<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>September 22, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<br>
[Serious academic discussion on current disinformation - 90 minute
video ]<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/0dsr-VSp65U?t=447">https://youtu.be/0dsr-VSp65U?t=447</a>
<br>
<b>Defending Against Disinformation</b><br>
Sept 21, 2021<br>
UC Berkeley Events<br>
<br>
Disinformation — the intentional dissemination of false information
to shape political and social outcomes — is increasingly a feature
of the U.S. political landscape. The effects are pernicious: By
causing confusion, disinformation amplifies division and aggravates
discord. By creating a false but widely held alternate reality, it
can destabilize a society. Just in the past year, disinformation has
had direct, harmful effects on efforts to check the spread of
COVID-19, on initiatives for racial justice and on the 2020 election
and its aftermath. Clearly, disinformation costs lives and erodes
democracy.<br>
<br>
On Wednesday Sept. 21 at 12 noon, a panel of eminent Berkeley
scholars will explore one of the most critical questions facing U.S.
democracy: How can we counter disinformation without compromising
America’s core principles?<br>
<br>
The panelists will be: Geeta Anand, dean of the School of
Journalism; Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law; Hany Farid,
associate dean and head of the School of Information; Susan D. Hyde,
chair of the Department of Political Science; john powell, director
of the Othering & Belonging Institute; and moderator Henry
Brady, former dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy.<br>
<br>
The event is sponsored by the Goldman School of Public Policy,
Berkeley Law, and the Office of Communications and Public Affairs,
with support from the Social Science Matrix.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/0dsr-VSp65U?t=447">https://youtu.be/0dsr-VSp65U?t=447</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[weathers have changed]</i><br>
<b>An unpreparable storm</b><br>
With sustained winds of 150 mph when it came ashore, Hurricane Ida
was the strongest landfalling hurricane in Louisiana history — tying
last year’s Hurricane Laura. It’s the first time in history there’s
been a US state that’s endured two hurricanes that strong in
back-to-back years.<br>
<br>
Ida brought unimaginable wind far inland, its 40-foot waves showed
up on seismic equipment, and its storm surge was so strong that it
temporarily reversed the flow of the Mississippi River. Going from
non-existent to a near-Category-5 landfall in 72 hrs is something no
hurricane had ever done before in the Atlantic.<br>
<br>
The sounds this storm made were like hell:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/thegoprodad/status/1432049760496758791">https://twitter.com/thegoprodad/status/1432049760496758791</a><br>
In pandemic New Orleans, mandatory evacuations now require 72 hours
notice. That means that Ida’s rapid intensification put Louisiana in
uncharted territory. It was literally impossible for New Orleans to
prepare for something like Ida.<br>
<br>
As a meteorologist, that’s a chilling fact. We’re in a situation
where hurricanes can now grow more powerful and more quickly than
our cities can make themselves safe.<br>
<br>
We knew this was going to happen. We know that climate change is
making storms like this happen more often. Still, Ida was shocking —
the sixth tropical storm or hurricane to hit Louisiana in little
more than a year.<br>
<br>
There was no way that Louisiana could be ‘resilient’ to something
like this. This is trauma — an intentional, repeated wound that
keeps being opened over and over again...<br>
- -<br>
“Resilience” has its limits. We’re there.<br>
Climate change is a trauma that’s moving all of us physically and
emotionally to places that make us feel unsafe. What happens when
there’s nowhere else to go?<br>
<br>
My overwhelming feelings of the past several months are shock,
worry, sadness, desperation, and empathy. If you’re feeling this way
too, it’s OK to call this trauma.<br>
<br>
From California to Haiti to Afghanistan to New Orleans, from fires
to flood to injustice to revolution, it’s all so much. And I’m just
an observer — safe in my home with my kids and my garden and our pet
hamster. Nothing makes sense.<br>
<br>
This summer, I’m realizing that this is just how it is now. For the
rest of my life. For the rest of my kids’ lives.<br>
<br>
I don't know what else there is to say. My heart is breaking for
people I've never met, for injustice and more layers of trauma we
knew were coming.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thephoenix.substack.com/p/lets-stop-talking-about-climate-resilience?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNjgzNTA5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozNzQxMzAzMCwiXyI6InI3Mk5tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjMyMjg0MDMwLCJleHAiOjE2MzIyODc2MzAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xMDIzOTkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.k8zwejj10V-upEYhhJ092PJBw6jpq7KDzyfm-kpD5kM">https://thephoenix.substack.com/p/lets-stop-talking-about-climate-resilience?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNjgzNTA5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozNzQxMzAzMCwiXyI6InI3Mk5tIiwiaWF0IjoxNjMyMjg0MDMwLCJleHAiOjE2MzIyODc2MzAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xMDIzOTkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.k8zwejj10V-upEYhhJ092PJBw6jpq7KDzyfm-kpD5kM</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[following the flow of money]</i><br>
<b>Special Report: BP gambles big on fast transition from oil to
renewables</b><br>
By Ron Bousso<br>
- -<br>
"BP is still looking to sell assets, at a time when demand for them
is not great, and recycle that cash into renewable-energy assets,
where competition for them is fierce," Mould said in an August note
to investors. "That sounds like a potential recipe for selling low,
buying high and destroying shareholder value along the way."...<br>
- -<br>
It will be years before investors know the outcome of Looney's wager
on renewables. Still, even BP's relatively fast transformation
doesn't go far enough in reducing climate damage, said Kim Fustier,
an oil-and-gas analyst at HSBC bank. She expects BP's earnings from
renewables and low-carbon businesses to represent 4% to 5% of total
earnings by the middle of the decade and 10% to 15% by 2030.<br>
<br>
"This is nowhere near enough for investors to start thinking of
these companies as being part of the solution," Fustier said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bp-gambles-big-fast-transition-oil-renewables-2021-09-20/">https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bp-gambles-big-fast-transition-oil-renewables-2021-09-20/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[CNBC calling out the controversy]</i><br>
<b>Bill Gates says partisan politics hurts climate change battle,
and the U.S. is ‘one of the worst’</b><br>
Catherine Clifford -- SEP 21 2021<br>
- - “Sadly, the U.S. is one of the worst in the issue being partisan
in nature, but we need to change that,” Bill Gates said in an
interview that aired Tuesday during Climate Week NYC.<br>
- - The billionaire co-founder of Microsoft is also the founder of
the climate innovation and investment company Breakthrough Energy
and the founder and chairman of the advanced nuclear company
TerraPower.<br>
- - “This is hard enough to drive innovation and deployment and cost
reduction in this 30-year deadline even if there is not a single day
of pause in that,” Gates said.<br>
Decarbonizing economies and infrastructures is a monumental task.<br>
<br>
“I see momentum building, I see awareness building, but this will be
the hardest thing humanity has ever done,” Gates said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/bill-gates-partisan-politics-hurts-climate-change-fight-in-us.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/bill-gates-partisan-politics-hurts-climate-change-fight-in-us.html</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[distressing opinion]</i><br>
<b>Democrats May Be on the Verge of Climate Disaster</b><br>
The party’s climate measures suddenly face a tough battle in
Congress.<br>
By Robinson Meyer<br>
<b>I’m starting to become concerned about President Joe Biden’s
ability to pass a climate bill. </b>They’re speaking sotto voce,
but still: In the past few days, Democrats on the party’s left and
right flanks have started to hint that, well, in some circumstances,
given some contingencies, they might prefer no bill to a negotiated
compromise with the rival flank.<br>
<br>
The most worrying signs so far have come from Senator Joe Manchin,
the West Virginia Democrat who has received more donations from the
coal, gas, and oil industries in the current election cycle than any
other senator. Manchin was never going to be an easy customer; in
2010, he shot a bullet through President Barack Obama’s
cap-and-trade bill. Yet he seemed on board with the Clean
Electricity Performance Program, the all-important (if fluidly
named) Democratic proposal that would push utilities to generate
more of their energy from zero-carbon sources every year. The CEPP
would eliminate the greater part of 1 billion tons of climate
pollution by itself and is essential to meeting the U.S. goal under
the Paris Agreement.<br>
Manchin has waffled on the plan through the year, but has never
rejected it outright as he has a carbon tax. As West Virginia’s
governor in 2009, he signed a relatively weak version of the policy
into law. Now, however, he is writing an alternate version of the
clean-electricity plan, The New York Times reported this week, that
allots a larger role for natural gas and does not require utilities
to decarbonize as quickly.<br>
<br>
More worrying is the prospect that Manchin will not allow any change
at all. He has privately said that Democrats should take a
“strategic pause” and wait until 2022 to pass the reconciliation
bill, Axios reported on Sunday. Such a proposal suggests that he is
disquietingly comfortable with failing to pass anything at all.
Democrats control the Senate by only a single vote, and 17 of their
caucus’s members, including Manchin, are older than 70. Their House
majority isn’t much bigger. Given that lawmakers have a
counterproductive fear of doing much of anything ambitious in the
same year that they face a midterm election, Manchin’s pause is akin
to saying that no bill might be better than something.<br>
<br>
The other wavering vote is that of Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who comes
from the fossil-fuel-rich state of Arizona. She can be a wild card
in negotiations but so far has seemed to focus more on Democrats’
health-care policy than their climate wrangling.<br>
Also ominous, though, is that a small group of far-left
environmental groups have started to strike the same note. They have
demanded that any Clean Electricity Performance Program allow only
solar, wind, and geothermal energy, leaving no role for other
zero-carbon energy sources such as nuclear. They were joined,
somewhat shockingly, by the otherwise mainstream progressive group
Indivisible. Such a mandate is disconnected from reality: Insisting
on a renewables-only grid would not just cost more than the entire
reconciliation bill, but violate the pro-nuclear plank of the
bipartisan infrastructure plan, which progressive lawmakers in the
House agreed to last month. In other words, the decision to allow
some nuclear power in this bill has already been made; the groups
are telling someone not to eat a sandwich when the crumbs and empty
wrapper are already on the ground. Even the Union for Concerned
Scientists, which was founded in 1969 as an anti-nuclear watchdog,
now says that existing nuclear plants must remain open if the United
States hopes to reduce its carbon pollution fast enough to avoid
catastrophe. Yet Indivisible and other groups have warned that no
plan that deviates from renewables would be better than a flawed
plan, according to Politico.<br>
<br>
I feel for these groups, to be honest. They may be trying to even
the stakes, which remain tilted in the centrists’ favor. As the
Michigan State University political-science professor Matt Grossmann
recently observed, Manchin and Sinema would prefer no deal to what
progressives want, while progressives would prefer Manchin and
Sinema’s version to no deal. But if this sort of brinkmanship
renders legislation unpalatable, then lawmakers won’t swallow it.
And the U.S. will go at least another decade without a climate law.<br>
<br>
Democrats are haunted by 2009. That year, President Obama came to
office promising to reform America’s health-care system and finally
get serious about reversing climate change. He managed to do the
first. His failure to accomplish the second has spawned a decade of
appraisals.<br>
<br>
The most authoritative of these was written by Theda Skocpol, a
Harvard political scientist. In 2013, she argued that
environmentalists had gone astray by focusing too much on elite
bipartisan wrangling in Washington, D.C. Despite months of reaching
out to Republicans and supplying conservative-friendly climate
bills, climate groups failed to secure a single GOP vote in support
of the 2009 bill. She also faulted the U.S. environmental movement
for building membership organizations solely at the state or
municipal level.<br>
<br>
What was needed, she wrote, was a mass climate movement: “a
climate-change politics that includes broad popular mobilization on
the center left.” Only a broad movement could overcome the
“right-wing elite and popular forces” that stood in the way of
actually doing something.<br>
<br>
From this proposal, and others like it, a decade’s worth of climate
groups were born. In September 2014, more than 300,000 people
marched in New York City with the People’s Climate March. The
Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a membership-based group that supports
carbon pricing, gained steam, as did the left-wing activist group
350.org. In 2017 came the Sunrise Movement and, the next year, its
demand for a Green New Deal. These groups all aimed to engineer the
kind of mass mobilization around climate change that Skocpol had
called for.<br>
Today, the fate of another climate bill hangs in the balance, and I
think it’s fair to ask: What role can these groups actually play? If
you look at Sunrise’s power, specifically, it seems far more subtle
than was once advertised. Back in June, Sunrise held a protest at
the White House, demanding that Biden commit to creating a Civilian
Climate Corps, a New Deal–inspired program that would employ young
people to retrofit buildings and manage national wildland. The
activists held signs with slogans like biden, you coward, fight for
us. At the time, some commentators criticized Sunrise for not
focusing on the true opponents of climate policy. “If you want to
protest someone, protest the tiny handful of House Republicans who
hold seats that Biden won and try to pressure them into backing the
bill,” the center-left pundit Matthew Yglesias said. Others
suggested that they protest Manchin.<br>
<br>
Yet the nature of Sunrise’s power is more convoluted than that.
Sunrise has little ability to coerce Manchin or Sinema, the most
ardent critics of climate action in the Democratic caucus. Its power
flows from its credibility with parts of the Democratic electorate:
When Sunrise speaks, a cohort of educated, climate-terrified
progressives listen. And if Sunrise says that a certain bill is
inadequate to solving the climate crisis, or that Biden has sold the
party out to fossil-fuel interests, those progressives will hear—and
become so discouraged they’ll toss their hands up. And although
Manchin might not need that cohort’s votes, other Democrats do.<br>
Sunrise, in other words, holds a Damoclean sword above blue-state
Democrats. The initial promise of Sunrise was that it would mobilize
progressives to fight climate change. But its most potent power is
the ability to demobilize, by instructing progressives that
Democrats aren’t serious about climate change and aren’t worth their
time, money, and effort. That isn’t a very enviable position for
either Sunrise or the mainstream Democratic Party to be in. With any
luck, nobody will need to discover what will happen if it
changes—and the sword comes clattering to earth.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/democrats-may-be-verge-climate-disaster/620148/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/democrats-may-be-verge-climate-disaster/620148/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[Wars of Opinion Manipulation]</i><br>
<b>Facebook steps up fight against climate misinformation – but
critics say effort falls short</b><br>
<b></b>New efforts will let vast amounts of false material slip
through the cracks, according to climate advocates<br>
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021<br>
- -<br>
“Climate change disinformation is spreading rapidly across
Facebook’s social media platform, threatening the ability of
citizens and policymakers to fight the climate crisis,” the groups
wrote.<br>
<br>
One recent study conducted by Friends of the Earth, an environmental
organization, found about 99% of climate misinformation about the
February 2021 power outages in Texas went unchecked.<br>
<br>
The study found misleading reports that wind turbines were at fault
in the outage had run rampant on the social media platform. It also
showed how such theories make their way from the fringes of Facebook
to the mainstream, finding that though the windmill claim was
debunked on local and major news outlets, the falsehoods became
talking points for prominent politicians within four days...<br>
- -<br>
The features announced on Thursday, Facebook said, would further
reduce misinformation on the platform.<br>
<br>
Khoo, of Friends of the Earth, argued Facebook could do far more.
“For a company that makes $85bn a year, a $1m program that
outsources the problem they’ve created shows that Facebook is not
serious about solving climate disinformation,” he said.<br>
<br>
Evan Greer, deputy director at the digital rights organization Fight
for the Future, said that Facebook faced other critiques when it
comes to combating climate misinformation, noting that the platform
had been accused of suppressing posts and information from reliable
organizations in the field.<br>
<br>
In 2020 July, a prominent climate scientist said the platform was
restricting her ability to research and factcheck posts containing
climate misinformation. The company reportedly flagged the posts the
scientist’s posts as “political”.<br>
<br>
Facebook declined to comment further.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/09/facebook-climate-misinformation-lies-trump-propaganda-spreading-rapidly/">https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/09/facebook-climate-misinformation-lies-trump-propaganda-spreading-rapidly/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[one of the worst - what happened to Falun Gong?]</i><br>
<b>Climate denial newspaper flourishes on Facebook</b><br>
By Scott Waldman | 08/27/2021 05:32 AM EST<br>
One of the most-viewed sites on Facebook in the last few months is a
subscription page for a conservative media outlet that publishes
climate denial.<br>
<br>
The Epoch Times, a far-right newspaper that echoes anti-vaccine
messages and promoted former President Trump’s false election
claims, received 44.2 million views between April and June for a
page that offers to sign up subscribers, according to a report
released by Facebook last week.<br>
<br>
That was 10th overall.<br>
<br>
It’s a remarkable achievement for a media outlet that has been
banned from advertising on Facebook for hiding its connection to ads
that supported Trump’s candidacy. It also raises questions about how
an outlet that spreads climate misinformation was able to reach
millions of people through a social media platform that has voiced
commitments against spreading false assertions about science.<br>
<br>
The Epoch Times, which was founded by members of the Chinese
spiritual group Falun Gong, pivoted hard toward conservative
politics during the Trump administration. And while the paper had a
history of objective climate coverage before then, it has become one
of the larger media sources of climate denial...<br>
- -<br>
Some of the commentary printed by the paper is from writers at think
tanks that have received energy industry funding and that promote
climate denial, such as the Heartland Institute and the Texas Public
Policy Foundation.<br>
<br>
Since its shift into hard-right politics, The Epoch Times has
flourished financially, public tax records show. The Epoch Times
Association reported $15.5 million in revenue in 2019, $12.5 million
in 2018, $8.1 million in 2017 and $3.9 million in 2016, public tax
records show. The paper claims to publish in 22 languages in 36
countries.<br>
<br>
The Facebook report suggests that the social media behemoth has
helped fuel that rise.<br>
<br>
The Epoch Times’ Facebook page has millions of followers and adds
thousands of people every week. Its growth comes as the outlet has
faced sanctions for deceptive pro-Trump ads.<br>
<br>
The Facebook report is “essentially a PR effort” to tamp down
criticism of the platform’s elevation of misinformation, said
Jennifer Grygiel, an associate professor of communication at
Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications....<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/climate-denial-newspaper-flourishes-on-facebook/">https://www.eenews.net/articles/climate-denial-newspaper-flourishes-on-facebook/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[New word has a touch of self-mockery - add it to your
spell-check dictionary - </i><i><b>Collapsology</b></i><i> ]</i><br>
<b>The term collapsology is a neologism</b> used to designate the
transdisciplinary study of the risks of collapse of industrial
civilization.[1] It is concerned with the "general collapse of
societies induced by climate change, scarcity of resources, vast
extinctions, and natural disasters."[2] Although the concept of
civilizational or societal collapse had already existed for many
years, collapsology focuses its attention on the contemporary,
industrial and globalized society.<br>
- -<br>
Etymology<br>
The word "collapsology" is a neologism invented "with a certain
self-mockery" by Pablo Servigne, an agricultural engineer, and
Raphaël Stevens, an expert in the resilience of socio-ecological
systems. It appears in their book published in 2015<br>
<br>
It is a portmanteau derived from the Latin collapsus, "to fall, to
collapse" and from the suffix "-logy", logos, put for "study " ,
which is intended to name an approach of scientific nature.[8]<br>
<br>
Since 2015 and the publication of How everything can collapse in
French, several words have been proposed to describe the various
approaches dealing with the issue of collapse: collapso-sophy to
designate the philosophical approach, collapso-praxis to designate
the ideology inspired by this study, and collapsonauts to designate
people living with this idea in mind.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapsology">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapsology</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Democracy Now - trusted news -- video]<br>
</p>
<b>“We Need to Deliver”: Anger Grows at Sens. Manchin, Sinema over
Obstruction of Democratic Priorities</b><br>
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021<br>
<p>Democrats are still divided over President Biden’s sweeping $3.5
trillion spending plan to expand the social safety net, increase
taxes on the rich and corporations, improve worker rights and
combat the climate crisis. Senate Democrats are hoping to use the
budget reconciliation process to pass the bill, but this will only
work if the entire Democratic caucus backs the deal, and
conservative Democrats have balked at the price tag. Progressive
Democrats in the House, meanwhile, say they won’t vote for a
separate $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed by the Senate
unless the reconciliation bill is part of the package. “We want to
pass the full agenda that President Biden has set forth,” says Ro
Khanna, a Democratic congressmember from California. “This is what
President Biden campaigned on, and we need to deliver.” Khanna
also discusses U.S. immigration policy, raising the refugee cap,
investigating the full 20 years of the War in Afghanistan and
bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>REP. RO KHANNA:</b> You know, Amy, I have a decent
relationship with Senator Manchin. I’ve never questioned his
integrity. My point is, let’s get to the right policy. Let’s
have a conversation. I mean, I understand that there are fossil
fuel industry in his state. And so, if he has a view that we
need to have more investment in his state in clean energy so
that these jobs are first in West Virginia and he can go to his
constituents and say, “This is not going to cost the economy in
West Virginia; it’s actually going to add to it,” I’m open to
having that conversation. Many progressives are open to having a
conversation with him.<br>
<br>
We don’t know exactly where he and Senator Sinema are coming
from. For example, on voting rights, his plan, it’s not one I
fully agree with, but it’s a good one, and the progressives can
rally around his voting rights plan. I guess my question to the
senator, about Manchin and Sinema, is: What is their plan? Where
is their — what are they proposing? That, as an initial matter,
is necessary for us to get to a yes. And we made that clear to
both the White House and those senators, that they have to come
up with a proposal.<br>
<br>
<b>AMY GOODMAN: </b>He, Manchin, has said he has a concern
about the money. Manchin has received more campaign donations
from the oil, coal and gas industries than any other senator.
Maybe that’s the money he’s concerned about?<br>
<br>
<b>REP. RO KHANNA:</b> Well, Amy, look, I’m having a hearing, as
the environment chair, where we’re going to get the fossil fuel
companies in for the first time — Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell. So,
we’re certainly going to realize and find out what they’ve been
doing to kill legislation, to have lobbying influence.<br>
<br>
I will say this: I mean, West Virginia has a large fossil fuel
industry. So, if there are individuals who are supporting him in
those industries, that, to me, in and of itself, doesn’t — isn’t
what is the decisive factor. What is the decisive factor is:
What is he for? And if he comes onto the table and says, “Look,
I want these things for West Virginia,” I think he’ll find a lot
of people in the caucus are willing to do that. We want to have
a dialogue with him. I personally have never questioned his
integrity. What I want to do is: How do we get to a yes for the
president’s agenda? And it’s in all of our interests as
Democrats to do that.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.democracynow.org/2021/9/21/35_trillion_spending_bill_ro_khanna">https://www.democracynow.org/2021/9/21/35_trillion_spending_bill_ro_khanna</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[High aspiration award goes to...]<br>
<b>Walmart has a plan to tackle the climate crisis. Can it pull it
off?</b><br>
Walmart is attempting to erase its huge climate footprint while
continuing to sell tens of millions of low-priced products<br>
- -<br>
Walmart has declared its mission to tackle these climate impacts,
which means focusing on every part of the chain – from the
electricity sourced in its stores to the palm oil in the candy bars
sold on its shelves. But while some experts celebrate the scale of
the retailer’s efforts, others wonder whether they go far enough...<br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/walmart-climate-change-plan-can-it-work">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/walmart-climate-change-plan-can-it-work</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
September 22, 2014</b></font><br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>"John D. Rockefeller built a vast fortune on oil. Now
his heirs are <br>
abandoning fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
"The family whose legendary wealth flowed from Standard Oil is<br>
planning to announce on Monday that its $860 million
philanthropic<br>
organization, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, is joining the
divestment<br>
movement that began a couple years ago on college campuses.<br>
<br>
"The announcement, timed to precede Tuesday’s opening of the
United<br>
Nations climate change summit meeting in New York City, is part
of a<br>
broader and accelerating initiative.<br>
<br>
"In recent years, 180 institutions — including philanthropies,<br>
religious organizations, pension funds and local governments —
as well<br>
as hundreds of wealthy individual investors have pledged to sell<br>
assets tied to fossil fuel companies from their portfolios and
to<br>
invest in cleaner alternatives. In all, the groups have pledged
to<br>
divest assets worth more than $50 billion from portfolios, and
the<br>
individuals more than $1 billion, according to Arabella
Advisors, a<br>
firm that consults with philanthropists and investors to use
their<br>
resources to achieve social goals."<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/heirs-to-an-oil-fortune-join-the-divestment-drive.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/heirs-to-an-oil-fortune-join-the-divestment-drive.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/big-oils-heirs-join-call-for-action-as-climate-summit-opens/2014/09/21/ab27b1ce-40ea-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html?tid=HP_more">http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/big-oils-heirs-join-call-for-action-as-climate-summit-opens/2014/09/21/ab27b1ce-40ea-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html?tid=HP_more</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msnbc.com/now/watch/sounding-the-alarm-on-climate-change-332140099937#">http://www.msnbc.com/now/watch/sounding-the-alarm-on-climate-change-332140099937#</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-rockefellers--huge-climate-announcement-332248643972">http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-rockefellers--huge-climate-announcement-332248643972</a><br>
<br>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
- Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>