."<br>
<br>
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, said
the state filed 415 pages of testimony attacking the "completely
unjustified and illegal proposal" by President Donald Trump's
administration. Twenty other attorneys general filed testimony
against the Trump plan.<br>
<br>
It's the latest salvo in a battle between California and Washington
over greenhouse gas emissions, electric vehicles and fuel-economy
standards. The state has already sued the Trump administration over
the issue.<br>
Tailpipe emissions account for 28 percent of greenhouse gases, and
since 2009 the Air Resources Board and the Obama administration
agreed to a plan to gradually scale back carbon emissions, year by
year, on new cars.<br>
<br>
The Trump plan is also a direct assault of sorts on California's
unique ability to set stricter-than-the-nation guidelines on air
pollution, as spelled out in the 1973 federal Clean Air Act. The
Trump administration has said it wants to revoke California's
authority.<br>
<br>
It also wants to thwart California's "advanced clean car"
regulations, which will require automakers to dramatically increase
sales of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in the state, from
about 420,000 on the road today to 1 million in 2025.<br>
<br>
California officials said they're ready to defend the state's
authority to impose strict limitations on carbon emissions...<br>
<font size="-1">more at -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article220664720.html">https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article220664720.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[The Tyee]<br>
<b><a
href="https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/10/26/Moral-Rot-Fossil-Fuels/">The
Moral Rot of Fossil Fuels</a></b><br>
Petroleum's corrupting influence is on wretched display more than
ever before.<br>
By Mitchell Anderson <br>
In case anyone needed a refresher on the moral rot associated with
fossil fuels, this has been a hell of a month. Washington Post
columnist and Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi, a vocal critic of the
reigning oil oligarchy of Saudi Arabia, was disappeared in the Saudi
embassy in Turkey on Oct. 2, possibly with the help of a bone saw.<br>
<br>
This gruesome murder was followed by a series of laughably
implausible statements about what happened by a regime apparently
accustomed to saying and doing whatever they want, confident that
the rest of the world is so beholden to their oil they will likely
do little. In this one aspect the Saudis are completely correct.<br>
<br>
The House of Saud is almost singlehandedly responsible for the
largest famine in the world, perpetrated by blockade on the
neighbouring country of Yemen. Meanwhile the U.S. and Canada have
been arming Saudi Arabia for years now, and Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau has egregiously referred to Canadian-built heavy assault
vehicles equipped with 105-millimetre cannons as "jeeps."<br>
<br>
Former prime minister Stephen Harper personally assured the Saudi
king that Canada would keep the details of the $15-billion arms deal
secret, a capitulation continued by the Trudeau government, which
has so far ignored calls to cancel the sale so obviously at odds
with core Canadian values. Fourteen million people now face
starvation in Yemen as Canada and the global community continue to
politely tolerate the heinous adventures of the largest supplier of
oil.<br>
<br>
Much has also been made of the alleged reforms of Crown Prince
Mohammad bin Salman, such as allowing women to drive cars in the
21st century. Less well publicized is the subsequent arrest of many
women activists in the kingdom, some of whom may face the death
penalty by public beheading, as one does in a civilized society.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile the corrupting influence of petroleum is on wretched
display elsewhere in the world. Venezuela is endowed with the
largest proven oil reserves and unsurprisingly is ranked as one of
most corrupt nations on Earth. Many in the impoverished population
have been driven to eating their pets or even zoo animals. Up to
four million people, or about 10 per cent of the population, have
been forced to flee a collapsing economy and inflation rates of
nearly 100 per cent per month.<br>
<br>
Russia has the largest reserves of natural gas in the world and, in
spite of President Vladimir Putin's aspirations to global greatness,
his nation is ranked by Transparency International as only
marginally less corrupt than Haiti. Russian fossil fuel revenues
have funded a storied ecosystem of billionaire oligarchs and
organized crime whose most pressing apparent problem is laundering
their money into Western banks so it can be enjoyed elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Here in Canada oil continues to impair our collective ability to
respond in a principled way to the largest threat facing the planet.
The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change assured anyone brave enough to read it that we have about 12
years to drastically decarbonize our economy before most of the
horsemen of the apocalypse saddle up for a little ride.<br>
<br>
Apparently three election cycles away from Armageddon is still far
too far into the future to engage our political machinery. In fact
Conservative parties throughout the nation have seized on the
strategy of actively fighting climate action as the best way to
achieve power. Even formerly principled leaders such as Alberta
Premier Rachel Notley now genuflect before the oil industry,
fighting a pitched battle on its behalf to export unprocessed
Canadian resources, often no further offshore than price-gouging
refineries in Puget Sound.<br>
<br>
One of the reasons it is so difficult to trigger political change on
carbon reduction is the vast amount of dark money spent by the
fossil fuel industry to undermine the credibility of climate
science. This has been both an odious and effective investment with
only 45 per cent of Americans in 2015 believing climate change is a
very serious problem.<br>
<br>
It is undeniable that cheap, abundant energy has lifted vast numbers
of people out of poverty and contributed to a lifestyle of agency
and affluence unimaginable in the recent past. However, these
hard-won gains are soon to be swept aside by the impacts of mounting
levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Climate refugees are already
pouring into many parts of the world and a credible case can be made
that climate change contributed to the civil war in Syria.<br>
<br>
Having the dominant source of energy in the form of a finite
resource largely held in private hands is a recipe for ongoing
corruption, war and inaction on climate. While a rapid move towards
renewables is already underway, this is largely propelled by the
profit motive and disruptive technologies. Where is the bold action
from democratic institutions?<br>
<br>
If anything, governments throughout the world remain part of the
problem rather than the solution, contributing over $5 trillion in
subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, the equivalent of 6.5 per cent
of global GDP. Here in Canada, $3.3 billion of your tax dollars are
shelled out to oil and gas companies every year – the highest
economic proportion within the G7. This generous largess also does
not count the $4.5 billion in public money recently splurged on the
Trans Mountain Pipeline or the additional $7 billion to complete the
planned upgrade.<br>
<br>
Ottawa's much touted carbon pricing scheme is a long overdue step in
the right direction but will initially collect less money from
polluters than the public giveaways flowing in the opposite
direction.<br>
<br>
The tide is beginning to turn. A recent report shows that renewable
energy has now pulled even with the economic might of fossil fuels,
accounting for $4 trillion in global trade. In addition to not
undermining life itself, a future based on distributed renewable
energy enjoys many other positives, such as not producing murderous
regimes or contributing to famines.<br>
<br>
Powerful vested interests will fight this transition tooth and nail.
Elected leaders will look to public opinion on whether or not to
act. Our future and our morality hang in the balance<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/10/26/Moral-Rot-Fossil-Fuels/">https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/10/26/Moral-Rot-Fossil-Fuels/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[life-support matters most]<br>
Wealth Matters<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/your-money/climate-change-investment-strategy.html">3
Ways to Create a Climate Change Investment Strategy</a></b><br>
By Paul Sullivan<br>
Oct. 26, 2018<br>
The United Nations released a sobering report on climate change this
month, stating that the Earth is warming faster than even scientists
thought and that without far-reaching action, the planet is likely
to warm to a dangerous level by 2040.<br>
- - - -<br>
"When you lay out what the challenge is, you're in a better position
to attack it," said Stephen M. Liberatore, a fixed-income portfolio
manager at Nuveen who manages $9 billion with an environmental,
social and governance mandate.<br>
<br>
"A report like that lays out the solutions," he said. "If we need $2
trillion to invest to save the planet, here's what we need to do. I
think it allows people to see what they need to do to accomplish
their goals."<br>
- - -<br>
There are two main approaches to creating a climate change
investment strategy. One is investing in alternative energy. This
can be done in a variety of areas, including solar, wind or
geothermal production and distribution, or companies that make the
infrastructure, like battery cells that power electric cars.<br>
<br>
The other way is what some call climate-proofing a portfolio. The
premise is that a warmer Earth will create economic disruption and
that companies need to prepare for this.<br>
- - <br>
Here are three ways to consider climate change as a criterion for
making investments:<br>
<b>Tap public markets for green investing</b><br>
Investing in publicly traded equity and debt is an easy way to
express a view on climate change. And their availability, along with
the increasing number and size of mutual funds with a focus on the
environment, offer plenty of choices.<br>
Yet these investments, like any other, carry risk. "You still have
to do your homework," said Lloyd Kurtz, head of social impact
investing for Wells Fargo Private Bank. "If you buy an expensive
stock with bad fundamentals, it could be green but it's still going
to perform badly."<br>
That was the case with many early solar investments and the
selections that early green energy funds made, Mr. Kurtz said. But
he said the case for renewable energy had been bolstered by
companies, like Apple and Google, that adopted these sources to
power their operations in the United States.<br>
- - -<br>
<b>The debt market has developed to a level that there are offerings
for retail investors.</b><br>
Louise Herrle, managing director and head of socially responsible
investing at Incapital, which underwrites bond offerings, said she
had seen an increased interest from baby boomers who want a
portfolio aligned with their values. This could mean offerings from
the World Bank to fund water projects or bonds like the one from
Toyota.<br>
<br>
"Retail is going to drive this," she said. "They want to put their
money where their mouth is. People are talking about the financial
return and the social return."<br>
Seek companies expanding responsible business<br>
<br>
Constructing sustainable buildings is a major source of green
investment, as are wind farms and solar arrays. But there are plenty
of companies in a middle ground, working to retrofit buildings or
using alternative energy to add to existing power sources.<br>
<br>
Kevin Walenta, who manages Fidelity's select environment and
alternative energy portfolio, said he followed companies that saved
energy in more traditional ways. These companies, like Ingersoll
Rand, Lennox International, Honeywell and Johnson Controls, install
efficient lighting or heating and cooling systems in commercial
buildings. The result is significantly less energy consumption,
higher green ratings for a building and returns in just two or three
years.<br>
<br>
Mr. Walenta said he looked at both parts of investing, the
environmental impact and the total return.<br>
<br>
"I am looking for the companies that are driving environmental
change but have a durable business model, good returns, positive
cash flow and strong balance sheets," he said. "Within the context
of environmental change, I want them to drive profits over long
periods of time."<br>
<br>
Another area for investors is electrical utilities, he said. In
regions like Southern California and Arizona, the cost of solar
energy makes it competitive with traditional energy. The same, he
said, holds true for wind power in parts of the Midwest like
Oklahoma.<br>
<br>
"A decade ago, they weren't the best investments because you had
significant premium for a wind turbine or a solar panel relative to
the other options, like natural gas and coal," Mr. Walenta said.
"Today, that difference is nonexistent."<br>
<br>
Such strategies aim to rebut the common belief that investing with
an environmental focus reduces returns. There are examples of
inferior investments made to achieve a social good, but there are
companies focused on green initiatives that are profitable and may
be more so as climate change intensifies.<br>
<br>
"There are three main misperceptions that I talk to every investor
about: You give up performance to be responsible investors,
responsible investing isn't mainstream, and you can't make an impact
in public market securities," Mr. Liberatore said.<br>
<br>
<b>Look to Asia for a big impact</b><br>
Its decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement was big
news, but the United States' pollution of the environment has stayed
roughly consistent over the past 25 years, and Europe has decreased
its carbon levels. The big polluters have been countries in Asia,
China in particular.<br>
<br>
Vivek Tanneeru, portfolio manager of the Matthews Asia ESG Fund,
said that 85 percent of the growth in emissions had happened in
Asia, and that China had accounted for 61 percent of that growth.<br>
<br>
On the positive side, he said, the solar panels that China installed
in the first nine months of 2017 exceeded all the solar panels in
the United States up to 2016.<br>
<br>
"It tells you the Chinese government has the political will to do
this," Mr. Tanneeru said. "Anyone who is serious about addressing
climate change needs to begin in Asia to have any global impact."<br>
<br>
His investment focus is not in renewable energy. That industry, and
solar panels in particular, has not had a great track record over
the past decade, largely because of government support and low
barriers to entry, which led to oversupply.<br>
<br>
Mr. Tanneeru said he was focused more on battery technology, which
is produced almost entirely in Asia. Tesla uses Panasonic battery
cells, BMW's i3 runs on Samsung technology, and GM used batteries
from LG Chemical. It's also an area, he noted, that has high
barriers to entry.<br>
<br>
Another climate strategy in Asia is investing in the companies that
run high-speed rail networks, like MTR in Hong Kong. In a decade,
China went from zero to 125,000 kilometers of high-speed rail,
making living outside polluted cities like Shanghai a possibility.<br>
- - - -<br>
Regardless of the investment type, most investors suffer from
home-country bias, which is a tendency to invest more where they
live even if concentrating their money there increases their risk.
The same holds true for climate change investing, a fact that seems
baffling given that by definition, rising temperatures are a global
problem.<br>
"The U.S. has walked out of the Paris climate accord, but all of
Asia is in," Mr. Tanneeru said. "There's a lack of appreciation of
Asia's leadership in addressing these challenges. That's the big
constraint in my mind."<br>
<font size="-1">more at -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/your-money/climate-change-investment-strategy.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/your-money/climate-change-investment-strategy.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[memo language from 53 years ago]<br>
[<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf">Nixon
library memo from 1969 refers to 1965 memo to LBJ</a></b>]<br>
THE WHITE HOUSE - September 17, 1969<br>
FOR JOHN EHRLICHMAN<br>
<blockquote><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf">As
with so many of the more interesting environmental questions,</a><br>
we really don't have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon<br>
dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a
problem,<br>
and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the
imagination<br>
of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.<br>
<br>
<b>The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has</b><b><br>
</b><b>the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02
content is</b><b><br>
</b><b>normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to
introduce</b><b><br>
</b><b>instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the
turn of the</b><b><br>
</b><b>century several persons raised the question whether this
would</b><b><br>
</b><b>change the temperature of the atmosphere. </b><b><br>
</b><b><br>
</b><b>Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more
evidence </b><b><br>
</b><b>has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly
agreed that</b><b><br>
</b><b>the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase
the average </b><b><br>
</b><b>temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees
Fahrenheit. This in turn</b><b><br>
</b><b>could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New
York.</b><b><br>
</b><b>Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on
Seattle.</b><br>
<br>
It is entirely possible that there will be countervailing effects.
For<br>
example, an increase of dust in the atmosphere would tend to lower<br>
temperatures, and might offset the C02 effect. Similarly, it is<br>
possible to conceive fairly mammoth man-made efforts to
countervail<br>
the C02 rise. (E. g., stop burning fossil fuels. )<br>
<br>
In any event, I would think this is a subject that the
Administration<br>
ought to get involved with. It is a natural for NATO. Perhaps the<br>
first order of business is to begin a worldwide monitoring system.<br>
At present, I believe only the United States is doing any serious<br>
monitoring, and we have only one or two stations.<br>
<br>
Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this, as does also the
estimable<br>
Bob White, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau. (Teddy White's
brother.) <br>
The Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science
Advisory<br>
Committee reported at length on the subject in 1965. I attach
their<br>
conclusions. <br>
</blockquote>
Daniel p. Moynihan<br>
Attachment
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Revelle1965AtmosphericCarbonDioxide.pdf">https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Revelle1965AtmosphericCarbonDioxide.pdf</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf">https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b>This Day in Climate History - October 28, 2005 -
from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
October 28, 2005: The New York Times reports:<br>
<blockquote>"A sudden interruption in oil supplies sent prices and
profits skyrocketing, prompting Exxon's chief executive to call a
news conference right after his company announced that it had
chalked up record earnings. <br>
<br>
'I am not embarrassed,' he said. 'This is no windfall.'<br>
<br>
"That was January 1974, a few months after Arab oil producers cut
back on supplies and imposed their short-lived embargo on exports
to the United States. Oil executives, including J. K. Jamieson,
Exxon's chief executive at the time, were put on the defensive,
forced to justify their soaring profits while the nation was
facing its first energy crisis. <br>
<br>
"Three decades later, their successors are again facing
contentions that oil companies are making too much money and have
failed to expand production. <br>
<br>
"Politicians and other critics are asking why the industry allowed
its refining capacity to tighten. <br>
<br>
"Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, said yesterday that
its third-quarter net income jumped 75 percent, to $9.92 billion.
Its profit in the first nine months of this year - $25.42 billion
- already equals its full-year earnings for 2004. This year's
sales, which topped $100 billion in the last quarter, are expected
to exceed those of Wal-Mart.<br>
<br>
"Another oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell, reported a 68 percent jump
in profits yesterday, to $9.03 billion. Chevron is expected to
post a profit of more than $4 billion today.<br>
<br>
"This year is shaping up as an exceptionally lucrative one for the
oil industry, thanks to strong global demand, tight supplies and
high prices for oil and natural gas. While the idea that the Bush
administration was considering imposing a windfall profits tax was
knocked down yesterday by officials, longstanding resentments
against Big Oil are resurfacing and could end up imposing some
additional burdens on the industry. <br>
<br>
"The sense that government should step in to curb the phenomenal
wealth and power often enjoyed by oil companies goes back to Exxon
Mobil's corporate ancestor from the late 19th century, the
Rockefeller oil trust known as Standard Oil.<br>
<br>
"Today, Republicans and Democrats alike, aware of the politically
sensitive issue of high energy prices, are putting increasing
pressure on the oil and gas industry to return some of its
profits. The ideas include forcing the industry to invest in more
refining capacity, to increase inventories to cushion energy
shocks, or to provide money directly to the government program
that helps low-income people pay heating bills."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/business/28oil.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/business/28oil.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print</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>