<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>May 15, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Greta shames the World Economic Forum]<br>
<b>This is Greta Thunberg's message to Davos [video transcript]</b><br>
<blockquote>My name is Greta Thunberg and I’m not here to make
deals. You see, I don’t belong to any financial interest or
political party. So I can’t bargain or negotiate. I am only here
to once again remind you of the emergency we’re in. The crisis
that you and your predecessors have created and inflicted upon us.
The crisis that you continue to ignore.<br>
I am here to remind you of the promises that you have made to your
children and grandchildren. And to tell you that we are not
willing to compromise on the very minimum safety levels that still
remain.<br>
<br>
The climate and ecological crisis can unfortunately no longer be
solved within today’s systems. According to the current best
available science that is no longer an opinion; that’s a fact.<br>
<br>
We need to keep this in mind as countries, businesses and
investors now rush forward to present their new so-called
“ambitious” climate targets and commitments. The longer we avoid
this uncomfortable truth, and the longer we pretend we can solve
the climate - and ecological emergency - without treating it like
a crisis — the more precious time we will lose. And this is time
we do not have.<br>
Today, we hear leaders and nations all over the world speak of an
“existential climate emergency”. But instead of taking the
immediate action you would in any emergency, they set up vague,
insufficient, hypothetical targets way into the future, like
“net-zero 2050”. Targets based on loopholes and incomplete
numbers. Targets that equal surrender. It’s like waking up in the
middle of the night, seeing your house on fire, then deciding to
wait 10, 20 or 30 years before you call the fire department while
labeling those trying to wake people up alarmists.<br>
<br>
We understand that the world is very complex and that change
doesn’t happen overnight. But you’ve now had more than three
decades of bla bla bla. How many more do you need? Because when it
comes to facing the climate and ecological emergency, the world is
still in a state of complete denial. The justice for the most
affected people in the most affected areas is being systematically
denied.<br>
<br>
Even though we welcome every single climate initiative, the
proposals being presented and discussed today are very far from
being enough. And the time for “small steps in the right
direction” is long gone. If we are to have at least a small chance
of avoiding the worst consequences of the climate and ecological
crisis, this needs to change.<br>
<br>
Because you still say one thing, and then do the complete
opposite. You speak of saving nature, while locking in policies of
further destruction for decades to come.<br>
<br>
You promise to not let future generations down, while creating new
loopholes, failing to connect the dots, building your so called
”pledges” on the cheating tactics that got us into this mess in
the first place. If the commitments of lowering all our emissions
by 70, 68 or even 55 percent by 2030 actually meant they aim to
reduce them by those figures then that would be a great start. But
that is unfortunately not the case.<br>
<br>
And since the level of public awareness continues to be so low our
leaders can still get away with almost anything. No one is held
accountable. It’s like a game. Whoever is best at packaging and
selling their message wins.<br>
<br>
As it is now, we can have as many summits and meetings as we want,
but unless we treat the climate and ecological crisis like a
crisis, no sufficient changes will be achieved. What we need — to
begin with — is to implement annual binding carbon budgets based
on the current best available science.<br>
Right now more than ever we are desperate for hope. But what is
hope? For me hope is not more empty assurances that everything
will be alright, that things are being taken care of and we do not
need to worry.<br>
<br>
For me, hope is the feeling that keeps you going, even though all
odds may be against you. For me hope comes from action not just
words. For me, hope is telling it like it is. No matter how
difficult or uncomfortable that may be.<br>
<br>
And again, I’m not here to tell you what to do. After all,
safeguarding the future living conditions and preserving life on
earth as we know it is voluntary. The choice is yours to make.<br>
<br>
But I can assure you this. You can't negotiate with physics. And
your children and grandchildren will hold you accountable for the
choices that you make. How's that for a deal?<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/greta-thunberg-message-to-the-davos-agenda/">https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/greta-thunberg-message-to-the-davos-agenda/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=2622651194526588">https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=2622651194526588</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[guest opinion]<br>
<b>We’re Not Ready for the Next Big Climate Disasters</b><br>
May 14, 2021<br>
By David G. Victor, Sadie Frank and Eric Gesick<br>
<br>
Dr. Victor is a professor of industrial organization and climate
science at University of California, San Diego, and a nonresident
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he leads a project
examining how climate change will affect the financial markets. Ms.
Frank was a research assistant at Brookings. Mr. Gesick is a
visiting scholar at the Institute on the Environment at the
University of Minnesota and a former chief underwriting officer for
Axis Capital, a global reinsurance company.<br>
<br>
The infrastructure bills taking shape in Congress will be the first
test of the Biden administration’s ability to legislate on climate
change. Most eyes are on how greener infrastructure can cut
emissions of warming gases.<br>
<br>
But it will take decades to achieve the enormous reductions required
globally; in the meantime emissions will continue and so will the
warming. That’s why the nation has much at stake in bolstering
communities, highways, rail lines, water systems and the like now
against the devastating consequences of climate change, including
worsening hurricanes, flooding, rising seas, drought and wildfires.
We must also get better at managing climate disasters as they become
more numerous.<br>
<br>
Over decades, our spending on infrastructure and disaster relief has
become fine-tuned to political expedience rather than the
geophysical realities of the climate. We build roads and protect
houses in vulnerable places; we subsidize insurance for homes prone
to flooding and for years avoided updating insurance maps that would
let the federal government set rates that reflect real danger. When
communities are flattened by nature, the nation helps pay for
rebuilding — often rebuilding the same infrastructure in the same
place, a target for the next disaster. Flatten, flood, scorch —
rebuild and repeat.<br>
<br>
The fact that politics, not geophysics, sets the tune in Washington
is hardly surprising. What’s needed now is a politically smart
strategy for giving voice to geophysics to help our communities
prepare for the future.<br>
<br>
Studies going back decades have shown, for example, that farmers and
city managers who prepare for a changing climate can absorb the
shocks, at least to a point. By contrast, policies such as disaster
assistance and subsidized flood insurance can have the opposite
effect: They invite people to invest in harm’s way and make us less
prepared when disaster strikes, as will become more common in a
warming world.<br>
<br>
We have combed through data from experts and the government and have
tabulated what the federal government spends on climate-related
disasters, including on infrastructure and insurance. We measured
the balance of spending between “building back the same,” the usual
response to disasters, and investing in making our infrastructure
more resilient.<br>
<br>
Our study found that the federal government is spending about $46
billion per year on recovery from disasters, which is seven times
the level of investment in resilience. (Depending on the accounting
method, that ratio could be as high as 40 to 1.) That nobody really
knows these numbers shows why the nation must take stock of its
infrastructure and disaster spending with an eye to resilience. At
the same time, the National Climate Assessment, mandated by Congress
and prepared by climate scientists every four years to evaluate the
nation’s climate vulnerabilities, needs to look beyond what the
scary science says to assess how government policies and private
investment are amplifying or dampening the potential consequences of
global warming.<br>
<br>
Resilience matters because it is impossible to wall off the country
from the effects of climate change. Tens of trillions of dollars are
invested in infrastructure and personal property, with a lot more
investment to come. Federal money accounts for only one-quarter of
the nation’s investment in public infrastructure, but how that money
is spent has a big influence on how the rest of the country invests
and behaves.<br>
<br>
Redirecting federal money toward resilience rather than simply
rebuilding after disasters will be hard. But the longer we wait, the
harder it will become as the costs of climate change mount.<br>
<br>
More and more people are living in places that are highly exposed to
weather that will get nastier with climate change — places that are
already hot, communities along the coasts vulnerable to storms and
sites in or near increasingly flammable forests. For example, the
Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 would today incur insured losses of
$128 billion — dwarfing all big storms of recent memory.<br>
<br>
Last year all 94 major natural catastrophes — severe storms,
droughts, wildfires and floods, along with earthquakes — caused
insured losses of $74 billion in the United States. Over the next
three decades, climate change could raise the annual losses in the
country from hurricanes alone by one-fifth, according to a new
analysis by AIR Worldwide, a catastrophe modeling firm. (Disclosure:
AIR hired Mr. Gesick for an unrelated matter after the analysis was
published.)<br>
<br>
Everyone deeply involved with infrastructure and disaster assistance
knows that changes are needed. When municipalities on the front
lines borrow for infrastructure, nobody much pays attention to their
exposure to climate change in part because everyone involved,
including the investors, expect to be bailed out if disaster
strikes. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is brimming with
good ideas such as smarter mapping and earmarking funds for grants
that can make communities more resilient. We also found emerging
bipartisan support for many of these reforms, including in the most
recent big disaster recovery reform bill that Congress passed in
2018.<br>
<br>
But when good ideas meet politics, they seem destined to die at the
hands of powerful opponents, such as updating flood insurance
policies (unpopular in the Northeast, as we have seen recently) or
stopping the most egregious rebuilding after hurricanes (unpopular
in much of the coastal Southeast). One fix would be for Congress to
follow the playbook it used to close military bases, where piecemeal
shutdowns faced political death. As it did with base closures,
Congress should create a commission to do the work. It would draw up
a package deal to build climate resilience that can spread the pain
while making the nation better able to withstand the calamities that
are sure to come.<br>
<br>
We must get ready, politically, for the next big disaster — not just
because the nation will need recovery but also because that’s the
political window for reform. For example, after Hurricane Sandy blew
through Northeastern and other states in 2012, inflicting about $75
billion in damages, Congress paid $58 billion of those costs, and
the 7:1 ratio on spending to rebuild versus resilience dropped to
about 2:1. So, too, the 2017 hurricanes that ravaged Houston and
Puerto Rico were followed by the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act,
which set up the innovative Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities program, focused largely on resilience, with funding to
help move some communities out of harm’s way.<br>
<br>
Geophysics will never set the agenda in Washington, but a smart
political strategy can give it a stronger voice — and not a moment
too soon as the planet warms. More spending on infrastructure is
long overdue, but these new investments must come with the right
incentives so that we don’t inadvertently exacerbate the dangers of
warming.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/opinion/climate-disasters.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/opinion/climate-disasters.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[some food scientists think "half by mid century"]<br>
<b>Third of global food production at risk from climate crisis</b><br>
Food-growing areas will see drastic changes to rainfall and
temperatures if global heating continues at current rate<br>
A third of global food production will be at risk by the end of the
century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their
current rate, new research suggests.<br>
<br>
Many of the world’s most important food-growing areas will see
temperatures increase and rainfall patterns alter drastically if
temperatures rise by about 3.7C, the forecast increase if emissions
stay high.<br>
<br>
Researchers at Aalto University in Finland have calculated that
about 95% of current crop production takes place in areas they
define as “safe climatic space”, or conditions where temperature,
rainfall and aridity fall within certain bounds.<br>
<br>
If temperatures were to rise by 3.7C or thereabouts by the century’s
end, that safe area would shrink drastically, mostly affecting south
and south-eastern Asia and Africa’s Sudano-Sahelian zone, according
to a paper published in the journal One Earth on Friday.<br>
<br>
However, if greenhouse gases are reduced and the world meets the
goals of the Paris agreement, in limiting temperature rises to 1.5C
or 2C above pre-industrial levels, then only about 5%–8% of global
food production would be at risk.<br>
Matti Kummu, an associate professor of global food and water at
Aalto University and lead author of the paper, said: “A third of
global food production will be at risk. We should be worried, as the
climate safe space is quite narrow. But there are measures we can
take in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And we should empower
people and societies in the danger zones, to reduce the impact and
increase their resilience and adaptive capacity.”<br>
<br>
Although rising temperatures could increase food production in some
areas that are currently less productive, such as the Nordic
regions, that would not be anywhere near enough to offset the loss
of important food producing regions in the south, said Kummu.<br>
<br>
“There will be winners as well as losers, but the wins will be
outweighed by the losses, and there is just not enough space for
food production to move – we are already at the limits,” he said.<br>
<br>
Livestock farming would be affected, as well as the risks to crop
production, he said, and many areas were likely to suffer large
increases in water scarcity. The researchers examined the impacts of
climatic changes on 27 of the most important food crops and seven
types of livestock.<br>
<br>
By the end of this century, in a high-emissions scenario, there
could be as much as 1.5m sq miles (4m sq km) of new desert around
the world, the research found.<br>
<br>
Under 1.5C to 2C of warming, the boreal forests of northern America,
Russia and Europe would shrink from their current 7m sq miles to
about 6m sq miles by 2100. In a high emissions scenario, only 3m sq
miles would remain, the researchers forecast.<br>
<br>
The paper adds to previous research that has found that global
heating is already having an impact on agricultural productivity.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/14/third-of-global-food-production-at-risk-from-climate-crisis">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/14/third-of-global-food-production-at-risk-from-climate-crisis</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[burger, burger, cheeseburger]<br>
<b>Crying about hamburgers is dead-end on climate crisis,
Republicans warned</b><br>
Congressman Peter Meijer, 33, warns that false claims of a burger
ban or blaming immigrants risk losing the young generation<br>
<br>
Lies that hamburgers will be banned, conspiracy-laden claims of
government tyranny, blame for environmental degradation foisted upon
immigrants – the Republican response to Joe Biden’s climate agenda
suggests the base instincts of Donald Trump still strongly animate
the party.<br>
<br>
Amid Biden’s attempts to cut planet-heating emissions, Republicans
remain mired in the protection of fossil fuel interests, using
aggressive, and sometimes invented, claims in the process.<br>
<br>
But the continued embrace of Trumpian rhetoric has concerned some
younger Republican lawmakers aware of the increasingly dire warnings
from climate scientists and growing voter alarm over global heating.<br>
<br>
“Plenty of members of the [Republican] conference are still in
perpetual skeptic mode,” Peter Meijer, a 33-year-old Republican
House representative, told the Guardian. “When you talk to younger
conservatives, the issue of climate is No 1 or 2, but for older
generations that’s not the case. It’s important for the future of
our country and the party we stop viewing it as a partisan issue.”<br>
<br>
<br>
Meijer, one of the 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Trump
over the former president’s role in the January 6 insurrection at
the US Capitol, said that the party was in the midst of a
“generational shift” on climate but that progress was slow.<br>
<br>
“It’s moving a very large ship a matter of degrees. It won’t happen
overnight,” said Meijer, who represents a Michigan district.
“Climate is one of the areas I was concerned about in terms of the
long-term trajectory of the party. We are seeing first steps in
messaging and proposals. There’s a recognition that we have not been
on the right side of this and we need to get on the right side of
this.”<br>
<br>
Such progress can be hard to ascertain.<br>
<br>
Last month, in the wake of a major White House summit of world
leaders where Biden vowed to cut US emissions in half this decade,
the most prominent Republican response was a parade of invented
claims that the president was going to restrict meat-eating to once
a month. “OK, got that? No burgers on the Fourth of July. No steaks
on the barbecue,” claimed Larry Kudlow, a former Trump adviser now a
host on Fox News, which remains a hotbed of climate science denial
but did ultimately acknowledge Biden has no such proposal.<br>
<br>
“We’ve always had a problem in respect to climate and now there’s
this retreat to reactionary rhetoric that Biden is a socialist or
Marxist,” said William Reilly, a Republican who was administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency under George HW Bush. “It’s just
not true and it doesn’t work because the country knows it’s not
true.”<br>
<br>
Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, did unveil a narrow
climate plan based largely around tree planting and clean energy
innovation, although it does not mention phasing out the fossil
fuels that are driving the climate crisis, nor set out any sort of
emissions reduction target.<br>
<br>
Meijer said he supported McCarthy’s plan and that Biden had embraced
“fanciful and implausible priorities that are more about messaging
to a progressive base than moving the needle on emissions”, but
conceded that the untruths spread on meat bans showed “we are still
prone to latching on to things without checking their veracity.”<br>
<br>
Republicans have also aligned themselves with rightwing groups to
claim Biden will forcibly take away private property to meet his
goal of protecting 30% of America’s land and waters by 2030, despite
the White House pointing out this has never been proposed.<br>
<br>
On 4 May, a bill put forward by Lauren Boebert, a Republican
congresswoman from Colorado, to prevent the federal government
acquiring more land was first announced in a newsletter sent by
American Stewards of Liberty, a property rights group whose members
have likened the Biden conservation plan to a famine caused by
Joseph Stalin, as well as to the actions of Adolf Hitler.<br>
<br>
A spokesman for Boebert denied that American Stewards of Liberty
crafted the bill and said it was “common practice” to consult
outside groups before public announcements. The congresswoman
herself said that Biden was guilty of a “massive leftist land-grab”
driven by “extremist enviros funded by George Soros that believe the
federal government should control every aspect of our daily lives,
including our land”.<br>
<br>
Moves at the state level on climate change have also veered towards
the extreme. Republicans are attempting to make Louisiana a “fossil
fuel sanctuary state” to block federal rules that affect polluting
industries, while their counterparts in Wyoming have set up an
extraordinary legal fund to sue other states that refuse to take and
burn its coal.<br>
<br>
The Arizona attorney general, Mark Brnovich, has even channeled
Trumpist nativism by claiming in a lawsuit that immigrants are, in
fact, the cause of the climate crisis as they release “pollutants,
carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
“Muscle memory has taken over when we should be playing an entirely
different game,” said Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at
the center-right Niskanen Center. “There are plenty of alternative,
market-based policies for climate change but instead we just have
this grab-bag of predictable, reflexive responses. If you’re crying
about hamburgers you don’t really get to influence the policy
debate.”<br>
<br>
Republican recalcitrance on the climate crisis is increasingly out
of step with other conservative-led countries, such as the UK and
Germany that have vowed to phase out polluting industries such as
coal and eliminate emissions, and even its own voter base, with
polling showing that GOP voters are increasingly worried about
climate change and support measures such as limits on carbon
emissions.<br>
<br>
Biden’s allies worry that the ability to combat the climate crisis
will be hampered without a sea change in Republican opposition.<br>
<br>
“Eventually we will need a Republican party that has original,
effective climate change ideas but right now it’s just utterly
pathetic, it’s driven by grievance and exploiting resentments,” said
Paul Bledsoe, who was an energy and climate adviser to Bill
Clinton’s administration.<br>
<br>
Bledsoe added: “Biden’s proposals are very popular and clearly
Republicans are getting desperate. They just aren’t interested in
solving problems or governing, they have no proper identity. That
will remain the same as long as Trump dominates the party.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/14/republicans-climate-crisis-trump-peter-meijer">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/14/republicans-climate-crisis-trump-peter-meijer</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[interesting tactic]<br>
<b>Exxon Blames You for Climate Change</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-blames-you-for-climate-change-1846882224">https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-blames-you-for-climate-change-1846882224</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Box fan and duct tape]<br>
<b>Santa Fe women built homemade air purifiers to help protect
people from wildfire smoke</b><br>
Members of the Three Sisters Collective, a group of Indigenous
activist women, mobilized to help the local community during last
summer's wildfires.<br>
by YCC TEAM - MAY 12, 2021<br>
As summer approaches, so does the worst of wildfire season.<br>
<br>
Last summer, a wildfire burned thousands of acres in the Sangre de
Cristo mountains in New Mexico. People in the Nambé Pueblo and
several other nearby Indigenous communities faced dangerous air
pollution.<br>
<br>
“They were getting a lot of smoke and being severely affected by
it,” says Carrie Wood of the Three Sisters Collective, a group of
Indigenous activist women in Santa Fe.<br>
<br>
During the fire, the group mobilized to help protect Pueblo
residents from breathing smoke-polluted air.<br>
<br>
They collected donations and purchased more than 50 air purifiers.
But local stores soon ran out, so the women made about 60 by hand.<br>
<br>
“So you just buy a basic box fan, some duct tape, and an air filter
that is rated to filter smoke, and you literally just duct tape the
filter to the box fan,” Wood says.<br>
<br>
The collective donated the air purifiers to vulnerable Pueblo
residents. Their fast response and ingenuity helped protect people
during a crisis.<br>
<br>
But Wood says as wildfires get more extreme, local agencies should
take steps to protect people before a fire starts.<br>
<br>
“With climate change, this is the new normal, and so we shouldn’t
treat it like it’s unexpected,” she says.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/santa-fe-women-built-homemade-air-purifiers-to-help-protect-people-from-wildfire-smoke/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/santa-fe-women-built-homemade-air-purifiers-to-help-protect-people-from-wildfire-smoke/</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
[hauntingly beautiful]<br>
SPIRIT LINE ALBUM AND GUIDE<br>
<b>SPIRIT LINE: WOVEN TOGETHER FOR OUR MISSING & MURDERED
INDIGENOUS RELATIVES</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://threesisterscollective.org/mmiwgt2sresources/">https://threesisterscollective.org/mmiwgt2sresources/</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 May
15, 2001 </b></font><br>
<p>May 15, 2001: The New York Times reports:<br>
<br>
"Despite the Bush administration's decision to back away from
regulating emissions of global- warming gases, many multinational
companies plan to continue reducing such emissions because they
face strong pressure to do so in Europe and Japan, fear rising
energy costs or want to promote their products as being friendly
to the environment.<br>
<br>
"Some of the executives with plans to reduce emissions say they
are trying to be good corporate citizens. But companies also cite
a wide range of business reasons that have little to do either
with the environment or with what happens in Washington.<br>
<br>
"And even as they move ahead on their own, some top officials at
these companies say that while voluntary action is the right
approach in the short run, at some point they expect the United
States and others to adopt binding restrictions on the gases."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/business/pre-emptive-strike-global-warming-many-companies-cut-gas-emissions-head-off.html?pagewanted=print">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/business/pre-emptive-strike-global-warming-many-companies-cut-gas-emissions-head-off.html?pagewanted=print</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>