<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>February 26, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[slow flow]<br>
<b>Scientists see stronger evidence of slowing Atlantic Ocean
circulation, an ‘Achilles’ heel’ of the climate</b><br>
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, a system of
currents, is weaker than it has been in 1,000 years. It has long
been considered capable of a sudden shutdown, which could have
dramatic climate effects.<br>
By Chris Mooney and Andrew Freedman - Feb. 25, 2021<br>
A growing body of evidence suggests that a massive change is
underway in the sensitive circulation system of the Atlantic Ocean,
a group of scientists said Thursday.<br>
<br>
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), a system of
currents that includes the Florida Current and the Gulf Stream, is
now “in its weakest state in over a millennium,” these experts say.
This has implications for everything from the climate of Europe to
the rates of sea-level rise along the U.S. East Coast.<br>
<br>
Although evidence of the system’s weakening has been published
before, the new research cites 11 sources of “proxy” evidence of the
circulation’s strength, including clues hidden in seafloor mud as
well as patterns of ocean temperatures. The enormous flow has been
directly measured only since 2004, too short a period to
definitively establish a trend, which makes these indirect measures
critical for understanding its behavior.<br>
<br>
The new research applies a statistical analysis to show that those
measures are in sync and that nine out of 11 show a clear trend.<br>
<br>
Prior research had suggested that the AMOC was at its weakest point
in a millennium or more, and suggested a roughly 15 percent
weakening since about 1950. But when it comes to the latest
evidence, “I think it just makes this conclusion considerably
stronger,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, an author of the research and an
oceanographer with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
in Germany.<br>
<br>
The study was published in Nature Geoscience by scientists from the
Potsdam Institute, Ireland’s Maynooth University and University
College London.<br>
<br>
The AMOC is driven by two vital components of ocean water:
temperature and salt. In the North Atlantic, warm, salty water flows
northward off the U.S. coastline, carrying heat from the tropics.
But as it reaches the middle latitudes, it cools, and around
Greenland, the cooling and the saltiness create enough density that
the water begins to sink deep beneath the surface...<br>
- -<br>
The late climate scientist Wallace S. Broecker wrote in 1997 that
the AMOC is the “Achilles’ heel” of the climate system, citing
evidence that it has switched on and off repeatedly over the course
of Earth’s history, with the power to flip warming periods to
intense cold in the Northern Hemisphere.<br>
<br>
Scientists do not expect anything so severe in our future,
especially because greenhouse gases will continue to cause
offsetting warming. However, they note that even the modest slowing
of 15 percent has been accompanied by odd temperature patterns in
the ocean and the significant upending of certain key fisheries,
such as lobster and cod off the coast of New England...<br>
<br>
more at -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/02/25/atlantic-ocean-currents-weakening-amoc-gulf-stream/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/02/25/atlantic-ocean-currents-weakening-amoc-gulf-stream/</a><br>
- - <br>
[slow currents make bad news]<br>
<b> </b><b>Atlantic Ocean circulation at weakest in a millennium,
say scientists</b><br>
Decline in system underpinning Gulf Stream could lead to more
extreme weather in Europe and higher sea levels on US east coast<br>
Published: 25 February 2021<br>
<b>Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in
last millennium</b><br>
L. Caesar, G. D. McCarthy, D. J. R. Thornalley, N. Cahill & S.
Rahmstorf <br>
<p>Abstract</p>
<blockquote> The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
(AMOC)—one of Earth’s major ocean circulation
systems—redistributes heat on our planet and has a major impact on
climate. Here, we compare a variety of published proxy records to
reconstruct the evolution of the AMOC since about AD 400. A fairly
consistent picture of the AMOC emerges: after a long and
relatively stable period, there was an initial weakening starting
in the nineteenth century, followed by a second, more rapid,
decline in the mid-twentieth century, leading to the weakest state
of the AMOC occurring in recent decades.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic-ocean-circulation-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic-ocean-circulation-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists</a><br>
---<br>
[Source of concern - Wally Broecker's 1997 article]<br>
<b>Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate
System: Will Man-Made CO2 Upset the Current Balance?</b><br>
Wallace S. Broecker<br>
DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5343.1582<br>
Abstract<br>
During the last glacial period, Earth's climate underwent frequent
large and abrupt global changes. This behavior appears to reflect
the ability of the ocean's thermohaline circulation to assume more
than one mode of operation. The record in ancient sedimentary rocks
suggests that similar abrupt changes plagued the Earth at other
times. The trigger mechanism for these reorganizations may have been
the antiphasing of polar insolation associated with orbital cycles.
Were the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 levels to trigger
another such reorganization, it would be bad news for a world
striving to feed 11 to 16 billion people.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Broecker_97_Science278.pdf">https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Broecker_97_Science278.pdf</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[BBC report]<b><br>
</b><b>President Joe Biden asks Anna Hursey, 14, for climate advice</b><br>
Climate change: Biden takes advice from a 14-year-old athlete<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-56203565">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-56203565</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[Family matters]<br>
<b>Here’s how to talk with your kids about climate anxiety</b><br>
By Ariella Cook-Shonkoff on Feb 23, 2021<br>
<br>
Kids want to trust that grown-ups have a plan. But when it comes to
climate change, adults have left the next generation with more
questions than answers.<br>
<br>
Growing up, I thought my parents knew what to do about everything,
including caring for the environment. It was the early ’90s, and
most environmental campaigns were focused on individual behaviors;
our family engaged in small actions — cleaning up parks, recycling,
carpooling — hoping to make a difference. But these solutions
obviously were not enough to compensate for the government’s failure
to act boldly and swiftly on the issue.<br>
<br>
Now, more than 30 years later, the critical moment is upon us to
confront global climate change. Who is saving the day? Our own kids.<br>
<br>
Greta Thunberg. Alexandria Villaseñor. Autumn Peltier. Xiye Bastida.
These are some of the young climate leaders who are pushing hard for
environmental action. Instead of enjoying carefree childhood
hobbies, they are protesting, litigating, organizing, and public
speaking about the importance of policy-based climate solutions.
Those efforts are courageous and inspirational, but teens’
superhero-worthy feats do not absolve the rest of us. Kids need
parents to engage, too.<br>
<br>
As a psychotherapist working with teens, I see firsthand the need
for parents to share the burden of climate responsibility. Some
parents are unintentionally dismissive, minimizing, or belittling of
their kids’ environmental concerns: Don’t worry so much. You’re too
young to think about these things. Go do something fun and take your
mind off it. These responses are often rooted in parents’ own
triggered and disregarded emotions. Other adults are silent on the
issue, either because it feels too hard or too unpleasant to
discuss. Dr. Renee Lertzman, a climate engagement strategist, uses
the term disavowal to describe this behavior: We know the climate
crisis is happening, but choose to ignore or turn away, focusing
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Climate disavowal was already happening in pre-pandemic life, but
the additional stressors associated with our country’s present
situation — joblessness, food insecurity, political conflict,
pandemic health concerns, social isolation — make it even harder to
think about environmental responsibilities. Psychology helps explain
this gap between climate awareness, concern, and engagement. People
have a tendency to prioritize immediate concerns over long-term
considerations; survival depends on responding to perceived imminent
threats. Climate change, though a clear peril, remains on the
brain’s back burner.’ Many American parents are overwhelmed by
responsibilities, and under-resourced, and there is little bandwidth
to tack on one more thing at the end of the day.<br>
<br>
But climate can’t stay on the back burner forever. Dr. John Fraser,
a conservation psychologist and CEO of New York-based think tank
Knology, points out that climate trauma “builds over time” with “the
sense that the earth is abandoning us.” Meanwhile, young people are
asking adults to engage with them on environmental issues. When a
parent is avoidant or uncomfortable, it only makes kids worry more.<br>
<br>
“Children and young people tell me that their anxiety is severe,”
wrote Carol Hickman, a climate psychology researcher at the
University of Bath in a recently published paper. These feelings
worsen if parents “fail to understand why and how their worries
about the climate and biodiversity crisis can affect them daily,
constantly.”<br>
<br>
In other words, how adults respond to youth matters. Our job isn’t
to overprotect, scare, stigmatize, or sugarcoat, but to listen to
kids’ real and valid concerns and then talk about them together.
Only then can kids and adults work together toward finding a
solution. That intergenerational collaboration is key. When kids
believe adults are trusted allies, they can carry less of the
emotional burden of climate change. Jill Kubit, Co-Founder of Our
Kids’ Climate, an international organization amplifying parent
voices on this issue, says youths are “asking for adults to act, and
to make changes and decisions, and we have the power to do that.”<br>
<br>
Kids need parents to act in order to reach the critical mass needed
for climate action. That’s something Buddhist scholar and
environmental activist Joanna Macy has described as “the Great
Turning,” the profound socio-political shift away from “business as
usual.” Only when ideas and behaviors become contagious, she says,
will we be able to tip the scales.<br>
<br>
But we have a ways to go before we reach that turning point; the
Yale Program on Climate Change Communications reported in 2020 that
even though 66 percent of Americans are at least “somewhat worried”
about global warming, roughly the same percent said they “rarely” or
“never” discuss it with friends or family. The climate crisis is
already here, but many of us still find it, too daunting to think
about.<br>
<br>
But just because you don’t want to talk with your kids about climate
change doesn’t make you immune to its effects. As a mother of two
children living in California, I’ve long known that climate change
was behind many of the changes visible from my own doorstep — hotter
summers, drier winters, and longer periods of drought. Even so, I
tended to ignore the threat — that is, until wildfires scorched the
landscape around us for each of the last four years. Dealing with
orange skies and ash-filled air upended ordinary life, demanding
additional mental exertion. It finally forced me to face my own
climate anxiety and grief.<br>
<br>
There was one particular day when it all seemed to hit me at once. I
had just dropped my kids at school when I caught Greta Thurnberg,
then 16, speaking on the radio. She was addressing the adult members
of the 2019 U.N. Climate Change Summit, her voice shaking with
anger.<br>
<br>
“I should be in school right now!”<br>
<br>
“How dare you!”<br>
<br>
“Shame on you!”<br>
<br>
Her words seemed to puncture my chest, like an emotional heart
attack. When I got home, I trudged from car to house, zombie-like.
Instead of getting dressed for work, I curled up into a couch
pretzel and wept.<br>
<br>
In my tears, I tasted my own bitter childhood naivete, grief, shame,
anger, and sorrow. I realized that somewhere in the transition
between my idealistic youth and my pragmatic parenthood, I’d
abandoned my commitment to climate action. As co-leader of my high
school Environmental Club, I’d participated in a panel interview on
local TV with longtime environmental advocate Jane Goodall. I
remember her saying, “The greatest danger to our future is apathy.”
But it took the voice of a Swedish teenager to rouse me from the
adult slumber of my climate disavowal.<br>
<br>
Leslie Davenport, psychotherapist and author of Emotional Resiliency
in the Era of Climate Change, advises making time for difficult
emotions and “not just rushing to find the ‘happy’ feelings.” She
says ignoring climate change feelings is like trying to hold a ball
underwater with one hand. Instead, she recommends people should
strive for a climate-specific kind of emotional resilience,
increasing our capacity “to remain present and engaged as we bear
witness to growing distress in ourselves, others, and the world.”<br>
<br>
For parents, our choice is simple: wake up to climate change or risk
dying in our sleep. The former choice requires us to acknowledge our
ambivalence about reducing our carbon footprint. We must ask
ourselves tough questions: Why is changing our habits, comforts, and
the way we live so hard? How can we hold elected officials
accountable in light of the climate task at hand? What sacrifices
and compromises must we make to avoid the worst impacts of climate
change?<br>
<br>
There are many ways for parents to step up. We can offset disturbing
news with inspiring stories, affirmations, and creative acts to
bolster our families for the climate long-haul: Listen to the poem
Earthrise by Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman with your kids; get
inspired by the story of four girls “greening” their school, instead
of doomscrolling, seek out stories about promising climate policies,
laws, and proposals; reflect on and write down your deepest hopes
and fears — something Kubit of Our Kids’ Climate says tends to
increase pro-environmental behaviors, motivation, and community
engagement.<br>
<br>
If you feel lost or overwhelmed, try connecting with others. Look up
parent-centric climate organizations like Parents for Future,
Climate Mama, Science Moms, Climate Action Families. Join a Carbon
Conversation or attend a virtual Climate Café, forums for sharing
and hearing what others have to say about the climate crisis.
Spending time in those spaces might help you find the words to talk
to kids — and other adults! — about our rapidly warming world.<br>
<br>
So, hop on the bandwagon, grownups! Now that a new administration is
here and open to prioritizing the environment, parents have a chance
to join our kids and help shift our country’s values toward a more
sustainable future.<br>
<br>
Future generations, vulnerable ecosystems, and “fenceline”
communities all depend on our ability to act now. As Kubit puts it,
“Parents have a unique responsibility because they have someone they
love to answer to. Our own kids will hold us accountable.”<br>
<br>
Ariella Cook-Shonkoff is a licensed psychotherapist and art
therapist based in Berkeley, California. She is co-chair of
Communications/ Media at the Climate Psychology Alliance-North
America. The views expressed here do not reflect any official
organizational opinions or positions at Grist.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://grist.org/climate/parent-therapist-how-to-talk-about-climate-change-anxiety-with-kids/">https://grist.org/climate/parent-therapist-how-to-talk-about-climate-change-anxiety-with-kids/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Alt energy]<br>
<b>The Wild Ways Local Governments Are Blocking Renewable Energy</b><br>
Molly Taft - Feb, 25, 2021<br>
<p>“Shadow flicker” from wind turbines, concerns about sparrow
habitat on landfills, and worries about “toxic chemicals” from
solar panels are just some of the ways municipalities are slowing
down renewables installation.<br>
<br>
A new report exhaustively chronicles the local resistance to
renewable energy at play in the U.S. The report, published this
week by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia
University, finds at least 100 ordinances have been passed in 31
states that block or constrict construction of new renewable
energy facilities. Meanwhile, least 152 proposed projects in 48
states have been opposed or contested by local groups. At a time
when the U.S. needs to be stepping up renewables installation,
these laws are slowing the transition.<br>
<br>
“The report includes local laws that either placed a moratorium or
outright ban on wind or solar energy development; imposed
regulations that are so restrictive that they act as a de facto
ban; or were designed to block a specific project,” Hillary Aidun,
a lawyer with the Sabin Center who supervised the research, said
over email.<br>
<br>
There are some actions and legislations described in the report
that explicitly frame renewables as a threat to fossil fuels, and
indeed, some have direct backing from industry. Alduin noted that
the proposed Wind Catcher project in Texas—which would have been
the largest wind farm in the U.S.—was blocked by regulators in
2018 thanks in part to opposition from the Koch-funded group,
Americans for Prosperity. One county commissioner in New Mexico is
holding up development of a solar plant based on the “impact it
could have on the region’s oil and gas industry,” while citizens
in North Dakota also defeated a wind farm in 2018 using pro-coal
arguments. But there’s far more sneak attacks on renewable energy
that limit how projects can move forward that don’t mention fossil
fuels at all.<br>
</p>
<p>“We found a number of laws that on their face merely regulate
wind and solar energy siting—which is local governments’
prerogative—but in effect, completely bar new development because
they are so restrictive,” Aidun said. “For example, some local
laws discussed in our report require wind turbines to be located
2,000 feet or more from any residence. In many places, it is
impossible to construct an economically viable wind farm that can
meet such a stringent setback requirement.”<br>
<br>
In describing challenges to local projects from residents, the
report also paints a valuable portrait of NIMBYism by cataloging
the various avenues used to push back against renewables. In
addition to worries about land use and properly sited projects,
there’s concern over minutiae of species and environment
conservation; a solar project planned on a landfill in Amherst,
Massachusetts was ultimately scrapped because it could hurt the
habitat of an endangered sparrow. (Residents had made no mention
of the sparrow’s fate in their first try at blocking the project,
which was solely based on the use of the land in question.)<br>
<br>
Then there’s the wild pseudoscientific claims. Another solar farm
in Massachusetts was defeated in 2012 after residents raised
concerns over “toxic chemicals in the panels and the output of
electromagnetic frequency,” while citizens in Colorado cited
“shadow flicker” as a reason not to build a proposed wind farm.<br>
<br>
And looking a little closer at some of the local groups behind
these challenges shows that while fossil fuel money may not be
directly involved, right-wing funded hysteria and lies about
renewable power can easily leak into, and fuel, local opposition
efforts. At least two of the local groups named in the report as
successfully opposing wind farms in New York and Michigan were
actively sharing anti-wind propaganda around the Texas blackouts
on their Facebook pages last week.<br>
<br>
It’s not unreasonable for residents to want to protest improperly
sited construction projects (per the report, one wind farm in
California was defeated based on how it would interfere with a
sacred prayer site of a local tribe), and it’s important to
protect public health and the environment with any new
development. But we need to build a whole lot of renewable
projects, in a lot of different places, really soon if there’s any
hope of transitioning off fossil fuels in the next decade and
wavering the worst impacts of the climate crisis.<br>
<br>
Local groups concerned about the “character” of their county or
how a solar farm might change the view from their home need to ask
some hard questions about how climate change may also destroy the
places they know and love. And anti-renewable interests who may
want to encourage this kind of opposition have an arsenal of tools
at their disposal from fake health impacts, to lies about grid
reliability, to overwrought concern about the “waste” generated
from renewable energy.<br>
<br>
State legislatures, almost exclusively at the behest of
conservative lawmakers, have also passed increasingly draconian
laws criminalizing protests against fossil fuel infrastructure.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing think tank
with ties to the Koch brothers, has gained notoriety since the
Dakota Access Pipeline protests by pushing the draft of a bill
that would criminalize anti-pipeline protests onto state
lawmakers. The effort has been a success. As of this month, 14
states have approved a version of the legislation, while four
states are considering their own bills.<br>
<br>
The Sabin Center report found no concrete evidence of a larger,
coordinated ALEC-like hand at play with opposing renewables. But
it’s not out of the question to think that local lawmakers may be
looking at each other’s homework when figuring out ways to oppose
a solar farm, or that local anti-wind groups are looking to each
other for inspiration on Facebook.<br>
<br>
Aidun pointed out that if attacks on renewables continue to
intensify, people in favor of the projects will need backup to
properly face some of these opponents. (The Sabin Center has
partnered with a law firm to form a coalition of lawyers who
provide pro bono assistance to local groups who want to support
renewables projects; that organization supported the production of
this report.)<br>
</p>
<p>“While renewable energy opponents tend to be organized, vocal,
and well-resourced, there are often local residents who support
wind and solar energy projects–because they are concerned about
climate change or welcome the economic benefits these projects
provide–but who are afraid to speak out or who lack the resources
to fully participate in decision-making processes,” Aidun said.<br>
</p>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-wild-ways-local-governments-are-blocking-renewable-1846355479">https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-wild-ways-local-governments-are-blocking-renewable-1846355479</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[dangers in small, rural Western towns]<br>
<b>Cascadia mapping shows communities most vulnerable to effects of
climate change</b><br>
By PETER FAIRLEY (InvestigateWest)<br>
Feb. 25, 2021<br>
Residents of 152 cities and towns in the Pacific Northwest are
particularly vulnerable to climate-fueled wildfires. Residents of 60
other communities are most susceptible to floods. And people living
in 75 towns are most liable to suffer — maybe even die — because of
heat waves.<br>
<br>
That’s according to a new analysis released Wednesday by news agency
InvestigateWest and planning firm Headwaters Economics. It drills
down to towns where, for example, sparse tree canopies and older
residents make communities more susceptible to heat waves than
younger populations in leafier places.<br>
<br>
The analysis looks at likely climate disasters and examines factors
such as the number of people with disabilities, how many live in
poverty, the proportion that rents their home and how many of the
vulnerable are Black, Indigenous or people of color.<br>
<br>
In short, the analysis pinpoints how the human toll liable to be
taken by climate change spreads far across the map, especially into
rural areas of Washington and Oregon. It highlights where
circumstances such as income and race will — without targeted action
— place communities at greater risk as climate change advances.<br>
<br>
It’s just the latest in a series of studies to create new
data-driven methods to identify and address unequal environmental
risks.<br>
- - <br>
Grand Coulee Mayor Paul Townsend told InvestigateWest he has “a hard
time” seeing the connection between climate change and natural
disasters, such as the wildfires that threatened his community in
2020.<br>
<br>
“I have mixed emotions about the whole climate change issue,”
Townsend said.<br>
<br>
Nor does better information guarantee that action will follow.
Townsend, for one, acknowledges that Grand Coulee has vulnerable
residents. But he said in the case of a disaster, better information
would be of little use without state and federal support.<br>
<br>
“Some people have no financial resources for any kind of shelter.
And, of course, our city revenues don’t have any margin for helping
with that,” said Townsend.<br>
<br>
Washington state officials are working to alert rural citizens to
the threat.<br>
<br>
Last month a reporter from Wenatchee asked the head of Washington’s
Energy Policy Office what help the state’s newly released
decarbonization plan offered to rural citizens, such as farmers and
ranchers who use a lot of diesel fuel. Glenn Blackmon had a specific
answer, noting the plan’s call for production of clean fuels,
including hydrogen likely to be generated by utilities in eastern
Washington.<br>
<br>
But his first response served as a warning.<br>
<br>
“If we’re not successful in addressing climate impacts, rural areas
will be among the hardest hit with things like wildfires,” Blackmon
said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/25/cascadia-mapping-shows-communities-most-vulnerable-to-effects-of-climate-change/">https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/25/cascadia-mapping-shows-communities-most-vulnerable-to-effects-of-climate-change/</a><br>
<br>
- - <br>
[Source material}<br>
<b>Mapping Climate Vulnerability</b><br>
InvestigateWest is a nonprofit investigative journalism newsroom
located in Seattle, WA. We focus on critical issues that impact our
communities throughout the Pacific Northwest and Cascadia, with a
special focus on environment, government and corporate
accountability, and public health.<br>
<br>
<b>Wildfire Vulnerability</b><br>
As part of the yearlong reporting project “Getting to Zero:
Decarbonizing Cascadia,” InvestigateWest commissioned a set of maps
that provide digital windows into vulnerabilities spanning
Washington and Oregon that are likely to worsen with climate change.
These maps — and related tools developed by community advocates,
academic researchers and governments in Washington, Oregon and
British Columbia — are described in the Decarbonizing Cascadia
series’ fourth article: Visualizing Climate-Vulnerable Communities.<br>
<br>
The vulnerability maps spotlight a selection of communities in
Oregon and Washington that bear greater attention as climate change
worsens. The trio of maps highlight communities that simultaneously
face:<br>
<blockquote> above-average risk of experiencing wildfire, flooding
or extreme heat, and<br>
above-average prevalence of characteristics that tend to make
communities more vulnerable to those climate impacts.<br>
</blockquote>
Consider wildfire vulnerability. Fire risk predictions by U.S.
Forest Service scientists, developed for the agency’s Wildfire Risk
to Communities information service, show that Washington and
Oregon’s most intense wildfires are most likely to occur east of the
Cascade Mountains.<br>
<br>
But the interactive Wildfire Vulnerability mapplots more than just
communities facing heightened fire risk. It highlights communities
that face heightened risk as well as above-average levels of poverty
and rental housing — including some towns and small cities west of
the Cascades.<br>
<br>
The socioeconomic factors matter because they limit residents’
ability to prevent fires by, for example, upgrading to
fire-resistant roofing.<br>
<br>
One observation that jumps out of all three maps: climate
vulnerability is to be found across Cascadia.<br>
<br>
Learn more about the highlighted communities by using the map’s
interactive tools. Zoom in anywhere by panning and double-clicking.
Hover over the dots to see data on each community. Learn more by
clicking on a community and then clicking the provided link.<br>
<br>
<b>Data sources</b><br>
Montana-based Headwaters Economics created the interactive
visualizations using a pair of powerful mapping tools that the
community planning firm launched last year.<br>
<br>
Socioeconomic variables are from the 2018 U.S. Census Bureau’s
American Community Survey. Variables include the percent of families
in poverty; people who are Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latino, and/or
Native American; housing units that are rentals; people over the age
of 65; and people with disabilities. Average values are for Oregon
and Washington combined.<br>
<br>
Wildfire risk is the “risk to homes” data from USDA Forest Service
Wildfire Risk to Communities. “Wildfire risk rank in state” is shown
as a percentile for each state individually. For example, if an
Oregon community’s “wildfire risk rank” is 80, it has greater
wildfire risk to homes than 80% of the communities in Oregon.<br>
<br>
Flood risk is from FEMA and is shown as the percent of land in a
community within the 500-year floodplain, which includes all
100-year floodplain areas. Average is for Oregon and Washington
combined.<br>
<br>
Heat exposure is from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
Consortium and it shows area lacking tree canopy based on remotely
sensed data from 2016. Average is for Oregon and Washington
combined.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.invw.org/2021/02/24/mapping-climate-vulnerability/">https://www.invw.org/2021/02/24/mapping-climate-vulnerability/</a><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 -
February 26, 2003 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports:<br>
<br>
"A panel of experts has strongly criticized the Bush
administration's proposed research plan on the risks of global
warming, saying that it 'lacks most of the elements of a strategic
plan' and that its goals cannot be achieved without far more money
than the White House has sought for climate research.<br>
<br>
"The 17 experts, in a report issued yesterday, said that without
substantial changes, the administration's plan would be unlikely
to accomplish the aim laid out by President Bush in several
speeches: to help decision makers and the public determine how
serious the problem is so that they can make clear choices about
how to deal with it."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/us/panel-of-experts-faults-bush-plan-to-study-climate.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/us/panel-of-experts-faults-bush-plan-to-study-climate.html</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>