<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 27, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<br>
<b>[from Bill McKibben's New Yorker magazine newsletter - the
Climate Crisis]</b><br>
R. L. Miller is a California climate activist who, for some years,
has run a PAC called Climate Hawks Vote, which tries to elect
candidates who are particularly eager to combat global warming.
(I've sat on the board of the group.) She has also served as chair
of the climate caucus in the California Democratic Party, and has
just been elected by fellow California Party members to the
Democratic National Committee, with the goal of making the climate a
priority in the campaign.<br>
<blockquote><b>What's the strategy for the D.N.C.?</b><br>
<br>
Top priority right now is the platform! I ran for the D.N.C. on a
platform of transparency and accountability. I was particularly
fired up about the D.N.C. leadership's refusal to hold a climate
debate.<br>
<br>
The D.N.C. Climate Council has released a bold, visionary set of
policy recommendations. I helped set up the council, and am on its
advisory board, but can't take credit for drafting the
recommendations. Check out the platform!<br>
<br>
Separately, the Biden-Sanders unity task forces are finishing up
their work and are due to release their recommendations soon. I
don't know whether those recommendations will play into the
platform. Everything has been done behind closed doors, and I've
heard rumors that the recommendations may not be made public.
Having said that, there are some very good people on the climate
task force, whom I trust to convey the urgency of the climate
crisis.<br>
<br>
Finally, there's the official platform-drafting committee of the
D.N.C. Apparently, the Climate Council's work has offended some
old-school types at the D.N.C. To be clear, I've been elected to
the insurgent wing of the D.N.C.! If the official platform
committee is doing anything at all, besides sniffing at
insurgents, it's not happening in public. So I believe the D.N.C.
needs to be holding public hearings on the platform.<br>
<br>
<b>Poll after poll during primary season showed climate change was
the top priority for young voters, and second only to health
care for Democratic voters in general. Do you sense that the
Party is ready to make it a priority, too? What stands in the
way?</b><br>
<br>
What stands in the way of making climate a priority is a lot of
old-school Democrats--some in trade-union labor and some just
plain establishment folk--who think that bold climate action will
cost us key states. And they're badly missing the point. Poll
after poll after poll shows that the American people are hungry
for bold climate action. People generally see the enormous job
potential of a hundred-per-cent clean-energy transition.<br>
<br>
And then there's the scary part. What I'll be taking to the D.N.C.
is a very personal perspective on a climate-fuelled disaster. The
Woolsey Fire, of November, 2018, came within five hundred feet of
my home. I heard about it early enough, via Twitter, that I was
able to evacuate my frail, elderly mother safely. I watched my
children's childhood memories burn down on national television:
their preschool, their soccer fields, their neighborhood parks. I
remain nervous and jumpy every October, when the hot Santa Ana
winds blow. I don't know if anyone else on the D.N.C. can say
they've been directly affected by a climate disaster. But it
changes one's perspective.<br>
<br>
<b>You keep track of lots of congressional and local races around
the country. Who are the candidates you're watching most fondly?</b><br>
<br>
Everyone who's not focussed on the Presidential race is working
hard on flipping the Senate. At Climate Hawks Vote, we've endorsed
Mark Kelly, in Arizona, and Jaime Harrison, in South Carolina,
both of whom were unopposed in their primaries. We stand with
every other green group in the nation for Ed Markey, of
Massachusetts, the co-author of the Green New Deal and countless
other climate bills.<br>
<br>
Probably the best race from a climate perspective is the Colorado
Senate primary, on June 30th. Andrew Romanoff is running
explicitly on a Green New Deal, and his initial climate ad went
viral. Washington Democrats prefer John Hickenlooper, known
unfondly as Frackenlooper. Romanoff has recently gained ground on
Hickenlooper in the polls.<br>
<br>
At the same time, there's room for more real climate hawks in the
House. Too many Democrats, still, pay lip service to the climate
crisis, but witness how rank-and-file members of Congress have had
to beg leadership for crumbs of clean-energy tax-credit
extensions. We've endorsed Cathy Kunkel--yes, there are climate
hawks in West Virginia--and Christy Smith, in California, and are
planning more endorsements.<br>
</blockquote>
Signup for this newsletter <b>The Climate Crisis</b><br>
<b>Updates from inside the climate movement, </b>from the activist
and author Bill McKibben.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/the-climate-crisis">https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/the-climate-crisis</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Two candidates in Zoom fundraising]<br>
<b>Donate to Ed Markey and Jay Inslee</b><br>
Join Ed and Jay for a Zoom call on Tuesday June 30th at 5pm PT / 8pm
ET.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://secure.actblue.com/donate/samforedandjay">https://secure.actblue.com/donate/samforedandjay</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[public opinion battleground]<br>
<b>Greenpeace slams Amazon's Climate Pledge Arena as a 'meaningless
and costly PR stunt' </b><br>
BY KURT SCHLOSSER on June 26, 2020<br>
A certain Muppet once told us it's not easy being green. It's not
easy to get the approval of Greenpeace either, apparently, as the
environmental organization slammed Amazon and Jeff Bezos over plans
to name a Seattle sports venue "Climate Pledge Arena."<br>
<br>
Reacting to Thursday's news about the new name and sustainability
focused initiatives for the reimagined arena at Seattle Center,
Greenpeace said Amazon was trying to "greenwash its climate
pledges."<br>
<br>
"If Amazon really cared about our planet, it would sever its
contracts that help fossil fuel companies produce more oil, instead
of executing this meaningless and costly PR stunt," said Elizabeth
Jardim, a senior corporate campaigner with Greenpeace USA.<br>
A post on the Greenpeace website showed an activist holding a
#NoTech4Oil sign in front of the Spheres on Amazon's campus in
Seattle. Greenpeace has been outspoken in its opposition to AWS
Energy and the use of cloud technology and artificial intelligence
to aid oil and gas companies.<br>
<br>
"Jeff Bezos is out of touch with the seriousness of the climate
crisis and Amazon is on thin ice with those concerned about the
climate and environmental racism," Jardim said, adding that the
arena does nothing for communitiers most impacted by Amazon's "gross
environmental injustices."<br>
<br>
Amazon's Climate Pledge aims to meet the goals of the Paris
Agreement on climate change 10 years ahead of schedule. And a new
Climate Pledge Fund is aimed at funneling an initial $2 billion into
startups building sustainable technologies across various industries
such as transportation, food, manufacturing, and more.<br>
<br>
The company has faced increased pressure from its own employees to
do more to reduce its carbon footprint. But getting to net carbon
zero by 2040 will be a challenge considering that the tech giant's
greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 rose 15 percent over the previous
year.<br>
<br>
Beyond the name on the arena meant to draw attention to the pledge
it made in 2019, Amazon says the venue will strive to be the the
first net zero carbon certified arena in the world through such
actions as zero waste from operations and events, 100 percent
renewable electricity and hockey ice made from reclaimed rainwater.<br>
<br>
But Greenpeace isn't buying it.<br>
<br>
"Without meaningful commitments, Amazon's renaming of the Climate
Pledge Arena, like the Climate Pledge itself, risks being yet
another empty gesture," Jardim said. "The climate crisis will not be
solved with greenwashed initiatives and carbon neutral arenas."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.geekwire.com/2020/greenpeace-slams-amazons-climate-pledge-arena-meaningless-costly-pr-stunt/">https://www.geekwire.com/2020/greenpeace-slams-amazons-climate-pledge-arena-meaningless-costly-pr-stunt/</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[Greenpeace says]<b><br>
</b><b>Amazon Renaming Seattle's KeyArena to Climate Pledge Arena
Meaningless PR Stunt</b><br>
by Valentina Stackl - June 26, 2020<br>
If Amazon really cared about our planet, it would sever its
contracts that help fossil fuel companies produce more oil, instead
of executing this meaningless and costly PR stunt...<br>
- - <br>
"Rather than spending millions of dollars on this sports arena,
Amazon needs to end its machine learning contracts with oil and gas
companies and more quickly and transparently reduce its growing
carbon emissions-- up 15% in the last year. Amazon could do more for
the public good by guaranteeing safer working conditions for its
millions of workers, and discontinuing its harmful relationships
with police departments and ICE.<br>
<br>
"Without meaningful commitments, Amazon's renaming of the
ClimatePledge Arena, like the Climate Pledge itself, risks being yet
another empty gesture. The climate crisis will not be solved with
greenwashed initiatives and carbon neutral arenas. The science is
clear. We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, scale up
renewables, and elect politicians who support strong climate
policies to have a livable planet. We hope that Amazon acts boldly
and takes immediate steps to stop accelerating the climate crisis by
ending its contracts with the oil and gas industry."<br>
<br>
Greenpeace report: Oil in the Cloud: How Tech Companies are Helping
Big Oil Profit from Climate Destruction
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/oil-in-the-cloud/">https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/oil-in-the-cloud/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[from the UK]<br>
<b>Government climate advisers running scared of change, says
leading scientist</b><br>
Rapid transformation needed, Kevin Anderson says, particularly in
lifestyles of rich<br>
Kevin Anderson, one of the world's leading climate scientists, had a
familiar reaction to the latest report from the government's climate
advisers, which was published this week.<br>
<br>
The 196-page document by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)
delivered a stinging rebuke of the government's record and said
ministers must urgently up their game if the UK is to avoid a
significant rebound in carbon emissions after the coronavirus crisis
and meet its 2050 net zero carbon target.<br>
<br>
Anderson is a professor of energy and climate change, working across
the universities of Manchester, Uppsala in Sweden and Bergen in
Norway. He said: "The constructive, meticulous criticism of the
government, which is failing abysmally by any measure, is fine. The
problem is the framing the CCC has for net zero is already far
removed from what is needed to meet our Paris commitments."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/26/leading-scientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/26/leading-scientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record</a>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
[Anderson latest report]<br>
<b>A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of 'climate
progressive' nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways</b><br>
Kevin Anderson<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[4th UK serious discussion to reach zero emissions]<br>
<b>Net Zero Home School Day 4: Engineering Net Zero</b><br>
June 25, 2020<br>
Oxford Climate Society<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4be8rcw3pU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4be8rcw3pU</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Carbon Brief] <br>
<b>Guest post: How climate change misinformation spreads online</b><br>
26 June 2020<br>
The rapid rise of social media over the past two decades has brought
with it a surge in misinformation. <br>
<br>
Online debates on topics such as vaccinations, presidential
elections (pdf) and the coronavirus pandemic are often as vociferous
as they are laced with misleading information. <br>
<br>
Perhaps more than any other topic, climate change has been subject
to the organised spread of spurious information. This circulates
online and frequently ends up being discussed in established media
or by people in the public eye. <br>
<br>
But what is climate change misinformation? Who is involved? How does
it spread and why does it matter? <br>
<br>
In a new paper, published in WIREs Climate Change, we explore the
actors behind online misinformation and why social networks are such
fertile ground for misinformation to spread.<br>
<br>
What is climate change misinformation?<br>
We define misinformation as "misleading information that is created
and spread, regardless of whether there is intent to deceive". It
differs in a subtle, but important, way from "disinformation", which
is "misleading information that is created and spread with intent to
deceive".<br>
<br>
Hierarchy of information (green), misinformation (yellow) and
disinformation (red). Credit: Treen et al. (2020)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/hierarchy-of-information-misinformation-and-disinformation.jpg">https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/hierarchy-of-information-misinformation-and-disinformation.jpg</a><br>
<br>
In the context of climate change research, misinformation may be
seen in the types of behaviour and information which cast doubt on
well-supported theories, or in those which attempt to discredit
climate science. <br>
<br>
These may be more commonly described as climate "scepticism",
"contrarianism" or "denialism".<br>
<br>
In a similar way, climate alarmism may also be construed as
misinformation, as recent online debates have discussed. This
includes making exaggerated claims about climate change that are not
supported by the scientific literature. There is a negligible amount
of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism,
suggesting it is significantly less prevalent. As such, the focus
for this article is on climate scepticism.<br>
<br>
Who is involved?<br>
Our review of the scientific literature suggests there are several
different groups of actors involved in funding, creating and
spreading climate misinformation.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-climate-change-misinformation-network-references-removed.jpg">https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-climate-change-misinformation-network-references-removed.jpg</a><br>
A schematic illustration of the climate change misinformation
network. It shows the actors (purple) and producers (orange), as
well as the echo chambers among influencers (blue) and the public
(green). Credit: Treen et al. (2020)<br>
A schematic illustration of the climate change misinformation
network. It shows the actors (purple) and producers (orange), as
well as the echo chambers among influencers (blue) and the public
(green). Credit: Treen et al. (2020)<br>
Our findings, shown in the graphic above, highlight that the
misinformation network begins with funding supplied by corporate and
philanthropic actors (see purple sections) with a vested interest in
climate change – particularly in fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
This money goes to a range of groups involved in producing
misinformation (orange). These groups – referred to variously as the
"climate change denial machine" and "organised disinformation
campaigns" – include political and religious organisations,
contrarian scientists and online groups masquerading as grassroots
organisations (known as "astroturfing").<br>
<br>
People in positions of power, such as the media, politicians and
prominent bloggers, then repeat and amplify this information in an
"influencers echo chamber" (blue), and from there it reaches a wider
audience (green).<br>
<br>
How does it spread?<br>
The spread of misinformation is intertwined with a number of online
and offline social processes. One of these is "homophily" – the
tendency for people to form social connections with those who are
similar to themselves, as captured by the common saying "birds of a
feather flock together". <br>
<br>
This behaviour is encouraged by social media platforms in the way
new connections are recommended. Together with social norms and the
observation that people tend to trust information from people in
their social network, this can lead to "echo chambers" where
information and misinformation echoes around a particular group. In
turn, this can lead to polarisation, where communities can form
around sharply contrasting positions on an issue.<br>
<br>
Another factor which can contribute to polarisation is the way
online social networks promote content based on being engaging and
aligned with your previous viewed material rather than on
trustworthiness. This is known as "algorithmic bias" and amplifies
the psychological finding that people tend to prefer to consume
information that matches their belief systems – known as
"confirmation bias". Social media platforms are also susceptible to
the existence of malicious accounts which may produce and manipulate
misleading content.<br>
<br>
As the graphic below shows, all these human (purple section) and
platform (green) factors come together in a melting pot on social
media to potentially increase the susceptibility of social media
users to spread, consume and accept misinformation.<br>
<br>
A schematic illustration of the climate change misinformation
network. It shows the actors (purple) and producers (orange), as
well as the echo chambers among influencers (blue) and the public
(green). Credit: Treen et al. (2020)<br>
<br>
These factors are all present in climate change debate. Research
using social network analysis suggests that a strong homophily
effect occurs between polarised groups of social media users on
opposing sides of the climate debate, and also finds evidence of
echo chambers. In addition, people's attitudes to climate change
have been found to be strongly correlated to their ideology, values
and social norms.<br>
<br>
Why does it matter?<br>
A key strategy used by the actors that spread climate change
misinformation is to create doubt in people's minds, leading to what
has been described as a "paralysing fog of doubt around climate
change". There are three main themes: doubt about the reality of
climate change; doubt about the urgency; and doubt about the
credentials of climate scientists.<br>
<br>
Research has suggested that climate misinformation can, therefore,
contribute to public confusion and political inaction, rejection of
or reduced support for mitigation policies, as well as increased
existing political polarisation.<br>
<br>
Research into misinformation in other areas has found it can cause
individuals to have emotional responses, such as panic, suspicion,
fear, worry and anger, as well as highlight that these responses, in
turn, may have an impact on decisions and actions taken. There are
concerns about misinformation being a threat at a societal level,
particularly for democracies.<br>
<br>
Some take it a step further. For example, a 2017 study in the
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (pdf) highlights
"more insidious and arguably more dangerous elements of
misinformation", such as causing people to stop believing in facts
altogether, and to lose trust in governments, impacting the "overall
intellectual well-being of a society."<br>
<br>
What can be done about it?<br>
Scientific literature has put forward a range of ways to counteract
misinformation. Summarised in the graphic below, these broadly fall
into the categories of education (purple boxes), inoculation (blue),
technological solutions (green), response (orange) and regulation
(red).<br>
<br>
A summary of the potential ways to counteract misinformation found
in the literature, along with their criticisms and caveats. Credit:
Treen et al. (2020)<br>
A summary of the potential ways to counteract misinformation found
in the literature, along with their criticisms and caveats. Credit:
Treen et al. (2020)<br>
Much of the literature looking more specifically at counteracting
misinformation about climate change focuses on educational
approaches: teaching critical-thinking techniques, better education
about climate change, and using "agnotology" – the direct study of
misinformation – as a teaching tool. While these all better equip
people to identify misinformation, there is a risk of misuse of
agnotology and a requirement for a certain level of climate literacy
in educators.<br>
<br>
Research on counteracting online misinformation also discusses
"technocognition" or "socio-technological solutions", which combine
technological solutions with cognitive psychology theory. <br>
<br>
These take the form of "inoculation" prior to misinformation being
received. This can mean pre-emptively providing correct information
or explicitly warning people they may be misinformed. Pure
technological approaches include early detection of malicious
accounts and using ranking and selection algorithms to reduce how
much misinformation is circulating. <br>
<br>
Then there are responses and regulation – bringing in a correction
or a collaborative approach after the misinformation has been
received, or even putting in place punishments, such as fines or
imprisonment.<br>
<br>
However, all these solutions have a number of caveats. For
inoculation strategies, it is difficult to inoculate against every
issue and to identify the target audience. Technological solutions
bring their own concerns – for example, over censorship, whether the
algorithms are accurate or effective, and there being no clear
answer what can and should be done once malicious accounts are
detected. <br>
<br>
Receive our free Daily Briefing for a digest of the past 24 hours of
climate and energy media coverage, or our Weekly Briefing for a
round-up of our content from the past seven days. Just enter your
email below:<br>
<br>
Corrective approaches come with their own risks. For example, there
is the "backfire effect", whereby individuals receiving the
correcting information come to believe in their original position
even more strongly.<br>
<br>
Then there is the "continued influence effect", whereby subsequent
retractions do not eliminate people's reliance on the original
misinformation. And there are "belief echoes", where exposure to
misinformation continues to shape attitudes after it has been
corrected, even when this correction is immediate. There is also the
caveat that the source of corrections is important for credibility.<br>
<br>
Regulation has been described as a "blunt and risky instrument" by a
European Commission expert group. It is also potentially a threat to
the democratic right to freedom of speech and has overtones of "Big
Brother".<br>
<br>
In conclusion, it is important to recognise the role of
misinformation in shaping our responses to climate change.
Understanding the origins and spread of misinformation – especially
through online networks – is imperative. Importantly, although there
are several strategies to address misinformation, none of them is
perfect. A combination of approaches will be needed to avo<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-change-misinformation-spreads-online">https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-change-misinformation-spreads-online</a><br>
<p>- - -<br>
</p>
[source material Information battles]<br>
<b>Online misinformation about climate change</b><br>
Kathie M. d'I. Treen Hywel T. P. Williams Saffron J. O'Neill<br>
18 June 2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665">https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665</a><br>
Edited by Irene Lorenzoni, Domain Editor, and Mike Hulme,
Editor‐in‐Chief:<br>
Funding information: Economic and Social Research Council,
Grant/Award Number: ES/P011489/1; University of Exeter: Kathie Treen
is funded through a University of Exeter PhD scholarship<br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
Policymakers, scholars, and practitioners have all called attention
to the issue of misinformation in the climate change debate. But
what is climate change misinformation, who is involved, how does it
spread, why does it matter, and what can be done about it? Climate
change misinformation is closely linked to climate change
skepticism, denial, and contrarianism. A network of actors are
involved in financing, producing, and amplifying misinformation.
Once in the public domain, characteristics of online social
networks, such as homophily, polarization, and echo
chambers--characteristics also found in climate change
debate--provide fertile ground for misinformation to spread.
Underlying belief systems and social norms, as well as psychological
heuristics such as confirmation bias, are further factors which
contribute to the spread of misinformation. A variety of ways to
understand and address misinformation, from a diversity of
disciplines, are discussed. These include educational,
technological, regulatory, and psychological‐based approaches. No
single approach addresses all concerns about misinformation, and all
have limitations, necessitating an interdisciplinary approach to
tackle this multifaceted issue. Key research gaps include
understanding the diffusion of climate change misinformation on
social media, and examining whether misinformation extends to
climate alarmism, as well as climate denial. This article explores
the concepts of misinformation and disinformation and defines
disinformation to be a subset of misinformation. A diversity of
disciplinary and interdisciplinary literature is reviewed to fully
interrogate the concept of misinformation--and within this,
disinformation--particularly as it pertains to climate change.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.665">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.665</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
June 27, 2000 </b></font><br>
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore lays out his energy policy
at a campaign appearance in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://c-spanvideo.org/program/GoreEne">http://c-spanvideo.org/program/GoreEne</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>