<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>January 9, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[see DeSmogBlog reports for links]<br>
<b>Climate Deniers Moved Rapidly to Spread Misinformation During and
After Attack on US Capitol</b><br>
Sharon Kelly | January 8, 2021<br>
Prominent climate science deniers moved rapidly to spread false and
misleading conspiracy theories online during and after the attack on
the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters this week.<br>
<br>
Some climate deniers, including some with ties to the Heartland
Institute and other organizations that have historically helped to
create the false impression that there is sizeable scientific
disagreement on climate change, also directly expressed support for
the attackers and called for more violence.<br>
“Striking fear in politicians is not a bad thing,” the @ClimateDepot
Twitter account tweeted on the afternoon of January 6 in a message
describing the Capitol as then-“under siege.”<br>
<br>
“Thomas Jefferson: ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time
to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” @ClimateDepot
tweeted seconds later.<br>
<br>
“What's needed next is mass protests to storm state Capitols and the
CDC to end Covid lockdowns once and for all,” the thread continued,
referring to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.<br>
<br>
The @ClimateDepot Twitter account, created in April 2009, is held by
Marc Morano, the communications director for the Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a Washington, D.C.-based think-tank
with a history of receiving funding from ExxonMobil and the
conservative dark money organization Donors Trust. Morano serves as
the executive director of CFACT’s climatedepot.com website, which as
DeSmog’s database profile puts it, “regularly publishes articles
questioning man-made global warming.”...<br>
- -<br>
Morano has for many years played a prominent role in the climate
denial movement. The Heartland Institute currently maintains a
biography of Morano under its “Who We Are” section, noting his prior
role as a “climate researcher for U.S. Senator James Inhofe,” who
has regularly made speeches rejecting mainstream climate science.
Rolling Stone once called Morano “the Matt Drudge of climate
denial.” He more recently authored a book titled, The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. CFACT’s most recent tax filings
show Morano was its highest-compensated employee, bringing in over
$209,000 in pay and benefits in 2018.<br>
<br>
On January 6, after the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
— whose board of directors includes senior officials with ExxonMobil
and numerous other fossil fuel companies — posted a statement
condemning the violence at the Capitol Building, @ClimateDepot
retweeted a reply to that statement reading: “NAM has always been a
bootlicking organization groveling at the booted feet of their
governmental masters.”<br>
<br>
Many fossil fuel industry groups immediately condemned the
insurgency in statements or social media posts, and some long-time
climate deniers did as well. But Morano was not the only prominent
science denier to express support online for the mob attack in D.C.<br>
<br>
William M. Briggs, described by the Heartland Institute as one of
its policy advisors, published a post on January 7 headlined, “we
fought the good fight and we lost — this battle.” In the piece,
Briggs claims that “Congress had an unarmed Air Force veteran shot
and killed” and misleadingly claims that “the crowd, by doing very
little, by remaining inside the tourist ropes inside the building,
even, forced the startled regime into hiding.”...<br>
- -<br>
Briggs' post goes on to describe Republican politicians' later
condemnation of Wednesday’s attack as “the most disgusting display
of cowardice and abject surrender we’re likely to see in our
lifetimes.”<br>
<br>
“Some of us will be in deep kimchi because of this, but there are no
regrets,” Briggs's post continued. “One thing is certain. They will
be coming for us.”<br>
<br>
DeSmog reviewed numerous accounts during and in the wake of the
Capitol attack. Social media posts show that several other climate
science deniers, like the UK-based columnist James Delingpole and
Steve Milloy, publisher of the JunkScience.com website, joined many
on the far-right in circulating false information suggesting that it
was not the visible pro-Trump participants who had been planning
online for weeks to “occupy the Capitol,” but instead members of
their opposition — the loose, left-wing movement known as antifa —
that actually invaded the building. On Thursday, the Washington Post
reported that there was “no substantive evidence” that any antifa
supporters had participated in the pro-Trump insurrection, adding
that many claims of antifa involvement had cited a soure that had,
in fact, reported neo-Nazi participation...<br>
- -<br>
Others in DeSmog's Climate Disinformation Database, like the
conservative media organization Prager U, used their social media
presence to share messaging that sought to shift focus to last
summer's Black Lives Matter uprisings.<br>
<br>
Detailed information about precisely what happened inside the
Capitol Building on Wednesday — and what led to those events — is
still continuing to emerge. But what is clear is that neo-Nazis and
long-time far-right Trump supporters were documented, and in many
cases documented themselves, participating in the mob violence
inside the Capitol Building...<br>
- -<br>
“The goal isn’t necessarily to convince anyone of anything,” Melissa
Ryan, author of the Ctrl Alt-Right Delete weekly newsletter covering
the alt-right and CEO of CARD Strategies, told DeSmog. “The goal is
to sow so much confusion that it’s actually hard for people to tell
the truth from fiction.”<br>
<br>
That misinformation benefits the far-right, she said.<br>
<br>
“They did the same after Charlottesville,” said Ryan, who has
previously written about interactions between climate deniers and
QAnon conspiracy theorists. “They do the same after any of their
protests that cause violence. The goal is to cause confusion amongst
viewers, those amongst their audience that might have a little
trepidation about being associated with violent extremist groups, so
‘both sides’ is sort of how they neutralize that.”<br>
<br>
Several accounts associated with climate science deniers focused in
particular on pictures of Jake Angeli, who wore face paint and a
horned helmet on January 6, with these accounts suggesting that
Angeli was a member of antifa. Angeli, however, is better known as
“the QAnon shaman.”<br>
<br>
“He’s absolutely a QAnon right-wing follower,” said Ryan.<br>
<br>
Attempts to shift blame away from those visibly participating in the
invasion and to antifa were later also spread in Congress by
Republican Matt Gaetz of Florida who was met with audible boos on
the House floor when he suggested that the Capitol attack was by
people “masquerading” as Trump supporters — a word choice made all
the more ironic by the fact that many participating in the apparent
coup attempt were not wearing masks despite the raging COVID-19
pandemic.<br>
<br>
And of course, President Trump himself may perhaps be the world’s
best-known climate science denier. Earlier in the day on January 6,
he had addressed members of the soon-to-be mob in person, calling on
them to “walk down to the Capitol” and adding that “you will never
take back our country with weakness.” Later that day, in a recorded
video, he told them, “We love you. You’re very special. Go home.”<br>
<br>
On Thursday night, in a tweeted video message lasting less than
three minutes, President Trump said that the “demonstrators” — the
same individuals whom he had personally addressed before the attack
— had “defiled” the Capitol and called for their prosecution. Today,
he resumed using his Twitter account to praise and encourage his
base.<br>
<br>
Today, Trump faces renewed calls for his impeachment or removal
under the 25th Amendment. But the disinformation-fueled movement
backing him is extremely unlikely to simply fade away — and may in
fact be further emboldened by the images of Trump and Confederate
flags that were waved inside the Capitol Building.<br>
<br>
“I feel like it’s a very clear end of the Trump administration,”
said Ryan, “but what’s terrifying is what it is the birth of.”<br>
<br>
Far-right organizers have already reportedly posted calls to gather
again on January 20, inauguration day. On Thursday, USA Today quoted
from a “white-supremacist Telegram channel” that called for
“Pro-Trump and other nationalist crowds” to gather in D.C. that day.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2021/01/08/climate-deniers-morano-briggs-heartland-misinformation-trump-capitol">https://www.desmogblog.com/2021/01/08/climate-deniers-morano-briggs-heartland-misinformation-trump-capitol</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Good idea, opinion from great names]<br>
<b>Early next step: Add risk management to National Climate
Assessment</b><br>
Adding the essential but missing risk management considerations to
the next national climate assessment is an important step for the
incoming Biden administration.<br>
By Gary Yohe, Henry Jacoby, Richard Richels, and Benjamin Santer<br>
January 5, 2021<br>
Imagine a major climate change law passing the U.S. Congress
unanimously? Don’t bother. It turns out that you don’t need to
imagine it. Get this:<br>
<br>
The Global Change Research Act of 1990 was passed unanimously
(100-0) in the United States Senate and by voice vote in the House
of Representatives. Wow.<br>
<br>
The law instructed all relevant federal agencies to intensify their
separate research activities into climate change trends, impacts,
and uncertainties and to coordinate their efforts under a newly
created United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).
Congress also recognized the need to communicate to the general
public the societal and natural vulnerabilities derived directly or
indirectly from current or projected climate change. To do that, the
law mandated that the federal research community prepare regular
national climate assessments (NCAs) to be distributed to the
American people every four years by the sitting President.<br>
<br>
The first assessment (NCA1), approved and released in November of
2000, effectively began the communication process. It alerted
Americans of growing threats posed by human-induced changes in local
and regional climates.<br>
<br>
Beginning around 2007, risk assessment became the accepted approach
to understanding and communicating climate change impacts around the
world. NCA3 in 2014 and NCA4 in 2018 therefore instructed writing
teams to characterize important climate change effects in terms of
the two key principles of risk: the likelihoods of climate change
impacts, and their consequences as measured by dollars, lives, other
public health metrics, etc.<br>
<br>
This risk-based framing meant that national assessments should
report high-risk possibilities of all sorts: high-risk circumstances
that could, for example, be (1) highly likely to occur with modest
to moderate consequences; or (2) more-likely-than-not to occur with
more serious consequences; and/or (3) unlikely to occur but with
enormous and sometimes calamitous consequences.<br>
<br>
By law, the incoming Biden administration will be responsible for
preparing the NCA5 for release in 2023, and the time is right for
that assessment to advance to the next level by adding risk
management to its organizational structure. The new USGCRP
assessment team will clearly have to work within the already
approved prospectus for NCA5. But unless it pushes itself beyond the
boundaries of past assessments, it will not focus stronger attention
on how climate risks are being managed now and how they might be
managed better in the future.<br>
<br>
<b>Moving beyond risk assessment to still more difficult questions</b><br>
Would that be a step forward? Clearly. Consider, for instance, what
it could have added to the key findings about increased
vulnerability to coastal flooding reported in NCA4. They included
several cautions:<br>
<br>
Vulnerability had been driven by human-induced sea level rise for
decades, but it had not been evenly distributed along the nation’s
coastlines;<br>
The frequency of high-tide flooding had increased 5- to 10-fold in
some communities since 1965, but not in others;<br>
Flooding from extreme coastal storms like Nor’easters and hurricanes
had generally made landfall with exaggerated storm surges and
ponderous rainfall totals over short periods of time; and<br>
Adverse impacts from these types of storms are expected to increase
as the planet warms over the next century.<br>
NCA4 also estimated that highly cost effective adaptation programs
could reduce cumulative discounted future damages to coastal
properties across the lower 48 states through 2100 by many billions
of dollars, at the very least, and perhaps up to a few trillions of
dollars along higher emissions futures.<br>
<br>
A focus on risk management in upcoming NCA5 chapters could lead the
authors to move beyond these assessments of risks and confront more
difficult questions like: “What level of preparation at local, city,
state, and regional levels would be required for investment in
adaptation to achieve the damage avoidance earlier author teams had
suggested would be feasible given changed conditions from those
prevalent in 2018? And how might the federal government help (or
hinder) in that regard?<br>
<br>
NCA4 did present some examples of ongoing efforts to adapt to,
mitigate, and provide relief from climate damages, but assessing
capacities to manage risk could have brought more critical questions
to the fore. For example:<br>
<blockquote>- Do decision-makers across our federalist system work
well together?<br>
- Do they have and share the necessary information?<br>
- Are their financial and human resources sufficient?<br>
- Do bottlenecks or competing agendas impede efforts to reduce net
damages?<br>
</blockquote>
<b>Le</b><b>ssons learned from pandemic … and meeting growing needs
of courts</b><br>
Finally, consider what management lessons can be drawn from our
challenging experiences in trying to manage the COVID-19 pandemic?<br>
<br>
A substantial and growing number of insightful documents have been
published, notably including the five volumes of America’s Climate
Choices. Authors have described and dissected examples of success
and of frustration in dealing with all sorts of external threats to
human welfare: There is plenty of material to assess, integrate,
and synthesize for the first time to help us fine-tune our
capacities to attack climate change over a large and diverse
country. Such an approach could lead to including risk management
sections in sectoral and regional chapters of NCA5 with analyses
that will inform and enhance an expanded adaptation chapter.<br>
<br>
Increasing NCA5 attention to risk management is critical also for
the judicial system. As climate effects multiply and management
responsibilities grow, more cases involving the management of
climate risks likely will arise in court dockets across the U.S. The
Supreme Court has already charged judges at every level “to
determine whether proffered scientific testimony or evidence
satisfies the standard of evidentiary reliability” because “a judge
must ascertain whether it is ground[ed] in the methods and
procedures of science.”<br>
<br>
Jurists frequently look to federally prepared scientific reports for
guidance in this regard. They will certainly look more frequently to
the NCA5 if its coverage of risk management practices provides
insights into what might reasonably be expected of plaintiffs or
defendants in cases involving climate risks.<br>
<br>
Bringing risk management into the NCA is the next important step in
its evolution in communicating climate vulnerabilities to the
public. Doing so will illuminate what we know about incorporating
the exploding knowledge of intensifying climate risk into public and
private decision-making processes.<br>
- - <br>
Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and
Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in
Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple
chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through
2014 and was vice-chair of the Third U.S. National Climate
Assessment.<br>
<br>
Henry Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management,
Emeritus, in the MIT Sloan School of Management and former
co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of
Global Change, which is focused on the integration of the natural
and social sciences and policy analysis on threats to the global
climate.<br>
<br>
Richard Richels directed climate change research at the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI). He served as lead author for
multiple chapters of the IPCC in the areas of mitigation, impacts,
and adaptation from 1992 through 2014. He also served on the
National Assessment Synthesis Team for the first U.S. National
Climate Assessment.<br>
<br>
Ben Santer served as convening lead author of the climate change
detection and attribution chapter of the IPCC’s Second Assessment
Report and has contributed to all five IPCC assessments.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/commentary-early-next-step-add-risk-management-to-national-climate-assessment/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/commentary-early-next-step-add-risk-management-to-national-climate-assessment/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[New product for your electric car, 1 min audio and text]<br>
<b>App helps electric vehicle drivers share private charging
stations</b><br>
EVmatch wants to make it easier for drivers to find places to power
up.<br>
Peer-to-peer networks like Uber, Lyft and Airbnb have made it easy
to grab a phone, open an app, and find someone who can offer you a
ride or a place to stay. Now drivers can share electric car chargers
the same way.<br>
<br>
On the EVmatch app, people who own an electric car charger can list
it as available. Then other EV drivers can locate a charger, reserve
a time to use it, and pay for the electricity they use.<br>
<br>
“With electric cars, many people who buy them today are
single-family homeowners who charge at home overnight,” says founder
and CEO Heather Hochrein. “But for all of the people who live in
apartments or park on the street or don’t have access to home
charging, there really needs to be better solutions to help make it
easy to drive electric. So that’s what EVmatch is focused on.”<br>
<br>
Hochrein says to grow its network, EVmatch is also working with
utilities to deploy charging stations to apartment buildings and
businesses.<br>
<br>
So far, there are about 500 chargers in the nationwide EVmatch
network. Many are in California.<br>
<br>
As the platform grows, Hochrein hopes it helps more drivers switch
from gas to electric – “and make that switch more quickly,” she
adds. “Because with climate change, every moment counts.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/app-helps-electric-vehicle-drivers-share-private-charging-stations/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/app-helps-electric-vehicle-drivers-share-private-charging-stations/</a><br>
<p> - - <br>
</p>
[Think of it as ridesharing for electrons]<br>
<b>UNLOCK MORE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING OPTIONS</b><br>
EVmatch is a nationwide network for sharing and renting private EV
charging stations<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.evmatch.com/">https://www.evmatch.com/</a> and <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://blog.evmatch.com/">https://blog.evmatch.com/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[keep trying]<br>
<b>Exxon Mobil Is Twisting Itself in Knots to Justify Pumping Even
More Oil</b><b><br>
</b>In its annual Energy and Carbon Summary, the oil company
offers a bizarre account of how it’s going to help address climate
change while increasing production.<br>
</p>
<p>Kate Aronoff/January 8, 2021</p>
<p>Seemingly a month ago, on Tuesday, Exxon Mobil released its
annual Energy & Carbon Summary. For the first time, the
company reported its Scope 3 emissions. Those are emissions
generated across the so-called value chain of its products, from
the steel it buys to build drilling rigs to the emissions given
off when the oil Exxon sells is burned in a gas tank on the
highway. Traditionally, Exxon has reported only emissions from its
production process and energy use, holding out as competitors
began disclosing end-use emissions as well. As it happens, Exxon’s
Scope 3 emissions for 2019—the year this report analyzed—were
roughly on par with the national emissions of Canada. <br>
<br>
This was the detail most coverage focused on. But in fact, the
report is a much stranger document than that single statistic
suggests. Its 54 pages are an example of a slick new public
relations campaign, dressed as scientific pragmatism.
Conveniently, the report ignores that Exxon spent years funding
groups that cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the
climate crisis. And it deflects questions about what kind of
action is now needed to respond to it.<br>
<br>
Boasting that the company is “proactively engaging on
climate-related policy,” Exxon states that it has “participated in
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its
inception in 1988.” What exactly was it doing there? <br>
<br>
Exxon Mobil was an early member of the Global Climate Coalition,
or GCC. Members of the innocuous-sounding and now defunct
nonprofit, founded in 1989, included some of the most
carbon-intensive companies on earth, from fossil fuel producers to
electric utilities to car companies. A primary goal was to
undermine the IPCC process, sending large delegations to IPCC
meetings, targeting IPCC scientists with accusations of
“scientific cleansing,” and cherry-picking data to suggest warming
might simply be “part of a natural warming trend which began
nearly 400 years ago.” The group’s “IPCC Budget Tracker” received
two and a half times the average funding of other program areas.
At one point, Exxon appealed to the White House to block the
reappointment of IPCC chairman Robert Watson. (It did.) <br>
<br>
Exxon climate scientist Brian Flannery served in the IPCC’s
working group III—dealing with mitigation—from 1998 through 2004,
having previously argued that there was too much “scientific
uncertainty” to justify the emissions reductions outlined in the
IPCC’s first report. Contradicting evidence found internally at
Exxon more than a decade previously, he stated in a 1996 speech
that “observations do not confirm that human activities have led
to any global warming.” The same year, Exxon Biomedical Sciences’
D.J. Devlin gave a presentation to the GCC undermining emerging
scientific consensus that climate change could have a disastrous
impact on human health.<br>
<br>
Exxon’s “proactive” engagement with climate policy has usually
meant blocking it. George W. Bush administration officials
credited Exxon Mobil for the White House’s decision to reject the
Kyoto Protocol, which the United States had signed onto during the
Clinton administration in 1997. Exxon for years denied it had any
involvement in the government’s choice, but State Department
briefing notes obtained by Greenpeace strongly suggest otherwise.
“Potus [the president of the U.S.] rejected Kyoto in part based on
input from you [the GCC],” reads one. Exxon, administration
officials said, believed joining “would be unjustifiably drastic
and premature.”<br>
<br>
Exxon representatives didn’t necessarily argue that the climate
wasn’t changing or that every piece of data about warming was
bunk. Instead, they created enough plausible deniability to
confuse the public and policymakers and stop anything being done
about it. This meant weaponizing uncertainties that are a standard
part of scientific knowledge production. The GCC accordingly
informed lawmakers and journalists in 1989 that the “role of
greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.” <br>
<br>
Exxon’s new report, despite its green language, tells a similar
story. This time, the company isn’t debating the scope and scale
of climate change itself. The planet is certainly warming, and
that needs to be addressed, it underlines. But who’s to say how
the world should do that? <br>
<br>
Limiting the world to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
of warming, the reports argues, is a complicated matter with few
clear directives. “Given a wide range of uncertainties, no single
pathway can be reasonably predicted,” the authors write. “A key
unknown relates to yet-to-be-developed advances in technology and
breakthroughs that may influence the cost and potential
availability of certain pathways toward a 2°C scenario. Scenarios
that employ a full complement of technology options are likely to
provide the most economically efficient pathways.” What Exxon
seems to be arguing here is that the best pathways—the ones it’s
choosing to base its plans around—are the ones that rely most on
unproven negative emissions technologies rather than limiting
fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
The report then proceeds to paint a wildly optimistic picture of
both negative emissions technologies and the future of oil and gas
over the next several decades. Far from curtailing its oil
production, Exxon seemingly intends to increase it: The report
predicts climbing fossil fuel demand for the next 40 years.
Staying under two degrees, it argues, still requires “significant”
new investment—$12 trillion worth, according to the International
Energy Agency—in new fossil fuels. That means not only can all
Exxon’s reserves be safely exploited, but plenty of new
exploration can be greenlit as well. As even BP has gotten nervous
about the prospect of stranded assets (meaning, for example,
reserves that couldn’t be profitably exploited if certain climate
policies are put in place), Exxon is focused on acquiring new
assets, replenishing “existing proved reserves entirely by 2040.”<br>
<br>
For reference, the latest United Nations Production Gap report
finds that the world is currently on track to produce 50 percent
more fossil fuels than is consistent with a world warmed by just
two degrees Celsius, and 120 percent more than is consistent with
capping warming at 1.5 degrees. Nevertheless, Exxon Mobil reports
that its own plans—which, again, include massively increasing
production—are perfectly consistent with the goals of the Paris
Climate Agreement. As sustainability nonprofit Ceres’s Andrew
Logan said of Exxon’s recently announced emissions reduction
pledge, “Nothing suggests any change in strategy.… They are just
optimizing the path they are already on.”<br>
<br>
None of this is all that unique for fossil fuel companies, which,
for years now, have been advocating for climate policies that will
keep their profits flowing. But it’s a striking reminder of just
how much cognitive dissonance the company is willing to pack into
a report claiming to show its good intentions. And as a new
administration prepares to take power, peppered with officials
keen to include oil companies in policy discussions, it’s a good
reason for skepticism.<br>
<br>
Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at The New Republic.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://newrepublic.com/article/160839/exxonmobil-twisting-knots-justify-pumping-even-oil">https://newrepublic.com/article/160839/exxonmobil-twisting-knots-justify-pumping-even-oil</a></p>
<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 -
January 9, </b></font><br>
<p>January 9, 1989: In a letter to House Speaker Jim Wright and Vice
President George H. W. Bush, President Ronald Reagan writes:
"Because changes in the earth’s natural systems can have
tremendous economic and social effects, global climate change is
becoming a critical concern."<br>
(Apparently, Reagan's reference to the "critical concern" of
climate change has never been acknowledged by right-wing media
entities such as the Fox News Channel.)<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35346">http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35346</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>