<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>October 12, 2021</b></i></font></p>
<i>[ WaPo -- environment measured -- wounded humans to follow.]</i><br>
<b>At least 85 percent of the world’s population has been affected
by human-induced climate change, new study shows</b><br>
Researchers used machine learning to analyze more than 100,000
studies of weather events and found four-fifths of the world’s land
area has suffered impacts linked to global warming<br>
By Annabelle Timsit and Sarah Kaplan October 11, 2021<br>
- -<br>
Yet despite a pledge to halve emissions by the end of the decade,
congressional Democrats are struggling to pass a pair of bills that
would provide hundreds of billions of dollars for renewable energy,
electric vehicles and programs that would help communities adapt to
a changing climate.<br>
<br>
The contrast between the scope of climate disasters and the scale of
global ambition is top of mind for hundreds of protesters who have
descended on Washington this week to demand an end to fossil fuel
use...<br>
- - <br>
In a letter released Monday, some 450 organizations representing 45
million health-care workers called attention to the way rising
temperatures have increased the risk of many health issues,
including breathing problems, mental illness and insect-borne
diseases. One of the papers analyzed for the Nature study, for
example, found that deaths from heart disease had risen in areas
experiencing hotter conditions.<br>
<br>
“The climate crisis is the single biggest health threat facing
humanity,” the health organizations’ letter said.<br>
<br>
Yet in many of the places that stand to suffer most from climate
change, Callaghan and his colleagues found a deficit of research on
what temperature and precipitation shifts could mean for people’s
daily lives. The researchers identified fewer than 10,000 studies
looking at climate change’s effect on Africa, and about half as many
focused on South America. By contrast, roughly 30,000 published
papers examined climate impacts in North America...<br>
- -<br>
Here in the nation’s capital, policymakers are still debating the
costs of moving away from fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
While members of both parties back a nearly $1 trillion
infrastructure bill that has passed the Senate and would provide
$7.5 billion to build out a national network of electric-vehicle
charging stations and several other measures to cut carbon
emissions, the White House is struggling to muster enough support
for a $3.5 trillion bill that would provide incentives for utilities
that get an increasing share of their power from solar, wind and
other carbon-free sources and penalize those that don’t move swiftly
enough...<br>
- -<br>
Increasingly, groups are calling on President Biden to restrict
fossil fuel production outright.<br>
<br>
On Wednesday, a coalition of more than 380 groups filed a legal
petition demanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stop
issuing permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects. Two
days later, hundreds of scientists submitted an open letter asking
Biden to do the same.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/11/85-percent-population-climate-impacts/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/11/85-percent-population-climate-impacts/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Nature Climate Change ]</i><br>
Published: 11 October 2021<br>
<b>Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of
100,000 climate impact studies</b><br>
Abstract<br>
Increasing evidence suggests that climate change impacts are already
observed around the world. Global environmental assessments face
challenges to appraise the growing literature. Here we use the
language model BERT to identify and classify studies on observed
climate impacts, producing a comprehensive machine-learning-assisted
evidence map. We estimate that 102,160 (64,958–164,274) publications
document a broad range of observed impacts. By combining our
spatially resolved database with grid-cell-level human-attributable
changes in temperature and precipitation, we infer that attributable
anthropogenic impacts may be occurring across 80% of the world’s
land area, where 85% of the population reside. Our results reveal a
substantial ‘attribution gap’ as robust levels of evidence for
potentially attributable impacts are twice as prevalent in
high-income than in low-income countries. While gaps remain on
confidently attributing climate impacts at the regional and sectoral
level, this database illustrates the potential current impact of
anthropogenic climate change across the globe...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01168-6">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01168-6</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[Wired tells us what to do]<br>
</i><b>Actions You Can Take to Tackle Climate Change</b><i><br>
</i>These apps and resources can help you manage your
eco-anxiety—and take steps to tread more lightly on the planet.<i><br>
</i><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.wired.com/story/actions-you-can-take-to-tackle-climate-change/">https://www.wired.com/story/actions-you-can-take-to-tackle-climate-change/</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ From the IPCC lots of data and charts nicely explained in
video] </i><br>
<b>State of the Climate: Updates from the IPCC</b><br>
Oxford Climate Society<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quBcj0d26PE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quBcj0d26PE</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Briefing and background from the Guardian ] </i><br>
<b>What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide</b><br>
Everything you need to know about the Glasgow conference seeking to
forge a global response to the climate emergency<br>
<b>What is Cop26?</b><br>
For almost three decades, world governments have met nearly every
year to forge a global response to the climate emergency. Under the
1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
every country on Earth is treaty-bound to “avoid dangerous climate
change”, and find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally
in an equitable way.<br>
<br>
Cop stands for conference of the parties under the UNFCCC, and the
annual meetings have swung between fractious and soporific,
interspersed with moments of high drama and the occasional triumph
(the Paris agreement in 2015) and disaster (Copenhagen in 2009).
This year is the 26th iteration, postponed by a year because of the
Covid-19 pandemic, and to be hosted by the UK in Glasgow.<br>
<br>
<b>When?</b><br>
The conference will officially open on 31 October, a day earlier
than planned, because of Covid-19, and more than 120 world leaders
will gather in the first few days. They will then depart, leaving
the complex negotiations to their representatives, mainly
environment ministers or similarly senior officials. About 25,000
people are expected to attend the conference in total.<br>
<br>
The talks are scheduled to end at 6pm on Friday 12 November, but
past experience of Cops shows they are likely to extend into
Saturday and perhaps even to Sunday.<br>
<br>
<b>Why do we need a Cop – don’t we already have the Paris agreement?</b><br>
Yes – under the landmark Paris agreement, signed in 2015, nations
committed to holding global temperature rises to “well below” 2C
above pre-industrial levels, while “pursuing efforts” to limit
heating to 1.5C. Those goals are legally binding and enshrined in
the treaty.<br>
<br>
However, to meet those goals, countries also agreed on non-binding
national targets to cut – or in the case of developing countries, to
curb the growth of – greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, by
2030 in most cases.<br>
<br>
Those national targets – known as nationally determined
contributions, or NDCs – were inadequate to hold the world within
the Paris temperature targets. If fulfilled, they would result in 3C
or more of warming, which would be disastrous.<br>
<br>
Everyone knew at Paris that the NDCs were inadequate, so the French
built into the accord a “ratchet mechanism” by which countries would
have to return to the table every five years with fresh commitments.
Those five years were up on 31 December 2020, but the pandemic
prevented many countries coming forward.<br>
<br>
All countries are now being urged to revise their NDCs before Cop26
in line with a 1.5C target, the lower of the two Paris goals.
Scientists estimate that emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030,
compared with 2010 levels, and from there to net zero emissions by
2050, if the world is to have a good chance of remaining within the
1.5C threshold.<br>
<br>
<b>Are we nearly there?</b><br>
No. The UN reported recently that current NDCs, including those that
have been newly submitted or revised by the US, the EU, the UK and
more than 100 others, are still inadequate. They would result in a
16% increase in emissions, far from the 45% cut needed. So much more
remains to be done.<br>
<br>
<b>Is this all about China?</b><br>
The world’s biggest emitter, China, has yet to produce a new NDC,
and it is not yet known whether the president, Xi Jinping, will come
to Glasgow. His attendance would be a major boost, but leading
figures in the talks have said they can still have a successful
outcome without his physical presence.<br>
<br>
Xi announced last year that China would reach net zero emissions by
2060, a major step forward, and peak emissions by 2030. The latter
pledge is regarded as insufficient, and could lead to the world
breaching 1.5C. Analysts say China could cause emissions to peak by
2025, with some additional effort, and that this would be enough to
keep the world on the right path.<br>
<br>
China is not the only country in the frame: major fossil fuel
producers including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Australia have also
refused to strengthen their commitments. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro is
still presiding over the disastrous destruction of the Amazon.<br>
<br>
There are also question marks over the commitment of the new
Japanese government. India was close to committing to net zero last
spring but was overtaken by the Covid crisis; its rapidly growing
economy and dependence on coal make it a key country at the talks,
and other developing nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, South
Africa and Mexico will also be closely watched.<br>
<br>
<b>Why is 1.5C so important?</b><br>
As part of the Paris agreement, the world’s leading authority on
climate science – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –
was charged with examining closely what a 1.5C temperature rise
would mean for the planet. They found a vast difference between the
damage done by 1.5C and 2C of heating, and concluded that the lower
temperature was much safer.<br>
<br>
An increase of 1.5C would still result in a rising sea levels, the
bleaching of coral reefs, and an increase in heatwaves, droughts,
floods, fiercer storms and other forms of extreme weather, but these
would be far less than the extremes associated with a rise of 2C.<br>
<br>
Further findings from the IPCC, released in August, underlined these
warnings and concluded that there was still a chance for the world
to stay within the 1.5C threshold but that it would require
concerted efforts. Crucially, they also found that every fraction of
a degree of increase is important.<br>
<br>
<b>How far do we have to go?</b><br>
Temperatures around the world are already at about 1.1 – 1.2C above
pre-industrial levels, and greenhouse gas emissions are still on an
upward trend.<br>
<br>
Carbon dioxide output plunged during the Covid-19 lockdowns last
year, but that was temporary and they have surged again since as
economies have recovered. To stay within 1.5C, global emissions need
to come down by about 7% a year for this decade.<br>
<br>
<b>What about net zero?</b><br>
To stay within 1.5C, we must stop emitting carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases – from burning fossil fuels, from agriculture and
animal husbandry – which create methane – from cutting down trees
and from certain industrial processes – almost completely by
mid-century. Any residual emissions remaining by then, for instance
from processes that cannot be modified, must be offset by increasing
the world’s carbon sinks, such as forests, peatlands and wetlands,
which act as vast carbon stores. That balance is known as net zero.<br>
<br>
Long-term goals are not enough, however. The climate responds to
cumulative emissions, and carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for
about a century after it is released, so we could reach net zero by
2050 but still have emitted so much in the meantime that we exceed
the 1.5C threshold irrevocably.<br>
<br>
A sign drawing attention to the Paris goal of limiting global
temperature increase to 1.5C, photographed on 3 October 2021 at a
‘Climate Justice Camp’ in Berlin<br>
A sign in Berlin drawing attention to the Paris goal of limiting
global temperature increase to 1.5C. Photograph: Paul Zinken/dpa<br>
That is why scientists and politicians are calling the 2020s the
crucial decade for the climate – if emissions can peak soon and be
reduced rapidly, we can keep cumulative emissions from growing too
much, and still have a chance of staying within 1.5C.<br>
<br>
<b>Is Cop26 just about 1.5C?</b><br>
The NDCs are the central part of the negotiations, and getting more
countries to sign up to a long-term net zero goal is also important.
But the UK presidency also hopes to help achieve these goals with a
focus on three other areas: climate finance, phasing out coal, and
nature-based solutions.<br>
<br>
Climate finance is the money provided to poor countries, from public
and private sources, to help them cut emissions and cope with the
impacts of extreme weather. Poor countries were promised at the
Copenhagen Cop in 2009 that they would receive $100bn a year by
2020.<br>
<br>
That target has been missed: the OECD found in a report in September
that only about $80bn was provided last year. Developing countries
want reassurances that the money will be forthcoming as soon as
possible, and want to see a new financial settlement that will
vastly expand the funds available beyond 2025.<br>
<br>
The phase-out of coal is essential to staying within 1.5C. Countries
have made moves in this direction – China, the world’s biggest coal
consumer, will stop financing new coal-fired power plants overseas,
for instance. But China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Australia and
several other countries are still major producers and consumers of
coal, and much more needs to be done.<br>
<br>
Nature-based solutions are projects such as preserving and restoring
existing forests, peatlands, wetlands and other natural carbon
sinks, and growing more trees. These are important initiatives, and
the destruction of the Amazon and other rainforests around the world
is a huge contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss.
Experts urge caution, however: while growing trees is a good idea,
there is not room to grow all the trees some have suggested, and
they cannot solve the climate crisis alone. Fossil fuel use must
also end.<br>
<br>
There has also been progress on issues such as methane, a greenhouse
gas that can heat the planet 80 times more than carbon dioxide, and
which comes from animal husbandry, agricultural waste, oil drilling
and other fossil fuel exploration. The EU and the US formed a
partnership to cut global methane emissions by 2030, which recent
research found could mostly be achieved at little or no cost.<br>
<br>
<b>Any other problems?</b><br>
At Cop26, countries will also have to find an answer to the
conundrum of carbon trading. Carbon trading was first introduced to
the talks in the Kyoto protocol of 1997, as a mechanism by which
rich countries could hive off some of their carbon reduction to
developing countries. It works like this: a tonne of carbon dioxide
has the same impact on the atmosphere wherever it is emitted, so if
it is cheaper to cut a tonne of carbon dioxide in India than in
Italy, the Italian government or companies could pay for projects –
solar panels, for example, or a wind farm – in India that would
reduce emissions there, and count those “carbon credits” towards
their own emissions-cutting targets.<br>
<br>
In this way, poor countries gain access to much-needed finance for
emissions-cutting efforts, and rich countries face less of an
economic burden in cutting carbon.<br>
<br>
However, the system has been open to abuse in some cases and is
inadequate in any case in a world where all countries, developed and
developing, must cut their carbon as fast as possible. Carbon
trading was included in article 6 of the Paris agreement, but
conflicts over how to implement it have never been resolved.
Arguments over article 6 helped derail the last Cop, in Madrid in
2019, and the UK hosts are hoping the issue can be managed this
time, in order not to wreck any potential outcome.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>This is the 26th Cop – why has all this taken so long?</b><br>
Since the industrial revolution, the modern world has run on fossil
fuels. We live in a Promethean age – nearly all of our prosperity
and technology has been built on cheap, easy-to-access energy from
fossil fuels. Ending their reign will require huge changes, to
energy systems, to the built environment, to transport, to our
behaviour and diet.<br>
<br>
Getting 196 nations to agree on something so complex has not been
easy. Developed countries have been unwilling to take on the costs,
while developing countries have demanded the right to continue to
use fossil fuels to achieve economic growth. There have been
wranglings over historic responsibility, over burden-sharing, over
costs, over science, and the politics has been influenced by changes
of government in key countries – Donald Trump, for instance,
withdrew the US from the Paris agreement.<br>
<br>
On the plus side, the cost of renewable energy and other green
technology has plunged in recent years, so that it is now as cheap
as fossil fuels in most parts of the world. Electric vehicle
technology also progressed rapidly, and new fuels such as hydrogen
are being developed.<br>
<br>
<b>Why will it be held in Glasgow?</b><br>
The presidency is up for grabs each year, and tends to swing between
developed and developing countries, and around the world so that all
regions are represented. Previous notable Cops have taken place in
Copenhagen, Kyoto, Marrakesh, Lima and Durban, and next year’s is
likely to be in Egypt. The UK is actually co-hosting Cop26 with
Italy, which has hosted several precursor meetings, including a
pre-Cop and a youth Cop in Milan, and will host the G20 leaders’
meeting just days before Cop26.<br>
<br>
<b>Won’t this be a massive Covid superspreader?</b><br>
The Cop was originally scheduled for November 2020, but a decision
was taken in May last year to postpone, because of the pandemic. The
Scottish government, the UN and the UK’s national government have
all been closely involved in the preparations.<br>
<br>
The decision was taken to hold the event in person, rather than
virtually, because of the urgent need for countries to increase
their ambition on emissions cuts, and the difficult of getting
progress to that end without people meeting face-to-face. The fear –
well-grounded, given the experience of other virtual conferences –
was that a virtual conference would let countries off the hook.<br>
<br>
Countries have also been wary of committing to firm decisions on the
complex technical negotiations by virtual means. Some of the
negotiations have taken place in advance, virtually, but the
decisions cannot be formalised until they are agreed by all nations
in person.<br>
<br>
Delegates have been offered vaccinations by the UK government ahead
of the talks, but those from red list countries will still have to
quarantine. The UK government will pay the costs for those countries
that cannot otherwise afford to come.<br>
<br>
<b>What happens if Cop26 fails?</b><br>
The big players in the talks – the UN, the UK, the US – have already
conceded that Cop26 will not achieve everything that was hoped for.
The NDCs likely to emerge from Glasgow will not add up to all that
is needed to ensure the world remains within 1.5C.<br>
<br>
That is disappointing for many observers, but is not a surprise.
Given the complexity of the negotiations, a perfect outcome was
never likely. What the UK hosts are now focused on is ensuring that
there is enough progress on emissions cuts for 2030 to “keep 1.5C
alive”, and to pursue as many other routes – phasing out coal;
cutting methane; setting a path away from fossil fuels for
transport; getting business, financial institutions and sub-national
governments to set out plans to cut emissions in line with 1.5C –
that will help reach that goal as possible.<br>
<br>
One of the key issues now is to ensure that the talks themselves run
smoothly. The Copenhagen Cop in 2009 was widely perceived as a
failure, even though it produced a partial agreement that became the
foundation for Paris. But it ended in scenes of chaos, division,
recriminations and discord. If that can be avoided, and a clear
routemap drawn up that can credibly keep the world from exceeding
1.5C, Cop26 may still have a successful outcome.<br>
<br>
<b>The climate crisis is not the only environmental crisis – what
about species loss and nature?</b><br>
Countries are also meeting for a parallel set of talks on stemming
biodiversity loss, restoring natural ecosystems and protecting the
oceans. Those talks were set to be hosted by the Chinese government
in Kunming last October, but have been delayed. They will reach a
conclusion next April at an in-person meeting, with virtual
negotiations in the run-up.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/what-is-cop26-and-why-does-it-matter-the-complete-guide">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/what-is-cop26-and-why-does-it-matter-the-complete-guide</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Heatwave horrors, pay attention to last summer in Portland, OR
]</i><br>
<b>Seventy-Two Hours Under the Heat Dome<br>
</b>A chronicle of a slow-motion climate disaster that became one of
Oregon’s deadliest calamities.<br>
By James Ross Gardner<b>...<br>
</b> - - clips -- <br>
By the time temperatures cooled, at least ninety-six people would be
confirmed by the state medical examiner to have died of heat-related
causes, making this one of the deadliest natural disasters in
Oregon’s history. In neighboring Washington, officials reported
ninety-five dead. An analysis of C.D.C. data by the Times suggests
that the real number of fatalities in the Pacific Northwest may be
three times those official counts.<br>
<br>
For the majority of those who died, the heat was experienced
privately, for hours upon hours, and then for days. And when
temperatures took their final toll, the victims dehydrated and in a
hyperthermic state, that was private, too. This was a climate
catastrophe unlike any the public is used to seeing play out on TV.
We’ve grown accustomed to the dramatic images of human-caused
climate change, via increasingly frequent hurricanes and wildfires,
but the element at the center of it all, the heat, has been more
abstract, not as directly connected to Americans’ lives. The
evidence indicates that that’s likely to change.<br>
<br>
In early July, an international team, part of the World Weather
Attribution group, concluded that the intensity of the heat wave
would have been “virtually impossible without human-caused climate
change.” The scientists, including researchers at Princeton,
Cornell, Columbia, Oxford, and the Sorbonne, argued in their report
that “our rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted
territory that has significant consequences.” In their analysis,
which has not yet been peer-reviewed, the researchers posited that
temperatures within the heat dome were 3.6 degrees hotter than they
would have been at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Furthermore, they concluded that the heat wave was most likely a
once-in-a-millennium event, and that, in thirty years, with rising
temperatures, similar heat waves could be once-in-a-decade events,
or even once-every-five-years events.<br>
<br>
“What happened this June was startling,” Oregon’s state
climatologist, Larry O’Neill, told me. “We’re setting more records
all the time, and seeing things that we usually don’t see in places
we don’t see them. It makes me very concerned that the climate
projections are underestimating the degree of climate change.”
Climatologists weren’t expecting to see events on this scale for
another twenty or thirty years, O’Neill said. Joe
Boomgard-Zagrodnik, an atmospheric scientist at Washington State
University, said, “People died from this. That’s a threshold event.”<br>
<br>
In August, Multnomah County released a report assessing its handling
of the disaster. Nowhere else in the state had seen as many
heat-related deaths—sixty-two people by the latest official count.
The county admitted that its call line, 211info, a source of
critical information for people looking for cooling shelters and
other emergency services, inadvertently dropped more than seven
hundred and fifty calls, and that when callers got through they were
sometimes given inaccurate information. The county vowed to improve
that system, and to make sure that cooling shelters were more
equitably situated—closer to the homes of the Portlanders who needed
them most—and to make transportation to the shelters easier to
obtain.<br>
<br>
Ten days after the end of the heat wave, when temperatures were in
the sixties and seventies, I sat with Chris Voss in an empty
conference room in the county headquarters. He described the days
and nights in the convention center, the ice runs and the momentary
elation at finding new ways to feed hundreds of people under the
same roof. When I asked about the more than sixty county residents
who had died in the heat, he grew emotional and his glasses steamed
up. “That number’s not palatable for us,” he said. “It’s not
palatable for anybody.”<br>
<br>
In late July, Shane Brown held a memorial service for his mother in
White Salmon, Washington, along the Columbia River, where Jolly’s
mother is buried. Shane invited a few friends and family members for
the informal gathering, which is how his mother would have wanted
it. “She had paid for everything in advance—her urn, her cremation,
where she was going to be buried,” Shane told me. Jolly was a
planner. She knew she would die. She just didn’t know the time or
the place. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/seventy-two-hours-under-the-heat-dome">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/seventy-two-hours-under-the-heat-dome</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
October 12, 2004</b></font><br>
In a sentence that speaks volumes, Wall Street Journal columnist
Brendan Miniter, discussing the October 8 debate between President
Bush and Democratic opponent John Kerry, observes:<br>
<br>
"On the one issue in the debate in which Democrats hold the natural
advantage, the environment, Mr. Kerry came out on top."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20041120230653/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005744">http://web.archive.org/web/20041120230653/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005744</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
moz-txt-link-freetext" 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>