<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>May 6, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[another fall back]<br>
<b>EPA Decides to Reject the Latest Science, Endanger Public Health
and Ignore the Law by Keeping an Outdated Fine Particle Air
Pollution Standard</b><br>
Tuesday, May 5, 2020<br>
By H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University<br>
The COVID-19 pandemic and economic shutdown have temporarily
produced clearer skies across the U.S. Meanwhile, however, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has been busy finding reasons not to
pursue long-lasting air quality gains.<br>
<br>
On April 30, 2020, the agency published a proposed new rule that
retains current National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter without any revisions. It took this action after
a five-year review process, in which scientific evidence showed
unequivocally that these standards are not adequate to protect
public health.<br>
<br>
I have studied air pollution and air quality for over 30 years, and
have been directly involved for a decade with EPA’s reviews of
scientific findings on air pollution. This includes serving on the
agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, and on
10 specialized panels focused on individual pollutants.<br>
<br>
As I have written previously, the Trump administration has watered
down the role of science in what is supposed to be a science-based
process of setting national air quality standards. This new proposal
-- which I expect will be challenged in court when finalized -- is
the result...<br>
- - <br>
Fine particles, known as PM2.5 because they measure 2.5 microns or
less in diameter, can penetrate deeply into the lungs and
bloodstream. EPA staff scientists have reaffirmed that daily and
annual exposure to PM2.5 causes premature death and a variety of
illnesses.<br>
<br>
Scientists have known this for decades, but since the national
standard was last revised in 2012, new studies have strengthened
these findings. They include an epidemiologic study with the largest
ever number of subjects and several that include PM2.5
concentrations well below the current standard.<br>
<br>
EPA’s scientific staff estimates, based on multiple epidemiologic
studies, that currently an average of 13,500 to 51,300 people die
prematurely each year from breathing fine particles. Although these
numbers are uncertain, the likelihood of thousands of deaths per
year would typically spur regulators to tighten existing standards.
However, EPA’s current political leadership disagrees...<br>
- - -<br>
Preliminary evidence suggests that exposure to particles worsens the
effects of COVID-19. While this finding needs peer review and
additional study, existing evidence of risk for sensitive
populations shows the need for a more protective standard.<br>
<br>
EPA currently faces lawsuits for multiple instances in which it has
either sought to weaken, or failed to strengthen, air pollution
regulations. They include rolling back motor vehicle greenhouse gas
emission standards, failing to implement stringent rules limiting
interstate air pollution and repealing the Obama administration’s
Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from power plants. Unless
EPA modifies its position on particle air quality to address the law
and the science, I expect that this regulation too will end up in
court.<br>
<br>
H. Christopher Frey is Glenn E. Futrell Distinguished University
Professor of Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State
University...<br>
Read the original article.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theconversation.com/epa-decides-to-reject-the-latest-science-endanger-public-health-and-ignore-the-law-by-keeping-an-outdated-fine-particle-air-pollution-standard-136226">https://theconversation.com/epa-decides-to-reject-the-latest-science-endanger-public-health-and-ignore-the-law-by-keeping-an-outdated-fine-particle-air-pollution-standard-136226</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[projected]<br>
<b>Billions projected to suffer nearly unlivable heat in 2070</b><br>
by Seth Borenstein<br>
In just 50 years, 2 billion to 3.5 billion people, mostly the poor
who can't afford air conditioning, will be living in a climate that
historically has been too hot to handle, a new study said.<br>
With every 1.8 degree increase in global average annual temperature
from man-made climate change, about a billion or so people will end
up in areas too warm day-in, day-out to be habitable without cooling
technology, according to ecologist Marten Scheffer of Wageningen
University in the Netherlands, co-author of the study.<br>
How many people will end up at risk depends on how much
heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions are reduced and how fast the
world population grows.<br>
<br>
Under the worst-case scenarios for population growth and for carbon
pollution--which many climate scientists say is looking less likely
these days--the study in Monday's journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences predicts about 3.5 billion people will
live in extremely hot areas. That's a third of the projected 2070
population.<br>
<br>
But even scenarios considered more likely and less severe project
that in 50 years a couple of billion people will be living in places
too hot without air conditioning, the study said.<br>
<br>
"It's a huge amount and it's a short-time. This is why we're
worried," said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie
Mahowald, who wasn't part of the study. She and other outside
scientists said the new study makes sense and conveys the urgency of
the man-made climate change differently than past research.<br>
<br>
In an unusual way to look at climate change, a team of international
scientists studied humans like they do bears, birds and bees to find
the "climate niche" where people and civilizations flourish. They
looked back 6,000 years to come up with a sweet spot of temperatures
for humanity: Average annual temperatures between 52 and 59 degrees.<br>
<br>
We can--and do--live in warmer and colder places than that, but the
farther from the sweet spot, the harder it gets.<br>
The scientists looked at places projected to get uncomfortably and
considerably hotter than the sweet spot and calculated at least 2
billion people will be living in those conditions by 2070.<br>
<br>
Currently about 20 million people live in places with an annual
average temperature greater than 84 degrees (29 degrees Celsius) -
far beyond the temperature sweet spot. That area is less than 1% of
the Earth's land, and it is mostly near the Sahara Desert and
includes Mecca, Saudi Arabia.<br>
<br>
But as the world gets more crowded and warmer, the study concluded
large swaths of Africa, Asia, South America and Australia will
likely be in this same temperature range. Well over 1 billion
people, and up to 3.5 billion people, will be affected depending on
the climate altering choices humanity makes over the next half
century, according to lead author Chi Xu of Nanjing University in
China.<br>
<br>
With enough money, "you can actually live on the moon," Scheffer
said. But these projections are "unlivable for the ordinary, for
poor people, for the average world citizen."<br>
<br>
Places like impoverished Nigeria--with a population expected to
triple by the end of he century--would be less able to cope, said
study co-author Tim Lenton, a climate scientist and director of the
Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter in England.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2020-05-billions-unlivable.html">https://phys.org/news/2020-05-billions-unlivable.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[We know]<br>
<b>'This pandemic is nothing compared to what climate change has in
store'</b><br>
John Gibbons lays out the stark climate facts and urges us to take
coronavirus as a warning that it’s now time to act, or perish.<br>
- - <br>
Until very recently, premature death had been the norm for most
humans. However, in the last five decades, largely freed from the
threat of predators, large and small, our numbers on this earth have
more than doubled, to over 7.8 billion, while average life
expectancy in the same period has increased by well over a decade
per person.<br>
That’s the good news. The bad news is that this unprecedented global
expansion of the human footprint has brought the biosphere, our
living planet, to the brink of collapse. There are many ways of
measuring this, such as the precipitous decline in biodiversity, the
average annual loss of 15 billion trees, many of them from razed
ancient rainforests.<br>
<br>
A major report on biodiversity and ecosystems published last May
found that the natural world is declining globally ‘at rates
unprecedented in human history - and the rate of species extinctions
is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now
likely’. <br>
<br>
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report concluded that around one million
animal and plant species now face extinction in the coming decades.
‘The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting
smaller and increasingly frayed…this loss is a direct result of
human activity and constitutes a direct threat to human well-being’,
the IPBES report warned.<br>
<br>
The unavoidable warming<br>
<br>
We face an equally daunting and arguably more intractable challenge
from climate change. In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) issued a special report on the likely impacts
of global warming at and beyond 1.5C over pre-industrial
temperatures. <br>
<br>
Arising from this landmark report, it emerged that in order to keep
global temperatures within relatively safe limits, carbon emissions
would have to fall by at least 45% by 2030, which is just ten years
from now.<br>
<br>
This is in line with commitments made by almost all the world’s
leaders, including Ireland, when we signed up for the 2015 Paris
Agreement, which legally committed us to doing everything possible
to avoid extremely dangerous climate change at 2C and beyond.<br>
- - <br>
At what cost?<br>
<br>
Apart from constant lobbying by commercial and agri-industrial
groups, another reason politicians have run scared of climate action
is that the issue is consistently framed in the Irish media in terms
of the cost of tackling climate change. However, international
studies have shown repeatedly that the price of inaction far
outweighs the costs of addressing the crisis. <br>
<br>
It is estimated that the cost of the coronavirus to the global
economy is in the range of $2-$4 trillion this year. A 2018 report
calculated that failure to rein in climate change would deliver a
devastating $34 trillion hit to the global economy - many times
greater than the economic chaos arising from the pandemic.<br>
<br>
Other estimates are even less sanguine. An Australian study
published in 2019 argues that ‘climate change represents a near to
mid-term existential threat to human civilisation’.<br>
<br>
Should global temperatures reach 3C over pre-industrial by
mid-century, ‘the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to
model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an
end’, the report warns.<br>
<br>
So, the next time someone asks if we can ‘afford’ to tackle climate
change, a better question might instead be: what price isn’t worth
paying to avoid the collapse of civilisation?<br>
<i>John Gibbons is an environmental writer and commentator who
specialises in covering the climate and biodiversity emergency. He
is a contributor to The Irish Times, The Guardian and DeSmog.uk
and is a regular guest environmental commentator on broadcast
media. He blogs at Thinkorswim.ie and also runs the website
Climatechange.ie and is on Twitter: @think_or_swim.</i><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/coronavirus-climate-change-5086343-May2020/">https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/coronavirus-climate-change-5086343-May2020/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Radio EcoShock]<br>
<b>DANGEROUS DREAMS OF A TECHNOLOGY TO SAVE US FROM CLIMATE CHANGE:
DUNCAN MCLAREN<br>
</b>Posted on April 29, 2020, by Radio Ecoshock<br>
Remember all those fabulous technical fixes that were going to save
us from disastrous climate change? The world would run on nuclear
fusion, or oil from algae, while thousands of wind pumps saved the
sea ice. The world is still waiting - and still heating up. A new
paper from experts at UK’s Lancaster University collects the
promises and failures of technical fixes - plus the ways all those
shiny ideas helped governments and corporations avoid the hard part:
real social and economic change needed to limit climate damage.<br>
<br>
The paper is called "The co-evolution of technological promises,
modeling policies and climate change targets." We reached the lead
author, Duncan McLaren - Professor and Research Fellow at Lancaster
UK.<br>
Our first guest Professor Duncan McLaren explains why technical
delusions are so dangerous.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ecoshock.org/2020/04/two-crises-on-a-small-planet.html">https://www.ecoshock.org/2020/04/two-crises-on-a-small-planet.html</a><br>
- - <br>
[source material from the journal<b> nature climate change</b>]<br>
<b>The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies
and climate change targets</b><br>
Abstract<br>
<blockquote>The nature and framing of climate targets in
international politics has changed substantially since their early
expressions in the 1980s. Here, we describe their evolution in
five phases--from ‘climate stabilization’ to specific ‘temperature
outcomes’--co-evolving with wider climate politics and policy,
modelling methods and scenarios, and technological promises (from
nuclear power to carbon removal). We argue that this co-evolution
has enabled policy prevarication, leaving mitigation poorly
delivered, yet the technological promises often remain buried in
the models used to inform policy. We conclude with a call to
recognise and break this pattern to unleash more effective and
just climate policy.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0740-1">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0740-1</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[New book]<br>
<b>Towards an Ecopsychotherapy</b><br>
by Mary-Jayne Rust<br>
Synopsis<br>
<blockquote>Psychotherapy invites us to tell the story of our human
relationships; ecopsychotherapy expands this to include our earth
story, the context or continuum in which our human relationships
sit. Ecopsychotherapy is not simply a technique to be applied in
therapy: it involves a change in perspective. While practising
therapy outdoors is a radical shift that can support and
facilitate the healing process, it also acknowledges that our
relationship with the earth is both inside and outside ourselves.
As climate chaos quickens and increasing numbers of people are
waking up to the seriousness of our environmental crisis, we are
becoming more aware of our dysfunctional relationship with the
earth - the body on whom we depend for everything.
Ecopsychotherapy can help to support our reconnection with nature
and to discover hope in turbulent times.<br>
<br>
"If psychotherapy is to remain relevant, it must change and
recognize that we exist as part of, not apart from, Nature. I
trust Mary-Jayne Rust more than anyone else to guide us there."
Jerome Bernstein, Jungian Analyst, author of Living in the
Borderland<br>
<br>
"In her characteristic style, Mary-Jayne presents ecopsychotherapy
in an incisive way, with her richness of experience bringing the
subject to life. This thought-provoking book touches on the heart
of controversies in this field - our need to grow new terminology
- and to actively ensure our spaces are inclusive. This is an
invaluable introduction to ecopsychotherapy and is also sure to
deepen the work of more seasoned practitioners."Emma Palmer, Body
psychotherapist, BACP-accredited counsellor, ecopsychologist,
supervisor, trainer and author of Other Than Mother<br>
<br>
"Mary-Jayne Rust has written an important work which broadens the
field of psychotherapy to include our inherent connectedness to
the more-than-human world. She provides a succinct, heartfelt
overview of ecopsychotherapy. Given the current state of global
environmental destruction, the wisdom in this book is needed now
more than ever." Jeffrey T Kiehl, Jungian analyst, climate
scientist, author of Facing Climate Change<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.kobo.com/gb/en/ebook/towards-an-ecopsychotherapy">https://www.kobo.com/gb/en/ebook/towards-an-ecopsychotherapy</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Clipped from more criticism of Michael Moore]<br>
<b>Review: Planet of the Humans</b><br>
Richard Heinberg<br>
April 27, 2020<br>
- -<br>
The film is controversial because it makes two big claims: first,
that renewable energy is a sham; second, that big environmental
organizations--by promoting solar and wind power--have sold their
souls to billionaire investors...<br>
- -<br>
We found that the transition to renewables is going far too slowly
to make much of a difference during the crucial next couple of
decades, and would be gobsmackingly expensive if we were to try
replacing all fossil fuel use with solar and wind. We also found, as
the film underscores again and again, that the intermittency of
sunshine and wind is a real problem--one that can only be solved
with energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, or compressed air, all
of which are costly in money and energy terms); or with source
redundancy (building way more generation capacity than you’re likely
to need at any one time, and connecting far-flung generators on a
super-grid); or demand management (which entails adapting our
behavior to using energy only when it’s available). All three
strategies involve trade-offs. In the energy world, there is no free
lunch. Further, the ways we use energy today are mostly adapted to
the unique characteristics of fossil fuels, so a full transition to
renewables will require the replacement of an extraordinary amount
of infrastructure in our food system, manufacturing, building
heating, the construction industry, and on and on. Altogether, the
only realistic way to make the transition in industrial countries
like the US is to begin reducing overall energy usage substantially,
eventually running the economy on a quarter, a fifth, or maybe even
a tenth of current energy...<br>
- - <br>
During recent decades, the big environmental orgs wearied of telling
their followers to reduce, reuse, and recycle. They came to see that
global problems like climate change require systemic solutions that,
in turn, require massive investment and governmental planning and
oversight.<br>
<br>
But the reality is, we need both high-level systemic change and
widespread individual behavior change. That’s one of the lessons of
the coronavirus pandemic: "flattening the curve" demands both
central planning and leadership, and individual sacrifice.<br>
<br>
Planet of the Humans paints environmental organizations and leaders
with a broad and accusatory brush. One target is Jeremy Grantham, a
billionaire investment analyst who created the Grantham Foundation
for the Protection of the Environment in 1997. Grantham was already
a mega-rich investor before he "got religion" on environmental
issues. I’ve had several face-to-face meetings with him (full
disclosure: the Grantham Foundation has provided modest funding to
Post Carbon Institute, where I work) and it’s clear that he cares
deeply about overpopulation and overconsumption, and he understands
that economic growth is killing the planet. He’s scared for his
children and grandchildren, and he genuinely wants to use whatever
wealth and influence he has to change the world. To imply, as the
film does, that he merely sees green tech as an investment strategy
is a poorly aimed cheap shot. Bill McKibben, who is skewered even
more savagely, also deserves better; he has replied to the film
here.<br>
<br>
Finally, the film leaves viewers with no sense of hope for the
future. I understand why Gibbs made that choice. Too often, "hopium"
is simply a drug we use to numb ourselves to the horrific reality of
our situation and its causes--in which we are all complicit.<br>
<br>
Yet, however awful the circumstance, we need a sense of human
agency. In the face of the pandemic, many of us are reduced to
sitting at home sewing facemasks; it seems like a paltry response to
a spreading sickness that’s taking tens of thousands of lives, but
it’s better than sitting on our hands and saying "Woe is me." The
same goes for climate change: figuring out how to eat lower on the
food chain, or how to get by without a car, or how to reduce home
energy usage by half, or growing a garden might seem like trivial
responses to such an overwhelming crisis, but they get us moving
together in the right direction.<br>
<br>
For all the reasons I’ve mentioned, Planet of the Humans is not the
last word on our human predicament. Still, it starts a conversation
we need to have, and it’s a film that deserves to be seen.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.postcarbon.org/review-planet-of-the-humans/">https://www.postcarbon.org/review-planet-of-the-humans/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
May 6, 2001 </b></font><br>
(hat tip to Carl Pope and BetsyRosenberg.com )<br>
<b>May 6, 2001: The New York Times reports on EPA Administrator
Christine</b><br>
<b>Todd Whitman's persona-non-grata status in the George W. Bush</b><br>
<b>administration:</b><br>
<blockquote>"Mrs. Whitman was greeted like a political star when she
arrived here<br>
several months ago to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Not
a<br>
single senator, not even her Democratic rivals, opposed her<br>
appointment.<br>
<br>
"But no sooner had the former New Jersey governor unpacked her
bags<br>
than she found her authority undercut by the very man who had
lured<br>
her to Washington, George W. Bush.<br>
<br>
"The most recent snub occurred when the White House openly<br>
contradicted a claim she made on national television two weeks ago<br>
that the administration might back away from its plans to open up
the<br>
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling amid growing<br>
opposition in Congress.<br>
<br>
"Only weeks earlier, Mrs. Whitman declared that Mr. Bush intended
to<br>
fulfill a campaign pledge to lower carbon dioxide emissions from
power<br>
plants -- only to find that the president had decided against that<br>
policy without so much as telling his chief environmental
overseer.<br>
<br>
"So it is not surprising that the public embarrassments Mrs.
Whitman<br>
has had to endure at the hands of her new boss are giving rise to<br>
questions about her ability to lead the environmental agency,
though<br>
she and the White House insist that there is no strife and that
she is<br>
an important voice in the administration...<br>
<br>
"The recent setbacks also threaten to undermine the credibility of<br>
Mrs. Whitman, a politician whose plain-spoken manner and seemingly<br>
moderate political views had made her one of the nation's most<br>
prominent governors and at one point a potential vice presidential<br>
candidate.<br>
<br>
"Indeed, Mrs. Whitman's nomination to head the environmental
agency<br>
cheered many people on the left -- despite her mixed record on the<br>
environment in New Jersey -- who were wary of the conservative<br>
Republican crowd that had moved into the White House. But those
very<br>
same people are no longer so optimistic that her voice will be
heard<br>
within the new administration."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/nyregion/hitting-ground-limping-for-whitman-chaos-her-wake-sharp-elbows-her-future.html?pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/nyregion/hitting-ground-limping-for-whitman-chaos-her-wake-sharp-elbows-her-future.html?pagewanted=all</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>