<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>August 7, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Our Children's Trust]<br>
<b>Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youth Plaintiffs, </b><b>Affirms
Case Can Proceed to Trial</b><br>
Aug 5, 2021 | News Release<br>
<br>
Sixteen youth plaintiffs who are suing the state of Montana for
violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful
environment secured a critical victory Wednesday after Judge Kathy
Seeley denied the state’s attempt to prevent their case, Held v.
State of Montana, from proceeding to trial.<br>
<br>
Judge Seeley, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the
constitutionality of Montana’s fossil fuel energy policies,
recognized that the youth plaintiffs are experiencing significant
impacts from the climate crisis, including economic, cultural,
physical, and mental health injuries. She also ruled that the
plaintiffs can sue the state over its aggressive expansion of the
fossil fuel industry, a substantial contributor to the climate
crisis.<br>
<br>
During a February hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss the case,
plaintiffs’ co-counsel Roger Sullivan of McGarvey Law in Kalispell
noted that “Montana is the carbon capital of the country” and
described the state’s “statutory double-headed hydra, which on the
one hand explicitly promotes increasing development and utilization
of our massive coal resources, oil, and gas, and on the other hand,
facilitates defendants’ willful blindness to Montana’s contribution
to the climate crisis in violation of Montana’s constitution.”...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases">https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases</a><br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/westernlaw/status/1423367309922488325">https://twitter.com/westernlaw/status/1423367309922488325</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[record breaking records]<br>
<b>Dixie Fire becomes largest single wildfire in California history</b><br>
COLBY BERMEL 08/06/202<br>
The Dixie Fire burning in two Northern California counties is now
the largest single wildfire in recorded state history, exploding in
size overnight as drought-stricken lands continue to fuel the
flames.<br>
<br>
The fire, which has burned for 23 days and forced mass evacuations,
razed the Gold Rush town of Greenville on Thursday, destroying 91
buildings and damaging five others. Smoke from the blaze has blown
to lower parts of Northern California, including the state capital
of Sacramento where the air quality index on Friday reached
"unhealthy" levels...<br>
- -<br>
Warm temperatures, low humidity and high winds continuing to
challenge firefighters working to extinguish the blaze. The Butte
County and Plumas County DAs are probing PG&E over the Dixie
Fire, although Cal Fire has not yet officially announced the blaze's
cause.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/08/06/dixie-fire-becomes-largest-single-wildfire-in-california-history-1389651">https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/08/06/dixie-fire-becomes-largest-single-wildfire-in-california-history-1389651</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Easy activism - call your Senator (202)-318-1885]<br>
<b>It’s Never Been Easier to Call Your Senators and Demand Climate
Action</b><br>
Call4Climate provides a super easy way to call your elected
representatives and demand clean energy, a Civilian Conservation
Corps, and more.<br>
Dharna Noor - Aug 6, 2021...<br>
Call4Climate was launched last month by Leah Stokes, an energy
researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, along
with Duncan Meisel and Jamie Henn, co-founders of the Clean
Creatives campaign.<br>
- -<br>
To that end, the three created a dial-in number—(202)-318-1885 if
you want to put it on your speed dial—that people can use to easily
hit up their senators. Once you call the number, a voice asks you to
punch in your zip code. When you do, it reminds you to make four
demands for a bold climate bill. Those demands include a Clean
Electricity Standard that puts the country on a path to 100% clean
power by 2035, ensuring 40% of green funding goes to frontline
communities, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and creating a Civilian
Climate Corps. Those demands are explained in detail on
Call4Climate’s website, which also has a script if you’re not ready
to adlib the demands. Then, it patches you through to your senators’
office lines so you can bring them the message yourself.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gizmodo.com/it-s-never-been-easier-to-call-your-senators-and-demand-1847431940">https://gizmodo.com/it-s-never-been-easier-to-call-your-senators-and-demand-1847431940</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[Try their script]<br>
<b>What to say when you call: (202)-318-1885</b><br>
Hi, my name is [YOUR NAME], I am one of the Senator’s constituents
living in [YOUR CITY/TOWN, STATE]. I wanted to ask the Senator to
support a big, bold climate bill, that invests at the scale of the
crisis, including the following 4 things:<br>
<blockquote><b>A Clean Electricity Standard that cuts pollution and
modernizes our grid.</b><br>
<br>
<b>Directing 40% of funding to frontline communities.</b><br>
<br>
<b>No more subsidies for fossil fuel corporations.</b><br>
<br>
<b>A Civilian Climate Corps that puts people to work.</b><br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://call4climate.com/">https://call4climate.com/</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[self-labels as an alarmist]<br>
<b>David Wallace-Wells On 2021's 'Off The Charts' Climate
Emergencies</b><br>
Jul 23, 2021<br>
The Climate Pod<br>
#davidwallacewells #adaptation #climatecrisis #weatheremergency
#heatwaves<br>
<br>
David Wallace-Wells joins the show to talk about his new piece "How
To Live In A Climate 'Permanent Emergency.'" He discusses how this
year's unprecedented climate catastrophes should shape adaptation
measures, how his thinking has changed since the publishing of The
Uninhabitable Earth, what he thought about the recent leaked IPCC
report, and what he hopes global leaders will do to address climate
change at the upcoming COP26 and beyond.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVKhCf85IZE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVKhCf85IZE</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[Wildfire mapping site]<br>
<b>ALERTWildfire is a consortium of The University of Nevada, Reno,
University of California San Diego, and the University of Oregon
providing fire cameras and tools to help firefighters and first
responders:</b><br>
<blockquote>Discover, locate, and confirm fire ignition.<br>
Quickly scale fire resources up or down.<br>
Monitor fire behavior during containment.<br>
Help evacuations through enhanced situational
awareness. <br>
Observe contained fires for flare-ups.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://beta.alertwildfire.org/">http://beta.alertwildfire.org/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Scientists]<br>
Risky Climate<br>
<b>This Is Why Even Scientists Underestimate Climate Change</b><br>
Climate science and economics are inherently conservative, and that
may be a factor in Monday's highly-anticipated report from the
UN-backed IPCC.<br>
By Gernot Wagner - - August 6, 2021<br>
Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a
global group backed by the United Nations, have spent the past two
weeks in meetings to ready their latest assessment of the physical
science underpinning past, present, and future climate change.
Expect the IPCC to paint a sobering picture of what is to come. The
steep costs of such a world are all too apparent, but tallying them
is harder still.<br>
<br>
That latter bit is the bread and butter of climate economics:
accounting for climate damages in dollars and cents. The Holy Grail
is translating those numbers into how much each ton of CO₂ costs
society and, thus, should cost those doing the polluting. It’s
important but thankless—more like boring accounting than
cutting-edge economics.<br>
<br>
Seeing how it takes years to assess the latest science, with 234
authors from all over the world working through more than 14,000
studies, adding economics on top of that implies an even greater lag
between the latest observed climatic changes and a full accounting
of their impacts. <br>
<br>
“I think it’s now clear that economists have underestimated the
costs of climate change,” says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science
at Harvard University. By now there are plenty of broadsides against
climate economics: the discipline has “failed us,” the awarding of
the first-ever Nobel in climate economics may have done “more harm
than good,” and even calls for economics to undergo “a climate
revolution.” The discipline does need change, and I should know: I’m
a climate economist quoted in one of those broadsides and the
co-author of another. Yes, many of these critiques are
self-reflective, coming from within.<br>
<br>
Criticizing, of course, is easy. Pinpointing the specific reasons
for why economists have traditionally underestimated climate costs,
and then improving on those shortcomings, is much harder.<br>
<br>
One reason—and speaking from my own experience—is the objective
difficulty in tallying costs. Doing so “bottom-up,” one heatwave or
hurricane at a time, is a punishing undertaking. That has led
climate economists to make often heroic assumptions that allow them
to estimate climate damages “top-down” with guesstimates of how
climate damages affect the economy. That’s how we calculate total
economic damages for each degree of global average warming.<br>
<br>
No surprise, such an exercise misses a lot of detail. It’s not yet
clear, though, that this top-down process would necessarily lead to
underestimates. Perhaps climate economics, as a discipline, has
coalesced around progressively more aggressive assumptions that end
up overestimating climate costs?<br>
<br>
To glean some more insights into this question, I went back to
Oreskes’s book, Why Trust Science?. The book focuses on the physical
climate science and the inherent “conservatism” of the discipline. I
also checked in with her about climate economics specifically.<br>
<br>
Oreskes sees parallels between the natural and social sciences.
“This may be, in part, another instance of what my colleagues and I
documented in physical climate science: the tendency to
underestimate the rate and magnitude of climate change that we
called ‘erring on the side of least drama,’” she wrote in an email
exchange this week. Oreskes sees that tendency as very much part of
scientists’ DNA: “The scientific conception of rationality as
sitting in opposition to emotion, leads many scientists to feel that
it is important for them to be ‘sober,’ dispassionate, unemotional,
and ‘conservative.’ This often leads them to be uncomfortable with
dramatic findings, even when they are true.”...<br>
- -<br>
Climate economics may have two other factors at play. One Oreskes
discussed in an op-ed she co-authored with Lord Nicholas Stern:
climate effects are likely to be cascading, and economists may be
lacking the tools to specifically deal with these cascading effects.
Economists are wont of compartmentalizing. Tackling one problem at a
time has its clear advantages, but as I have argued (with the
European Climate Foundation’s Tom Brookes), “marginal thinking is
inadequate for an all-consuming problem touching every aspect of
society.”<br>
- -<br>
Of course not every number generated by climate economists, or every
policy pronouncement, will be conservative. But it’s important to
recognize the inherent delays and biases of the scientific
enterprise as a whole. The same reasons why we can trust climate
science overall leads to IPCC reports being inherently conservative
in their overall assessment—and why climate economics has straggled
behind in its policy recommendations.<br>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-06/why-even-scientists-underestimate-climate-change">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-06/why-even-scientists-underestimate-climate-change</a></p>
<p>- -</p>
[and then there is plenty of misdirection and misinformation]<br>
<b>Oil and Gas Inundated Facebook With Election Season Ads After
Biden Released Climate Plan</b><br>
ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute were top spenders in
a $9.6 million election-year fossil fuel marketing blitz targeting
U.S. Facebook users.<br>
Oil and Gas Inundated Facebook With Election Season Ads After Biden
Released Climate Plan<br>
Sharon Kelly - - Aug 5, 2021<br>
Ads promoting fossil fuels reached Facebook users in the U.S. at
least 431 million times in 2020, a new analysis by watchdog
organization InfluenceMap finds, with the bulk arriving after the
release of then-candidate Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan and
in the lead up to the presidential election. Ads specifically
focused on marketing fossil fuels as clean, green, or part of a
climate change “solution” were viewed more than 122 million times by
Facebook users in the U.S., the report finds.<br>
<br>
The 25 oil and gas companies and advocacy groups covered in the
report paid Facebook a total of $9.6 million to share the ads with
social media users...<br>
- -<br>
Facebook Feeds Flooded with Pre-Election Oil Ads<br>
The vast majority of the oil and gas industry’s ads were paid for
between July and November 2020, InfluenceMap found, adding that
there appeared to be a sharp uptick immediately after Biden released
his sweeping climate plan last July.<br>
- -<br>
‘More Nuanced Messaging’<br>
The themes in the Facebook ads reflect the increasing sophistication
of the oil and gas industry’s efforts to promote burning fossil
fuels and delay the transition to renewable energy despite the
escalating climate crisis, the report found.<br>
<br>
“This research reveals the latest iteration of the oil and gas
industry’s playbook on climate change,” Faye Holder, an InfluenceMap
program manager, said. “Rather than outright climate change denial,
the industry is deploying more nuanced messaging including the idea
that it is part of the solution to the climate crisis.”...<br>
- -<br>
“Some of the most significant tactics found included tying the use
of oil and gas to maintaining a high quality of life, promoting
fossil gas as green, and publicizing the voluntary actions taken by
the industry on climate change,” the report concludes.<br>
<br>
That’s all on top of ads that actively promoted outright climate
denial in 2020, which a previous InfluenceMap report found Facebook
users saw at least 8 million times during the first half of 2020.<br>
<br>
“The research also shows the industry is using social media
strategically,” InfluenceMap concluded, “and deploying its ads at
key political moments.”<br>
<br>
InfluenceMap’s findings drew a scathing response from Democratic
Rep. Ro Khanna, chairman of the Environment Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Oversight and Reform, CNN reports.<br>
<br>
“For decades, fossil fuel companies have misled the public, to
regulators, and to Congress about the true danger posed by their
products,” Khanna said in a statement to CNN Business, noting that
his committee intends to ask fossil fuel CEOs to testify before the
Congressional subcommittee soon. “This report proves our knowledge
that the industry’s disinformation campaign is alive and well.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/08/05/oil-gas-facebook-election-ads-biden-climate/">https://www.desmog.com/2021/08/05/oil-gas-facebook-election-ads-biden-climate/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[a chilling thought]<br>
<b>Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream
collapse</b><br>
A shutdown would have devastating global impacts and must not be
allowed to happen, researchers say<br>
Thu 5 Aug 2021 <br>
Climate scientists have detected warning signs of the collapse of
the Gulf Stream, one of the planet’s main potential tipping points.<br>
<br>
The research found “an almost complete loss of stability over the
last century” of the currents that researchers call the Atlantic
meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). The currents are already
at their slowest point in at least 1,600 years, but the new analysis
shows they may be nearing a shutdown...<br>
- -<br>
David Thornalley, at University College London in the UK, whose work
showed the AMOC is at its weakest point in 1,600 years, said: “These
signs of decreasing stability are concerning. But we still don’t
know if a collapse will occur, or how close we might be to it.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[research]<br>
<b>RAPID AMOC</b><br>
monitoring the Atlantic overturning circulation<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://rapid.ac.uk/">https://rapid.ac.uk/</a>
<p>- -</p>
[WAPO]<br>
<b>A critical ocean system may be heading for collapse due to
climate change, study finds</b><br>
‘The consequences of a collapse would likely be far-reaching’...<br>
- -<br>
If the circulation shuts down, it could bring extreme cold to Europe
and parts of North America, raise sea levels along the U.S. East
Coast and disrupt seasonal monsoons that provide water to much of
the world...<br>
- -<br>
If the AMOC does completely shut down, the change would be
irreversible in human lifetimes, Boers said. The “bi-stable” nature
of the phenomenon means it will find new equilibrium in its “off”
state. Turning it back on would require a shift in the climate far
greater than the changes that triggered the shutdown.<br>
<br>
“It’s one of those events that should not happen, and we should try
all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as
possible,” Boers said. “This is a system we don’t want to mess
with.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/05/change-ocean-collapse-atlantic-meridional/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/05/change-ocean-collapse-atlantic-meridional/</a>
<p>- -</p>
[OK this is the real question]<br>
<b>How Worried Should You Be About a Key Atlantic Current
Collapsing?</b><br>
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation could be at risk.
But don't freak out quite yet. (About it, anyways. Climate change is
still a nightmare.)<br>
ByBrian Kahn and Molly Taft - Aug 6, 2021<br>
- -<br>
The AMOC is so important, in fact, that its wellbeing is considered
a key climate “tipping point.” Scientists have been keeping an eye
on the AMOC because, worryingly, it appears that climate change is
having an unwelcome impact. The Greenland ice sheet is melting,
resulting in a large pool of cold freshwater in the North Atlantic
that essentially acts as a roadblock to the current...<br>
That’s what makes this new study so troubling. Previous studies of
the AMOC have largely relied on data from the past few decades. The
new study analyzes historic temperature and salinity data stretching
back to the 19th century as well as the more recent data and climate
models. Together, they all suggest that the AMOC is losing strength
and is more susceptible to major changes that could knock it off its
course...<br>
So... what’s the takeaway for regular people here? Do we need to
prepare for the ocean’s conveyor belt to suddenly stop and change
weather as we know it within our lifetimes? Will Dennis Quaid
shepherd us all into the New York Public Library to save us from a
monster wave of storm surge?<br>
<br>
The paper crucially includes no prediction for when the AMOC could
go awry, but it does suggest that the current is losing strength to
resist any major changes. According to the latest climate models, an
AMOC collapse by 2100 is pretty unlikely—not impossible, but it’s
probably not going to happen.<br>
<br>
“Yes, a collapse could happen during our lifetime, but it is
impossible to give a probability because our models are not good
enough to trust their future projections in a quantitative sense,”
Sybren Drijfhout, an oceanographer at University of Southampton and
affiliated with the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute who
has studied the AMOC, said in an email. He also noted that “both
previous media reports and, to a lesser extent the manuscript
itself, tend to make too strong claims and tend to neglect various
reservations that should have been made.”<br>
<br>
Among the issues he noted were that the paper looks at
“fingerprints” of the AMOC and not the circulation itself,
fingerprints that could be reflecting changes to other parts of the
climate system such as the North Atlantic Oscillation. He added
that, while the signals the paper looks at seem to line up with AMOC
collapse, they don’t necessarily “PREDICT such a collapse.”<br>
<br>
What’s more, the prospect of crossing this AMOC “tipping point”
threshold isn’t as dire as reaching other tipping points, because
slowing the ocean’s circulatory system takes place over decades, not
years. In other words, even if we pass the first point of no return,
there’s theoretically time to fix it by getting temperatures under
control before it completely collapses. Other recent research shows
the planet would have to warm upwards roughly 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit
(4 degrees Celsius) for the AMOC to cross the tipping point
threshold, but it could theoretically come back.<br>
<br>
“If we were to cross the AMOC tipping point threshold, then there is
still the possibility with fast climate mitigation that a complete
collapse could still be prevented,” Paul Ritchie, a postdoc at the
University of Exeter who studies tipping points and led that other
research, said in an email. With that in mind, there are other more
pressing climate matters that can occupy our anxious minds.<br>
<br>
Ritchie said that he’s more worried about reaching crisis points in
other systems that “work on much faster timescales.” Another paper
put out last year shows that some key ecosystems we rely on, like
the Amazon, could collapse suddenly in the coming decades if we
continue to push them too hard via the climate crisis and
deforestation.<br>
<br>
“Some tipping elements work on much faster timescales, such as
monsoons and the Amazon rainforest, which may be decades or only
years, and for these faster tipping elements there is less chance to
prevent the irreversible change once over the threshold,” Ritchie
said. “So, I’m possibly more concerned about crossing a fast-onset
tipping threshold, such as the Amazon rainforest, as there would be
little chance to prevent large-scale dieback (which would amplify
global warming further) if we were to cross that particular
threshold.”<br>
<br>
But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be at least think about what
happens if the AMOC were to collapse. Drijfhout said the new study
is a “very interesting and societally disturbing paper with an
important message that cries out for further research to corroborate
these yet preliminary results.”<br>
<br>
“The consequences of a collapse would be significant, and therefore
we should still be worried about it, even if the probability might
be low,” Ritchie said. “I see it similar to the chances of a house
fire: the probability is very low, but we still install smoke
detectors to keep us safe.”<br>
<br>
Frankly, when it comes to our present climate, the alarms are
already ringing pretty loudly. We don’t need any more warnings to
know that fossil fuel use must be wound down.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gizmodo.com/how-worried-should-you-be-about-a-key-atlantic-current-1847438406">https://gizmodo.com/how-worried-should-you-be-about-a-key-atlantic-current-1847438406</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[collected video skits -- humor with a message]<br>
<b>Full Frontal Rewind: Climate Change</b><br>
Aug 4, 2021<br>
<br>
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee<br>
1.04M subscribers<br>
<br>
You’re not imagining things: it’s getting hotter. Cool down with our
best pieces from the show about climate change and what we can do
about it before Denver has a beach.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIokiycQmZg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIokiycQmZg</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
August 7, 2009</b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports: "Ten moderate Senate Democrats from
states dependent on coal and manufacturing sent a letter to
President Obama on Thursday saying they would not support any
climate change bill that did not protect American industries from
competition from countries that did not impose similar restraints
on climate-altering gases."</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The 10 senators were Evan Bayh of Indiana; Sherrod Brown of
Ohio; Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV of West
Virginia; Bob Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Russ
Feingold of Wisconsin; Al Franken of Minnesota; and Carl Levin
and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/politics/07climate.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/politics/07climate.html</a><br>
<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>