<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>April 21, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[All time high for 3 million years]<br>
<b>420 Blaze It (The Planet)</b><b><br>
</b>Molly Taft - Yesterday <br>
We finally did it—we’ve hit 420!<br>
<br>
Parts per million, that is. Not to harsh your mellow on today of all
days, but there’s more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than in
any other point in recorded history.<br>
<br>
Earlier this month, scientists at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii
took a measurement of more than 421.21 ppm of atmospheric carbon—the
first time researchers have captured a reading over 420 ppm since
record-keeping began. This new record is just the latest in a
startlingly steep uptick of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past
several decades. When record-keeping started in the 1950s,
measurements averaged around 315 ppm. This month’s record means that
we’re halfway to doubling our preindustrial levels of carbon
dioxide. Bummer.<br>
<br>
On this auspicious day, we’d like for our readers to take a beat to
think about what the world was like the last time we hit 420
ppm—it’s pretty wild, dude. Atmospheric carbon was this high more
than 3 million years ago, during what is known as the Pliocene
epoch, where natural processes led to higher concentrations of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Studying this time period could
give us hints as to what we’re in store for if we keep pumping
carbon dioxide levels up at the rate we’re at.<br>
<br>
Research using ice cores suggests that the last time carbon dioxide
levels were this high, temperatures around the world were around
12.4 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius) warmer than they are
now. The Arctic was almost certainly ice-free in the summers;...<br>
- -<br>
The Eocene was much warmer than today, and warmer than the Pliocene
as well. Temperatures were between 12.2 to 25.2 degrees Fahrenheit
(9 to 14 degrees Celsius) higher than they are today. It’s not
likely we’ll see those types of conditions in our lifetimes or our
grandchildren’s lifetimes. And a lot of bad things would have to
happen for carbon dioxide to reach those levels. Still, the fact
that we’re even bringing the Eocene into the discussion here speaks
to just how much and how quickly we’re pushing the Earth’s limits.
It took the Earth literal millions of years to go through these
types of climatic shifts; in just a couple of centuries, we seem to
be accelerating the car off the cliff.<br>
<br>
Anyway, happy 4/20, everyone. Celebrate responsibly (and legally, if
you can), remember that the cannabis industry needs a lot of
environmental reforms, and don’t think too much about this
depressing climate change stuff—that’s for Earth Day.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/420-blaze-it-the-planet-1846724875">https://earther.gizmodo.com/420-blaze-it-the-planet-1846724875</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[brief, ethical warning to Congress - 6 min video]<br>
<b>Sen. Whitehouse DESTROYS fossil fuel industry, citizens united on
climate change issue</b><br>
Apr 18, 2021<br>
The Hill<br>
During a hearing entitled "The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change"
this week, Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
delivered his opening remarks in which he blasted Citizens United
and the fossil fuel industry for contributing to climate change.<br>
[-- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsD9wFA1kg&t=107s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsD9wFA1kg&t=107s</a>]<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsD9wFA1kg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsD9wFA1kg</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[my sarcastic observation that mainstream media is moving so slowly.
-CBS reports that "a lot of scientists think"...]<br>
<b>How the Earth's oceans protect us from climate change — and how
that may "come back and bite us"</b><br>
"this may be the most self-indulgent story I've ever done. But it's
in a good cause."<br>
- -<br>
A lot of scientists think those weather extremes and those rising
waters are evidence the "bite back" has already begun. <br>
<br>
When you sail through these waters, you sail through the wake of
history – natural and human. But now, for the first time, one of the
animal species on this planet is determining the course of the whole
world's future. That species, of course, is us.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oceans-climate-change-eye-on-earth-our-planet-in-peril/">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oceans-climate-change-eye-on-earth-our-planet-in-peril/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[how to change]<br>
<b>Building back better needs radical change − by us</b><br>
April 20th, 2021, by Alex Kirby<br>
We’ve got the money, we’ve got the knowhow, but averting the worst
of the climate crisis needs radical change − by us.<br>
LONDON, 20 April, 2021 − With the Covid-19 pandemic still raging
across the globe, plenty of thinkers are devoting their time to what
comes next. The hopeful argue for an effort to Build Back Better.
The less hopeful doubt that that will be easy, or perhaps even
possible, and not necessarily because of the pandemic itself. The
pragmatists say the future can be different, if humans can achieve
radical change in themselves and their lives.<br>
<br>
They start from where we are and try to plot a way through to where
we want to be. One of these is a UK think tank, the Cambridge
Sustainability Commission on behaviour change and the climate
crisis, whose report is published by the Rapid Transition Alliance
(RTA).<br>
<br>
The RTA argues that humankind must undertake “widespread behaviour
change to sustainable lifestyles … to live within planetary
ecological boundaries and to limit global warming to below 1.5°C”
(the more stringent limit set by the Paris Agreement on climate
change.<br>
<br>
The Commission’s report notes that some of us need to change our
behaviour more than others. “Globally, the wealthiest 10% of the
world’s population is responsible for roughly half of all greenhouse
gas emissions, while the poorest half is responsible for less than
10%,” it says.<br>
<br>
“The lifestyle emissions of the richest in society are actually
increasing … Relying on conscientious individuals to ‘do their bit’
will never be enough to put society on a sustainable pathway without
substantial shifts in the behaviour of the polluter elite.”...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenewsnetwork.net/building-back-better-needs-radical-change-%e2%88%92-by-us/">https://climatenewsnetwork.net/building-back-better-needs-radical-change-%e2%88%92-by-us/</a><br>
<br>
<p>- -</p>
[source matter 4 page executive summary]<br>
<b>Changing our ways?</b><b> </b><b>Behaviour change and the
climate crisis</b><br>
Can we change the way we live to address the climate crisis? It is
increasingly<br>
clear that alongside shifts in policy, service provision and
technological innovation,<br>
far-reaching changes in lifestyles are also required if we are to
avoid dangerous<br>
levels of global heating. After a long period of neglect,
sustainable behaviour<br>
change is now rising up the climate policy agenda. The most recent
IPCC and UNEP<br>
Emissions Gap reports have begun to devote more attention to the
role of behaviour<br>
change in reaching ambitious climate goals, and governments
increasingly view it as<br>
a necessary element of their climate change strateg<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/">https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/</a><br>
<b>Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling behaviour change -
Executive Summary</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rapidtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Cambridge-Sustainability-Commission-on-Scaling-behaviour-change-report-Executive-Summary.pdf">https://www.rapidtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Cambridge-Sustainability-Commission-on-Scaling-behaviour-change-report-Executive-Summary.pdf</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Reuters reminds us ...]<br>
<b>At the start of every disaster movie is a scientist being ignored
…</b><br>
In 1988, U.S. scientist James Hansen went before Congress and
testified about his research into the warming of the planet. More
than 30 years later, Hansen’s prediction that the average global
temperature could rise by about 1 degree Celsius (almost 2 degrees
Fahrenheit) by 2019 has come to pass. His warning, and appeals for
action from Hansen and others, went largely ignored by policymakers,
despite an avalanche of confirmatory research from ensuing
generations of climate scientists.<br>
The Hot List<br>
<br>
A REUTERS SERIES<br>
We wanted to know: Who are the scientists who have dedicated their
lives to studying the climate, knowing that their work may go
unheeded and do little to avert a climate catastrophe? And how do
they deal with it? As one of them said: “I have a mountain of data
on my shoulders, but I feel so powerless.”<br>
<br>
Even the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the enormous challenges
the scientists confront. Echoing divisive skirmishes over climate
change, politics and science have done battle, as some governments
appeared to dismiss or minimize established research on the virus’
spread. And despite a drop of 7% in emissions last year as the world
ground almost to a halt, carbon dioxide levels continued to rise and
are higher than at any point in human history. No year was hotter
than 2020.<br>
<br>
It’s a reminder that even as the tumultuous events of the past year
grabbed headlines, climate change relentlessly thrummed in the
background. The Siberian tundra is thawing as the Arctic sees
record-breaking temperatures. Australia and California have burned,
and will burn again. Tropical storms are bigger and stronger than
ever.<br>
- -<br>
To structure this exploration of the world’s top climate scientists,
data journalist Maurice Tamman has created a system of identifying
and ranking climate academics according to how influential they are:
how much they’ve published, how often those papers have been cited
relative to others in the same field, and how often those papers
have been referenced in the lay press, social media and other public
policy papers.<br>
<br>
It’s important to note that this isn’t a ranking of the “best”
climate scientists. It’s a measure of influence, which naturally
evolves over time, based on information available as of December
2020. The data was provided by the British-based company Digital
Science, made available through its Dimensions portal.<br>
<br>
This effort examined at least 350,000 papers, 99% of which were
published after Hansen's famous testimony. It has yielded a list of
1,000 top scientists. And from this list, we’ve selected six, four
men and two women, whose stories capture the sweep of climate
science today. These are not just stories about the science, though,
but about the people behind the science.<br>
<br>
You’ll visit them at home, in places as far apart as Thuwal, Saudi
Arabia, and Melbourne, Australia. You’ll holiday with one on Block
Island, off the Northeast U.S. coast. You’ll see one in the water,
at work in the Great Barrier Reef.<br>
<br>
One of them plays bass guitar in a band made up of other scientists,
while another sings in one of the world’s largest amateur orchestral
choirs. One advises Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, while
another played a hand in the environmental awakening of the late
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. One once went into hiding
after falling out of favor with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. One
used a 100,000-year-old chunk of Antarctic ice in a gin and tonic.<br>
<br>
As 2021 begins, there is renewed hope for action on stemming the
causes of climate change. After a four-year American retreat, new
U.S. President Joe Biden is promising to re-engage on this
existential issue. Many of the world’s largest fuel users and
producers – including China, most European countries and even Saudi
Arabia – have pledged to significant reductions in carbon dioxide
over the next 30 years.<br>
<br>
If the world’s nearly 200 nations are going to act, it is these
scientists’ work that will gird the decisions and choices. These are
their stories.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/climate-change-scientists/">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/climate-change-scientists/</a><br>
<br>
- -<br>
<br>
[list of top 1000 climate scientists- according to Reuters]<br>
<b>The Reuters Hot List</b><br>
<b>This is the Reuters list of the world’s top climate scientists.</b>
To build it, we created a system of identifying and ranking 1,000
climate academics according to how influential they are.<br>
<br>
Filed April 20, 2021<br>
This series tells the stories of the scientists who are having the
biggest impact on the climate-change debate – their lives, their
work and their influence on other scientists, the public, activists
and political leaders.<br>
<br>
To identify the 1,000 most influential scientists, we created the
Hot List, which is a combination of three rankings. Those rankings
are based on how many research papers scientists have published on
topics related to climate change; how often those papers are cited
by other scientists in similar fields of study, such as biology,
chemistry or physics; and how often those papers are referenced in
the lay press, social media, policy papers and other outlets.<br>
<br>
The data is provided through Dimensions, the academic research
portal of the British-based technology company Digital Science. Its
database contains hundreds of thousands of papers related to climate
science published by many thousands of scholars, the vast majority
published since 1988.<br>
<blockquote>The Hot List series<br>
The Pioneer<br>
The Rarity<br>
The Adviser<br>
The Paradox<br>
The Cassandra<br>
The Target<br>
The List<br>
</blockquote>
The list combines three rankings:<br>
For the first ranking, we selected researchers based on the number
of papers published under their names through December 2020, as
indexed in the Dimensions system. We screened for climate-related
work by examining the papers’ titles or abstracts – brief
descriptions of the research – for phrases closely connected to
climate change, such as “climate change” itself, global warming,
greenhouse gases and other related terms. These are papers that
explicitly focus on climate change rather than mention it in
passing. To be included in our count, a paper had to be cited by at
least one other scientist at least once.<br>
<br>
The first ranking is based on how many papers meet that criteria for
each scientist. A rank of one was given to the scientist with the
most papers, and 1,000 to the scholar with the fewest.<br>
<br>
The second ranking is based on what Dimensions describes as a “Field
Citation Ratio.” For each paper, a ratio is calculated “by dividing
the number of citations a paper has received by the average number
received by documents published in the same year and in the same
Fields of Research category,” according to Dimensions. This ranking
is meant to measure the influence of scientists’ work among their
peers.<br>
<br>
For example, atmospheric sciences, a subset of earth sciences, is a
field of research, as is zoology, which belongs to the biological
group of sciences. A zoology-related paper with a ratio of 1.0 means
it was cited at the average rate compared to other zoology papers; a
paper with a score of 2.0 means it was cited at twice the rate of
the average zoology paper. Climate change is a multidisciplinary
science, and this approach accounts for differing citation rates in
differing fields.<br>
<br>
For the Hot List, we calculated an average citation ratio for each
scientist’s climate-change papers, then we ranked the ratios of all
the scholars on our list. A rank of one was assigned to the scholar
with the highest average ratio, and 1,000 to the researcher with the
lowest.<br>
<br>
The third ranking is based on Digital Science’s Altmetric Attention
Score, a measure of a research paper’s public reach. Most papers
receive a score based on references in a variety of publications,
including the mainstream media, Wikipedia, public policy papers and
social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The ranking is
meant to measure the influence of scientists’ work in the lay world.<br>
<br>
For the Hot List, we assigned a median Altmetric score to each
scientist’s papers and then ranked those scores, with a rank of one
going to the highest score and 1,000 to the lowest.<br>
<br>
The final score for each scientist is based on the sum of each
ranking – the lower the score, the greater the scholar’s overall
influence, and thus the higher he or she ranks on the Hot List.<br>
<br>
For example, Keywan Riahi, the head of Austria’s International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, is the highest-ranking
scientist on the Hot List. He ranks 47th for papers published, 10th
for his Field Citation Ratio and 30th for his Altmetric Attention
Score, for a score of 87.<br>
<br>
Riahi, who studies energy systems, said his ranking is probably the
result of IIASA’s openness to sharing data and models with other
scientists. “That creates long-standing collaborations, and, of
course, when we innovate, we pass innovation on, and all that’s
important for the scientific network,” he said.<br>
<br>
Some notes of caution. First, the Hot List doesn’t claim to be a
rank of the “best” or “most important” climate scientists in the
world. It’s a measure of influence.<br>
<br>
Second, the Hot List has some limitations inherent in our
methodology. For instance, our analysis targeted the titles and
abstracts of papers, not the full texts, so we may have missed some
studies that do touch on climate change. The Altmetric score can be
skewed upward if one or a few of a scientist’s papers have
particularly high scores and their remaining papers have
comparatively low scores.<br>
<br>
Also, the Hot List favors the prolific. The first of our three
metrics ranks scientists based on the number of papers published.
The other two metrics – for citation ratios and public reach – are
designed to compensate for this possible bias, but they might not
fully do so.<br>
<blockquote>1 Keywan Riahi<br>
2 Anthony A Leiserowitz<br>
3 Pierre Friedlingstein<br>
4 Detlef Peter Van Vuuren<br>
5 James E Hansen<br>
6 Petr Havlík<br>
7 Edward Wile Maibach<br>
8 Josep G Canadell<br>
9 Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne<br>
10 Mario Herrero<br>
11 David B Lobell<br>
12 Carlos Manuel Duarte<br>
13 Kevin E Trenberth...<br>
</blockquote>
[1000 names listed - ]<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Discussion with a climate scientist about irreversible retreat
and critical slowing]<br>
<b>Dr Sebastian Rosier | Tipping Points In Antarctica’s Pine
Island Glacier</b><br>
Premiered April, 20, 2021<br>
Nick Breeze<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://genn.cc">https://genn.cc</a> Visit: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://patreon.com/genncc">https://patreon.com/genncc</a><br>
<br>
Welcome to Shaping The Future. In this episode, I am speaking with
Dr Sebastian Rosier about his work studying the tipping points in
Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier.<br>
<br>
Antarctica is of course absolutely huge and the Pine Island
Glacier is just one part of it. If Pine Island collapsed into the
ocean it would raise sea-levels by several metres which would be
catastrophic for many coastal areas around the world.<br>
<br>
Sebastian discusses his view of whether we have crossed this
tipping point that is part of this complex system being impacted
by the billions of tonnes of carbon pollution we pump into the
atmosphere each year.<br>
<br>
This all highlights that this is the decade we must get to work
restoring the biosphere if we are avoid the consequences of
extreme global heating.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6PGFVLDZMQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6PGFVLDZMQ</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[season has started in my area]<br>
<b>Early start to Washington’s wildfire season has officials worried</b><br>
April 20, 2021<br>
By Christine Clarridge <br>
Seattle Times staff reporter<br>
Last week was the first time we hit 70 degrees in the Seattle area
this year, and already wildfire concerns are upon us.<br>
<br>
The state Department of Natural Resources responded to 91 fires last
week and is gearing up for what could be a bad season with a
temporary burn ban on state lands in some parts of Western
Washington and the Puget Sound area.<br>
<br>
The temporary burn restrictions on DNR-protected lands have extended
to South Puget Sound in addition to the Northeast, Northwest and
Pacific Cascade region, the agency said.<br>
<br>
“Higher than normal temperatures, low relative humidity, low
moisture content in ground fuel, lack of precipitation, expected
high east wind, and multiple wildland brush fires” make the ban
prudent, the agency said on its website.<br>
<br>
The Green Valley Fire, east of Auburn in King County, which started
Sunday from a burn pile that got out of control, led to Level 2
evacuations in the immediate area. That means residents were told
the fire risk was significant and that they should consider
evacuating or be ready to leave at a moment’s notice.<br>
<br>
The brush fire had burned 50 acres by Tuesday and was 50% contained,
according to officials with Mountain View Fire & Rescue.<br>
<br>
The National Weather Service warned that continued dry and warm
temperatures have dried out grasses, making fires more likely.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/waDNR_fire/status/1383504455610494978">https://twitter.com/waDNR_fire/status/1383504455610494978</a><br>
Christine Clarridge: 206-464-8983 or <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cclarridge@seattletimes.com">cclarridge@seattletimes.com</a>; on
Twitter: @c_clarridge.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/officials-concerned-by-early-start-to-washingtons-wildfire-season/">https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/officials-concerned-by-early-start-to-washingtons-wildfire-season/</a><br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/waDNR">https://twitter.com/waDNR</a><br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://burnportal.dnr.wa.gov/">https://burnportal.dnr.wa.gov/</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[DeSmogBlog as database on disinformation records]<br>
<b>The Greenwashing Files: Fossil Fuel Giants Accused of ‘Deceptive’
Advertising</b><br>
A major new catalogue of fossil fuel company adverts based on
DeSmog’s research shows the gap between their public image and the
reality of their operations.<br>
ANALYSIS<br>
By Rich Collett-White and Rachel Sherringtonon - Apr 18, 2021<br>
<br>
Fossil fuel companies could face legal challenges over their
misleading advertising, after a DeSmog investigation uncovered the
extent of their “greenwashing”.<br>
<br>
Environmental lawyers ClientEarth have put companies on notice with
the publication of the Greenwashing Files. The analyses, which use
DeSmog’s research, show how adverts of major fossil fuel companies
and energy producers continue to over-emphasise their green
credentials, giving the public a misleading impression of their
businesses.<br>
<br>
DeSmog analysed the advertising output of Aramco, Chevron, Drax,
Equinor, ExxonMobil, Ineos, RWE, Shell and Total, and compared this
with the reality of the companies’ current and future business
activities.<br>
<br>
ClientEarth submitted a complaint against BP’s advertising in 2019,
before the company decided to withdraw its “Possibilities
Everywhere” campaign. The lawyers say other fossil fuel companies
could face similar challenges if they mislead the public through
their advertising. The group is calling for tobacco-style
advertising bans and health warnings to counter fossil fuel
companies’ “deceptive” marketing.<br>
<br>
DeSmog’s investigation found messaging that touts companies’ climate
pledges without being transparent about their large emissions
contributions is widespread across advertising campaigns and social
media promotions.<br>
<br>
The adverts regularly highlight the companies’ preferred solutions
to climate change — from carbon capture and storage, to experimental
algae biofuels, and investment in renewable energy sources — without
being open about the small percentage of overall investment
allocated to these technologies, nor their various limitations.<br>
<br>
The Greenwashing Files lay bare the contrast between the public
image these adverts create, and the reality of the fossil fuel
companies’ activities...<br>
- -<br>
<b>Greenwashing Files</b><br>
ClientEarth lawyer Johnny White said the collection of adverts
showed the fossil fuel companies were involved in a “great
deception”.<br>
<br>
“We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. But instead of leading
a low-carbon transition, these companies are putting out advertising
which distracts the public and launders their image,” he said. <br>
<br>
“These adverts are misrepresenting the true nature of companies’
businesses, of their contribution to climate change, and of their
transition plans,” he added, saying that “we cannot underestimate
the real world impact this advertising has on the pace of change.”<br>
<br>
You can find the full set of adverts and analyses here - <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.clientearth.org/the-greenwashing-files">https://www.clientearth.org/the-greenwashing-files</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/04/18/the-greenwashing-files-fossil-fuel-companies-advertising/">https://www.desmog.com/2021/04/18/the-greenwashing-files-fossil-fuel-companies-advertising/</a><br>
<br>
- -<br>
<br>
[partner source]<br>
<b>The problem with greenwashing</b><br>
Science tells us that if we burn the fossil fuel reserves that have
already been found, odds are we are unlikely to keep warming below
1.5°C – the world’s aim under the Paris climate agreement. Studies
show there are plans to produce 120% more fossil fuels by 2030 than
is consistent with staying under this threshold. We simply cannot
burn all the world’s stock of coal, oil and gas and hope to avoid
climate disaster.<br>
<br>
Companies that are still pushing new fossil fuel exploration and
projects cannot justify calling themselves 'sustainable' and cannot
claim to be changing in line with society’s aims under the Paris
Agreement goals.<br>
<br>
Yet companies’ marketing campaigns create the impression they are at
the forefront of a rapid transitioning to low-carbon energy. And
they are increasingly using social media to target younger
audiences, including paying social media ‘influencers’. Some
companies are doing more to grow low-carbon energy than others. But
company marketing rarely reflects the full picture of their business
strategy and investments.<br>
<br>
There may seem to be nothing wrong with companies highlighting
‘green’ projects. But these ads are a problem where they create a
misleading impression of their overall business and its
environmental harms. And the danger is that this obstructs the
world’s efforts to move away from fossil fuels – thus endangering
human rights across the world. Marketing campaigns can mislead the
public on the true environmental cost of continuing to pump and use
fossil fuels in the climate emergency. Unfortunately, if fossil fuel
companies protect their business models in this way, then the
science is clear: our planet and our societies face catastrophic
consequences.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.clientearth.org/the-greenwashing-files">https://www.clientearth.org/the-greenwashing-files</a>
<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 -
April 21, 1993 </b></font><br>
<p>April 21, 1993: President Clinton pledges to combat carbon
pollution in an Earth Day address.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://c-spanvideo.org/program/DayAd">http://c-spanvideo.org/program/DayAd</a><br>
</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>