<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 19, 2021</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<i>[ COP Cartoon ]<br>
</i><b>Cop26 Guardian Opinion cartoon</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/nov/12/martin-rowson-on-attempts-to-phase-out-fossil-fuel-subsidies-at-cop26-cartoon">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/nov/12/martin-rowson-on-attempts-to-phase-out-fossil-fuel-subsidies-at-cop26-cartoon</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ Top history news important to see - article with links to
images ] </i><br>
<b>The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing</b><br>
Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate
denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s
our visual guide<br>
<br>
by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes<br>
Thu 18 Nov 2021<br>
Why is meaningful action to avert the climate crisis proving so
difficult? It is, at least in part, because of ads.<br>
The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade,
multibillion dollar disinformation, propaganda and lobbying campaign
to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers
about the climate crisis and its solutions. This has involved a
remarkable array of advertisements – with headlines ranging from
“Lies they tell our children” to “Oil pumps life” – seeking to
convince the public that the climate crisis is not real, not
human-made, not serious and not solvable. The campaign continues to
this day.<br>
<br>
As recently as last month, six big oil CEOs were summoned to US
Congress to answer for the industry’s history of discrediting
climate science – yet they lied under oath about it. In other words,
the fossil fuel industry is now misleading the public about its
history of misleading the public.<br>
<br>
We are experts in the history of climate disinformation, and we want
to set the record straight. So here, in black and white (and color),
is a selection of big oil’s thousands of deceptive climate ads from
1984 to 2021. This isn’t an exhaustive analysis, of which we have
published several, but a brief, illustrated history – like the
“sizzle reels” that creatives use to highlight their best work – of
the 30-plus year evolution of fossil fuel industry propaganda. This
is big oil’s PR sizzle reel.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bc26f9877245599725835f964ef753296e43a155/0_0_2482_1630/master/2482.jpg?width=880&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=e11f6794c48c21a55ac676e0d5642a1e">https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bc26f9877245599725835f964ef753296e43a155/0_0_2482_1630/master/2482.jpg?width=880&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=e11f6794c48c21a55ac676e0d5642a1e</a><br>
<b>Early days: learning to spin</b><br>
Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) was not self-conscious about the
potential environmental impacts of its products in this 1962
advertisement touting “Each day Humble supplies enough energy to
melt 7 million tons of glacier!”<br>
<blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5351df687b61f45aedc4c39bbf796a7f71d048d6/0_266_2531_3014/master/2531.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=47ce31a0d85ffcbff71dd23658ed7644">https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5351df687b61f45aedc4c39bbf796a7f71d048d6/0_266_2531_3014/master/2531.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=47ce31a0d85ffcbff71dd23658ed7644</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/40dd0233d9518d4d564f9ce59a403dd01d137250/51_310_2032_2909/master/2032.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=cc5643f2fba4a32cd0de45a460b7acac">https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/40dd0233d9518d4d564f9ce59a403dd01d137250/51_310_2032_2909/master/2032.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=cc5643f2fba4a32cd0de45a460b7acac</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8e8d16c0c97b7bb61d3673633bf5afaec65848d5/0_53_1144_1734/master/1144.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=02738715a17b0027daf65e83433c5eda">https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8e8d16c0c97b7bb61d3673633bf5afaec65848d5/0_53_1144_1734/master/1144.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=02738715a17b0027daf65e83433c5eda</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing</a><br>
</blockquote>
<b>The truth behind the ads: </b>Big oil’s rhetoric has evolved
from outright denial to more subtle forms of propaganda, including
shifting responsibility away from companies and on to consumers.
This mimics big tobacco’s effort to combat criticism and defend
against litigation and regulation by “casting itself as a kind of
neutral innocent, buffeted by the forces of consumer demand”.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Shell opinion manipulation - video ]</i><br>
<b>Cat’s Powering Progress | #MakeTheFuture</b><br>
Oct 13, 2020<br>
Shell<br>
Cat is the CEO of Limejump, part of the Shell Group. Through a lot
of hard work, her goal of supplying the UK grid with 100% renewables
keeps getting closer. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uInWV7MMamk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uInWV7MMamk</a><br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><i>[ Notice some pretty clear comment-intimidation -
from "Kim Donald" ]</i><br>
Jessica Clark-Dinsmore<br>
1 year ago<br>
You lot are cheeky! Put my house in the advert without my
permission while you were criticising other people filming in
your petrol stations without asking you. I have tweeted you and
posted a Facebook post, please respond promptly<br>
<br>
Kim Donald<br>
11 months ago<br>
What a powerful comment... Where are you from Jessica ?<br>
<br>
Jessica Clark-Dinsmore<br>
11 months ago<br>
North London<br>
<br>
Kim Donald<br>
11 months ago<br>
Jessica Clark-Dinsmore North London wow 😳 I had a friend there
before but died due to COVID19<br>
<br>
Kim Donald<br>
11 months ago<br>
Jessica Clark-Dinsmore Please be very careful out there
Jessica.. it’s nice having you here ❤️<br>
</blockquote>
<i>[ This is a classic attack by an agent from a "50 Cent Army" -
hired to counter-attack individuals in social media - These
often follow a dramatic script. Notice the empty page of Kim
Donald - seems to have been made for one purpose - commenting on
YouTube. Such names are made automatically by the thousands.
Most social media likes to minimize these -- however they all
realize that controversial hostility draws in more viewers. It
is no longer rare to see veiled death threats. Also note that
Jessica Clark Dinsmore does not have much of a home page either
-- although more authentic in her comments. ]</i><br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uInWV7MMamk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uInWV7MMamk</a><br>
<p> - -</p>
<i>[ China invented the 50 Cent Army - possibly as early at 2004 ]</i><br>
From a Washington Post article in 2016<br>
<b>The Chinese government fakes nearly 450 million social media
comments a year. This is why.</b><br>
Internet researchers have long known that the Chinese government
manipulates content on the Internet. Not only does it censor
heavily, but it also employs hundreds of thousands of people, the
so-called 50 cent army, to write comments on the Internet.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/19/the-chinese-government-fakes-nearly-450-million-social-media-comments-a-year-this-is-why/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/19/the-chinese-government-fakes-nearly-450-million-social-media-comments-a-year-this-is-why/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Breaking news?! Yawn ,wake me up when I can plug in my car..
always promised 50 years hence ]</i><br>
<b>Breaking News: Fusion Recedes Into Far Future For The 57th Time</b><br>
Fusion has an amazing future as a source of energy. In space craft
beyond the orbit of Jupiter sometime in the next two centuries.<br>
<br>
Michael Barnard -- Nov 9, 2021<br>
<br>
Fusion has an amazing future as a source of energy. Which is to say,
in space craft beyond the orbit of Jupiter, sometime in the next two
centuries. Here on Earth? Not so much. At least, that’s my
opinion...<br>
- -<br>
<br>
But fusion generation of electricity, as opposed to big honking
nuclear weapons using fusion, is a perpetual source of interest.
When Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy
Commission, talked about nuclear being “too cheap to meter” in 1954,
he was talking about fusion, not fission. Like everyone since the
mid-1950s, he assumed that fusion would be generating power in 20
years.<br>
<br>
And so here we are, 67 years later. How is fusion doing?<br>
<br>
Let’s start with the only credible fusion project on the planet, the
ITER Tokamak project. It’s been around for decades. It planted its
roots in 1985 with Gorbachev and Reagan. 35 countries are involved.
Oddly, ITER isn’t an acronym, it’s Latin for “The Way,” a typically
optimistic and indeed somewhat arrogant assumption about its place
in the universe.<br>
<br>
It’s supposed to light up around 2040. That’s so far away I hadn’t
bothered to think much about it, as we have to decarbonize well over
50% of our economy long before that. As a result, I had a lazy read
on it. I had assumed, as most press and indeed pretty much everyone
involved with it asserted, that it would be generating more energy
than it consumed, when it finally lit up.<br>
<br>
It’s pretty easy to get that assumption when all of their press
material and statements stay that they’ll put in 50 MW of heat and
get out 500 MW of heat, or 10x the power. They’ve been saying that
for at least 30 years, after all. I assumed that they would have
excess energy, and could bolt a steam generator onto the very
expensive tech and produce electricity if they wanted to. I didn’t
assume that the million components and hundreds of kilometers of
wrapped, very expensive, exotic material wires in the electromagnets
would be remotely economical, but I did assume that they were going
to have excess energy.<br>
<br>
And they’ve managed to make plasma, if not run a fusion reaction.<br>
<br>
However, something crossed my desk today that made me sit up and
challenge my assumptions. There’s an obsessive guy named Steven B.
Krivit who seems to spend most of his time looking at various
alternative nuclear generation technologies, including debunking
cold fusion. His piece from November 3rd, 2021 asserted that he’d
identified in 2017 that ITER wouldn’t be generating more energy than
was put in, and that ITER finally admitted it to a press outlet.<br>
<br>
Really? This project that will end up costing somewhere between $18
and $45 billion isn’t intended to generate extra energy? That seemed
unlikely.<br>
<br>
So I poked around. Krivit’s numbers didn’t add up for me, as his
diagrams were clearly showing MW at various stages of the process,
and not net MWh. But other parts of his story were clearer, and
other participants in ITER were clearer still. I found a page from
the JT-60SA project. It’s a project devoted to “the early
realization of fusion energy by addressing key physics issues for
ITER and DEMO.” It’s an ITER sub-project. And it agrees with Krivit,
but in the right units.<br>
<br>
What it amounts to is that ITER will require about 200 MW of energy
input in total running as it creates 500 MW of heat. But the exergy
of heat means that if it were tapped, it would only return about 200
MW of electricity. So it might be a perpetual motion machine, but
one that wouldn’t do anything more than keep its lights running as
long as you fed it tritium, about $140 million worth of the stuff a
year.<br>
<br>
And it gets worse. ITER is planning at the end of this process to
maintain this for less than 3000 seconds at a time. That’s 50
minutes. This is at the end of the process. As they build up to less
than an hour, mostly they’ll be working on fusion that lasts five
minutes, several times a day. It’s a very expensive physics
experiment that will not produce climate-friendly energy. It’s going
to teach us a bunch, which I completely respect, but it’s not going
to help us deal with climate change.<br>
<br>
I expected more from ITER. Not much more. I mean, it is a
million-component fission reactor expected to light up in 2040 and
not generate any electricity at that point. But I had assumed based
on all the press that it would generate more electricity than it
used to operate if you bolted a boiler and some turbines to it, even
if it were grossly expensive. Apparently not. Just grossly
expensive, no net new electricity.<br>
<br>
As a side note, Krivit asserts that a former ITER spokesman admitted
this to Le Canard Enchainé, a French newspaper. Having become,
briefly, conversational in French, something seemed off to me. Why
would a paper be called The Chained Duck? It turns out that it’s in
a tradition of semi-serious, semi-satirical journalistic outlets
that both get good juicy quotes, leaks, and gossip from governmental
insiders, but also acted as the Onion of the day, just with actual
real news mixed in with the satire. Still going, it seems. The
combination appears to mean that the former ITER representative did
say what he said, that Krivit was right, but he said it to an outlet
that only occasionally gets taken seriously, and it wasn’t taken up
by any media that were serious most of the time.<br>
<br>
However, ITER is not the only fusion reactor in the game. There are
startups! And we all know startups make no promises that they can’t
keep and are excellent at disclosure.<br>
<br>
Like Helion. They have a photo-shopped peanut asserting it’s a 6th
prototype with regenerative power creation that’s never achieved
fusion that is backed by Peter Thiel! It just received $500 million
more of VC funding, with an option to get up to $2.2 billion if they
hit their targets!<br>
<br>
I’m not sure if I could have made up a paragraph less likely to make
me think that there was some there there.<br>
<br>
The website is likely intentionally lacking in anything approaching
detail. It’s low-information and VC friendly, which in the energy
space is Thiel’s jam. He’s the guy who, despite being partnered with
Elon Musk, has never realized that electrical generation was already
being disrupted by wind and solar. His acolytes in startups
disrupting energy crashed and burned, because he and they never
bothered to do the hard work of understanding how electricity
actually works at grid scale. At least Musk was solid on solar,
although he got the wrong end of it and hasn’t quite figured that
out yet.<br>
<br>
While Helion has achieved 100 million degrees Celsius, it’s with a
high-energy laser pulse — not new ideas, in fact 1950s ideas, just
easier now — and they are incredibly coy about duration. The
assumption to be taken is that it lasts for a picosecond at a time.
They talk about their prototype having worked for months, but that
means it’s maintaining a vacuum and occasionally creating plasma, a
precursor to fueled fusion. Many years and tens of millions of
dollars in, they are promising the moon, and soon. And to be clear,
they are well behind on their initial schedule.<br>
<br>
Unlike ITER, at least they are proposing fuels — Helium-3 and
deuterium — which aren’t absurdly difficult and expensive to get.
But still, Helium-3 isn’t terribly common. Lots of lunar mining
proposals related to it. So they are going to manufacture helium-3
apparently.<br>
<br>
And they promise to create electricity directly. It’s not
heat-generating steam or powering thermocouples.<br>
<br>
“The FRC plasmas in our device are high-beta and, due to their
internal electrical current, produce their own magnetic field, which
push on the magnetic field from the coils around the machine. The
FRCs collide in the fusion chamber and are compressed by magnets
around the machine. That compression causes the plasma to become
denser and hotter, initiating fusion reactions that cause the plasma
to expand, resulting in a change in the plasma’s magnetic flux. This
change in magnetic flux interacts with the magnets around the
machine, increasing their magnetic flux, initiating a flow of newly
generated electricity through the coils. This process is explained
by Faraday’s Law of Induction.”<br>
<br>
Sure. They create intense magnetic fields and then create plasmas
which generate their own magnetic field, and the combination
generates electricity. I will be fascinated to read third-party
assessments of their results.<br>
<br>
There were no published results that I was able to find. No third
party assessments that I was able to find. Undoubtedly their NDA and
legal documents are things of beauty. Nothing except their assertion
that they had found a way to create electricity incredibly cheaply,
something that fusion researchers have been claiming for 67 years.
They are asserting that their end price of electricity will be $0.01
cents per kWh. Unlikely.<br>
<br>
I’m disappointed about ITER. I think Helion is likely to be a less
well known and publicized Theranos, without in any way asserting
that the principals are Elizabeth Holmes as much as just optimistic
about timelines by decades, and far too enamored of their own,
pulsing technology.<br>
<br>
And fusion generating electricity appears to be as far away as ever.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/09/breaking-news-fusion-recedes-into-far-future-for-the-57th-time/">https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/09/breaking-news-fusion-recedes-into-far-future-for-the-57th-time/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ One more opinion on what happened at COP26 ]</i><br>
<b>COP26 Is Over - Where Do We Go From Here? (w/ Global Citizen's
Michael Sheldrick)</b><br>
Nov 18, 2021<br>
The Climate Pod<br>
#COP26 #GlobalCitizen #ClimateChange<br>
<br>
After a two year wait, COP26 has finally concluded. We are left with
the Glasgow Climate Pact, which is no doubt disappointing and fails
in several key areas. But all was not lost at COP26. Several major
commitments were made and pressure continues to mount on world
leaders to do more. We review the outcome with Michael Sheldrick,
Co-Founder and Chief Policy, Impact and Government Affairs Officer
at Global Citizen. <br>
<br>
Thank you to our sponsor Octopus Energy, a 100% renewable
electricity supplier. Octopus Energy is currently serving millions
of homes around the globe in countries like the United Kingdom,
United States, New Zealand, and Germany. <br>
<br>
Listen to the full episode of The Climate Pod featuring Michael
Sheldrick<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xVRxuVYGow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xVRxuVYGow</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ strong opinion by retired Unitarian minister - out-of-control
collapse is a process ]</i><br>
<b>Collapse in a Nutshell: Understanding Our Predicament (33 min)</b><br>
Nov 15, 2021<br>
thegreatstory<br>
This is part one of a two-part primer on the nature, inevitability,
and speed of biospheric and civilizational collapse. Part two,
"Collapse in a Nutshell" can be found here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/lPMPINPcrdk">https://youtu.be/lPMPINPcrdk</a> It is almost impossible to truly
understand (i.e., to get your head and heart around) our current
local and global-scale challenges without this understanding. To
join with others (in the "post-doom, no gloom" community) to share
best practices and strategies for how to cope and adapt to this
knowledge, see here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://postdoom.com/discussions/">https://postdoom.com/discussions/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6FcNgOHYoo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6FcNgOHYoo</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ today's science lesson - less carbon and less moisture ]</i><br>
<b>Warmer soil stores less carbon: study</b><br>
Global warming will cause the world's soil to release carbon, new
research shows.<br>
Scientists used data on more than 9,000 soil samples from around the
world, and found that carbon storage "declines strongly" as average
temperatures increase.<br>
<br>
This is an example of a "positive feedback", where global warming
causes more carbon to be released into the atmosphere, further
accelerating climate change.<br>
<br>
Importantly, the amount of carbon that could be released depends on
the soil type, with coarse-textured (low-clay) soils losing three
times as much carbon as fine-textured (clay-rich) soils.<br>
<br>
The researchers, from the University of Exeter and Stockholm
University, say their findings help to identify vulnerable carbon
stocks and provide an opportunity to improve Earth System Models
(ESMs) that simulate future climate change.<br>
<br>
"Because there is more carbon stored in soils than there is in the
atmosphere and all the trees on the planet combined, releasing even
a small percentage could have a significant impact on our climate,"
said Professor Iain Hartley of Exeter's College of Life and
Environmental Sciences.<br>
<br>
"Our analysis identified the carbon stores in coarse-textured soils
at high-latitudes (far from the Equator) as likely to be the most
vulnerable to climate change.<br>
<br>
"Such stores, therefore, may require particular attention given the
high rates of warming taking place in cooler regions.<br>
<br>
"In contrast, we found carbon stores in fine-textured soils in
tropical areas to be less vulnerable to climate warming."<br>
<br>
The data on the 9,300 soil profiles came from the World Soil
Information database, with the study focusing on the top 50cm of
soil.<br>
<br>
By comparing carbon storage in places with different average
temperatures, the researchers estimated the likely impact of global
warming.<br>
<br>
For every 10°C of increase in temperature, average carbon storage
(across all soils) fell by more than 25%.<br>
<br>
"Even bleak forecasts do not anticipate this level of warming, but
we used this scale to give us confidence that the effects we
observed were caused by temperature rather than other variables,"
Professor Hartley said.<br>
<br>
"Our results make it clear that, as temperatures rise, more and more
carbon is release from soil.<br>
<br>
"It's important to note that our study did not examine the
timescales involved, and further research is needed to investigate
how much carbon could be released this century."<br>
<br>
The researchers found that their results could not be represented by
an established ESM.<br>
<br>
"This suggests that there is an opportunity to use the patterns we
have observed to improve how models represent soils, and further
reduce uncertainty in their projections," Professor Hartley said.<br>
<br>
The differences in carbon storage based on soil texture occur
because finer soils provide more mineral surface area for
carbon-based organic material to bond to, reducing the ability of
microbes to access and decompose it.<br>
<br>
The paper, published in the journal Nature Communications, is
entitled: "Temperature effects on carbon storage are controlled by
soil stabilisation capacities."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2021-11-warmer-soil-carbon.html">https://phys.org/news/2021-11-warmer-soil-carbon.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
November 19, 2018</b></font><br>
November 19, 2018:<br>
<br>
On “MSNBC Live,” Michael Mann discusses the role human-caused
climate change played in fueling the California wildfires.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/climate-change-no-longer-a-far-off-subtle-threat-says-climate-expert-1375033923933?v=raila&">https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/climate-change-no-longer-a-far-off-subtle-threat-says-climate-expert-1375033923933?v=raila&</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>