<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>November 1, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<p><i>[ Heard on NPR ]</i><br>
<b>Should I have kids? Move? Recycle? Your climate questions
answered</b><br>
IT'S BEEN A MINUTE WITH SAM SANDERS<br>
October 29, 2021 - 24-Minute Listen or Download<br>
Ahead of the U.N. climate talks in Glasgow this weekend, Sam chats
with climate experts Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, marine biologist and
writer, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, senior climate reporter with the
podcast 'How to Save a Planet.' Together, they answer listener
questions about everything from how to talk to your kids about
global warming... to how to deal with all of this existential
dread.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1049110553/should-i-have-kids-move-recycle-your-climate-questions-answered">https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1049110553/should-i-have-kids-move-recycle-your-climate-questions-answered</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<br>
<i>[ Track money in every decision to consider the impact on
climate ] </i><br>
<b>Mark Carney: the world of finance will be judged on the $100tn
climate challenge | Financial Times</b><br>
The writer is the UN’s special envoy on climate action and finance
and was the governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020.
Finance is a service, a means to an end...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ft.com/content/d9e4ebb9-f212-406a-90d5-73b4276539e6">https://www.ft.com/content/d9e4ebb9-f212-406a-90d5-73b4276539e6</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
<i>[ United Nations ]</i><br>
<b>Biggest financial players back net zero</b><br>
Over 160 firms with $70 trillion in assets have joined forces behind
a common goal: steer the global economy towards net-zero emissions
and deliver the Paris Agreement goals.<br>
<br>
The new Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), chaired by
Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, brings
together leading net-zero initiatives from across the financial
system to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050 at
the latest.<br>
<br>
Members include major asset owners and managers as well as banks
with the power to mobilize trillions of dollars behind the
transition to net zero. By working together, alliance members can
catalyse strategic and technical coordination on steps firms need to
take to align with a net-zero future.<br>
<br>
All members will set science-aligned interim and long-term goals to
reach net zero no later than 2050 in line with the criteria of the
UN Race to Zero campaign. Member-determined short-term targets and
action plans will supplement these goals...<br>
- -<br>
U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry said: “The
largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition
represents a vast commercial opportunity as well as a planetary
imperative. As countries around the world move to decarbonize, the
large sums these institutions are dedicating to climate finance also
reflect a growing understanding of how critical a low-carbon global
economy is to their business models. Ultimately, their commitment of
capital and assets, as well as adherence to high standards and
reporting, will accelerate the transition to this new economy,
create a massive number of new jobs, and increase our collective
ability to tackle the climate crisis...<br>
- -<br>
Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and
Prime Minister Johnson’s Climate Finance Advisor for COP26, said:
“This is the breakthrough in mainstreaming climate finance the world
needs. I welcome the leadership of the Financial Services Task Force
and other global banks for their new commitments to net zero and for
joining forces with GFANZ, the gold standard for net zero
commitments in the financial sector. Most fundamentally, GFANZ will
act as the strategic forum to ensure the financial system works
together to broaden, deepen, and accelerate the transition to a net
zero economy.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/biggest-financial-players-back-net-zero">https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/biggest-financial-players-back-net-zero</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Green Biz -- defining net zero is problematic ]</i><br>
<b>The net-zero backlash has arrived</b><br>
The problem? "Net zero," for all of its compelling simplicity, turns
out to be anything but. Indeed, it is fraught with problems, and
companies — the leaders and the wannabes alike — are finding
themselves encountering a crescendo of criticism...<br>
- -<br>
Given the lack of policy or standardized guidance driving net-zero
commitments, not to mention the loopholes through which many
companies seem to be leaping, there’s pretty much a net-zero chance
that they will, collectively, meet the goals of the 2015 Paris
Agreement — at least, not without some significant changes...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/net-zero-backlash-has-arrived">https://www.greenbiz.com/article/net-zero-backlash-has-arrived</a>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ how to skirt the issue. ]</i><br>
<b>The Big Con: How Big Polluters are advancing a “net zero” climate
agenda to delay, deceive, and deny</b><br>
As the impacts of the climate crisis become ever more apparent,
people around the world, led by Indigenous Peoples, women, youth,
and frontline communities, are demanding action. In response, Big
Polluters and the governments that do their bidding have begun to
tout commitments to achieve “net zero” emissions as solutions to the
crisis they have caused.<br>
<blockquote>This report makes clear that Big Polluters’ idea of “net
zero” is part of their continued plan to protect deeply unjust
global systems, distract from taking the real action needed, and
to evade responsibility for the climate crisis and to continue to
pollute.<br>
The idea behind big polluters' use of "net zero" is that an entity
can continue to pollute as usual — or even increase its emissions
— and seek to compensate for those emissions in a number of ways.
Emissions are nothing more than a math equation in these plans;
they can be added [to] one place and subtracted from another
place.<br>
<br>
This equation is simple in theory but deeply flawed in reality.
These schemes are being used to mask inaction, foist the burden of
emissions cuts and pollution avoidance on historically exploited
communities, and bet our collective future through ensuring
long-term, destructive impact on land and forests, oceans and
through advancing geoengineering technologies. These technologies
are hugely risky, do not exist at the scale supposedly needed and
are likely to cause enormous, and likely irreversible, damage.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.corporateaccountability.org/resources/the-big-con-net-zero/">https://www.corporateaccountability.org/resources/the-big-con-net-zero/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ press release from April ]</i><br>
EXTERNAL PRESS RELEASE / 21 APR, 2021<br>
<b>New Financial Alliance for Net Zero Emissions Launches</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://unfccc.int/news/new-financial-alliance-for-net-zero-emissions-launches">https://unfccc.int/news/new-financial-alliance-for-net-zero-emissions-launches</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Silence is worse than denial - empty words are useless ] </i><br>
<b>Fox Weather Doesn’t Deny Climate Change. It Just Ignores It.</b><br>
Eleanor Cummins - October 27, 2021<br>
On its debut day, the new streaming service treated climate as a
separate issue, instead of acknowledging the way global warming
drives the severe weather it covers.<br>
On Sunday night, two meteorological phenomena known as a bomb
cyclone and an atmospheric river joined forces to rattle the West
Coast, knocking out power to hundreds of thousands in Washington
State, inundating California with record rainfall, and setting up
Fox Weather, the Murdoch family’s newest platform, for an energetic
debut. At 6 a.m. Eastern on Monday, the countdown clock on the free,
ad-supported app gave way to a livestream of the caffeinated
meteorologists inside America’s Weather Station. Within minutes,
morning hosts Jason Frazer and Britta Merwin were spinning viewers
around in circles, transporting them from construction on
Sacramento’s aging levee to hurricane recovery in the Gulf, all in
the turn of a camera.<br>
<br>
Journalists, media critics, and spectators have fretted over the
launch of Fox Weather for months—and with good reason, given its
parent network has been a major source of misinformation about
anthropogenic climate change for more than a decade. Of 247 Fox News
segments touching on the topic in 2019, for example, 212 were
“dismissive,” cast doubt, “or employed fear mongering when
discussing climate solutions,” according to an analysis by the
consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen. “The danger of [Fox]
running a weather channel,” Geoffrey Supran, a research fellow in
the history of science at Harvard University, told The Guardian in
July, “is that if they pervert news about the weather anything like
how they’ve perverted news about climate change and energy politics,
millions of Americans will be further misled about this crisis.”...<br>
- -<br>
But if the launch of the 24/7 broadcast is any indication of the
service’s overall approach, Fox Weather seems likely to treat
climate change as a real but standalone story, not the engine
driving every wildfire and bomb cyclone. In emphasizing the symptoms
of global warming but ignoring the underlying disease, it ensures
viewers consume a dozen weather updates without realizing that
climate change is, in fact, already infecting every aspect of our
lives. In the first six hours of the show, I saw storm-front
reports, turbulence reports, school-day forecasts, a power outage
tracker, expert advice on filing for homeowner’s insurance,
viewer-created videos under the #FoxWeather hashtag, and plenty of
Monday night sports banter—all slickly produced and often genuinely
informative. What I didn’t hear was mention of the scientific
consensus that climate change is well underway...<br>
- -<br>
As climate reporter Geoff Dembicki told NPR last week, what may seem
like a contradiction between Fox News’s climate denial and Fox
Weather’s core purpose actually makes perfect business sense: The
“simple, coherent strategy behind all of this,” he said, is that Fox
“seems to do whatever will make it the most money in a given
situation.” Climate denial works for the news channel. Going carbon
neutral, which the Murdochs did back in 2011, well before any of
their industry peers, works for the parent company, which has saved
tens of millions of dollars. And Fox Weather presents an opportunity
to play it straight while profiting off climate change, which drives
extreme weather, which drives ratings—a brilliant, and dystopian,
strategy.<br>
<br>
If the Fox Weather team accepts the reality of climate change but
focuses on a decontextualized vision of “weather” whenever possible,
well, it will have plenty of company. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Ida, for example, Media Matters, a watchdog group, found that ABC,
CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, and MSNBC ran 774 stories about the storm
between August 27 and 30, but only 34 stories—or 4 percent of the
total coverage—ever mentioned climate change. While newscasters of a
different persuasion may balk at the comparison, they, like Fox, are
participating in a coverage strategy that allows viewers to draw the
erroneous conclusion that climate change is still temporally and
geographically distant. If their basement floods, or a tree topples
onto their new car, the implicit logic goes, it’s not the fault of a
few greedy companies whose fossil fuel products and misinformation
campaigns have made these events vastly more likely—it’s just the
awesome, uncontrollable power of Mother Nature.<br>
<br>
Janice Dean, the meteorologist and Fox & Friends co-host,
unintentionally articulated this common belief undergirding this
approach when she visited the Fox Weather set to celebrate the
streaming debut on Monday. “I have friends at the other channels,”
she said. “It’s something about the weather that, you know, there’s
no politics involved—we all love each other.”<br>
- -<br>
But for TV news consumers, climate change takes up just a cumulative
112 minutes a year, according to a 2020 Media Matters analysis of
nightly news and Sunday morning political programming on ABC, CBS,
NBC, and Fox. While Fox Weather may yet prove its commitment to
climate coverage, everything from the Sunrise Movement’s momentous
hunger strike currently underway outside the White House down to the
most basic linkage between the West Coast bomb cyclone and the
anthropogenic climate change fueling it was available for coverage
on launch day. These stories are the real eye of the storm.<br>
Eleanor Cummins @elliepses<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://newrepublic.com/article/164166/fox-weather-doesnt-deny-climate-change-just-ignore-it">https://newrepublic.com/article/164166/fox-weather-doesnt-deny-climate-change-just-ignore-it</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[video classic - </i><i>23 min </i><i>documentary - </i><br>
<b>The End of Oil, Explained | FULL EPISODE | Vox + Netflix</b><br>
Sep 30, 2021<br>
Vox<br>
Oil led to huge advancements — and vast inequities. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafA-RU3q7U">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafA-RU3q7U</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ SCOTUS wants to rule on 62% of all the smoke ]</i><br>
<b>Supreme Court to consider limiting EPA authority on greenhouse
gas emissions</b><br>
Shawna Chen - Oct 29, 2021<br>
<br>
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to weigh in on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) authority when it comes to regulating
greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.<br>
<br>
Why it matters: It's the most significant climate case to reach the
Supreme Court since 2007 and could impact the Biden administration's
clean power plans, according to E&E News.<br>
<br>
Details: Coal companies and GOP-led states had asked the Supreme
Court to review the case, arguing that a federal appeals court gave
the EPA "unbridled power" to issue standards that would be
"impossible for coal and natural gas power plants to meet."<br>
<br>
President Biden's EPA is currently crafting new clean air
regulations.<br>
Our thought bubble, via Axios' Andrew Freedman: The case puts even
more pressure on reconciliation to address climate change
legislatively in case executive authority is trimmed back further.<br>
<br>
The big picture: The electricity sector generates the second-largest
share of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., per the EPA.<br>
<br>
Roughly 62% of U.S. electricity is sourced from burning fossil
fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wwwaxios.com/supreme-court-epa-greenhouse-gas-b2949429-a13b-4bfd-8815-288233603626.html">https://wwwaxios.com/supreme-court-epa-greenhouse-gas-b2949429-a13b-4bfd-8815-288233603626.html</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Liar, liar, pants on fire ] <br>
</i><b>Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings</b><br>
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies
privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their
products.<br>
- -<br>
The documents make for frightening reading. And the effect is all
the more chilling in view of the oil giants’ refusal to warn the
public about the damage that their own researchers predicted.
Shell’s report, marked “confidential,” was first disclosed by a
Dutch news organization earlier this year. Exxon’s study was not
intended for external distribution, either; it was leaked in 2015.<br>
<br>
Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products.
In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of
addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but
with governments and consumers. That argument might have made sense
if oil executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had not
later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments
from enacting clean-energy policies...<br>
- -<br>
As the world warms, the building blocks of our planet – its ice
sheets, forests, and atmospheric and ocean currents – are being
altered beyond repair. Who has the right to foresee such damage and
then choose to fulfill the prophecy? Although war planners and
fossil-fuel companies had the arrogance to decide what level of
devastation was appropriate for humanity, only Big Oil had the
temerity to follow through. That, of course, is one time too many.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings</a><br>
<br>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ Sometimes a great positive notion ]</i><br>
<b>The Climate Fight Will Seem Impossible—Until Its Sudden Victory</b><br>
Only persistence can bring sweeping change. But that sweeping change
sometimes comes sooner than you expect.<br>
Liza Featherstone/October 29, 2021<br>
A coal baron from West Virginia is blocking world-saving climate
legislation that most congressional Democrats support. President
Biden will head to the United Nations 2021 Climate Change
Conference, or COP26, in Glasgow without a passed and signed climate
deal to boast about. The United States is closer than it’s ever been
to enacting serious climate change policy—the latest draft of the
spending bill includes $555 billion for climate priorities. But the
Clean Energy Payment Program, which was the most direct
emissions-reducing policy, has been removed. And given that studies
suggest $1 trillion will be needed annually to meet Paris Agreement
targets, near-progress feels more like impending tragedy.<br>
<br>
It’s an urgent moment for the climate movement. Some activists have
been on hunger strike for more than a week in Washington, D.C., to
demand the White House and Congress work together to pass climate
provisions in the budget reconciliation plan. Others blocked traffic
in Manhattan this week. Even the sober policy nerds at Vox recently
interviewed an activist who wrote a book called How to Blow Up a
Pipeline. Their headline? “The Case for a More Radical Climate
Movement.”<br>
<br>
Are these the right tactics? What is to be done? Anything that might
help seems justified: Scientists don’t think we have much time to
avoid the worst-case scenarios of mass death and irrevocable
planetary damage. Yet even as we stare into a worrisome future,
there’s much to learn from social movements of the recent past.<br>
<br>
History’s first lesson? Don’t give up. As Angela Davis has pointed
out, imagine being an abolitionist in 1850, the year of the Fugitive
Slave Act, which mobilized the entire federal and state apparatus to
capture enslaved people attempting to escape. Anti-slavery activists
faced this staggering political defeat that year, yet most of them
would then live to see the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment,
abolishing slavery in the United States, in 1865. Similarly, said
Jeanne Theoharis, a Brooklyn College professor and author of The
Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks, in the 1950s, when Rosa Parks
was actively organizing, there was “no sign that she was going to
see change in her lifetime.” In 1955, just months before Parks
famously refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, the men
responsible for the death of 14-year-old Emmett Till, a child
brutally murdered for supposedly flirting with a white woman, were
acquitted. Parks and others worked for years to challenge the unjust
conviction of Jeremiah Reeves, a Black teenager sentenced to death
for the alleged rape of a white woman (he said the relationship was
consensual), but Reeves was executed in 1957. Years later, Parks
said of that time, “Sometimes it was very difficult to keep going
when all of our work seemed to be in vain.” She could not have
anticipated that her own organizing would, within the decade, help
end Jim Crow and pass the Voting Rights and Fair Housing Acts. “This
moment looks bleak,” said Theoharis, “but we could be on the cusp of
change.”<br>
<br>
Some will worry about the political optics of tactics like blocking
traffic or blowing up pipelines, but such specifics may be beside
the point. Theoharis, also the author of A More Beautiful and
Terrible History: The Uses and Misuses of Civil Rights History,
notes that some myths about the civil rights movement muddle our
understanding of that time, in turn warping our analysis of
contemporary activism. One of these myths, she says, is “the idea
that there’s a right way” to protest. In recent years, centrists and
conservatives have often held up the nonviolence of Rosa Parks or
Martin Luther King Jr. as the “correct” persuasive strategy, in
contrast to #BlackLivesMatter protesters, who have sometimes been
criticized for confrontations with the police. Yet that elides the
more complex history of the civil rights movement. A related myth,
Theoharis told me, is that “if you shine a light on injustice in the
United States it will be remedied, and that’s just not true.” These
narratives, Theoharis explained, “distort how change happens and why
it happens.”<br>
<br>
The grade-school understanding of history mistakenly elevates
discrete tactics and flash points. The history of a successful
movement is messier—and perhaps more boring and repetitive—than
common narrative suggests. “We don’t tell it as a story of
perseverance,” said Theoharis, and we should. Parks didn’t succeed
because of her quiet dignity in refusing to get off the bus that one
day in 1955 but because Claudette Colwin and many other Black
Montgomery activists had protested before her, and because Parks
herself had been organizing for years.<br>
<br>
Change comes because people keep trying. The idea that a sign of
insanity is doing the same thing over and over, Theoharis laughed,
is a “stupid cliché.” In fact, the history of organizing shows that
what works is “having the fortitude to keep doing it.” It wasn’t
that Rosa Parks just happened to engage in the right protest on that
one day. “Parks’s genius,” Theoharis emphasized, was “her ability to
act, and act again.”<br>
<br>
The history of South Africa’s fight against apartheid in the 1980s
is also relevant to our moment. What brought down that system, said
Sean Jacobs, a scholar of South African politics who teaches at the
New School, was coalition-building and solidarity. The South African
anti-apartheid movement drew on the language, tradition, and lessons
of that country’s radical history. In this period, Jacobs, who grew
up in South Africa and came of age in the 1980s, told me, unionism
evolved beyond the narrow concerns of the shop floor into a labor
movement that could make connections between apartheid and the
conditions of workers. These activists didn’t always focus on big
ideas like “white supremacy”; rather, they linked ending apartheid
to what Jacobs calls “regular things for regular people,” like
housing and clean water.<br>
<br>
While the ruling white elites had effectively used race and racism
to divide people in the 1970s, anti-apartheid campaigners and
unionists in the 1980s drew on a radical left-wing language of class
struggle, for example, going back to the South African Congress
Alliance’s Freedom Charter of 1955, which not only demanded equal
rights for Black South Africans but also went bigger, envisioning a
far more democratic and egalitarian society, one in which “South
Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white,” “The People
Shall Govern,” “The People Shall Share in the Country’s Wealth!” and
“The Land Shall Be Shared By Those Who Work It!”—to quote a few
principles from that document.<br>
<br>
“They focused on the things that bound people together,” Jacobs,
founding editor of politics and culture website Africa Is a Country,
observed. Some moderate Democrats and Republicans bristle when
climate measures are tied to so many big-ticket social provisions,
as they are in the current budget reconciliation package in
Congress, or in the Green New Deal, but this recent South African
history shows how powerful it is to frame demands for transformation
in a context of a broader vision of shared prosperity and
well-being.<br>
<br>
Speaking with these scholars, I realized that the successful
activists of the past had something in common: They studied—and
learned from—history. Climate change, both in its possible solutions
and in its dystopian worst-case scenarios, still feels futuristic,
so it’s almost counterintuitive for the climate movement to look
backward. But the past can help us move forward.<br>
<br>
Liza Featherstone @lfeatherz<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://newrepublic.com/article/164215/climate-fight-will-seem-impossibleuntil-sudden-victory">https://newrepublic.com/article/164215/climate-fight-will-seem-impossibleuntil-sudden-victory</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
November 1, 2012</b></font><br>
November 1, 2012: <br>
At a campaign rally in Virginia, Republican presidential contender
Mitt Romney is interrupted by a protester who faults him for not
addressing climate change. The right-wing audience boos the
protester. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/SGxSnaC1qcU">http://youtu.be/SGxSnaC1qcU</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>