<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>March 17, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[crevasse in capitalism - or maybe just a PR dodge]<br>
<b>‘Reading the writing on the wall’: why Wall Street is acting on
the climate crisis</b><br>
The industry has backed polluters for decades. Now, amid growing
pressure, Wall Street says it’s going green<br>
by Dominic Rushe<br>
16 Mar 2021<br>
Wildfires burned nearly 10.4m acres across the US last year. The
most costly thunderstorm in US history caused $7.5bn in damage
across Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota. As the climate
crisis swept the globe on a biblical scale it left in its wake a
record number of billion-dollar disasters.<br>
<br>
And yet out of these ashes has emerged an unlikely savior: Wall
Street. After decades of backing polluters and opposing legislation
to rein them in, finance says it’s going green...<br>
- -<br>
“There is a general consensus – not unanimity – that we have to do
more,” he said.<br>
<br>
Roadblocks remain, not least the “nightmare” of a US political
system that has sucked the climate crisis into the divisive culture
wars of American politics.<br>
<br>
“The main thing that can go wrong is our politics,” said Stiglitz.
“Everything is pointing in the right direction, technology, global
consensus. The one thing that is not is climate change which is
proceeding at a pace and with manifestations that are really
depressing,” he said.<br>
<br>
But even that is “actually accelerating our willingness to deal with
it”.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/16/wall-street-climate-crisis-emissions">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/16/wall-street-climate-crisis-emissions</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Opinion from The Hill]<br>
<b>Here's what young conservatives think about climate change</b><br>
BY KYLE MEYAARD-SCHAAP AND KIERA O'BRIEN, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS —
03/16/21 <br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>A majority of Republicans aged 18 to 38 believe the
government is doing too little to address climate change, with
78 percent saying the U.S. should prioritize alternative
energy...<br>
- -<br>
As we raise this big tent, each segment of the movement will
raise their own tent pole, reaching their respective communities
as only they can. Rather than watering down our ambition in the
name of consensus, a commitment to a rapid, economy-wide
transition away from fossil fuels and climate justice for all
must be the price of entry. Disagreements on how to get there
will be aired in good faith and ideas will be honed and refined.
Tactics and strategies will diverge, but our common aim will
rhyme.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/543403-heres-what-young-conservatives-think-about-climate-change">https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/543403-heres-what-young-conservatives-think-about-climate-change</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[getting advice from "those firms"]<br>
<b>‘Garbage’ models and black boxes? The science of climate disaster
planning</b><br>
Scientists warn that the data may be too unreliable to guide the
precautions that governments, businesses and retirement fund
managers must take in the coming decades.<br>
By ZACK COLMAN - 03/16/2021<br>
A new breed of data-crunching consultants has emerged to help big
corporations and federal agencies assess the long-term dangers they
face from climate change — everything from flooding risks for
electrical substations to drought threats for supply chains.<br>
<br>
But while those firms’ computerized projections may help satisfy
shareholders' and activists' demands for fuller risk disclosures and
stronger actions to counter the threats, scientists warn that the
data may be too unreliable to guide the precautions that
governments, businesses and retirement fund managers must take in
the coming decades, creating a false sense of security.<br>
<br>
Even worse, the climate analytics firms often shield their data
models from public scrutiny as proprietary information, unlike the
computer models that academic and government researchers typically
rely on for their less granular projections of the warming planet.
That makes it impossible to independently validate their work,
scientists say.<br>
<br>
“Do these guys know what they are doing? I’m not convinced that they
do,” said Upmanu Lall, director of the Columbia Water Center at
Columbia University, who has reviewed some firms’ methodologies.
“Your models are garbage. And, unfortunately, that’s a problem.”<br>
<br>
“It’s not that [they] have some special sauce,” said Rutgers
University climate scientist Robert Kopp, who contributes to climate
analytics service firms Rhodium Group and First Street Foundation,
which publish their methodologies. “[They] don’t want to talk about
what you’re doing.”<br>
<br>
Federal agencies that set public climate policy have been turning to
these firms to weigh the flood risks to homes and for post-disaster
rebuilding efforts to ensure new structures can withstand the
effects of the changing climate.<br>
<br>
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Emergency Management
Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Finance Agency and
NASA all have met with such firms to explore tools purporting to
help protect taxpayers, banks and homes from rising seas, worsening
rainstorms and severe droughts linked to climate change.<br>
<br>
Some firms deny that they've shielded their methodologies from
clients, saying that transparency is important to build confidence
in their work, even if they don't broadly disseminate their models.<br>
<br>
"Our methodology is documented, shared with and discussed with any
customer that wants that level of detail, and over and over again we
pass scrutiny on the methodology," Jupiter Intelligence CEO Rich
Sorkin said. "We are heavily opposed to black boxes, but there's a
big difference between black boxes and publicly disclosing to
everyone in the world exactly how things are in the most detailed
level."<br>
<br>
HUD has hired Jupiter Intelligence as part of a $150,000 coastal
modeling project to weigh flood protection systems against various
sea-level rise scenarios. Rhodium Group, which publishes its
methodology, received a $179,000 National Science Foundation grant
last year to study the public health effects and socioeconomic costs
of rising temperatures and wildfires.<br>
<br>
Other providers that use more familiar catastrophe models common in
the insurance industry are drawing scrutiny, too. KatRisk LLC netted
$463,000 in federal contracts last year to work on FEMA's flood
insurance program. Many have suggested, however, that such models do
not adequately assess future climate change, leaving federal policy
looking backwards.<br>
<br>
The proliferation of providers has attracted attention from an
expanding roster of federal agencies. FHFA issued a request for
information on climate change in January and held a March 4
listening session with several service providers to gauge climate
risk to mortgages held by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac.<br>
<br>
"To better understand the risk posed to the Enterprises, along with
our RFI, we are assessing various natural disaster and climate
datasets," spokesperson Raffi Williams said in an email.<br>
<br>
Demand for the services of climate analytics firms is growing as
companies seek more sophisticated tools to plan for climate
outcomes. Among the big names that have engaged them are oil giant
BP, electric utilities Hawaiian Electric and ConEd, cities such as
Miami and New York and property investment company CBRE Global
Investors.<br>
<br>
Many of the firms build their analytical models off
government-funded research, a practice that is akin to private
weather companies that use a backbone of data supplied by the
National Weather Service to customize their products. But unlike
shifts in climate, weather forecasting is short term, and scientists
worry that companies hiring the analytics providers won't keep up
with the latest science or will hand off their risk management
duties to the firms, leaving themselves vulnerable to nasty
surprises.<br>
<br>
“The market doesn't know what it’s asking for, which is a huge part
of the problem," said Chris Sampson, co-founder and director of
Fathom, a flood risk modeling firm that published its methodology in
a peer-reviewed science journal. "You've got providers trying to
generate solutions when we’re not even sure what the question is to
ask yet."<br>
<br>
Companies are likely to see increasing requirements to quantify the
physical risks they face from climate change. Last month, the
Securities and Exchange Commission began reviewing voluntary climate
guidelines it issued in 2010 for public companies and could make
such reporting mandatory.<br>
<br>
That's coming amid a surge in shareholder proposals for greater
transparency on climate risks and the rise of ESG investing that
focuses on environmental, sustainability and governance metrics. And
in addition to the new crop of small firms, the demand for data is
beginning to attract big players, such as the so-called “moonshot
factory” called X run by Google's parent, Alphabet.<br>
<br>
“Can we bring you a new tool? Can we bring you new data?” Sarah
Russell, team lead at X, said at a climate risk conference this
month describing her firm’s strategy of reaching out to companies
recently hit by disasters or floods to ink new clients. “It’s only
after you’ve been hit when you realize you’ve been working with
garbage data.”<br>
<br>
The growing emphasis on broader disclosures in the U.S. is in line
with efforts by government agencies around the world, many of which
are adopting rules inspired by frameworks like the Task Force on
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, a voluntary climate risk
disclosure reporting regime.<br>
<br>
Many experts believe the SEC will adopt the task force guidelines in
some fashion to align with mandatory rules in the EU and Japan,
though some hope that both guidelines and any forthcoming U.S.
disclosure rules beef up transparency around companies' physical
risk vulnerabilities. The task force, for example, largely absolves
companies of reporting risks from specific hazards like extreme
winds, heat, drought, wildfires and ocean acidification that are
linked to climate change, according to a report by the World
Resources Institute.<br>
<br>
But that type of rigorous disclosure regime will rely heavily on the
climate analytics firms, which do not yet operate under a set of
best practices or standards. Some climate experts warn that the
advisers are overconfident given that current climate models simply
aren’t designed to deliver on companies' requests for narrow,
specific predictions over 10, 20 or 30 years — the traditional
investment and planning timeline that concerns investors, homeowners
and corporations.<br>
<br>
“How do we [companies] make our decisions in the future based on
climate outputs?” KatRisk CEO Dag Lohmann asked during the recent
conference. “I find it a very complicated question. We need these
detailed, location-level models for that.”<br>
<br>
Emilie Mazzacurati, founder of climate analytics firm Four Twenty
Seven, which was bought by credit-ratings agency Moody’s in 2019,
said customers are demanding specificity, yet no industry standards
exist to weed out bad actors. That creates a danger that some
advisers will overpromise and say they can deliver that type of
forecast.<br>
<br>
“There's a lot of pressure from clients that we experience from the
market saying, ‘Where's this data?’” said Mazzacurati, who is now
the head of climate solutions with Moody's. “It takes a lot of
commitment, dedication to say ‘No,’ and pass on deals and just tell
the client 'I'm sorry, that this is where we're stuck, because this
is how far the data will go.'”<br>
<br>
Mazzacurati and Sorkin, of Jupiter, said they walk customers through
their methodologies and show them the limitations of the models.<br>
<br>
Sorkin said his firm helps inform the kind of scenario analysis that
companies use for capital planning decisions for assets with 20- to
30-year lifetimes. Much of his firm’s work has focused on Global
2000 companies, which face mandates from boards or shareholders to
become better attuned to climate risk.<br>
<br>
“Everyone's racing to build that capacity so that they understand
what tools like ours are good for and what they're not good for,” he
said. “In every new market, there are charlatans and cheats.
Customers are kind of slowly learning and sometimes easily deceived.
And our view is the market will sort that out over time.”<br>
<br>
Jupiter, though, has also drawn skepticism from some climate
scientists for the level of granularity it offers clients: effects
of weather and climate on a scale of 1 square kilometer. A recent
article in the science journal Nature Climate Change cast doubt on
that level of detail, saying that climate information on scales less
than 1,000 kilometers for a few years or decades into the future is
“complex.”<br>
<br>
Climate models like those used by the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change project out to the year
2100, with the effect of human-caused effects becoming clearer later
in this century as they diverge from natural climate variability.
But those scales are on continental and, at best, regional levels.
Beyond that, modelers can turn to historical data, but relying on
that alone could improperly project out recent trends for future
years.<br>
<br>
Sorkin, however, said Jupiter isn’t trying to predict what climate
will be like at that granular level in 30 years. Instead, it uses
local terrain information and other data that his firm overlays with
climate models to ensure engineering standards for infrastructure
and investment decisions account for future, climate change-affected
conditions.<br>
<br>
Jupiter, like Four Twenty Seven, doesn’t post the inner workings of
its methodology publicly for peer review. The assumptions each firm
uses to inform their processes are considered proprietary.<br>
<br>
Such data points are consequential variables of the value
proposition service providers offer — and could cause potential
points of disagreement within the scientific community were they to
be revealed. But Sorkin called that argument a “red herring,” saying
he would open his firm’s methodology to any third party that wants
to assess it.<br>
<br>
Curtis Ravenel, a member of the TCFD's secretariat, said if the
climate analytics advisers are to keep the confidence of their
clients, they're going to have to open their processes for review.<br>
<br>
“You need transparency,” Ravenel said. “If you want to build trust
in a market for the use of this kind of analytical tool, you've got
to let the users understand the various assumptions and inputs.”<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/climate-change-murky-models-476316">https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/climate-change-murky-models-476316</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[Beckwith points out some dire models from recent papers]<br>
<b>Earth Catastrophe Warning to the World: The 2021 Climate Change
Science: Parts 1 and 2</b><br>
Paul Beckwith -- Mar 16, 2021<br>
When I presented at COP25 (Conference of Parties 25th edition) in
Madrid, Spain I worked a lot with Peter Carter, Regina Valdez, Heidi
Brault, Charles Gregoire, and of course the amazing Stuart Scott.<br>
All of the videos that I filmed are of course on my blog
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://paulbeckwith.net">http://paulbeckwith.net</a> and on my YouTube channel Paul Beckwith.<br>
<br>
Peter, of course, has his amazingly detailed website called Climate
Emergency Institute <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.climateemergencyinstitute...">https://www.climateemergencyinstitute...</a> and
Stuart (with huge help from Heidi and Charles) has his called Facing
Future Earth <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.facingfuture.earth/">https://www.facingfuture.earth/</a> while Regina does a
lot of great work with Climate Reality. <br>
<br>
In preparations for COP26 in Scotland or virtual, depending of the
course of the virus this year, the gang and I are putting out a
video a week under our new group name Climate Emergency Forum. <br>
<br>
In this first video of a four part series, I go through key points
on a subsection of Peter’s website called 2021 Climate Science World
Warning <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.climateemergencyinstitute...">https://www.climateemergencyinstitute...</a> where an
initiative to warn key decision makers in governments and the United
Nations is ongoing.<br>
<br>
My main focus in this video series is to discuss in detail the main
points in Peter’s 90+ slide deck called 2021 Climate Science World
Warning <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://files.secure.website/wscfus/8...">https://files.secure.website/wscfus/8...</a> <br>
<br>
Topics include:<br>
- Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Acceleration<br>
- Cumulative atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
carbon dioxide equivalent are all tracking or exceeding the UN IPCC
worst case scenario <br>
- warming of the planets atmosphere, land, and oceans are all
setting new record limits as they inexorably rise at accelerating
rates<br>
- Arctic changes are the fastest on the planet and have huge risks
to our societies and global ecosystems<br>
1. Part 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W3IbdwvdXk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W3IbdwvdXk</a><br>
2. Part 2 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/xw5mK6XRVV8">https://youtu.be/xw5mK6XRVV8</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[James Hansen calls for activists]<br>
<b>Activists</b><b><br>
</b>James Hansen - 16 March 2021<br>
Activism is not fun. The pay is bad (usually zero or less). It’s
hard work to get any attention. Hard-core activists (not
dilettantes like Bill McKibben and me) put a lot on the line, even
their lives. The commitment and bravery of indigenous people is
inspiring. The hardest thing about activism is that it often seems
to have little effect, if any.<br>
<br>
The Race to Save the World, a film by Joe Gantz, will be released on
Earth Day, April 22. The link is to a 9-minute trailer. The film
realistically captures characters who take real risks and the
impacts on their loved ones and on themselves. Implicitly it raises
questions about the best way to achieve environmental goals. It’s
not like 1970 when the public could see pollution in the air and in
the water – activists could bring 20,000,000 people into the streets
for the first Earth Day.<br>
<br>
My first acquaintance with activists was at Coal River Mountain, a
protest against mountaintop removal led by Larry Gibson and Judy
Bonds. Surely, we have solved that horrific assault on the
environment by now, right? Nope. Vernon Haltom of Coal River
Mountain Watch tells me that it’s still happening and leases for
such mining are still being obtained. Can somebody please let Joe
Biden, John Kerry and Gina McCarthy know about it? Judy Bonds and
Larry Gibson are no longer with us, having died young, as is all too
common in Appalachia.<br>
<br>
We need activists. Gantz’ film spurs us to think about how to be
more effective. I will give my opinions in the last chapter of
Sophie’s Planet (Chapter 50: Fighting on All Fronts). You can be
the heroine riding on the back of a wild thing to fight the evil
alliance of government and exploiters, but the battles will be
fought on engineering drawing boards, in the courts, and at the
ballot box. You don’t need to lie down before a train or get
arrested to make a difference. The challenge is great because of
the role of money in our government (and in environmental
organizations). Realistic definition of the problems is an
essential step toward solution. We can still make our democracies
work, but it’s hard work – it will require a lot of people.<br>
Online page -- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailchi.mp/caa/activists?e=c4e20a3850">https://mailchi.mp/caa/activists?e=c4e20a3850</a><br>
PDF file -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210316_Activists.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210316_Activists.pdf</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[RealClimate discussions of Carbon Tax]<br>
<b>Looking for help with an electricity tax-swap idea</b><br>
Filed under: Solutions — group @ 3 March 2021<br>
Guest commentary from Yoram Bauman<br>
<br>
Everyone from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Elon Musk thinks
that putting a price on carbon is an important step in tackling
climate change. Politically, however, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade
systems face an uphill battle, in part because they could drive up
the prices of household basics like gasoline and electricity. There
are many worthy proposals for addressing this concern, mostly
focused on the idea of using carbon pricing revenue to pay for
things like per-capita dividends, green investments, or reductions
in payroll taxes. <br>
<br>
But what if you could put a price on carbon without driving up
consumer prices? In California, for example, the impact of the
cap-and-trade system on residential electric bills is reduced
substantially by the semi-annual Climate Credits that households
receive on their bills. <br>
The purpose of this post is to invite feedback on and ask for help
with an even more direct way to do this that might work in about 20
states, some cities, and perhaps in other countries as well. The
gist is that many jurisdictions impose taxes on electricity
consumption—sales taxes, gross receipts taxes, value-added taxes—and
that replacing these existing taxes on electricity with a carbon tax
on fossil-fuel generated electricity can come close to delivering a
carbon tax “for free”. ...<br>
- -<br>
Details and Caveats<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>-- The main impact of carbon pricing in the
electricity sector is changing utility behavior rather than
changing consumer behavior, i.e., making renewables more
attractive than fossil fuels rather than reducing the amount of
electricity consumption. This situation is arguably unique to
the electricity sector, so this tax-swap idea is probably not
applicable in other sectors.<br>
-- These carbon prices—mostly in the range of $10-$20 per ton
CO2—are modest but not insignificant. A $10 carbon tax is
approximately 1 cent per kWh of coal-fired power, half that for
natural gas, and nothing for non-fossil sources. <br>
-- The analysis above focuses on residential consumption of
electricity but could be broadened to cover commercial
consumption of electricity (and in rare cases even industrial
consumption) as long as they also pay existing taxes on
electricity that could be swapped out for a carbon tax. Note
that many jurisdictions exempt entities like industrial
consumers, schools, hospitals, and government agencies from
existing electricity taxes; these same exemptions could be
carried over to the carbon tax. <br>
-- In the short run, the carbon tax rate could be set to
generate roughly the same amount of revenue as the sales tax or
other existing tax that it’s replacing. In the long run, carbon
tax revenue would decline as carbon emissions decline. It’s
possible to reduce these losses—for example, by increasing the
carbon tax rate over time, or by reinstating the existing sales
tax after, say, 20 years—but there’s also a strong case for
simply sunsetting taxes on electricity. For one thing, the push
to “electrify everything” will be easier if electricity is
cheaper. Perhaps more importantly, most states exempt grocery
store food from sales tax because of regressivity concerns about
impacts on low-income households, and taxes on residential
electricity are even more regressive. The revenue loss from
sunsetting taxes on residential electricity would be roughly
one–third of the revenue loss from existing tax exemptions for
groceries.<br>
-- The carbon tax would ideally be based on the carbon content
of electricity consumed by each utility’s customers in the state
(e.g., on data similar to what’s in these ESG reports) rather
than on the carbon content of electricity generated in the
state. As a result, the tax swap works best in states where
electric utilities have similar carbon profiles. To the extent
that they have different carbon profiles, there would be a net
savings for customers of low-carbon electricity and a net cost
for customers of high-carbon electricity. <br>
-- It might be possible to pursue similar ideas at the municipal
level—where there are often extremely high taxes on
electricity—but municipalities may be limited by state law
regarding the types of taxes they can impose. Municipalities may
also have a stronger reliance on this revenue than states...<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
- more at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/looking-for-help-with-an-electricity-tax-swap-idea/#more-23450">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/looking-for-help-with-an-electricity-tax-swap-idea/#more-23450</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Dr Jennifer Atkinson podcast]<br>
<b>Episode 3: Eco-Grief: Our Greatest Ally? </b><br>
If you suffer from climate grief, you know what it's like to feel
hopeless, alone, or bewildered by society's business-as-usual
response to our existential threat. Wanting those feelings to go
away is normal, but grief can lead to awareness and compassion in
ways that actually advance political action and climate solutions.
Paradoxically, grief can also provide a kind of strength and clarity
when conventional hopes are shaken. As climate activist Tim
DeChristopher once said, “In happy times the weight of despair is
oppressive, but in stormy times that weight is an anchor that can
get you through.” This episode explores the value of grief as a way
to overcome collective denial as we move into an uncertain climate
future. While most environmentalists are urging us to focus on hope,
Dr. Jennifer Atkinson points out that grief and hope aren't mutually
exclusive, and for many, grief may even be our best ally in an age
of climate crisis <br>
<br>
"Many of us spend our whole lives running from feeling with the
mistaken belief that you cannot bear the pain. But you have already
borne the pain. What you have not done is feel you are beyond that
pain."<br>
—Kahlil Gibran <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.drjenniferatkinson.com/facing-it">https://www.drjenniferatkinson.com/facing-it</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[an interesting analysis]<br>
<b>Why The United States Can't Handle Crises</b><br>
Mar 12, 2021<br>
Second Thought<br>
Covid-19, climate change, natural disasters, constant recessions,
homelessness, declining life expectancy and quality of life,
economic inequality...it seems like the United States is perpetually
in crisis, and more often than not we fail to meet the challenge.
Why is that? In this episode, we'll explore the root cause of
America's inability to handle crises.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q1Zver84Q4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q1Zver84Q4</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
March 17, 2013</b></font><br>
<p>March 17, 2013: New York Times columnist Tom Friedman muses on
the economic benefits of a federal carbon tax.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-lose-lose-vs-win-win-win-win-win.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-lose-lose-vs-win-win-win-win-win.html?_r=0</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>