<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>December 11, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[Greta report and video]<br>
<b>Greta Thunberg: 'We are speeding in the wrong direction' on
climate crisis</b><br>
Exclusive: Climate striker speaks before UN event marking five years
since the Paris accord<br>
- -<br>
Thunberg has released a video which calls leaders to account for
failing to reverse rising carbon emissions. "We are still speeding
in the wrong direction," she said. "The five years following the
Paris agreement have been the five hottest years ever recorded and,
during that time, the world has emitted more than 200bn tonnes of
CO2.<br>
<br>
"Distant hypothetical targets are being set, and big speeches are
being given," she said. "Yet, when it comes to the immediate action
we need, we are still in a state of complete denial, as we waste our
time, creating new loopholes with empty words and creative
accounting."...<br>
- -<br>
She told the Guardian: "Leaders should be telling the truth: that we
are facing an emergency and we are not doing nearly enough. We need
to prioritise the action that needs to be taken right here and right
now, because it is right now that the carbon budget is being used
up.<br>
<br>
"We need to stop focusing on goals and targets for 2030 or 2050,"
she said. "We need to implement annual binding carbon budgets
today."<br>
<br>
Thunberg said recent pledges by the UK - to cut carbon emissions by
68% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels - and by China, Japan and
South Korea to become net carbon zero were creating a sense of
progress, and she added: "That is a very dangerous narrative because
of course we're not going in the right direction. We need to call
this out."...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/10/greta-thunberg-we-are-speeding-in-the-wrong-direction-on-climate-crisis">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/10/greta-thunberg-we-are-speeding-in-the-wrong-direction-on-climate-crisis</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Divest yes]<br>
<b>NY Pension Fund Will Divest From Fossil Fuels</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/ny-pension-fossil-fuel-divestment-2649439380.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/ny-pension-fossil-fuel-divestment-2649439380.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[information battleground]<br>
<b>One Thing John Kerry Is Sure to Fight Against: Disinformation </b><br>
By Amy Westervelt <br>
Back in January, on my first and last reporting trip of the year, I
interviewed media whiz Jay Rosen about disinformation, fake news,
and propaganda. When I asked him what he thought patient zero was
for today's fake news explosion, I expected him to hesitate a bit,
weigh the many options. But he answered immediately: The John Kerry
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth thing. <br>
<br>
I, of course, asked what about climate, which I believe has been a
trial balloon for all the disinformation chaos of the modern
century, and he said "Yes, definitely, but that Kerry swift boat
thing was the first time that political reporters pointing out that
something was false seemed to have no effect whatsoever." <br>
<br>
If you're younger than 35 you may not remember this moment in U.S.
politics. Back in 2004, before he was Obama's secretary of state or
Biden's climate czar, John Kerry was a Democratic senator running
for president. He was campaigning against George W. Bush who was a
couple years into the U.S. response to 9/11, so it was important to
highlight his military career. At the end of July, Kerry was ahead
of Bush in the polls. And then a group called the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth unleashed their media campaign. In various
op-eds, a best-selling book, and a now-famous ad, this shadowy group
of men who claimed to have served with Kerry in Vietnam said he was
lying about his military service and was unfit to lead the country.
<br>
<br>
"In previous election cycles, that would be the kind of thing where
early reporters to the campaign would check it out because they'd
want to know if it was going to be an issue," Rosen said. "And then
when they discovered that there wasn't much to it, they would just
say, well, that's not a factor. Because the campaign discourse was
limited enough at that time where if the reporter said it's not an
issue, then it's not an issue."<br>
<br>
That didn't happen this time, and it opened the floodgates for more
of the same, changing campaign coverage forever. "The Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth proved that they could smuggle their charge into
a campaign. And it could start to wound him. And it would spread on
its own, even if the press was saying there's nothing there."<br>
<br>
It was at that point that Rosen thinks people who were aiming to
misinform suddenly gained more power. "It changed the calculus for
journalists. So it's not a matter now of just vetting information.
That's part of your job. But then you have this other job of 'wait a
minute, misinformation is taking over. Propaganda is taking over.'
Are you just covering that or are you opposing that? And how do you
correct it and how should you stand toward it now? Those are really
hard questions."<br>
<br>
I'm telling you this story because while it is true that John Kerry
is probably not the radical future liberals want, there is almost no
one in the country more passionately opposed to disinformation. And
having someone who wants to tear down the disinformation apparatus
in a position to actually do so could be a real asset in the fight
for climate action. In 2020, we finally regained all the ground lost
to disinformation in the 90s, in terms of the number of people who
get that climate change is a problem and that we need to do
something about it. We can't afford another backslide.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://realhottake.substack.com/p/one-thing-john-kerry-is-sure-to-fight-42a">https://realhottake.substack.com/p/one-thing-john-kerry-is-sure-to-fight-42a</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[RAND study]<br>
<b>When Hurricanes Happen During Pandemics</b><br>
<br>
During the 2020 hurricane season, COVID-19 complicated the challenge
of preparing for and responding to major storms. RAND researchers
created a model to better understand how to weigh the risks involved
in such circumstances. Their analysis revealed several useful
insights. For example, in areas that are not anticipating heavy
storm damage, sheltering in place may be safer than evacuating. This
is because the spread of COVID-19 in shelters would likely cause
more deaths than the hurricane itself. <br>
Study Data<br>
<b>A Model of the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic During a Hurricane
in Virginia</b><br>
As of August 24, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic had resulted in the deaths of approximately 2,500
Virginians. The 2020 hurricane season began June 1 and is considered
to be extremely active. The threat of the pandemic increases the
complexity of risk management decisions during the hurricane season.
In this report, the authors study the implications that a hurricane
during the COVID-19 pandemic would have for the Commonwealth of
Virginia. This analysis should help inform advance planning for the
hurricane season in general and could be used in response to a
specific storm with an estimated track through Virginia. The authors
focus on the combined impacts of COVID-19 and a hurricane on
morbidity and mortality; they do not examine other effects, such as
effects on infrastructure, social networks, and the economy.<br>
<br>
<b>Key Findings</b><br>
<b>For areas not anticipating heavy damage, sheltering in place is
generally safer than evacuation during the COVID-19 pandemic</b><br>
Because most of Virginia is generally not in the path of the
most-dangerous hurricane conditions, the spread of COVID-19 through
evacuation is likely to be deadlier than sheltering in place.<br>
In areas likely to have heavy damage, residents should evacuate
earlier than in a normal hurricane season to reduce the risk from
heavy rain and other transportation hazards.<br>
The projected number of deaths from increased sheltering in place is
orders of magnitude lower than that expected from evacuation (caused
by traffic accidents and COVID-19 spread) and COVID-19 spread in
communal shelters.<br>
<b>The relative safety of communal shelters versus self-evacuations
depends on COVID-19 spread levels</b><br>
Smaller shelters increase the attractiveness of communal sheltering
relative to evacuating in terms of avoiding COVID-19.<br>
If community COVID-19 case levels are high, individuals in the area
are more likely to spread the disease to evacuation destinations and
in communal shelters.<br>
Alternatively, if community COVID-19 case levels are low, the risk
of individuals spreading the disease by evacuation or in communal
shelters is low.<br>
<b>Recommendations</b><br>
Individuals need information from trusted sources to know how to
safely react to a hurricane based on their personal risk. In
particular, clear and consistent risk communication will be vital to
inform the population about the safest options for their family.<br>
This communication must be population-specific, because different
groups will have access to and prefer different communication modes.<br>
Given the potential nuances in personal and household risk, this
communication should begin as soon as possible.<br>
Shelter characteristics, such as capacity and social distancing
measures, will determine the risk associated with using communal
shelters. To the extent possible, smaller methods of shelter should
be used to prevent spread of COVID-19.<br>
It would be prudent to prepare plans, COVID-19 cleaning equipment,
and masks in shelters ahead of time.<br>
Because more people may shelter in place, the response phase will
need to be accelerated. Virginia might wish to be prepared to enact
mutual aid for utilities and hospitals more quickly than under
normal circumstances so as not to exacerbate health consequences.<br>
Self-evacuations by car could be a major source of spread for
COVID-19. Evacuees should be informed of best practices for safe
travel and the risks associated with various destinations.<br>
Extensive testing of evacuees throughout hurricane season,
particularly prior to hurricane landfall, can better inform
policymakers of the risks...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA323-2.html">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA323-2.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[more skirmishes on the battlefields of misinformation]<br>
<b>Drag them.</b><b><br>
</b><b>The climate case for calling out fossil fuel companies online</b><br>
Emily Atkin<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://heated.world/p/drag-them">https://heated.world/p/drag-them</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Big battle under the Sun]<br>
<b>Jonathan Scott's Power Trip</b><br>
FULL FILM (1:23:01) | IN INSPIRATIONAL<br>
Premiere: 11/16/2020 | <b>Available until 12/16/2020</b><br>
Solar energy evangelist and "Property Brother" Jonathan Scott
journeys all across the U.S. to uncover why clean, renewable energy
isn't available to all. While traveling to learn both the obstacles
and opportunities for achieving energy freedom, Jonathan talks with
conservatives fighting for solar freedom; sits down with farmers
struggling to make ends meet; engages coal workers desperate for a
new, healthy means of making an income; the Navajo Nation who built
a utility-scale solar plant; religious leaders who made a desperate
attempt to help meet their community's energy needs; and politicians
at the forefront of the battle for energy freedom.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/jonathan-scotts-power-trip/">https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/jonathan-scotts-power-trip/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[The Vatican and the Club of Rome]<br>
<b>Faith, Science and Youth: A call for an ambitious climate summit</b><br>
Webinar: Faith, Science, Youth - A call for an ambitious Climate
Summit<br>
Dec 9, 2020<br>
Vatican IHD<br>
The webinar "Faith, Science, Youth - A call for an ambitious Climate
Summit" which will take place on Wednesday 9th of December at 2 pm
(CET), organized by the Vatican Covid19 commission and its partners.
In this webinar, you will hear from H.E. Cardinal Peter K.A.
Turkson, Prof. John Schellnhuber and Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim; an
exchange on calls and expectations towards the Climate Ambition
Summit, which will be held on the 12th of December on the occasion
of the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement. The aim of this
webinar is thus to urge governments to raise ambition through a
faith, science, youth voice.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXLvf7_Sk0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXLvf7_Sk0</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Economist is just wrong about 4 degrees]<br>
<b>'4C of Global Warming is Optimal' - Even Nobel Prize Winners are
Getting Things Catastrophically Wrong</b><br>
November 30, 2020<br>
Steve Keen (Nov. 2019), UCL<br>
William Nordhaus was awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics for
"integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis".<br>
<br>
This implies that he worked out what global heating means for our
economy, given what climate scientists say will happen to our
planet.<br>
<br>
But Nordhaus's predictions of what global heating will cost the
earth are dangerously at odds with the science.<br>
<br>
In his Nobel Prize lecture, Nordhaus described a 4C increase in
global average temperature as "optimal" — that is, the point at
which the costs and benefits of mitigating climate change are
balanced.<br>
<br>
In a subsequent academic paper based on this lecture, he stated that
"damages are estimated to be 2 percent of output at a 3C global
warming and 8 percent of output with 6C warming". This is a trivial
level of damage, equivalent for the 6C warming case to a fall in the
rate of economic growth over the next century of less than 0.1% per
year.<br>
<br>
Nordhaus's conclusions are based in part on the simple but wayward
assumption that the weak relationship between temperature and GDP
within the US today can be used to assume how future global
temperature rises will affect the economy.<br>
<br>
For example, the coldest state in mainland US is North Dakota, with
an average temperature of 4.9C and a high GDP per head - US$67,000
in 2018. Slightly warmer states such as New York (9.0C, US$73,000)
tend to have higher GDPs, while the hottest state - Florida, at
22.1C - has a lower GDP (US$43,000). This implies that past a
certain point, higher temperatures reduce GDP, but the relationship
is very weak: huge changes in temperature result in relatively small
changes in income.<br>
<br>
If it were true that this weak relationship could be applied to
global temperature change, then global warming would indeed be
nothing to worry about. However, the relationship between
temperature and GDP within one country today tells you absolutely
nothing about how the world will change if global temperatures rise
by 10C.<br>
<br>
This can be hard to grasp, since we're talking about the truly
unknown - humanity has never experienced global temperatures that
high. But we can assess how unrealistic Nordhaus's work is because
it predicts exactly the same damages for a fall in global
temperature as it does for a rise. It predicts, for example, that
both a 4C rise and a 4C fall in temperature would reduce global GDP
by 3.6%.<br>
<br>
The average global temperature during the last Ice Age was 4C cooler
than today. There's no way we can accurately predict what GDP would
be in such a cool world today, but we know that most of Europe north
of Berlin, and of America north of New York, would be under a
kilometre of ice. To argue that this would cut GDP by just 3.6% is
simply absurd.<br>
<br>
Trillions at stake<br>
Indeed, estimates from climate scientists based on relatively
conservative figures from the IPCC suggest that limiting global
warming to 1.5C instead of 2C are likely to save trillions of
dollars by 2100, even accounting for the costs of increased action.
Uncertainties in climate modelling mean that this analysis is by no
means definite. But given the distinct possibility that 2C of
warming could set off a cascade of "tipping points" that cause the
planet to irreversibly heat to catastrophic temperatures, can we
afford to play with fire?...<br>
<br>
The risk to organised human civilisation of sending Earth into a
nightmare "hothouse" state should be sufficient alone to justify the
higher cost of a decarbonisation timescale compatible with 1.5C.
Even if letting warming reach 2C or above turned out to be more
cost-effective, the saved money is not worth the moral costs of
species extinctions, habitat destruction, and forcing climate
refugees from their homes.<br>
<br>
The faith that William Nordhaus and others have in the "incredible
adaptability of human economies" is almost admirable in a sense. But
that adaptability has occurred in a remarkably stable climate where
global temperatures have fluctuated by 1℃ below or above the average
for the last 10,000 years. If that climate stability breaks down,
then human adaptability will almost certainly break down with it.<br>
<br>
Many climate scientists are now calling for the focus on economy
efficiency and incremental change that economists have taken to
global warming to be abandoned. When supposedly respected experts
disagree so fundamentally over an issue, it would be understandable
for the public to switch off. But in this case, such a reaction
would be wildly dangerous.<br>
<br>
Just as energy companies have been accused of paralysing the
political response to climate change, the trivialising of the
dangers of climate breakdown by mainstream economists has paralysed
bold and timely action on climate breakdown for almost 50 years.<br>
<br>
In that time, humanity's population has doubled, and the average
amount each person consumes has more than doubled. If we don't
challenge the naïve assurances of economists that all will continue
to be well, the "human economies" they believed they were defending
will tumble just as fast.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theanalysis.news/uncategorized/4c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong/">https://theanalysis.news/uncategorized/4c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong/</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
[Mark Lynas describes and Nat Geo video]<br>
<b>Four Degrees</b><br>
At 4 degrees of warming most of the Nile Delta is threatened by
rising seas, as is a third of Bangladesh. Tens of millions more
become climate refugees.<br>
West Antarctic ice sheet potentially collapses, pumping five metres
of water into global sea levels.<br>
Southern Europe becomes like the Sahara, with deserts spreading in
Spain and Portugal.<br>
People move north into temperate refuges in Scandinavia and the
British Isles, which become increasingly overcrowded, resulting in
further conflict.<br>
All glaciers disappear from the Alps, further reducing water
supplies in central Europe.<br>
Permafrost melt in Siberia releases methane and carbon dioxide,
meaning that global warming spirals upward.<br>
Notes from Mark Lynas author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter
Planet<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://localsteps.org/4degreemap.html">http://localsteps.org/4degreemap.html</a><br>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
<p>For more information on 4 Degrees see also: Download the Climate
Action Centre primer "4 degrees hotter"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/4-degrees-hotter.pdf">http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/4-degrees-hotter.pdf</a><br>
"Will we live in a world 4 degrees Celsius warmer?" .<br>
<br>
If only the present levels of commitments by nations are achieved
this amounts to global political failure on greenhouse gas
reduction. Scientific imperatives will result in 4 degrees Celsius
of global warming by 2100.<br>
<br>
In 2008 an influential and controversial paper by Anderson and
Bows of the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
concluded that:<br>
<br>
…it is increasingly unlikely any global agreement will deliver the
radical reversal in emission trends required for stabilization at
450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e).
Similarly, the current framing of climate change cannot be
reconciled with the rates of mitigation necessary to stabilize at
550ppm CO2e and even an optimistic interpretation suggests
stabilization much below 650ppm CO2e is improbable.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2011/02/4-degrees-hotter-adaptation-trap.html">http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2011/02/4-degrees-hotter-adaptation-trap.html</a></p>
- - <b><br>
</b><br>
[video Nat Geo]<br>
<b>Video from National Geographic 2008</b><br>
4 Degrees Warmer: Great Cities Wash Away | National Geographic<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/skFrR3g4BRQ">https://youtu.be/skFrR3g4BRQ</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
December 11, 1985 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports:<br>
<br>
"A group of senators and scientists today called for national and
international action to avert a predicted warming of the earth's
climate resulting from a buildup of carbon dioxide and other
man-made gases in the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
"They warned at a Senate hearing that such an effect, like that of
a greenhouse, would produce radical climate changes and a
subsequent rise in ocean levels that could have catastrophic
results in the next century unless steps were taken now to deal
with the problem.<br>
<br>
"Senator Albert Gore Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, said he would
introduce legislation to expand and focus scientific efforts on
this greenhouse effect.<br>
<br>
"At a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Toxic Substances and
Environmental Oversight, Mr. Gore said his bill would call for 'an
international year of scientific study of the greenhouse effect
and would request that the President take steps to begin this
worldwide cooperative investigation.'"<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-avert-global-climate-shift.html">http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-avert-global-climate-shift.html</a>
<br>
<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>