<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 28, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Mother Jones]<br>
<b>Nature Will Help Protect Us From Climate Doom—If We Let It</b><br>
Earth’s ability to sock away carbon is a powerful tool to slow
rising temperatures.<br>
The biggest hint nature ever gave humanity was when it sequestered
fossil fuels underground, locking their carbon away from the
atmosphere. Only rarely, like when a massive volcano fires a layer
of coal into the sky, does that carbon escape its confines to
dramatically warm the planet.<br>
<br>
But such catastrophes hint at a powerful weapon for fighting climate
change: Let nature do its carbon-sequestering thing. By restoring
forests and wetlands, humanity can bolster the natural processes
that trap atmospheric carbon in vegetation. As long as it all
doesn’t catch on fire (or a volcano doesn’t blow it up), such
“nature-based solutions,” as climate scientists call them, can help
slow global warming...<br>
- -<br>
“People get the impression ‘don’t worry folks, nature will save
us,’” says Ellis. “That’s the kind of thing that keeps me up at
night. First of all, we are nature, and we need to work in concert
with it. But we need to put the pedal to the metal and fire on all
cylinders if we’re going to pull ourselves as humans, and our fellow
passengers on Spaceship Earth, out of this predicament we’ve put
ourselves in.”<br>
<br>
The hotter the planet gets, the harder it will be for these
ecosystems to bounce back. Plant species have thermal limits for
their survival. Longer, more intense droughts could cancel an
ecosystem’s comeback. Ever-more-ferocious wildfires no longer
naturally reset forest ecosystems by clearing out dead brush—they
obliterate whole landscapes. And in the meantime, we’re feeding this
cycle by pumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each
year.<br>
<br>
“If we don’t reduce our emissions by decarbonizing our economy,”
Girardin says, “the goose is cooked, and none of this matters.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/05/nature-based-solutions-climate-change-carbon-sequestration/">https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/05/nature-based-solutions-climate-change-carbon-sequestration/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><b><br>
</b></p>
[30 million displaced - eventually a third of all humanity}<b><br>
</b><b>The Great Climate Migration Has Begun | Amanpour and Company</b><br>
May 24, 2021<br>
Amanpour and Company<br>
The climate crisis is forcing thousands around the world to flee as
their homes become increasingly uninhabitable. Abrahm Lustgarten is
a Pulitzer Prize-winning environmental reporter and has spent years
looking at how climate migration will reshape the world. He speaks
with Hari Sreenivasan about his latest project. <br>
Originally aired on May 24, 2021.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaI9nxSKAw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaI9nxSKAw</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[SSPs are Shared Socioeconomic Pathways -- scenarios of projected
socioeconomic global changes -- used to derive greenhouse gas
emissions scenarios with different climate policies. Up to the year
2100 - predictions]<br>
<b>ICONICS webinar - 25 May 2021 - Societal and climate change</b><br>
May 25, 2021 -- ICONICS SSP<br>
Dr. Kris Ebi from UW Global Change presents the consensus study on
the US Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031.<br>
Dr. Jana Sillmann from CICERO speaks about how event-based
storylines can be used to better communicate risk.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ts5d6-t-Vk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ts5d6-t-Vk</a><br>
- -<br>
[Download the report]<br>
<b>Advice for the U.S. Global Change Research Program</b><br>
The Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP or Program) provides ongoing and focused advice to the
USGCRP by convening key thought leaders and decision makers at
semiannual meetings, providing strategic advice, reviewing draft
plans for the Program, and serving as a portal to relevant
activities from across the National Academies.<br>
2021<br>
<b>Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031</b><br>
The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a collection of 13
Federal entities charged by law to assist the United States and the
world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced
and natural processes of global change. Global Change Research Needs
and Opportunities for 2022-2031 advises the USGCRP on how best to
meet its mandate in light of climate change impacts happening today
and projected into the future. This report identifies critical
climate change risks, research needed to support decision-making
relevant to managing these risks, and opportunities for the USGCRP's
participating agencies and other partners to advance these research
priorities over the next decade.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/advice-for-the-us-global-change-research-program">https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/advice-for-the-us-global-change-research-program</a><br>
- -<br>
[Consensus Report 4 pages]<br>
FOCUS FIRST ON URGENT RISKS TO AMERICAN WELL-BEING<br>
<blockquote>"Climate model projections indicate that each additional
unit of warming will further increase risks<br>
for nearly all impacts of climate change. New research and
coordination are needed to understand and communicate complex
interactions among changes in the physical climate system,
ecosystems, and human<br>
systems, with particular focus on urgent risks to the well-being
of Americans today and over the coming<br>
decades—including to health, food, energy, water,and economic
security."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nap.edu/resource/26055/USGCRP%204-Pager.pdf">https://www.nap.edu/resource/26055/USGCRP%204-Pager.pdf</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[for example]<br>
<b>What will a future high-impact extreme event look like in Norway?</b><br>
Oct 29, 2020<br>
CICERO klima<br>
Are we prepared?<br>
Together with Melanie Burford and Silvereye Pictures we have made a
short film telling the story about future weather on the West Coast
of Norway. The film is showcasing the results from the CICERO led
research project TWEX Translating Weather Extremes into the Future
that offer local and regional decision-makers a more realistic
picture of what future weather extremes might look like, hence
facilitating adaptation planning and implementation. <br>
Read more here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cicero.oslo.no/en/Twex">https://cicero.oslo.no/en/Twex</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyxq5UBdk0c">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyxq5UBdk0c</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.trust.org/item/20210526120959-puazp">https://news.trust.org/item/20210526120959-puazp</a><br>
<b>From suicide to 'eco-anxiety', climate change spurs mental health
crisis</b><br>
by Laurie Goering | @lauriegoering | Thomson Reuters Foundation<br>
26 May 2021 <br>
<br>
Mental stresses are growing for families hit by more extreme heat,
flooded homes and worries about a hotter planet - but the impacts
are little measured so far<br>
By Laurie Goering<br>
<br>
LONDON, May 26 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Intensifying climate
change impacts, from fiercer heatwaves to more flooded homes, are
driving a growing mental health crisis around the world whose costs
are so far underestimated and poorly understood, researchers said on
Wednesday.<br>
<br>
From more heat-linked suicides in Mexico and the United States to
rising "eco-anxiety" among young people worried about their future,
large numbers are being affected, said Emma Lawrance, a mental
health specialist with the Institute of Global Health Innovation at
Imperial College London.<br>
<br>
The effects of planetary heating are hitting the poorest and most
vulnerable particularly hard, and could widen existing inequities,
warned Lawrance, lead author of a new briefing published by the
British university.<br>
<br>
"When we talk about climate change as a health crisis and
exacerbating inequalities, I think the mental health piece of the
puzzle has been left behind, and it's important we tackle that," she
told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.<br>
<br>
Early efforts to address the problem range from Australia's decision
to allocate public funds for mental health support after devastating
bushfires in 2019-2020 to groups like the Good Grief Network, which
helps people anxious about climate change learn to cope, partly by
encouraging personal or political action.<br>
<br>
Aid agencies such as the International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies also are training workers to recognise and
offer assistance for mental as well as physical distress caused by
weather-related crises.<br>
<br>
But as climate change impacts - from stronger storms to scarcer food
and water in some countries - bring more post-traumatic stress
disorder, depression and other mental health concerns, action needs
to be stepped up, Lawrance said.<br>
<br>
"The gap between knowing the impacts and being able to quantify the
impacts ... is holding us back," she said.<br>
<br>
Across the board, mental health disorders already cost the global
economy at least $2.5 trillion a year including through knock-on
effects like lost productivity and lower growth, researchers said.<br>
<br>
"The deterioration in mental health caused by climate change will
carry a significant cost, which is currently not being considered,"
the briefing paper noted.<br>
<br>
The financial burden is already rising in richer nations as well as
poorer and more climate-vulnerable parts of the world.<br>
<br>
People in Britain whose homes are damaged by floods and storms are
50% more likely to suffer problems such as depression or anxiety -
even if they don't have to move out temporarily, found a 2019 study
by the National Centre for Social Research.<br>
<br>
Fortunately, Lawrance said, rising spending to curb climate-changing
emissions could also protect mental health, giving a double benefit.<br>
<br>
Planting more carbon-absorbing trees, for instance, can reduce
peoples' exposure to severe heat, while better insulating houses can
cut both emissions and discomfort, she said.<br>
<br>
She warned against dismissing anxiety over climate change as a
mental health disorder, arguing that those struggling with it needed
help to find practical ways to deal with the issue.<br>
<br>
"We don't want to pathologise strong emotional responses to what's
happening," Lawrance said. "Taking action is good for the climate -
and also for people."<br>
<br>
Related stories:<br>
<br>
For survivors of Fiji's deadly cyclone, mental scars linger<br>
<br>
Mental health at risk as California wildfire threat grows<br>
<br>
Children suffering 'eco-anxiety' over climate change, psychologists
say<br>
<br>
Spotlight: Mental health and climate change<br>
<br>
(Reporting by Laurie Goering @lauriegoering; editing by Megan
Rowling. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the
charitable arm of Thomson Reuters. Visit
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://news.trust.org/climate">http://news.trust.org/climate</a>)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.trust.org/item/20210526120959-puazp">https://news.trust.org/item/20210526120959-puazp</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[big changes]<br>
</p>
<p><b>Shell, Exxon and Chevron stunned by courts and shareholders in
climate blitz</b><br>
Ketan Joshi -27 May 2021 6<br>
<br>
Three of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies have suffered
significant blows in quick succession, with a collection of court
rulings and shareholder votes sending shockwaves through an
industry rattled by accelerating climate action and the impacts of
the COVID19 pandemic.<br>
<br>
Overnight, a Dutch court found that Shell is required to reduce
its total emissions, including those from operation but also those
from the use of the products it sells (“scope 3” emissions) by 45%
of 2019 levels by the year 2030, to align with global climate
goals.<br>
<br>
This was found on the grounds that climate impacts would breach
the human rights of residents of the Netherlands, and the Wadden
region. The case was brought in April 2019 by seven climate
activist groups and led by Dutch environmental group
Milieudefensie, and the findings were announced on Wednesday
night, Europe time.<br>
<br>
The court’s ruling found that Shell is directly culpable for the
climate impacts created by the normal usage of the products it
sells, namely oil and gas. It rejected the company’s arguments
that not selling these products would result in others selling the
same, or that the responsibility lies with consumers rather than
fossil fuel companies.<br>
<br>
The ruling sets the 45% emissions reductions target, and
highlights that “[Shell] is free to decide not to make new
investments in explorations and fossil fuels, and to change the
energy package offered by the Shell group, such as the reduction
pathways require…through the energy package offered by the Shell
group, [Royal Dutch Shell] controls and influences the Scope 3
emissions of the end-users of the products produced and sold by
the Shell group”.<br>
<br>
Today, Australia’s Federal Court is set to rule on a similar case,
asserting that the harm caused by coal extracted from a planned
mine expansion in Whitehaven, NSW, is a breach of the rights of
young Australians. “If the Court agrees that the Minister’s duty
of care to protect young people from the harms of burning coal
prevents her from approving the Vickery Extension Project there
could be huge flow on effects for the approval of new, harmful
fossil fuel projects in Australia”, write the group that brought
the case forward.<br>
<br>
Chevron also suffered a major blow, with a stunning 61% of
investors backing a proposal from shareholder activist firm
FollowThis calling on Chevron to substantially reduce its scope 3
emissions by selling a lower quantity of fossil fuels. And
activist shareholder organisation Engine No. 1 succeeded in the
election of two climate-focused shareholders to the board of
ExxonMobil. “The result is one the biggest activist upsets in
recent years and an embarrassment for Exxon”, wrote Bloomberg
Climate. “It’s also unprecedented in the rarefied world of Big
Oil, and a sign that institutional investors are increasingly
willing to force corporate America to tackle climate change”.<br>
<br>
This triplet of major, historically significant findings and
shareholder votes comes during a period of frequently
unprecedented announcements. Only last week, the International
Energy Agency, once derided as renewable-skeptics and oil and gas
champions, released a report calling for a total cessation of
exploration for new fossil fuels and a stop to new fossil fuel
infrastructure, along with the retirement of all coal-fired power
stations in advanced economics by 2030, and across the world by
2040. And another court action win focusing on the human rights
impacts of fossil fuels resulted in a direct and extremely
significant change to Germany’s federal climate targets.<br>
<br>
Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron were responsible for 5% of total
global scope 1 and 3 emissions between 1988 and 2015, according to
a 2017 Carbon Disclosure Project report. These changes indicate a
major shift for global oil and gas companies away from expanding
and growing their operations and towards either struggling to
maintain their sales or attempting to slow the inevitable decline
of sales.<br>
<br>
The stream of news across the world signifying major shifts in the
direction of fossil fuel industries are in stark contrast to the
actions of Australia’s government, which has been increasing its
spending on fossil fuel subsidies and attempts to prop up the
industry.<br>
<br>
Yesterday, the International Energy Agency appointed Australia’s
Energy and Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor to the Vice
Chair position for the 2022 ‘ministerial meeting, along with Tinne
Van der Straeten of Belgium and Dan Jørgensen of Denmark.
Conspicuously, Van der Straeten mentioned both the US and Danish
ministers, but did not mention Australia, in her tweeted response.
It is only May, with the G7 meeting in late June and the COP26
meeting in November yet to come – already, the world’s fossil fuel
industries are shifting far more quickly than Australia’s
leadership was prepared for.<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-exxon-and-chevron-stunned-by-courts-and-shareholders-in-climate-blitz/">https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-exxon-and-chevron-stunned-by-courts-and-shareholders-in-climate-blitz/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<p><font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
May 28, 2003 <br>
</b></font></p>
<p><font size="+1">The New York Times reports on ExxonMobil's
crucial role in the climate-denial industry.<br>
</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming</b><br>
<br>
By Jennifer 8. Lee<br>
May 28, 2003<br>
Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global
warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in
annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate
research.<br>
<br>
At the same time, the company, the world's largest oil and gas
concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy
groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in
global warming and argue that proposed government policies to
limit carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming
are too heavy handed.<br>
<br>
Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such
organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall
Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for
Policy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council.<br>
<br>
The organizations are modest in size but have been outspoken in
the global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest
corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than
10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the groups
say they also receive some money from other oil companies, it is
only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.<br>
<br>
''We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden
the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,'' said
Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. ''There is this whole
issue that no one should question the science of global climate
change that is ludicrous. That's the kind of dark-ages thinking
that gets you in a lot of trouble.'' He also noted, ''These are
not single-agenda groups.''<br>
<br>
The organizations emphasize that while their views align with
Exxon's, the company's money does not influence their policy
conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought
out in part because of their credibility. ''They've determined
that we are effective at what we do,'' said George C. Landrith,
president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that
maintains that human activities are not responsible for global
warming. He says Exxon essentially takes the attitude, ''We like
to make it possible to do more of that.''<br>
<br>
Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget,
received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001,
according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth
was not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually
spread over three years.<br>
</p>
<p><font size="+1">The increase corresponds with a rising level of
public debate since the United States withdrew from the Kyoto
Protocol, some of the groups said. After President Bush
rejected the protocol, a treaty requiring nations to limit
emissions of heat-trapping gases, many corporations shifted
their attention to Washington, where the debate has centered
on proposals for domestic curbs on the emissions.<br>
<br>
''Firefighters' budgets go up when fires go up,'' said Fred L.
Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron
Ebell, an analyst from the institute, spoke at last year's
Exxon shareholders' meeting, where he criticized a renewable
energy resolution proposed by a group of shareholders.<br>
<br>
Exxon's backing of third-party groups is a marked contrast to
its more public role in the Global Climate Coalition, an
industry group formed in 1989 to challenge the science around
global warming. The group eventually disbanded when oil and
auto companies started to withdraw. As companies were left to
walk their own path, Exxon shifted money toward independent
policy groups.<br>
<br>
''Now it's come down to a few of these groups to be the good
foot soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,''
said Kert Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which
has tried to organize an international boycott of Exxon.<br>
<br>
Exxon's publicly disclosed documents reveal that donations to
many of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent
from 2000 to 2002. And money to the American Legislative
Exchange Council, a conservative group that works with state
legislators, has almost tripled, as the policy debate has
moved to the state level.<br>
<br>
The gifts are minuscule compared with the $100 million,
10-year scientific grant to Stanford, which is establishing a
research center that will focus on technologies that could
provide energy without adding to greenhouse gases linked by
scientists to global warming. Nevertheless, the donations in
the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars are
significant for groups with budgets ranging from $700,000 to
$4 million.<br>
<br>
Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the
debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much
of the industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward
the reality of global warming. As Exxon has become isolated
from its peers, it has faced increasing pressure from
shareholders and environmentalists. BP, Shell and
ChevronTexaco have developed strategies that incorporate
renewable energy, carbon trading and emissions reductions.<br>
<br>
Among the initiatives that Exxon's money has helped is the
Center for Science and Public Policy. The two-month-old center
is a one-man operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill
on two issues: global warming and the health effects of
mercury.<br>
<br>
''We don't lobby, we educate,'' said Bob Ferguson, head of the
center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican
Congressional staff member. ''We try to be nonpolitical and
nonpartisan and nonideological.''<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="+1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html</a>
<br>
</font></p>
<p><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>