<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>September 30, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[un-civil discourse]<br>
<b>Trump, Biden spar over climate change at debate</b><br>
BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 09/29/20 <br>
President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden sparred over
climate change and their respective records on the issue during
Tuesday night's presidential debate.<br>
<br>
Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump during one segment of the debate
whether he believed that human greenhouse gas emissions contribute
to warming of the planet.<br>
<br>
"I think a lot of things do but I think to an extent yes," the
president said, later adding in reference to current wildfires
blazing in the West that "we have to do better management of our
forests."<br>
The vast majority of scientists believe that climate change is
human-caused. Many forests in Western states facing wildfires are
federally managed, like California, where about 57 percent of them
are managed by the federal government.<br>
<br>
Trump also defended his decision to roll back fuel economy
standards, claiming that it made cars safer and cheaper.<br>
<br>
"The car is much less expensive and it's a much safer car and you're
talking about a tiny difference," he said, calling California's
recent decision to try to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars
"crazy."<br>
<br>
However, the cost-benefit analysis for the administration's fuel
economy standards found that consumers would ultimately pay $13
billion more in the next decade, in part due to spending more on gas
because of lower fuel economy standards.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, Biden defended his own energy policies, saying they would
create jobs.<br>
<br>
The candidates became heated when Biden began to criticize Trump
administration moves that roll back the regulations of methane
emissions and weaken fuel economy standards...<br>
more -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/518883-trump-biden-spar-over-climate-change">https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/518883-trump-biden-spar-over-climate-change</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[NatGeo]<br>
<b>The jet stream is bringing fire weather to the West and a chill
to the East</b><br>
Super-wavy jet stream configurations are sometimes associated with
heat waves, and the West can't really afford more extreme heat right
now.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/jet-stream-fire-weather-california-chill-eastern-us/">https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/jet-stream-fire-weather-california-chill-eastern-us/</a><br>
- -<br>
[video of fires still going]<br>
<b>3 killed and thousands evacuated as Northern California wildfire
rages</b><br>
The Zogg Fire in Northern California is blamed for killing at least
three people, bringing this year's statewide wildfire season death
toll to 29. Jonathan Vigliotti has the latest.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/video/3-killed-and-thousands-evacuated-as-northern-california-wildfire-rages/">https://www.cbsnews.com/video/3-killed-and-thousands-evacuated-as-northern-california-wildfire-rages/</a><br>
- -<br>
[Fox news video]<br>
<b>Wildfire-plagued West faces more heat as stormy conditions head
East</b><br>
Elevated fire weather conditions exist across Southern California
where red flag warnings are in place<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/wildfire-west-fire-weather-red-flag-warning-east-coast-storm-rain-midwest-front">https://www.foxnews.com/us/wildfire-west-fire-weather-red-flag-warning-east-coast-storm-rain-midwest-front</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[BBC asks, has it?]<br>
<b>Has world started to take climate change fight seriously?</b><br>
Justin Rowlatt<br>
A surprise announcement at this year's UN General Assembly has
transformed the politics of cutting carbon, says the BBC's chief
environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt. As the meeting of the
so-called "global parliament" comes to an end, he asks whether it
might just signal the beginning of a global rush to decarbonise.<br>
<br>
You probably missed the most important announcement on tackling
climate change in years.<br>
<br>
It was made at the UN General Assembly.<br>
<br>
It wasn't the big commitment to protect biodiversity or anything to
do with the discussion about how to tackle the coronavirus pandemic
- vitally important though these issues are.<br>
<br>
No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese
President, Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to
net zero by 2060.<br>
<br>
The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise
marks something even more significant: China may have fired the
starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil
fuels...<br>
- -<br>
So why now?<br>
President Xi definitely had an eye on global politics.<br>
<br>
His address was a very deliberate contrast to that of President
Trump a couple of days earlier.<br>
<br>
Where Trump blames China for the world's problems, Xi calls for
global cooperation and highlights all the good work China has been
doing.<br>
<br>
He called on the world to work together, investing in a green
recovery to lift the global economy from the post-Covid doldrums.<br>
<br>
"We are living in an interconnected global village with a common
stake," says Xi...<br>
"All countries are closely connected and we share a common future.
No country can gain from others' difficulties or maintain stability
by taking advantage of others' troubles."<br>
<br>
"we should embrace the vision of a community with a shared future in
which everyone is bound together," he continues.<br>
<br>
Heart-stirring stuff, eh?<br>
<br>
It is also presumably no coincidence that Xi's announcement came
weeks before the US Presidential election, and just as the terrible
fires on the west coast and a series of fierce storms in the east
made climate an issue in the polls for the first time.<br>
<br>
And a cynic might think his reassuring words were partly a ploy to
reingratiate China with the climate-conscious Europeans, and isolate
a climate-sceptic US President. It came straight after a virtual
bilateral summit between Beijing and Brussels.<br>
<br>
A global race to clean power?<br>
But there is a much more important broader context for his
announcement: the fact that the collapsing cost of clean energy is
completely changing the calculus of decarbonisation.<br>
<br>
Renewables are already often cheaper than fossil fuel power in many
parts of the world and, if China and the EU really ramp up their
investments in wind, solar and batteries in the next few years,
prices are likely to fall even further.<br>
<br>
Why? Because the cost of renewables follows the logic of all
manufacturing - the more you produce, the cheaper it gets. It's like
pushing on an open door - the more you build the cheaper it gets,
the cheaper it gets the more you build.<br>
<br>
The Europeans have been quite open that their strategy is to entice
other countries to join them by driving down the cost of renewables
globally. Alongside this carrot, they also plan to wield a stick - a
tax on the imports of countries that emit too much carbon.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, President Xi's 2060 pledge was notably unconditional -
China will move ahead whether or not other countries chose to
follow.<br>
<br>
This is a complete turnaround from past negotiations, when
everyone's fear was that they might end up incurring the cost of
decarbonising their own economy, while others did nothing but still
enjoyed the climate change fruits of their labour.<br>
<br>
How things have changed. Very soon, renewable power is likely to be
the cheapest and therefore almost certainly the most profitable
choice in large parts of the world.<br>
<br>
Think what this means: investors won't need to be bullied by green
activists into doing the right thing, they will just follow the
money...<br>
Why invest in new oil wells or coal power stations that will become
obsolete before they can repay themselves over their 20-30-year
life? Why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?<br>
<br>
The change of appetite on financial markets has become ever more
obvious over the last decade. This year alone, Tesla's rocketing
share price has made it the world's most valuable car company.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, the share price of Exxon - once the world's most valuable
company of any kind - fell so far that it just got booted out of the
Dow Jones Industrial Average of major US corporations.<br>
- -<br>
First off, Mr Xi's did not give any details of how his country would
achieve his carbon-neutral target.<br>
<br>
Remember, China is by far the biggest consumer of coal in the world,
hoovering up about half of the global supply.<br>
<br>
It is also the world's second biggest user of oil - after the US.<br>
<br>
Across its economy, some 85% of its power comes from fossil fuels
with 15% from low carbon sources...<br>
-- -<br>
But there is another reason for optimism.<br>
<br>
The US is the world's biggest economy and the second biggest
producer of greenhouse gases, and is therefore essential to any
effort to tackle climate change.<br>
<br>
Under Donald Trump it has steered clear of carbon-cutting
commitments.<br>
<br>
But his challenger, Joe Biden, has said he will re-join the Paris
accord, and has promised a $2 trillion green recovery plan for the
US, which would aim to slash emissions and tackle the effects of
climate change.<br>
<br>
That holds out the promise of the world's three largest economies,
responsible for nearly half of all emissions, all making a serious
effort to cut carbon.<br>
<br>
Once half the world is on-board with the project it is hard to see
how the rest could hold out.<br>
<br>
So - and this isn't something we often say about climate change -
there are powerful new reasons for optimism.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54347878">https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54347878</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Video]<br>
<b>We teamed up with Kurzgesagt to make a video about climate
change: 'Is It Too Late To Stop Climate </b><b>Change? Well, it's
Complicated'</b><br>
by Hannah Ritchie<br>
September 29, 2020<br>
Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress
against the world's largest problems.<br>
In recent years, the team at Our World in Data have teamed up
several times with the YouTube channel 'Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell'
to make videos on the global questions our work is focused on. One
example was a video on Egoistic Altriusm (The selfish argument for
making the world a better place), a video on the COVID-19 pandemic,
and more recently a video on climate change: 'Who is responsible for
climate change? - Who needs to fix it?'.<br>
<br>
This time we worked with the Kurzgesagt team again to produce
another video on climate change: 'Is It Too Late To Stop Climate
Change? Well, it's Complicated'.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ourworldindata.org/kurzgesagt-climate-video">https://ourworldindata.org/kurzgesagt-climate-video</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo">https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[VOA]<br>
<b>UN, Britain to Co-host Climate Summit on December 12</b><br>
By Agence France-Presse<br>
September 23, 2020<br>
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations and Britain will co-host a
global climate summit on December 12, the fifth anniversary of the
landmark Paris Agreement, the world body said Wednesday.<br>
<br>
The announcement came days after Chinese President Xi Jinping told
the U.N. that the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter would peak
emissions in 2030 and attempt to go carbon neutral by 2060, a move
hailed by environmentalists.<br>
<br>
"We have champions and solutions all around us, in every city,
corporation and country," U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
said.<br>
<br>
"But the climate emergency is fully upon us, and we have no time to
waste. The answer to our existential crisis is swift, decisive,
scaled-up action and solidarity among nations."<br>
<br>
The world remains off-track to limit global temperature rise to 1.5
degrees Celsius by the end of the century, which scientists say is
crucial to prevent runaway warming that would leave vast swaths of
the planet inhospitable to life.<br>
<br>
"In light of this urgency, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will co-host a landmark global
event convening global leaders ... to rally much greater climate
action and ambition," the statement said.<br>
<br>
Session on Thursday<br>
<br>
The two were to address the issue at a climate round-table meeting
hosted by Guterres on Thursday.<br>
<br>
National governments will be invited to present more ambitious and
high-quality climate plans at the summit, which would involve
government leaders, as well as the private sector and civil society.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.voanews.com/science-health/un-britain-co-host-climate-summit-december-12">https://www.voanews.com/science-health/un-britain-co-host-climate-summit-december-12</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[In VICE]<br>
<b>People of Color Experience Climate Grief More Deeply Than White
People</b><br>
"For Black and Indigenous peoples, you could argue that the history
of our oppression is the story of the Anthropocene itself--the
current geological age defined by the dominant influence that human
activity has had on mass extinction, climate, and the environment.
Without colonization, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the
genocide and oppression of Indigenous peoples around the world, we
likely would be living in a different reality. Research has
bolstered the idea that white supremacy has led to the climate
crisis. Scientists from University College London found that the
mass genocide that accompanied the colonization of the Americas in
the 15th century permanently altered Earth's climate..."<br>
Read full article:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7ggqx/people-of-color-experience-climate-grief-more-deeply-than-white-people?fbclid=IwAR1xtehLNtNd3LbzTxOOwdFBHMaTrJlrL3d0nyojF2Cd9BnLcEixzVzNEJA">https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7ggqx/people-of-color-experience-climate-grief-more-deeply-than-white-people?fbclid=IwAR1xtehLNtNd3LbzTxOOwdFBHMaTrJlrL3d0nyojF2Cd9BnLcEixzVzNEJA</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Lawsuit filed 9/14/2020]<br>
<b>Connecticut Sues Exxon For Decades of Deceit Regarding Climate
Change</b><br>
(Hartford, CT) - Attorney General William Tong today sued
ExxonMobil under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
alleging an ongoing, systematic campaign of lies and deception to
hide from the public what ExxonMobil has known for decades--that
burning fossil fuels undeniably contributes to climate change.<br>
<br>
"ExxonMobil sold oil and gas, but it also sold lies about climate
science. ExxonMobil knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels
would have a significant impact on the environment, public health
and our economy. Yet it chose to deceive the public. No more,"
said Attorney General Tong. "ExxonMobil made billions of dollars
during its decades-long campaign of deception that continues
today. Connecticut's citizens should not have to bear the expense
of fortifying our infrastructure to adapt to the very real
consequences of climate change. Our case is simple and strong, and
we will hold ExxonMobil accountable."<br>
<br>
"Connecticut communities have seen very real damage from climate
change," said Michelle Seagull, Commissioner for the Department of
Consumer Protection, "but for decades ExxonMobil has misled the
public by downplaying the harmful effects of the fossil fuels they
sold."<br>
<br>
"This misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel companies misled
the public and stymied policy that cost us decades of inaction,"
DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes said. "Because of these delays,
Connecticut is already experiencing the very real, and very
costly, impacts of man-made climate change. This suit seeks to
hold companies accountable for their actions and seeks their just
remediation for the damages caused and the challenges that
continue to compound into the future. Fortunately, we know what we
need to do going forward. We need to decarbonize our electric
sector and make affordable, clean, renewable energy available to
all, and the Lamont administration is working hard to achieve
those goals."<br>
<br>
The lawsuit is built on solid evidence that contrasts internal
company memos and research with false and deceptive public
messages that continue today. Records show Exxon knew burning
fossil fuels contributed to global warming as early as the 1950s.
The company conducted its own research in the 1970s and 1980s
confirming that atmospheric CO2 expelled in the exploration,
refining and combustion of the fossil fuel products it sold
contributed to climate change and that climate change could have
catastrophic effects on humanity. Armed with that critical
information, Exxon had the unique ability to disclose its research
and help find a sustainable energy solution. Instead, beginning in
the 1980s and continuing today, the company hid its research and
launched a widespread campaign of deception through advertising,
skewed research papers, public speeches, books, and presentations.
This deception continues today in "greenwashed" ads that falsely
portray the company as meaningfully working to combat climate
change.<br>
<br>
The lawsuit draws heavily from Exxon's and Mobil's own historical
internal memos, which plainly convey the companies' firm
understanding of the connection between fossil fuel consumption
and climate change, and the impacts of climate change to our
environment, economy and public health.<br>
<br>
Click here to download a sample of key documents cited in the
complaint.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Key-Documents-from-Connecticut-Climate-Case.pdf">https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Key-Documents-from-Connecticut-Climate-Case.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Because of this deception, Connecticut lost out on decades of
opportunities to prepare for and mitigate climate change, which is
now causing sea level rise, flooding, drought, increased
temperatures, decreased air quality, and more frequent severe
storms--all with devastating consequences for public health, the
environment, and our economy. Even if the Earth stays at its
current rate of warming, the State of Connecticut and its citizens
will have to expend billions of dollars to adapt to the
consequences of global warming.<br>
<br>
The lawsuit seeks relief in the form of remediation for past,
present and future harm from climate change, restitution for
investments already made due to climate change, disgorgement of
corporate profits, civil penalties, disclosure of all climate
research, establishment of a third-party controlled education fund
and an immediate end to the false and misleading information that
ExxonMobil has been disseminating for years.<br>
<br>
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act has no statute of
limitations, allowing the Office of the Attorney General to
examine all of ExxonMobil's deceptions dating back decades.<br>
<br>
Special Assistant Attorney General Ben Cheney, Assistant Attorney
General Dan Salton, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Harding,
Administrative Assistant Sonda Thomas, Secretary Heidi Melendez,
and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Levine, Head of the
Environment Department are assisting the Attorney General in this
matter.<br>
Twitter: @AGWilliamTong<br>
Facebook: CT Attorney General<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2020-Press-Releases/CONNECTICUT-SUES-EXXON-FOR-DECADES-OF-DECEIT-REGARDING-CLIMATE-CHANGE">https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2020-Press-Releases/CONNECTICUT-SUES-EXXON-FOR-DECADES-OF-DECEIT-REGARDING-CLIMATE-CHANGE</a><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[some history]<br>
<b>Climate Change Was on the Ballot With Jimmy Carter in
1980--Though No One Knew It at the Time</b><br>
BY JONATHAN ALTER SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 1:30 PM EDT<br>
This year's wildfires and hurricanes leave no doubt that climate
change is a key issue in November's election, but 2020 is hardly the
first time the environment has been on the ballot. In fact, the
future of the planet was at stake in the presidential contest as
early as 40 years ago--but no one knew it at the time.<br>
<br>
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter was running for reelection against
former California Governor Ronald Reagan. The environment was a
campaign issue, in part because Reagan had been quoted saying that
more than 80% of nitrogen oxide air pollution is "caused by trees
and vegetation." (Reagan, the Sierra Club responded, was "just plain
wrong.") Carter, meanwhile, had signed 14 major pieces of
environmental legislation, including the first funding of
alternative energy, the first federal toxic waste cleanup (the Super
Fund), the first fuel economy standards and important new laws to
fight air, water and other forms of pollution. He also protected
California's redwood forest and 100 million acres in the Alaska
Lands bill, which doubled the size of the National Park Service.<br>
<br>
But there was one big environmental issue he didn't have time to
confront--a challenge that was unknown then outside the scientific
community but would eventually become of critical importance around
the world.<br>
<br>
Carter had been a nuclear engineer in the Navy and--while other
politicians played golf--he spent his spare time reading scientific
publications. In 1972, when he was governor of Georgia, he
underlined path-breaking articles in the journal Nature about carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
When he became President, Carter was the first global leader to
recognize the problem of climate change. In 1977, scratching his
itch as a planner and steward of the earth, he commissioned the
Global 2000 Report to the President, an ambitious effort to explore
environmental challenges and the prospects of "sustainable
development" (a new phrase) over the next 20 years. As part of that
process, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
issued three reports contending with global warming, the last of
which--issued the week before Carter left office--was devoted
entirely to the long-term threat of what a handful of scientists
then called "carbon dioxide pollution."<br>
<br>
The report, written by Gus Speth, Carter's top aide on the
environment, urged "immediate action" and included calculations on
CO2 emissions in the next decades that proved surprisingly accurate.
The large-scale burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels could
lead to "widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic,
economic, social, and agricultural patterns," the CEQ report
concluded with great prescience.<br>
One recommendation--covered in the very last paragraph of a New York
Times story that ran on page A13--encouraged industrialized nations
to reach agreement on the safe maximum level of carbon dioxide
released into the atmosphere. The CEQ report suggested trying to
limit global average temperature to 2°C above preindustrial
levels--precisely the standard agreed to by the nations of the world
35 years later in the Paris Climate Agreement that has now been
abandoned by President Trump.<br>
<br>
With these facts in hand, Reagan's landslide victory over Carter in
the 1980 election takes on a tragic dimension: Carter had acted on
every other CEQ report issued in the previous four years with
aggressive legislation and executive orders. He almost certainly
would have done so on this one, too, had he been reelected. Gains
made under Carter's presidential leadership in the early 1980s might
have bought the planet precious time. Instead, for the next 12
years, under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the U.S. government would
view global warming as largely unworthy of study, much less action.
Then came 25 years of stop-and-start efforts under administrations
of both parties, followed by a return to denial under Trump.<br>
<br>
There are lessons here for the present. Carter was a political
failure--confronted with a bad economy, the Iran hostage crisis, a
divided Democratic Party and a talented challenger in Reagan--but he
was a substantive and visionary success.<br>
<br>
It took a while for public opinion to catch up to him. After being
burned in effigy in Alaska, he received only 26% of the statewide
vote in the 1980 presidential election. But by 2000, a
billion-dollar tourism industry had blossomed there, and polls
showed residents favored Carter's landmark achievement. When he
visited that year, his speech was interrupted five times for
standing ovations.<br>
<br>
In 1979, Carter placed solar panels on the roof of the West Wing of
the White House. After Reagan came to office, he cut funding for
green energy and his chief of staff, Donald T. Regan, describing the
panels as "just a joke," took them down. It wasn't until 2010 that
President Obama put up a new generation of solar units. Now, solar
is the fastest-growing source of electricity in the United States.<br>
Joe Biden was the first senator to endorse Carter for president in
1976, when Carter ran a campaign based on "healing" after the
Watergate scandal and promised not to lie. Biden is running on
similar themes and has introduced an ambitious program to combat
climate change and create millions of green jobs. Trump, on the
other hand, has described climate change as a "hoax."<br>
<br>
Jimmy Carter's example suggests that looking over the horizon might
light our path to a better future--but also that, without political
victory, the chance to realize that future can easily slip away.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://time.com/5894179/jimmy-carter-climate-change/">https://time.com/5894179/jimmy-carter-climate-change/</a>
<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 -
September 30, 2004 </b></font><br>
In his first debate with President Bush, Democratic challenger and
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry incurs the wrath of the right wing
by declaring:<br>
<blockquote>"The president always has the right, and always has had
the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine
throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we
argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though
all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the
right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States
of America. <br>
<br>
"But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a
way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your
countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for
legitimate reasons. Here we have our own secretary of state who
has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to
the United Nations.<br>
<br>
"I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban
missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with
DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about
the missiles in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.'
And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of
the president of the United States is good enough for me."<br>
<br>
"How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a
result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is
the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead
the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and
North Korea are now more dangerous.<br>
<br>
"Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't
know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my
eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire
time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the
Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from
some of the treaties that were on the table.<br>
<br>
"You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away
from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse
to deal at length with the United Nations.<br>
<br>
"You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of
earning back to do." <br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FullS">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FullS</a> - (59:20--61:22) <br>
<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 mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can 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. Messages have no tracking software.<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>