<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 26, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Shell feels the heat]<br>
<b>'The climate has won today' - Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions
by 45% in landmark climate case</b><br>
The case is unique in that no compensation is being demanded from
the company. Instead, for the first time in history, Shell is being
asked to issue a policy change...<br>
However, for the Dutch-British company, the ruling is only legally
binding in the Netherlands...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/26/shell-ordered-to-cut-co2-emissions-by-45-in-landmark-climate-case">https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/26/shell-ordered-to-cut-co2-emissions-by-45-in-landmark-climate-case</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[BBC tells US about racism]<br>
<b>Global heating: Study shows impact of 'climate racism' in US</b><br>
By Matt McGrath<br>
A new study says that black people living in most US cities are
subject to double the level of heat stress as their white
counterparts.<br>
<br>
The researchers say the differences were not explained by poverty
but by historic racism and segregation.<br>
<br>
As a result, people of colour more generally, live in areas with
fewer green spaces and more buildings and roads.<br>
<br>
These exacerbate the impacts of rising temperatures and a changing
climate.<br>
<br>
How calls for climate justice are shaking the world<br>
<blockquote>-- G7 ministers agree new steps against fossil fuels<br>
-- Thousands skip school for Australia climate strikes<br>
-- The Antarctic ice shelf in the line of fire<br>
-- Cities are well known magnifiers of a warmer climate.<br>
</blockquote>
The surface urban heat island effect is the technical term for the
impact that the buildings, roads and infrastructure of cities have
on temperatures....<br>
- -<br>
For black people this was particularly stark. The researchers say
they are exposed to an extra 3.12C of heating, on average, in urban
neighbourhoods, compared to an extra 1.47C for white people...<br>
- -<br>
In around half the cities, the average person of colour faced higher
summertime heat than people living below the poverty line, even
though just 10% of people of colour were classed as poor...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57235904">https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57235904</a><br>
- -<br>
[Nature Communications]<br>
<b>Disproportionate exposure to urban heat island intensity across
major US cities</b><br>
Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2721 (2021)<br>
<blockquote><b>Abstract</b><br>
Urban heat stress poses a major risk to public health. Case
studies of individual cities suggest that heat exposure, like
other environmental stressors, may be unequally distributed across
income groups. There is little evidence, however, as to whether
such disparities are pervasive. We combine surface urban heat
island (SUHI) data, a proxy for isolating the urban contribution
to additional heat exposure in built environments, with census
tract-level demographic data to answer these questions for summer
days, when heat exposure is likely to be at a maximum. We find
that the average person of color lives in a census tract with
higher SUHI intensity than non-Hispanic whites in all but 6 of the
175 largest urbanized areas in the continental United States. A
similar pattern emerges for people living in households below the
poverty line relative to those at more than two times the poverty
line.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22799-5">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22799-5</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[add it to the list]<br>
<b>An unexpected side effect of climate change? More stillbirths</b><br>
An analysis of multiple scientific studies suggests that higher
temperatures may cause more stillbirths<br>
By MATTHEW ROZSA -- MAY 25, 2021 <br>
<br>
Climate change is perhaps the greatest existential threat that
humanity has ever faced — and as environmental research accumulates,
we keep discovering unexpected side effects of making industrial
civilization reliant on fossil fuels. The latest one: a likely link
between global warming and increased numbers of stillbirths.<br>
<br>
A new study published in the scientific journal Environmental
Research suggests a connection between an increase in the Earth's
temperature and more stillbirths. Authors from the University of
Queensland found that pregnant women who were exposed to extreme
ambient temperatures during their pregnancy seemed to be at an
increased risk of stillbirth, especially later in the pregnancy.
Scholars at their School of Earth and Environmental Science and the
Mater Research Institute reviewed 12 studies with relevant data in
their study.<br>
<br>
"An estimated 17–19% of stillbirths are potentially attributable to
chronic exposure to extreme hot and cold temperatures during
pregnancy," the authors note.<br>
<br>
"Climate change can have a multitude of impacts on an individual's
health, especially among vulnerable populations," the research team
behind the study told Salon by email. "For pregnant mothers, extreme
weather events can impact access to antenatal services and increase
risk of heat-related illnesses. Mothers living in low-resource
settings are particularly vulnerable to these effects."<br>
<br>
In a press release regarding the study, environmental scientist Dr
Scott Lieske described how their conclusions suggest that
marginalized populations which already struggle disproportionately
due to lack of resources will be even harder hit as global
temperatures rise and they suffer more miscarriages.<br>
<br>
"More than two million stillbirths occur every year around the
world, with the most occurring in low resource settings," Dr. Lieske
said in the press release. "Not only are these poorer countries
already affected disproportionately by stillbirth, they're now going
to be disproportionately affected by climate change as well. If the
link apparent in this research bears out upon further scrutiny, the
majority of new stillbirths will occur invariably in the nations
already suffering the most."...<br>
- -<br>
The possible rise in stillbirths is only the latest in a series of
red flags indicating that pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are
making Earth less habitable. According to the World Wildlife Fund,
the population sizes of "mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and
fish" have fallen by 68 percent since 1970, amounting to an
"unprecedented" decline in Earth's biodiversity. Over the last two
centuries, humans have destroyed one-third of the planet's forest
cover and overfished one-third of the world's fish stocks. We also
continue to churn out plastic products that clog up our oceans,
clutter up our land and contain chemicals that have been linked to
ominously declining sperm counts...<br>
<br>
Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon.... <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.salon.com/2021/05/25/an-unexpected-side-effect-of-climate-change-more-stillbirths/">https://www.salon.com/2021/05/25/an-unexpected-side-effect-of-climate-change-more-stillbirths/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[yikes, forget the iced tea]<br>
<b>Researchers find Greenland glacial meltwaters rich in mercury</b><br>
New research shows that concentrations of the toxic element mercury
in rivers and fjords connected to the Greenland Ice Sheet are
comparable to rivers in industrial China, an unexpected finding that
is raising questions about the effects of glacial melting in an area
that is a major exporter of seafood...<br>
- - <br>
Hawkings also said it was worth noting that this source of mercury
is very likely coming from the Earth itself, as opposed to a fossil
fuel combustion or other industrial source. That may matter in how
scientists and policymakers think about the management of mercury
pollution in the future.<br>
<br>
"All the efforts to manage mercury thus far have come from the idea
that the increasing concentrations we have been seeing across the
Earth system come primarily from direct anthropogenic activity, like
industry," Hawkings said. "But mercury coming from climatically
sensitive environments like glaciers could be a source that is much
more difficult to manage."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2021-05-greenland-glacial-meltwaters-rich-mercury.html">https://phys.org/news/2021-05-greenland-glacial-meltwaters-rich-mercury.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Disinformation warfare]<br>
<b>Top Scientist Cuts Ties With National Lab After It Invited A
Climate Denier To Speak</b><br>
A federal research facility’s prioritizing a politically connected
darling of right-wing media over its own star scientist shows
climate denialism’s lasting power.<br>
<br>
By Alexander C. Kaufman<br>
Steve Koonin has been a frequent commentator on television and in
newspapers owned by conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch<br>
FOX BUSINESS NETWORK<br>
Steve Koonin has been a frequent commentator on television and in
newspapers owned by conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch.<br>
Ben Santer, one of the world’s best-known climate scientists,
announced this week he is severing ties with the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory after the federal research facility invited a
climate denier to give a book talk this Thursday. <br>
<br>
Santer had planned to retire from the lab, where he has worked for
29 years, in September, but would continue his award-winning
atmospheric research on a part-time basis and maintain his
affiliation. <br>
<br>
But in a blog post published Monday, the MacArthur “Genius” grant
recipient said his employer failed to “adequately address” concerns
he raised with hosting physicist Steve Koonin to speak about his new
book, “Unsettled,” which sows doubt over the reality of
human-causing global warming. Santer cast the decision to allow
Koonin, a New York University professor, to promote his polemic at
an official lab event as a betrayal of the research conducted there
for decades. <br>
<br>
“Writing and releasing this statement may be viewed by some as an
act of disloyalty. I do not see it that way,” Santer wrote in a
statement posted to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ website. “I
chose to remain loyal to the climate science we have performed at
LLNL for over three decades. I do not intend to remain silent while
the credibility and integrity of this research is challenged.”<br>
<br>
Santer hyperlinked the work “integrity” to an appearance Koonin made
on an official podcast of the Heartland Institute, a far-right
advocacy group that, in addition to promoting misinformation about
climate science and cigarette smoking’s link to cancer, organized
harassment campaigns against scientists. <br>
<br>
Koonin “is not an authoritative voice on climate science,” Santer
wrote, noting that the lab’s “climate scientists have devoted their
careers to measuring, modeling, and understanding changes in the
climate system. Professor Koonin has not.”<br>
<br>
Climate change and atmospheric scientist Ben Santer, at the podium
on the right, speaks during open panel discussion on evolu<br>
MEDIANEWS GROUP/ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER VIA GETTY IMAGES VIA GETTY
IMAGES<br>
Climate change and atmospheric scientist Ben Santer, at the podium
on the right, speaks during open panel discussion on evolution and
climate change at Chapman University. <br>
<br>
Santer’s dramatic statement this week highlights the lasting power
of a political movement dreamed up in the conference rooms of the
fossil fuel industry’s public relations firms and made real with the
same kind of advertising campaigns that staved off smoking
regulations for years after the health risks were clear. A co-author
of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
1996 report, Santer wrote that year that: “The balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Those
words made him the target of a harassment campaign that included
everything from death threats to a congressional inquiry into his
research funding. <br>
<br>
The effects of climate change are today visible, and the solutions
to all but eliminate fossil fuels ― electric vehicles, renewable
electricity ― are cheaper and more widely available than ever
before. Polls show a wide majority of Americans understand humans’
role in causing climate change and support government policies to
mitigate it.<br>
<br>
Tactics to delay the transition from fossil fuels have largely
shifted. A Harvard University study published last week in the
journal One Earth found that Exxon Mobil Corp. tweaked its rhetoric
on climate change in recent years to deflect from systemic overhauls
and instead focus on individuals’ lifestyle choices. <br>
<br>
In undercutting the very conclusion that emissions cause climate
change, Koonin represents a more traditional approach to denialism.
<br>
<br>
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained theoretical
physicist, Koonin, 69, spent five years as oil giant BP’s chief
scientist before joining the Obama administration’s Department of
Energy in 2009. After less than three years, he left to work for a
national security think tank before taking his current job as
director of New York University’s Center for Urban Science and
Progress. <br>
<br>
As public understanding of the threat global warming poses to
society grew over the past decade, Koonin transformed himself into a
contrarian darling of right-wing media, publishing routine diatribes
against the proven link between fossil fuel emissions and planetary
heating in pages notoriously loose with facts that challenge
conservative ideologies. <br>
<br>
In 2014, Koonin argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that climate
science was “not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult
and important questions being asked of it.” In 2017, he captured the
Trump administration’s attention with his call to host a “red
team-blue team” debate over climate change, a proposal that received
so much internal criticism it failed to gain serious traction within
the White House. His new book collating many of those same talking
points received predictably fawning reviews in The New York Post and
the Wall Street Journal.<br>
<br>
A firefighter keeps watch as flames advance along the Western Divide
Highway during the SQF Complex Fire on September 14, 202<br>
DAVID MCNEW VIA GETTY IMAGES<br>
A firefighter keeps watch as flames advance along the Western Divide
Highway during the SQF Complex Fire on September 14, 2020, near Camp
Nelson, California. Worsening wildfires across the U.S. West are
among the more visible signs of global warming.<br>
Subscribe to the Politics email.<br>
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:address@email.com">address@email.com</a><br>
His nearly 30-month stint in the Obama administration granted him
unique credibility with conservatives, who see in apparent converts
to their cause evidence that the scientific consensus on climate
change is more of a worldwide conspiracy than empirical reality.
Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist turned climate
contrarian, has become a similar fixture in the right-wing political
universe, appearing on Fox News and Heartland Institute podcasts to
recant his past participation in what he calls scientists’ “climate
alarmism,” as E&E News reported last week. <br>
<br>
Koonin did not return a request for an interview. <br>
<br>
John Holdren, the Obama administration’s chief science adviser from
2009 to 2017, balked at the idea that science is ever “settled,” but
warned that Koonin was not engaged in “the healthy, informed
skepticism on which all science flourish,” but rather “a mish-mash
of seemingly cherry-picked data and apparent misunderstandings of
current climate science.” <br>
<br>
The propagation of such misinformed skepticism, he said, “is a
menace to public understanding and prudent policymaking.”<br>
<br>
<br>
“Predictably, Koonin’s views have been receiving a warm welcome from
the usual defenders of climate-change complacency at Fox News and
the Wall Street Journal editorial page,” he wrote in an op-ed
published Monday in The Hill. <br>
<br>
The consistency with which Koonin has made the same, widely debunked
arguments for the past seven years show he has “learned nothing
between 2014 and 2021,” said Susan Hassol, director of Climate
Communication, a nonprofit that helps scientists translate climate
science in plain language. <br>
<br>
“Someone who can’t update their thinking with new information and
new understanding is not behaving like a scientist,” Hassol said.
“Koonin is not a climate scientist. He’s a theoretical physicist.
He’s never published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate
science.”<br>
<br>
For a national lab “to invite someone who’s not even in that field
and has never published in that field and only airs his ideas in
right-wing media is absurd,” she added. <br>
<br>
But what Koonin lacks in climate science credentials, he makes up
for in political connections. In 2012, he was appointed to the
independent board of governors of the Lawrence Livermore National
Security LLC, a contracting company that works on nuclear security
issues for the eponymous laboratory. He continues to serve in that
role today, according to the lab’s website. <br>
<br>
Someone who can’t update their thinking with new information and new
understanding is not behaving like a scientist.<br>
Susan Hassol, director of Climate Communication<br>
It was Brad Roberts, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s
Center for Global Security Research, who invited Koonin to speak, a
source with knowledge of the talk confirmed to HuffPost. Neither
Roberts nor spokespeople for the laboratory responded to emailed
questions and interview requests sent Tuesday morning. But a
spokesperson for the lab defended Koonin’s talk to the environmental
news site Earther on Monday: “Differing technical opinions are part
of the scientific process.” <br>
<br>
“Throughout its history the Lab has invited guest speakers whose
opinions differ from those of the Lab and its workforce. It does not
mean the Lab endorses those opinions,” the spokesperson said. “The
Lab has a long and distinguished history in groundbreaking climate
research — the Lab continues to advance and stand by that research.”<br>
<br>
Differing opinions are one thing. But Donald Wuebbles, a University
of Illinois atmospheric scientist who spent 20 years at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and worked with both Santer and
Koonin, said this was a matter of facts. <br>
<br>
“Koonin had plenty of opportunities to actually do legitimate
discussion of the science within the science realm. He never would
do that,” Wuebbles said. “Instead he took potshots at what we were
researching in the Wall Street Journal. I think Steve Koonin mostly
cares about Steve Koonin, and doesn’t care about the world.” <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/santer-koonin-climate_n_60ad529fe4b0a24c4f821f58">https://www.huffpost.com/entry/santer-koonin-climate_n_60ad529fe4b0a24c4f821f58</a><br>
- -<br>
[DeSmog Blog reports on Koonin]<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/steve-koonin/">https://www.desmog.com/steve-koonin/</a><br>
- -<br>
[Whereas Ben Santer is a Saint]<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer</a><br>
- -<br>
[another report]<br>
<b>Top Climate Scientist Blasts Government Lab After Denier Invited
to Speak</b><br>
Ben Santer, one of the nation’s leading climate scientists, said he
is cutting ties with a prestigious government-funded laboratory over
its plans to invite a scientist who has spread climate denial to
speak in a seminar.<br>
<br>
Santer’s work has shaped much of climate science for the past 25
years. His work studying the “fingerprints” of climate change have
informed decades of research and he was the author of a seminal
sentence in a crucial 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report that said the science showed “a discernible human influence
on global climate.”<br>
<br>
On Monday, Santer, who is affiliated with the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, sent out an emailed statement viewed by Earther
and first published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in protest
of a planned LLNL seminar with Steve Koonin, a well-known climate
denier whose new book on how climate science is “unsettled” has
attracted widespread praise from right-wing media and condemnation
from basically everyone else.<br>
<br>
In his statement, Santer didn’t mince words, alleging that Koonin is
“not an authoritative voice on climate science” and that LLNL
management had not adequately responded to Santer’s concerns about
the seminar, which was scheduled to be held on May 27.<br>
“Differing technical opinions are part of the scientific process,” a
spokesperson for LLNL told Earther in an email. “Throughout its
history the Lab has invited guest speakers whose opinions differ
from those of the Lab and its workforce. It does not mean the Lab
endorses those opinions. The Lab has a long and distinguished
history in groundbreaking climate research — the Lab continues to
advance and stand by that research.”<br>
<br>
Koonin, a physics professor who worked at BP in the mid-2000s and
who now is at NYU, is one of those dangerous figures who plays up
the whataboutism that has plagued the conversation around climate
science for decades. While he technically accepts the fact that
humans are exerting some influence on the climate—which, in his
opinion, does not make him a “climate denier”—his beef is with just
how bad it’s going to be. These viewpoints—and the fact that he
worked briefly in the Department of Energy under President Barack
Obama—have made him a favorite among those who seek to further
discredit climate science. Koonin was even tapped in 2018 by Scott
Pruitt, the oil-and-gas serving, hotel lotion-loving, then-chief of
Environmental Protection Agency, to lead the Trump administration’s
theoretical exercise to try to discredit climate science, after
Koonin authored a Wall Street Journal article proposing the idea.
The exercise never came to fruition. (We’ve reached out to Koonin
for comment on Santer’s letter and will update this post if we hear
back.)<br>
<br>
Koonin’s currently on a right-wing-fueled press tour for his new
book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and
Why It Matters, which, as the title suggests, posits that the whole
global warming thing isn’t that bad and relies on misinformation to
make its points. Erroneous theories promoted by Koonin in the book
include the idea that Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t melting any faster
than it was 80 years ago (false) and that sea level rise isn’t
accelerating (also false).<br>
<br>
Carbon dioxide levels are higher than they were, sure, but they’re
not at a planetary high, Koonin points out, so we should all just
relax (he seemingly conveniently forgets that the last time carbon
dioxide was this high, the Arctic was probably full of plants and
ice-free). The Wall Street Journal—which routinely runs pro-oil
propaganda and anti-renewable-energy screeds—simply loved the book,
publishing an error-filled review written by one of its resident
fossil energy boosters in April (that 12 climate scientists later
took a red pen to in a major correction). Tucker Carlson also had
Koonin on to claim climate science is “being used as a tool to scare
young people, create depression.”<br>
<br>
“It is simply untrue that Prof. Koonin is confronting climate
scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to
understand,” Santer wrote in his resignation letter. “The climate
science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent
way. It has done so for decades. At LLNL, we routinely consider
whether uncertainties in models, observations, and natural climatic
variability call into question findings of a large human influence
on global climate. They do not.”<br>
<br>
Koonin has historically “taken potshots at the science, but doesn’t
really get involved with scientists in a careful sense,” said Don
Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of
Illinois and a former researcher at LLNL, who knows both Koonin and
Santer. “He publishes his comments in the Wall Street Journal—that
isn’t exactly peer-reviewed literature.”<br>
<br>
Wuebbles pointed out that much of the claims in Koonin’s book
directly contradict exhaustively peer-reviewed science, much of
which was covered in the Fourth National Climate Assessment produced
by the U.S. government—and authored and peer-reviewed by dozens of
top-level scientists—in 2017. Wuebbles said he talked with Koonin “a
number of times” after the NCA was released about his scientific
concerns.<br>
<br>
“Several times, I pointed out that he was overstating things, and
his response is he goes and writes a book,” he said. “That’s just
not how science is done. There’s a peer review process. You want to
write a peer-reviewed paper and say this wasn’t done right? Go
ahead.”<br>
<br>
LLNL is a pretty big deal in the climate space. Established by the
University of California, Berkeley in 1952, the lab is currently
funded by the Department of Energy and works on a wide range of
issues related to energy and national security. That includes a lot
of climate programming: LLNL is one of the nation’s leading climate
modeling institutions, using data and complex calculations to
predict how the planet might change with increased warming. Inviting
someone like Koonin to LLNL to give a talk is kind of like asking a
tobacco apologist to address the American Lung Association. Santer
was set to retire from LLNL in September, but said he will have no
further affiliation with the lab following his retirement.<br>
<br>
Wuebbles explained that the bulk of work at Livermore is done on
nuclear weapons, meaning that the lab as a whole is aimed mostly at
working on non-climate issues. “You have a lot of people with strong
physics backgrounds who don’t understand the atmosphere. [They]
don’t know the nuances of the science, so you’ll hear the argument
and say, huh, that sounds pretty reasonable, but what you don’t
realize is that it’s a misrepresentation of the science, or there’s
half-truths involved. You have to understand the details, the depths
of the science to understand these arguments. In my community,
everyone wants the truth—we don’t want to misrepresent the truth.”<br>
<br>
In his statement, Santer seemed to be on the same page.<br>
<br>
“We live in a democracy. Free speech is important,” he wrote. “It is
important to hear diverse perspectives on issues of societal
concern. It is equally important for U.S. citizens to receive the
best-available scientific information on the reality and seriousness
of climate change.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/top-climate-scientist-blasts-government-lab-after-denie-1846956716">https://earther.gizmodo.com/top-climate-scientist-blasts-government-lab-after-denie-1846956716</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Chevron's big ethical struggle]<br>
<b>DRILLED SEASON 5: LA LUCHA EN LA JUNGLA</b><br>
For more than 30 years, Chevron has been battling a group of
Ecuadorian plaintiffs over oil pollution in the Amazon. Chevron
inherited the case from Texaco when it acquired the company. It was
ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiffs by multiple
Ecuadorian judges, but instead sued the plaintiffs and their lawyers
in the U.S. under racketeering laws. And the story just continues to
get more wild from there. This story has it all: bags of cash,
secret cameras, bribed judges, First Amendment violations, a lawyer
on house arrest, secret tribunals, and at the end of it all
thousands of indigenous people with a simple request “Let us live.”<br>
<br>
We’ve Had Corporate Personhood For A Decade…What About Ecosystem
Personhood?<br>
April 10, 2021 / International, law, Podcast, rights of nature,
Season 5<br>
Oil and gas companies are nervous about an increased push worldwide
for laws governing the rights of nature ...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://drillednews.com/drilled-podcast-season-5/">https://drillednews.com/drilled-podcast-season-5/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://drillednews.com/weve-had-corporate-personhood-for-a-decade-what-about-ecosystem-personhood/">https://drillednews.com/weve-had-corporate-personhood-for-a-decade-what-about-ecosystem-personhood/</a><br>
- -<br>
[Trailer for an important movie]<br>
<b>INVISIBLE HAND - Rights Of Nature Documentary (Official Trailer
2020)</b><br>
Aug 15, 2020<br>
Public Herald<br>
From Executive Producer Mark Ruffalo comes the world’s first
documentary film on the Rights of Nature Movement, a “Paradigm
Shifting” story about the current global battle between capitalism
and democracy where the fight for our survival is at stake. Join the
Virtual World Premiere of INVISIBLE HAND on September 4th, 2020
6:00-9:00 pm. Tickets ($1): <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://invisiblehandfilm.com">https://invisiblehandfilm.com</a><br>
<br>
Ruffalo will join a public discussion immediately after the
screening with the film’s award-winning directors, Joshua B.
Pribanic and Melissa Troutman, and Rights of Nature experts who
featured in the doc. The group will open up a Q&A and talk about
how this movement can actually create the systemic cultural change
we need.<br>
<br>
Tickets Available ($1) to all Public Herald Patrons: Become a
Patron! » <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://patreon.com/publicherald">https://patreon.com/publicherald</a><br>
<br>
"This Film Gave Me Chills" - Columbus International Film Festival <br>
<br>
"A Masterpiece" - Columbus International Film Festival <br>
<br>
"Paradigm Shifting" - Virginia Community Rights Network<br>
<br>
SHORT SYNOPSIS <br>
Produced by award-winning actor Mark Ruffalo, INVISIBLE HAND takes
you behind the curtain of the global economy where ‘Rights of
Nature’ becomes “capitalism’s one true opponent.”<br>
<br>
In the fall of 2014, for the first time in United States history, an
ecosystem filed to defend itself in a lawsuit claiming its ‘right to
exist' in Grant Township, Pennsylvania. For attempting such a
radical act, Grant’s rural community of 700 people were sued by a
corporation, then by the state government, and are now locked in a
battle to defend the watershed they call home through civil
disobedience. The water they drink, the Rights to Nature laws
they've passed are all on the line in this exclusive story.<br>
<br>
Half a continent away in Standing Rock, North Dakota, the same
industry threatening Grant Twp. is using militarized force against
indigenous tribes and allies fighting to protect Mother Earth. The
two, Grant Township and Standing Rock, are joined in an
international fight to protect more than just water. They fight for
their community, democracy, and for Nature as a living entity unto
itself.<br>
<br>
In the end, "Who will speak for Nature?"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzDFF0y-O9w">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzDFF0y-O9w</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[video interview]<br>
<b>Heather Cox Richardson | What Could Possibly Go Right?</b><br>
Jul 9, 2020<br>
postcarboninstitute<br>
Heather Cox Richardson addresses the question of What Could Possibly
Go Right? with a political focus. Her insights include:<br>
That the current condition is waking people up from autopilot and
creating the realization they need to pursue change personally to
create the society in which they want to live.<br>
<br>
A reminder that the beauty of a democratic system is getting to
choose which direction to go.<br>
<br>
That the desire for equality of opportunity and access should no
longer be pushed to the narrative of special interest in politics.<br>
<br>
The potential to innovate and create change through crowdsourcing
government and society.<br>
<br>
That the American dream needs to be rewritten and move away from the
heteronormative nuclear family as its centerpiece, to a more
community-centered and diverse view.<br>
Learn more: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/pci-wcpgrseries">https://bit.ly/pci-wcpgrseries</a><br>
Listen on your favorite podcast app: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/wcpgrsurl">https://bit.ly/wcpgrsurl</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhplj1ZmQtk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhplj1ZmQtk</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
[disinformation studies]<br>
<b>History & Politics Chat: April 27, 2021</b><br>
May 2, 2021<br>
Heather Cox Richardson<br>
Want more History & Politics Chat? Send me your questions on
Facebook, and find me on Facebook Live every Tuesday at 4 pm
(eastern time).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYIhK-6ZCg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYIhK-6ZCg</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[This is an important archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming May
26, 1990 </b></font><br>
May 26, 1990: The New York Times covers the release of the First
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report:<br>
<blockquote><b>Scientists Urge Rapid Action on Global Warming</b><br>
<br>
By Craig R. Whitney, Special To the New York Times<br>
A panel of scientists warned today that unless emissions of carbon
dioxide and other harmful gases were immediately cut by more than
60 percent, global temperatures would rise sharply over the next
century, with unforeseeable consequences for humanity.<br>
<br>
While much of the substance of the report has already been
disclosed, the report had immediate political consequences. Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain, breaking with the Bush
Administration's skepticism over the need for immediate action,
said today that if other countries did their part, Britain would
reduce the projected growth of its carbon dioxide emissions enough
to stabilize them at 1990 levels by the year 2005.<br>
<br>
West Germany's Environment Minister, Klaus Topfer, has proposed
that Europe should go further and cut present emissions by 25
percent by that time, but the United States has said until now
that the scientific case for global warming - the so-called
greenhouse effect - has not been made and that no action needs to
be taken.<br>
<br>
Mrs. Thatcher's action is a blow to the Bush Administration, which
was counting on her as its major ally in slowing any international
action to reduce the industrial pollution that causes global
warming.<br>
<br>
The report by a working group of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was approved by all but
a handful of the 90 delegates from 39 countries, said Dr. John T.
Houghton, chairman. The report said that if nothing at all was
done, the global mean temperature could rise 5.4 degrees
Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century.<br>
<br>
It said that in that case, ocean water would expand and ice stored
at the poles could melt, raising the level of the sea by 25.6
inches. That would be enough to submerge the Maldives and inundate
the coastal plains of Bangladesh and the Netherlands,
oceanographers say.<br>
<br>
Mr. Houghton, Britain's chief meteorologist, said that only a
handful of the scientists in the panel disagreed with the
findings, which he said were dramatic confirmation of how rapidly
the carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and other gases
released into the air by industrial processes, the burning of
tropical forests and other factors had been changing the earth's
atmosphere since the end of the 18th century. A draft of the
report was previously disclosed.<br>
<br>
Britain and U.S. Percentages<br>
Britain, with 1 percent of the world's population, is responsible
for about 3 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions, Mrs. Thatcher
said. The United States, with 5 percent of the population, is
responsible for about 25 percent of the emissions, American
scientists say.<br>
<br>
Prof. Bert Bolin, the chairman of the intergovernmental panel,
described Mrs. Thatcher's action as ''very useful'' but said, ''It
is not enough in the long term.'' If all countries did as Britain
suggested, Dr. Houghton said, it would still not be enough to stop
the enhanced greenhouse effect. ''If you want to stop it, you have
to cut by 60 percent immediately,'' he said at a news conference
in Englefield Green, where the working group discussed its
findings this week.<br>
<br>
''She has taken a kind of halfway position between the aggressive
moves being considered by the West Germans and the 'What, me
worry?' position of the United States,'' said Michael Oppenheimer,
an atmospheric physicist of the Environmental Defense Fund of New
York City, who was in a group of scientists Mrs. Thatcher invited
a year ago to advise her on global warming.<br>
<br>
Called Too Little Too Late<br>
British environmental groups denounced Mrs. Thatcher's proposal as
too little, too late. ''It does not even go as far as the very
modest first step that the European Community proposed back in
March of stabilizing emissions at the present level by the year
2000,'' said Andrew Dilworth, a spokesman for Friends of the
Earth.<br>
<br>
Mrs. Thatcher, in her speech at the opening of a center for
climate prediction and research in Bracknell, said, ''It is no
good setting political targets for action which are just not
realistic in practice.'' Mrs. Thatcher, who had been briefed on
the working group's findings earlier this week, said today that
reducing projected increases in British carbon dioxide emissions
by 30 percent in 15 years would mean ''significant adjustments to
our economies - more efficient power stations, cars which use less
fuel, better insulated houses and better management of energy in
general.''<br>
<br>
The working group's report is one of three that were commissioned
in November 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the
World Meteorological Organization for a global climate conference
in Geneva in November. Another working group headed by the Soviet
Union is considering the impact of climate changes on agriculture,
forests, fisheries, water resources, and sea barriers, and the
third, headed by the United States, is considering strategies for
responding to climate change. Professor Bolin said today that he
would not discuss the draft reports of either of them.<br>
<br>
Cut of 60% Recommended<br>
The United Nations group's report today said that just to
stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide and chlorofluorocarbons at today's levels, there would have
to be immediate cuts of more than 60 percent in their output.
Depending on how much was actually done to cut emissions, it said,
global mean temperature would still keep rising between 0.1
degrees centigrade (0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) and 0.2 degrees
centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.<br>
<br>
Global mean surface air temperature has already increased by 0.3
degrees centigrade (0.54 Fahrenheit) to 0.6 degrees centigrade
(1.08 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last 100 years, it said, with
the five average warmest years all occurring in the 1980's.<br>
<br>
Scientists who study global climate trends concede, however, that
the computer models on which they base their predictions are
flawed. While the researchers can measure gases in the atmosphere
with precision, they have not perfected methods of predicting
their effects on particular regions on earth.<br>
<br>
So far, there has been only one major step to control greenhouse
gases - the major industrialized countries' pledge last year to
ban production of chlorofluorocarbons, used as refrigerants and
propellants, by the end of this century because they rise to the
upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone molecules that block most
of the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation.<br>
<br>
A version of this article appears in print on May 26, 1990,
Section 1, Page 6 of the National edition with the headline:
Scientists Urge Rapid Action on Global Warming<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html">http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html</a><br>
<br>
<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>