<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>November 16, 2021</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<i>[BBC has this story covered - listen to 18 min audio]</i><br>
<b>4. From Covid conspiracy to climate change denial</b><br>
The Denial Files<br>
Covid conspiracists are now shifting focus to climate change. An
online movement infected with extreme pandemic conspiracies is
looking for new territory as debates over lockdowns and vaccines
subside in many richer countries.<br>
<br>
We hear from Matthew in New Zealand. His family is really worried
about the future of the planet, but he’s involved in groups where
people believe that climate change is a “hoax” designed to limit our
personal freedoms. They’ve swapped in “climate science” for “Covid”
in their viral online conspiracy theories. Matthew found himself
drawn into this conspiratorial belief system through a global
anti-lockdown movement called The White Rose. The White Rose has
local channels around the world, and researchers at the Institute
for Strategic Dialogue think tank say the local group dedicated to
New Zealand is where climate change conspiracies have taken off the
most. Researchers point out that a ready-made network of people who
have fallen for misleading claims about global Covid-19 plots has
created a receptive audience for lies about climate change.<br>
<br>
And in Germany, we hear about how members of the Covid-denying
Querdenken group travelled to a region devastated by floods,
intimidating helpers and spreading confusion about what had taken
place. Locals were mystified and insulted, but it was another sign
that climate change has become the new front line in the fight
against online misinformation.<br>
<br>
Presenter: Marianna Spring<br>
Reporter: Jessica Bateman<br>
Producer: Ant Adeane<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2yqm">https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2yqm</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ opinion in a Dave Roberts commentary - text and audio ]</i><br>
<b>Don't get too bummed out about COP26</b><br>
Things are moving quickly now.<br>
David Roberts - Nov 15, 2021<br>
- -<br>
The good news is, we’re making progress. A decade ago, we were on
track for 4° to 6° Celsius average warming by the end of the
century, which would have been species-threatening.<br>
<br>
As this report from Climate Action Tracker shows, thanks to actions
taken by national governments since then, we have “bent the curve”
on climate change, as it were, and brought the average expected
warming down to 2.7°C.<br>
<br>
That would still be devastating. But we’re not going to stop there.
Progress is only accelerating. If every country that has submitted a
2030 carbon target in the Paris process — an NDC, or nationally
determined contribution — hits that target, average warming will be
2.4°C.<br>
<br>
If all short- and long-term targets submitted thus far are achieved,
it’s down to 2.1°C. In CAT’s “optimistic scenario” — in which all
targets announced by anyone anywhere are met — the average is
1.8°C...<br>
- -<br>
Another thing I said on Pod Save America is that national
governments are often going to be in the caboose of this train —
civic groups, the private sector, and subnational governments are
leading the way. That’s distributed all over the world, less easy to
see and sum up, but it shows that the caution and intransigence of
national governments are not the whole story.<br>
<br>
COP26 was a snapshot of a world — agonizingly slowly but with
gathering speed — moving to address a crisis. There’s no reason for
anyone to stop pushing, but there’s also nothing wrong with
acknowledging and celebrating the progress that’s been achieved by
all the pushing so far.<br>
<br>
Things are moving!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.volts.wtf/p/dont-get-too-bummed-out-about-cop26?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzY4NzE5OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDQwNDkxOTYsIl8iOiJyNzJObSIsImlhdCI6MTYzNzAwOTA2NywiZXhwIjoxNjM3MDEyNjY3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.QPUA0iITRhpLd2FdeHU6Rj2wTWaqvXWg6p4A140HC3Q">https://www.volts.wtf/p/dont-get-too-bummed-out-about-cop26?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzY4NzE5OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDQwNDkxOTYsIl8iOiJyNzJObSIsImlhdCI6MTYzNzAwOTA2NywiZXhwIjoxNjM3MDEyNjY3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.QPUA0iITRhpLd2FdeHU6Rj2wTWaqvXWg6p4A140HC3Q</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ delivering a sober presentation of the current situation ]</i><br>
<b>The Climate Action Tracker</b><br>
The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific analysis
that tracks government climate action and measures it against the
globally agreed Paris Agreement aim of "holding warming well below
2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C." A
collaboration of two organisations, Climate Analytics and NewClimate
Institute, the CAT has been providing this independent analysis to
policymakers since 2009.<br>
- -<br>
In Paris, all governments solemnly promised to come to COP26 with
more ambitious 2030 commitments to close the massive 2030 emissions
gap that was already evident in 2015. Three years later the IPCC
Special Report on 1.5°C reinforced the scientific imperative, and
earlier this year it called a climate “code red.” Now, at the
midpoint of Glasgow, it is clear there is a massive credibility,
action and commitment gap that casts a long and dark shadow of doubt
over the net zero goals put forward by more than 140 countries,
covering 90% of global emissions.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2021.11-4Bars-Annotation.width-1000.png">https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2021.11-4Bars-Annotation.width-1000.png</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/glasgows-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/">https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/glasgows-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climateactiontracker.org/">https://climateactiontracker.org/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ Top opinion ]</i><br>
<b>Stop Trying to Find Magic Words to Convince Climate Opponents</b><br>
Enemies of climate action don’t need to be convinced. They need to
be removed from power.<br>
By Mary Annaïse Heglar - OCTOBER 31, 2021<br>
- -<br>
Furthermore, so long as we focus on what we want to destroy and
spend precious little time on what we want to build, the fossil
fuel companies remain in control of the narratives. So many of the
words about climate action are couched in the negative:
“decarbonization” and “dismantling” and “emissions reduction.” All
things we need to do, all things we need to talk about, but
there’s just as much to create as there is to destroy, and I think
we’d do better to find some equilibrium.<br>
<br>
I understand that language is always evolving, and of course we
should evolve with it. I just want us to remember who we’re in
this for: each other, not the fossil fuel companies and cronies.
It’s time to de-center them from the conversation. All the
scolding we do of one another for not hitting the exact right note
can make people not want to talk about this at all. But climate
change is hard to talk about because it’s hard to face, so I’d
like to see people give a little more grace to the people who are
trying.<br>
<br>
Mary Annaïse Heglar is a climate writer and cohost of the podcast
Hot Take. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-change-language/">https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-change-language/</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[Important preparation]</i><br>
<b>Disinformation is stifling conversation about climate change, new
research says — these 4 tips can help</b><br>
Nov 16 2021<br>
Brandon Gomez - @BGOMEZREPORTS<br>
When you’re talking about climate change, facts alone may not be
enough to make a compelling argument.<br>
<br>
“It’s not only what you say, but how you say it that’s important,”
Arunima Krishna, an assistant communications professor at Boston
University, tells CNBC Make It.<br>
<br>
Krishna studies the spread of climate science disinformation, among
other topics — and after conducting a recent survey, she found that
40% of respondents were “disinformation receptive,” meaning they’d
already accepted some type of falsehood about climate change.<br>
<br>
What’s more, she says, disinformation might be stifling conversation
on the important topic: If you don’t believe in climate change or
doubt humans’ role in accelerating it, you’re less likely to want to
discuss it, according to Krishna’s survey.<br>
<br>
That means you’ll need to find enough common ground to set the stage
for a productive talk. These four conversational strategies, Krishna
says, can help.<br>
<br>
<b>Know who you’re talking to</b><br>
People fall into one of four categories, according to Krishna. You
can be immune, vulnerable or receptive to disinformation — or, you
can actively amplify it.<br>
<br>
People who are “receptive” already believe some form of
disinformation, and those who are “vulnerable” could potentially
believe false information in the future. But, Krishna says, people
in both categories will probably still be open to conversations.<br>
When you start those conversations, use the first minute or two to
figure out which type they are. Their phrasings should make it
pretty clear, Krishna says: There’s a big difference between “Why
bother doing any of this, climate change isn’t caused by humans” and
“Are you sure any of this really works?”<br>
<br>
The first response, Krishna says, indicates a negative
predisposition toward climate change. The second one is more
circumspect, and indicates that the person might be open to talking.<br>
<br>
If someone has yet to accept or believe any disinformation, Krishna
says, they’re probably “immune” and unlikely to fall victim to it
going forward. And if someone is regularly amplifying
disinformation, trying to change their mind could be downright
impossible.<br>
<br>
<b>Come prepared — and ready to listen</b><br>
Krishna’s first step is to understand the other person’s beliefs,
especially if some of those beliefs have been shaped by
disinformation.<br>
<br>
“There are so many different pieces of falsehoods that have been
popularized by concerted disinformation campaigns, that it’s
important to disentangle the arguments that skeptics have accepted,”
Krishna says.<br>
<br>
Once you understand the “facts” that disinformation campaigns are
promoting, she says, you can use science-based facts to directly
rebut them.<br>
<br>
“Parallel examples are always useful,” says Krishna. “Appeal to
people’s logic.”<br>
<br>
Say, for example, that you’re talking with a climate skeptic who
believes climate science is “shaky” or unreliable — a viewpoint
Krishna says is encouraged by some big oil and gas companies.<br>
<br>
You could dispute that idea by pointing the other person to NASA’s
global climate change research, which shows consensus in the
scientific community based on decades of research that the earth is
warming due to human activity.<br>
<br>
<b>Have a one-on-one conversation</b><br>
Social media might be the worst possible place to have these kinds
of conversations. After all, it’s where a lot of disinformation
happens — especially on topics like climate change.<br>
<br>
A November 2021 report from independent watchdog group Real Facebook
Oversight Board and environmental nonprofit Stop Funding Heat
analyzed more than 195 Facebook pages and groups “dedicated” to
climate misinformation.<br>
<br>
Over the course of eight months, it found an estimated 45,000 posts
downplaying or denying the climate crisis, receiving between 818,000
and 1.36 million total daily views.<br>
<br>
According to the report, people tend to believe catchy headlines
from unverified sources on social media more than they would
elsewhere. Krishna’s solution: Have conversations in person, or at
least in direct messages, and rely primarily on primary scientific
sources like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or NASA.<br>
<br>
“Research tells us that one-on-one interaction can often be more
effective than mass media messages,” Krishna says. “Perhaps that’s
the best way to [elevate] voices.”<br>
<br>
<b>Bring it into their backyard</b><br>
Topics like climate change don’t always feel urgent or imminent.
People tend to separate themselves from the crisis, especially when
some of the solutions are uncomfortable — like using less plastic or
conserving electricity more consciously.<br>
<br>
So, the more you can connect the topic to someone’s actual life, the
better.<br>
<br>
“Many people have noticed and perhaps even commented on how weather
patterns have changed over the course of their lives,” Krishna says.
“Pointing out that climate change has exacerbated the changes in
these weather patterns may help place the problem in their
backyard.”<br>
<br>
In California, for example, climate change has helped droughts
become more extreme over the last two decades, according to the
Public Policy Institute of California. And climate change is helping
make hurricanes across the world stronger, according to an August
study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.<br>
<br>
“Climate change is not something that’s 20 years away,” says
Krishna. “It’s something that we’re seeing the impact of right now.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/16/research-disinformation-stifles-climate-change-talk-tips-to-help.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/16/research-disinformation-stifles-climate-change-talk-tips-to-help.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[BBC analysis]</i><br>
<b>Covid denial to climate denial: How conspiracists are shifting
focus</b><br>
By Marianna Spring<br>
Specialist disinformation reporter, BBC News...<br>
- -<br>
<b>The White Rose network</b><br>
It's part of a larger pattern. Anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine
Telegram groups, which once focused exclusively on the pandemic, are
now injecting the climate change debate with the same conspiratorial
narratives they use to explain the pandemic.<br>
<br>
The posts go far beyond political criticism and debate - they're
full of incorrect information, fake stories and pseudoscience.<br>
<br>
According to researchers at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue
(ISD), a think tank that researches global disinformation trends,
some anti-lockdown groups have become polluted by misleading posts
about climate change being overplayed, or even a so-called "hoax"
designed to control people.<br>
<br>
"Increasingly, terminology around Covid-19 measures is being used to
stoke fear and mobilise against climate action," says the ISD's
Jennie King.<br>
<br>
She says this isn't really about climate as a policy issue.<br>
<br>
"It's the fact that these are really neat vectors to get themes like
power, personal freedom, agency, citizen against state, loss of
traditional lifestyles - to get all of those ideas to a much broader
audience."<br>
<br>
One group which has adopted such ideas is the White Rose - a network
with locally-run subgroups around the world, from the UK to the US,
Germany and New Zealand - where Matthew came across it.<br>
<br>
"It's not run by any one or two people," Matthew explains. "It's
kind of a decentralised community organisation, so you obtain
stickers and then post them on lampposts and things like that."<br>
<br>
These stickers bear slogans with anti-vaccine, anti-mask and
conspiratorial content, including slogans such as "Resist the New
Normal", "Real Men Don't Wear Masks", and false statements such as
"There Is No Pandemic". Matthew first joined his local White Rose
channel after seeing it advertised on a sticker - and he now puts up
the same slogans on lamp posts around his home near Auckland...<br>
- -<br>
<b>The new conspiracy frontline</b><br>
As the pandemic progresses, vaccines take effect and many countries
- particularly rich ones - inch closer to normality, this pivot from
Covid towards climate change is something researchers have observed
across a number of online spaces.<br>
<br>
One way that ISD has seen this play out is around the term "climate
lockdown". It's used to refer to the completely unfounded idea that
in the future we might have Covid-style lockdowns to counteract
climate change.<br>
The term has found popularity with YouTubers who peddle conspiracy
theories - but climate scientists say lockdowns would not be a
serious climate change mitigation strategy. Covid lockdowns, for
instance, only marginally reduced greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
<br>
However, the distress caused by Covid and lockdowns - and the
falsehoods that have sprung up around them - have laid the
groundwork for yet more conspiracies to spread. A mindset has
gripped a group of people who blame all bad news on shady plots by
powerful people - rather than accepting the reality about the future
of the planet.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-59255165">https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-59255165</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Hardware almost ready for the road ]</i><br>
<b>Wireless FULL EV charging has arrived! Exciting new tech
breakthrough.</b><br>
Nov 14, 2021<br>
Just Have a Think<br>
Wireless charging is something that many of us have become used to
for things like phones and electric toothbrushes. But it hasn't yet
broken through into the world of electric vehicles, mainly because
of the difficulty in sending power wirelessly over larger distances.
That's all set to change now though, with the launch of the world's
first fully electric wirelessly chargeable car, and several
competing technologies aiming to gain global supremacy in
electrifying our urban roads.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3hVLG5iDec">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3hVLG5iDec</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>[ News archive reports on an event 20 years ago.]</i><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
November 16, 2005</b></font><br>
November 16, 2005: <br>
<b>Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force</b><br>
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum<br>
Washington Post Staff Writers<br>
November 16, 2005<br>
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies
met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 --
something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently
as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.<br>
<br>
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that
officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with
Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House
complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy
policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being
debated.<br>
<br>
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce
committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp.
and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001
task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not
participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said
he did not know.<br>
<br>
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the
Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of
several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations"
to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with
John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar
with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the
document.<br>
<br>
The task force's activities attracted complaints from
environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force
discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings
were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of
participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level
officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to
obtain the records.<br>
<br>
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the
task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to
investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these
meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress
about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.<br>
<br>
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on
the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the
constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain
information in confidentiality."<br>
<br>
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are
not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had
protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or
imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.<br>
<br>
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with
Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in
the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.<br>
<br>
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J.
Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force
staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that
Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and
that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.<br>
<br>
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief
executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief
phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the
official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took
place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond
that," said Rouse, now retired.<br>
<br>
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task
force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she
did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but
they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its
executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it
sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.<br>
<br>
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested
anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was
based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to
the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with
Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney
aide Karen Y. Knutson.<br>
<br>
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force
staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie
Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the
document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman
and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne
Gibbens and Alby Modiano.<br>
<br>
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell
Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven
Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP
regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and
company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.<br>
<br>
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives:
"Did your company or any representatives of your companies
participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?"
When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "<br>
<br>
"No," said Raymond.<br>
<br>
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.<br>
<br>
"We did not, no," Mulva said.<br>
<br>
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross
Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."<br>
<br>
"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.<br>
<br>
"Yes," Pillari said.<br>
<br>
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since
earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.<br>
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
- Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
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>