<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>July 24, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<br>
[follow the money - revolutionary notion]<br>
<b>Morgan Stanley is spilling the climate tea<br>
</b>It's Thursday, July 23, and Morgan Stanley is disclosing how its
business affects climate change.<br>
Morgan Stanley has joined the Partnership for Carbon Accounting
Financials (PCAF), an international collaboration founded in 2019
that aims to "standardize carbon accounting for the financial
sector" by tracking how banks' and investment firms' assets are
contributing to climate change.<br>
<br>
Morgan Stanley is the first U.S.-based global bank to join the more
than 60 PCAF members. Together, all PCAF members manage more than $6
trillion in assets. The group already includes international firms
based in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, as well as smaller banks
in the U.S. and around the world.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://grist.org/beacon/morgan-stanley-is-spilling-the-climate-tea/">https://grist.org/beacon/morgan-stanley-is-spilling-the-climate-tea/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Greta and Stephen Colbert]<br>
<b>Greta Thunberg: Humanity Is "Setting Fire To The Boat" Instead Of
Facing The Climate Crisis</b><br>
Jul 22, 2020<br>
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert<br>
Environmental activist Greta Thunberg describes the world's current
response to the climate change crisis as being stuck in the middle
of the ocean and "setting fire to the boat." <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brtog4AABBg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brtog4AABBg</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[42 minute report just released ]<br>
<b>Apocalypse in the Amazon rainforest | DW Documentary</b><br>
Jul 23, 2020<br>
DW Documentary<br>
A raging fire devastated Brazil's Amazon rainforest in the summer of
2019. Images of the blaze frightened experts and politicians around
the globe. Protecting the unique ecosystem is essential for climate
conservation.<br>
<br>
The sight of forests in the Amazon burning in 2019 struck fear into
anyone who saw it. Suddenly, the threat to the climate was tangible.
The trees some call the "world's lungs" were going up in flames.
Suddenly, politicians, journalists, and the general population
agreed that something had to be done. Because without the Amazon,
the world has a big existential problem. In terms of species
diversity, the Amazon river and surrounding forest are one of the
earth's richest regions. It's also home to many indigenous peoples,
whose homes are seriously threatened by degradation of the forest.
This documentary depicts the current humanitarian and environmental
disaster and goes in search of reasons why this unique ecosystem is
being destroyed. Satellite images from Brazil's National Institute
for Space Research, the INPE, form the framework for the film. A
renowned scientist and former head of the institute, Ricardo Galvão,
was fired by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who said the images
damaged Brazil's reputation and were flawed anyway. Yet the data
from 2019 shows a drastic rise in illegal clear cutting. Filmmaker
Albert Knechtel went to the region to take stock. He traveled across
Brazil, from the Bolivian border to Xingu, traversing the
crisis-stricken area and meeting local experts, critics, and
residents who describe the situation. Together they sharpen
understanding of the region, which is at a crossroads. The next
direction the Amazon takes will influence the fate of the entire
world.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEb7F3DcE_k">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEb7F3DcE_k</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[NYT magazine]<br>
<b>THE GREAT CLIMATE MIGRATION</b><br>
By Abrahm Lustgarten | Photographs by Meridith Kohut<br>
- -<br>
Migration can bring great opportunity not just to migrants but also
to the places they go. As the United States and other parts of the
global North face a demographic decline, for instance, an injection
of new people into an aging work force could be to everyone's
benefit. But securing these benefits starts with a choice: Northern
nations can relieve pressures on the fastest-warming countries by
allowing more migrants to move north across their borders, or they
can seal themselves off, trapping hundreds of millions of people in
places that are increasingly unlivable. The best outcome requires
not only good will and the careful management of turbulent political
forces; without preparation and planning, the sweeping scale of
change could prove wildly destabilizing. The United Nations and
others warn that in the worst case, the governments of the nations
most affected by climate change could topple as whole regions
devolve into war...<br>
- - <br>
As with much modeling work, the point here is not to provide
concrete numerical predictions so much as it is to provide glimpses
into possible futures. Human movement is notoriously hard to model,
and as many climate researchers have noted, it is important not to
add a false precision to the political battles that inevitably
surround any discussion of migration. But our model offers something
far more potentially valuable to policymakers: a detailed look at
the staggering human suffering that will be inflicted if countries
shut their doors...<br>
- - <br>
For all the ways in which human migration is hard to predict, one
trend is clear: Around the world, as people run short of food and
abandon farms, they gravitate toward cities, which quickly grow
overcrowded. It's in these cities, where waves of new people stretch
infrastructure, resources and services to their limits, that
migration researchers warn that the most severe strains on society
will unfold. Food has to be imported -- stretching reliance on
already-struggling farms and increasing its cost. People will
congregate in slums, with little water or electricity, where they
are more vulnerable to flooding or other disasters. The slums fuel
extremism and chaos.<br>
<br>
It is a shift that is already well underway, which is why the World
Bank has raised concerns about the mind-boggling influx of people
into East African cities like Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia, where the
population has doubled since 2000 and is expected to nearly double
again by 2035. In Mexico, the World Bank estimates, as many as 1.7
million people may migrate away from the hottest and driest regions,
many of them winding up in Mexico City...<br>
- - <br>
Our models show that much of the growth will be concentrated in the
city's slumlike suburbs, places like San Marcos, where people live
in thousands of ramshackle structures, many without electricity or
fresh water. In these places, even before the pandemic and its
fallout, good jobs were difficult to find, poverty was deepening and
crime was increasing. Domestic abuse has also been rising, and
declining sanitary conditions threaten more disease. As society
weakens, the gangs -- whose members outnumber the police in parts of
El Salvador by an estimated three to one -- extort and recruit. They
have made San Salvador's murder rate one of the highest in the
world...<br>
- - <br>
Models can't say much about the cultural strain that might result
from a climate influx; there is no data on anger or prejudice. What
they do say is that over the next two decades, if climate emissions
continue as they are, the population in southern Mexico will grow
sharply.<br>
<br>
At the same time, Mexico has its own serious climate concerns and
will most likely see its own climate exodus. One in six Mexicans now
rely on farming for their livelihood, and close to half the
population lives in poverty. Studies estimate that with climate
change, water availability per capita could decrease by as much as
88 percent in places, and crop yields in coastal regions may drop by
a third. If that change does indeed push out a wave of Mexican
migrants, many of them will most likely come from Chiapas.<br>
<br>
Yet a net increase in population at the same time -- which is what
our models assume -- suggests that even as one million or so climate
migrants make it to the U.S. border, many more Central Americans
will become trapped in protracted transit, unable to move forward or
backward in their journey, remaining in southern Mexico and making
its current stresses far worse.<br>
<br>
Percentage of future urban growth that, according to the
International Committee of the Red Cross, is likely to take place in
some of the world's most fragile cities, where risk of social unrest
is high:<br>
<br>
Already, by late last year, the Mexican government's ill-planned
policies had begun to unravel into something more insidious: rising
resentment and hate. Now that the coronavirus pandemic has
effectively sealed borders, those sentiments risk bubbling over.
Migrants, with nowhere to go and no shelters able to take them in,
roam the streets, unable to socially distance and lacking even basic
sanitation...<br>
- - <br>
To some migrants, this place is Eden. But El Paso is also a place
with oppressive heat and very little water, another front line in
the climate crisis. Temperatures already top 90 degrees here for
three months of the year, and by the end of the century it will be
that hot one of every two days. The heat, according to researchers
at the University of California, Berkeley, will drive deaths that
soon outpace those from car crashes or opioid overdoses. Cooling
costs -- already a third of some residents' budgets -- will get
pricier, and warming will drive down economic output by 8 percent,
perhaps making El Paso just as unlivable as the places farther
south.<br>
<br>
In 2014, El Paso created a new city government position -- chief
resilience officer -- aimed, in part, at folding climate concerns
into its urban planning. Soon enough, the climate crisis in
Guatemala -- not just the one in El Paso -- became one of the city's
top concerns. "I apologize if I'm off topic," the resilience chief,
Nicole Ferrini, told municipal leaders and other attendees at a
water conference in Phoenix in 2019 as she raised the question of
"massive amounts of climate refugees, and are we prepared as a
community, as a society, to deal with that?"...<br>
- -<br>
And therein lies the basis for what may be the worst-case scenario:
one in which America and the rest of the developed world refuse to
welcome migrants but also fail to help them at home. As our model
demonstrated, closing borders while stinting on development creates
a somewhat counterintuitive population surge even as temperatures
rise, trapping more and more people in places that are increasingly
unsuited to human life.<br>
<br>
In that scenario, the global trend toward building walls could have
a profound and lethal effect. Researchers suggest that the annual
death toll, globally, from heat alone will eventually rise by 1.5
million. But in this scenario, untold more will also die from
starvation, or in the conflicts that arise over tensions that food
and water insecurity will bring...<br>
-- -<br>
If this happens, the United States and Europe risk walling
themselves in, as much as walling others out. And so the question
then is: What are policymakers and planners prepared to do about
that? America's demographic decline suggests that more immigrants
would play a productive role here, but the nation would have to be
willing to invest in preparing for that influx of people so that the
population growth alone doesn't overwhelm the places they move to,
deepening divisions and exacerbating inequalities. At the same time,
the United States and other wealthy countries can help vulnerable
people where they live, by funding development that modernizes
agriculture and water infrastructure. A U.N. World Food Program
effort to help farmers build irrigated greenhouses in El Salvador,
for instance, has drastically reduced crop losses and improved
farmers' incomes. It can't reverse climate change, but it can buy
time.<br>
<br>
Thus far, the United States has done very little at all. Even as the
scientific consensus around climate change and climate migration
builds, in some circles the topic has become taboo. This spring,
after Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published the
explosive study estimating that, barring migration, one-third of the
planet's population may eventually live outside the traditional
ecological niche for civilization, Marten Scheffer, one of the
study's authors, told me that he was asked to tone down some of his
conclusions through the peer-review process and that he felt pushed
to "understate" the implications in order to get the research
published. The result: Migration is only superficially explored in
the paper. (A spokeswoman for the journal declined to comment
because the review process is confidential.)<br>
<br>
If this happens, the United States and Europe risk walling
themselves in, as much as walling others out. And so the question
then is: What are policymakers and planners prepared to do about
that? America's demographic decline suggests that more immigrants
would play a productive role here, but the nation would have to be
willing to invest in preparing for that influx of people so that the
population growth alone doesn't overwhelm the places they move to,
deepening divisions and exacerbating inequalities. At the same time,
the United States and other wealthy countries can help vulnerable
people where they live, by funding development that modernizes
agriculture and water infrastructure. A U.N. World Food Program
effort to help farmers build irrigated greenhouses in El Salvador,
for instance, has drastically reduced crop losses and improved
farmers' incomes. It can't reverse climate change, but it can buy
time.<br>
<br>
Thus far, the United States has done very little at all. Even as the
scientific consensus around climate change and climate migration
builds, in some circles the topic has become taboo. This spring,
after Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published the
explosive study estimating that, barring migration, one-third of the
planet's population may eventually live outside the traditional
ecological niche for civilization, Marten Scheffer, one of the
study's authors, told me that he was asked to tone down some of his
conclusions through the peer-review process and that he felt pushed
to "understate" the implications in order to get the research
published. The result: Migration is only superficially explored in
the paper. (A spokeswoman for the journal declined to comment
because the review process is confidential.)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[on propaganda - podcast connection, iTunes or Spotify]<br>
Apple Podcasts Preview<br>
<b>S3: The Mad Men of Climate Denial</b><br>
DRILLED<br>
Social Sciences<br>
Listen on Apple Podcasts <br>
Big Oil gave Hitler propaganda tips decades ago and their PR machine
has only grown from there. This season we dig into the history of
fossil fuel propaganda and the few "Mad Men of climate denial" who
shaped it. Coming January 2020.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000458727231">https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000458727231</a><br>
<p><b>S3, Ep 6: Manipulating the Masses and Predicting the
Future--Edward Bernays and W. Howard Chase </b><br>
DRILLED<br>
Social Sciences<br>
Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, coined the term "public
relations" when propaganda started to become a negative term. His
specialty was using psychological know-how to manipulate the
masses and orchestrate cultural shifts in his clients' favor
(clients like Standard Oil, the American Tobacco Company, and
General Motors). A few decades later, W. Howard Chase built onto
that foundation with the idea of issues management--predicting an
industry's potential issues, and manipulating political, social,
and cultural forces to neutralize them. Chase is responsible for
one of the best-known examples of greenwashing, the so-called
"crying Indian ad," which introduced the idea of "litter bugs" and
individual responsibility for pollution.<br>
<br>
Support us: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.patreon.com/Drilled">https://www.patreon.com/Drilled</a><br>
<br>
Read more: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drillednews.com">www.drillednews.com</a><br>
Transcript:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/to0gvv8bco37xm0/S3_Ep6.docx?dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/s/to0gvv8bco37xm0/S3_Ep6.docx?dl=0</a><br>
Subscribe to Heated: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.heated.world">http://www.heated.world</a><br>
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices<br>
</p>
<p>Episode about Edward Bernays is here: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000466602017">https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000466602017</a>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[looking forward, look back]<br>
<b>E.P.A. Proposes Airplane Emission Standards That Airlines Already
Meet</b><br>
Staving off a lawsuit, the Environmental Protection Agency has
proposed new regulations to hold airlines to the carbon dioxide
emissions standards they created.<br>
By Coral Davenport - July 22, 2020<br>
<br>
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration on Wednesday made public the
federal government's first proposal to control planet-warming
pollution from airplanes, but the draft regulation would not push
the airlines beyond emissions limits they have set for themselves.<br>
<br>
President Trump is still pressing forward on his
three-and-a-half-year rollback of environmental standards, and the
proposed airline rule would stave off an impending lawsuit by
putting the federal government in compliance with a legal
requirement that it regulate airplane greenhouse emissions.<br>
<br>
"This is the third time in the past two years that this
administration has taken major action to regulate greenhouse gases
in a way that is legally defensible, reduces CO2 and protects
American jobs," Andrew Wheeler, the head of the Environmental
Protection Agency, said on a telephone call with reporters Wednesday
morning.<br>
<br>
Mr. Wheeler said he was referring to a 2019 regulation on greenhouse
emissions from power plants and an April rule governing emissions
from vehicle tailpipes. Both of those rules replaced far more
stringent climate change standards developed by the Obama
administration, and in both cases the new rules allow for more
planet-warming emissions than their predecessors...<br>
- -<br>
In 2016, the Obama administration released a legal conclusion known
as an "endangerment finding," which determined that the
planet-warming pollution produced by airplanes endangers human
health by contributing to climate change. The endangerment finding
did not include the details of a regulation, but it set off a legal
requirement under the Clean Air Act for the E.P.A. to establish a
rule.<br>
<br>
In January, several environmental groups filed a legal notice of
their intent to sue the Trump administration for its failure to meet
that requirement, giving 180 days notice. That notice expires on
July 28, but with the release of the draft rule, the environmental
groups no longer have grounds to sue the administration to release a
regulation on aviation pollution.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/climate/airplanes-climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/climate/airplanes-climate-change.html</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[bad news]<br>
Capital Weather Gang<br>
<b>Major new climate study rules out less severe global warming
scenarios</b><br>
An analysis finds the most likely range of warming from doubling
carbon dioxide to be between 4.1 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit<br>
By Andrew Freedman and Chris Mooney - July 22 <br>
The current pace of human-caused carbon emissions is increasingly
likely to trigger irreversible damage to the planet, according to a
comprehensive international study released Wednesday. Researchers
studying one of the most important and vexing topics in climate
science -- how sensitive the Earth's climate is to a doubling of the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- found that warming is
extremely unlikely to be on the low end of estimates.<br>
<br>
These scientists now say it is likely that if human activities --
such as burning oil, gas and coal along with deforestation -- push
carbon dioxide to such levels, the Earth's global average
temperature will most likely increase between 4.1 and 8.1 degrees
Fahrenheit (2.3 and 4.5 degrees Celsius). The previous and
long-standing estimated range of climate sensitivity, as first laid
out in a 1979 report, was 2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 4.5
Celsius).<br>
<br>
If the warming reaches the midpoint of this new range, it would be
extremely damaging, said Kate Marvel, a physicist at NASA's Goddard
Institute of Space Studies and Columbia University, who called it
the equivalent of a "five-alarm fire" for the planet...<br>
- - <br>
<b>Knowing the climate sensitivity range could enable better
decision-making</b><br>
The term "climate sensitivity" might seem like an academic
construct, a metric that matters more in the grand theories and
computer models of scientists than it does in our everyday lives.<br>
<br>
In fact, the study has a message that matters to us a great deal:
There is basically little or no chance that we are going to get
lucky and find that the warming caused by our activities turns out
to be minor.<br>
<br>
There are at least two main lines of evidence that lead to the
conclusion, based on the study. The first is simply the warming that
has already occurred since the industrial revolution.<br>
<br>
Currently, with atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 415
parts per million (compared with a preindustrial level of 280 parts
per million), the world is about halfway toward doubling atmospheric
carbon dioxide (560 parts per million). And already, the Earth has
warmed by at least 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above
preindustrial temperatures.<br>
<br>
The new research finds that, in light of this, there is strong
evidence refuting the notion that a doubling of carbon dioxide would
only cause about 2.6 degrees (1.5 Celsius) of warming.<br>
<br>
At the same time, researchers rejected the idea that there is any
factor in the climate system that will counteract the warming trend
in a meaningful way.<br>
<br>
In the past, climate change contrarians and doubters have said that
clouds might be such a factor. For instance, if as the planet warms
the overall size, composition or surface area of clouds increases,
they could reflect more sunlight from Earth, which would cool the
planet some. But the study finds that isn't likely to happen.<br>
<br>
"We find that a negative total cloud feedback is very unlikely," the
authors write, concluding that for this reason the climate
sensitivity cannot be very low.<br>
<br>
"The uncertainty is really asymmetric here," Marvel said in an
interview. "We can be very confident in ruling out sensitivities on
the low end. So basically what we're saying here is that there is
really no evidence for any sort of natural response, any sort of
big, stabilizing feedback, that in the absence of human actions, is
going to save us from climate change."<br>
<br>
But Gavin Schmidt, the study's co-author and Marvel's colleague at
NASA Goddard, offered some optimism, noting that collective action
by nations could prevent the doubling of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.<br>
<br>
"The primary determinant of future climate is human actions," Marvel
said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/07/22/climate-sensitivity-co2/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/07/22/climate-sensitivity-co2/</a><br>
- - <br>
[Source material]<br>
<b>An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines
of evidence</b><br>
S. Sherwood M. J. Webb J. D. Annan K. C. Armour P. M. Forster
J. C. Hargreaves G. Hegerl S. A. Klein K. D. Marvel E. J.
Rohling M. Watanabe T. Andrews P. Braconnot … <br>
First published: 22 July 2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678</a><br>
...Please cite this article as doi: 10.1029/2019RG000678<br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
<blockquote>We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium
climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized
by an effective sensitivity S . This evidence includes feedback
process understanding, the historical climate record, and the
paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to
reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of
cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence
against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in
combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a
Bayesian approach to produce a probability density (PDF) for S
given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to
difficult‐to‐quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66%
range is 2.6‐3.9 K for our Baseline calculation, and remains
within 2.3‐4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5‐95%
ranges are 2.3‐4.7 K, bounded by 2.0‐5.7 K (although such
high‐confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This
indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past
assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing
occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to
be largely independent, and because of greater confidence in
understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We
identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S ,
in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding
to address limitations in the traditional forcing‐feedback
paradigm for interpreting past changes.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>Plain Language Summary</b><br>
<blockquote>Earth's global "climate sensitivity" is a fundamental
quantitative measure of the susceptibility of Earth's climate to
human influence. A landmark report in 1979 concluded that it
probably lies between 1.5‐4.5C per doubling of atmospheric carbon
dioxide, assuming that other influences on climate remain
unchanged. In the 40 years since, it has appeared difficult to
reduce this uncertainty range. In this report we thoroughly assess
all lines of evidence including some new developments. We find
that a large volume of consistent evidence now points to a more
confident view of a climate sensitivity near the middle or upper
part of this range. In particular, it now appears extremely
unlikely that the climate sensitivity could be low enough to avoid
substantial climate change (well in excess of 2C warming) under a
high‐emissions future scenario. We remain unable to rule out that
the sensitivity could be above 4.5C per doubling of carbon dioxide
levels, although this is not likely. Continued research is needed
to further reduce the uncertainty and we identify some of the more
promising possibilities in this regard.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Energy malfeasance]<br>
<b>Ohio state House speaker arrested in connection to $60 million
bribery scheme</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/larry-householder-ohio-speaker-arrested/index.html">https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/larry-householder-ohio-speaker-arrested/index.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 -
July 24, 2014 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports:<br>
<br>
"Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma
are among the most vocal Republican skeptics of the science that
burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but a new
study to be released Thursday found that their states would be
among the biggest economic winners under a regulation proposed by
President Obama to fight climate change.<br>
<br>
"The study, conducted by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the Rhodium Group, both research
organizations, concluded that the regulation would cut demand for
electricity from coal -- the nation's largest source of carbon
pollution -- but create robust new demand for natural gas, which
has just half the carbon footprint of coal. It found that the
demand for natural gas would, in turn, drive job creation,
corporate revenue and government royalties in states that produce
it, which, in addition to Oklahoma and Texas, include Arkansas and
Louisiana."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/states-against-epa-rule-on-carbon-pollution-would-gain-study-finds.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/states-against-epa-rule-on-carbon-pollution-would-gain-study-finds.html</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<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>