<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 31, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Beep, beep]<br>
<b>Traffic nightmare as Caldor Fire forces evacuation of South Lake
Tahoe</b><br>
Katie Dowd -- Aug. 30, 2021<br>
Traffic is gridlocked throughout most of South Lake Tahoe as the
city rushes to evacuate ahead of the raging Caldor Fire.<br>
Mandatory evacuation orders were imposed late Monday morning ahead
of a red flag warning for gusting winds that is expected to last
until 11 p.m. Wednesday. With highways 50, 88 and 89 all closed
below the Tahoe Basin, people are being funneled out of town toward
the Nevada state line. Anyone wishing to head toward Sacramento or
the Bay Area cannot do it directly via Highway 50; they must drive
north to connect up with I-80 near Truckee...<br>
Justin Sullivan, a photojournalist for Getty Images, said the line
of cars on Highway 50 hadn't moved in over 45 minutes, while a
photographer for the Press Democrat said he'd been stuck in gridlock
for over 90 minutes. About 20,000 people live in South Lake Tahoe...<br>
Traffic is backed up all the way down Lake Tahoe Boulevard up to
Stateline, Nev. Live cameras show an occasional Cal Fire truck or
ambulance headed in the mostly empty opposite direction; those
lanes, though enticing for stand-still drivers, are needed for
emergency traffic. Despite the conditions, Mercury News photographer
Karl Mondon said people were remaining patient. ..<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/traffic-highway-50-lake-tahoe-evacuation-roads-16423258.php">https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/traffic-highway-50-lake-tahoe-evacuation-roads-16423258.php</a>
<p>- -</p>
[See here]<br>
<b>Live cameras show Caldor Fire nearing South Lake Tahoe in real
time</b><br>
Andrew Chamings - Aug. 30, 2021<br>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/caldor-fire-cameras-wildfire-live-streams-news-16423035.php">https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/caldor-fire-cameras-wildfire-live-streams-news-16423035.php</a></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stZdaBB3l_k">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stZdaBB3l_k</a><br>
</p>
<p>- -</p>
[The one site to watch for live images from 50 camera views]<br>
<b>Alert Wildfire</b><br>
ALERTWildfire is a consortium of three universities -- The
University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), University of California San Diego
(UCSD), and the University of Oregon (UO) -- providing access to
state-of-the-art Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) fire cameras and associated
tools to help firefighters and first responders: (1)
discover/locate/confirm fire ignition, (2) quickly scale fire
resources up or down appropriately, (3) monitor fire behavior
through containment, (4) during firestorms, help evacuations through
enhanced situational awareness, and (5) ensure contained fires are
monitored appropriately through their demise.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.alertwildfire.org/tahoe/index.html?v=fd40740">http://www.alertwildfire.org/tahoe/index.html?v=fd40740</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[fire and hurricane]<br>
<b>Climate Crises Converge as Wildfire Burns West and Hurricane
Pummels South</b><br>
Sharon Zhang, Truthout - August 30, 2021<br>
Hurricane Ida made landfall in Southern Louisiana on Sunday as one
of the most powerful hurricanes to ever hit the U.S. It has knocked
out power to the hundreds of thousands of residents of New Orleans
and over 1 million in Louisiana and has caused at least one death so
far.<br>
<br>
Scientists say that the climate crisis has, without a doubt, made
Ida more intense as higher water temperatures offshore act as fuel
to a hurricane’s fire. Greenhouse gases resulting from human
activity have contributed to a rise in average water temperatures in
the Gulf of Mexico by 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 20th
century. The category 4 storm has so far blown entire roofs off
buildings, devastated the Louisiana town of Jean Lafitte, and
overwhelmed hospitals already filled with COVID patients.<br>
<br>
Ida’s storm surge was so strong as it made landfall that the
hurricane actually reversed the flow of the Mississippi River,
something that experts say is extremely rare. With the threat of
levee failure hanging over Louisiana, the hurricane, since
downgraded to a tropical storm, is headed into Mississippi.<br>
Though many residents evacuated the region before the storm, many
others, unable to evacuate, have been left behind. Some people
simply cannot afford the costs associated with seeking shelter out
of the storm or may not have reliable access to transportation out
of the area, such as a car. Other populations, such as incarcerated
people, have no choice either way.<br>
<br>
As Ida blasted through Louisiana, the climate crisis intensified
blazes across the country. Wildfire Caldor has engulfed hundreds of
homes in its wake as it has moved across eastern California in the
past two weeks. It now threatens Lake Tahoe, where residents on the
California side have been ordered to evacuate.<br>
<br>
The Caldor fire has been particularly hard to contain. Firefighters
have pushed back their estimated date for containment of the fire to
September 8. As the Caldor fire blazes on, the Dixie Fire, just 65
miles to the North, is well into its second month of burning. At
nearly 50 percent containment and with over 770,000 acres burned so
far, the Dixie Fire is the second-largest fire in California
history, beaten only by the August Complex fire from last year.<br>
<br>
California’s weather has become drier for longer periods over the
past decades as global warming and climate disruption have
lengthened the wildfire season and pushed winter rains further and
further back in the year. It has wreaked havoc on the state, where
six of the seven largest fires in the state, including the Dixie
Fire, have occurred over the past year or so.<br>
<br>
It’s unclear if all of these disasters were caused directly by the
climate crisis, but they were surely fueled by it. As climate
scientists warn of dire consequences if the world continues on its
current path, the western part of the U.S. has experienced record
heat waves, making July 2021 the hottest month in recorded history
on Earth.<br>
<br>
The converging climate disasters come as officials struggle to
contain the pandemic scouring the country and contend with massive
unrest in Afghanistan: Two crises that may seem unrelated but have
actually been exacerbated by the climate crisis. Climate change
helps spread infectious diseases, scientists have warned for years.
There’s evidence that air pollution, including that of burning
fossil fuels, has worsened COVID outcomes for frontline communities
living in areas that bear the brunt of increased air pollution.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taliban has exploited the economic
devastation and serious resource shortages brought on by the twin
effects of drought and flooding caused by climate change to
successfully overthrow the government that was propped up by the
U.S.<br>
<br>
Climate unrest has been on full display through this year and the
last. But nearly all of these problems exacerbate each other,
solidifying the so-called threat multiplier effect of the climate
crisis.<br>
<br>
California, for instance, cruelly forces incarcerated people to be
on the frontline of firefighting when the wildfire season rolls
around, paying them such absurdly low rates that it has been likened
to slavery. But, with so many prisons ravaged by the pandemic, the
state has had fewer incarcerated bodies to help fight the fires,
making it harder to contain the blazes as they rage on...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://truthout.org/articles/climate-crises-converge-as-wildfire-burns-west-and-hurricane-pummels-south/">https://truthout.org/articles/climate-crises-converge-as-wildfire-burns-west-and-hurricane-pummels-south/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[It's about time]<br>
<b>Biden Opens New Federal Office for Climate Change, Health and
Equity</b><br>
The office will be the first government effort to focus specifically
on the public health dangers of global warming.<br>
By Lisa Friedman -- Aug. 30, 2021<br>
WASHINGTON — Amid deadly heat waves and new evidence showing that
wildfire smoke may contribute to premature births, the Biden
administration is creating a new federal office to address the
health consequences of climate change and their disproportionate
effects on poor communities.<br>
<br>
The Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, which the
administration announced on Monday, will be the first federal
program aimed specifically at understanding how planet-warming
greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels also affect human
health. It will fall under the Department of Health and Human
Services.<br>
<br>
It’s an area that medical experts have urged the government to take
more seriously, and public health leaders said the new office was
long overdue.<br>
<br>
“The health of the American people is falling through the cracks
because there hasn’t been a targeted focus on climate risk,” said
Aaron Bernstein, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health
and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
Health. “This is the opportunity to plug that hole.”<br>
<br>
In 2009, scientists warned in the medical journal The Lancet that
global warming would harm crop yields, cause tropical diseases to
show up in new parts of the world and lead to water shortages. In
2020, the journal said those threats no longer belonged to the
distant future.<br>
<br>
“Climate change is fundamentally a health threat,” said Gina
McCarthy, the White House national climate change adviser. She said
part of the mission of the office would be to encourage doctors to
talk to their patients about protecting themselves from things like
heat waves, wildfire smoke and other air pollution.<br>
<br>
In particular, experts said, more needs to be done to understand how
extreme weather affects older people as well as communities of
color, where families are more likely to live in areas hardest hit
by disasters.<br>
<br>
“There’s a saying that if white people catch a cold, Black people
catch pneumonia,” said Beverly Malone, chief executive of the
National League for Nursing. “Health equity has a lot to do with
where you live, and we have understood the linkage.”<br>
<br>
President Biden has requested $3 million to fund the climate office
next year, a sum that still requires congressional approval. Those
setting up the office have been brought in from other agencies
drawing on existing funds. John Balbus, the senior adviser to the
director of the National Institutes of Health on climate change,
will serve as interim director.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/climate/biden-climate-change-health-equity.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/climate/biden-climate-change-health-equity.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Waters rising]<br>
<b>Extreme sea levels to become much more common</b><br>
AUGUST 30, 2021<br>
by University of Melbourne<br>
Global warming will cause extreme sea levels to occur almost every
year by the end of the century, impacting major coastlines
worldwide, according to new research from an international team of
scientists.<br>
Published today in Nature Climate Change, the research predicts that
because of rising temperatures, extreme sea levels along coastlines
across the world will become 100 times more frequent by the end of
the century in about half of the 7,283 locations studied.<br>
<br>
Co-author of the study, University of Melbourne's Dr Ebru Kirezci,
an ocean engineering researcher said areas where frequency of
extreme sea levels are expected to increase faster include the
Southern Hemisphere and subtropic areas, the Mediterranean Sea and
the Arabian Peninsula, the southern half of North America's Pacific
Coast, and areas including Hawaii, the Caribbean, the Philippines
and Indonesia.<br>
<br>
"What we can also infer from this study, is that most of the
eastern, southern and southwestern coastlines of Australia will be
the impacted with almost an annual frequency of these extreme sea
levels by 2100," Dr Kirezci said.<br>
<br>
"This increased frequency of extreme sea levels will occur even with
a global temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius. And the
changes are likely to come sooner than the end of the century, with
many locations experiencing a 100-fold increase in extreme events
even by 2070."<br>
<br>
Lead author of the study, climate scientist at the US Department of
Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Dr Claudia Tebaldi
said it was no surprise that sea level rise will be dramatic even at
1.5 degrees and will have substantial effects on extreme sea level
frequencies and magnitude.<br>
<br>
"This study gives a more complete picture around the globe. We were
able to look at a wider range of warming levels in very fine spatial
detail," Dr Tebaldi said.<br>
<br>
The researchers called for more detailed studies to understand how
the changes will impact communities within different countries. They
added that the physical changes that the study describes will have
varying impacts at local scales, depending on several factors,
including how vulnerable the site is to rising waters and how
prepared a community is for change.<br>
<br>
"Public policy makers should take note of these studies and work
towards improving coastal protection and mitigation measures.
Building dykes and sea walls, retreating from shorelines, and
deploying early warning systems are some of the steps which can be
taken to adapt to this change," Dr Kirezci said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2021-08-extreme-sea-common.html">https://phys.org/news/2021-08-extreme-sea-common.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Wake up or not, you may not want to read this]<br>
<b>You’re Not Going to Homestead Through Collapse</b><br>
No matter how self-sufficient you become<br>
Shelly Fagan -- Aug 20, 2021<br>
People who criticize billionaires for foolishly building underground
bunkers believe they can survive the impending doom of climate
change by hunkering down on a homestead.<br>
Both groups are attempting to escape the realities of collapse. It’s
a race that most humans will likely lose. It’s now a question of
whether the species can survive extinction.<br>
On one hand the survivalists (rightfully) poo-poo plans for
colonizing Mars as too difficult on a “dead planet” while
simultaneously clinging to the belief that for all their beans and
bullets, gardens and wells —the hoarded supplies of a prepper will
see them through the sixth mass extinction on a dying Earth. It’s
the poor-man’s version of an Elysium space station.<br>
The cognitive dissonance must physically hurt.<br>
And let’s admit what no one is saying out loud. The carefully made
plans for some sort of Neo-Thoreau lifestyle is more about surviving
the collapse of civilization in relative safety and comfort than
reducing a carbon footprint — the same attitude that put us in this
predicament in the first place.<br>
Here are just a few of the reasons this fantasy won’t work.<br>
6 Million US Workers Are on Strike<br>
The silent labor movement no one is talking about<br>
shellyfaganaz.medium.com<br>
<br>
Collapse will be everywhere but not all at once.<br>
The central idea of catabolic collapse is that human societies
pretty consistently tend to produce more stuff than they can afford
to maintain. . . .Sooner or later you run into the limits of growth;
at that point the costs of keeping wealth flowing in from your
empire or your oil fields begin a ragged but unstoppable increase,
while the return on that investment begins an equally ragged and
equally unstoppable decline; the gap between your maintenance needs
and available resources spins out of control, until your society no
longer has enough resources on hand even to provide for its own
survival, and it goes under. That’s catabolic collapse. — John
Michael Greer, originally published by The Archdruid Report<br>
Planet Earth is a closed economic system. Sure, some places might
fare better than others, and only for awhile, but there will be no
Garden of Eden on 40 acres in Missouri. Moving to New Zealand won’t
save you. No place will remain untouched because it not just about
climate, weather events, social systems, or politics.<br>
It’s everything.<br>
We are a global network of systems — made up of individuals — all
interconnected and fragile because humans may be resilient, but they
are not immortal. This means a problem on the other side of the
planet will eventually reach you, and it carries with it the seeds
of your potential decline. Wildfires on another continent produce
choking smoke. A novel virus stops all air travel. Terrorism in one
region spills over to another. It’s coming for you.<br>
So losing factories in China to fire (up 150% this year) means a
massive disruption in the supply chain. That results in supply
shortages of semiconductor chips, plastics, cardboard (up 638%)
which affects numerous products. The same chip shortage which drives
up the costs of cars and trucks, also affects things like heating
systems, cell phones, and a total of 169 different industries.<br>
You can’t escape it. And unless you are so self-sufficient that you
never need to replace equipment, buy a new phone, visit a doctor,
take prescription medication — and the countless other necessities
of modern life, you will be affected. Yes, even on a homestead.<br>
If you manage to wrest yourself from modern civilization (however
doubtful), and things look promising for now, it probably won’t be
in ten years when climate collapse comes for everyone.<br>
You’re stuck here and this is a global problem. You can’t escape it.<br>
You can’t prepare for something unknown.<br>
Traditional prepping focuses on the most common disasters for any
given region.<br>
If you live in the South, you prepare for hurricanes. In the
Midwest, you dig a root cellar to escape tornadoes. If you live in
the Southwest, you build homes with flat white roofs to reflect
sunlight.<br>
The problem with climate change is that “change” part. That means we
may have tornadoes in the South, flooding in the Southwest, or heat
domes in the Pacific Northwest. Maybe your area cycles through
disasters. Likely, these new events will be novel for the region.
And no one can predict how it will play out other than the loss of
plants and wildlife not acclimated to such weather extremes.<br>
While models can estimate sea level rise, researchers can’t forecast
how catastrophic weather will manifest. Canada may swelter under a
heat dome, or become freezing cold. Wildfires could spread smoke and
ash. Any number of life-threatening scenarios might play out, but
preppers believe they can cover all potential threats from the
safety of their personal haven.<br>
And this is a problem as homesteading doesn’t allow much room for
error. Nature doesn’t care if you starve to death.<br>
Desert dwellers are not going to be skilled at surviving in the
cold. Gardening in a temperate zone is going to be different than
growing food in a hot house. You won’t have the skills or necessary
equipment.<br>
You’re betting on the hope that global climate change won’t be
visited on your homestead.<br>
Most preppers assume the weather in their locale will be the same
albeit more severe.<br>
Environmental scientists can model global warming but not specific
events for a given region — so they don’t publish the likely
extremes. And because of this, most preppers believe that this
translates into any location doing well today will hold true
tomorrow because no one is talking about all the potential scenarios
they could face.<br>
The perceived advantages that make your homestead desirable may
disappear.<br>
Preppers who choose a colder climate for their homestead may
experience collapse sooner than those in cities and suburbs.<br>
If survival depends on a wood stove for heating, what happens when
all the trees are gone? Siberia fires are now bigger than all the
worlds other blazes combined. Once lost, those trees aren’t coming
back because things like drought and climate change create
conditions which make the area unsuitable for the once dominant
species.<br>
If you plan to supplement your meager garden with hunting because
game is plentiful, you should be aware that according to the Living
Planet Index, two-thirds of vertebrates are gone — and continue to
decline.<br>
You can’t prepare for every outcome when the changes are unknown.
And you can’t move a homestead if the region becomes uninhabitable.<br>
Decisions made by leaders are likely going to serve those in
populated areas, diverting critical resources like water or fire
suppression away from you.<br>
You may be forced to flee.<br>
A number of scenarios may force you to flee — wildfires, relentless
drought, extreme flooding, or civil unrest. After investing all your
resources in a homestead, will you be able to leave?<br>
Events such as flooding may require you to temporarily abandon your
homestead and relocate to more suitable area. This is far more
likely a scenario as climate change renders certain regions
uninhabitable. While scientists can guess what areas those might be,
remember no one predicted wildfires in Siberia.<br>
The world is already facing unpredictable events.<br>
How to Get 5 Billion People on Board to Fight Climate Change<br>
Forget the science, let’s do this instead<br>
shellyfaganaz.medium.com<br>
<br>
Are you capable of growing food in every possible climate?<br>
Growing enough food to survive is challenging in itself. It’s a
skill that takes years to learn in perfect weather. So what happens
when the climate changes? Are you skilled at growing food indoors?
How about in a drought?<br>
If commercial farming struggles to feed the population when they
have every advantage, do you really think you can shift gears to an
entirely new climate and weather extremes, and be successful? Due to
changing climate, foraging may be out of the question as well.
Hunting isn’t sustainable.<br>
Providing enough calories for yourself without external inputs will
likely become the most pressing issue and consume all your time and
effort.<br>
Which makes protecting it a bit of a challenge.<br>
If your homestead is successful or you are part of a thriving
community, you will be overrun by refugees.<br>
There is little you can do to protect your homestead and fields from
people highly motivated by hunger. You can’t protect your garden
around the clock. The problem is so pervasive that many farming
areas passed laws to punish crop theft — and that was prior to
people becoming desperate for food.<br>
If you are fortunate to be part of a community, you will be overrun
by refugees as word gets out to family and friends that you’re doing
well. And if you manage to select a region unaffected by extreme
weather, there will be increasing pressure from those relocating.<br>
Your homestead may no longer be as isolated as you planned.<br>
The end result will not be what you envision.<br>
Homesteaders seem to be betting on civilization collapse while
ignoring the root cause of it. Resource depletion, climate change,
and loss of biodiversity damages more than society alone — it’s
killing the future of our species.<br>
If you manage to survive the unraveling of civilization, you haven’t
won anything because the causes of a mass die-off will still remain.<br>
You may be surviving only to face even greater privations.<br>
What can we do?<br>
The solution is not to isolate and attempt to ride it out alone.
That will only delay the inevitable. It’s more of the same thought
process that led to the unsustainable lifestyle we have now.<br>
We are in this predicament because too many believe we don’t need
each other — “each man is an island” — and that we can survive this
without the cooperation of the rest of humanity.<br>
The rugged individualism of America will doom the nation to a
dystopian future. We think our selfishness won’t impact others. We
point fingers at industry, emerging nations, and people jet-setting
to their private yachts when pretty much everyone is to blame.
Homesteading is more of the same mindset, the “I got mine so screw
you.”<br>
It’s understandable. The problems facing humanity seem hopeless when
solving them requires the concerted effort of so many who are
ignorant or in denial. Instead of shaking people awake, some turn to
doing what they can to save themselves.<br>
But this is the wrong approach because it removes an aware voice
from the chorus of alarm.<br>
Prepping is based on the belief that one can get away from it all
and collapse will not follow. You can’t outrun it. You can’t prepare
for it. You can’t ignore it.<br>
The only solution is to fight to stave off the worst effects of
collapse now to insure the survival of the planet in the future.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/youre-not-going-to-homestead-through-collapse-be8d89a6ab19">https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/youre-not-going-to-homestead-through-collapse-be8d89a6ab19</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[No time for despair]<br>
<b>Climate change is radicalizing young people — here’s what that
means and how to combat despair</b><br>
MON, AUG 30 2021<br>
Catherine Clifford<br>
@IN/CATCLIFFORD/<br>
@CATCLIFFORD<br>
<br>
KEY POINTS<br>
Environmental studies professor Sarah Ray wrote “A Field Guide to
Climate Anxiety: How to Keep Your Cool on a Warming Planet.”<br>
Ray hopes it will better equip people with the morphing and
sharpening fears her Humboldt State students brought to her
classroom.<br>
In this conversation with CNBC, Ray shares how she thinks climate
communications and psychology need to change to help young people.<br>
Her advice is useful for anyone struggling to find a way to
productively move through climate change fears and paralysis.<br>
- -<br>
The future of climate communication, the future of climate
psychology has to simply be the “both-and” orientation. It’s just
going to have to be, because we’re all going to learn at some point
that living in doom and gloom narratives is very ineffective, and it
makes us literally want to kill ourselves. This is very scary. We’ve
gone from nobody caring enough about climate change to people caring
so much that they’re nihilistic. We cranked up the urgency and then
we’ve like overshot the mark.<br>
<br>
It’s not that urgency is a bad thing. Urgency has a rhetorical
situation and purpose and audience that is very effective and needs
to happen. And we need to keep using urgency where appropriate. So I
am not rejecting urgency outright. But for people who do really care
a lot, it is not a productive thing.<br>
<br>
We are going to be in this for a while. There is some urgency
needed, but we need to focus on those fears that we do have control
over, and slow down and do the work in a way that is sustainable for
ourselves. And simply put that is the recipe for engaging in this
work without burning out, without getting overwhelmed.<br>
<br>
We need to be clear-eyed about it. I’m not suggesting that we block
out everything that we can’t control. Taking in of all this
information through the news, social media, all the ways that we
have a 24-7 news stream, in general, that negativity bias of media
and negativity bias in our psychologies and in our brains does not
equate to reality. And it does equate to serious depression and
anxiety.<br>
<br>
We can be aware of how bad things are, and also how good things are.
We can counterbalance the overwhelming negativity of news and our
own biases around negativity by consuming and actively seeking out
things that are positive. And that’s not about being in denial or
naive. That is about making sure we are consuming, that we’re
exposed to reality, which is not all bad.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/how-to-stop-climate-change-despair-according-to-professor.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/how-to-stop-climate-change-despair-according-to-professor.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Good question]</p>
<p><b>The NYT stopped shilling for cigarettes. Why won't it stop
shilling for fossil fuels?</b><br>
As climate disasters devastate America, activists aren't the only
ones wondering why the paper of record is still advertising fossil
fuels. <br>
</p>
<p>The paper of record’s reporting will undoubtedly be of quality.
But readers will have to be careful not to get distracted.<br>
<br>
In addition to information about these deadly disasters, Times
readers today may also be shown advertisements for the fossil fuel
industry—the main industry responsible for making the disasters
worse. <br>
</p>
<p>- -<br>
Peter Gleick 🇺🇸<br>
@PeterGleick<br>
The city of New Orleans is without power because of a
climate-change-enhanced hurricane.<br>
South Lake Tahoe is being evacuated because of a
climate-change-enhanced superfire.<br>
Welcome to the future.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Rethinking climate change]<br>
<b>Rethinking Climate Change. The path to a 90% emissions reduction
by 2035.<br>
</b>Just Have a Think<br>
The climate emergency requires climate solutions. And fast! There
are lots of different proposals floating around - some of which
don't even exist yet, and probably never will. So, it's easy to get
confused about which direction is best. Now though, a new analysis
suggests that 90% of the job could be achieved by just a handful of
disruptive technologies that are very real indeed, and are already
either disrupting their markets or are poised to do so. We just need
to choose to embrace them!<br>
<br>
RETHINKX - Rethinking Climate Change Report<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.rethinkx.com/">https://www.rethinkx.com/</a><br>
<br>
Video Transcripts available at our website<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.justhaveathink.com">http://www.justhaveathink.com</a><br>
<br>
EXTRA DEEP DIVE DISCUSSION WITH IPCC SCIENTISTS 16.8.21<br>
In an extraordinarily candid interview with Dr. Alison Green, Sir
Robert Watson and Dr. James Dyke reflect on the IPCC AR6 report on
the physical science of climate change, published on August 9th.
They both stress the need for urgent action at the CoP in Glasgow in
November 2021, and for honesty about what governments will actually
do between 2021 and 2030.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjyREwAaILI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjyREwAaILI</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUySXZ6y2fk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUySXZ6y2fk</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[discussions of the AR6 report]<br>
<b>IPCC Report - A Climate Reality Check</b><br>
Aug 16, 2021<br>
ScientistsWarning<br>
In an extraordinarily candid interview with Dr. Alison Green, Sir
Robert Watson and Dr. James Dyke reflect on the IPCC AR6 report on
the physical science of climate change, published on August 9th.
They both stress the need for urgent action at the CoP in Glasgow in
November 2021, and for honesty about what governments will actually
do between 2021 and 2030.<br>
<br>
Sir Robert Tony Watson is an Atmospheric scientist who has worked as
a Chief scientist and advisor for NASA the World Bank and the
British government. He is the Chair of Environmental Science and
Science Director of the Tyndall Centre in the UK. <br>
<br>
Dr. James Dyke is an Earth system scientist, writer, and author. He
is an Assistant Director of the Global Systems Institute at the
University of Exeter, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a
Fellow of the European Geosciences Union, and serves on the
editorial board of the journal Earth System Dynamics. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.jamesgdyke.info/about/">https://www.jamesgdyke.info/about/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjyREwAaILI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjyREwAaILI</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[We are not surprised]<br>
<b>Economists Are Vastly Underestimating the Economic Impact of
Climate Change</b><br>
Economists are expecting a tiny reduction in GDP despite climate
science suggesting far more dramatic consequences, according to a
new study.<br>
The Physics - Aug 26, 2021<br>
<br>
When it comes to the climate emergency, the scientific consensus is
clear: human activity is heating Earth more rapidly now than at any
point in the last 2,000 years. This is causing rapid, widespread
changes to our oceans, our atmosphere and our biosphere.<br>
<br>
The effects will continue for decades, possibly centuries, to come
with dramatic increases in extreme weather events, such as heat
waves, forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, ice melts and sea level
rises. Indeed, this increase in extreme events is already upon us.<br>
<br>
Parts of the planet are likely to become uninhabitable, where
temperature increases will make it impossible to live or grow food.
And that is likely to trigger patterns of migration with global
consequences.<br>
<br>
It’s easy to imagine that these changes will have a huge impact on
the global economy and our ability to maintain the quality of life
we enjoy today.<br>
<br>
But according to economists, the economic impact of all this climate
change is likely to be minimal. “Economists have predicted that
damages from global warming will be as low as 2.1 percent of global
economic production for a 3◦C rise in global average surface
temperature, and 7.9 percent for a 6◦C rise,” say Steve Keen, at
University College London and a group of colleagues.<br>
<br>
Now, this team has examined the approach that economists have taken
and say it is riddled with misconceptions and lacking in a basic
understanding of climate science. And the predictions of economists
have led to a number of significant missteps by policy makers, for
example, in the pricing of carbon.<br>
<br>
Evidence-Based Science<br>
That needs to change. Instead, the team say predictions about the
future of the global economy must be based on evidence-based science
so that policy makers can best decide how to plan for the future.<br>
<br>
First some background. Predicting the future of the global economy
is notoriously difficult. Nevertheless, economists have developed a
number of models to evaluate the potential impact of climate change.
Perhaps the most influential is the Dynamic Integrated Climate
Economy, or DICE, model developed by William Nordhaus, an economist
at Yale University in New Haven.<br>
<br>
The DICE model has hugely influenced thinking about the economic
impact of climate change. In 2018, Nordhaus received the Nobel Prize
in economics for his work on “integrating climate change into
long-run macroeconomic analysis”.<br>
<br>
But now Keen and colleagues say there are serious flaws in the way
this and other models represent the impact of climate change. That’s
why they predict such a small impact when the change to the climate
and our way of life will be massive.<br>
<br>
The team says that these models do not properly take scientific
thinking into account. For example, climate scientists agree that an
important property of Earth’s climate is the existence of tipping
points in which climate subsystems switch from one state to another,
often in ways that cannot easily be reversed.<br>
<br>
These are important because they amplify the effects of warming,
creating conditions in which other systems can flip in a tipping
point cascade. Examples include the disappearance of summer ice
cover in the Arctic Sea and the irreversible shrinkage of the
Greenland ice sheet.<br>
<br>
Tipping Points<br>
The big fear is that we are much closer than expected to these
tipping points. The team point to one influential paper that
suggested “a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical
point within this century.”<br>
<br>
Curiously, tipping points do not feature in most economic analyses
of the impact of climate change. Keen and co say that Nordhaus
asserts that there are “no critical tipping elements with a time
horizon less than 300 years until global temperatures have increased
by at least 3◦C.”<br>
<br>
Another problem is that the DICE model assumes that the economic
effects of climate change will be small compared to other factors
such as new technology, population changes and so on. This does not
seem reasonable when some cities and regions are likely to become
uninhabitable after an increase of just 4◦C.<br>
<br>
Indeed, the model assumes that climate change will influence just a
small part of the economy. Keen and co say this is because Nordhaus
seems to consider only those industries affected by the weather,
which make up just 13 percent of the economy. The rest will
seemingly experience negligible effects.<br>
<br>
However, Keen and co point out that confusing weather with climate
in this way is a serious mistake. “This assumption that only
economic activities that are exposed to the weather will be affected
by climate change can be rejected on at least three grounds,” they
say.<br>
<br>
For example, wildfires can significantly impact the output from
nearby factories, not least because many people will be unable to
work there. And higher outdoor temperatures that make regions
uninhabitable will certainly affect factory output. “Factories
without workers produce zero output,” they say. And changes in
biodiversity will influence the availability of resources and have
significant economic impact.<br>
<br>
If economic models do not consider these possibilities, they are
bound to under-estimate the impact of climate change.<br>
<br>
One line of thought is that when some regions become less
productive, others will become more productive. For example, crops
could be grown at higher latitudes.<br>
<br>
But Keen and co say this is unlikely to make up the difference or
come anywhere near to it. They give the example of a commodity such
as grain and imagine a scenario in which America’s breadbasket
regions such as Idaho become hotter and less productive for grain.
But in that case, grain production “will not be replaced at higher
latitudes due to the poorer topsoil,” they say.<br>
<br>
In all these cases, the economic impact is likely to be huge and
devastating.<br>
<br>
The withering conclusion from this study is that economic models are
not fit for purpose. “We conclude that there are fundamental and
insurmountable weaknesses in estimates by economists of the damages
from climate change, such that they should not be used to assess the
risks from climate change,” says Keen and co.<br>
<br>
That’s a damning assessment and one that policy makers would do well
to consider in more detail before setting out their response to
climate change. These are decisions we need to make now; we cannot
afford to get them wrong.<br>
<br>
Ref: Economists’ Erroneous Estimates Of Damages From Climate Change
: arxiv.org/abs/2108.07847<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/economists-are-vastly-underestimating-the-economic-impact-of-climate-change">https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/economists-are-vastly-underestimating-the-economic-impact-of-climate-change</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[A bit cynical, but may be valid]<br>
<b>Don’t Expect Real Climate Solutions From COP26. It Functions for
Corporations.</b><br>
<br>
Simon Pirani - August 29, 2021<br>
<br>
In the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference
(COP26) in the U.K. in November — the 26th session of the talks that
were launched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 — the governments of the
world’s richest countries are making ever-louder claims that they
are effectively confronting global warming. Nothing could be more
dangerous than for social, labor and environmental movements to take
this rhetoric at face value and assume that political leaders have
the situation under control.<br>
<br>
There are three huge falsehoods running through these leaders’
narratives: that rich nations are supporting their poorer
counterparts; that “net zero” targets will do what is needed; and
that technology-focused “green growth” is the way to decarbonize.<br>
<br>
First, wealthier countries claim to be supporting poorer nations —
which are contributing least to global warming, and suffering most
from its effects — to make the transition away from fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
But at the G7 summit in June, the rich countries again failed to
keep their own promise, made more than a decade ago, to provide $100
billion per year in climate finance for developing countries. Of the
$60 billion per year they have actually come up with, more than half
is bogus: analysis by Oxfam has shown that it is mostly loans and
non-concessional finance, and that the amounts are often overstated.<br>
<br>
Compare this degrading treatment of the Global South with the
mobilization of many hundreds of billions for the post-pandemic
recovery. Of $657 billion (public money alone) pledged by G20
nations to energy-producing or energy-consuming projects, $296
billion supports fossil fuels, nearly a third greater than the
amount supporting clean energy ($228 billion).<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change are magnified by poverty.
This year’s floods, wildfires and record temperatures in Europe and
North America have been frightful enough. The same phenomena cause
far greater devastation outside the Global North.<br>
<br>
In 2020, “very extensive” flooding caused deaths, significant
displacement of populations and further impacts from disease in 16
African countries, the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO’s)
annual climate report recorded. India, China and parts of Southeast
Asia suffered from record-breaking rainfall and flooding, too.<br>
<br>
Climate and weather events had “major and diverse impacts on
population movements, and on the vulnerability of people on the
move,” the WMO reported. Cyclone Amphan displaced 2.5 million people
in India and Bangladesh last May. Many could return soon, but 2.8
million homes were damaged, leading to prolonged displacement.
Severe storms in Mozambique piled on dangers for tens of thousands
of people displaced by the previous year’s floods and who had not
been able to return home.<br>
<br>
The political leaders’ second fiction is their pledge to attain “net
zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (the U.S., U.K. and Europe)
or 2060 (China).<br>
<br>
“Net zero” signifies a point at which the amount of greenhouse gases
being pumped into the atmosphere is balanced by the amount being
withdrawn. Once, it may have been a useful way of taking into
account the way that forests, in particular, soak up carbon dioxide.
But three decades of capitulation to fossil fuel companies, since
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992,
have turned it into a monster of deceit.<br>
<br>
Thanks to corporate capture and government complicity, many of the
greenhouse gas emissions projections in the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change’s recent report factor in huge levels of carbon
removal by dubious technologies that do not, and may never, work at
scale (e.g., carbon dioxide removal, carbon capture and storage, and
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage). Governments have drawn
up “net zero” targets reliant on these myths.<br>
<br>
On top of this, the 2015 Paris agreement left rich nations to decide
what share of global emissions they would take responsibility for.
So the U.K. government, which laughably describes itself as “leading
the world” on climate, uses targets for emissions cuts at half the
level that scientists say is necessary.<br>
<br>
The politicians’ third and more complex deception is in the
technology-centered “decarbonization” measures they embrace in the
name of “green growth.” These rely on tweaking, rather than
transforming, the big technological systems through which most
fossil fuels are consumed — transport networks, electricity grids,
urban infrastructure, and industrial, agricultural and military
systems.<br>
<br>
An example is electric vehicles, promoted as the principal means to
reduce transport sector emissions. Governments ignore the carbon
footprint of the vehicles’ manufacture and electricity use (unless
and until the grids are 100 percent green), and the roads and
parking spaces that the vehicles use.<br>
<br>
Alternative approaches focus on expanding public transport, shifting
to non-motorized modes (walking, cycles, electric scooters), and
reducing the total number of journeys, especially in cities. In a
climate emergency, they ask, shouldn’t we stretch our imaginations
beyond lives made miserable sitting in rush-hour traffic?<br>
<br>
But governments avoid or oppose such solutions, because they would
involve confronting the corporate power of oil companies, car
manufacturers and property developers, in whose interests it is to
perpetuate car culture.<br>
<br>
A second example of governments’ corporate-based technology approach
involves home heating and cooling. Small-scale technologies that can
slash the energy throughput needed — proper insulation, electric
heat pumps instead of gas, small-scale renewables generation — are
eschewed. Instead, political leaders advocate incremental change to
large systems, at a pace that suits the companies that control them.<br>
<br>
In the U.K., architects protest as the government loosens building
regulations, when it should be tightening them to ensure that new
houses are near-zero-carbon. Trades unions in Leeds campaign for
insulation and heat pumps — the right solution for the city’s
housing stock — instead of a scheme to swap the gas network for
hydrogen, that is little more than a survival strategy for the
companies producing oil and gas on the North Sea.<br>
<br>
In the U.S., community groups advocate zero-carbon energy systems as
part of an integrated approach to a “just transition” away from
fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
Governments resist because the corporations resist. Energy
corporations fear decentralized electricity generation outside of
their control; property developers despise regulation that compels
them to use zero-carbon building techniques; gas distributors hate
electric heat pumps. Just as oil companies and car manufacturers
dread radical decarbonization of transport, petrochemical giants
fear plastic-free supply chains, big agribusiness is terrified by
low-carbon food systems, and so on.<br>
<br>
Climate researchers have shown that absolute zero (not “net zero”)
emissions is entirely achievable, by reducing energy throughput and
living differently. The path is blocked not by technological
factors, but by political ones: by the dynamics of wealth and power
that constitute capitalism — the same dynamics that force the burden
of climate change on the Global South.<br>
<br>
Tackling climate change involves overcoming those dynamics. It is
not so much about replacing bad government with good government, as
it is about subverting, confronting, confounding and defeating
corporate power. It is about developing a vision of our collective
future that goes beyond capitalism.<br>
<br>
We see glimpses of the social forces that could achieve this.
Resistance to neocolonial resource extraction, which is at the heart
of the fossil-fuelled economy, rages across the Global South. In the
Global North, there are acts of great heroism — by the saboteurs of
the Dakota Access pipeline, for example — and new waves of direct
action, by Extinction Rebellion and others, and school strikes in
response to climate change.<br>
<br>
Climate change protesters often accuse governments of “inaction.”
Let’s look at it from a different angle: Governments are acting, but
they are acting in accordance with capital’s economic imperatives.<br>
<br>
They are allowing global average temperature to rise far more than 2
degrees Celsius above the preindustrial level, and pushing the
resulting suffering on to hundreds of millions of people outside the
rich world. They are empowering fossil fuel producers and
corporations in fossil-intensive industrial sectors to dabble with
dangerous techno fixes and false “solutions” in the name of economic
“growth.” They are protecting their system.<br>
<br>
The most powerful response to looming climate catastrophe will come
not from within the COP26 process, but from outside it, in the
actions of grassroots organizers, communities, social and labor
movements, and of society as a whole.<br>
<br>
In the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference
(COP26) in the U.K. in November — the 26th session of the talks that
were launched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 — the governments of the
world’s richest countries are making ever-louder claims that they
are effectively confronting global warming. Nothing could be more
dangerous than for social, labor and environmental movements to take
this rhetoric at face value and assume that political leaders have
the situation under control.<br>
<br>
There are three huge falsehoods running through these leaders’
narratives: that rich nations are supporting their poorer
counterparts; that “net zero” targets will do what is needed; and
that technology-focused “green growth” is the way to decarbonize.<br>
<br>
First, wealthier countries claim to be supporting poorer nations —
which are contributing least to global warming, and suffering most
from its effects — to make the transition away from fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
But at the G7 summit in June, the rich countries again failed to
keep their own promise, made more than a decade ago, to provide $100
billion per year in climate finance for developing countries. Of the
$60 billion per year they have actually come up with, more than half
is bogus: analysis by Oxfam has shown that it is mostly loans and
non-concessional finance, and that the amounts are often overstated.<br>
<br>
Compare this degrading treatment of the Global South with the
mobilization of many hundreds of billions for the post-pandemic
recovery. Of $657 billion (public money alone) pledged by G20
nations to energy-producing or energy-consuming projects, $296
billion supports fossil fuels, nearly a third greater than the
amount supporting clean energy ($228 billion).<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change are magnified by poverty.
This year’s floods, wildfires and record temperatures in Europe and
North America have been frightful enough. The same phenomena cause
far greater devastation outside the Global North.<br>
<br>
In 2020, “very extensive” flooding caused deaths, significant
displacement of populations and further impacts from disease in 16
African countries, the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO’s)
annual climate report recorded. India, China and parts of Southeast
Asia suffered from record-breaking rainfall and flooding, too.<br>
<br>
Climate researchers have shown that absolute zero (not “net zero”)
emissions is entirely achievable. The path is blocked not by
technological factors, but by political ones.<br>
Climate and weather events had “major and diverse impacts on
population movements, and on the vulnerability of people on the
move,” the WMO reported. Cyclone Amphan displaced 2.5 million people
in India and Bangladesh last May. Many could return soon, but 2.8
million homes were damaged, leading to prolonged displacement.
Severe storms in Mozambique piled on dangers for tens of thousands
of people displaced by the previous year’s floods and who had not
been able to return home.<br>
<br>
The political leaders’ second fiction is their pledge to attain “net
zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (the U.S., U.K. and Europe)
or 2060 (China).<br>
<br>
“Net zero” signifies a point at which the amount of greenhouse gases
being pumped into the atmosphere is balanced by the amount being
withdrawn. Once, it may have been a useful way of taking into
account the way that forests, in particular, soak up carbon dioxide.
But three decades of capitulation to fossil fuel companies, since
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992,
have turned it into a monster of deceit.<br>
<br>
Thanks to corporate capture and government complicity, many of the
greenhouse gas emissions projections in the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change’s recent report factor in huge levels of carbon
removal by dubious technologies that do not, and may never, work at
scale (e.g., carbon dioxide removal, carbon capture and storage, and
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage). Governments have drawn
up “net zero” targets reliant on these myths.<br>
<br>
On top of this, the 2015 Paris agreement left rich nations to decide
what share of global emissions they would take responsibility for.
So the U.K. government, which laughably describes itself as “leading
the world” on climate, uses targets for emissions cuts at half the
level that scientists say is necessary.<br>
<br>
The politicians’ third and more complex deception is in the
technology-centered “decarbonization” measures they embrace in the
name of “green growth.” These rely on tweaking, rather than
transforming, the big technological systems through which most
fossil fuels are consumed — transport networks, electricity grids,
urban infrastructure, and industrial, agricultural and military
systems.<br>
<br>
An example is electric vehicles, promoted as the principal means to
reduce transport sector emissions. Governments ignore the carbon
footprint of the vehicles’ manufacture and electricity use (unless
and until the grids are 100 percent green), and the roads and
parking spaces that the vehicles use.<br>
<br>
Alternative approaches focus on expanding public transport, shifting
to non-motorized modes (walking, cycles, electric scooters), and
reducing the total number of journeys, especially in cities. In a
climate emergency, they ask, shouldn’t we stretch our imaginations
beyond lives made miserable sitting in rush-hour traffic?<br>
<br>
Tackling climate change involves subverting, confronting,
confounding and defeating corporate power.<br>
But governments avoid or oppose such solutions, because they would
involve confronting the corporate power of oil companies, car
manufacturers and property developers, in whose interests it is to
perpetuate car culture.<br>
<br>
A second example of governments’ corporate-based technology approach
involves home heating and cooling. Small-scale technologies that can
slash the energy throughput needed — proper insulation, electric
heat pumps instead of gas, small-scale renewables generation — are
eschewed. Instead, political leaders advocate incremental change to
large systems, at a pace that suits the companies that control them.<br>
<br>
In the U.K., architects protest as the government loosens building
regulations, when it should be tightening them to ensure that new
houses are near-zero-carbon. Trades unions in Leeds campaign for
insulation and heat pumps — the right solution for the city’s
housing stock — instead of a scheme to swap the gas network for
hydrogen, that is little more than a survival strategy for the
companies producing oil and gas on the North Sea.<br>
<br>
In the U.S., community groups advocate zero-carbon energy systems as
part of an integrated approach to a “just transition” away from
fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
Governments resist because the corporations resist. Energy
corporations fear decentralized electricity generation outside of
their control; property developers despise regulation that compels
them to use zero-carbon building techniques; gas distributors hate
electric heat pumps. Just as oil companies and car manufacturers
dread radical decarbonization of transport, petrochemical giants
fear plastic-free supply chains, big agribusiness is terrified by
low-carbon food systems, and so on.<br>
<br>
Climate researchers have shown that absolute zero (not “net zero”)
emissions is entirely achievable, by reducing energy throughput and
living differently. The path is blocked not by technological
factors, but by political ones: by the dynamics of wealth and power
that constitute capitalism — the same dynamics that force the burden
of climate change on the Global South.<br>
<br>
Tackling climate change involves overcoming those dynamics. It is
not so much about replacing bad government with good government, as
it is about subverting, confronting, confounding and defeating
corporate power. It is about developing a vision of our collective
future that goes beyond capitalism.<br>
<br>
We see glimpses of the social forces that could achieve this.
Resistance to neocolonial resource extraction, which is at the heart
of the fossil-fuelled economy, rages across the Global South. In the
Global North, there are acts of great heroism — by the saboteurs of
the Dakota Access pipeline, for example — and new waves of direct
action, by Extinction Rebellion and others, and school strikes in
response to climate change.<br>
<br>
Climate change protesters often accuse governments of “inaction.”
Let’s look at it from a different angle: Governments are acting, but
they are acting in accordance with capital’s economic imperatives.<br>
<br>
They are allowing global average temperature to rise far more than 2
degrees Celsius above the preindustrial level, and pushing the
resulting suffering on to hundreds of millions of people outside the
rich world. They are empowering fossil fuel producers and
corporations in fossil-intensive industrial sectors to dabble with
dangerous techno fixes and false “solutions” in the name of economic
“growth.” They are protecting their system.<br>
<br>
The most powerful response to looming climate catastrophe will come
not from within the COP26 process, but from outside it, in the
actions of grassroots organizers, communities, social and labor
movements, and of society as a whole.<br>
- -<br>
Simon Pirani is honorary professor at the University of Durham,
U.K., and author of Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel
Consumption (Pluto, 2018). He writes a blog at peoplenature.org and
is on Twitter.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://truthout.org/articles/dont-expect-real-climate-solutions-from-cop26-it-functions-for-corporations/">https://truthout.org/articles/dont-expect-real-climate-solutions-from-cop26-it-functions-for-corporations/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p> </p>
<br>
[very old YouTube talk hidden by YouTube]<br>
<b>London Lecture: Waking the Giant December 2016</b><br>
Jan 6, 2017<br>
The Geological Society<br>
An astonishing transformation over the last 20,000 years has seen
our planet flip from a frigid wasteland into the temperate world
upon which our civilisation has grown and thrived. This most dynamic
episode in Earth history saw the crust bouncing and bending in
response to the melting of the great ice sheets and the filling of
the ocean basins; triggering earthquakes, spawning tsunamis and
provoking a lively response from the world’s volcanoes. <br>
Now there are signs that human-induced climate change is encouraging
the sleeping giant beneath our feet to stir once again. Could it be
that we are on track to bequeath to our children and their children
not only a far hotter world, but also a more geologically fractious
one?<br>
<br>
Speaker Biography <br>
Bill McGuire (University College London)<br>
Bill McGuire is an academic, science writer and broadcaster. He is
currently Professor Emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at
University College London.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8q4QSutFQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8q4QSutFQ</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[The news archive - looking back] <font size="+1"><b>On this day in
the history of global warming August 31, 1988</b></font><br>
<p>August 31, 1988: Vice President and GOP presidential candidate
George H. W. Bush declares that those who think people are
powerless to combat the "greenhouse effect" are forgetting about
"the White House effect." (Twenty-one years later, James Hansen
would note in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren" that Bush's
chief of staff, John Sununu, tried to have him fired from NASA.)<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://c-spanvideo.org/x1mc/">http://c-spanvideo.org/x1mc/</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-01/news/mn-4551_1_george-bush">http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-01/news/mn-4551_1_george-bush</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</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>