<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 16, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[New mailing from The Atlantic magazine]<br>
<b>The Atlantic Daily: Why the Climate Story Is So Exciting Right
Now</b><br>
There's been a technological breakthrough in the fight against
climate change, a new report confirmed this week.<br>
ROBINSON MEYER - OCTOBER 15, 2020<br>
<br>
Today, The Atlantic launched Planet, a new section devoted to
climate change, along with The Weekly Planet, a new newsletter
written by Robinson Meyer. He also writes today's edition of the
Daily, explaining why the climate story is so exciting right now.<br>
I've been covering climate change at The Atlantic for five years.
There's still one question I get more than any other: Are you
hopeful? At this point, honestly, I find the question to be a little
beside the point: If you don't want the planet to warm, you should
work to reduce carbon pollution regardless of whether you're hopeful
about the overall outcome...<br>
The International Energy Agency announced, in its enormously
influential annual report, that solar energy is now the "cheapest
electricity in history." At the same time, it substantially
downgraded its forecast for coal, saying that the fuel source will
soon enter a prolonged and irreversible decline. That means global
carbon pollution could peak in the next several years--though,
without further policy, it will not decline as rapidly as needed to
avoid catastrophic global warming...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/10/why-the-climate-story-is-so-exciting-right-now/616749/">https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/10/why-the-climate-story-is-so-exciting-right-now/616749/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/sign-up/weekly-planet/">https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/sign-up/weekly-planet/</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
[clean energy is now cheaper]<br>
<b>World Energy Outlook 2020</b><br>
Our assessment is that global energy demand is set to drop by 5% in
2020, energy-related CO2 emissions by 7%, and energy investment by
18%. The impacts vary by fuel. The estimated falls of 8% in oil
demand and 7% in coal use stand in sharp contrast to a slight rise
in the contribution of renewables. The reduction in natural gas
demand is around 3%, while global electricity demand looks set to be
down by a relatively modest 2% for the year.<br>
<br>
The 2.4 gigatonnes (Gt) decline takes annual CO2 emissions back to
where they were a decade ago. However, the initial signs are that
there may not have been a similar fall in 2020 in emissions of
methane - a powerful greenhouse gas - from the energy sector,
despite lower oil and gas output.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020">https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[NYTimes speaks]<br>
<b>By Calling Climate Change 'Controversial,' Barrett Created
Controversy</b><br>
Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer numerous questions, but it
was her avoidance of acknowledging climate change that particularly
resonated.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/climate/amy-coney-barrett-climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/climate/amy-coney-barrett-climate-change.html</a>
<p>- -</p>
[hearing for US Supreme Court nominee]<br>
<b>"I have read things about climate change. I would not say I have
firm views on it."</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316490804152602624">https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316490804152602624</a><br>
- -<br>
Some of the biggest cases Amy Coney Barrett will hear in the decades
she will ostensibly be on Supreme Court will be on climate change<br>
"I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change are
relevant to the job I will do as a judge...I'm not really in a
position to offer any informed opinion on what I think causes global
warming"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316457529350721541">https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316457529350721541</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316460184424906759">https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1316460184424906759</a><br>
- -<br>
[controversy increasing]<br>
<b>Amy Coney Barrett isn't a scientist, but she might be a climate
denier</b><br>
By Zoya Teirstein on Oct 14, 2020<br>
<br>
"I'm certainly not a scientist," Amy Coney Barrett said in response
to a question about climate change during her confirmation hearing
for the Supreme Court on Tuesday. "I mean, I've read things about
climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it."<br>
<br>
On Wednesday, Barrett doubled down on her lack of scientific
background when Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut
pressed her on her position on climate change.<br>
<br>
BLUMENTHAL: Do you believe that human beings cause global warming?<br>
<br>
BARRETT: Senator Blumenthal, I don't think I am competent to opine
on what causes global warming or not.<br>
<br>
BLUMENTHAL: We all have views on it. I'm asking for your opinion.<br>
<br>
BARRETT: I don't think that my views on global warming or climate
change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge, nor do I feel
like I have views that are informed enough -- and I haven't studied
scientific data -- I'm not really in a position to offer any kind of
informed opinion on what I think causes global warming...<br>
<blockquote>twitter - <b>On climate change, the science is clear.
The evidence is irrefutable.</b><br>
Why isn't Amy Coney Barrett willing to acknowledge it?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/WeDemandJustice/status/1316456034437922819">https://twitter.com/WeDemandJustice/status/1316456034437922819</a><br>
</blockquote>
Barrett is considered an originalist, meaning she interprets the
Constitution based on the understanding of its authors at the time
of its writing. But Barrett's "not a scientist" line is anything but
original.<br>
<br>
Republicans have trotted out the "I am not a scientist" trick for
years now to deflect questions about climate change. "I'm not a
scientist," Florida's former Governor Rick Scott said in response to
a question about anthropogenic warming in Miami in 2014. "Listen,
I'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change,"
then-House Speaker John Boehner told reporters the same year. "What
I have said repeatedly is I'm not a scientist," then-Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell told a Kentucky sports radio show (he later
acknowledged human-caused climate change exists).<br>
<br>
You get the picture. They're not scientists, OK? The thing is, you
don't have to be a scientist, like at all, to understand that the
planet is in grave danger. Just like you don't have to be a doctor
to grasp the severity of a cancer diagnosis, or a mechanic to
understand that your car is totaled.<br>
<br>
"I'm not a scientist, either," Barack Obama said at his 2015 State
of the Union address. "But you know what, I know a lot of really
good scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities.
And the best scientists in the world are all telling us that our
activities are changing the climate."<br>
<br>
Supreme Court nominees tend to hold their ideological cards close to
their chests at confirmation hearings to avoid forecasting their
future decisions. So, in a sense, it's not surprising that Barrett
offered up that non-answer in response to Republican Senator John
Kennedy of Louisiana's question about climate change.<br>
<br>
But Barrett didn't have to rely on the ol' "I'm not a scientist"
saw. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sworn into the Supreme Court in 2018,
has said the earth is warming multiple times. And climate denial is
starting to fall out of favor with the GOP. Some Republican members
of Congress are starting to change their tune on the issue, eager to
catch up with young voters who want to see their party offer a
solution to rising temperatures. Then there's the fact that climate
change isn't actually a matter of "views" -- it's happening whether
Barrett likes it or not.<br>
<br>
If she's confirmed, Barrett will shape the next generation of
American law, including -- quite possibly -- the climate change
liability lawsuits currently sweeping the nation. She should leave
the climate misdirection playbook where it belongs: in the past.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://grist.org/politics/amy-coney-barrett-isnt-a-scientist-but-she-might-be-a-climate-denier/">https://grist.org/politics/amy-coney-barrett-isnt-a-scientist-but-she-might-be-a-climate-denier/</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
[Greta tweets]<br>
<b>Greta Thunberg</b><br>
To be fair, I don't have any "views on climate change" either. Just
like I don't have any "views" on gravity, the fact that the earth is
round, photosynthesis nor evolution...<br>
But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in
the 21st century so much easier.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1316736048056225792">https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1316736048056225792</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Misinformation battleground]<br>
<b>The five climate disbeliefs: a crash course in climate
misinformation</b><br>
Aug 26, 2020<br>
John Cook<br>
You can summarize climate change in just ten words: it's real, it's
us, experts agree, it's bad, there's hope. Climate change
misinformation is like a bizarro world version of this summarized
with five categories: it's not real, it's not us, experts are
unreliable, it's not bad, there's no hope. Understanding the
arguments of climate denial is the first step to countering it. This
video is a crash course in climate misinformation, summarizing the
key arguments used to cast doubt on the reality of climate change
and delay climate action.<br>
<br>
Follow me here:<br>
TWITTER: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/johnfocook">https://twitter.com/johnfocook</a><br>
INSTAGRAM: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.instagram.com/johnfocook/">https://www.instagram.com/johnfocook/</a><br>
FACEBOOK: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.facebook.com/john.cook.186/">https://www.facebook.com/john.cook.186/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuUz2AwoSko&feature=youtu.be">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuUz2AwoSko&feature=youtu.be</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[News media as information battleground]<br>
<b>Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets
fuelling 'climate rejectionism'</b><br>
Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street
Journal are holding back progress on climate<br>
Daniel Hurst - 14 Oct 2020 <br>
A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch's media
outlets for fuelling "climate rejectionism" among conservatives,
suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is
failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.<br>
<br>
Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced
his previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to
rally conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox
Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.<br>
<br>
Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US
shared a form of "climate rejectionism that comes in conservative
clothing".<br>
<br>
He said both countries also shared "a particular news organisation
that has a great deal to do with that" - and pointed the finger at
Murdoch's Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in particular.<br>
<br>
"If you look at Fox viewers in America - that's where you find the
climate disputation," Inglis said.<br>
Inglis said his group, RepublicEn, which campaigns for conservative
leadership on climate action, believed that a change in the way the
issue was covered by those outlets would be "the holy grail" in
unlocking greater ambition in US policy.<br>
<br>
"If Fox would just change or if the Wall Street Journal editorial
page would just change - either one of those and this would be
finished, we'd be done with climate, we'd be acting," he said. "It
really is that important - so if anybody can get to the Murdochs
please let me know."<br>
<br>
Business leader and former Sydney lord mayor Lucy Turnbull also
sheeted home some responsibility to large media businesses such as
News Corp during the same webinar event on Wednesday.<br>
<br>
Turnbull's husband, the former Australian prime minister Malcolm
Turnbull, was ousted as leader of the centre-right Liberal party in
2009, and again in 2018, in part because of internal battles over
climate policy.<br>
<br>
"There are a lot of people who have a huge level of conviction about
the fact that climate change is with us, that we have to act," she
said. "The problem is that the polarisation makes it hard to do that
because you have the people [who believe] that it isn't a problem
despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is."<br>
<br>
In a clear reference to News Corp, Turnbull added: "They have a very
loud voice in a lot of political debate aided by very large media
organisations, especially one which crosses both the US and
Australia and other countries besides."<br>
<br>
She said this had resulted in a "fragmented, deeply polarised
conversation", which could be a symptom of the fragmentation of
politics around the world.<br>
The comments come as another former prime minister, Kevin Rudd,
campaigns for a royal commission to be launched into the Murdoch
empire in Australia.<br>
<br>
The petition, launched on the Australian parliament's website on
Saturday, has so far attracted more than 236,000 signatures.<br>
<br>
The focus on the company comes after Rupert Murdoch's youngest son,
James Murdoch, said one of the reasons he had stepped away from his
father's media empire was because it legitimised disinformation and
sowed doubts about facts.<br>
<br>
He told the New York Times climate change and coronavirus were both
public health crises and "political spin" should not get "in the way
of delivering crucial public health information".<br>
<br>
James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn, also issued a joint statement
in January - midway through Australia's summer bushfire crisis - to
say they were "particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial
among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the
contrary".<br>
<br>
Last year, however, Rupert Murdoch told shareholders "there are no
climate change deniers" around his company and said his business was
early to commit to "science-based targets to limit climate change"
and was working to reduce its climate emissions.<br>
<br>
Inglis and Turnbull discussed media coverage as part of the
wide-ranging webinar on Wednesday, which also canvassed the
forthcoming US presidential election.<br>
<br>
Inglis contended that Republicans would undergo a "reappraisal" of
their position on climate policy in coming years, although that
reassessment would come faster if Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump
for the presidency. Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris
climate accord is due to take effect the day after the November
election.<br>
<br>
Inglis, who previously visited Australia in 2017 as a guest of the
Australia Institute, recounted how he had once insisted that climate
change was "nonsense".<br>
"I didn't know anything about it except that Al Gore was for it and,
in as much as I represented probably one of the most conservative
districts in America, that was the end of the inquiry," he said.<br>
<br>
But Inglis said he had a "three-step metamorphosis", based on his
children pressing him to take environmental issues seriously, his
own visit to Antarctica to see ice core drilling evidence and his
snorkelling trip to the Great Barrier Reef.<br>
<br>
He spoke of the importance of bridging divides, saying he was
grateful to have been "extended grace by people who knew it was real
before I did".<br>
<br>
Inglis urged people on the left of politics to accept new entrants
to the conversation "without saying you're the dumb kid in the
class, the last one to get it" because "if you welcome them in we
can solve this thing".<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/14/former-republican-congressman-says-murdochs-media-outlets-fuelling-climate-rejectionism">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/14/former-republican-congressman-says-murdochs-media-outlets-fuelling-climate-rejectionism</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[from NYTimes]<br>
<b>A FIELD GUIDE TO </b><b>THE ELECTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE</b><br>
INDEX<br>
1. What price is America ready to pay?<br>
2. Are fossil fuels part of the future?<br>
3. How quickly must things change?<br>
4. Should governments put a thumb on the scale?<br>
5. How can the U.S. adapt to worsening disasters?<br>
6. Who is hurt the most by warming?<br>
7. What about birds, bears and other animals?<br>
8. Where should America stand on the world st<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/14/climate/biden-trump-climate-change-questions.html">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/14/climate/biden-trump-climate-change-questions.html</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[From Yale studies]<br>
<b>New poll on climate change: Denial is out, alarm is in.</b><br>
By Joseph Winters - Oct 13, 2020<br>
Americans are now nearly four times more likely to say they're
alarmed about the climate crisis than to be dismissive of it.<br>
<br>
That's the highest ratio ever since the Yale Program on Climate
Change Communication (YPCCC) first began gathering data on American
attitudes about climate change back in 2008. According to survey
data collected in April and released last Friday, more than a
quarter of the U.S. adult population -- 26 percent -- now thinks
global warming and its attendant consequences are alarming. That's
more than double the 11 percent who were alarmed back in 2015, and
almost four times the 7 percent who currently say the climate isn't
changing...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/6amercias_edit.gif">https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/6amercias_edit.gif</a><br>
The data comes from a YPCCC project called Global Warming's Six
Americas, which categorizes Americans into six groups based on what
they think about climate change. Using data from a YPCCC survey
called Climate Change in the American Mind, the researchers identify
where respondents stand on a continuum of climate worry. People fall
into the "alarmed" category if their survey responses show that
they're very worried about climate change -- these people are fully
convinced of global warming's reality and of the need for
far-reaching political and individual action to address it. Those
who land in the "concerned" think climate change is bad news but are
less likely to prioritize action, and those in the "cautious"
category recognize that the Earth is warming but aren't convinced of
its causes or of the need to take any action.<br>
<br>
"Disengaged" folks never got the memo that the climate is changing,
while the "doubtful" suspect it's not really happening. The
"dismissive" category refers to your stubborn uncle who denies the
science of human-caused climate change. He is against most climate
policies.<br>
According to Anthony Leiserowitz*, a senior research scientist and
the director of the YPCCC, the survey data show the most interesting
trends at the bookends of the climate worry spectrum, the "alarmed"
and "dismissive" categories.<br>
<br>
These groups form an influential subset of the population that
Leiserowitz called the "issue publics" -- the people who are most
deeply engaged and passionate about their side of a particular
issue. "It's the pro- or anti-immigration movement, it's the
gun-control movement versus the NRA," Leiserowitz said.<br>
<br>
For climate change, the relative proportion of the two issue publics
has undergone a massive shift over the past five years. In 2014, the
ratio of Americans alarmed about climate change to those who were
dismissive -- basically climate deniers -- was roughly one to one.
By January of this year, however, the ratio had grown to three to
one. And now, the most recent data show that there are roughly four
alarmed citizens for every one American dismissing the science of
climate change.<br>
<br>
"It indicates a massive shift in our political, social, and cultural
understanding of climate change," Leiserowitz said.<br>
<br>
Only 18 percent of Americans are now dismissive or doubtful about
the science of climate change and the need for action. More than
half (54 percent) think the opposite, falling into the "alarmed" or
"concerned" categories.<br>
<br>
This sea change in American attitudes represents a triumph for
climate scientists and communicators who have been trying to convey
the truth about climate change. But the growth of climate alarm
presents another challenge for researchers and policymakers:
communicating what action to address climate change could look like.
The climate alarmed don't need more information about what climate
change is; they've already reached the fundamental conclusions:
"It's real, it's us, and it's bad," as Leiserowitz put it. "Now,
they need to know what we can do."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://grist.org/climate/new-polling-on-climate-change-denial-is-out-alarm-is-in/">https://grist.org/climate/new-polling-on-climate-change-denial-is-out-alarm-is-in/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
October16, 1988 </b></font><br>
<p>Discussing the role of global warming in the 1988 presidential
election, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman observes:<br>
<br>
"Last summer, one of the hottest and driest on record, the nation
was roused by alarms about the 'greenhouse effect'--the gradual
warming of the globe that threatens to turn coastal cities into
underwater ruins and corn fields into salt flats. <br>
<br>
"The problem is that for the last century or so industrial
societies have been releasing substances into the air that capture
heat and erode the Earth`s shield against the sun. The villains?
Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, methane from
natural and man-made sources and aerosol propellants.<br>
<br>
"But as soon as the heat dissipated, so did interest in the issue.
In the campaign, the greenhouse effect has gone almost
unmentioned...<br>
<br>
"Both candidates pretend the solutions will be painless and free.
Both pass over the obvious remedies in favor of the politically
appealing ones.<br>
<br>
"The nations of the world have taken one step by agreeing on a
treaty to reduce the use of aerosol propellants. But any serious
attempt to slow the warming of the Earth requires at least three
additional measures: discouraging the use of fossil fuels like
coal, oil and gas; big improvements in energy efficiency; and
greater reliance on nuclear power."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-10-16/news/8802080029_1_greenhouse-effect-global-warming-environmentalism">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-10-16/news/8802080029_1_greenhouse-effect-global-warming-environmentalism</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This 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>