<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 29, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<br>
[new ideas - I am informing, I am not promoting - hear the
interveiw]<br>
<b>Andreas Malm on the Environmental Movement and “Intelligent
Sabotage”</b><br>
With Dorothy Wickenden<br>
September 27, 2021<br>
Andreas Malm, a climate activist and senior lecturer at Lund
University, in Sweden, studies the relationship between climate
change and capitalism. With the United Nations climate meeting in
Glasgow rapidly approaching—it begins on October 31st—Malm tells
David Remnick that he believes environmentalists should not place
too much faith in talks or treaties of this kind. Instead, he
insists that the climate movement rethink its roots in nonviolence.
His book is provocatively titled “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” though
it is not exactly an instruction manual. Malm advocates for
“intelligent sabotage” of fossil-fuel infrastructure to prevent more
carbon from being emitted. “I am in favor of destroying machines,
property—not harming people. That’s a very important distinction,”
he tells Remnick.<br>
Andreas Malm insists that, instead of waiting on the Glasgow climate
conference, environmentalists target fossil-fuel infrastructure<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/should-the-climate-movement-embrace-sabotage">https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/should-the-climate-movement-embrace-sabotage</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/andreas-malm-on-the-environmental-movement-and-intelligent-sabotage">https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/andreas-malm-on-the-environmental-movement-and-intelligent-sabotage</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[ Cool new ideas need deployment]<br>
<b>Space Powered Cooling May Be the Future of Energy</b><br>
Sep 28, 2021<br>
Undecided with Matt Ferrell<br>
Space powered cooling may be the future of energy. Our cooling
systems are heating the Earth as they consume fossil-fueled energy
and release greenhouse gases. Air Conditioning use is expected to
increase from about 3.6 billion units to 15 billion by 2050. So, how
do we exit this cold room trap? What if I told you we could tap into
space for electricity free air conditioning and other refrigeration
tech?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq8xDXkbXZs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq8xDXkbXZs</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[maybe anthropology is important ]<br>
<b>Climate change warning from collapsed ancient cities</b><br>
by University of Sydney<br>
Why did some ancient Khmer and Mesoamerican cities collapse between
900-1500CE while their rural surrounds continued to prosper?
Intentional adaptation to climate changed conditions may be the
answer, suggests a new study, which offers lessons for today.<br>
Cities and their hinterlands must build resilience to survive
climate stress; this is the grave warning emanating from a study of
ancient civilisations and climate change.<br>
<br>
From 900 to 1500CE, Khmer cities in mainland Southeast Asia
(including Angkor) and Maya cities in Mesoamerica collapsed,
coinciding with periods of intense climate variability. While the
ceremonial and administrative urban cores of many cities were
abandoned, the surrounding communities may have endured because of
long-term investment in resilient landscapes.<br>
<br>
"They created extensive landscapes of terraced and bunded (embanked
to control water flow) agricultural fields that acted as massive
sinks for water, sediment and nutrients," said lead author Associate
Professor Daniel Penny, from the University of Sydney School of
Geosciences.<br>
<br>
"This long-term investment in soil fertility and the capture and
storage of water resources may have allowed some communities to
persist long after the urban cores had been abandoned." He and his
colleague at the University of Texas at Austin, Professor Timothy
Beach, came to this conclusion via a review of relevant
archaeological and environmental information from Southeast Asia and
Mesoamerica.<br>
<br>
At the ancient city of Angkor in modern Cambodia, for example, the
administrative and ceremonial core was progressively abandoned over
several decades, culminating in a series of catastrophic droughts in
the 14th and 15th century, but the surrounding agricultural
landscapes may have persisted through these episodes of climatic
stress.<br>
<br>
Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
their study provides a rough roadmap for resilience in the face of
climate change.<br>
<br>
Lessons for rural and urban Australia<br>
<br>
These historical cases of urban collapse emphasize that long-term
and large-scale investment in landscape resilience—such as improving
water storage and retention, improving soil fertility, and securing
biodiversity—can better enable both urban and rural communities to
tolerate periods of climatic stress. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change believes this will become more frequent and more
intense in many parts of the world over the coming century.<br>
<br>
"We often think of these historic events as disasters, but they also
have much to teach us about persistence, resilience and continuity
in the face of climate variability," said Associate Professor Penny.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2021-09-climate-collapsed-ancient-cities.html">https://phys.org/news/2021-09-climate-collapsed-ancient-cities.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[if you follow the money then you know - 2 hour talk about 1 book
with McKibben and author - audio ]<b><br>
</b><b>Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet--And How We Fight
Back (Hardcover)</b><br>
Elliott Bay Books<br>
It has become impossible to deny that the planet is warming, and
that governments must act. But some believe that a new denialism is
taking root in the halls of power, shaped by decades of neoliberal
policies and centuries of anti-democratic thinking. One such is
journalist Kate Aronoff, who has written about the climate change
fight in her book Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet and
How We Fight Back.<br>
<br>
Aronoff joins us, in conversation with author and environmentalist
Bill McKibben, to explore her account that examines the forces that
she contends have hijacked progress on climate change. Since the
1980s, Democrats and Republicans have each granted enormous
concessions to industries bent on maintaining business as usual. And
worse, Aronoff says, policymakers have given oil and gas executives
a seat at the table designing policies that should instead be the
end of their business model. Aronoff argues that this approach will
only drive the planet further into emergency. Drawing on years of
reporting, she lays out an alternative vision, detailing how
democratic majorities can curb pollutors’ power; create millions of
well-paid, union jobs; enact climate reparations; and transform the
economy into a more leisurely and sustainable one. Our future,
Aronoff, challenges, will require a radical reimagining of
politics–with the world at stake.<br>
<br>
Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at The New Republic, and a former
fellow at the Type Media Center. Her work has appeared in The
Intercept, The New York Times, The Nation, Dissent, Rolling Stone,
and The Guardian, among other outlets. Aronoff is the co-editor of
We Own the Future: Democratic Socialism, American Style and the
co-author of A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal.<br>
<br>
Bill McKibben is an award-winning author and environmentalist. His
1989 book The End of Nature is regarded as the first book for a
general audience about climate change. He is a founder of 350.org,
the first planet-wide, grassroots climate change movement. A former
staff writer for the New Yorker, he writes frequently for a wide
variety of publications around the world, including the New York
Review of Books, National Geographic, and Rolling Stone. In 2014,
biologists named a species of woodland gnat—megophthalmidia
mckibbeni—after him.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://townhallseattle.org/event/kate-aronoff-livestream/">https://townhallseattle.org/event/kate-aronoff-livestream/</a> - video
or audio<br>
or see it on YouTube video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/Bp11KZ91NzI">https://youtu.be/Bp11KZ91NzI</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Denialist drama - a testy Stossel-tussle ]<br>
<b>Ex-Fox host claims Facebook defamed him by fact-checking climate
change videos</b><br>
Former Fox Business host says his ad revenue has taken a hit.<br>
TIM DE CHANT - 9/28/2021,<br>
Former Fox Business host John Stossel is suing Facebook, alleging
that the social media company and one of its contracted
fact-checking organizations defamed him when it flagged two of his
videos, alerting viewers to “missing context” and “partly false”
claims.<br>
<br>
The lawsuit also claims that Stossel’s professional reputation has
been “significantly and irreparably damaged by the false labels and
statements.”<br>
<br>
Since Stossel left Fox Business, he’s been releasing videos on
various social platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and
YouTube. The endeavor has apparently been somewhat lucrative—he has
made around $10,000 a month from Facebook alone. “My news model is
based on social media companies showing you videos,” he said on
YouTube.<br>
<br>
But when Facebook’s fact-checking label appeared on two videos,
Stossel alleges that his ad revenue from the platform was cut by
approximately 45 percent.<br>
<br>
<b>Stossel's claims</b><br>
In the videos, Stossel, and others appearing alongside him, cast
doubt on the severity of climate change. In one video, titled Are We
All Doomed?, Stossel replays excerpts from a panel discussion he
moderated for The Heartland Institute, which has received funding
from fossil fuel companies and groups opposed to regulations on
greenhouse gases. The panel consisted of three climate
skeptics—meteorologist Patrick Michaels, geographer David Legates,
and astrophysicist Willie Soon—who proceeded to question whether
anthropogenic climate change is causing sea level rise or increasing
the power of hurricanes.<br>
<br>
In another, titled Government Fueled Fires, Stossel discusses
whether forest management practices or climate change were driving
severity of California’s recent fire seasons, interviewing author
Michael Shellenberger on the matter. Shellenberger is a
self-proclaimed environmental activist who writes about
“environmental alarmism” and claims that climate change “is not even
our most serious environmental problem.”<br>
Both videos were fact-checked by Climate Feedback, a subsidiary of
French fact-checking organization and Facebook partner Science
Feedback. The group found that Stossel’s climate change video
contained “partly false information” because “speakers in the video
rely on several inaccurate claims and use imprecise language that
misleads viewers about the scientific understanding of climate
change.”<br>
<br>
The California fire season video, on the other hand, was labeled
“missing context” because it “misrepresents a complex reality” by
focusing on how forest fire suppression over the 20th century led to
catastrophic fire conditions while downplaying the significance of
climate change. “Scientific studies demonstrate clear links between
climate change, hotter and drier conditions, and an increase in dry
vegetative fuel load, drastically increasing the amount of forest
fire area in the western US,” Climate Feedback wrote in its
assessment.<br>
<br>
<b>“Misrepresentation of our process”</b><br>
<br>
To bolster their argument in the lawsuit, Stossel’s lawyers point
out that two of the experts cited in the review of the California
fire season video initially didn’t watch the video, which the
reviewers confirmed when Stossel interviewed them. However, in 2020,
Climate Feedback says that Stossel’s claim of an inappropriate
review “is based on a misrepresentation of our process, and of the
assessments of the scientists who contributed to this review.”
Indeed, the Climate Feedback page and versions available on
Archive.org clearly state that, when the organization is reviewing
claims similar to others that have previously been assessed, it will
republish scientists’ prior statements on the matter.<br>
Upon reviewing the video in question, both experts interviewed by
Stossel said that the Facebook fact-check label was appropriately
applied.<br>
<br>
Stossel claims that the fact-check labels have prevented him from
reposting the California fire season video, which, for example,
“would have resulted in another approximately 1.2 million views and
the associated ad revenue from those views.”<br>
<br>
We have reached out to Facebook and Climate Feedback for comment and
will update this story if we hear from them.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/ex-fox-host-claims-facebook-defamed-him-by-fact-checking-climate-change-videos/">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/ex-fox-host-claims-facebook-defamed-him-by-fact-checking-climate-change-videos/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[ With inaction, it is more likely sooner, 2250 maybe ]<br>
<b>Earth Could Be Alien to Humans by 2500</b><br>
Unless greenhouse gas emissions drop significantly, warming by 2500
will make the Amazon barren, Iowa tropical and India too hot to live
in<br>
<br>
By Christopher Lyon, Alex Dunhill, Andrew P. Beckerman, Ariane
Burke, Bethany Allen, Chris Smith, Daniel J. Hill, Erin Saupe, James
McKay, Julien Riel-Salvatore, Lindsay C. Stringer, Rob Marchant,
Tracy Aze, The Conversation US on September 28, 2021<br>
There are many reports based on scientific research that talk about
the long-term impacts of climate change—such as rising levels of
greenhouse gases, temperatures and sea levels—by the year 2100. The
Paris Agreement, for example, requires us to limit warming to under
2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the
century.<br>
<br>
Every few years since 1990, we have evaluated our progress through
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scientific
assessment reports and related special reports. IPCC reports assess
existing research to show us where we are and what we need to do
before 2100 to meet our goals, and what could happen if we don’t.<br>
<br>
The recently published United Nations assessment of Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs) warns that current promises from
governments set us up for a very dangerous 2.7 degrees Celsius
warming by 2100: this means unprecedented fires, storms, droughts,
floods and heat, and profound land and aquatic ecosystem change.<br>
<br>
While some climate projections do look past 2100, these longer-term
projections aren’t being factored into mainstream climate adaptation
and environmental decision-making today. This is surprising because
people born now will only be in their 70s by 2100. What will the
world look like for their children and grandchildren?<br>
<br>
To grasp, plan for and communicate the full spatial and temporal
scope of climate impacts under any scenario, even those meeting the
Paris Agreement, researchers and policymakers must look well beyond
the 2100 horizon.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>AFTER 2100</b><br>
In 2100, will the climate stop warming? If not, what does this mean
for humans now and in the future? In our recent open-access article
in Global Change Biology, we begin to answer these questions.<br>
We ran global climate model projections based on Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCP), which are “time-dependent projections
of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.” Our projections
modelled low (RCP6.0), medium (RCP4.5) and high mitigation scenarios
(RCP2.6, which corresponds to the “well-below 2 degrees Celsius”
Paris Agreement goal) up to the year 2500.<br>
<br>
We also modelled vegetation distribution, heat stress and growing
conditions for our current major crop plants, to get a sense of the
kind of environmental challenges today’s children and their
descendants might have to adapt to from the 22nd century onward.<br>
<br>
In our model, we found that global average temperatures keep
increasing beyond 2100 under RCP4.5 and 6.0. Under those scenarios,
vegetation and the best crop-growing areas move towards the poles,
and the area suitable for some crops is reduced. Places with long
histories of cultural and ecosystem richness, like the Amazon Basin,
may become barren.<br>
<br>
Further, we found heat stress may reach fatal levels for humans in
tropical regions which are currently highly populated. Such areas
might become uninhabitable. Even under high-mitigation scenarios, we
found that sea level keeps rising due to expanding and mixing water
in warming oceans.<br>
<br>
Although our findings are based on one climate model, they fall
within the range of projections from others, and help to reveal the
potential magnitude of climate upheaval on longer time scales.<br>
<br>
To really portray what a low-mitigation/high-heat world could look
like compared to what we’ve experienced until now, we used our
projections and diverse research expertise to inform a series of
nine paintings covering a thousand years (1500, 2020, and 2500 CE)
in three major regional landscapes (the Amazon, the Midwest United
States and the Indian subcontinent). The images for the year 2500
centre on the RCP6.0 projections, and include slightly advanced but
recognizable versions of today’s technologies.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>AN ALIEN FUTURE?</b><br>
Between 1500 and today, we have witnessed colonization and the
Industrial Revolution, the birth of modern states, identities and
institutions, the mass combustion of fossil fuels and the associated
rise in global temperatures. If we fail to halt climate warming, the
next 500 years and beyond will change the Earth in ways that
challenge our ability to maintain many essentials for
survival—particularly in the historically and geographically rooted
cultures that give us meaning and identity.<br>
<br>
The Earth of our high-end projections is alien to humans. The choice
we face is to urgently reduce emissions, while continuing to adapt
to the warming we cannot escape as a result of emissions up to now,
or begin to consider life on an Earth very different to this one.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-could-be-alien-to-humans-by-2500/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-could-be-alien-to-humans-by-2500/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Doomerist meets a denialist on mass media -- a bit of a showdown ]<br>
<b>Rupert Read vs. Global Warming Policy Foundation</b><br>
Rupert Read<br>
This clip is taken from Patrick Christys and Mercy Muroki's
interview with Rupert Read and Andrew Montford on GB News on
9-August-2021.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuGaSgRxWYE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuGaSgRxWYE</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
September 29, 2000</b></font><br>
<p>September 29, 2000: In an apparent effort to convince moderate
voters<br>
not to support Democratic opponent Al Gore, GOP presidential
candidate<br>
George W. Bush delivers an energy speech implying that he will
pursue<br>
efforts to reduce carbon pollution as president. Bush would go on
to<br>
abandon this implied promise during his tenure in the White House.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EnergyIssues3">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EnergyIssues3</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<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>