<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 11, 2021</b></i></font></p>
<i>[US Wildfire forecast]</i><br>
<b>Update and Forecast for Caldor Fire, Dixie Fire, Monument Fire,
and other California Wildfires</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cBMzbVFoGY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cBMzbVFoGY</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[Fire near me is 40 miles to the South]</i><br>
<b>'Megafire' declared near Mount Rainier after exceeding 100,000
acres</b><br>
The Schneider Springs Fire is more than 100,000 acres and may not be
fully contained until Oct. 1.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/wildfire/schneider-springs-wildfire-rainier-megafire-climate-dry-warm/281-6d4ad192-a7e8-4846-960f-a78b5c53f096">https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/wildfire/schneider-springs-wildfire-rainier-megafire-climate-dry-warm/281-6d4ad192-a7e8-4846-960f-a78b5c53f096</a><br>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
<i>[Food insecurity rising video]</i><br>
<b>Why Food Is Getting More Expensive In The U.S.</b><br>
Sep 10, 2021<br>
CNBC<br>
The pandemic sent food prices skyrocketing amid a slew of supply
chain disruptions, but food costs have been steadily rising over the
past five years. The rise in prices can have serious consequences
for the most vulnerable Americans. According to the USDA, 13.8
million Americans qualified as food insecure in 2020. Watch the
video to find out how much food prices have risen, what's driving
the increase and how businesses and policymakers can fix it.<br>
<br>
The Biden administration said Wednesday it plans to take “bold
action” to enforce antitrust laws aimed at meatpacking companies it
says are causing beef, pork, and poultry prices to rise at the
grocery store.<br>
<br>
Even though beef prices have been rising, farmers and ranchers have
been making less money, the White House said.<br>
<br>
Climate change, labor issues, transportation concerns and other
supply chain disruptions have been contributing to the rising costs
over the past several years. The pandemic disruptions then sped up
the rate of growth in prices.<br>
<br>
These price increases have significant consequences for the most
vulnerable Americans. The United States Department of Agriculture
reported Wednesday that 13.8 million households were considered food
insecure in 2020.<br>
<br>
The Biden administration last month increased assistance for the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. Previously known
as Food Stamps, the benefits were increased by more than 25%.<br>
<br>
“It’s a combination of all these factors,” SuperMarketGuru.com
editor Phil Lempert said. “It’s very difficult to say what did the
pandemic do? What does climate change do? What is transportation do?
So we’ve got to lump it all together. And we’ve got to solve them
all together.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnYwMliFBSQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnYwMliFBSQ</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[Military News offers an opinion]</i><br>
<b>Climate Change Could Make 'Military Equipment Useless,' Experts
Warn</b><br>
10 Sep 2021<br>
Stars and Stripes | By David Choi<br>
CAMP HUMPHREYS, South Korea -- Leaders from defense institutes
across the world converged in Seoul this week to raise the alarm on
military threats posed by "irreversible and abrupt climate change."<br>
<br>
Global temperatures are expected to reach or surpass a warming
threshold of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 20 years, United
Nations climate change experts reported in August, "unless there are
immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse
emissions."<br>
Without action, the planet is in store for increasing heat waves,
longer warm seasons and continued sea-level rise, contributing to
coastal flooding and erosion, according to the report.<br>
<br>
Panelists from the United States, France, Switzerland, Netherlands,
India and Bangladesh gave their assessment of these threats during a
three-day seminar hosted by South Korea's Ministry of Defense.<br>
<br>
Tom Middendorp, Netherlands' former chief of defense and chairman of
the International Military Council on Climate and Security, warned
Wednesday that nations had "a responsibility to prepare" for the
implications of climate change.<br>
<br>
"I cannot remember any other conflict in my military experience
where we had this level of scientific foresight," he said during the
virtual portion of the seminar. "We know what's coming to us."<br>
<br>
The Netherlands, according to Middendorp, appropriates a significant
amount of its defense budget for "protection against the sea,"
because much of its population lives below sea level.<br>
<br>
"As sea level rises, it's a big issue in a country like the
Netherlands," he said.<br>
<br>
Severe heat patterns are also already having a direct impact on
military equipment, according to Shafqat Munir, head of the
Bangladesh Center for Terrorism Research.<br>
<br>
Troops stationed in Mali as part of a United Nations' peacekeeping
force have been unable to use their communication devices until the
evening, when the temperature cools off, Munir told the panelists.<br>
<br>
"Excessive heat is going to render military equipment useless,"
Munir said. "We're already seeing some of that in action."<br>
<br>
The U.S. military recently described climate change as a top
national security issue and incorporated it into its wargame
simulations. A Defense Department assessment in 2019 found 79
installations impacted by climate change.<br>
<br>
"Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the
climate crisis," Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said during a
climate change seminar in April. "We face all kinds of threats in
our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called
existential. The climate crisis does."<br>
<br>
Climate change's biggest impact on national defense is the way it
"undermines and destabilizes societies," said Sharon Burke, a former
U.S. assistant secretary of defense for operational energy. She told
the panel that while the military is unable to fight climate change
through conventional means, it "may well result in military
missions" ranging from humanitarian, disaster relief and combat.<br>
<br>
"If the nations of this world are unable to cut greenhouse gas
emissions ... if we fail, then militaries should be planning for
profound insecurity and more military missions later in this
century, or possibly sooner, if we hit certain tipping points,"
Burke said...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/09/10/climate-change-could-make-military-equipment-useless-experts-warn.html">https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/09/10/climate-change-could-make-military-equipment-useless-experts-warn.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[Video interview]</i><br>
<b>Saleemul Huq | We Have Crossed A Threshold | ADAPT NOW</b><br>
Sept 10, 2021<br>
Nick Breeze<br>
Dr Saleemul Huq is a highly respected climate scientist from
Bangladesh who has worked for decades to progress the safety of the
most vulnerable people up the climate policymaking agenda. <br>
<br>
Traditionally the most vulnerable people have been from places like
Saleem's own country, Bangladesh, but in this interview, he stresses
that we have crossed a new threshold. <br>
<br>
What we have been seeing in the US and Northern Europe clearly shows
that the most vulnerable could be ourselves, our neighbors, or our
loved ones.<br>
<br>
Global climate extremes have arrived at our door and the time to
adapt and build resilience is now. As an expert in this field,
Saleem gives us some pertinent insights into what makes resilience
really work. It is not technology and it is not wealth.<br>
<br>
Thanks for listening to Shaping The Future, there are many more
episodes being produced in which we are striving to increase our own
understanding and help create a future that we all want to live in.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph4Qvk6cTe4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph4Qvk6cTe4</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[What if - conjecture - an exercise in history]</i><br>
<b>Imagine If We Had Spent the Last 20 Years Fighting Climate Change
Instead of the War on Terror</b><br>
At the dawn of the new millennium, we directed our national
resources in the exact wrong direction. But it’s not too late to
turn things around.<br>
SARAH LAZARE -- SEPT 7, 2021<br>
Twenty years into a nebulous “War on Terror,” the United States is
in the grips of a full-fledged climate crisis. Hurricane Ida, whose
severity is a direct result of human-made climate change, flooded
cities, cut off power to hundreds of thousands, killed at least 60
people, and left elderly people dying in their homes and in squalid
evacuation facilities. This followed a summer of heat waves,
wildfires and droughts — all forms of extreme weather that the
Global South has borne the brunt of, but are now, undeniably, the
new “normal” in the United States.<br>
<br>
The U.S. government has turned the whole globe into a potential
battlefield, chasing some ill-defined danger “out there,” when, in
reality, the danger is right here — and is partially of the U.S.
government’s own creation. Plotting out the connections between this
open-ended war and the climate crisis is a grim exercise, but an
important one. It’s critical to examine how the War on Terror not
only took up all of the oxygen when we should have been engaged in
all-out effort to curb emissions, but also made the climate crisis
far worse, by foreclosing on other potential frameworks under which
the United States could relate with the rest of the world. Such
bitter lessons are not academic: There is still time to stave off
the worst climate scenarios, a goal that, if attained, would likely
save hundreds of millions of lives, and prevent entire countries
from being swallowed into the sea.<br>
<br>
One of the most obvious lessons is financial: We should have been
putting every resource toward stopping climate disaster, rather than
pouring public goods into the war effort. According to a recent
report by the National Priorities Project, which provides research
about the federal budget, the United States has spent $21 trillion
over the last 20 years on “foreign and domestic militarization.” Of
that amount, $16 trillion went directly to the U.S.
military — including $7.2 trillion that went directly to military
contracts. This figure also includes $732 billion for federal law
enforcement, “because counterterrorism and border security are part
of their core mission, and because the militarization of police and
the proliferation of mass incarceration both owe much to the
activities and influences of federal law enforcement.”<br>
<br>
Of course, big government spending can be a very good thing if it
goes toward genuine social goods. The price tag of the War on Terror
is especially tragic when one considers what could have been done
with this money instead, note the report’s authors, Lindsay
Koshgarian, Ashik Siddique and Lorah Steichen. A sum of $1.7
trillion could eliminate all student debt, $200 billion could cover
10 years of free preschool for all three and four year olds in the
country. And, crucially, $4.5 trillion could cover the full cost of
decarbonizing the U.S. electric grid.<br>
<br>
But huge military budgets are not only bad when they contrast with
poor domestic spending on social goods — our bloated Pentagon
should, first and foremost, be opposed because of the harm it does
around the world, where it has roughly 800 military bases, and
almost a quarter of a million troops permanently stationed in other
countries. A new report from Brown University’s Costs of War Project
estimates that between 897,000 and 929,000 people have been killed
“directly in the violence of the U.S. post‑9/11 wars in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.” This
number could be even higher. One estimate found that the U.S. war on
Iraq alone killed one million Iraqis.<br>
<br>
Still, the financial cost of war is worth examining because it
reveals something about the moral priorities of our society. Any
genuine effort to curb the climate crisis will require a tremendous
mobilization of resources — a public works program on a scale that,
in the United States, is typically only reserved for war. Now,
discussions of such expenditures can be a bit misleading, since the
cost of doing nothing to curb climate change is limitless: When the
entirety of our social fabric is at stake, it seems silly to debate
dollars here or there. But this is exactly what proponents of
climate action are forced to do in our political climate. As I
reported in March 2020, presidential candidates in the 2020
Democratic primary were grilled about how they would pay for social
programs, like a Green New Deal, but not about how they would pay
for wars.<br>
<br>
In June 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D‑N.Y.) estimated that
the Green New Deal would cost $10 trillion. Her critics on the Right
came up with their own number of up to $93 trillion, a figure that
was then used as a talking point to bludgeon any hopes of the
proposal’s passage. But let’s suppose for a moment that this number,
calculated by American Action Forum, were correct, and the price of
a Green New Deal came to 4.43 times the cost of 20 years of the War
on Terror? So what? Shouldn’t we be willing to devote far more
resources to protecting life than to taking it? What could be more
valuable than safeguarding humanity against an existential threat?<br>
<br>
The reality is that warding off the worst-case scenario of climate
change, which the latest IPCC report says is still possible, will
require massive amounts of spending upfront. Not only do we have to
stop fossil fuel extraction and shift to decarbonized energy, but we
have to do so in a way that does not leave an entire generation of
workers destitute. Several proposals for how to achieve this have
been floated: a just transition for workers; a revamping of public
transit and public housing; public ownership of energy industries
for the purpose of immediately decarbonizing them; global
reparations for the harm the United States has done. Any way you
look at it, meaningful climate legislation will require a huge
mobilization of public resources — one that beats back the power of
capital. And of course, dismantling the carbon-intensive U.S.
military apparatus must be part of the equation. <br>
<br>
In our society, it’s a given that we spend massive amounts of these
public resources on military expansion year after year, with the
National Defense Authorization Act regularly accounting for more
than half of all discretionary federal spending (this year being no
exception, despite President Biden’s promise to end “forever
wars”). Over the past 20 years, the mobilization behind the War on
Terror has been enabled by a massive propaganda effort. Think tanks
financed by weapons contractors have filled cable and print media
with “expert” commentators on the importance of open-ended war.
Longstanding civilian suffering as a result post‑9/11 U.S. wars has
been ignored. From abetting the Bush administration’s lies about
weapons of mass destruction to the demonization of anti-war
protesters as “terrorist” sympathizers, the organs of mass
communication in this country have roundly fallen on the side of
supporting the War on Terror, a dynamic that is in full evidence as
media outlets move to discipline President Biden for actually ending
the Afghanistan war.<br>
<br>
What if a similar effort had been undertaken to educate the public
about the need for dramatic climate action? Instead of falsehoods
and selective moral outrage, we could have had sound,
scientifically-based political education about the climate dangers
that Exxon has known of for more than 40 years. We could have spent
20 years building the political will for social transformation. It
may seem ridiculous to suggest that the war propaganda effort could
have gone toward progressive ends: After all, the institutions
responsible — corporate America, major media outlets and bipartisan
lawmakers — were incentivized against such a public service, and
would never have undertaken similar efforts for progressive ends. <br>
<br>
But this gets at something crucial — if difficult to
quantify — about the harm done by 20 years of the War on Terror. The
push for militarization has been used to shut down exactly the
left-wing political ideas that are vitally needed to curb the
climate crisis. As I argued in February 2020, U.S. wars have
repeatedly been used to justify a crackdown on left-wing movements.
World War I saw passage of the Espionage Act, which was used to
crack down on anti-war protesters and radical labor organizers. The
Cold War was used as pretext for crackdowns on a whole host of
domestic movements, from communist to socialist to Black Freedom,
alongside U.S. support for vicious anti-communist massacres around
the world. The War on Terror was no different, used to justify
passage of the PATRIOT Act, which was used to police and surveil
countless protesters, including environmentalists. The Global
Justice Movement was sounding the alarm about the climate crisis in
the late 1990s, and was not only subjected to post‑9/11 government
repression, but was then forced to refocus on opposing George W.
Bush’s global war effort.<br>
<br>
The War on Terror also makes it nearly impossible to attain the
kinds of global cooperation we need to address the climate crisis.
It is difficult for countries to focus on making the transformations
needed to curb climate change when they are focused on trying to
survive U.S. bombings, invasions, meddling and sanctions. And it’s
difficult to force the United States to reverse its disproportionate
climate harms when perpetual war and confrontation is the primary
American orientation toward much of the world, and the vast majority
of U.S. global cooperation is aimed at maintaining this footing.<br>
<br>
Such grim reflections on the climate harms wrought by 20 years of
the War on Terror do not amount to a nihilistic “I told you so.” We
vitally need to apply these grisly lessons now, as the nebulous
“War on Terror” is still being waged, from drone wars in Somalia to
the bombing campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile,
while Biden claims to be “ending an era of major military
operations to remake other countries,” he is overseeing an
increasingly confrontational posture toward China, an approach
championed by members of Congress in both parties. As dozens of
environmental and social justice organizations noted in July, it is
inconceivable that the world can curb the climate crisis without the
cooperation of the United States (the biggest per-capita greenhouse
gas emitter) and China (the biggest overall greenhouse gas emitter).
Instead of militarizing the Asia-Pacific region to hedge against
China, the United States could acknowledge this stark reality and
launch an unprecedented effort for climate cooperation with China. <br>
<br>
The possibilities for an alternative global orientation are both
vast and difficult to know. What we do know is that the status quo
of the War on Terror is not working. In addition to the hospitals
the United States has bombed, the homes it has destroyed, the
factories it has obliterated, and the people it has terrorized, the
American military project has deeply worsened the climate crisis.
And that crisis is now, undeniably, on our shores.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://inthesetimes.com/article/climate-change-floods-war-on-terror-crisis-china">https://inthesetimes.com/article/climate-change-floods-war-on-terror-crisis-china</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i><br>
</i><i>[modeling the future based on climate science]</i><br>
<b>What’s the worst that could happen?</b><br>
These five climate scenarios show us what the future of the planet
could look like.<br>
By Umair Irfan Sep 10, 2021<br>
- - <br>
What’s far less certain is just how bleak the future of our planet
will be.<br>
<br>
This critical question reaches beyond physical sciences into
economics, sociology, and even psychology. Humans still have the
power to slow the climate crisis — though with each day that goes by
without sweeping societal changes to slash emissions, the outlook
grows more grim...<br>
- -<br>
Even small increases in warming are consequential, and the impacts
of climate change are already visible today in phenomena like
melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and more destructive extreme
weather. But the flip side is that all efforts to mitigate climate
change are meaningful, even if the world overshoots its targets. All
the warming that’s avoided will save lives and property and will
enhance human welfare. There may be a point of no return, but there
is no point at which our actions don’t matter.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vox.com/22620706/climate-change-ipcc-report-2021-ssp-scenario-future-warming">https://www.vox.com/22620706/climate-change-ipcc-report-2021-ssp-scenario-future-warming</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i><br>
</i><i> [The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
September 11, 2015</b></font><br>
<br>
September 11, 2015: The Los Angeles Times reports: <br>
<br>
"The push for aggressive new state policies to fight climate change
suffered another setback Thursday.<br>
<br>
"Legislation to put into law executive orders on long-term targets
for reducing carbon emissions was pulled from consideration. It had
failed to win enough support from lawmakers and faced objections
from the governor's office.<br>
<br>
"The bill's author, state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), vowed
to revive it next year.<br>
<br>
"The defeat came a day after Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative
leaders withdrew a key portion of another proposal to combat climate
change, one calling for California to cut its use of gasoline in
half. They had been unable to overcome fierce opposition from the
oil industry and resistance from some Democrats."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-bills-legislature-20150911-story.html">http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-bills-legislature-20150911-story.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>