<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 14, 2021</b></font></i> <br>
</p>
[important opinion]<br>
<b>The Capitol Insurrection Shows White Nationalism Is the Biggest
Threat to the Climate</b><br>
White nationalism gave us the climate emergency. Now, it’s our
biggest obstacle.<br>
Eric Holthaus - Jan 12, 2021<br>
- -<br>
As climate activists know from Harvard political scientist Erica
Chenoweth’s work, it only takes 3.5% of the population engaged in
active protest to change the course of history. While non-violent
revolutions have historically been twice as successful as violent
ones, obviously violent revolutions can also be successful.<br>
As shocking as this week’s events were — the most serious attack on
our country since 9/11 and the worst attack on our nation’s capital
since the war of 1812 — a YouGov rapid poll found that more than 20%
of registered voters, including 45% of Republicans, approved of
them. That’s more than enough people to forcibly block climate
action, and render the planet uninhabitable.<br>
I’ll say it very clearly: White nationalism is a threat to the
planet...<br>
- -<br>
In recent years, white nationalists have increasingly embraced
eco-fascism before carrying out mass shootings. Neo-nazis are using
the climate emergency to recruit people. White supremacy means
supremacy over Nature itself.<br>
As Sarah Smarsh has written for years, white nationalism is not a
case of rural, backwards hillbillies. It’s in boardrooms. It’s in
the white exodus of public schools. It’s in the privatization of
health care. It’s in the fossil fuel industry. It’s in the White
House.<br>
And even more importantly, as climate scientist Ayana Elizabeth
Johnson wrote after the murder of George Floyd last summer, racism
steals time from fighting climate change...<br>
- -<br>
I don’t know where we go from here, honestly. But I know that chaos
and collapse are not inevitable. There are futures where justice and
equality and a thriving spirit of mutual prosperity for all living
things will flourish. And so that’s what we have to fight for.<br>
If there’s anything we’ve learned from 2020, it’s that the old world
isn’t coming back. If we’re going to build a better world that works
for everyone, WE are the ones who are going to have to do that work,
together.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://futurehuman.medium.com/the-capitol-insurrection-shows-white-nationalism-is-the-biggest-threat-to-the-climate-e32494621b24">https://futurehuman.medium.com/the-capitol-insurrection-shows-white-nationalism-is-the-biggest-threat-to-the-climate-e32494621b24</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Records set]<br>
<b>Climate crisis: record ocean heat in 2020 supercharged extreme
weather</b><br>
Scientists say temperatures likely to be increasing faster than at
any time in past 2,000 years<br>
The world’s oceans reached their hottest level in recorded history
in 2020, supercharging the extreme weather impacts of the climate
emergency, scientists have reported.<br>
<br>
More than 90% of the heat trapped by carbon emissions is absorbed by
the oceans, making their warmth an undeniable signal of the
accelerating crisis. The researchers found the five hottest years in
the oceans had occurred since 2015, and that the rate of heating
since 1986 was eight times higher than that from 1960-85.<br>
<br>
Reliable instrumental measurements stretch back to 1940 but it is
likely the oceans are now at their hottest for 1,000 years and
heating faster than any time in the last 2,000 years. Warmer seas
provide more energy to storms, making them more severe, and there
were a record 29 tropical storms in the Atlantic in 2020.<br>
<br>
Hotter oceans also disrupt rainfall patterns, which lead to floods,
droughts and wildfires. Heat also causes seawater to expand and
drive up sea levels. Scientists expect about 1 metre of sea level
rise by the end of the century, endangering 150 million people
worldwide.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, warmer water is less able to dissolve carbon dioxide.
Currently, 30% of carbon emissions are absorbed by the oceans,
limiting the heating effect of humanity’s burning of fossil fuels...<br>
- -<br>
“The fact the oceans reached yet another new record level of warmth
in 2020, despite a record drop in global carbon emissions, drives
home the fact that the planet will continue to warm up as long as we
emit carbon into the atmosphere.” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn
State University in the US, and one of the study team. “It is a
reminder of the urgency of bringing carbon emissions down rapidly
over the next several years.”<br>
<br>
Prof Laure Zanna, of New York University, said: “Continuous ocean
temperature measurements, as presented in this study, are crucial to
quantify the warming of the planet.”<br>
<br>
Rising sea level driven by heating, as well as the melting of
glaciers and ice caps was important, she said. “That directly
impacts a significant fraction of the world’s population.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/climate-crisis-record-ocean-heat-in-2020-supercharged-extreme-weather">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/climate-crisis-record-ocean-heat-in-2020-supercharged-extreme-weather</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[The Atlantic ]<br>
<b>The Weekly Planet: What 2020’s Bizarre Economy Taught Us About
Climate Change</b><br>
U.S. carbon pollution hasn’t been this low in decades—that’s the bad
news.<br>
ROBINSON MEYER - JANUARY 12, 2021<br>
- -<br>
The math only gets harder for more ambitious targets.
President-elect Joe Biden has said that the U.S. should aim to zero
out its carbon emissions by 2050. That scale of reduction obviously
couldn’t happen in a single year, so analysts have tried to estimate
a glide path for getting there. Larsen’s rule of thumb is that by
2030, the U.S. would need to cut emissions to about 40 percent below
their historic peak to stay on track.<br>
<br>
But last year, amid the pandemic, the U.S. managed a cut of only 21
percent. So the U.S. would need to double 2020’s cuts in less than a
decade if we hope to stay on track for net zero.<br>
<br>
In other words: “We will need emissions reductions of this scale …
for many years to come, and we need to do it differently than we did
in 2020,” Larsen said.<br>
- -<br>
Above all else, we should focus on a broad lesson about 2020. In the
spring, Americans conducted an unprecedented and unintentional
experiment in reducing carbon emissions. They did not drive to work
or travel for fun; they stayed at home. The world grew quieter, the
air cleaner. Wildlife moved back into urban spaces. And carbon
emissions decreased. In April and May, emissions were 20 percent
lower than they had been a year prior.<br>
<br>
But that behavioral change was not enough to meet even the least
ambitious of America’s long-term climate goals. This extraordinary
and painful trial should provide the final proof, I think, that
climate change simply cannot be solved by changing our personal
behavior. We have to change systems, and the only way to do that is
to develop and deploy technologies that will enable economic
prosperity without carbon pollution...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/01/the-lowest-carbon-pollution-in-three-decades/617652/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/01/the-lowest-carbon-pollution-in-three-decades/617652/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[success and aspirations]<br>
<b>Minnesota Power lays out renewable energy plan: No coal by 2035,
no carbon by 2050</b><br>
The company reached 50% renewables in December, and now plans to
increase that to 70% by 2030. It will be 80% carbon free by 2035 and
100% carbon free by 2050...<br>
- -<br>
“With our vision, and our now company goal, to be 100% carbon-free,
we're going to look at carbon minimizing options, because why would
you transition to something that you would then just have to turn
around and turn off and in a short amount of time?” Pierce said. “So
we’ll be thoughtful about that.”...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/energy-and-mining/6836745-Minnesota-Power-lays-out-renewable-energy-plan-No-coal-by-2035-no-carbon-by-2050">https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/energy-and-mining/6836745-Minnesota-Power-lays-out-renewable-energy-plan-No-coal-by-2035-no-carbon-by-2050</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><b><br>
</b></p>
[Emissions down]<b><br>
</b> <b>Coronavirus causes largest U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
drop since World War Two: report</b><br>
The economic fallout from the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 -
especially in big emitting sectors like transportation, power and
industry - resulted in a sharper emissions drop than the 2009
recession, when emissions slid 6.3%.<br>
The drop means that the United States would outperform its pledge
made under the Copenhagen climate accord to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Emissions will actually
drop by 21.5% compared with 2005...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-climatechange-emissions/coronavirus-causes-largest-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-since-world-war-two-report-idUSL1N2JM2S2">https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-climatechange-emissions/coronavirus-causes-largest-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-since-world-war-two-report-idUSL1N2JM2S2</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[consequences reports from Capital Weather Gang]<br>
<b>Trump officials reassigned by White House after publishing
controversial climate papers without approval</b><br>
Papers with the presidential seal appear on contrarian websites
without authorization, prompting the reassignment of David Legates
and Ryan Maue<br>
<br>
By Andrew Freedman and Jason Samenow<br>
Jan. 12, 2021 <br>
<br>
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has
reassigned Trump appointees David Legates and Ryan Maue, senior
officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) who were appointed by President Trump, for their role in
producing and publishing controversial papers questioning the
seriousness of climate change without White House approval.<br>
<br>
The two had been detailed to the White House since November but were
removed from their postings Tuesday after the papers, which were
published on nongovernment websites, came to light. The papers bear
the imprint of the Executive Office of the President and state that
they were copyrighted by the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP).<br>
<br>
But they were never approved by Kelvin Droegemeier, the director of
the office.<br>
<br>
“Dr. Droegemeier was outraged to learn of the materials that were
not shared with or approved by OSTP leadership,” OSTP spokeswoman
Kristina Baum said in an email Tuesday afternoon. “He first became
aware of the documents when contacted by the press. As a result, Dr.
Droegemeier took swift action and the individuals responsible have
been relieved of their duties at OSTP.”<br>
<br>
Baum had stated Monday night that the papers, which make
controversial and disputed claims about climate science, were not
created at OSTP’s direction or cleared by its leadership. She said
Tuesday morning that the science and technology arm of the White
House “has no intention to formalize these” by publishing them on
the agency’s site.<br>
<br>
The dismissal of Legates and Maue from OSTP means they will return
to NOAA, where they were first hired. Both Legates’s and Maue’s last
day working for the Trump administration is this week.<br>
<br>
Scott Smullen, deputy director of NOAA communications, said the
publication of the documents will be reviewed under the agency’s
scientific integrity policy. He distanced the agency from the
documents, known as the “Climate Change Flyers.”<br>
<br>
“Science papers from NOAA follow a rigorous peer-reviewed process
under agency regulations on scientific publications. NOAA was not
involved in the creation or posting online of the climate change
flyers that have been allegedly attributed to the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, nor does NOAA endorse the flyers. OSTP is
investigating the issue,” Smullen said in a statement.<br>
<br>
The papers include the claim that subscribing to the idea of
human-caused global warming “involves a large measure of faith” and
that computer models are “too small and slow” to produce meaningful
climate simulations.<br>
<br>
Legates, who led the production of the papers, did not reply to
requests for comment regarding why the papers were published bearing
the seal of the Executive Office of the President when they not been
approved by the White House.<br>
<br>
Legates, a climate skeptic and climatology professor at the
University of Delaware, has been a mysterious figure at NOAA since
he started working there in September. Shortly after joining the
agency he was detailed to a position overseeing the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, which coordinates federal climate change
research, while remaining a NOAA employee.<br>
<br>
Some at NOAA feared that Legates, who has a long history of
contributing to the Heartland Institute and its efforts to cast
doubt on mainstream climate science findings, was working on a pet
project, possibly one that could be harmful to NOAA’s climate
research programs.<br>
<br>
The Climate Change Flyers consists of nine two- to 10-page essays
that question the reliability of computer models, the human-induced
causes of climate change, and links between climate change and
hurricanes among the topics covered.<br>
<br>
“These flyers have been written by top scientists from leading
institutions from around North America,” says the series
introduction, written by Legates. “The Office of Science and
Technology Policy is pleased to bring you these briefs to further
your understanding of climate change by learning from these learned
scholars.”<br>
<br>
White House taps second controversial scientist to steer major U.S.
climate change report<br>
<br>
There is no information provided regarding whether the essays were
peer-reviewed or the process for developing them.<br>
<br>
John Holdren, who headed the OSTP during Barack Obama’s presidency,
characterized the fliers as “misguided and thoroughly erroneous
screeds” and said they “would not have been issued by anybody with a
shred of scientific integrity.”<br>
<br>
Holdren also called for Legates to be fired.<br>
<br>
One essay, titled “Systematic Problems in the Four ‘National
Assessments’ of Climate Change Impacts on the United States,” tries
to discredit all the U.S. government’s previous authoritative
reports, which were subject to multiple rounds of peer review,
including by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.<br>
<br>
Legates was appointed by the White House to oversee the next such
assessment, which is slated to be published in 2023.<br>
<br>
The papers are probably intended to influence the 2023 assessment,
according to Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic close to the Trump
administration who directs the energy and global warming program at
the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute. “This looks like a
preparatory effort to get the National Assessment pointed in the
right direction,” he said in an interview.<br>
<br>
Andrew Rosenberg, a former NOAA official and director of the Union
of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, described
the papers as an effort to “seed the record for the National Climate
Assessment and future legal action by circumventing the peer-review
and consensus process.”<br>
<br>
“They want to get nonsensical, debunked pseudoscience into the
‘official’ government record without subjecting it to independent
evaluation,” Rosenberg wrote in an email.<br>
<br>
Betsy Weatherhead, director of National Climate Assessment, said in
a statement to The Washington Post that studies intended for the
report should be thoroughly vetted.<br>
<br>
“Thoughts written down without process of peer review and lacking
the multiple layers of scientific evaluation which goes into modern
assessments are hardly worth reading when one wants trustworthy
information,” she wrote.<br>
<br>
She added, “The last National Climate Assessment involved hundreds
of scientists and reviewers and concluded that climate change is
happening, primarily caused by an increase in greenhouse gases and
will likely continue.”<br>
<br>
The unapproved papers were published on a website hosted by the
Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, which calls
itself “a multidisciplinary and independent research group” but
provides no information as to any individual or organization that
supports it and solicits donations from visitors to the site. The
group is affiliated with longtime climate contrarian Willie Soon.<br>
<br>
It appeals for contributions by declaring its independence “from
industry, government, religion, politics or ideology,” despite
posting the documents from Legates bearing the Executive Office of
the President’s seal.<br>
<br>
The papers were written by well-known climate-change contrarians
including William Happer, a professor emeritus of physics at
Princeton University, who served a stint on the White House National
Security Council in the Trump administration, and Ross McKitrick, an
economics professor at the University of Guelph.<br>
<br>
Several of the authors who contributed to the effort either have
received funding from the fossil fuel industry or are affiliated
with anti-regulatory organizations, or both. Among them is Patrick
Michaels, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
but it’s unclear where the funding for this series of papers came
from.<br>
<br>
Legates is listed as the main author of the series, with other
contributors including Ryan Maue, who was installed as NOAA chief
scientist in September and subsequently detailed to the OSTP in
November. Maue recognizes the reality of human-caused climate change
but has spoken out repeatedly against what he views as overly
alarmist findings or interpretations of climate science.<br>
<br>
Roy Spencer, who wrote a paper in the series titled “The Faith-Based
Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming,” is a climate scientist at
the University of Alabama at Huntsville who has long questioned the
extent of the link between climate change and human activities. He
posted the entire set of papers on his personal blog last week.<br>
<br>
“David [Legates] hopes to be able to get these posted on the White
House website by January 20 (I presume so they will become a part of
the outgoing Administration’s record) but there is no guarantee
given recent events,” Spencer wrote. “He said we are free to
disseminate them widely.”<br>
<br>
Spencer also wrote on his blog that Legates had asked him and other
scientists to write these papers late last year to support the view
that “there is no climate crisis or climate emergency” and to point
out “the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists
through the media.”<br>
<br>
Holdren, the former OSTP director, wrote that the papers’ appearance
under the banner of the Executive Office of the President and the
OSTP without authorization was “not merely outrageous but,
apparently, illegal.”<br>
<br>
U.S. Code states: “Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or
impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States
… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.”<br>
<br>
The OSTP did not reply to a question regarding any disciplinary
measures for Legates’s actions.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/01/11/controversial-climate-skeptics-release-papers/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/01/11/controversial-climate-skeptics-release-papers/</a>
<br>
<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 -
January 14, 2009 </b></font><br>
<p>MSNBC host Keith Olbermann denounces Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
for his rhetorical assault on former EPA Administrator Carol
Browner:<br>
<br>
"But our winner, climate change denier Senator James Inhofe of
Oklahoma, desperate to capsize the incoming energy and climate
adviser, Carol Browner, branding her a secret socialist. Sounds
like a Christmas thing, secret socialist. And saying, 'There is
another organization that a lot of people don‘t realize. It‘s
called the Center for American Progress. This report that came
out, this is the group that is trying for the Fairness Doctrine,
trying to, I think, dramatically upend the First Amendment. She,
Carol Browner, was a member of that group.' <br>
<br>
"As he fulminated, Senator Inhofe even held up a copy of a Center
for American Progress report called 'The Structural Imbalance of
Political Talk Radio.' There's only one problem: in that report,
the Center for American Progress specifically concludes, quote,
'There is no need to return to the fairness doctrine. Increasing
ownership diversity will lead to more diverse programming.'<br>
<br>
"So Senator, thanks for pointing out that Carol Browner belongs to
a group that specifically opposes reinstating the Fairness
Doctrine you‘re so scared of. Senator James 'Maybe next time I‘ll
remember to read the damn thing first' Inhofe, today‘s worst
person in the world!"<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tbsps_KOA#t=73">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tbsps_KOA#t=73</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>