<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><i><font size="+1"><b>March 27, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[aid to understanding]<br>
<b>The Analogy Between Covid-19 and Climate Change Is Eerily Precise</b><br>
First deny the problem, then say the solution is too expensive? The
playbook here is all too familiar.<br>
GILAD EDELMANIDEAS - 3.25.2020<br>
<br>
The parallel to climate change, in other words, was even tighter
than I realized.<br>
<br>
"We went through the stages of climate change denial in the matter
of a week," said Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at the University
of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada, who studies how misinformation
spreads. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science who has studied the
origins of climate disinformation, spelled out the pattern in an
email: "First, one denies the problem, then one denies its severity,
and then one says it is too difficult or expensive to fix, and/or
that the proposed solution threatens our freedom."<br>
<br>
These strategies, Oreskes explained, can exist side by side,
depending on the context. The crudest skeptics, like the
snowball-wielding senator from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, still deny the
phenomenon itself: Humans aren't warming the planet, look how cold
it is outside! More sophisticated players, confronting a tidal wave
of scientific data, may accept that the Earth is warming, but they
argue that the ill effects are overstated and incommensurate with
the costs of aggressive action. As a Wall Street Journal op-ed from
2017 put it, the economic damage one might expect from climate
change "does not justify policies that cost more than 0.1 percentage
point of growth."<br>
<br>
Now we're faced with the threat of another global catastrophe
arising from the clash of nature and modern human activity. As with
climate change, the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic are
difficult to predict with confidence. As with climate change, the
uncertainty interval encompasses utter cataclysm. As with climate
change, any serious effort to mitigate or stave off this disaster
will require major economic disruptions. And, as with climate
change, such efforts to save the world must be put in place before
any of the experts' doomsday warnings could ever be proved true.<br>
<br>
So we see the same pattern of skeptical response from Republican
elites. Whether it's driven by self-interest (corporate profits, a
president's hopes of reelection) or by small government ideology,
the approach sends a powerful signal to the party's voters. If you
take this problem seriously, you must be one of them, not us.<br>
<br>
"The climate change issue has been transformed into a badge of who
people think they are," said Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist
and environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado at
Boulder. "So if you're a good card-carrying Republican in the
Midwest, then you'd better be against that climate change stuff. And
if you're a West Coast liberal, or you live in Boulder, like me, of
course you support fighting climate change." When scientific
questions become political issues, he added, people's beliefs become
statements of identity. "To some extent we see that with the
coronavirus."<br>
<br>
This partisan bubble effect is only amplified by the situation on
the ground, where the distribution of infections has been anything
but politically neutral. The worst-hit areas so far are deep blue
cities in deep blue states: Seattle and New York, as well as San
Francisco. For that reason, Pielke holds out hope that the
coronavirus debate might not devolve completely into partisan
identity signaling. "I'm not ready to say this fits our conventional
motivated reasoning model of Republicans and Democrats that we've
seen on other issues," he said. As the disease spreads and hits its
peak in different places, the impact of direct experience could
overwhelm the power of identity.<br>
- - -<br>
It's frightening to think what the pattern of climate denial means
for the coronavirus crisis. But it might be even more terrifying to
think what the pattern of coronavirus denial means for the climate
crisis. If a plea to sacrifice human life for the sake of the
economy becomes Republican dogma, this does not bode well for our
ability to handle the even greater threat of rising temperatures
around the world. After all, the worst effects of global warming are
still decades away. Our elderly ruling class, and the elderly voters
who elect them, may be dead and gone by the time Miami is
underwater. But those same old folks are precisely the ones who are
most at risk from Covid-19.<br>
<br>
"I think what [all this] illustrates is the depth of the problem
we're facing with climate change," said Pennycook of the University
of Regina. "If we can't get bipartisan agreement on a global
pandemic that's presently spreading, it's making me less optimistic
that we'll ever see any change on people's attitudes toward climate
change until it's too late."<br>
<br>
WIRED is providing unlimited free access to stories about the
coronavirus pandemic. Sign up for our Coronavirus Update to get the
latest in your
inbox.https://www.wired.com/newsletter/science?sourceCode=ArticleLinkBottom<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-analogy-between-covid-19-and-climate-change-is-eerily-precise/">https://www.wired.com/story/the-analogy-between-covid-19-and-climate-change-is-eerily-precise/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Big Idea from Politico Magazine]<br>
<b>What the Coronavirus Curve Teaches Us About Climate Change</b><br>
Humans don't easily grasp the concept of exponential growth, but
it's exactly why coronavirus has gotten so hard to manage--and why
climate change could too.<br>
By HOWARD KUNREUTHER and PAUL SLOVIC<br>
03/26/2020<br>
Howard Kunreuther is co-director of the Wharton Risk Management and
Decision Processes Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He is
co-author, with Robert Meyer, of The Ostrich Paradox: Why We
Underprepare for Disasters.<br>
<br>
Paul Slovic is president of Decision Research and professor of
psychology at the University of Oregon. He is the author of The
Perception of Risk.<br>
The coronavirus pandemic--sadly--has introduced or reintroduced many
people to the concept of an exponential curve, in which a quantity
grows at an increasing rate over time, as the number of people
contracting the virus currently is doing. It is this curve that so
many of us are trying to "flatten" through social distancing and
other mitigating measures, small and large.<br>
<br>
It's easy to project a pattern of smooth, linear growth: one person
gets the coronavirus today, another person contracts it tomorrow, a
third person gets it on the third day, and the process continues in
this manner, the cases simply adding. But most people, including
leaders and policymakers, have a harder time imagining exponential
growth, which means you can have two cases of coronavirus tomorrow,
four on the third day, hundreds after the seventh day and thousands
soon after--a situation that's challenging to anticipate and manage.
That's the nature of pandemics.<br>
It's also how climate change works. And if there's any silver lining
in this mess, it's that the coronavirus pandemic is teaching us a
valuable lesson about the perils of ignoring destructive
processes--and perhaps even larger, longer-term disasters--that
increase exponentially. Even if growth looks mild in the
moment--think of the earliest segments on an exponential curve like
the red line shown in the illustration above--it will soon enough be
severe. In other words, delay is the enemy.<br>
- - <br>
The human mind does not easily grasp the explosive nature of
exponential growth. This was demonstrated more than 40 years ago in
a series of pioneering psychological experiments conducted in the
Netherlands by Willem Wagenaar and his colleagues. In one study,
participants were shown a hypothetical index of air pollution
beginning in 1970 at a low value of 3 and rising yearly in an
exponential way to 7, 20, 55 and, finally, 148 by 1974. Asked to
intuitively predict the index value for 1979, many of the
respondents produced estimates at or below 10 percent of the correct
value of about 21,000 (which can be determined from the underlying
exponential equation). Subsequent experiments have observed
similarly dramatic underestimation of exponential growth and showed
that it typically results from straight-line projections based on
early small increases.<br>
<br>
The deceptive nature of exponential growth is similarly conveyed by
the riddle of a single lily pad in a pond. Suppose each member of
this species reproduces once a day so that on the second day there
are two lily pads, on the third day there are four, on the fourth
day there are eight, etc. On Day 48, the pond is covered completely.
How long did it take to be covered halfway? The answer is 47 days.
Moreover, even after 40 days of exponential growth, you would barely
know the lily pads are there, as they would cover only 1/256th (0.4
percent) of the pond at that time. For a period of time, we can
easily ignore the steady exponential growth of lily pads--until they
smother the pond.<br>
<br>
With respect to the coronavirus, the initial doubling of the
relatively small numbers of infected cases and deaths evoked little
concern outside China in January and most of February, since, for
weeks, people around the world had little or no personal exposure to
the virus or its victims. But the deceptively mild and seemingly
faraway beginnings of the current pandemic led health officials and
governments to squander many opportunities for early intervention.
As a result, in the past few weeks, the numbers have quickly become
a torrent overwhelming our capacity to stop the virus' spread and
care for the victims. It took 67 days to reach 100,000 coronavirus
cases worldwide. The second 100,000 cases took 11 days, and the
third 100,000 took only four days. Public-health authorities are now
scrambling to communicate just how steep and damaging the
coronavirus growth curve has or could become, and urgent response is
becoming the law of the land.<br>
<br>
Aside from the coronavirus pandemic, the biggest, most destructive
exponential growth processes that we must grapple with today are
those associated with global climate change. While it might be hard
for humans to detect that carbon emissions and their concentration
in the atmosphere are growing exponentially right now, that doesn't
mean we should rest easy. The opposite is true. As with the
coronavirus, we need to anticipate the climate crisis and act
quickly and aggressively to minimize further damages before they
overwhelm us.<br>
- - -<br>
If carbon emissions continue to grow exponentially, most of the
United States could see 20 to 30 more days annually with maximum
temperatures higher than 90 degrees, with the Southeast potentially
enduring 40 to 50 more such days. This extreme heat poses serious
health risks, especially for the very young and the elderly,
construction and agricultural workers, and those living in the core
of urban areas. Wildfires present another problem that is growing
exponentially and is exacerbated by global warming, as temperatures
rise and humidity falls. California experienced a particularly
drawn-out drought from December 2011 to March 2019 that contributed
to extensive wildfire damage that is likely to increase
significantly in the future because of climate change.<br>
<br>
Taking a lesson from our flat-footed response to the coronavirus
pandemic, we can no longer delay aggressive actions to halt and
reverse what otherwise will be inevitable pandemic-like crises
arising from climate change. Already, tipping points have been
reached: Human populations and cultures are being devastated, and
many species are becoming extinct.<br>
<br>
Obviously, dealing with the present dangers from the coronavirus
must be everyone's top priority at this moment. We will eventually
get control of this demon and begin to restore some semblance of
normal life. When we do, the world must turn its attention to
reducing CO2 emissions and stopping the further exponential havoc
that climate change will wreak, far sooner than we expect.<br>
<br>
Michael Oppenheimer, Andrew Quist, Quinlyn Spellmeyer, Carol Heller
and Cameron Slovic contributed to this article.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/26/what-the-coronavirus-curve-teaches-us-about-climate-change-148318">https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/26/what-the-coronavirus-curve-teaches-us-about-climate-change-148318</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[An obvious political solution]<br>
<b>Green Group Urges Nationalization of Oil and Gas Industry Amid
Coronavirus Outbreak and Economic Upheaval</b><br>
"By taking fossil fuel companies under public ownership while
they're cheap to buy, the U.S. could ensure the country's energy
demands are met responsibly as it transitions to a
net-zero-emissions economy."<br>
<br>
by Julia Conley, staff writer<br>
As the Trump administration weighs a bailout for the fossil fuel
industry amid plummeting oil prices, the climate action group Food
& Water Action demanded Monday that the government instead take
the economic and public health crisis brought on by the coronavirus
pandemic as an opportunity to take ownership of the struggling,
environmentally destructive industry.<br>
<br>
The organization called on the federal government to take a
controlling stake in the fossil fuel sector, a move which it said
would keep federal funds from being used to benefit CEOs and wealthy
fossil fuel investors.<br>
As one in five Americans report a loss of work in recent weeks as a
result of the pandemic, the Trump administration is considering
low-interest loans for the industry, according to The New
Republic--but such proposals will only offer short-term assistance
to an industry which already has fewer jobs to offer Americans than
the sustainable energy sector, Food & Water Action said.<br>
<br>
"It's time to take bold action to rescue the American economy and
set an unstable, polluting industry on the path to saving jobs,"
said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the group. "Public
ownership of the oil and gas industry will help secure the health,
safety, and employment of people across the country, while ensuring
an energy transition that prioritizes clean, safe food and water and
a livable planet for all."<br>
<br>
Under public ownership of fossil fuel companies, the group said, the
government would be forced to end oil and gas drilling, fracking,
and the building of fossil fuel infrastructure as the transition to
the green economy ramps up. <br>
<br>
Government control of the industry could mirror the nationalization
of previously private companies during World Wars I and II, Kate
Aronoff wrote in The New Republic earlier this month. At the time,
the U.S. government took control of railroads in order to ensure
troops and supplies were transported quickly, as well as other
industries and private companies.<br>
<br>
"Nationalization...has a long and proud tradition of navigating
America through times of crisis, from World War II to 9/11," Aronoff
wrote. "No sector may be facing as profound a crisis right now as
the oil and gas industry. With crashing oil prices, all manner of
stimulus measures on the table, and previously tight-fisted
politicians now thinking more creatively, nationalizing the fossil
fuel industry might just be one of the most sensible ideas on
offer." <br>
<br>
Aronoff continued:<br>
By taking fossil fuel companies under public ownership while they're
cheap to buy, the U.S. could ensure the country's energy demands are
met responsibly as it transitions to a net-zero-emissions economy,
without the need to appease those companies' shareholders. Instead
of giving up the decision-making power such a big share purchase
would ordinarily entitle them to, as in a bailout, policymakers
would use their new equity stake to begin a managed decline of
fossil fuels and guarantee workers full pensions and wage parity. <br>
<br>
On Sunday, President Donald Trump dismissed the notion of using the
Defense Production Act to take government control of industries,
saying, "We're a country not based on nationalizing our business."<br>
<br>
Trump's statement was "completely wrong," tweeted Thomas Hanna of
Democracy Collaborative, a progressive think tank...<br>
<br>
As the country faces a likely recession amid the coronavirus
pandemic and the collapsing markets that have resulted, Food &
Water Action said the government must give Americans greater control
in any restructuring of the fossil fuel industry while protecting
energy workers jobs from "the whims of Wall Street speculators,
self-interested CEOs, or volatile shifts in global commodity
prices."<br>
<br>
In Canada, supporters of transitioning to a green economy echoed the
call of Food & Water Watch, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
considered a multi-billion dollar bailout of the country's oil and
gas industry, expected to be announced this week...<br>
<br>
"Diverting desperately needed public funds to subsidize a
poorly-managed sunset industry during a pandemic is absolutely
unconscionable," tweeted Debra Davidson, an environmental sociology
professor at the University of Alberta. "If there was ever a time to
divest fossil fuels it is now."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/23/green-group-urges-nationalization-oil-and-gas-industry-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-and">https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/23/green-group-urges-nationalization-oil-and-gas-industry-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-and</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[from the Miami Herald]<br>
<b>Climate change requires the same global urgency as the
coronavirus pandemic | Opinion</b><br>
BY SUSAN STEINHAUSER<br>
MARCH 25, 2020 <br>
While, in a matter of months, COVID-19 has changed the world as we
know it, climate change has been transforming our world for decades.
One can't help but draw parallels between the two threats.<br>
<br>
Here are some of the sad similarities between COVID-19 and climate
change:<br>
<p><b>Warning:</b> We were warned about both crises. The climate
warning was issued most dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's 2006 documentary that showed the effects of global
warming and the correlation between greenhouse-gas emissions and
the heating of our planet. Yet the United States is poised to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement and our government continues to
subsidize the fossil-fuel industry.</p>
<b>Response:</b> The world is responding to the virus because its
effects are so shocking. Curing the climate is more difficult. The
damage from a slowly warming atmosphere is sometimes tough to
recognize. To prevent further warming, it is imperative that we get
to net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible. We must transition
away from fossil fuels and move to an economy based on 100 percent
clean renewable energy.<br>
<br>
This transition will require bold action such as the Green New Deal.
At the bare minimum, we must fully restore the Environmental
Protection Agency and reinstate regulations that the current
administration has rolled back. And if action is slow at the global
and federal levels, we must persuade local officials to do what they
can to slow the damage and prepare us for what lies ahead.<br>
<br>
To protect ourselves, infrastructure adaptation is key, whether to
address sea-level rise, storm intensity or rising temperatures.
Unfortunately, as some places become uninhabitable, people will have
to be relocated, an expensive and traumatic undertaking.<br>
<br>
We must eliminate carbon emissions. A 2018 report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for us to limit the
increase in global temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels. We are already 1o warmer and the rise
accelerating.<br>
<br>
It is as if we are speeding toward a brick wall that is also moving
toward us. Not only do we need to brake, but we need to go in
reverse.<br>
<br>
<b>Private sector:</b> Business is responding dramatically to
COVID-19. It has a lot at stake. We need a similar response to our
climate challenges. Government, alone, does not have the capacity
for the research and development of clean renewable energy and the
removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Some businesses are
beginning to recognize the threat and the opportunities it also
presents.<br>
<br>
<b>Economic impact:</b> The damage from the virus is clear when you
check your investment accounts. But the cost of climate change can
be calculated, too. We are paying a bill for property damage from
storms, flooding and fire. Even loss of business goes into the
equation.<br>
<br>
But how do you calculate value of the secondary impacts such as
physical and emotional well-being? How much is food and water
scarcity, and the spread of mosquito-borne and water-borne disease,
costing society?<br>
<br>
Low-income families. They are the least able to protect themselves
from the virus and they are disproportionately at risk from the
impacts of climate change. They are more likely to have jobs that
require them to work outdoors, putting them at greater risk for heat
illness, which increases each year with rising temperatures.<br>
<br>
They are less likely to have the resources and capacity to prepare
for and recover from extreme climate events. Although their homes
may be less resilient in the face of a natural disaster, they may
fear evacuation because of the expense.<br>
<br>
<b>The careless: </b>We have seen the pictures of people who refuse
to maintain a safe distance during this COVID crisis. The world is
filled with people who refuse to reckon with climate change. In most
cases, they either do not understand the situation, do not believe
the science, or simply are frozen by the gravity of what we face.<br>
<br>
Threat to human existence: COVID-19 hints at how vulnerable we are.
But the climate crisis if a far bigger danger. Our children and our
grandchildren will need to face it. Each day that goes by we spew
more damaging gases into the atmosphere, warming our planet. We must
act now by modifying our behavior and by electing officials who will
pass legislation and implement policies to help us "go into carbon
reverse."<br>
<br>
<b>There is hope: </b>As more and more people become aware of
climate change, they are calling for action. If we Americans are
willing to elect the right leaders, make lifestyle changes, and
possibly even learn a new trade, we will lead the global charge to
address this threat. Ironically, COVID-19 has pushed us in this
direction. Globally we've reduced emissions by reducing our travel
and manufacturing. Going forward, let's eliminate emissions because
we choose to, not because a pandemic has caused us to.<br>
<br>
Susan Steinhauser is co-chair of the Climate Reality Project, Boca
Raton Chapter, political chair of the Broward Sierra Club and a
volunteer with the Coral Restoration Foundation.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article241504566.html">https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article241504566.html</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 -
March 27, 2007 </b></font><br>
<p>March 27, 2007: In a post on CallingAllWingnuts.com about a
recent confrontation with Competitive Enterprise Institute honcho
Myron Ebell, blogger Mike Stark observes:<br>
<br>
"Upon reflection, I really think there are a couple of lessons for
progressives to be found in this five minute exchange.<br>
<br>
"First of all, when arguing with somebody that either has no
credibility or is not arguing a credible position, don't donate
the credibility they need to be seen as your equal."<br>
<br>
"You see, by calling his credibility into question immediately -
and not letting him up for air - well, I've got no proof, but I
really think that everyone in the room knew that Mr. Ebell had
been bettered. When we ask policy or science questions of these
charlatans, we give the impression that we care what they think.
We don't. We know they are rank liars, we're just wondering if
they'll be able to spin a sufficient answer. But these guys get
millions of dollars a year from the largest corporate titans
precisely because they have the skill to ink up the issue. Why let
them show off?<br>
<br>
"Secondly, don't go out of your way to be nice or polite. Hell, I
won't afford these profit-gandists any respect on my blog, why the
hell should I do it face to face? A large part of their
professional career derives from their ability to mock me and the
things I believe in. The Competitive Enterprise Institute once
liked global warming to 'being invaded by space aliens' for
example. By addressing these people with the indignant scorn they
deserve, you project the moral superiority of your position. To
many times it seems that Democratic and progressive pundits are
more interested in being our opponents' friends than we are in
vigorously arguing the issues. In this media environment - when
equal time is given to global warming deniers... well, we just
can't afford the small talk.<br>
<br>
"In the end, these guys are not good people. This isn't a case of
principled people disagreeing. At this point in the global warming
debate, the only principled disagreements to be had revolve around
what we should be doing to address the crisis. The Myron Ebells of
the world - the die-hard denialists... well, we need to move them
off the stage by marginalizing them at every opportunity."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/global-warming-phooey_b_44407.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/global-warming-phooey_b_44407.html</a>
<br>
</p>
<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>