<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 11, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[campaign ad video talks climate change]<br>
<b>Cherries | Joe Biden For President 2020</b><br>
Oct 3, 2020<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/0d0Pr2Iee8g">https://youtu.be/0d0Pr2Iee8g</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[no surprise]<br>
<b>17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg endorses Joe Biden</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-endorses-biden-2020-10">https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-endorses-biden-2020-10</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[do the math]<br>
<b>Why climate change is a time bomb</b><br>
Bryan Walsh, author of Future<br>
The costs of keeping global warming below 1.5C would exceed the
economic benefits up through the year 2100, according to a new
study.<br>
<br>
Why it matters: One of the biggest challenges to climate action is
time delay: we need to pay now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
but we won't experience the full benefits of those actions for
generations into the future.<br>
<br>
By the numbers: In the study, published in PLOS One, researchers
project keeping warming below 1.5C would result in a net loss to the
global economy of approximately $40 trillion through 2100, compared
to policies that would keep warming to 2C.<br>
<br>
That's because "transitioning from energy-dense fossil fuels back to
more dilute and intermittent renewable sources of energy like solar
and wind requires more in terms of land, human time and machinery to
produce the same amount of energy," Patrick Brown, a climate
scientist and a co-author of the paper, tweeted.<br>
That lowers general economic well-being, which in turns tends to
fall hardest on the poorest in the world.<br>
Between the lines: By the 22nd century, however, as the potential
effects of climate change continue to compound, the benefits of
stronger climate action begin to exceed the economic costs.<br>
<br>
By 2300, the researchers calculate the net benefits would reach
thousands of trillions of dollars.<br>
The big picture: Because CO2 warms the atmosphere for decades to
centuries, there's a built in time delay to the physics of climate
change that in turn reinforces political obstacles to action.<br>
<br>
When we pay to reduce carbon emissions now, the full effects aren't
felt until the future, which means the present generation has to
sacrifice to help save the next ones.<br>
Yes, but: The authors admit climate change will have major costs
that are difficult to fit into an economic model, like widespread
biodiversity loss, while cutting carbon emissions could have more
immediate co-benefits beyond climate change, like reducing toxic
levels of air pollution.<br>
<br>
The bottom line: There are many reasons why climate change is
considered a wicked problem, but its time delay is one of the
wickedest.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.axios.com/climate-change-time-bomb-aa86ec80-5b15-4708-a4bd-1962d77dfaef.html">https://www.axios.com/climate-change-time-bomb-aa86ec80-5b15-4708-a4bd-1962d77dfaef.html</a><br>
- - <br>
[source material]<br>
<b>Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global
warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates</b><br>
Patrick T. Brown ,Harry Saunders<br>
Published: October 7, 2020
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239520">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239520</a><br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
<blockquote>Efforts to mitigate global warming are often justified
through calculations of the economic damages that may occur absent
mitigation. The earliest such damage estimates were speculative
mathematical representations, but some more recent studies provide
empirical estimates of damages on economic growth that accumulate
over time and result in larger damages than those estimated
previously. These heightened damage estimates have been used to
suggest that limiting global warming this century to 1.5 C avoids
tens of trillions of 2010 US$ in damage to gross world product
relative to limiting global warming to 2.0 C. However, in order to
estimate the net effect on gross world product, mitigation costs
associated with decarbonizing the world's energy systems must be
subtracted from the benefits of avoided damages. Here, we follow
previous work to parameterize the aforementioned heightened damage
estimates into a schematic global climate-economy model (DICE) so
that they can be weighed against mainstream estimates of
mitigation costs in a unified framework. We investigate the net
effect of mitigation on gross world product through finite time
horizons under a spectrum of exogenously defined levels of
mitigation stringency. We find that even under heightened damage
estimates, the additional mitigation costs of limiting global
warming to 1.5 C (relative to 2.0 C) are higher than the
additional avoided damages this century under most parameter
combinations considered. Specifically, using our central parameter
values, limiting global warming to 1.5 C results in a net loss of
gross world product of roughly forty trillion US$ relative to 2 C
and achieving either 1.5 C or 2.0 C require a net sacrifice of
gross world product, relative to a no-mitigation case, though 2100
with a 3%/year discount rate. However, the benefits of more
stringent mitigation accumulate over time and our calculations
indicate that stabilizing warming at 1.5 C or 2.0 C by 2100 would
eventually confer net benefits of thousands of trillions of US$ in
gross world product by 2300. The results emphasize the temporal
asymmetry between the costs of mitigation and benefits of avoided
damages from climate change and thus the long timeframe for which
climate change mitigation investment pays off.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[measured optimism of TED video of 6 hours]<br>
<b>[Full livestream] Watch the Countdown Global Launch, a call to
action on climate change</b><br>
TED<br>
This virtual event, streamed free on 10.10.2020, is the Global
Launch of Countdown, a new initiative to accelerate solutions to the
climate crisis. Watch five curated sessions packed with more than 50
speakers, activists, actors and musicians, who share actionable and
science-backed ideas, paired with moments of wonder, inspiration and
optimism. Presented by TED and Future Stewards.<br>
<br>
Learn how you can take action on climate change and join the race to
a zero-carbon world:<br>
#JoinTheCountdown <br>
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://countdown.ted.com">https://countdown.ted.com</a><br>
- - -<br>
about cement <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/5dVcn8NjbwY?t=15856">https://youtu.be/5dVcn8NjbwY?t=15856</a> - Solidia
Technologies<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dVcn8NjbwY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dVcn8NjbwY</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[true-cost accounting]<br>
<b>The true cost of wildfire</b><br>
Bill Gabbert <br>
It is more than simply dollars spent to knock down the flames<br>
October 8, 2020<br>
- -<br>
An article at National Public Radio recommends what we should be
focusing on when discussing the effects of wildfires instead of
simply the number of acres burned.<br>
<br>
That general topic can cover not only the dollars spent while
knocking down the flames, but the actual cost of damage to
infrastructure, community water sources, flooding, mud slides,
health effects of smoke on populations, repairing the damage done in
the burned areas, rebuilding structures, mental health of residents,
and the economic effects of evacuations and reduced tourism.<br>
<br>
Here is an excerpt from the NPR article:<br>
<blockquote>Often, the human cost of wildfires has little to do with
their size. California's three most destructive wildfires aren't
among the state's largest. The 1991 Tunnel fire in the Oakland
hills was relatively tiny at 1,600 acres, but destroyed 2,900
structures and killed 25 people. Even the Camp Fire, which burned
more than 18,000 structures in Paradise, California, isn't even in
the top 20, ranked by acreage.<br>
<br>
"I think we should concentrate more on the human losses," says
Ernesto Alvarado, professor of wildland fire at the University of
Washington. "Wildfires in populated areas, it doesn't matter what
size those are."<br>
<br>
Public authorities could also report on a broader human impact:
the number of people experiencing harmful air due to smoke. While
detailed maps are available with smoke concentrations, showing the
air quality index, there are few measures of the scale of that
public health impact. Poor air quality due to smoke is linked to a
rise in emergency room visits due to asthma, stroke and heart
attacks.<br>
</blockquote>
- -<br>
A conference in Glenwood Springs, Colorado on Wednesday and Thursday
of this week explored a topic that does not make the news very
often. It was titled The True Cost of Wildfire.<br>
<br>
Usually the costs we hear associated with wildfires are what
firefighters run up during the suppression phase. The National
Incident Management Situation Report provides those daily for most
ongoing large fires.<br>
<br>
But other costs may be many times that of just suppression, and can
include structures burned, crops and pastures ruined, economic
losses from decreased tourism, medical treatment for the effects of
smoke, salaries of law enforcement and highway maintenance
personnel, counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder, costs
incurred by evacuees, infrastructure shutdowns, rehab of denuded
slopes, flood and debris flow prevention, and repairing damage to
reservoirs filled with silt.<br>
<br>
And of course we can't put a monetary value on the lives that are
lost in wildfires. In Colorado alone, fires since 2000 have killed 8
residents and 12 firefighters.<br>
<br>
The total cost of a wildfire can be mitigated by fire-adaptive
communities, hazard fuel mitigation, fire prevention campaigns, and
prompt and aggressive initial attack of new fires with overwhelming
force by ground and air resources. Investments in these areas can
save large sums of money. And, it can save lives, something we don't
hear about very often when it comes to wildfire prevention and
mitigation; or spending money on adequate fire suppression
resources.<br>
- - <br>
The chart below from EcoWest.org shows that federal spending per
wildfire has exceeded $100,000 on an annual basis several times
since 2002. Since 2008 the cost per acre has varied between $500 and
$1,000. These numbers do not include most of the other associated
costs we listed above. (click on the chart to see a larger version)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wildfiretoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cost-per-wildfire-acre.jpg">https://wildfiretoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cost-per-wildfire-acre.jpg</a>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/10/08/the-true-cost-of-wildfire-2/">https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/10/08/the-true-cost-of-wildfire-2/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[video talk]<br>
<b>Earth Energy Imbalance - EEI: How HEAT Impacts Ocean, Land,
Cryosphere, and Atmosphere: Part 2 of 2</b><br>
Oct 9, 2020<br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative
imbalance at the top of the atmosphere driving global warming. The
Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is the most critical number<br>
defining the prospects for continued and accelerating global warming
and climate change. Understanding the heat gain of the Earth system
- particularly how much and where the heat is distributed - is
fundamental to understanding consequences like warming oceans,
atmosphere and land; rising surface temperatures; rising sea levels;
and loss of grounded and floating ice, which are all fundamental
concerns for society. I chat about a new peer-reviewed study, part
of Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) efforts to update Earth's
heat budget and give updated numbers on ocean warming and heat gain
in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land. The long-term Earth system
heat gain over the period 1971-2018 comprises a total heat gain of
358 ± 37 ZJ (Z - Zeta is 10**21) equivalent to a global heating rate
of 0.47 ± 0.1 W/m2. Heat distribution has the global ocean with 89%,
broken down into 52% in the upper 700m ocean depths, 28% for the
700-2000m depths and 9% for below 2000m depths. Heat gain over land
amounts to 6%, 4% is available for the melting of grounded and
floating ice, and only 1% is available for atmospheric warming. EEI
is not only continuing, but also increasing: it amounts to 0.87±0.12
W/m2 during 2010-2018. Stabilization of climate, the goal of the
universally agreed upon United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Paris Climate Agreement in
2015, requires that EEI be reduced to approximately zero to achieve
Earth system quasi-equilibrium. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
needs to be reduced from about 410 ppm to 353 ppm to increase the
amount of heat radiation to space by 0.87 W/m2, bringing Earth back
towards overall energy balance. This simple number, EEI, is the most
fundamental metric that the scientific community and public must be
aware of as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task
of bringing climate change under control, and we call for an
implementation of the EEI into the global stocktake based on the
best available science. Continued quantification and reduced
uncertainties in the Earth heat inventory can be best achieved
through the maintenance of the current global climate observing
system, its extension into areas of gaps in the sampling, and the
establishment of an international framework for concerted
multidisciplinary research of the Earth heat inventory as presented
in the study.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHRAx8grYfM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHRAx8grYfM</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
[audio BBC Sounds]<br>
<b>What Planet Are We On?...with Liz Bonnin</b><br>
Ep 1. David Attenborough - 'We Have To Believe It's Possible'<br>
Available for over a year<br>
The celebrated broadcaster, Sir David Attenborough, shares his
thoughts about the impact of the pandemic on tackling climate
change. He says he is frustrated by the delay of government action
to protect the natural world and tells us the excesses of capitalism
should be "curbed" to save nature.<br>
Plus, Liz Bonnin, Matt McGrath and Victoria Gill reflect on where we
are at now and what lies ahead<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08tmn3g">https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08tmn3g</a>?<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[econ switch]<br>
<b>Global energy demand to continue growth with shift to renewable
energy: BP</b><br>
The 'Rapid' scenario assumes policies resulting in a sharp increase
in carbon prices while the 'Net Zero' reinforces 'Rapid' with major
shifts in societal behaviour. The third scenario is
'Business-as-Usual'<br>
ETEnergyWorld September 15, 2020<br>
- -<br>
The report titled 'BP Energy Outlook 2020' is based on three
scenarios, which are alternative assumptions about policies and
societal preferences and are designed to help explore the range of
outcomes possible over the next 30 years.<br>
<br>
The 'Rapid' scenario assumes policies resulting in a sharp increase
in carbon prices while the 'Net Zero' reinforces 'Rapid' with major
shifts in societal behaviour. The third scenario is
'Business-as-Usual'...<br>
- - <br>
"The share of primary energy from renewables grows from around 5 per
cent in 2018 to 60 per cent by 2050 in 'Net Zero', 45 per cent in
'Rapid' and 20 per cent in 'Business-as-Usual'. Wind and solar power
dominate this growth, underpinned by continuing falls in development
costs, lower in 2050 by around 30 per cent and 65 per cent for wind
and solar, respectively, in 'Rapid' and by 35 per cent and 70 per
cent in 'Net Zero'," BP said.<br>
<br>
The growth would require a significant acceleration in the build out
of renewable capacity. It said that in 'Rapid' and 'Net Zero', the
average annual increase in wind and solar capacity over the first
half of the Outlook was about 350 gigawatt (GW) and 550 (GW),
respectively, compared to the annual average of about 60 GW since
2000.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/global-energy-demand-to-continue-growth-with-shift-to-renewable-energy-bp/78117367">https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/global-energy-demand-to-continue-growth-with-shift-to-renewable-energy-bp/78117367</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive and debate transcripts]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
October11, 2000 Bush v. Gore Debate</b></font><br>
In the second Presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and
Texas Governor George W. Bush, Gore says the US needs to take the
lead in confronting the climate crisis and embracing clean energy.
Bush claims that his environmental record as governor of Texas is
not as bad as has been alleged; Bush also attacks the concept of a
carbon tax and endorses "clean coal" and natural gas as energy
solutions. Gore denies that he supports a carbon tax, but endorses
clean-energy tax incentives. Bush tries to suggest that there's
still a dispute in the scientific community about the causes and
severity of climate change, and denounces the Kyoto Protocol. Gore
defends the scientific consensus on climate, and points out that we
need to do right by future generations; in response, Bush again
suggests that there isn't a real consensus. <br>
<blockquote>MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Vice President
Gore, on the environment. In your 1992 book you said, quote, "We
must make the rescue of our environment the central organizing
principle for civilization and there must be a wrenching
transformation to save the planet." Do you still feel that way?<br>
<br>
GORE: I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the
consequences of what's called global warming. There was a study
just a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar
ice cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already many people
see the strange weather conditions that the old timers say they've
never seen before in their lifetimes. And what's happening is the
level of pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the
good news, Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new
technologies, like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit
is itching to build, then we can create millions of good new jobs
by being first into the market with these new kinds of cars and
trucks and other kinds of technologies. You know the Japanese are
breathing down our necks on this. They're moving very rapidly
because they know that it is a fast-growing world market. Some of
these other countries, particularly in the developing world, their
pollution is much worse than anywhere else and their people want
higher standards of living. And so they're looking for ways to
satisfy their desire for a better life and still reduce pollution
at the same time. I think that holding onto the old ways and the
old argument that the environment and the economy are in conflict
is really outdated. We have to be bold. We have to provide
leadership. Now it's true that we disagree on this. The governor
said that he doesn't think this problem is necessarily caused by
people. He's for letting the oil companies into the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Houston has just become the smoggiest
city in the country. And Texas is number one in industrial
pollution. We have a very different outlook. And I'll tell you
this, I will fight for a clean environment in ways that strengthen
our economy.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Governor?<br>
<br>
BUSH: Well, let me start with Texas. We are a big industrial
state. We reduced our industrial waste by 11%. We cleaned up more
brown fields than any other administration in my state's history,
450 of them. Our water is cleaner now.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Explain what a brown field is to those who don't follow
this.<br>
<br>
BUSH: A brown field is an abandoned industrial site that just sits
idle in some of our urban centers. And people are willing to
invest capital in the brown fields don't want to do so for fear of
lawsuit. I think we ought to have federal liability protection,
depending upon whether or not standards have been met. The book
you mentioned that Vice President Gore wrote, he also called for
taxing -- big energy taxes in order to clean up the environment.
And now that the energy prices are high, I guess he's not
advocating those big energy taxes right now. I believe we ought to
fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund to -- with half
the money going to states so states can make the right decisions
for environmental quality. I think we need to have clean coal
technologies. I propose $2 billion worth. By the way, I just found
out the other day an interesting fact, that there is a national
petroleum reserve right next to -- in Prudhoe Bay that your
administration opened up for exploration in that pristine area.
And it was a smart move because there's gas reserves up there. We
need gas pipelines to bring the gas down. Gas is a clean fuel that
we can burn to -- we need to make sure that if we decontrol our
plants that there's mandatory -- that the plants must conform to
clean air standards, the grandfathered plants, that's what we did
in Texas. No excuses. You must conform. In other words, there are
practical things we can do. But it starts with working in a
collaborative effort with states and local folks. If you own the
land, every day is Earth Day. People care a lot about their land
and care about their environment. Not all wisdom is in Washington,
D.C. on this issue.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Where do you see the basic difference in very simple
terms in two or three sentences between you and the governor on
the environment? If a voter wants to make a choice, what is it?<br>
<br>
GORE: I'm really strongly committed to clean water and clean air,
and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges like global warming.
He is right that I'm not in favor of energy taxes. I am in favor
of tax cuts to encourage and give incentives for the quicker
development of these new kinds of technologies. And let me say
again, Detroit is rearing to go on that. We differ on the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, as I have said. We differ on whether or
not pollution controls ought to be voluntary. I don't think you
can -- I don't think you can get results that way. We differ on
the kinds of appointments that we would make.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Would you say it's a fundamental difference?<br>
<br>
GORE: I think it's a fundamental difference. Let me give you an
example.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Hold on one second.<br>
<br>
GORE: Okay, sure.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: We've talked about supply. I just want to know for
somebody -- we're getting close to the end of our time here. If
somebody wanted to vote on the environment, how would you draw the
differences, Governor?<br>
<br>
BUSH: Well, I don't believe in command and control out of
Washington, D.C. I believe Washington ought to set standards, but
again I think we ought to be collaborative at the local levels and
I think we ought to work with people at the local levels. And by
the way, I just want to make sure -- I can't let him just say
something and not correct it. The electric decontrol bill that I
fought for and signed in Texas has mandatory emission standards,
Mr. Vice President. That's what we ought to do at the federal
level when it comes to grandfathered plants for utilities. I think
there's a difference. I think, for example, take -- when they took
40 million acres of land out of circulation without consulting
local officials, I thought that was --<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: That was out in the west?<br>
<br>
BUSH: Out in the west, yeah. And so -- on the logging issue.
That's not the way I would have done it. Perhaps some of that land
needs to be set aside. But I certainly would have consulted with
governors and elected officials before I would have acted
unilaterally.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Would you believe the federal government still has some
new rules and new regulations and new laws to pass in the
environmental area or do you think --<br>
<br>
BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as they're based upon science and
they're reasonable. So long as people have input.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: What about global warming?<br>
<br>
BUSH: I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously.
But I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And
I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions. I
tell you one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the
United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air.
Like Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted
from that treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed, as
evidently 99 senators -- I think it was 99 senators supported that
position.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Global warming, the Senate did turn it down. I think --<br>
<br>
BUSH: 99 to nothing.<br>
<br>
GORE: Well, that vote wasn't exactly -- a lot of the supporters of
the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because the way
it was worded. But there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to
it in the Senate. I'm not for command and control techniques
either. I'm for working with the groups, not just with industry
but also with the citizen groups and local communities to control
sprawl in ways that the local communities themselves come up with.
But I disagree that we don't know the cause of global warming. I
think that we do. It's pollution, carbon dioxide, and other
chemicals that are even more potent, but in smaller quantities,
that cause this. Look, the world's temperature is going up,
weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and
unpredictable. What are we going to tell our children? I'm a
grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson when I'm in
my later years that I didn't turn away from the evidence that
showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith
tradition, it is -- it's written in the book of Matthew, "Where
your heart is, there is your treasure also." And I believe that --
that we ought to recognize the value to our children and
grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a
way that's good for them.<br>
<br>
BUSH: Yeah, I agree. I just -- I think there has been -- some of
the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been
changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound
scientist recently made a different --<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Both of you have now violated -- excuse me. Both of you
have now violated your own rules. Hold that thought.<br>
<br>
GORE: I've been trying so hard not to.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: I know, I know. But under your alls rules you are not
allowed to ask each other a question. I let you do it a moment
ago.<br>
<br>
BUSH: Twice.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Now you just -- twice, sorry. (LAUGHTER)<br>
<br>
GORE: That's an interruption, by the way.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: That's an interruption, okay. But anyhow, you just did
it so now --<br>
<br>
BUSH: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice President.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: You aren't allowed to do that either, see? (LAUGHTER)
I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your thought. People care about
these things I've found out.<br>
<br>
BUSH: Of course they care about them. Oh, you mean the rules.<br>
<br>
MODERATOR: Yeah, right, exactly right. Go ahead.<br>
<br>
BUSH: What the heck. I -- of course there's a lot -- look, global
warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously.
But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And
before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting,
full understanding of what's taking place. And I think to answer
your question, I think both of us care a lot about the
environment. We may have different approaches. We may have
different approaches in terms of how we deal with local folks. I
just cited an example of the administration just unilaterally
acting without any input. And I remember you gave a very good
answer to New Hampshire about the White Mountains, about how it
was important to keep that collaborative effort in place. I feel
very strongly the same place. It certainly wasn't the attitude
that took place out west, however.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>transcript -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-11-2000-debate-transcript/">https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-11-2000-debate-transcript/</a><br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?159296-1/presidential-candidates-debate">https://www.c-span.org/video/?159296-1/presidential-candidates-debate</a>
- (1:15:45 )<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>