<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 30, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Flooding in China is dramatic - and hidden]<br>
<b>Central China: Millions of villagers abandon homes/3 dams
collapsed in 48 hours/Why severe floods ?</b><br>
Jul 28, 2021<br>
China Insights<br>
Recently, as heavy rains continue to fall in the province, local
governments in China have quietly opened reservoirs or dug up dikes
to release floodwater, resulting in severe flooding in many areas.
The hardest-hit areas have also moved from Zhengzhou, the capital
city of Henan Province, to its northern part. <br>
Villagers told overseas Chinese media that the local Chinese
government opened the dams of the reservoirs to the downstream
rivers, the Qihe and Weihe rivers, to release the floodwaters. <br>
It has resulted in the dams in the downstream city of Weihui either
breaching, collapsing, or being officially dug up, thus leading to
significant flooding in the local townships. <br>
Why do officials insist on opening the reservoir to release water
when they know it will pose a great danger to the local people or
downstream without issuing a safety warning in advance?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlEXGijThFQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlEXGijThFQ</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[Over the years, I have seen his excellent video journalism]<br>
<b>Chinese Government Scared - Flood Truth Exposed</b><br>
Jul 29, 2021<br>
laowhy86<br>
The flooding in Zhengzhou China is exposing something very wrong
with the Chinese government, and they are not happy about it. The
coverup is showing the cracks in the foundation of the CCP. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxmKcdrpHB4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxmKcdrpHB4</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[opinion in the Guardian - I say, by 3PM this afternoon]<br>
<b>How many years until we must act on climate? Zero, say these
climate thinkers</b><br>
Wed 28 Jul 2021<br>
Jennifer Francis , Michael Mann , Holly Jean Buck and Peter Kalmus<br>
We asked a panelist of experts on when we need to start changing our
economies and ways of consuming and producing. Their answer: now<br>
<b>Peter Kalmus: ‘Zero years’</b><br>
We have zero years before climate and ecological breakdown, because
it’s already here. We have zero years left to procrastinate. The
longer we wait to act, the worse the floods, fires, droughts,
famines and heatwaves will get.<br>
<br>
The primary cause of these catastrophes is burning fossil fuel.
Therefore, we must shut down the fossil fuel industry as quickly as
we can. Fossil fuel subsidies must end today. New fracking wells,
pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure can no longer be
built; that we continue on this path is collective insanity. Fossil
fuel must be capped and rationed, and diverted to necessities as we
transition to a zero-carbon civilization. If we fail, the planet
will continue to heat up, creeping past 1.5C, then 2C, then 3C of
global heating as we keep squandering precious time. With every
fraction of a degree, the floods and fires and heat will get worse.
Coastal cities will be abandoned. Ocean currents will shift. Crops
will fail. Ecosystems will collapse. Hundreds of millions will flee
regions with humid heat too high for the human body. Geopolitics
will break down. No place will be safe. These disasters are like gut
punches to our civilization.<br>
<br>
There are tipping points lurking in our future, but it’s impossible
to know when they will be triggered. What’s certain is that every
day we fail to act brings us closer. Some, like the loss of the
Amazon rainforest, may already have been passed.<br>
<br>
Peter Kalmus is a climate scientist at Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Lab. He
is the author of Being the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate
Revolution<br>
<b>Jennifer Francis: ‘We cannot wait’</b><br>
We need to immediately stop subsidizing all aspects of the fossil
fuel industry. According to this report, the fossil fuel industry
received $66bn in 2016, while renewables (excluding nuclear) only
received $9.5bn. We should instead use those billions of subsidy
dollars to ramp up the renewable energy industry: generation (wind,
solar, nuclear), distribution (smarter grid), storage and electric
transportation.<br>
<br>
If we do not succeed in changing our destructive behavior, the
increasing trends in extreme weather, sea levels, government
destabilization and human misery will continue and worsen.<br>
<br>
Extreme heatwaves, drought, wildfires and flooding events like those
we’ve seen in recent summers will become commonplace. Many coastal
cities and communities around the globe will be increasingly
inundated by high tides and storm surges. Longer, more intense
droughts will destroy cropland and force agricultural communities to
uproot their families in search of a better life. The devastation of
coral reefs around the world will worsen, wiping out fisheries that
provide staple protein for millions of people. All of these impacts
are happening now. If we don’t act fast, many communities, cultures
and species will cease to exist.<br>
<br>
Jennifer Francis is senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate
Research Center<br>
<b>Michael Mann: ‘Strictly speaking, zero’</b><br>
How many years do we have to act? Strictly speaking, zero – which is
to say, that we must act, in earnest, now. We have a decade within
which we must halve global carbon emissions. As I argue in The New
Climate War, this requires dramatic systemic change: no new fossil
fuel infrastructure, massive subsidies for renewables, carbon
pricing and deploying other policy tools to accelerate the clean
energy transition already under way.<br>
<br>
We are seeing unprecedented public awareness, renewed leadership
from the US and diplomatic progress with China, the other of the
world’s two largest carbon polluters. There is reason for cautious
optimism that we can rise to the challenge. But there is much work
to do, and precious little time now to do it. We must now choose
between two paths as we face our future. One leads to massive
suffering and collapse of our civilizational infrastructure. The
other leads to a prosperous future for us, our children and
grandchildren. But it requires that we leave fossil fuels behind.
The choice is ours.<br>
<br>
Michael E Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science and
director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State
University. He is author of the recent book, The New Climate War:
The Fight to Take Back our Planet<br>
<b>Holly Jean Buck: ‘We need action now’</b><br>
We need to ramp up action now in order to transform all of our major
systems by 2050: energy, transportation, industry, agriculture,
waste management. We’ll need to eat less meat, farm in ways that
store more carbon in the soils, reforest degraded or abandoned land
and restore wetlands.<br>
<br>
We need to force companies to outfit cement plants and other
industrial facilities with carbon capture technologies. When it
comes to energy, we need to electrify everything. This means
replacing gas-fired heating systems with an electric heat pump in
your home and swapping out gas-fired stoves. It means inventing new
types of energy storage for those times when the wind isn’t blowing
and the sun isn’t shining, and getting used to responding to the
grid – for example, turning down your air conditioning when the
power company says there isn’t enough power (or letting them control
your thermostat).<br>
<br>
It means shutting down fossil fuel power plants and ramping up wind,
solar, geothermal and probably nuclear, as well as building new
transmission lines. Our targets should be 60% renewable electricity
by 2030, and 90% by 2050. This means tripling renewable
installations by 2030, or installing the equivalent of the world’s
largest solar farm every day. If those power lines and solar panels
look like they are industrializing the landscape, just think about
the less visible but deadly costs of the old infrastructure. Fossil
fuel combustion was responsible for 8.7m deaths in 2018.<br>
<br>
Fossil fuels need to be phased out around the globe. What will
people in those industries do? We will need entire new industries in
hydrogen and carbon management, industries that turn captured carbon
dioxide into fuels and other products as well as store it
underground. We can’t just let fossil fuel companies pivot to
becoming petrochemical companies, and find ourselves awash in more
plastic. We can recycle, use products made from carbon, and innovate
new bioproducts. It’s not just an energy transition, it’s a
materials transition.<br>
<br>
And it needs to be global. If we don’t succeed in transitioning away
from fossil fuels globally, we could face an uneven world where a
few rich countries congratulate themselves for going green, and a
few oil producer nations are supplying the rest of the world with
dirty fuel, which they use because they don’t have alternatives. In
that world, greenhouse gas concentrations keep rising. Climate
change exacerbates the risk of war and conflict. It’s hard to
measure or model this for exact quantitative projections, but it’s a
serious concern. Phasing out fossil fuels, and supporting other
countries in exiting fossil fuels, is the best bet for a peaceful
future.<br>
<br>
Holly Jean Buck is assistant professor of environment and
sustainability at the University at Buffalo. She is the author of
After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/28/climate-crisis-zero-fossil-fuels-environment">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/28/climate-crisis-zero-fossil-fuels-environment</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[WAPO Opinion]<br>
<b>Opinion: People are dying because of Republican hostility to
science</b><br>
Max Boot - Columnist - July 28. 2012<br>
If you want to know why the United States is in such big trouble,
look at the findings of a new Gallup poll. The percentage of
Republicans expressing a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence
in science has plummeted from 72 percent in 1975 to just 45 percent
today. (By contrast, the number of Democrats with confidence in
science has grown from 67 percent to 79 percent.)...<br>
- -<br>
The Republican rejection of science makes it extremely difficult,
verging on impossible, to deal with two of the biggest crises we
currently face: global warming and the coronavirus pandemic.<br>
<br>
Evidence of global warming’s calamitous consequences is growing
daily. As my Post colleagues noted on Saturday: “Massive floods
deluged Central Europe, Nigeria, Uganda and India in recent days,
killing hundreds. June’s scorching temperatures, followed by a
fast-moving wildfire, erased a Canadian town. More than a million
people are close to starvation amid Madagascar’s worst drought in
decades. In Siberia, tens of thousands of square miles of forest are
ablaze, potentially unleashing carbon stored in the frozen ground
below.”...<br>
- - <br>
How many more people have to die from global warming and covid-19
before Republicans realize the deadly consequences of their
hostility to science? Alas, the GOP might have gone too far down the
rabbit hole to return to the land of fact and reason.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/28/people-are-dying-because-republican-hostility-science/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/28/people-are-dying-because-republican-hostility-science/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Me thinks Chevron doth deny too much ]<br>
<b>Marianne Williamson: Steven Donziger Found GUILTY After DRACONIAN
Treatment, Chevron RESPONDS</b><br>
Jul 27, 2021<br>
The Hill<br>
Marianne Williamson, former Democratic presidential candidate,
reacts to Steven Donziger being found guilty of contempt. <br>
About Rising: <br>
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks
the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of
Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day's
political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can
predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day's political
agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven
reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country's
most important political newsmakers. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInq2G0hxdM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInq2G0hxdM</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Play the 4 min video] - why the drumbeat sound track ? I dont need
that]<br>
<b>Climate crisis: what one month of extreme weather looks like –
video</b><br>
In the last month, devastating weather extremes have hit regions
across the world. From flash floods in Belgium to deadly
temperatures in the US, from wildfires in Siberia to landslides in
India, it has been an unprecedented period of chaotic weather.
Climate scientists have long predicted that human-caused climate
disruption would lead to more flooding, heatwaves, droughts, storms
and other forms of extreme weather, but even they have been shocked
by the scale of these scenes<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2021/jul/29/climate-crisis-what-one-month-of-extreme-weather-looks-like-video">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2021/jul/29/climate-crisis-what-one-month-of-extreme-weather-looks-like-video</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Harvard study]<br>
<b>Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought</b><br>
Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people
worldwide in 2018<br>
By Leah Burrows |February 9, 2021<br>
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution,
significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to
new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the
University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University
College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate
matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total
global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br>
<br>
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air
pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East
Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study
published in the journal Environmental Research.<br>
<br>
The study greatly increases estimates of the numbers killed by air
pollution. The most recent Global Burden of Disease Study, the
largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global
mortality, put the total number of global deaths from all outdoor
airborne particulate matter — including dust and smoke from
wildfires and agricultural burns — at 4.2 million. <br>
<br>
The findings underscore the detrimental impact of fossil fuels on
global health....<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought">https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[what are you sayin]<br>
<b>Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one
person, study finds</b><br>
The analysis draws on public health studies that conclude that for
every 4,434 metric tons of CO2 produced, one person globally will
die<br>
The lifestyles of around three average Americans will create enough
planet-heating emissions to kill one person, and the emissions from
a single coal-fired power plant is likely to result in more than 900
deaths, according to the first analysis to calculate the mortal cost
of carbon emissions.<br>
<br>
The new research builds upon what is known as the “social cost of
carbon”, a monetary figure placed upon the damage caused by each ton
of carbon dioxide emissions, by assigning an expected death toll
from the emissions that cause the climate crisis...<br>
- -<br>
The figures for expected deaths from the release of emissions aren’t
definitive and may well be “a vast underestimate” as they only
account for heat-related mortality rather than deaths from flooding,
storms, crop failures and other impacts that flow from the climate
crisis, according to Daniel Bressler of Columbia University’s Earth
Institute, who wrote the paper.<br>
Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels is also directly
killing people, with a landmark Harvard University study published
in February finding that more than 8 million globally are dying each
year from the health effects of toxic air.<br>
<br>
“There are a significant number of lives that can be saved if you
pursue climate policies that are more aggressive than the business
as usual scenario,” Bressler said. “I was surprised at how large the
number of deaths are. There is some uncertainty over this, the
number could be lower but it could also be a lot higher.”..<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/29/carbon-emissions-americans-social-cost">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/29/carbon-emissions-americans-social-cost</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[new publication]<br>
<b>New report on the UN Security Council’s work on climate security
published</b><br>
This is a cross-post from the Planetary Security Initiative<br>
In the past 18 months, the emergence of climate security as a
mainstreamed and core risk for national governments and IGOs has
accelerated. In particular, the UN Security Council (UNSC) is
becoming more cognizant of climate change being a core security risk
that should be under the remit of the organ and subsequently
integrated into peacekeeping considerations and mission deployments.<br>
<br>
A new report just published by “Security Council Report” is a first
comprehensive analysis on the centrality and action of the UNSC,
commissioned by the member states of the ‘Group of Friends on
Climate and Security’. It seems to fill the void of no official UNSC
report existing yet on the topic. The overarching message is that
the issue is becoming increasingly talked about and embedded within
the UN, but that disagreements over climate change’s impacts on
security and whether it should be dealt with by a security organ
persist. The Security Council itself has seen 2 debates hosted on
climate security in 2020 and 2021 respectively and the establishment
of an Informal Expert Group to push for greater focus on the UNSC
attention on climate security. <br>
<br>
More widely, the report praises the integration of climate security
within the wider UN architecture. Examples such as the assignment of
specific climate security advisors to UN missions in the Sahel and
Somalia, the growth of the Climate Security Mechanism and precise
reference to the role of climate change in worsening security in
mandate extensions for UN missions in Cyprus and Iraq are all seen
as indicators of progress being made faster in the UN at large
compared to the Council.<br>
<br>
Indeed, the report has a high amount of self-criticality by openly
discussing the headwinds and reasons why climate security is not
more entrenched at a Council level. The issue is not around the
recognition of climate change, but its impact on security. Several
states consider climate change above all a civilian issue and they
fear domination by the security sector, once it receives a mandate.
By officially recognising climate security as a risk, the Security
Council may be empowered to prosecute or levy sanctions at states
deemed to be contributing more to climate change for example. This
is why Russia and China, some of the largest emitters, are sensitive
to any changes in recognition and thus act as conscious objectors to
the growing movement. Finally, there are divisions between states
regarding the scientific or empirical link between climate security
and worsening security situations. The criticisms seem to be driven
by the ‘Group of Friends’ disagreements with Russia, China and India
on their positions on the links between climate and security. <br>
<br>
Moving forward, the report recognizes the seismic nature of an
American shift in position, with US President Joe Biden’s 180 degree
policy reversal from Donald Trump has seen the US taking a lead in
embedding climate security into the UNSC focus. This has helped push
more climate change language to be considered in mission extensions
in Haiti, Afghanistan and the Central African Republic. More funding
is expected to be given to embedding environmental peace-building
and climate security experts across UN missions in Africa as well as
further political lobbying to formalize climate security into the
UNSC’s risk matrix and subsequent purview.For more on climate
security and the UNSC, check out the Planetary Security Initiative’s
latest report on the topic here, and the Center for Climate and
Security’s previous blog posts here and here.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climateandsecurity.org/2021/07/new-report-on-the-un-security-councils-work-on-climate-security-published/">https://climateandsecurity.org/2021/07/new-report-on-the-un-security-councils-work-on-climate-security-published/</a><br>
- -<br>
[monthly report]<br>
<b>In Hindsight: The UN Security Council and Climate Change </b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2021-07/in-hindsight-the-un-security-council-and-climate-change.php">https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2021-07/in-hindsight-the-un-security-council-and-climate-change.php</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[positive]<br>
<b>Katharine Wilkinson | What Could Possibly Go Right?</b><br>
Jul 27, 2021<br>
Post Carbon Institute<br>
#50 Katharine Wilkinson: Making Our Hearts Public in Climate
Conversation<br>
<br>
Listen on your favorite podcast app: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://link.chtbl.com/wcpgr">https://link.chtbl.com/wcpgr</a><br>
<br>
Dr. Katharine Wilkinson is an author, strategist, teacher, and
co-host of the podcast, A Matter of Degrees. Dr. Wilkinson
co-founded and leads The All We Can Save Project with Dr. Ayana
Elizabeth Johnson, in support of women leading on climate. Her books
on climate include the bestselling anthology All We Can Save (2020,
co-editor), The Drawdown Review (2020, editor-in-chief and lead
writer), the New York Times bestseller Drawdown (2017, lead writer),
and Between God & Green (2012).<br>
<br>
She addresses the question of “What Could Possibly Go Right?” with
thoughts including:<br>
<br>
- The acknowledgment of how much has been and will be lost in our
current systems, but still showing up for the work of what we can
save in “this hard and magnificent moment”<br>
<br>
- That “at our very best, we as human beings are active and
generative collaborators with lifeforce... in these relationships of
reciprocity and almost play with the planet's living systems.”<br>
<br>
- The “different kind of leadership that women are bringing in
droves on climate”<br>
<br>
- That dialog about solutions is often about scale and speed; yet,
we would benefit from considering solutions at depth with
“heart-centered wisdom” and love as a powerful leverage point<br>
<br>
- The value of “making our hearts public”, bringing feelings and
stories into climate conversation <br>
<br>
- That what could go right is “in the onslaught of the quest for
power and profit and prestige, that maybe these things could
actually be replaced with care and courage and connection and
community and creativity.”<br>
<br>
Resources<br>
- The All We Can Save Project: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.allwecansave.earth">www.allwecansave.earth</a> <br>
- Book: All We Can Save edited by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and
Katharine K. Wilkinson <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.allwecansave.earth/anthology">www.allwecansave.earth/anthology</a> <br>
- Podcast: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.degreespod.com">www.degreespod.com</a> <br>
- Marge Piercy poem ‘To Be Of Use’ from Circles on the Water <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ypOjbqzGk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ypOjbqzGk</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Heat]<br>
<b>‘Record-shattering’ heat becoming much more likely, says climate
study</b><br>
More heatwaves even worse than those seen recently in north-west of
America forecast in research...<br>
- -<br>
Preparing for such unprecedented extremes was vital, said the
scientists, because they could cause thousands of premature deaths,
and measures taken to adapt to date had often been based only on
previous heat records.<br>
<br>
Scientists already know that heatwaves of the kind mostly seen today
will become more common as the climate crisis unfolds. But heatwaves
are usually analysed by comparing them with the past, which means
the vast majority are only marginally hotter than before. This can
give a false sense of a gradual rise in record temperatures...<br>
- -<br>
The new computing modelling study instead looked for the first time
at the highest margins by which week-long heatwave records could be
broken in future.<br>
<br>
It found that heatwaves that smash previous records by roughly 5C
would become two to seven times more likely in the next three
decades and three to 21 times more likely from 2051–2080, unless
carbon emissions are immediately slashed. Such extreme heatwaves are
all but impossible without global heating.<br>
<br>
The vulnerability of North America, Europe and China was striking,
said Erich Fischer, at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, who led the
research. “Here we see the largest jumps in record-shattering
events. This is really quite worrying,” he added.<br>
<br>
“Many places have by far not seen anything close to what’s possible,
even in present-day conditions, because only looking at the past
record is really dangerous.”...<br>
The study also showed that record-shattering events could come in
sharp bursts, rather than gradually becoming more frequent. “That is
really concerning,” Fischer said: “Planning for heatwaves that get
0.1C more intense every two or three years would still be very
worrying, but it would be much easier to prepare for.”<br>
<br>
Prof Michael Mann, at Pennsylvania State University in the US and
not part of the new research, said: “This study underscores
something that has been apparent in the record weather extremes
we’ve seen this summer: dangerous climate change is here, and it’s
now simply a matter of how dangerous we are willing to let it get.”
Mann’s own research published in May showed a possible doubling of
heat stress in the US by 2100.<br>
<br>
But he said: “If anything, this latest study, and our own, are
underestimating the potential for deadly heat extremes in the
future, in the absence of significant climate action.” That is
because current climate models do not capture the slow-moving and
very persistent nature of the extreme weather phenomena seen in the
Pacific north-west heatwave and German floods recently...<br>
The new research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change,
concluded: “Record-shattering extremes are [currently] very rare but
their expected probability increases rapidly in the coming three
decades.”<br>
<br>
It found the rate of global heating was critical in increasing the
risk, rather than simply the global temperature reached. This
indicates that sharp cuts in emissions are needed as soon as
possible, rather than emissions continuing and being sucked back out
of the atmosphere at a later date...<br>
- -<br>
“The good news is that we can prevent the worst case shown in this
study,” she said. If emissions start falling immediately and
rapidly, the study showed, the risk of record-shattering extremes is
cut by about 80%. “With Cop26 looming, we must hope that
policymakers use evidence like this to show the need for global
emissions reductions,” Thompson said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/26/record-shattering-heat-becoming-much-more-likely-says-climate-study">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/26/record-shattering-heat-becoming-much-more-likely-says-climate-study</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<p>[From the Journal Nature]<br>
</p>
<p><b>Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes</b><br>
E. M. Fischer, S. Sippel & R. Knutti <br>
Nature Climate Change (2021)Cite this article<br>
Abstract<br>
Recent climate extremes have broken long-standing records by large
margins. Such extremes unprecedented in the observational period
often have substantial impacts due to a tendency to adapt to the
highest intensities, and no higher, experienced during a lifetime.
Here, we show models project not only more intense extremes but
also events that break previous records by much larger margins.
These record-shattering extremes, nearly impossible in the absence
of warming, are likely to occur in the coming decades. We
demonstrate that their probability of occurrence depends on
warming rate, rather than global warming level, and is thus
pathway-dependent. In high-emission scenarios, week-long heat
extremes that break records by three or more standard deviations
are two to seven times more probable in 2021–2050 and three to 21
times more probable in 2051–2080, compared to the last three
decades. In 2051–2080, such events are estimated to occur about
every 6–37 years somewhere in the northern midlatitudes.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01092-9">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01092-9</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Not very smart]<br>
<b>A Florida city wanted to move away from fossil fuels. The state
just made sure it couldn’t.</b><br>
The story behind Florida’s new laws that strip cities of their
ability to fight climate change.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://grist.org/cities/tampa-wanted-renewable-energy-resolution-florida-lawmakers-made-sure-it-couldnt-gas-ban-preemption/">https://grist.org/cities/tampa-wanted-renewable-energy-resolution-florida-lawmakers-made-sure-it-couldnt-gas-ban-preemption/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
[Snow falls, then surface melts]<br>
<b>High concentrations of 'forever' chemicals being released from
ice melt into the Arctic Ocean</b><br>
by Lancaster University--JULY 27, 2021</p>
<p>The research has shown these chemicals have traveled not by sea,
but through the atmosphere, where they accumulate in Arctic sea
ice. Because Arctic ice is melting more quickly than before, these
harmful chemicals are efficiently released into surrounding
seawater resulting in some very high concentrations.<br>
<br>
Lancaster's Dr. Jack Garnett and Professor Crispin Halsall along
with colleagues from HZG, Germany, have been investigating the
long range transport and deposition of PFAS to the Arctic as part
of EISPAC—a project jointly funded by UK's NERC and Germany's BMBF
as part of the Changing Arctic Ocean program.<br>
<br>
PFAS comprise of a very large number of chemicals that have myriad
uses, including processing aids in the manufacture of
fluoropolymers like Teflon, stain and water repellents in food
packaging, textiles and clothing, as well as use in firefighting
foams.<br>
<br>
One particular group of these chemicals—the perfluoroalkyl acids
(PFAAs) - are extremely stable and do not degrade in the
environment but can bioaccumulate and are known to be toxic to
humans and wildlife.<br>
<br>
PFAAs can enter the food chain due to their mobility in the
environment and protein-binding characteristics. The longer carbon
chain compounds of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) are generally associated with
liver damage in mammals, with developmental exposure to PFOA
adversely affecting fetal growth in humans and other mammals
alike.<br>
<br>
Dr. Jack Garnett discovered an unusual phenomenon whereby PFAAs
present in the atmosphere are deposited with snowfall onto the
surface of ice floes where they can eventually accumulate within
the sea ice. Jack made this observation while taking ice and water
samples as part of a scientific expedition under the Norwegian
Nansen Legacy project (arvenetternansen.com/).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2021-07-high-chemicals-ice-arctic-ocean.html">https://phys.org/news/2021-07-high-chemicals-ice-arctic-ocean.html</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[really old news that everybody knows anyway]<br>
<b>New Zealand rated best place to survive global societal collapse</b><br>
Study citing ‘perilous state’ of industrial civilisation ranks
temperate islands top for resilience<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/28/new-zealand-rated-best-place-to-survive-global-societal-collapse">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/28/new-zealand-rated-best-place-to-survive-global-societal-collapse</a><br>
- -<br>
[from 2018]<br>
Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in
New Zealand<br>
How an extreme libertarian tract predicting the collapse of liberal
democracies – written by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s father – inspired the
likes of Peter Thiel to buy up property across the Pacific<br>
<br>
by Mark O’Connell<br>
- -<br>
The Sovereign Individual’s co-authors are James Dale Davidson, a
private investor who specialises in advising the rich on how to
profit from economic catastrophe, and the late William Rees-Mogg,
long-serving editor of the Times. (One other notable aspect of Lord
Rees-Mogg’s varied legacy is his own son, the Conservative MP Jacob
Rees-Mogg – a hastily sketched caricature of an Old Etonian, who is
as beloved of Britain’s ultra-reactionary pro-Brexit right as he is
loathed by the left.)<br>
<br>
The Sovereign Individual book cover<br>
I was intrigued by Byrt’s description of the book as a kind of
master key to the relationship between New Zealand and the
techno-libertarians of Silicon Valley. Reluctant to enrich Davidson
or the Rees-Mogg estate any further, I bought a used edition online,
the musty pages of which were here and there smeared with the
desiccated snot of whatever nose-picking libertarian preceded me.<br>
<br>
It presents a bleak vista of a post-democratic future. Amid a
thicket of analogies to the medieval collapse of feudal power
structures, the book also managed, a decade before the invention of
bitcoin, to make some impressively accurate predictions about the
advent of online economies and cryptocurrencies.<br>
<br>
The book’s 400-odd pages of near-hysterical orotundity can roughly
be broken down into the following sequence of propositions:<br>
<br>
1) The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal
cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their
wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.<br>
<br>
2) The rise of the internet, and the advent of cryptocurrencies,
will make it impossible for governments to intervene in private
transactions and to tax incomes, thereby liberating individuals from
the political protection racket of democracy.<br>
<br>
3) The state will consequently become obsolete as a political
entity.<br>
<br>
4) Out of this wreckage will emerge a new global dispensation, in
which a “cognitive elite” will rise to power and influence, as a
class of sovereign individuals “commanding vastly greater resources”
who will no longer be subject to the power of nation-states and will
redesign governments to suit their ends.<br>
<br>
The Sovereign Individual is, in the most literal of senses, an
apocalyptic text.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand">https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand</a><br>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming July
30, 2010</b></font><br>
July 30, 2010: On MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," fill-in host
Chris Hayes and Mother Jones reporter Kate Sheppard discuss the coal
industry's role in killing climate-change legislation.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/sWlwmzgLzVc">http://youtu.be/sWlwmzgLzVc</a><br>
<br>
<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>