<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 29, 2021</b></font></i> <br>
</p>
[Military News]<br>
<b>Climate change is now a national security priority for the
Pentagon</b><br>
By: Aaron Mehta -Jan 28, 2021<br>
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will begin incorporating climate analysis
into its war-gaming and analysis efforts as well as featuring the
issue as part of its future National Defense Strategy.<br>
<br>
The announcement by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin came shortly
after President Joe Biden signed a series of executive orders
targeting the climate crisis.<br>
<br>
The Defense Department “will immediately take appropriate policy
actions to prioritize climate change considerations in our
activities and risk assessments, to mitigate this driver of
insecurity. As directed by the President, we will include the
security implications of climate change in our risk analyses,
strategy development, and planning guidance,” Austin said in a
statement...<br>
“As a leader in the interagency, the Department of Defense will also
support incorporating climate risk analysis into modeling,
simulation, wargaming, analysis, and the next National Defense
Strategy. And by changing how we approach our own carbon footprint,
the Department can also be a platform for positive change, spurring
the development of climate-friendly technologies at scale.”<br>
<br>
“There is little about what the Department does to defend the
American people that is not affected by climate change,” Austin
concluded. “It is a national security issue, and we must treat it as
such.”<br>
<br>
For years, the DoD has acknowledged that environmental change could
pose a threat to military capabilities. In fiscal 2020, the
department doled out $67 million in funds to help bases alleviate or
repair climate-related damage. A 2018 report by the Center for
Climate and Security identified a number of key domestic military
installations, including both North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune and Camp
Pendleton in California, as at-risk from climate change. In 2019, a
number of bases were hit by large weather events, including Offutt
Air Force Base in Nebraska, which required more than $400 million in
repairs...<br>
But under the Trump administration, defense officials were careful
to use such statements to acknowledge logistical concerns and they
refused to comment on whether climate change is real or human-made.<br>
<br>
That is now officially changed — unsurprisingly, given the focus
Biden said his administration will place on fighting climate change,
including putting former Secretary of State John Kerry into a new
role with the National Security Council, where he will focus
entirely on the issue.<br>
<br>
The public version of the Trump administration’s National Security
Strategy included only a single mention of climate-related concerns;
the public version of the National Defense Strategy, a more
DoD-focused document, did not raise the issue. Austin’s statement
could be a sign the issue will feature prominently whenever the next
NDS is released.<br>
<br>
The indication from Austin that the department will look to change
its carbon footprint is also notable, as the Pentagon is often
reported as being the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in the
United States. Already, planners in the department were looking for
alternatives, such as nuclear reactors, to help limit the logistics
train needed for the military.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2021/01/27/climate-change-is-now-a-national-security-priority-for-the-pentagon/">https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2021/01/27/climate-change-is-now-a-national-security-priority-for-the-pentagon/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Promises, promises]<br>
<b>Wind, solar, and coal: Joe Biden’s curious renewable energy
cocktail</b><br>
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY on 1/28/2021<br>
<br>
WASHINGTON (Bloomberg) --President Joe Biden enlisted the entire
U.S. government in the fight against climate change on Wednesday,
even telling the Central Intelligence Agency to consider global
warming a national security threat.<br>
<br>
Yet he left out coal -- the fossil fuel most widely blamed for
global warming -- when he froze the sale of leases to extract oil
and gas from federal land.<br>
<br>
It was a conspicuous omission for a president who has vowed to make
the electric grid carbon-free by 2035 and who has said the world’s
“future rests in renewable energy.”<br>
<br>
“This order should have included all fossil fuel extraction on
public lands,” said Mitch Jones, policy director at the
environmental group Food and Water Watch, who called the decision to
leave out coal both “a disappointment” and “scientifically unsound.”
“For years we’ve been force fed the false idea that fracked gas --
fracked methane -- is cleaner than coal, but, now, coal gets a
pass?” Jones said. “The fight against climate change demands that we
remain vigilant against all fossil fuel extraction.”<br>
<br>
White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy said coal leasing
will still get a review as part of a broad analysis of fossil-fuel
leasing. But unlike oil and gas development on federal land, which
Biden promised to target when running for president, a pause on
selling coal rights “was not part of the commitments on the
campaign.”...<br>
- -<br>
Biden ordered the creation of an interagency working group focused
on the coordinating investments and other efforts to assist
communities tied to coal, oil and natural gas.<br>
<br>
“We’re never going to forget the men and women who dug the coal and
built the nation,” Biden vowed. “We’re going to do right by them --
make sure they have opportunities to keep building the nation and
their own communities and getting paid well for it.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/1/28/wind-solar-and-coal-joe-biden-s-curious-renewable-energy-cocktail">https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/1/28/wind-solar-and-coal-joe-biden-s-curious-renewable-energy-cocktail</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Big Cyber hides its face]<br>
<b>Big Tech says it wants to solve climate change. Its lobbying
dollars say otherwise.</b><br>
By Zoya Teirstein on Jan 28, 2021<br>
It’s hard to quantify political power, but it’s safe to say that big
tech companies wield a lot of it. A decade ago, companies like
Amazon and Google employed just a smattering of lobbyists who worked
to influence D.C. policymakers on their behalf. Now, the Big Five
tech companies — Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Amazon —
spend tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress. In
2020, they collectively spent $61 million domestically lobbying on
issues that included international tax policies, copyright reform,
and content policy.<br>
<br>
Only a tiny fraction of Big Tech’s legislative lobbying might is
going toward advocating for climate policy, according to a new
report from the think tank InfluenceMap. Between 2019 and 2020, just
4 percent of Apple, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon,
Facebook, and Microsoft’s self-reported lobbying activities targeted
climate-related policy at the federal level. In Europe, these
companies do even less lobbying on climate — InfluenceMap says they
have been “largely silent on the EU’s ambitious climate policy
agenda.”<br>
<br>
This halfhearted effort to promote climate-friendly policies stands
in sharp contrast to Big Tech’s much-publicized promises to lead the
rest of the business sector, and indeed the entire world, toward a
greener future...<br>
Apple, for instance, revealed a plan last summer to make its supply
chain and products carbon neutral by 2030, something CEO Tim Cook
said will be good for the planet and its products. “With our
commitment to carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond
that creates a much larger change,” Cook said. In 2019, Amazon
unveiled a climate plan that aims to get the company to meet the
decarbonization requirements of the Paris Agreement 10 years early.
“If we can do this, anyone can do this,” Amazon founder Jeff Bezos
said at the time.<br>
<br>
“Climate change is a crisis we will only be able to address if we
all work together on a global scale,” Facebook founder Mark
Zuckerberg said. Facebook aims to make its global operations
net-zero, starting with making its value chain net-zero by 2030. “We
will support new public policy initiatives to accelerate carbon
reduction and removal opportunities,” Microsoft president Brad Smith
wrote in January last year, outlining seven principles the company
will adhere to in its quest to remove more emissions than it
produces by 2030 and eliminate all of its emissions since 1975 by
mid-century. “We know that no company, no matter how ambitious, can
solve a challenge like climate change alone,” Google said in its
sustainability report last September.<br>
<br>
It’s clear that these companies like to talk about climate action
being a collective effort. But despite the many detailed climate
plans and pledges, Big Tech has done strikingly little
government-level work to bring about the global-scale climate action
it says it wants to see. The little lobbying the Big Five do has
been largely focused on technical rules that are directly tied to
these companies’ abilities to stick to their climate commitments,
like procuring enough renewable energy. Meanwhile, the world is
nowhere near where it needs to be to meet the climate targets
outlined in the Paris Agreement.<br>
<br>
“Relative to their scale, they invest very little in saving the
planet,” Nic Bryant, a spokesperson for the climate activist group
Extinction Rebellion, told Grist, referring to tech companies.
“These companies could and should be leading the way.”<br>
<br>
What’s more, tech companies are being vastly out-lobbied by Big Oil,
the InfluenceMap report found. Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil,
ConocoPhillips, and BP directed, on average, 38 percent of their
legislative lobbying to climate-related policies between 2019 and
2020. Much of that lobbying activity was, unsurprisingly, against
climate policy.<br>
<br>
And during Donald Trump’s presidency, when the federal government
did virtually nothing to address the climate crisis and some states
tried to pick up the slack, the five major tech companies engaged on
climate policy at the state level in less than half of the 22 states
where they are headquartered, own data centers, or have regional
offices.<br>
“We worked from a list of almost 50 major climate bills that have
been proposed in states over the last few years, and we found that
Big Tech engaged on only a couple of them,” Kendra Haven, U.S.
engagement manager for InfluenceMap, told Grist. Apple, Google, and
Facebook, all headquartered in California, did almost no lobbying in
the state, which has an aggressive climate agenda. Chevron, by
comparison, also based in California, dedicated 51 percent of its
disclosed lobbying activities to climate policy there.<br>
<br>
“These companies have statements that indicate climate is a shared
problem that needs to be addressed by society as a whole,” Dylan
Tanner, executive director of InfluenceMap, told Grist. “The
question to investors and stakeholders in the tech companies is,
given this huge power and then your statements on climate, do you
want to leave it up to a few oil and gas companies to decide the
broad agenda on climate?”<br>
<br>
Further complicating Big Tech’s stance on climate are its membership
in industry associations. InfluenceMap scored each of the Big Five
tech companies on the climate-friendliness of the industry groups
they belong to. These are organizations like the Chamber of
Commerce, the most powerful trade organization in the world, which
has lobbied extensively against climate policy, as well as groups
with progressive agendas like the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance.
By looking at Big Tech’s membership in industry associations across
the board, InfluenceMap found “misalignment between the companies’
own climate lobbying positions and those of their industry
associations.”<br>
<br>
“Big Tech has no problem shelling out tens of millions of dollars
jockeying for their own interests in Washington, so we know their
failure to lobby for climate solutions is not due to a lack of
means, but a lack of will,” David Arkush, director of the climate
program at the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public
Citizen, told Grist. “If they’re serious about climate, they need to
push for government climate action at the scale and speed we need.”<br>
<br>
Representatives for two of the tech companies named in the report
asserted that they take climate change seriously. “Amazon believes
that both private and public sector leadership is required to
address the scale of the challenge, and we actively advocate for
policies that promote clean energy and address climate change,” a
spokesperson for Amazon told Grist. “We believe government action is
a critical tool to advance climate solutions, and we will continue
advocating for policies that address the urgency of the climate
crisis.”<br>
<br>
“We’re committed to fighting climate change and are taking
substantive steps without waiting for any legislative action,” a
spokesperson for Facebook told Grist.<br>
<br>
Spokespeople for Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft did not respond to
Grist’s request for comment prior to this article’s publication.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://grist.org/politics/big-tech-says-it-wants-to-solve-climate-change-its-lobbying-dollars-say-otherwise/">https://grist.org/politics/big-tech-says-it-wants-to-solve-climate-change-its-lobbying-dollars-say-otherwise/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[5 min video interview]<br>
<b>Shell Oil President on methane emissions, carbon capture</b><br>
Jan 24, 2021<br>
PBS NewsHour<br>
Gretchen Watkins, the president of oil and gas major Shell Oil has
taken a tough stand on methane emissions. She joins Hari Sreenivasan
to discuss the methane problem, the need for regulation and her
ideas for what the Biden administration should do to address the
issue. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N00GIqpLl6o">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N00GIqpLl6o</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[MIT news]<br>
<b>MIT convenes influential industry leaders in the fight against
climate change</b><br>
The MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium launches with 13
company members to work with MIT on innovation in climate and
sustainability.<br>
Watch Video
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2L9dG0AVY0&feature=emb_logo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2L9dG0AVY0&feature=emb_logo</a><br>
Lori LoTurco | School of Engineering<br>
Publication Date:January 28, 2021<br>
Launched today, the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC)
convenes an alliance of leaders from a broad range of industries and
aims to vastly accelerate large-scale, real-world implementation of
solutions to address the threat of climate change. The MCSC unites
similarly motivated, highly creative and influential companies to
work with MIT to build a process, market, and ambitious
implementation strategy for environmental innovation. <br>
<br>
The work of the consortium will involve a true cross-sector
collaboration to meet the urgency of climate change. The MCSC will
take positive action and foster the necessary collaboration to meet
this challenge, with the intention of influencing efforts across
industries. Through a unifying, deeply inclusive, global effort, the
MCSC will strive to drive down costs, lower barriers to adoption of
best-available technology and processes, speed retirement of
carbon-intensive power generating and materials-producing equipment,
direct investment where it will be most effective, and rapidly
translate best practices from one industry to the next in an effort
to deploy social and technological solutions at a pace more rapid
than the planet’s intensifying crises...<br>
- -<br>
The inaugural members of the MIT Climate and Sustainability
Consortium are:<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>Accenture is a global professional services company
that delivers on the promise of technology and human ingenuity,
which includes helping clients across 40 industries reach their
sustainability goals by transitioning to low-carbon energy;
reducing the carbon footprint of IT, cloud, and software; and
designing and delivering net-zero, circular supply chains.<br>
<br>
Apple is a global leader in technology innovation, providing
seamless experiences across Apple devices and empowering people
with breakthrough services.<br>
<br>
Boeing is the world’s largest aerospace company and leading
provider of commercial airplanes, defense, space and security
systems, and global services.<br>
<br>
Cargill is a global food manufacturer with the goal of
nourishing the world in a safe, responsible, and sustainable
way.<br>
<br>
Dow is a global manufacturer of innovative products that solve
the materials science challenges of its customers and contribute
to a more sustainable world. <br>
<br>
IBM is a hybrid cloud platform and artificial intelligence
company.<br>
<br>
Inditex is one of the world’s largest fashion retail groups with
eight distinct brands focused on fitting its products to meet
customer demands in a sustainable way through an integrated
platform of physical and online stores.<br>
<br>
LafargeHolcim is the world's global leader in building materials
and solutions at the forefront of sustainable construction.<br>
<br>
MathWorks develops mathematical computing software used to
accelerate the pace of engineering and science.<br>
<br>
Nexplore (Hochtief) is an innovative company that develops
technology solutions to digitize the infrastructure sector,
using next-generation technologies including artificial
intelligence, blockchain, computer vision, natural language
processing, and internet of things. Nexplore was founded in 2018
by HOCHTIEF, one of the largest infrastructure construction
groups worldwide.<br>
<br>
Rand-Whitney Containerboard (RWCB), a Kraft Group company, is a
manufacturer of lightweight, high-performance recycled
linerboard for corrugated containers, using the most
environmentally sustainable production processes and methods.<br>
<br>
PepsiCo is a global food and beverage company that aims to use
its scale, reach, and expertise to help build a more sustainable
food system.<br>
<br>
Verizon is one of the world’s leading providers of technology,
communications, information and entertainment products and
services.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Jeffrey Grossman will serve as director of the MCSC. Grossman is the
Morton and Claire Goulder and Family Professor in Environmental
Systems, head of the Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, and a MacVicar Faculty Fellow. Elsa Olivetti, the
Esther and Harold E. Edgerton Associate Professor in Materials
Science and Engineering, will serve as associate director. A
steering committee comprised of faculty spanning all five of MIT’s
schools and the MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing, will
help to drive the work of the consortium.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.mit.edu/2021/mit-convenes-influential-industry-leaders-fight-climate-change-0128">https://news.mit.edu/2021/mit-convenes-influential-industry-leaders-fight-climate-change-0128</a>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[More MIT]<br>
<b>School of Architecture and Planning creates climate action plan</b><br>
Aims to reduce carbon emissions through changes in procurement,
waste tracking, airline travel, and other areas of operation.<br>
School of Architecture and Planning<br>
Publication Date:January 26, 2021<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.mit.edu/2021/school-architecture-and-planning-creates-climate-action-plan-0126">https://news.mit.edu/2021/school-architecture-and-planning-creates-climate-action-plan-0126</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/sap_climate_action_plan.pdf">https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/sap_climate_action_plan.pdf</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[YouTube Skepchic commentator - bots as information warfare weapon]<br>
<b>Bots, Misinformation, and How COVID-19 Should Prepare Us for
Climate Change</b><br>
Jan 28, 2021<br>
Rebecca Watson<br>
Are bots controlling the climate change narrative? And what can we
do about it?<br>
<br>
Transcript and links at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.patreon.com/46794875">https://www.patreon.com/46794875</a><br>
ABOUT: Rebecca Watson is the founder of the Skepchick Network, a
collection of sites focused on science and critical thinking. She
has written for outlets such as Slate, Popular Science, and the
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. She's also the host of Quiz-o-tron,
a rowdy, live quiz show that pits scientists against comedians.
Asteroid 153289 Rebeccawatson is named after her (her real name
being 153289).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=125&v=qnQmq4LM0_A&feature=youtu.be">https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=125&v=qnQmq4LM0_A&feature=youtu.be</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<b>[get your own botometer]</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/faq">https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/faq</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search/items/botometer.html">https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search/items/botometer.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cnets.indiana.edu/blog/tag/botometer/">https://cnets.indiana.edu/blog/tag/botometer/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/19/qa-how-pew-research-center-identified-bots-on-twitter/">https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/19/qa-how-pew-research-center-identified-bots-on-twitter/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Media battlefield analysis video- 1 hour]<br>
<b>The Role of Media in Addressing Climate Change with Alan
Rusbridger</b><br>
Oxford Climate Society<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKTR6Y-djo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKTR6Y-djo</a>
<p>- -</p>
[Classic talk from 2015]<br>
<b>Science Of Persuasion</b><br>
Nov 26, 2012<br>
influenceatwork<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.influenceatwork.com">http://www.influenceatwork.com</a> This animated video describes the six
universal Principles of Persuasion that have been scientifically
proven to make you most effective as reported in Dr. Cialdini’s
groundbreaking book, Influence. This video is narrated by Dr. Robert
Cialdini and Steve Martin, CMCT (co-author of YES & The Small
Big).<br>
<br>
About Robert Cialdini:<br>
Dr. Robert Cialdini, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing,
Arizona State University has spent his entire career researching the
science of influence earning him a worldwide reputation as an expert
in the fields of persuasion, compliance, and negotiation.<br>
<br>
Dr. Cialdini’s books, including Influence: Science & Practice
and Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, are the result of
decades of peer-reviewed published research on why people comply
with requests. Influence has sold over 3 million copies, is a New
York Times Bestseller and has been published in 30 languages. <br>
<br>
Because of the world-wide recognition of Dr. Cialdini’s cutting edge
scientific research and his ethical business and policy
applications, he is frequently regarded as the “Godfather of
influence.”<br>
<br>
To inquire about Dr. Robert Cialdini’s speaking, Steve Martin, CMCT
or any of our other Cialdini Method Certified Trainers (CMCTs)
please contact INFLUENCE AT WORK at 480.967.6070 or
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@influenceatwork.com">info@influenceatwork.com</a>.<br>
<br>
About INFLUENCE AT WORK:<br>
INFLUENCE AT WORK (IAW®) was founded by Robert Cialdini, Ph.D. as a
professional resource to maximize influence results through ethical
business applications. Offering participatory workshops and
training, keynote presentations and intensive Cialdini Method
Certified Trainer (CMCT) programs, IAW serves an international
audience. For more information, visit our website at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.influenceatwork.com">www.influenceatwork.com</a> or call 480.967.6070.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Do the math, follow your money. 3 min video]<br>
<b>Saul Griffith on Soft Costs of Solar</b><br>
Jan 28, 2021<br>
greenmanbucket<br>
Saul Griffith is a MacArthur Fellow ("Genius Award") winner, CEO of
Otherlab, and PhD from MIT. He is a recognized expert on the energy
transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3C-LOxtBw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3C-LOxtBw</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[opinion words and politics are not physical actions]<br>
<b>Science denialism in the new administration</b><br>
BY JAMES BROUGHEL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/27/21 <br>
Last week President Joe Biden signed an executive order reconvening
a task force to update the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).
Environmentalists are cheering the move, but it’s a loss for
science-backed policy. We can find smart, sustainable answers to
tough questions, but they don’t come from activists masquerading
their political advocacy as science. They come from objective
cost-benefit analysis.<br>
<br>
The SCC is an estimate of the harm to “society” from emitting a ton
of carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere. It’s important
because the metric is used to decide how much to spend on
regulations and other policies targeting global warming — policies
that can end up costing billions. For example, if the SCC is set at
$100 a ton, and a regulation reduces CO2 emissions by one million
tons, then an economist might say that social welfare would fall if
we spend more than $100 million implementing the regulation.<br>
<br>
You might be forgiven for thinking that the SCC is measured in
dollars, given that the number is, in fact, preceded by a dollar
symbol. Indeed, many people describe it in just this way — as a
measure of the “dollar cost” of emitting a ton of CO2 into the
atmosphere. But that’s not exactly right. In fact, the units the SCC
is almost always expressed in are units of “social welfare.” The
relevant dollars are “wellbeing dollars,” not dollars like you have
in your wallet. The SCC isn’t directly comparable to the dollars in
your wallet, either, which is why most estimates of it can’t be used
in cost-benefit analysis.<br>
<br>
If you are left scratching your head, you aren’t the only one who is
confused.<br>
<br>
So, here’s a brief explainer: The SCC is calculated using
“integrated assessment models” (IAMs), which are just fancy-sounding
models that — beyond looking at weather and climate — incorporate
how CO2 impacts the economy and other things people value. The catch
is that these models — unlike those used in, say, physics or
meteorology — also include a “social welfare function” that converts
economic and environmental damages into wellbeing units.<br>
<br>
As you can imagine, measuring society’s wellbeing is no easy task,
and it turns out there is no agreed-upon method for doing this. Of
course, that hasn’t stopped some economists from picking an equation
— out of thin air more or less — and claiming they are measuring
social welfare.<br>
<br>
To understand what’s going on here, it might help to think about
another area where a dollar symbol can be misleading:
inflation-adjusted dollars. If an economist is measuring spending in
2012, and wants to compare it to spending in 2021, she might adjust
the 2012 spending to 2021 dollars. The resulting figure would have a
dollar symbol in front of it. But the adjusted value is not
expressing units of money. Rather, what’s being reported is a
quantity of real goods and services. The monetary value in 2012 has
been converted into an equivalent value of real resources, using an
index that accounts for changes in the purchasing power of money in
different years.<br>
<br>
In a similar way, the SCC value has a dollar sign attached to it.
But what’s really being described is not money, but instead how a
particular impact from CO2, at a specific moment in time, ranks on
an index of social welfare. This index has no compelling basis in
economics or in ethics.<br>
<br>
Another way to think about the issue is that economists often make a
distinction between “positive” and “normative” statements. Positive
statements describe what is: “The shirt is red.” Meanwhile,
normative statements express values, like “the shirt is ugly.” The
SCC is normative. It’s an expression of a value judgment.<br>
<br>
We can debate that value judgment on its merits, but only if we know
it’s being made.<br>
<br>
To be clear, there are good reasons for estimating the dollar cost
of emitting carbon pollution. But that’s not what’s going on here.
The true impacts of CO2 are concealed from the public after being
distorted by the social welfare function in the IAM models
underlying the SCC. Most estimates of the SCC can’t be used in
standard cost-benefit analysis, because that analysis requires units
to be expressed in more-straightforward (inflation-adjusted)
dollars.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/536160-science-denialism-in-the-new-administration">https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/536160-science-denialism-in-the-new-administration</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<b>[See image of why it's cold in Europe, and warm in the Southern
coast]</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=306.29,44.21,995/loc=-132.620,41.864">https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=306.29,44.21,995/loc=-132.620,41.864</a><br>
- -<br>
[related]<br>
<b>James Hansen on shutdown of AMOC and consequences - from 2015</b><br>
YouTube video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8</a> 14 min <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150921_IceMeltPredictions.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150921_IceMeltPredictions.pdf</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Beckwith lectures on recent climate research]<br>
<b>Musings: Acceleration of Global Ice Loss, Feedbacks, and Biden’s
Executive Actions on Climate Change 1 of 3<br>
</b><b>On Earth’s Staggering Loss of Ice from Abrupt Climate Change:
How Much and From Where? Part 2 of 3</b><br>
<b>How Abrupt Climate Change is Causing Massive Accelerating Losses
to our Planets Ice: Part 3 of 3</b><br>
Jan 27, 2021<br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
A few days ago a landmark scientific review paper was published on
Earth’s Global Ice Imbalance. The major findings of this satellite
observational work is my primary focus in this 3 part video series,
but mostly appears in video Parts 2 and 3. In Part 1 I mostly
chatted about some of what I have been up to the last few weeks (C++
programming, reading fiction and nonfiction, shoveling snow,
plumbing and boiler repairs, etc.) Also, I chatted briefly about
some of Biden’s awesome Executive Actions on climate change,
Feedbacks in the Earth System, and my plans for future videos on
Peter Carter’s Climate Emergency Institute work.<br>
<br>
Regarding Earth’s Global Ice Imbalance, the Earth lost 28 trillion
(million million) tons of ice between 1994 and 2017. This loss in
trillions of tons was 7.6 from Arctic Sea Ice, 6.5 from Antarctic
Ice Shelves, 6.1 from Mountain Glaciers, 3.8 from the Greenland Ice
Sheet, 2.5 from the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and 0.9 from Southern Ocean
Sea Ice. 58% of the ice loss was from the Northern Hemisphere, with
42% from the Southern Hemisphere. In the 1990s the yearly loss
averaged 0.8 trillion tons, rising to 1.2 in the 2010s. Loss of
grounded ice from Greenland and Antarctica and Mountain Glaciers
rapidly increased global sea level rise. 68% of global ice loss is
caused by atmospheric heating, with 32% caused by oceanic melting
driving ice sheet discharge and ice shelf thinning and calving. The
global melt of ice around the planet only took up 3.2% of the total
global energy imbalance. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCU9JbOGlxQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCU9JbOGlxQ</a> - part 1 of 3<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K4ufq6i_Kw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K4ufq6i_Kw</a> - part 2 of 3<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BW0WpSrjAU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BW0WpSrjAU</a> - part 3 of 3<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[video discussion 1:21:00]<br>
<b>21st Century Eating: Ethical and Environmental Reasons for going
Plant-Based</b><br>
Jan 27, 2021<br>
Oxford Climate Society<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M061GIpzWd8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M061GIpzWd8</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<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 29, 2006 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports on the extensive effort by the George
W. Bush administration to muzzle NASA scientist James Hansen. (The
controversy would also be covered by Air America's "EcoTalk with
Betsy Rosenberg" and the CBS program "60 Minutes.")<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&</a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/ecotalkblog/2006/02/ecotalk_82.html">http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/ecotalkblog/2006/02/ecotalk_82.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://youtu.be/x0i4Sx1edJE">http://youtu.be/x0i4Sx1edJE</a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/nasa-scientist-muzzled/">http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/nasa-scientist-muzzled/</a></p>
<p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
</p>
<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>