<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>February 26, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<br>
[capital steps up - important analysis]<br>
<b>Can Corporations Stop Climate Change?</b><br>
Hosted by Michael Barbaro, produced by Michael Simon Johnson, Eric
Krupke and Lynsea Garrison, and edited by Larissa Anderson and Paige
Cowett<br>
One letter to executives around the world has prioritized climate
change on corporate agendas. But will this make a difference without
government regulation?<br>
Monday, February 24th, 2020<br>
<br>
In recent weeks, several of the largest and most profitable American
companies have introduced elaborate plans to combat climate change.
So why are they doing it now? And just how meaningful are their
plans?<br>
<blockquote>These companies aren't dumb. If Microsoft, Amazon and
Delta all know that what they're going to do on a very individual
basis can't fundamentally change the game, right -- we know that
they can't change the game by themselves -- what are they really
doing this for?<br>
<br>
Michael Barbaro<br>
And what's the answer, a little bit of altruism a little bit of
marketing?<br>
<br>
Andrew Ross Sorkin<br>
Probably all of the above. There's probably a little bit of
marketing. There's probably a little bit of maybe the investors
are going look at me differently. I think there are executives
that want to be leaders in this space. There's no question that
when Larry Fink wrote his letter or any of these companies thought
about their policies, they were responding to consumers. They were
responding to their employees. They were responding to investors.
But the real question is whether a group of companies unto
themselves can actually change the game. Whether their leadership
is going to force every other company to follow them, or whether
ultimately you need governments across the globe to create rules
that every company follows. And until and unless that happens, I
think there's going to be a lot of fair skepticism about what
these companies are doing and why they're doing it.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[JP Morgan paper -follow the money]<br>
<b>Special Report Risky business: the climate and the macroeconomy</b><br>
=Climate change is a slow-moving process, but it is no less
dangerous for that. It is likely to be one of the key defining
features of the<br>
coming decades. The longer action is delayed the more costly it will<br>
be to deal with the issues. Moreover, a delayed policy response<br>
opens us up to potentially catastrophic outcomes, which might be<br>
impossible to reverse.<br>
=This report examines climate change in three sections: the
mechanics of climate change; the impact of climate change; and the
response to climate change.<br>
=The mechanics of climate change considers the journey from human
activity to CO2 emissions, from CO2 emissions to atmospheric<br>
CO2 concentrations, from atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the<br>
global temperature and from the global temperature to the global<br>
climate. The climate system is complex, non-linear and dynamic.<br>
There is considerable inertia in the system so that emissions in the<br>
coming decades will continue to affect the climate for centuries to<br>
come in a way that is likely to be irreversible. Uncertainty is
endemic, not just about modal effects but also about the shape of
the<br>
probability distributions, especially how fat the tails are.<br>
=The impact of climate change is broad based covering GDP, the<br>
capital stock, health, mortality, water stress, famine,
displacement,<br>
migration, political stress, conflict, biodiversity and species
survival. Uncertainty is endemic here as well, trying to evaluate
the impact of a climate that the earth hasn't seen for many millions
of<br>
years. Empirical estimates based on the variability of the climate
in<br>
recent decades likely massively underestimate the effects.<br>
=The response to climate change should be motivated not only by<br>
central estimates of outcomes but also by the likelihood of extreme<br>
events (from the tails of the probability distribution). We cannot<br>
rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is<br>
threatened.<br>
=To contain the change in the climate, global net emissions need to<br>
reach zero by the second half of this century. Although much is<br>
happening at the micro level, it is hard to envisage enough change<br>
taking place at the macro level without a global carbon tax.<br>
=But, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Developed economies,
who are responsible for most of the cumulative emissions,<br>
worry about competitiveness and jobs. Meanwhile, Emerging and<br>
Developing economies, who are responsible for much less of the<br>
cumulative emissions, still see carbon intensive activity as a way
of<br>
raising living standards. It is a global problem but no global
solution is in sight..<br>
read or download the 22 page paper at:<br>
JPM_Risky_business__the_climate_and_the_macroeconomy_2020-01-14_3230707.pdf.pdf<br>
- - -<br>
[Beckwith video discussion]<br>
Climate Catastrophe Warning in J.P.Morgan's: Risky business: the
climate and the macroeconomy: 1of2<br>
Feb 24, 2020 <br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
"...it is clear that the Earth is on an unsustainable trajectory.
Something will have to change at some point if the human race is
going to survive."<br>
Economic Research Report: J.P.Morgan, Jan 14, 2020 titled "Risky
Business: the climate and the macroeconomy" (Google it!)<br>
"The New York bank (J.P.Morgan) is one of 33 powerful financial
institutions to have provided an estimated total of $1.9 Trillion to
the fossil fuel sector between 2016 and 2018."<br>
Clearly, the money and power in society is pushing us at ever faster
rates towards a barren Earth...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzNpd_nKx-8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzNpd_nKx-8</a><br>
- - -<br>
[Second segment]<br>
Forward J.P.Morgan's report: "Risky business: the climate and the
macroeconomy" to Climate Deniers<br>
I continue to chat about the J.P.Morgan Special Report titled "Risky
business: the climate and the macroeconomy". <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://rebellion.earth/wp/wp-content">https://rebellion.earth/wp/wp-content</a>...<br>
It is one thing for a treehugger or climate scientist to talk about
our impending climate catastrophe, but another thing entirely for
the largest investment bank funding fossil fuels to report using
these dire terms. Thus, I highly recommend you forward this video
and link to politicians and your climate denier friends.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKc_3Z0rfl8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKc_3Z0rfl8</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[US military]<br>
<b>"All hell breaking loose": How the Pentagon is planning for
climate change</b><b><br>
</b>It's good that the US military is thinking about climate change
-- but it's nowhere near enough.<br>
- - -<br>
A new book, aptly titled All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's
Perspective on Climate Change, reveals the Pentagon is far more
worried about the potential impacts of climate change than most
probably realize. The good news is that it's doing a lot to develop
ways of coping with that uncertain future. The bad news is that it
still may not be enough...<br>
- - -<br>
Climate change is a threat in their eyes because it's going to
degrade their ability to deal with conventional military problems.
It's going to create chaos, violence, mass migrations, pandemics,
and state collapse around the world, particularly in vulnerable
areas like Africa and the Middle East.<br>
<br>
At the same time, the military's own bases are very vulnerable to
the effects of climate change because of rising seas and forest
fires, storms, and floods.<br>
<br>
Climate change, then, represents a threat to American armed forces
because it's going to interfere with their ability to carry out
their job. And therefore, it's a threat to national security...<br>
- - -<br>
The military is starting to adjust based on rising heat. The
predictions are that temperatures in the Middle East before very
long will routinely reach around 100 degrees Fahrenheit for long
stretches during daylight hours in the summer.<br>
<br>
We can't send American troops into those conditions carrying 60 to
70 pounds on their backs along with heavy clothing and protective
gear, too. That's lethal for anybody who goes outside in those
conditions.<br>
<br>
The military therefore has to rethink its equipment. Even some
helicopters struggle in those temperatures!<br>
<br>
Another adjustment that's been happening -- and here, the Marines
have taken a leadership role -- is how to deploy forces in areas
where there's no water, and where supplying them with oil is very
dangerous.<br>
<br>
This was experienced in Afghanistan, where the most dangerous
mission you could be assigned to was to escort convoys of oil
tankers to remote posts in the countryside. Those convoys were
always ambushed by the Taliban. The same thing happened in Iraq.<br>
<br>
So the Marines in particular have been seeking how to make their
equipment and bases less fossil fuel-dependent. The military even
developed folding solar arrays that you can carry in your backpack
and then put over your tents to power your batteries for your
radios, and make them independent of resources that otherwise would
have to be carried under hazardous conditions...<br>
- - -<br>
The biggest problem, I think, is that none of these important
initiatives to deal with climate change are happening fast enough.
An awful lot of US military bases are highly exposed and are at
great risk from the effects of climate change. Virtually every East
Coast naval base is eventually going to be underwater, and nobody is
willing to say out loud what the cost of relocation is going to
be...<br>
- - -<br>
What happens when you have states collapsing, multiple wars
happening in the Middle East and Africa and South America, and many
hurricanes and disasters in the United States all at the same time?
The US military doesn't have enough troops or resources to both
defend the United States and to address all of these foreign
catastrophes. That's what I call an all-hell-breaking-loose
scenario, and the Pentagon knows very well that US forces aren't
prepared or capable to deal with it...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/2020/2/24/21145687/climate-change-usa-military-book-interview">https://www.vox.com/2020/2/24/21145687/climate-change-usa-military-book-interview</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[State government failure]<br>
<b>Oregon Republicans Disappear for Another Climate Vote</b><br>
After leaving the state last year to shut down a climate change
proposal, Oregon senators were absent again on Monday.<br>
By Mike Baker<br>
Feb. 24, 2020<br>
<br>
SEATTLE -- Less than a year after Oregon's Senate Republicans fled
the state with passports in hand and hid out in Idaho cabins to
avoid voting on a climate change bill, they have disappeared again.<br>
<br>
With Democrats seeking to advance a new proposal to cap the state's
greenhouse gas emissions, most Republicans refused to attend a floor
session on Monday morning, and a search by the Senate chamber's
sergeant-at-arms failed to find them.<br>
<br>
That left the Senate with just 19 members on the floor -- one short
of a quorum needed to vote -- and threatened to derail a range of
bills in the final two weeks of the state's legislative session.<br>
- - -<br>
At the time, Ms. Brown bemoaned the walkout as an indicator that the
divisiveness of federal politics had spilled down to the state
level. On Monday, she said the Republicans' "boycott" was
undemocratic, calling on them to show up to "make their voices heard
rather than shut down state government."<br>
- - -<br>
"Serving in the Legislature is a great honor," she said. "Walking
out on the job is dishonorable and disrespectful."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/republicans-oregon-climate.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/republicans-oregon-climate.html</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[positive sea change]<br>
<b>Great Australian Bight: Equinor abandons controversial oil
drilling plans</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51623764">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51623764</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[clips for feeding flames of financial anxiety]<br>
<b>Climate change and soaring flood insurance premiums could trigger
another mortgage crisis</b><br>
Officials fear "a huge foreclosure crisis" from FEMA flood insurance
reforms.<br>
By Jie Jenny Zou - Feb 25, 2020<br>
[from a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity and
WNYC/Gothamist.]<br>
<br>
NEW YORK CITY -- When Hurricane Sandy hit in 2012, Thalia Panton
watched in disbelief as floodwaters careened down her quiet,
tree-lined street in Canarsie, Brooklyn. Sparks flew from downed
electrical lines as the rapids rose past her thighs.<br>
<br>
The water receded as quickly as it appeared. But the damage was
done. When the skies cleared, Panton was left with $60,000 in
losses. The basement had flooded, damaging musical instruments her
husband and son use for their gigs as well as electrical equipment
that kept the house running. Panton and her neighbors didn't get
flood insurance until after Sandy because Canarsie wasn't considered
a major flood risk at the time of the storm.<br>
<br>
Seven years later, as even more communities reckon with rising sea
levels and catastrophic storms, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency is encouraging homeowners and renters to "buy as much flood
insurance as they can." The agency provides more than 96 percent of
all flood coverage through its National Flood Insurance Program,
making it the sole option for most Americans.<br>
<br>
But FEMA is revamping the debt-ridden program to make it operate
like a private insurer, raising concerns that coverage could become
unaffordable for many higher-risk areas across the country. Agency
officials have not said how many Americans could be affected.
Private insurers champion the reforms as a way to modernize the
NFIP, but the industry also stands to profit. Insurers are now
competing directly with FEMA. Companies have also sold the agency on
expensive deals with dubious benefits for taxpayers...<br>
- - -<br>
"They've been kicking the can for almost two years now," Jainey
Bavishi, director of the New York City Mayor's Office of Resiliency,
said of the standstill over flood insurance. Congress has been
unable to reach consensus on the direction of the program, which
some see as a lifeline and others as a liability. The NFIP has been
temporarily extended 15 times since 2017, most recently in December,
in lieu of a bill spelling out the program's future. Previous
attempts have been jarring: Congress tried to reform the NFIP in
2012, only to renege on most of those changes just two years
later...<br>
- - -<br>
"WE WILL BE UNDERWATER FINANCIALLY, LONG BEFORE WE ARE UNDERWATER
PHYSICALLY."<br>
In 2015, New York City officials appealed new FEMA flood maps that
would drastically expand high-risk areas, making flood insurance
mandatory and more expensive for thousands of New Yorkers. FEMA is
working with the city to finalize new maps, but it's unclear what
they will look like and how long the process will take.<br>
<br>
Risk Rating 2.0, an initiative that FEMA began working on in 2017
and plans to implement in October 2021, could have further effects
on costs here and in other higher-risk parts of the country. Under
the initiative, premiums will be priced to fully reflect flood risk,
a move FEMA says would make the NFIP more financially sound but
experts worry could make coverage less accessible. The revamp is
part of a long-simmering effort to transform the program so it
operates more like a private insurance company.<br>
- - -<br>
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group,
supports FEMA's pricing shift as a way to communicate risk to the
public, but only if premiums are made affordable through some kind
of program and the agency ramps up investment in flood prevention.<br>
<br>
"You can have as much insurance as you want -- the water doesn't
care," said Anna Weber, a policy analyst for the group. NFIP
shouldn't punish vulnerable communities for living in risky areas,
especially when racist real estate practices like redlining have
long steered people of color into undesirable neighborhoods, Weber
said. "Flood insurance has the potential to be the linchpin in our
climate policy. Right now, it's a liability."...<br>
- - -<br>
Much of what FEMA has been doing to recast its flood insurance
program in recent years follows recommendations from the insurance
industry. If the NFIP operated more like a private insurer, upping
its rates, it would be easier for companies to compete for the less
risky and more profitable policies they wanted. The NFIP would also
pay for deals the industry has been trying to strike with the
program for years.<br>
<br>
Reinsurance, for instance. Every year, to avoid being overwhelmed by
claims, private insurers like State Farm transfer some of their risk
to reinsurers like Munich Re, handing over a cut of premiums in
exchange.<br>
<br>
The Reinsurance Association of America lobbied Congress in 2012 and
2014 to confirm FEMA's authority to purchase reinsurance and to take
out catastrophe bonds, a newer form of risk transfer. "Cat bonds"
are high-stakes gambles that Wall Street players like hedge funds
make on Mother Nature. If a storm devastates, investors could lose
their cash, which goes toward paying claims. But if a storm
underwhelms, investors keep their cash and take a hefty profit,
leaving insurers to foot bills on their own.<br>
<br>
Consumer advocates warned that a government agency entering into
these deals amounted to easy Wall Street profits that would cost
taxpayers money. Robert Hunter, a former NFIP risk manager and Texas
insurance regulator, said reinsurance makes "no sense" for FEMA,
which can borrow from the Treasury at low interest rates set by the
federal government.<br>
<br>
By comparison, reinsurance prices are set by private companies that
need to turn a profit and tend to raise rates after major disasters.
And countries that have relied on cat bonds have found the deals
don't always pay out as expected.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, Congress urged FEMA to see if reinsurance and cat
bonds could work for the NFIP. For answers, the agency turned to Guy
Carpenter, a company that brokers those very deals.<br>
<br>
The resulting FEMA report in August 2015 found reinsurance would be
more expensive than borrowing from the Treasury but could encourage
private insurers to start competing with the NFIP, offering flood
policies of their own. This could help the federal government reduce
its share of flood risk over time as private insurers step up, the
report found.<br>
<br>
Months earlier, Guy Carpenter unveiled a new specialty practice to
sell insurance products to big government clients to "relieve the
burden on taxpayers" -- meaning the company stood to profit if FEMA
took its recommendation.<br>
<br>
That's exactly what happened.<br>
- - - <br>
But it's not clear whether the benefits outweigh the costs. FEMA has
paid roughly $886 million in premiums to the private insurance
industry so far. This doesn't include additional millions in
commissions and fees FEMA has paid to a long list of contractors
like Guy Carpenter to execute each deal, which the agency declined
to fully disclose.<br>
<br>
In the four years FEMA has purchased reinsurance, it has collected
payment once. The agency recouped $1 billion in 2017 after
hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Neither of the agency's two cat
bonds to date has resulted in a payout.<br>
<br>
David Birnbaum, executive director of the Center for Economic
Justice, argued that FEMA's deals are about political expediency,
not taxpayers. "If I can operate the NFIP using reinsurance and not
have to go to the Treasury to borrow more money, that's
accomplishing two things," he said. "It means I don't have to
involve Congress, number one, and number two, I don't have to
publicize that we're losing money."...<br>
- - -<br>
"There's no incentive for insurers to encourage to build back
better," O'Hare said. Similar issues plague NFIP policyholders in
the US.<br>
<br>
The mismatch speaks to a larger issue of who is responsible for
protecting communities from future disasters. By recommending that
property owners buy as much insurance as they can, FEMA puts the
onus on individuals. But that distracts from what experts say is
really needed to reduce flood risk: large-scale government action.<br>
<br>
Sitting in her neighbor's living room one autumn night, Thalia
Panton and other Canarsie homeowners commiserated about their
uncertain futures and the little government support they've
received. Federal officials recently greenlit construction of a
six-mile-long sea barrier along the eastern shore of Staten Island,
another area in New York City hit hard during Sandy. But discussions
about a far less extensive barrier to protect communities like
Canarsie are in their infancy.<br>
<br>
"It's been seven long years," Panton said, "and not a lot has
happened."<br>
<br>
Jie Jenny Zou is a reporter with the Center for Public Integrity, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in
Washington, DC.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21146896/climate-change-fema-flood-insurance-mortgage-crisis">https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21146896/climate-change-fema-flood-insurance-mortgage-crisis</a><br>
- - <br>
[Archive from Nov. 2019]<br>
<b>FEMA postpones flood insurance rate revamp amid backlash</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/fema-postpones-flood-insurance-rate-revamp-amid-backlash-067505">https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/fema-postpones-flood-insurance-rate-revamp-amid-backlash-067505</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
February 26, 2003 </b></font><br>
The New York Times reports:<br>
<blockquote>"A panel of experts has strongly criticized the Bush
administration's proposed research plan on the risks of global
warming, saying that it 'lacks most of the elements of a strategic
plan' and that its goals cannot be achieved without far more money
than the White House has sought for climate research.<br>
<br>
"The 17 experts, in a report issued yesterday, said that without
substantial changes, the administration's plan would be unlikely
to accomplish the aim laid out by President Bush in several
speeches: to help decision makers and the public determine how
serious the problem is so that they can make clear choices about
how to deal with it."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/us/panel-of-experts-faults-bush-plan-to-study-climate.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/us/panel-of-experts-faults-bush-plan-to-study-climate.html</a><br>
<br>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries
no images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you 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><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>