<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>October 9, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[a look at one subject]<br>
<b>Harris, Pence spar over climate science, fracking, and the Green
New Deal</b><br>
Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) sparred
over their commitment to the science of climate change, with the
vice president repeatedly falsely asserting a Biden administration
plans to ban fracking and adopt the Green New Deal.<br>
<br>
"The climate is changing. The issue is, what's the cause and what do
we do about it? President Trump has made it clear that we're going
to continue to listen to science," Pence said in response to a
question about climate change.<br>
<br>
Pence later said "climate alarmists" would try to use natural
disasters like hurricanes and wildfires to try and sell the Green
New Deal.<br>
The Biden campaign has charged the Trump administration with
ignoring science on topics ranging from the coronavirus pandemic to
climate change.<br>
<br>
"When I first got to the Senate on the committee that's responsible
for the environment you know this administration took the word
science off the website. And then took the phrase climate change off
the website. We have seen a pattern with this administration which
is they don't believe in science," Harris said.<br>
<br>
She then pointed to a recent example in California, where President
Trump, visiting the state to survey wildfire damage, said "I don't
think science knows, actually," in reference to global warming.<br>
<br>
Pence responded to Harris, repeatedly charging that a potential
Biden-Harris administration would ban fracking and support the Green
New Deal. Pence attacked Harris on these topics several times, even
on questions not specifically related to climate change. <br>
<br>
"Now, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would put us back in the Paris
climate Accord they'd impose the Green New Deal, which would crush
American energy, would increase the energy costs of American
families in their homes, and literally would crush American jobs,"
Pence said.<br>
<br>
"The both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and
banning of fracking," he added later said.<br>
Biden's climate plan does not call for banning fracking or fossil
fuels, something he reiterated in August in Pennsylvania, where this
kind of drilling is used.<br>
<br>
"I am not banning fracking," Biden said. "Let me say that again: I
am not banning fracking no matter how many times Donald Trump lies
about me." <br>
<br>
Harris also refuted Pence's claims Biden would see a fracking ban.<br>
<br>
"I will repeat, and the American people know that Joe Biden will not
ban fracking, That is a fact. That is a fact," Harris said, adding
that Biden's plan to transition to clean energy is embedded in his
plan for economic recovery.<br>
<br>
Biden's plan would, however, bar any new oil drilling leases on
public lands.<br>
<br>
The issue of fracking has been a pressure point with progressive
Democrats who want to transition away from fossil fuels. They see
fracking as a risk to water quality. <br>
<br>
"Fracking is bad, actually," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)
tweeted during the debate.<br>
<br>
Harris during the event Wednesday largely ignored Pence's attacks on
the Green New Deal.<br>
Harris endorsed the Green New Deal during the Democratic primary and
has introduced legislation to begin implementing certain aspects of
the resolution. <br>
<br>
The Biden climate plan calls the Green New Deal a "crucial framework
for meeting the climate challenges we face."<br>
<br>
His plan calls for transitioning the country to net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/520127-harris-pence-spar-over-climate-science-fracking-and-the-green-new">https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/520127-harris-pence-spar-over-climate-science-fracking-and-the-green-new</a>?<br>
<br>
<br>
[short video BBC]<br>
<b>Are wildfires the end of the Californian dream?</b><br>
As unprecedented wildfires rage across the Golden State,
Californians have been bearing the brunt.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54455636">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54455636</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[Information battleground]<br>
<b>Climate denial ads on Facebook seen by millions, report finds</b><br>
The ads included calling climate change a hoax and were paid for by
conservative US groups<br>
Adverts on Facebook denying the reality of the climate crisis or the
need for action were viewed by at least 8 million people in the US
in the first half of 2020, a thinktank has found.<br>
<br>
The 51 climate disinformation ads identified included ones stating
that climate change is a hoax and that fossil fuels are not an
existential threat. The ads were paid for by conservative groups
whose sources of funding are opaque, according to a report by
InfluenceMap.<br>
<br>
Last month Facebook said it was "committed to tackling climate
misinformation" as it announced a climate science information
centre. It said: "Climate change is real. The science is unambiguous
and the need to act grows more urgent by the day."...<br>
- - <br>
The report said the ads appeared to be tailored to different
audiences. Those seen mostly by the over-55s often contested the
credibility of climate science, while ads mostly seen by 18- to 34
year-olds tended to challenge the future impact of climate change...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-denial-ads-on-facebook-seen-by-millions-report-finds">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-denial-ads-on-facebook-seen-by-millions-report-finds</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[Influence Map]<br>
<b>Climate Change and Digital Advertising</b><br>
An InfluenceMap Report<br>
October, 2020<br>
<b>Climate Science Disinformation in Facebook Advertising</b><br>
Amid growing concerns at both the impacts of the climate emergency
and the use of social media to sway public opinion, InfluenceMap has
launched a detailed analysis of the use of platforms such as
Facebook by corporations and other entities to influence the climate
agenda. InfluenceMap categorizes three objectives of the use of
social media advertising on the climate issue: Climate-science
disinformation; Climate brand building; and Climate policy and
election influencing.<br>
<br>
This report deals with the category of Climate-science
disinformation-related advertising over Facebook's platform and
takes and analyzes a representative sample of Facebook ads
originating from think tanks and other politically motivated
advertisers known to be linked to climate disinformation content.<br>
<br>
On the 14th of September 2020, Facebook launched its Climate Science
Information Center and reaffirmed its commitment to tackling climate
science misinformation through its fact-checking program. However,
this research reveals that under the current fact-checking program,
anti-climate groups are still able to take advantage of Facebook's
advertising platform and unique targeting abilities to spread
climate disinformation. Only 1 of the 51 ads identified by
InfluenceMap was taken down by Facebook; the rest were allowed to
run for the entirety of their scheduled time. Two of the ads, both
run by US conservative nonprofit PragerU, started on January 23rd,
2020, and ran up to October 1st, 2020, two weeks after Facebook
launched its Climate Science Information Center. See records of
these and other ads covered in this research in the Facebook Ad
Library.<br>
(download graphics and the full report)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Change-and-Digital-Advertising-86222daed29c6f49ab2da76b0df15f76">https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Change-and-Digital-Advertising-86222daed29c6f49ab2da76b0df15f76</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[One more problem is linked]<br>
<b>Nitrogen fertiliser use could 'threaten global climate goals'</b><br>
DAISY DUNNE 07.10.2020 <br>
The world's use of nitrogen fertilisers for food production could
threaten efforts to keep global warming below 2C above
pre-industrial levels.<br>
<br>
That is according to the Global Carbon Project's first comprehensive
assessment of how nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are contributing to
climate change.<br>
<br>
Published in Nature, the results show that human-caused N2O
emissions have increased by 30% over the past four decades – with
the use of nitrogen fertilisers in agriculture playing a major role
in the uptick.<br>
<br>
A growing demand for meat and dairy products has also contributed to
the surge. This is because livestock manure causes N2O emissions and
nitrogen fertilisers are often used in the production of animal
feed, the scientists say.<br>
<br>
The countries with the fastest growing human-caused N2O emissions
include Brazil, China and India, the research adds.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Potent pollutant</b><br>
N2O is a long-lived greenhouse gas that is almost 300 times more
potent than CO2 over a 100-year period. It is the third-largest
contributor to climate change after CO2 and methane.<br>
<br>
The gas is released into the atmosphere by various natural
processes, including through the activity of microbes in soils and
oceans. Other natural processes, including chemical reactions in the
stratosphere and troposphere, cause a reduction in N2O emissions.<br>
<br>
However, human activities can also cause N2O to be released into the
atmosphere. Human-caused N2O emissions chiefly come from
agriculture, with the fossil-fuel industry and biomass burning also
contributing to a lesser degree.<br>
<br>
The new assessment considered all the ways in which human activities
and natural processes contributed to N2O emissions from 2007-16 in
order to produce the first global "N2O budget".<br>
<br>
The findings show that, unless curbed, human-caused N2O emissions
could threaten the Paris Agreement's target of keeping global
warming "well below" 2C, says lead author Prof Hanqin Tian, director
of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research
at Auburn University in Alabama. He tells Carbon Brief:<br>
<br>
"The most surprising result of the study was the finding that
current trends in N2O emissions are not compatible with pathways
consistent to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement."<br>
<br>
<b>First budget</b><br>
The infographic --
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/A-graphic-summary-of-the-worlds-global-nitrous-oxide-N2O-budget-from-2007-16.jpg">https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/A-graphic-summary-of-the-worlds-global-nitrous-oxide-N2O-budget-from-2007-16.jpg</a>
-- which was produced by the Global Carbon project, summarises the
findings. On the infographic, orange arrows show human-caused N2O
emissions while green arrows show natural N2O emissions. A blue
arrow indicates the reduction in N2O emissions provided by chemical
reactions in the upper atmosphere ("atmospheric chemical sink").<br>
<br>
On the infographic, average N2O emissions are shown in millions of
tonnes per year, with the minimum and maximum range in emissions
shown in brackets.<br>
The infographic shows that global N2O emissions increased by a net
4.3m tonnes a year, on average, from 2007-16. This figure includes
N2O emissions from both natural and human-caused sources.<br>
<br>
In that time, human-caused N2O emissions rose to 7.3m tonnes per
year. This is 30% higher than four decades ago, the study says.<br>
<br>
More than half of human-caused N2O emissions come from agriculture.
The main driver of these emissions are nitrogen fertilisers, which
are routinely sprayed over food crops in order to boost yields.<br>
<br>
Fertiliser application on crops has increased nine-fold worldwide
since 1961, according to a recent landmark report on land and
climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) released in 2019.<br>
<br>
However, a growing demand for meat and dairy products is also a
driver of increasing agricultural emissions, the researchers say in
their paper:<br>
<br>
"Growing demand for meat and dairy products has substantially
increased global N2O emissions from livestock manure production and
management associated with the expansion of pastures and grazing
land."<br>
<br>
The assessment shows that, since the 1980s, agricultural N2O
emissions have been rising the fastest in East and South Asia, South
America and Africa.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, agricultural N2O emissions in North America have stayed
consistently high, while Europe has seen a small dip in its
agricultural N2O emissions.<br>
<br>
<b>Outpaced</b><br>
As part of their analysis, the scientists explored how current N2O
emissions compare with those from the scenarios used to make future
projections about climate change.<br>
<br>
These include the "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs) and
the "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways" (SSPs). [More information on all
of these pathways is available in Carbon Brief's explainer on SSPs.]
--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Historical-and-projected-nitrous-oxide-emissions-and-concentrations.jpg">https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Historical-and-projected-nitrous-oxide-emissions-and-concentrations.jpg</a><br>
<br>
Chart A below shows how global N2O emissions compare with projected
emissions from the RCPs. Chart C, meanwhile, shows how global
concentrations of N2O compare to projected concentrations from the
RCPs.<br>
<br>
(RCP2.6 is a scenario where the world successfully limits global
warming to below 2C, whereas RCP8.5 is a scenario of very high
emissions, where temperatures could rise by around 4.3C or more by
the end of the century.)<br>
<br>
Chart B shows how global N2O emissions compare with projected
emissions from the SSPs, while chart D shows how global
concentrations of N2O compare to projected concentrations from the
SSPs. <br>
<br>
(SSP3 is a scenario where countries do little to cooperate on
climate action, whereas SSP1 is a scenario where the world shifts
its focus to meeting climate targets.)<br>
<br>
On the charts, the black line shows average N2O emissions, whereas
the blue line shows "bottom-up" estimates and the yellow line shows
"top-down" estimates. (Bottom-up estimates are based on country
inventory data, whereas top-up estimates are obtained from global
models and satellite data.)<br>
<br>
Historical and projected nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (A, B) and
concentrations (C, D). Charts A and C show how historical emissions
compare to projections from the Representative Concentration
Pathways (RCPs), whereas charts B and D show how historical
emissions compare to projections from the Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways (SSPs). <br>
<br>
The charts show that N2O emissions are currently tracking a high
emissions scenario (RCP8.5) – and are outpacing all of the SSP
projections.<br>
<br>
This means that, in order to limit global warming to below 2C, N2O
emissions will need to be rapidly reduced in the coming decades,
explains study author Dr Pep Canadell, chief research scientist at
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) Climate Research Centre in Australia and executive director
of the Global Carbon Project. He tells Carbon Brief:<br>
<br>
"The global food system will always leak some N2O given there are no
alternatives to nitrogen fertiliser for growing so much of the food
we eat. However, we must become much more efficient in the way we
use it, which will lead to significant emission reductions."<br>
<br>
The findings reinforce the message that the world needs to change
its eating habits in order to tackle climate change, says Prof Pete
Smith, chair of plant and soil science at the University of
Aberdeen, who was not involved in the research. He tells Carbon
Brief: <br>
<br>
"The study underlines that we must find more efficient ways of
producing food, with lower nitrogen inputs and emissions per unit of
product. But also, we must redesign our current food system so that
it can feed us all within 'planetary boundaries' by reducing
reliance on inefficient supply chains such as meat and dairy and by
dramatically reducing food waste."<br>
<br>
The results "further highlight the need to raise agriculture up the
climate change agenda", says Dr Helen Harwatt, a senior research
fellow at Chatham House and food and climate policy fellow at
Harvard Law School, who was also not involved in the study. She
tells Carbon Brief:<br>
<blockquote>"Measures to reduce N2O emissions from the agriculture
sector align with the broader requirements of food system
transformation to meet key planetary health goals. [Such measures
include] a shift to plant-based eating patterns to reduce the
disproportionate burden of animal agriculture on all three major
greenhouse gases – N2O, CO2 and methane."<br>
</blockquote>
(Last month, Carbon Brief published a series of articles examining
how food production is driving climate change. The series also
featured a webinar, which included Prof Pete Smith and Dr Helen
Harwatt as expert panelists.)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/nitrogen-fertiliser-use-could-threaten-global-climate-goals">https://www.carbonbrief.org/nitrogen-fertiliser-use-could-threaten-global-climate-goals</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Lessons not learned will be repeated]<br>
<b>What Have We Learned in Thirty Years of Covering Climate Change?</b><br>
By Bill McKibben<br>
October 7, 2020<br>
About a year ago, the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick,
called to ask if I thought it might make sense to publish an
anthology of the reporting on climate change that has appeared in
the magazine's pages. Since he works at a breakneck pace, that
volume appears in print this week, under the title "The Fragile
Earth." It's a wonderful book, demonstrating not only the depth of
The New Yorker's commitment to this planet but also the ever-growing
sophistication with which writers have taken on this most important
of topics. The dark splendor of Elizabeth Kolbert's pieces alone is
worth the thirty dollars.<br>
<br>
The book opens with a piece of mine called "The End of Nature," an
excerpt from a book of the same title that appeared in 1989. It's
been a while since I read the words I wrote as a
twenty-eight-year-old, and it made me nostalgic to climb back inside
that young and perhaps overly earnest mind. The essay is a
combination of reflection on the sadness of living in a world where
the human imprint could be measured in every cubic metre of the
atmosphere, and of straightforward reporting about what we then knew
about climatic disruption. In the late nineteen-eighties, I could
fit every scientific report on global warming on my desk. The
articles and monographs published since then would fill an airplane
hangar, but what's amazing is how little has changed. Even then, we
knew that the rivers of the West would be drying up, the oceans
starting to rise dramatically, the ice at the top and bottom of the
planet beginning a catastrophic melt.<br>
<br>
But we even understood many of the details. Here is a small dry
paragraph that I had forgotten I'd written:<br>
<blockquote>One common suggestion is to replace much of the coal and
oil we burn with methane, since it produces considerably less
carbon dioxide. But . . . any methane that escapes unburned into
the atmosphere traps solar radiation twenty times as efficiently
as carbon dioxide does. And methane does leak--from wells, from
pipelines, from appliances; some estimates suggest that as much as
three percent of the natural gas tapped in this country escapes
unburned.<br>
</blockquote>
We knew that, but we wasted much of the past thirty years wandering
down that blind alley anyway. (Indeed, new estimates show that
methane is eighty times more potent than carbon dioxide.) The Obama
Administration's response to climate change was mostly about
replacing coal with natural gas.<br>
<br>
That's why it was very good news last week when Joe Biden's
transition team announced that he would not employ anyone who had
helped to lead fossil-fuel companies. Assuming that the promise
carries over to an Administration proper, it means that natural-gas
advocates (and Obama holdovers) such as Ernest Moniz or Heather
Zichal, both of whom have served lucrative terms on the boards of
large fossil-fuel firms, will find themselves sidelined in the event
of a Biden Presidency. That's crucial, because we need people fully
committed to the task of building out solar and wind power as fast
as possible. Those technologies are much cheaper now than they were
thirty years ago, which helps change the game. (Indeed, news came
last week that ExxonMobil, not long ago the most valuable
corporation in the world, now had a market cap smaller than a big
solar-and-wind company.) As the credit-rating agency Moody's pointed
out in an analysis released last week, natural-gas pipelines are now
an unwise financial bet, partly because activists have become adept
at blocking them. The pincers created by the confluence of cheap
clean tech and a stronger environmental movement should give Biden
the opportunity to move far more nimbly than any President before
him. That's, of course, if he's elected, which remains the first
order of business...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/what-have-we-learned-in-thirty-years-of-covering-climate-change">https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/what-have-we-learned-in-thirty-years-of-covering-climate-change</a><br>
- -<br>
[Yeah, well try the 1979 issue of People Magazine - some 41 years
ago]<br>
<b>CO2 Could Change Our Climate and Flood the Earth--Up to Here</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074765,00.html">http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074765,00.html</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[harsh talk caught on audio about 10:30 ] <br>
<b>GOP Sen. Cory Gardner is billing himself as a "national leader"
on climate issues. But in a heated 2017 </b>recording, he
insisted those who want to cut emissions really want to control the
economy.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://huffpost.com/entry/cory-gardner-climate-change_n_5f7dcd46c5b61229a05a7b13?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004">https://huffpost.com/entry/cory-gardner-climate-change_n_5f7dcd46c5b61229a05a7b13?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004</a>
via <br>
@HuffPostPol<br>
<b>Sen. Cory Gardner's Climate Conspiracy Theory Revealed In 2017
Recording</b><br>
A local newspaper columnist's persistent questions laid bare what
the now-embattled Republican senator actually thought about the
climate crisis.<br>
By Alexander C. Kaufman<br>
Sen. Cory Gardner echoes President Donald Trump's rhetoric on
climate change, grudgingly admitting that humans have some effect<br>
<br>
Sen. Cory Gardner echoes President Donald Trump's rhetoric on
climate change, grudgingly admitting that humans have some effect on
atmospheric changes. Scientists have long agreed that humans are the
primary cause of global warming.<br>
Facing an uphill battle for reelection in a state where two-thirds
of registered voters polled last month said they favored a Senate
candidate who promised "aggressive action" on climate change,
Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) has billed himself as a "national
leader" on climate issues and run three separate ads casting himself
as a pragmatic environmentalist.<br>
<br>
But in a 2017 audiotape HuffPost obtained, Gardner squirms out of
questions about what is causing climate change, instead leaning into
conspiratorial thinking that efforts to curb carbon emissions are
part of a larger plan to "control the economy."<br>
<br>
"There are people who want to control the economy as a result of
their belief about the environment," Gardner said in a previously
unpublished interview with a local newspaper columnist in his native
Yuma County in rural eastern Colorado. "Absolutely, there are." <br>
<br>
Throughout their 17-minute phone call, Gregory Hill, a novelist who
writes a column for the 136-year-old weekly Yuma Pioneer, fired off
an unsparing barrage of questions that the senator tried to deflect
from a position on climate change that is out of sync with
scientific reality and the political consensus among Centennial
State voters. <br>
<br>
"I certainly think that the climate is changing," Gardner said.<br>
<br>
"I've heard you say that before," Hill responded. "But here's my
question: Is it changing as a consequence of the human introduction
of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds into our atmosphere?"<br>
<br>
"Well, I don't think there's any doubt that humans have an impact on
the environment around us," Gardner said.<br>
<br>
Hill grew audibly frustrated. "Let's be clear, because when I step
outside and exhale, I'm having an impact on the environment. But are
humans essentially causing climate change?"<br>
hear the audio -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://soundcloud.com/alexander-charles-kaufman/yuma-pioneer-columnist-gregory-hills-interview-with-sen-cory-gardner">https://soundcloud.com/alexander-charles-kaufman/yuma-pioneer-columnist-gregory-hills-interview-with-sen-cory-gardner</a><br>
<br>
"I think that humans do have an impact on the environment," Gardner
repeated. <br>
<br>
Pressed to state clearly that gases from fossil fuels accumulate in
the atmosphere and trap the sun's heat on the planet, an effect that
scientists first grappled with more than a century ago, Gardner said
he didn't want to get "into a loaded political debate." <br>
<br>
Hill asked Gardner to name "those people" seeking to use climate
change "to control" the economy. <br>
<br>
"People who want to shut down fossil fuel production," Gardner said.
<br>
<br>
By 2050, natural gas use would need to decline worldwide by nearly
60%, oil use would need to fall by 80% and coal use by nearly 95% to
keep global warming from exceeding a catastrophic 1.5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial averages, according to research by the
United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a
consortium of scientists from droves of countries. A study published
last November found that fossil fuel production remained 120% higher
than would be consistent with a 1.5 degrees scenario.<br>
<br>
Calls to nationalize oil companies and electricity production have
grown among the Democratic Party's resurgent left wing. But
Gardner's opponent sits on the opposite end of the party's spectrum.
<br>
<br>
On the campaign trail, Democratic challenger John Hickenlooper has
promised to end subsidies for fossil fuel production and said he
supports halting all new drilling on public lands. But the former
Colorado governor is also an avowed centrist with deep ties to the
state's energy industry. As part of a past bid to expand the gas-
and oil-extraction practice known as hydraulic fracturing, the
governor famously sipped water treated to remove toxic drilling
fluids, prompting progressives to pejoratively nickname him
"Frackenlooper." When he ran for the Democratic presidential
nomination last year, Hickenlooper insisted in an op-ed that the
movement for a Green New Deal "sets us up for failure." He defeated
a climate-focused progressive for his party's Senate nomination in
June.<br>
<br>
There are people who want to control the economy as a result of
their belief about the environment.<br>
Sen. Cory Gardner<br>
This year, Gardner sponsored the Great American Outdoors Act, a law
to permanently fund the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
that the GOP-controlled Senate hastily passed in a bid to boost
Republicans' election prospects amid widespread discontent over the
party's handling of the environment. <br>
<br>
It may or may not sway Colorado voters. After all, the legislation
solved a problem that Gardner himself had helped to create. The
Republican lawmaker had voted in 2011 to eliminate most funding for
the National Park Service fund and endorsed cutting $16 million from
its budget in 2018.<br>
<br>
And as Eric Sondermann, an independent Colorado political analyst,
told InsideClimate News, "Democrats are so desperate to retake the
Senate and send Cory Gardner packing that there are a lot of
Democratic voters who are willing to overlook some issues they
normally wouldn't." Hickenlooper "is never going to be as much of an
oil and gas guy as Gardner," Sondermann said.<br>
<br>
It's that desire to unseat Gardner that convinced Hill to share his
interview with a reporter. Following their testy Tuesday morning
call three years ago, Gardner's team contacted Tony Rayl, the editor
of the Yuma Pioneer, to complain about the columnist's tone and ask
whether Hill truly worked for the paper. Hill, who said he is on the
autism spectrum and reacts angrily when someone appears to be
evading simple questions, was embarrassed at losing his temper. <br>
<br>
"I felt like a failure," he said in a phone call with HuffPost. And
in a county of roughly 10,000 people, he didn't want his mostly
conservative neighbors to see him as "the shrill, hysterical version
of the liberal that they already have in their mind."<br>
<br>
The senator's staffers reinforced that feeling. "It felt like this
intimidation thing that worked," Hill said. "It worked on me more
than anybody." So the interview didn't run in 2017.<br>
<br>
Gardner's office did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.
<br>
<br>
People in Colorado are also grappling with unignorable signs that
the climate is changing. This summer's monsoon season never really
arrived in the state. The warmest August since records began in 1895
bled into unprecedentedly hot September days. By October, every inch
of Colorado was in drought, with roughly half the state in "extreme
drought," and an already historic wildfire season scorched more than
500 square miles of the state.<br>
<br>
"We live on a dirt road," Hill said. "It's so fucking dry and dusty,
every time a car drives by, it's just this fog of dust that settles
into the low parts of the ground and sits there."<br>
<br>
We want to know what you're hearing on the ground from the
candidates. If you get any interesting -- or suspicious! -- campaign
mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know
about, email us at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:scoops@huffpost.com">scoops@huffpost.com</a>.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cory-gardner-climate-change_n_5f7dcd46c5b61229a05a7b13?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004">https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cory-gardner-climate-change_n_5f7dcd46c5b61229a05a7b13?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Polling opinions]<br>
<b>Guardian/Vice poll finds most US 2020 voters strongly favor
climate action</b><br>
Seven in 10 support government action to address crisis – and young
Republicans are less accepting of their party's inaction, according
to new poll published in partnership with Covering Climate Now<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/23/us-voters-climate-change-guardian-vice-poll">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/23/us-voters-climate-change-guardian-vice-poll</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Comic skit where October self speaks with the past June self]<br>
<b>Explaining the Pandemic to my Past Self Part 3</b><br>
Oct 8, 2020<br>
Julie Nolke<br>
What would happen if I tried to explain what's happening now to the
June 2020 version of myself?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbdk_lBCxJk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbdk_lBCxJk</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 -
October 9, 1996 </b></font><br>
<p>Vice President Al Gore and former Representative Jack Kemp
discuss the environment in the Vice Presidential debate, with Kemp
bizarrely accusing Gore of promoting "fear of the climate" and
embracing an "anti-capitalistic mentality," while Gore defends the
Clinton administration's first-term environmental accomplishments.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/74250-1">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/74250-1</a> - (60:13--70:50) </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>