<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>July 23, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[The New Republic - difficult opnion]<br>
<b>The Left Is the Only Reason We’re Talking About Climate Change at
All</b><br>
Kate Aronoff - -July 22, 2021<br>
It’s become fashionable to suggest climate activists are too hard on
Joe Biden. Being hard on Joe Biden is what got climate spending into
the infrastructure package...<br>
- -<br>
The average age of a House member is 58. The average senator is 62.
Statistically speaking, they will be dead by the time shit really
hits the fan in the United States and probably still insulated from
its worst effects if they’re alive: Over half of members of Congress
are millionaires.<br>
<br>
The brutal fact is that, since James E. Hansen’s pivotal testimony
before Congress on the “greenhouse effect” in 1988, no strategy to
pass comprehensive climate policy in the U.S. has been successful;
every “win” activists have managed to eke out so far should be put
in that context. Every rhetorical commitment from Democrats to pass
climate legislation is so far just that: rhetorical. Even the $3.5
trillion worth of overall infrastructure spending now on the
table—itself already a gross compromise with physics—may not pass.
The climate left is pushing to make sure it does. The full range of
policies needed for the U.S. to play its part in zeroing out global
carbon emissions by 2050—what’s really needed—are not politically
possible right now.<br>
<br>
The role of social movements is to make things that look impossible
seem possible. In recent years, the climate left has done just that.
There’s no guarantee it’ll be able to do it again.<br>
<br>
Left to their own devices, though, neither Congress nor the White
House can be trusted to pass climate policy. They certainly won’t
pass anything that meets the scale of the challenge head-on, which
requires a radical shift away from the fossil fuels that have built
industrial capitalism. Many, many thousands of people need to join
the fight and put more pressure on congressional inertia. Who knows
whether they will, or if it’ll work. But no one should be telling
the handful of people who’ve dragged politicians this far to keep
quiet.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://newrepublic.com/article/163026/sunrise-ocasio-cortez-infrastructure-climate">https://newrepublic.com/article/163026/sunrise-ocasio-cortez-infrastructure-climate</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Yale Climate Communications]<br>
<b>Extreme rainfall in China: over 25 inches falls in 24 hours,
leaving 33 dead</b><br>
Zhengzhou received more than a year’s worth of rain on July 20.<br>
JEFF MASTERS - - JULY 22, 2021<br>
At least 33 people are dead and 8 missing in Zhengzhou, China, after
a July 20 extreme rainfall event of nearly unimaginable intensity.
Zhengzhou, a megacity of more than 10 million – and the world’s
biggest manufacturing base for iPhones and a major hub for food
production and heavy industry – recorded an astonishing 644.6 mm
(25.38 inches) of rain in the 24 hours ending at 21Z July 20. This
is literally more than a year’s worth of rain: Its average annual
precipitation (1981-2010 climatology) is only 640.9 mm (25.24
inches)...<br>
- -<br>
According to meteorologist Minghao Zhou, a Ph.D. student at SUNY
Albany, the city’s maximum one-hour rainfall rate between 8 and 9Z
July 20 (4-5 p.m. local time) was a staggering 201.9 mm/hr (7.95
inches/hr). This amount shattered China’s national record for
highest one-hour rainfall of 168.3 mm/hr (6.63 inches/hr) for all
2,418 national weather stations in mainland China, previously set at
Maoming, Guangdong...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/extreme-rainfall-in-china-over-25-inches-falls-in-24-hours-leaving-33-dead/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/extreme-rainfall-in-china-over-25-inches-falls-in-24-hours-leaving-33-dead/</a>
<p>- -</p>
[Must we move to above-ground transportation?]<br>
<b>Climate Crisis Turns World’s Subways Into Flood Zones</b><br>
Swift, deadly flooding in China this week inundated a network that
wasn’t even a decade old, highlighting the risks faced by cities
globally.<br>
<br>
By Hiroko Tabuchi and John Schwartz - - July 22, 2021<br>
Terrified passengers trapped in flooded subway cars in Zhengzhou,
China. Water cascading down stairways into the London Underground. A
woman wading through murky, waist-deep water to reach a New York
City subway platform.<br>
<br>
Subway systems around the world are struggling to adapt to an era of
extreme weather brought on by climate change. Their designs, many
based on the expectations of another era, are being overwhelmed, and
investment in upgrades could be squeezed by a drop in ridership
brought on by the pandemic.<br>
<br>
“It’s scary,” said Sarah Kaufman, associate director of the Rudin
Center for Transportation at New York University. “The challenge is,
how can we get ready for the next storm, which was supposed to be
100 years away,” she said, “but could happen tomorrow?”<br>
<br>
Public transportation plays a critical role in reducing travel by
car in big cities, thus reining in the emissions from automobiles
that contribute to global warming. If commuters become spooked by
images of inundated stations and start shunning subways for private
cars, transportation experts say it could have major implications
for urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions...<br>
- -<br>
Some experts question why public transportation needs to be
underground in the first place and say that public transit should
reclaim the street. Street-level light rail, bus systems and bicycle
lanes aren’t just less exposed to flooding, they are also cheaper to
build and easier to access, said Bernardo Baranda Sepúlveda, a
Mexico City-based researcher at the Institute for Transport
Development, a transportation nonprofit.<br>
<br>
“We have this inertia from the last century to give so much of the
available space above ground to cars,” he said. “But one bus lane
carries more people than three lanes of cars.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/climate/subway-design-flooding-china.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/climate/subway-design-flooding-china.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Turn to the science]<br>
<b>What to Expect from the Next Major Global Climate Report</b><br>
Next month the IPCC will begin releasing its periodic assessment of
the state of climate science<br>
By Sara Schonhardt, E&E News on July 22, 2021<br>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed the world’s
attention in 2018 when it released a sobering report that warned—in
no uncertain terms—world leaders needed to take drastic and
immediate steps to blunt the most catastrophic impacts of global
warming.<br>
<br>
Policymakers responded with a range of emotion, from denial to
outrage. But the message was clear. “It’s like a deafening, piercing
smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” Erik Solheim, executive
director of the United Nations Environment Programme, told The
Washington Post at the time...<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-expect-from-the-next-major-global-climate-report/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-expect-from-the-next-major-global-climate-report/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[practice, practice, practice]<br>
Liza Featherstone/July 22, 2021<br>
<b>How to Live in a Burning World Without Losing Your Mind</b><br>
The emotional burden of climate change can be overwhelming alongside
the grief and frustration of our own lives.<br>
It was the middle of June, and my mother had just died.<br>
<br>
“It’s 112 degrees in Seattle,” someone told me.<br>
<br>
“Fuck you,” I recall responding. “My mother just died. I can’t take
this shit.”<br>
<br>
It wasn’t the first time I had resented the ever-present nature of
the climate threat. At the height of the Covid-19 spike in New York
City last year, sirens blaring from every direction, locked down at
home, hearing news of friends or acquaintances passing and bracing
for more, I avoided climate news. I envied the conservatives their
denial.<br>
<br>
The front page of the paper this week brings reports of floods in
Germany, with hundreds of people still missing and at least 164
dead; the lush vineyards of the Napa Valley parched with drought;
forest fires in Siberia. (Siberia!) And what the hell is a “fire
tornado”? As my teenage son headed out to spend the next 10 hours
playing baseball outside in the New York City summer heat, I read
that the smoke from the fires in the West had drifted east, adding
to our urban haze.<br>
<br>
I’m in no condition to receive this news. I can’t tolerate more
worry, death, sickness, sadness, or pain—more mothers and
grandmothers dying, and maybe even less bearably, children.<br>
<br>
I’m not alone.<br>
<br>
We are in the middle of another wave of horrific climate news, but
many of us are too traumatized to pay attention. The more loss and
horror we’re facing in the rest of our lives—whether from the
coronavirus and opioid pandemics, economic upheaval, or the ordinary
awfulness of cancer and death—the less equipped we are to take it
in. Meanwhile, as a nation we are at a crucial political juncture.
Our country is no longer run exclusively by right-wing climate
denialists, but the Biden administration needs pressure to act. We
must somehow make room in our minds for a burning world if we are to
save it.<br>
<br>
We must somehow make room in our minds for a burning world if we are
to save it.<br>
Environmental activists have a word for our inability to engage with
climate change: apathy. But as psychologist Renée Lertzman, an
environmental consultant and a senior research fellow at Portland
State University, argued in a 2010 lecture, the word in this context
is “a misnomer, misleading, patronizing, destructive.” (It’s a
testament to the unfortunate marginality of psychoanalysis in public
life that it took so long for anyone to challenge the assumption
that we would have no feelings on such an important matter.) Rather,
she argued, disengagement from the climate issue is far more
complicated than that, hiding fear, helplessness, and distress—all
of which may be unconscious.<br>
<br>
When Lertzman interviewed residents of Green Bay, Wisconsin, who
lived near a Superfund site and considered themselves disengaged
with environmental issues, she found not apathy but instead “a
surplus of affect. Once they started talking, they couldn’t stop.”
She found that her subjects were overwhelmed by the climate crisis.
They were also conflicted: Like most of us, the people she
interviewed wanted to save the planet, but they also wanted cheap
flights and air conditioning. They were mired in guilt over their
own destructive desires and actions, a classic psychoanalytic
conundrum. They also spoke with premature nostalgia about the
natural environment around them; rather than actively visiting,
loving, and working to protect the beaches and waterways of their
childhoods, they were in mourning for them, as if these places were
already gone.<br>
<br>
What looked like apathy, then, was a defensive reaction against pain
and distress. Eric Bichard, professor of sustainable development at
Salford University, remarked at the time that the revelation of
Lertzman’s research was that environmentalists had misunderstood
disengagement: The problem wasn’t that people cared too little about
the environment, but “that they care too much.”<br>
<br>
This has important implications for how we approach climate
information. Bombarding people with information that will shock and
alarm might be productive if people really didn’t care. But since
many of us are instead busily repressing big feelings of sorrow and
terror about global warming, this doomsaying approach just activates
our defenses. We tune out.<br>
<br>
Lertzman tested her subjects’ reaction to a 2006 poster that warned
people in big letters that, if we don’t take action, “No More Great
Lakes.” She found that people tend to tune out messages like this to
protect themselves from distress. That’s consistent with findings
from other studies. Yet such appeals are still common: This summer,
a full-page print ad for the Center for Biological Diversity on the
back of the Nation’s July-August issue (the magazine’s audience is
hardly unaware of climate change) confronts us with a
serious-looking jaguar, his face half in shadow. It reads,
“Extinction is Forever.” I feel sad and turn away. I can’t think
about this right now.<br>
<br>
“We already know a lot about what the conditions are now that
promote healing and working through trauma,” Lertzman told The
Guardian last fall. “It’s just that, for the most part, we haven’t
applied that to a climate trauma context.” It’s instinctive, she
said, for our brains to shut out information—even our own
experiences, like fire, unseasonable heat, or bad air quality—that’s
overwhelming or disturbing. “Frankly,” she said, by fixating on
sharing our information and our sense of urgency, “what a lot of us
are doing unintentionally is simply retraumatizing each other over
and over again.”<br>
<br>
The way out of this confusion is neither feel-good solutionism nor
submitting to the apocalypse. Instead, we need to learn to make
space, in our conversations, activism, and media, for feeling grief,
anxiety, guilt, and fear about climate change, no matter how
difficult or dark. Where many of us rush into the role of town
crier—a Paul Revere shouting out warnings—we may be better off, to
use Lertzman’s framing, becoming a guide, helping those around us
work through difficult emotions and figure out how they can take
action.<br>
<br>
I’m not always as sad and avoidant as I am right now. Sometimes I’m
sure that we humans can solve this problem. But that attitude isn’t
always helpful, either. Positivity can be just as tone deaf as
relentless doom-saying, say trauma experts, if it denies us the
space for sadness, hopelessness, and despair—emotions we need to
acknowledge, work through, and become resilient enough to face.<br>
<br>
I’m beginning to realize that my can-do spirit can be just as
alienating and annoying to people as the doom-and-gloom of the No
More Great Lakes campaigners. Several years ago, when our apartment
building signed up for the city’s municipal composting program, a
neighbor asked me how it worked. I began to explain.<br>
<br>
Composting is so beautiful to me that I’m sometimes in danger of
becoming a bore on the subject. (I’ve been known to take a photo of
the lemon peel in the coffee grounds and post it to Instagram.)
Plus, I’m a journalist: I assume that what people need from me is
information. As I prattled on—compost is not too stinky, you can put
it out in the brown bin frequently, or you can get a little bucket
with a filter—my neighbor sighed. “It’s so hard,” she mused, looking
troubled. “No, no, it’s actually pretty easy!” I hastened to
reassure her, offering still more practical tips.<br>
<br>
I’m learning from Renée Lertzman’s work that I should listen more
and talk less. My neighbor was probably not saying that composting
was hard in a practical sense, like living off the grid, or
traveling by boat rather than by plane (as Greta Thunberg famously
does). She meant that changing her habits, thinking more about her
garbage, taking in the overwhelming scary reality of the climate
threat, and having feelings about it is hard. She might have sensed
that in the context of global petrocapitalism, her individual
composting efforts wouldn’t make much difference, and felt helpless.
Or maybe she was waking up to her own climate impact as a
middle-class consumer in a rich country and felt overburdened by
responsibility and guilt. Maybe she wanted to talk about all of
that, but unfortunately, I shut her down with my perky,
mission-driven practicality.<br>
<br>
“Yes,” I should have said, “it is hard.” Because it is.<br>
<br>
Liza Featherstone @lfeatherz<br>
Liza Featherstone is the author of Divining Desire: Focus Groups and
the Culture of Consultation (2018).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://newrepublic.com/article/163021/climate-change-grief">https://newrepublic.com/article/163021/climate-change-grief</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[video talk over graphics of West Coast Fires]<br>
<b>Update and Forecast for Dixie Fire, Bootleg Fire, and Tamarack
Fire</b><br>
Jul 21, 2021<br>
<br>
Holt Hanley Weather<br>
The Dixie Fire, Bootleg Fire, and Tamarack Fire all continue to burn
in the West. The most active behavior right now appears to be over
the Dixie Fire, which has grown to 85,000 acres. The Bootleg Fire
has officially combined with the Log Fire and stands at 395,000
acres, although we have seen reduced spread rates in the last 24
hours. The Tamarack Fire has officially crossed the state line into
Nevada, and continues to see tricky conditions with gusty winds and
exceptionally dry fuels.<br>
Throughout this video, we'll look at all the important updates, as
well as the fire weather forecast to predict how all these wildfires
may change in the coming days.<br>
You can subscribe to stay updated on all major wildfires throughout
the 2021 season.<br>
I hope this video was helpful, and thanks for watching.<br>
<br>
Update and Forecast for Dixie Fire, Bootleg Fire, Tamarack Fire, and
other Western Wildfires - Chapters:<br>
0:00 = Overview of Dixie Fire, Bootleg Fire, and Tamarack Fire<br>
2:12 = Dixie Fire Update/Forecast<br>
18:21 = Bootleg Fire Update/Forecast<br>
24:10 = Tamarack Fire Update/Forecast<br>
32:28 = Why are the fuels so dry?<br>
34:29 = Summary of Western Wildfires <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgM6UPoTF7I">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgM6UPoTF7I</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[it was 4 decades ago now]<br>
JULY 23, 2019<br>
<b>The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted
climate change</b><br>
Forty years ago, a group of climate scientists sat down at Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts for the first
meeting of the "Ad Hoc Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate". It led
to the preparation of what became known as the Charney Report—the
first comprehensive assessment of global climate change due to
carbon dioxide.<br>
<br>
It doesn't sound as impressive as landing on the Moon, and there
certainly weren't millions waiting with bated breath for the
deliberations of the meeting.<br>
<br>
But the Charney Report is an exemplar of good science, and the
success of its predictions over the past 40 years has firmly
established the science of global warming.<br>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html">https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html</a></p>
<p>- -</p>
<p> the last line of the report concludes:</p>
<blockquote>If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed
doubled and remains so long enough for the atmosphere<br>
and the intermediate layers of the ocean to attain approximate
thermal equilibrium,<br>
our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the
order<br>
of 3° C will occur and that these will be accompanied by
significant changes in<br>
regional climatic patterns. <br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf">https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[Seems like The Economist just read that 1979 report and today
agrees on 3 degrees]<br>
<b>Three degrees of global warming is quite plausible and truly
disastrous</b><br>
Rapid emission cuts can reduce the risks but not eliminate them<br>
A 3°C world is thus both a pretty likely outcome if nothing more
gets done and the worst that might still happen even if things go
very well indeed. That makes it worth looking at in some detail, and
the result is alarming. Those modelling climate impacts have long
argued that they do not increase linearly. The further you go from
the pre-industrial, the steeper the rate at which damages climb. And
as what was rare becomes common the never-before-seen comes knocking
(see chart 2). Judging by the results of specific studies, the
differences between 2°C and 3°C are, in most respects, far starker
than those between 1.5°C and 2°C...<br>
- -<br>
The limits to adaptation apply to nature, too. Animal and plant
species adapt to warming climates by shifting to cooler ones where
possible. Already fish are on the move, some species edging away
from tropical waters to temperate, others from the temperate to the
chilly. Land animals unable to trek to higher latitudes can, if they
live in hilly places, find respite at nearby higher altitudes
instead. But these strategies only work up to a point: mountains
have peaks, and the Earth has poles.<br>
<br>
And it only works for species and ecosystems that are able to move
faster than the climate warms. Coral reefs do not have that
facility. They are predicted to disappear completely in a 3°C world
(their boiled, bleached fate is worsened by the fact that higher
carbon-dioxide levels make seawater too acidic for them). Some such
failures to adapt make the world hotter still. The Amazon
rainforest, already weakened by logging and burning, would be very
unlikely to survive in such a world. In its passing it would release
further gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
The Amazon will not disappear overnight. Even if emissions go
largely unchecked from now on, a 3°C future looms only in the second
half of the century, not the first. But the longer it takes to cut
emissions, the more avoiding 3°C becomes something only achievable
through the application of untested and in some cases troubling
technologies designed either to suck carbon from the atmosphere in
vast amounts or to throw some of the sun’s warming rays back into
space. Humanity would find itself wedged between a geoengineered
rock and a very hot place. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/07/24/three-degrees-of-global-warming-is-quite-plausible-and-truly-disastrous">https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/07/24/three-degrees-of-global-warming-is-quite-plausible-and-truly-disastrous</a><br>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
[from the IPCC]<br>
<b>AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014</b><br>
The Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
provides an overview of the state of knowledge concerning the
science of climate change, emphasizing new results since the
publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/</a><br>
- -<br>
<b>AR6 SYR will be finalized in September 2022.</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/</a><br>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
[Simple video]<br>
<b>Why reducing our carbon emissions matters (a little story about
climate change)</b><br>
Jun 12, 2017<br>
The Conversation<br>
While it's true that Earth's temperatures and carbon dioxide levels
have always fluctuated, the reality is that humans' greenhouse
emissions since the industrial revolution have put us in uncharted
territory.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rivf479bW8Q">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rivf479bW8Q</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Video Stephen Colbert]<br>
<b>Climate: Changed - Is The Sun God Angry At Us?</b><br>
Jul 22, 2021<br>
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert<br>
8.58M subscribers<br>
In the last month alone, we've seen frightening climate
change-fueled weather events including ice quakes, fire tornadoes
and heat domes, and that's just in North America. Stephen Colbert
takes a sobering look at how the world is reacting to this new
normal of frequent extreme weather events. #Colbert #Comedy
#ClimateChange<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I_K63hOgzk&t=70">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I_K63hOgzk&t=70</a><br>
"Red Sun in the sky, we're all gonna die"<br>
<p>- -</p>
[video explantion ]<br>
<b>How Climate Change boosts Killer Heatwaves</b><br>
Jul 22, 2021<br>
ClimateAdam<br>
Climate change is making extreme heat - like the recent Pacific
heatwave - more common and more intense. This extreme weather has
huge effects on human health, and as the global warming continues,
temperatures will continue to become more deadly. In fact, some
parts of the world may have even - temporarily - crossed the 35°C
wet bulb temperature threshold - conditions that our bodies simply
can't handle.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXN2UxV3ePw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXN2UxV3ePw</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[common sense change]<br>
</p>
<div><b>Maine passes nation’s first law to make big companies pay
for the cost of recycling their packaging - After a
quarter-century, a Boston-based nonprofit scores big win with
nation’s first law making companies pay to recycle the waste
they produce</b> - <a
href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/19/business/maine-move-make-big-companies-pay-all-their-packaging/">https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/19/business/maine-move-make-big-companies-pay-all-their-packaging/</a></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><i>moves the responsibility from the public to the producer
of the packaging</i> ....</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the US
discarded 82.2 million tons of containers and packaging in 2018,
which accounts for nearly one-third of all municipal solid waste
that ends up in our trash and recycling bins. Since 2018, when
China stopped buying US recyclables, finding a place for all
that waste has become an increasingly costly endeavor.<br>
There’s a massive climate impact, too. Because it’s often
cheaper for companies to create more packaging than use recycled
products, the production of every new bag, box, bottle, or jug
releases more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/19/business/maine-move-make-big-companies-pay-all-their-packaging/">https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/19/business/maine-move-make-big-companies-pay-all-their-packaging/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<p>[The news archive - looking back - about the Charney Report]</p>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming July
23, 1979</b></font><br>
<p>July 23, 1979: The National Academy of Sciences begins work on a
groundbreaking report regarding the risks of carbon pollution. The
report makes it clear that the consequences of a warming world
will be severe.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20150820002948/http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf">http://web.archive.org/web/20150820002948/http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf</a>
[This is a superb and important document. Succinct. Although it
was captured in a format that makes copying difficult, it is
likely available elsewhere] - look for the Charney Report 1979 -
All versions I have seen are difficult to copy<br>
</p>
<p><strike><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/XB3S0fnOr0M">http://youtu.be/XB3S0fnOr0M</a></strike> video unavailable<br>
This video contains content from Warner Bros. Entertainment, who
has blocked it on copyright grounds.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain 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" moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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>