<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2"><i><b>September 3, 2021</b></i></font></p>
[93 second video of harsh truth from a climate scientist]<br>
<b>“This is climate change, </b>and it’s just a small preview of
what’s going to happen if we don’t start, stopping emitting
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” said Dessler, a professor of
atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “We really need to
do that, or we’re going to look back on this as the good ol’ days.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/09/02/this-is-climate-change-and-its-just-a-small-preview-says-texas-am-professor.html">https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/09/02/this-is-climate-change-and-its-just-a-small-preview-says-texas-am-professor.html</a>
<p>- -</p>
[climate scientist says]<br>
<b>Extreme weather ‘just a small preview of what’s going to happen,’
warns climate scientist</b><br>
PUBLISHED THU, SEP 2 20218<br>
-- The extreme weather across the U.S., from the devastating Caldor
Fire scorching the West Coast to the deadly flooding and tornadoes
slamming the East Coast, could pale in comparison to future weather,
warned climate scientist Andrew Dessler.<br>
-- “This is climate change, and it’s just a small preview of what’s
going to happen if we don’t start, stopping emitting greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere,” said Dessler.<br>
-- “We look at cities on the coast like Miami, Houston, and now, New
York, and you think, can those people live in those places for a
century?” said Dessler <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/extreme-weather-just-a-small-preview-of-whats-going-to-happen-warns-climate-scientist.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/extreme-weather-just-a-small-preview-of-whats-going-to-happen-warns-climate-scientist.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Media battles]<br>
<b>Why won’t US TV news say ‘climate change’?</b><br>
Mark Hertsgaard<br>
It’s media malpractice not to mention that burning fossil fuels
drives extreme weather events like Hurricane Ida<br>
- - <br>
The problem is that most viewers won’t make that connection, because
most stories don’t contain the words “climate change”. Six of the
biggest commercial TV networks in the US – ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC
and MSNBC – ran 774 stories about Ida from 27 to 30 August, an
analysis by the watchdog group Media Matters found. Only 34 of those
stories, barely 4%, mentioned climate change.<br>
<br>
My own survey of the coverage confirmed the trend. Viewers were
shown powerful images – roofs torn off, block after block of houses
submerged in floodwaters, first responders pulling weeping victims
to safety. They heard plenty of numbers: Ida was a category 4
hurricane with wind speeds of 172 miles an hour and storm surges of
7ft to 11ft. But almost never were they told what was behind all
this destruction.<br>
<br>
It’s not as if making the climate connection is scientifically
controversial or journalistically difficult, as a handful of
exemplary stories demonstrated.<br>
<br>
On NPR, the reporter Rebecca Hersher said that “climate change is
basically super-charging this storm … As the Earth gets hotter
because of climate change, the water on the surface of the ocean –
it also gets hotter. So there’s more energy for storms like Ida to
get really big and really powerful.”..<br>
- - <br>
In the Washington Post, the reporter Sarah Kaplan called Ida a
“poster child for a climate change-driven disaster” and quoted the
hurricane specialist Kerry Emmanuel of MIT saying: “This is exactly
the kind of thing we’re going to have to get used to as the planet
warms.”<br>
<br>
The vast majority of news coverage instead chose climate silence.<br>
<br>
This amounts to nothing less than media malpractice. Scientifically
accurate reporting would not only link this extreme weather to the
climate crisis, it would note that climate change is caused
primarily by burning oil, gas and coal. ExxonMobil and other fossil
fuel companies have been lying for 40 years about their products
causing dangerous climate change. Responsible journalism should tell
the truth about what’s driving these terrible storms, fires and
famine...<br>
- - <br>
This kind of journalism leaves the public not just uninformed but
misinformed. It gives the impression that these storms and fires are
not only terrible (which, of course, is true) but also – to use a
phrase that climate breakdown has made obsolete – they’re simply
“natural” disasters.<br>
<br>
They are not. Of course, hurricanes and wildfires were happening
long before human-caused climate change emerged. The climate crisis,
however, makes them significantly worse. As a Weather Channel
segment on Ida explained, it’s not that “climate change caused the
storm, but … that a warming world made Hurricane Ida more powerful”.<br>
<br>
What’s odd is that plenty of journalists at big US news outlets know
the climate crisis is an important story. And climate coverage had
been improving. During the heatwave that scorched the Pacific
Northwest in July, 38% of broadcast and cable news segments made the
climate connection, Media Matters reported, as did about 30% of this
summer’s wildfires coverage. So newsrooms have the ability to make
the point when they choose to.<br>
<br>
In two months, world leaders will gather in Glasgow for one of the
most important diplomatic meetings in history. The Cop26 summit will
go a long way toward deciding whether humanity preserves a livable
climate on this planet. From now to the summit and beyond,
journalism has got to do better.<br>
<br>
This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global
collaboration of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate
story.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/02/us-media-hurricane-ida-climate-change">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/02/us-media-hurricane-ida-climate-change</a>
<p>- -</p>
[Watch TV]<br>
<b>National corporate TV news largely failed to cover Hurricane Ida
as a climate justice story</b><br>
Only 4% of Ida coverage from August 27-30 connected the storm to
climate change<br>
Key Findings<br>
Corporate broadcast TV outlets — ABC, CBS, and NBC — aired a
combined 93 segments about Hurricane Ida during morning and evening
news programs from August 27-30. Only 5 of these broadcast news
segments referenced climate change.<br>
Of the 5 climate mentions, ABC had 3 mentions, while CBS and NBC
contributed one each.<br>
Cable TV news outlets -- CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC -- aired a
combined 681 segments about Hurricane Ida during all original
programming from August 27-30. Only 4% (29) of cable news segments
referenced climate change during their Ida coverage.<br>
Of the 29 climate mentions, CNN had 5 mentions, Fox News mentioned
climate twice, and MSNBC had the most out of all networks with 22.<br>
- -<br>
To watch hurricane coverage by TV news is to hear ad nauseum about
the wind speed, the storm surge, and the expected accumulation of
rainfall. These things are important to document and are done by
dedicated journalists and TV crews, but networks should expand their
coverage beyond the meteorological phenomena. In these moments,
before attention is pulled elsewhere, there is so much more to learn
and so much more that could be said...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.mediamatters.org/cnn/national-corporate-tv-news-largely-failed-cover-hurricane-ida-climate-justice-story">https://www.mediamatters.org/cnn/national-corporate-tv-news-largely-failed-cover-hurricane-ida-climate-justice-story</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[I knew it would be something simple]<br>
<b>The Answer to Climate Change Is Organizing</b><br>
Dealing with global warming is always going to be about the balance
of power.<br>
By Bill McKibben - Se[t 1. 2021...<br>
- -<br>
I do not, precisely, relish the prospect of another bout of
organizing. Part of me has always thought it’s crazy that we have to
build these movements: Why must we fight so hard, even go to jail,
in order to get our leaders to take more seriously the clear and
unequivocal warnings of scientists? But I’ve long accepted that
we’re engaged in a fight, not an argument—and that the main way to
counter the malign power of vested interest is to meet organized
money with organized people. I’ve highlighted many brilliant people
in this column; the best shot at giving their ideas a chance is to
keep shifting the balance of power. And that, in the end, is the
point of activism. I have no idea whether we’ll be successful, but
we’ll try.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-answer-to-climate-change-is-organizing">https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-answer-to-climate-change-is-organizing</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[From Australia - a brief video]<br>
<b>Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture and Storage</b><br>
Sep 1, 2021<br>
thejuicemedia<br>
The Australien Government has made an ad about Carbon Capture and
Storage, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[not surprising, but still impressive<br>
<b>Hi-tech wooden flooring can turn footsteps into electricity</b><br>
Swiss scientists develop prototype ‘nanogenerator’ that produces
renewable energy when trodden on<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/01/hi-tech-wooden-flooring-can-turn-footsteps-into-electricity">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/01/hi-tech-wooden-flooring-can-turn-footsteps-into-electricity</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Disinformation deconstructed - follow the money - video rant from
the Capital]<br>
<b>Dem. Senator EXPOSES dark money scheme that propped up Kavanaugh
and Barrett</b><br>
Horrifically summarized<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/Imqnsuu2tDk">https://youtu.be/Imqnsuu2tDk</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Common sense too]<br>
<b>New study strengthens link between wildfire smoke and severe
COVID</b><br>
Smoke from last year’s West Coast wildfires was associated with
almost 20,000 excess COVID-19 cases.<br>
- - <br>
Although previous research has documented the connection between
wildfire smoke and COVID-19, this is the first time that scientists
have calculated the specific toll from the pandemic that is
attributable to last year’s wildfires...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://grist.org/climate/wildfire-smoke-covid-cases-deaths-study/">https://grist.org/climate/wildfire-smoke-covid-cases-deaths-study/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[New book emerging]<br>
<b>Welcome to the Pyrocene</b><br>
We have created a planetary fire age. Now we have to live in it.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://grist.org/wildfires/welcome-to-the-pyrocene/">https://grist.org/wildfires/welcome-to-the-pyrocene/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Been there, done that, ...]<br>
<b>Worrying About Your Carbon Footprint Is Exactly What Big Oil
Wants You to Do</b><br>
Aug. 31, 2021, <br>
By Auden Schendler<br>
<br>
Mr. Schendler is the senior vice president of sustainability at
the Aspen Skiing Company, the chairman of the board of the group
Protect Our Winters and the author of “Getting Green Done.”<br>
<br>
Everybody’s going carbon neutral these days, from the big boys —
Amazon, Microsoft, Unilever, Starbucks, JetBlue — to your favorite
outdoor brand, even ski resorts. Probably your neighborhood coffee
roaster, too.<br>
<br>
What’s not to like? Becoming carbon neutral means cutting
greenhouse gas emissions as much as you can, then offsetting what
you can’t avoid with measures like tree planting. Seems admirable.<br>
<br>
Well, not exactly. Carbon neutrality doesn’t achieve any sort of
systemic change. A coal-powered business could be entirely carbon
neutral as long it stops some landfill gas in Malaysia from
entering the atmosphere equal to the emissions it’s still
releasing. American fossil fuel dependence would remain intact,
and planet-warming emissions would continue to rise. The only way
to fix that is through politics, policymakers and legislation. But
distressingly, most businesses don’t want to play in that arena.<br>
<br>
Instead, they’re doing exactly what the fossil fuel industry
wants: staying in their lane, accepting some blame for a global
problem and maintaining the dominance of fossil fuels. They’re
well intentioned, sure, but also clueless, even complicit.<br>
<br>
Imagine if businesses put as much effort into climate lobbying as
climate neutrality. Corporations wield tremendous influence over
the political system. But on climate, most corporations have
decided to sit this one out. Notably, the five biggest tech
corporations — Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Alphabet and Amazon —
spend only 4 percent of their lobbying dollars on climate,
according to Influence Map.<br>
<br>
As a result, they avoid the chance to put in place systemic
solutions in favor of carbon neutral navel gazing. Large
corporations will protest, saying that they are lobbying on
climate. But they are typically working both sides of the aisle.
And their political contributions are mostly going in the wrong
direction. Bloomberg Green examined political donations by more
than 100 major American corporations and found last year that they
were “throwing their support behind lawmakers who routinely stall
climate legislation.”<br>
<br>
Climate never ascends to the level of mission-critical issues like
trade policy and taxation. Sure, there are exceptions: Salesforce
recently said it would intensify its focus on climate lobbying.
And Patagonia has always been aggressive, along with Ben and
Jerry’s. But they are anomalies, led or inspired by charismatic
founders.<br>
<br>
How did it come to this? The story of how what’s considered the
best approach to corporate sustainability became complicity with
the very industry responsible for climate change starts with the
famous “Crying Indian” commercial of the 1970s. The ad, in which
an actor portraying a Native American is devastated by the sight
of rampant pollution, created several generations of dutiful
litter-picker-uppers. (Guilty!) But it wasn’t so benign. It was,
in fact, masterly propaganda from the beverage and container
industries, designed to place responsibility for the trash problem
on American consumers, not manufacturers.<br>
<br>
The approach was so good that the fossil fuel industry adopted the
very same strategy.<br>
<br>
In 2004, BP hired the public relations firm Ogilvy & Mather to
improve its image, in part by conveying the message that consumers
of oil and natural gas bear the responsibility for their
greenhouse gas emissions, not the producers of the oil and gas
they use. The result was BP’s ingenious carbon footprint
calculator, which allows individuals to calculate the carbon
emissions that result from their activities. It’s “about helping
you to go carbon neutral — reducing and offsetting your carbon
footprint,” BP says on its “target neutral” website.<br>
<br>
Nor was BP alone among the big oil companies communicating this
message. A study by Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran at Harvard
published in May in the journal One Earth found that since 1972,
ExxonMobil has consistently used “rhetoric aimed at shifting
responsibility for climate change away from itself and onto
consumers.”<br>
<br>
Yes, those consumers want the hot showers, warm homes and cold
beer that coal, oil and gas provide. But they did not insist on
the burning of fossil fuels for those amenities. Now there are
other ways to produce energy, and responsibility to tap those
renewable resources lies with the world’s energy companies.<br>
<br>
Today, almost 20 years after BP’s carbon calculator went live,
cutting a firm’s carbon footprint is still the gold standard of
corporate climate action. The phrase is firmly lodged in the
environmental lexicon.<br>
<br>
The idea of offsetting one’s carbon footprint by reducing or
eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in one place to make up for
emissions elsewhere has grown into an enormous industry.
Businesses often do this by buying carbon credits to offset
emissions they can’t or won’t reduce. The consulting firm McKinsey
estimates that “the market for carbon credits could be worth
upward of $50 billion in 2030.”<br>
<br>
Many of these offsets underwrite worthwhile projects — protecting
virgin expanses in some of the world’s last great forests, as in
the Amazon, or the deployment of solar power. But according to an
analysis by the private-sector Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary
Carbon Markets, fewer than five percent of offsets in 2020 removed
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
Which, of course, is what we desperately need to be doing.<br>
<br>
A giant, systemic problem like climate needs to be addressed like
other huge environmental challenges the world has successfully
taken on — reducing ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, for
example, and sharply cutting back on smog and water pollution in
the United States. Imagine if, in response to the expansion of the
ozone hole, businesses and governments had said, “We’ll just hope
businesses do the right thing.” Instead, international
policymakers created the Montreal Protocol, which set standards
that phased out ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbon use worldwide.<br>
<br>
We need more of that approach — citizens, businesses and
governments working together to address this crisis. It might
result in policy solutions like government regulation, effective
carbon taxes, national standards for renewable energy and
electrification, the elimination of legacy subsidies for the
fossil fuel industry, strict auto emission standards and new
national building codes. All of these approaches threaten fossil
fuel’s business model and, not coincidentally, would help to slow
the warming of the planet.<br>
<br>
What do fossil fuel companies prefer? They like consumers and
corporations to do anything and everything as long as they stay
out of the companies’ way and avoid doing anything that could
actually make a difference.<br>
<br>
Tragically, the overwhelming majority of American businesses are
on a path of complicity. Their climate strategy avoids conflict
and generates great P.R. Unfortunately, it also allows fossil fuel
interests to monetize their remaining assets unhindered, ensuring
catastrophe for all.<br>
<br>
How carbon neutral is that?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/opinion/climate-change-carbon-neutral.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/opinion/climate-change-carbon-neutral.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
September 3, 2013</b></font><br>
The New York Times reports:<br>
<blockquote> "In this native village situated on a gravel spit above
the Arctic Circle, life is changing more quickly than the Alaskans
who have lived off the land and water here for thousands of years
can keep pace with.<br>
<br>
"'The ice is the biggest thing,' said Dominic Ivanoff, 28, a
leader of Kotzebue’s tribal council. He used to need two foot-long
auger extensions to cut holes through the thick ice when he went
fishing in April. Now, he said, the ice is thin enough that he
needs none.<br>
<br>
"The situation is even more severe in smaller villages surrounding
this remote slice of northwest Alaska, where climate change is not
a political talking point or a theoretical scientific phenomenon
but a punishing everyday reality. Some communities are sinking
into the water, as erosion and melting permafrost wash away their
foundations.<br>
<br>
"It was here that President Obamaarrived on Wednesday to deliver
his alarm-sounding message about the warming of the planet — a
phenomenon occurring twice as quickly in Alaska as in the rest of
the United States — bringing with him promises of new aid for
Arctic communities whose shorelines and infrastructure are
crumbling because of rising temperatures.<br>
<br>
"In a history-making stop — the first presidential visit to Arctic
Alaska — Mr. Obama delivered a speech laying out new federal
efforts to help these communities cope with coastal erosion and
high energy costs and, in some extreme cases, relocate altogether.<br>
<br>
"Coming at the end of a trip he used to call attention to the
challenge of climate change and to rally support in the United
States and globally to address it, the announcement of the new
efforts was a bid to draw attention to places that are feeling the
effects most acutely."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/politics/obama-takes-climate-message-to-alaska-where-change-is-rapid-in-alaska.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/politics/obama-takes-climate-message-to-alaska-where-change-is-rapid-in-alaska.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0</a>
<br>
<br>
<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>