<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>June 25, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<br>
[Minnesota Attorney's General starts a legal process - Press
Release:]<br>
<b>AG Ellison sues ExxonMobil, Koch Industries & American
Petroleum Institute for deceiving, defrauding Minnesotans about
climate change</b><br>
Claims violations of state and common law regarding consumer fraud,
deceptive trade practices, misrepresentation, failure to warn; seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, and corrective public education
campaign<br>
<br>
Minnesota joins growing list of states and local governments holding
fossil-fuel industry accountable for decades-long 'campaign of
deception'<br>
<br>
June 24, 2020 (SAINT PAUL)--Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison
filed a lawsuit this morning in Ramsey County on behalf of the
State and its residents to stop deceptive practices related to
climate change and to hold ExxonMobil Corp., the American Petroleum
Institute, and three Koch Industries entities accountable for
perpetuating fraud against Minnesotans. <br>
<br>
The lawsuit includes claims for fraud, failure to warn, and multiple
separate violations of Minnesota Statutes that prohibit consumer
fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false statements in
advertising. In addition to an injunction barring further violation
of these laws, the complaint seeks restitution for the harms
Minnesotans have suffered, and asks the Court to require defendants
to fund a corrective public education campaign on the issue of
climate change.<br>
<br>
Minnesota joins a growing number of governments that are seeking to
hold companies responsible for harms associated with climate change.
While defendants and claims vary among jurisdictions, at least 15
other plaintiffs have brought similar lawsuits to date. Plaintiffs
include the states of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island,
along with cities and counties throughout the country...<br>
- - -<br>
The complaint asks the court to require these companies to use
wrongfully-obtained profits to help Minnesota pay for the
devastating consequences of climate change. Attorney General Ellison
is asking for these companies to disgorge profits and to "fund a
corrective public education campaign in Minnesota relating to the
issue of climate change, administered and controlled by an
independent third party," and that defendants "disclose,
disseminate, and publish all research previously conducted directly
or indirectly . . . that relates to the issue of climate change."..<br>
- -<br>
Two images released in the complaint today illustrate the campaign
of deception. One is a document from Exxon Engineering, labeled
"Proprietary Information," dated October 19, 1979. It clearly
asserts the reality of climate change and acknowledges that the
cause is "due to fossil fuel consumption."
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/ExxonKochAPI_ProprietaryInfo.pdf">https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/ExxonKochAPI_ProprietaryInfo.pdf</a><br>
The other image is of print advertisements from the Information
Council for the Environment, an industry front group dedicated to
denying the science of climate change. The ads compare predictions
of climate change to "Chicken Little" and assert that "they may not
be true" -- despite the defendants' knowledge that the predictions
were true.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/ExxonKochAPI_Ads.pdf">https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/ExxonKochAPI_Ads.pdf</a>
...<br>
- - -<br>
Juwaria Jama, the state lead for Minnesota Youth Climate Strike,
explains how young people feel about this action: "As generation z,
we have known about climate change ever since we were born. As
children, we were told that we only had a few years to act until our
future could be stolen from us. Now as teenagers, that reality is
clearer. We are spending our time fighting a last-minute battle to
preserve a livable world for ourselves and future generations
because corporations like Exxon knew the impacts of climate change,
but continued to deceive the public for decades. Exxon chose profit
over people. It's time they're held accountable."...<br>
- - <br>
<b>Impacts and costs of climate change on Minnesota</b><br>
According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, from 1951 to
2012, Minnesota's climate warmed faster than both national and
global rates of increase, with average annual temperature increasing
by 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro area.
According to the Minnesota Department of Health, since 1960, the
rate of climate warming in Minnesota has increased from 0.2 degrees
Fahrenheit per decade from the 1890s to the 1950s to 0.5 degrees
Fahrenheit per decade beginning with the 1960s. These and other
studies lay out many of the impacts of climate change on
Minnesotans' health and Minnesota's environment and economy.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/ExxonKochAPI_Complaint.pdf">https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/ExxonKochAPI_Complaint.pdf</a><br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us">https://www.ag.state.mn.us</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Massachusetts man with platform in tow]<br>
<b>Retired Easthampton engineer builds 30-foot-tall 'Sea Level
Rise Ruler,' plans to drive it across the east coast to raise
awareness about climate change</b><br>
By Jackson Cote | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:jcote@masslive.com">jcote@masslive.com</a><br>
Easthampton resident Vinney Valetutti's monstrous "Sea Level Rise
Ruler" is far from 12 inches long.<br>
<br>
The construction spans a whopping 30 feet and currently sits on a
wooden platform attached to the Western Massachusetts man's car.<br>
<br>
With his structure, the former engineer is seeking to raise
awareness about the dangers of rising sea levels due to climate
change and ice caps melting.<br>
<br>
"I simply hope to make people aware of the reality of sea level
rise, as it is a unique part of the global warming discussion,"
Valetutti said in a statement. "People tend to not focus on sea
level rise because, at first glance, the daily effect is
insignificant, but ice melt has a cumulative effect."<br>
<br>
Valetutti, a retired professional engineer who is passionate about
energy conservation, stays up to date on the science of climate
change. He was inspired in 2019 by Greta Thunberg, a 17-year-old
Swedish girl who become internationally recognized for her
environmental activism.<br>
<br>
Using his background in engineering, Valetutti constructed a
traveling flagpole that can hold a 30-foot-tall banner that
replicates a ruler, with exact measurements in feet, according to
the Easthampton resident.<br>
<br>
"I marked the 11- and 22-foot levels in red, because those
indicate where our sea level would rise if only 5% or 10% of
Antarctica and Greenland were to melt," he said. "When people
stand next to the flagpole and see how high that really is, it
shows how legitimate and scary the reality of rising sea levels
is."<br>
<br>
The ruler has been sitting in Northampton, but Valetutti is hoping
to drive his moveable education tool across the east coast,
according to his statement.<br>
<br>
"I wanted to take a stance on the side of climate change that is
not always talked about - rising sea levels due to global
warming," the statement said.<br>
<br>
Valetutti stressed how rapidly sea levels could rise and how
little the problem is discussed.<br>
<br>
"Sea level rise is real. It is scary, and there is no way to time
it," he said. "Mother Nature can work fast."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/06/retired-easthampton-engineer-builds-30-foot-tall-sea-level-rise-ruler-plans-to-drive-it-across-the-east-coast-to-raise-awareness-about-climate-change.html">https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/06/retired-easthampton-engineer-builds-30-foot-tall-sea-level-rise-ruler-plans-to-drive-it-across-the-east-coast-to-raise-awareness-about-climate-change.html</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<p> [Radical action]<br>
<b>Turning Delusion into Climate Action: Prof Kevin Anderson, an
interview</b><br>
By Andrew Simms, Kevin Anderson, originally published by
Scientists for Global Responsibility<br>
June 18, 2020<br>
In a conversation recorded before the Covid-19 crisis hit, which
is raising many questions about the responsible use by policy
makers of scientific advice, SGR's Andrew Simms interviews the
leading voice on climate science, Prof Kevin Anderson of the
Universities of Manchester and Uppsala, about the responsibilities
of scientists in the climate emergency. He is outspoken in saying
that the scientific community has much to do to change its ways.<br>
<br>
This article first appeared in Responsible Science Issue No. 2,
2020<br>
<br>
Andrew Simms: Would you like to hear more from your fellow climate
scientists now about the speed and scale of action required? <br>
<br>
<b>Prof Kevin Anderson:</b> I'd like to hear much more of what
many academics say in private being said in public. This is also
true of many others I engage with across the climate change
community - from those in NGOs to more informed policy makers,
business types, journalists, and more. Over the past two or more
decades I've witnessed an emerging preference for spinning an
appealing but increasingly misleading yarn about what is needed to
meet our various climate commitments. Disturbingly, many of those
who should know better have even begun to believe their own
delusionary tales. The enthusiastic and almost unquestioning
support by many academics for the Climate Change Committee's (CCC
UK) 'net zero' report, or 'not zero' as I prefer to call it,
exemplifies how we're prepared to forgo analysis and integrity to
maintain politically-palatable fairy-tales of delivering on Paris.<br>
<br>
AS: And what are they saying in private?<br>
<br>
<b>KA:</b> Not all, but many had been telling me for years that
there's no hope of staying below 2 degrees centigrade, that we're
heading to three or four degrees. I should add that I disagreed
with this view, arguing that if we're lucky on climate sensitivity
and are prepared to grasp the nettle and make very difficult but
doable cuts in emissions, then a thin thread of hope remained for
staying below two degrees. Today, the chances are much, much
slimmer and with the cuts in emissions completely unprecedented
and far beyond anything in the public and political debate. What I
find most disturbing, is that many of those who previously had
told me, away from any microphones, that 2C was not viable, are
now coming out in support of meeting 1.5C. Worse still, they
repeatedly point to idealised technical solutions, yet often with
little understanding of either the technologies or their practical
delivery, let alone the timelines for making wholesale shifts in
technologies and associated infrastructures.<br>
<br>
Typically it is more senior academics and others who hold these
conflicting public and private positions. Whilst such deception is
often very well meant, it nevertheless reflects a deep arrogance.
They are basically saying, I'm a sufficiently clever person, that
I can judge what is politically or not viable, and therefore by
massaging my assumptions I can provide politically appropriate
conclusions. Such arrogance is widespread. Just look at the CCC
UK. I have a huge respect for the CCC's secretariat, and
particularly the new CEO, Chris Stark, I think he's excellent. But
since its inception, the academic Commissioners who, in many
respects guide the framing of the secretariat's work, have failed
to support the CCC in pursuing genuinely independent analysis.<br>
<br>
As such the CCC have, in my view, misled parliament and the public
- at least in terms of mitigation. Individually I respect the
academic work of many of the commissioners, some of whom I know
well and would call friends, but as soon as they don their CCC
hat, academic rigour is weakened in favour of political
expediency. Exacerbating all of this is repeated reference to the
CCC as independent. It is not. It is basically a Quango with
advisors and a secretariat more sensitive to the dominant
political and economic dogma than to the implications of their
science.<br>
<br>
As I say, all this is done with good intention - and perhaps if
the rest of the academic community held the CCC, and government
ministers, to account, this would not be a problem. But by and
large the academic community, including the funders, have
abdicated this responsibility preferring to embrace the CCC as the
climate oracle. I want to add here, that I have spoken to Chris
Stark about this, and think it only fair to note that he strongly
disagrees with my views on how the Commissioners have engaged with
the secretariat - seeing their contribution in a much more
constructive light.<br>
<br>
AS: Does that mean that in effect, they've been self-editing, or
self-censoring, in terms of not saying what is necessary to align
the process of economic and political change to meet the Paris
targets?<br>
<br>
<b>KA: </b> I think that's true of the CCC, and I think it's true
of a high proportion of academic work on mitigation, particularly
at a senior level. Unfortunately, this invidious political
expediency percolates down to some of the earlier career
researchers. However, from experience, the Post Docs and the PhDs
demonstrate much greater integrity with their research, and an
honest recognition of the scale of the challenge we face.<br>
<br>
I've only really become aware of the misleading and dangerous
influence of some senior academics on their earlier career
colleagues over the past two years. It was brought to my attention
at one of the big climate negotiations, (COPs) I was attending.
Chatting to those without grey hair, it became increasingly clear
many of them were being reprimanded for asking difficult questions
by their senior colleagues and supervisors. I really found this
hard to believe. But the more I asked about this the more I
realised I'd been living in a naïve bubble unaware of how vibrant
academic debate driven by younger academic colleagues is being
deliberately stifled. And this is not something that only others
elsewhere are doing. I now hear that senior colleagues I've worked
with & known for years - sharing many a vibrant exchange over
coffee or a beer with some of them - have also actively
constrained the contributions of 'their' earlier career
colleagues.<br>
<br>
I assumed most good academics thrived on open debate and courteous
but robust disagreement - Ok, put on a CCC hat, do some
consultancy work etc, and there's a risk of all too easily being
co-opted. But this is much worse. It's a deep institutional
systemic bias towards aligning our conclusions within the
boundaries of the status quo - and this extends to the funders.
We've chosen to forgo our academic independence for the appeal of
being relevant within a debate our own analysis tells us is
irrelevant.<br>
<br>
It's only then when a Swedish child has the courage to call out
our nakedness, echoed by a similar call from our own children,
that we stir from our cosy consensus. Forced to look in the mirror
- it's becoming bloody obvious that we're naked and have been for
a long time, but no one has had the guts to tell us. The wonderful
thing about children is that they're not yet locked into our
political baggage - but if they go on to become post-docs, we'll
do our best to bash them into conformity.<br>
<br>
AS: Do you think it would have been easier to bring forward
political and policy proposals that were in line with the scale of
the problem if the scientific community had censored what they had
said less?<br>
<br>
<b>KA:</b> Well, first of all, I don't think the scientific
community should censor what it says at all. If it does censor,
then it isn't the scientific community. There's a serious risk
that we've become little more than a group of elite privileged
citizens. With no expertise in processes of change in emergencies,
or political economy more generally, we pontificate on responding
to climate change, hiding the ignorance underpinning our expedient
suggestions behind a veil of academic objectivity.<br>
<br>
I take a straightforward view of our role as academics. We need to
develop a culture of being disinterested in whether people like
or dislike our work, our only interest should be in whether people
agree or disagree with our analysis and conclusions - and why.
Academia should not be a fashion contest, or a desperate clamour
for funding, committee memberships, gongs, awards and prestige.<br>
<br>
As for whether honesty, integrity and robust bluntness would have
significantly changed where we are now, - well in my judgement,
yes and significantly so. I can understand the levels of measured
optimism of the early 1990s; that substantial but nonetheless
incremental changes to business as usual could have led to a
timely decarbonised future. But by 2000 it was becoming obvious
that such optimism was now misplaced. Rising emissions & more
locked-in fossil fuel infrastructure and associated expectations,
had kicked the potential of incrementalism into the long grass.
During the subsequent two decades, the academic and climate change
community has not played a straight bat when it comes to
mitigation. As the years have passed, through 2005, 2010, and onto
2015 and Paris, we've adopted increasingly exotic technologies,
technocratic fraud, dodgy accounting and eloquent nonsense as a
salve for ever-rising emissions. There is no group that can be
singled out for this abject failure. Certainly the academic
community learnt credibility to the fluff and nonsense that has
filled the void left by failing to mitigate. But the journalists
have played their role - more spin and glossy stories than
investigative reporting. The policy makers, the business
community, the unions, civil service and the electorate, at least
in democracies, don't come out of this any better. And nor do the
climate great and good - from Gore to DiCaprio, Attenborough to
Goodall, Musk to Branson - all have been party to a greening of
business as usual. On mitigation and particularly cutting
emissions in line with Paris, we're all players in a grand
unifying delusion - we've become mitigation-deniers.<br>
<br>
If, on mitigation (as distinct from the science), academics had
collectively favoured meticulous analysis, system thinking and
blunt communication over spin & well-intentioned sycophancy,
then I think we could have catalysed a different and more honest
debate. Whether this would have led to the profound changes to
contemporary society now required by Paris cannot be known. But
rigorous academic input was and still is a prerequisite of
transforming the thinking, expectations, policies, and societal
norms inline with 2C carbon budgets. Of course, such input is not
sufficient, but without it we will continue to fail.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-18/turning-delusion-into-climate-action-prof-kevin-anderson-an-interview/">https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-18/turning-delusion-into-climate-action-prof-kevin-anderson-an-interview/</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[two old guys grumbling about the economy - Chris Martenson
interview James Howard Kunstler]<br>
<b>Riots, Injustice & Living In 'The Long Emergency'</b><br>
Jun 17, 2020<br>
Peak Prosperity<br>
Unsustainable systems, by definition, eventually break down.<br>
<br>
That's been a key warning we at Peak Prosperity have been
delivering for over a decade regarding the over-indebted global
economy, society's addiction to depleting fossil fuels, and
accelerating ecological destruction.<br>
<br>
The coronavirus pandemic has placed such intense and unexpected
strain on this unstable house of cards that its odds of toppling
sooner have increased substantially. Few people understand this
better -- from the historic job destruction impacting tens of
millions to the social anger starting to boil over -- than James
Howard Kunstler.<br>
<br>
His new book Living In The Long Emergency (which builds on its
classic predecessor) not only predicted what's happening now, but
lays out what life in the aftermath will be like and how to best
position for it today.<br>
<br>
And yet, while the status quo still reigns as things worsen, those
in power refuse to recognize the risks. In fact, they're doubling
down on the same strategies that have undermined the system --
ignorant that when it breaks, it will be to their peril, too.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q5zUuQSMgc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q5zUuQSMgc</a><br>
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[UK is 1% of global emissions]<br>
<b>Net Zero Home School Day 2: Pathways To Net Zero</b><br>
[Second] event of the University of Oxford's Net-Zero Home School in
partnership with The Guardian, Oxford Climate Society, the Oxford
Climate Research Network, Net Zero.org and Climateworks Foundation.
<br>
This series consists of five webinars on climate science and policy
for Generation Net Zero, to mark the first anniversary of the
passage of the UK's Net Zero Emissions law. All events are hosted by
Fiona Harvey, Environment correspondent, The Guardian. Running
Monday 22nd to Friday 26th June daily from 5:00 - 6:30pm.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxSKDKphghw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxSKDKphghw</a><br>
- - -<br>
<b>Oxford Climate Society</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOoksFYBCHqZWwVBU9qewZg">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOoksFYBCHqZWwVBU9qewZg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
June 25, 2008 <br>
</b></font>June 25, 2008: The New York Times reports: "The [George
W. Bush] White House in December refused to accept the Environmental
Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants
that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail
message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A.
officials said last week.":<br>
<blockquote><b>White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail</b><br>
By Felicity Barringer<br>
June 25, 2008<br>
<br>
The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental
Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases are
pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that
an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened,
senior E.P.A. officials said last week.<br>
<br>
The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official
status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling
that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a
danger to health or the environment, the officials said.<br>
<br>
This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to
respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the
original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document
reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring
greenhouse gases a pollutant.<br>
<br>
Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House
successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large
sections of the original analysis that supported regulation,
including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle
emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic
benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition
of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the
matter.<br>
Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean
Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce
greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said.
"That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to
show that the Clean Air Act can't work."<br>
<br>
The Bush administration's climate-change policies have been
evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of
government scientists studying global warming, such as last week's
review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and
intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.climatescience.gov">www.climatescience.gov</a>).<br>
<br>
But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental
laws.<br>
<br>
Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on
discussions between the White House and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr.
Fratto said, "It's the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it
wants to make available" in its documents.<br>
The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in
regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency's
administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.<br>
The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known
in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of
California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made
public.<br>
<br>
In early December, the E.P.A.'s draft finding that greenhouse
gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from
2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the
nation's motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in
2018, according to government officials familiar with the
document.<br>
<br>
About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at
the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President
Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average
fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the
law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous
recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed
to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state,
saying the new law's approach was preferable and climate change
required global, not regional, solutions.<br>
<br>
California's regulations would have imposed tougher standards.<br>
<br>
The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals
public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption
that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51
per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles
per gallon in 2020.<br>
<br>
The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation
Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a
comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting
possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.<br>
<br>
In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of
greenhouse gases by 2025 a timetable slower than many scientists
say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental
Quality, James Connaughton, said a "train wreck" would result if
regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal
under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/06/26/174068/epa-email-denial/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/06/26/174068/epa-email-denial/</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>