<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 25, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ Pay boost for firefighters ] </i><br>
<b>NPR interviews firefighters about the pay increase</b><br>
AuthorBill Gabbert -- Nov 23, 2021<br>
Firefighters on the North Complex<br>
Firefighters on the North Complex, Plumas NF, Sept. 9, 2020. USFS
photo by Kari Greer.<br>
National Public Radio produced a four-minute feature on All Things
Considered in which they interviewed wildland firefighters about the
effects of the forthcoming pay raise. They talked with firefighters
Dave Carman and Patrick Benson, as well as retired US Forest Service
Fire Chief Riva Duncan who is now with Grassroots Wildland
Firefighters.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/11/23/npr-interviews-firefighters-about-the-pay-increase/">https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/11/23/npr-interviews-firefighters-about-the-pay-increase/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Firefighers - audio NPR ]</i><br>
<b>Wildland firefighters are split on whether higher pay would keep
them in the industry</b><br>
Nov 22, 20214<br>
Heard on All Things Considered<br>
NATE HEGYI<br>
HEGYI: We're walking in a park on a cold day in his hometown of
Missoula, Mont., and Benson says sometimes he's working every day of
the week during the fire season for long hours without much of a
break, sweating in the heat, digging a fire line.<br>
<br>
BENSON: It's exhausting. It's exhausting mentally. It's exhausting
physically. And then you compound that on top of the fact that you
don't know how long you're going to be gone for or, you know, what
you're going to encounter while you're out there.<br>
<br>
HEGYI: It's all a lot. And while he welcomes these changes from the
infrastructure bill, it might not be enough to keep him on the job
next season, especially as a tight labor market nationwide has
employers competing for labor.<br>
<br>
BENSON: I kind of want to try carpentry. I'm thinking about taking a
carpentry job.<br>
<br>
HEGYI: It would keep him at home with a stable schedule.<br>
<br>
BENSON: I don't know a ton about it, to be honest, but fingers
crossed and hopefully not as much of an emotional toll.<br>
<br>
HEGYI: Now that the infrastructure bill has been signed into law,
federal agencies have to sort out exactly how the new pay and
benefits will be applied. It's unclear when exactly wildland
firefighters will start seeing bigger paychecks.<br>
For NPR News, I'm Nate Hegyi in Missoula, Mont.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/1058128896/wildland-firefighters-are-split-on-whether-higher-pay-would-keep-them-in-the-ind">https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/1058128896/wildland-firefighters-are-split-on-whether-higher-pay-would-keep-them-in-the-ind</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ fairly well-informed video explaining the graphic 21 minutes ]</i><br>
<b>The Map of Doom | Apocalypses Ranked</b><br>
DoS - Domain of Science<br>
This follows my journey to find and rank all of the biggest threats
to humanity. Grab yourself the Map of Doom poster here:
store.dftba.com/collections/domain-of...<br>
<br>
This year was the first experience we’ve had of a global disaster
affecting every single person on Earth. And also how unprepared
society was to deal with it, despite plenty of people giving
warnings that this was going to happen at some stage.<br>
<br>
But in the midst of all the doom I started to wonder, what other
things could threaten humanity, that we are not thinking about? So I
made the Map of Doom to list all the threats to humanity in one
place.<br>
<br>
But just finding them all is not enough. I wanted to find a way of
comparing the risks of all of these disaster scenarios. So this
video follows my attempt at doing that, and I think I’ve hit on a
great way to visually compare all these dangers, which I haven’t
seen anyone do before, so hopefully by the end of the video you’ll
have a better idea about what the biggest threats are, and how they
compare <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htf0XR6W9WQ&">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htf0XR6W9WQ&</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Follow the money ] </i><br>
Nov 23, 2021<br>
<b>What's next for the Fed on climate change</b><br>
Axios - Ben Geman, Andrew Freedman<br>
<br>
The Federal Reserve is poised to increase its climate focus even as
President Biden's nomination of Chairman Jerome Powell to a second
term disappointed advocates of policies to tilt the economy away
from fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
Catch up fast: Biden on Monday announced Powell's nod and said he's
tapping Lael Brainard — a Fed board member who's outspoken on
climate — as vice chair.<br>
<br>
"[Powell's] made clear to me [that] a top priority will be to
accelerate the Fed's effort to address and mitigate the risks that
climate change poses to our financial system and our economy," Biden
said.<br>
Why it matters: The Fed has broad powers to weigh and ameliorate
climate-related risks to the financial system.<br>
<br>
- These risks include the physical damage from costly extreme
weather events and the potential for stranded fossil fuel assets in
the transition to cleaner energy.<br>
- However, it remains to be seen how far the Fed will go on climate,
an area outside its traditional work that requires new staff
expertise.<br>
- What we're watching: The Fed is already studying the risks that
climate change poses to the financial system and has been deepening
its work over the last year.<br>
<br>
The Fed has set up two committees, one to study how climate change
may affect the nation's economic stability and the other to examine
the individual banks it oversees.<br>
In late 2020, the Fed also joined the multilateral Network of
Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System.<br>
Both Powell and Brainard have said the Fed may conduct "scenario
analysis" of climate risks, possibly focusing on individual banks —
but stopped short of calling for "stress tests" that activists want.<br>
Reuters reported last week that the Fed has been pressuring banks to
analyze their portfolios for climate risks and may release findings
to the public in 2023.<br>
What they're saying: "The risk is real and the systemic nature of
that risk is pretty apparent already, and is only going to get more
so," Dan Firger, managing director at Great Circle Capital Advisors,
told Axios. "And I think the very smart people inside the Federal
Reserve are keenly aware of that fact."<br>
<br>
Ilmi Granoff of the ClimateWorks Foundation expects the Fed's
scenario analyses to reveal the need for risk management strategies
for the economy as a whole and individual financial institutions.<br>
"I expect the Fed to start scrutinizing financial risks, macro and
systemic risks and at individual financial institutions. ... They've
created two high level committees with really, really serious people
at the helm of them," he said.<br>
The intrigue: The Fed's moves so far stop well short of what
environmentalists want from the central bank and other financial
regulators.<br>
<br>
Groups including Evergreen Action and the Sierra Club say the Fed
should increase the amount of capital banks must hold for their
fossil portfolios. They want "portfolio limits" on the level of
polluting assets banks can hold.<br>
More broadly, Powell's nomination to a second term came despite
criticism of his tenure from some Capitol Hill Democrats who are
very active on climate.<br>
Yes, but: Christina Parajon Skinner of the University of
Pennsylvania's Wharton School expects Powell will be "attentive" to
ways climate affects the Fed's mandates "while also staying within
the boundaries of the law and therefore not pushing the Fed into a
drastically new role."<br>
<br>
She expects the Fed to analyze risks, be prepared to deal with them
and weave climate considerations into supervisory work.<br>
"The Fed does not have the authority to use its policy tools to
attempt to mitigate climate change with its balance sheet, its
regulatory might (via capital charges or otherwise), or through the
moral suasion deployed under the guise of supervision," she said in
an email exchange.<br>
What's next: Powell and Brainard's nominations aren't the only
climate puzzle pieces left to be put into place at the Fed.<br>
<br>
There are three other vacancies on the Fed Board of Governors that
Biden needs to fill. One of them, the vice chair for supervision,
will play a lead role in overseeing the Fed's climate work.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.axios.com/fed-climate-change-powell-brainard-c01f422e-eb12-4b98-ad3d-b3b0e842b917.html">https://www.axios.com/fed-climate-change-powell-brainard-c01f422e-eb12-4b98-ad3d-b3b0e842b917.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Erudite commentary declares optimism ]</i><br>
<b>Profound climate change may be inevitable, but society can go on</b><br>
Although the world may soon be unrecognizable, humans might be able
to adapt<br>
By MARIANNE APOSTOLIDES<br>
NOV 24, 2021 <br>
THE NEWS REPORTS FROM the United Nations Climate Change Conference
in Glasgow this month followed a predictable pattern. World leaders
took to the stage one after the other, each of them issuing dire
warnings about imminent climate disaster and concluding with urgent
calls to action: It’s not too late…but we must act now!<br>
<br>
This message feels tired, its urgency attenuated from decades of
repetition. “Now” was once the 1970s, with the birth of the modern
environmental movement; “now” was the Kyoto Protocol and its
carbon-reduction commitments of the 1990s; “now” was Paris 2015.
Now, some believe, is now too late: The tipping point has come.
We’re at the apex of the curve, on the verge of an unstoppable
cascade that will irreversibly alter the systems governing the
natural world. It’s too late. And if we, as a society, copped to
that fact, we’d all benefit immensely.<br>
<br>
This is the argument of Deep Adaptation, a movement launched in 2018
by Jem Bendell, a professor of sustainability leadership at the
University of Cumbria in the United Kingdom. The movement situates
the conversation about society’s future in a new realm, one in which
catastrophic climate change is taken as a given. Bendell says the
world will become an unfamiliar place: Everything we’ve known about
the dynamics driving our lives will be overturned by climate-induced
disruption, leading to societal collapse. Only when we accept this
inevitability can we prepare for the coming catastrophe “in ways
that may reduce harm, especially by reducing conflict and trauma,”
writes Bendell.<br>
<br>
Deep Adaptation has attracted a worldwide following: The founding
document was downloaded more than a half million times, according to
Bendell, and forums have solidified a base of participants, from
students to psychologists to scholars. Recently, more than 500
scholars signed an open letter espousing the main tenets of Deep
Adaptation, and urging policymakers to “engage openly with the risk
of disruption and even collapse of our societies.”<br>
<br>
As an author who delved into climate-change science for my book
“Deep Salt Water,” I’m compelled by the sober and dispassionate
honesty of Deep Adaptation. I find Bendell’s scientific conclusions
convincing, even though many experts disagree with them. I’m also
heartened by his framework: Solutions can’t be found unless the
problem is posed correctly. Where I diverge from Deep Adaptation is
in its emphasis on societal collapse. Where Bendell sees a sort of
fait accompli, I see accumulating evidence that, despite the
imminent climate crisis, technology will bolster the pillars that
uphold society.<br>
<br>
I DISCOVERED Deep Adaptation after reading a preprint study about
climate anxiety among youth. The study — submitted to Lancet
Planetary Health but yet to undergo peer review — surveyed 10,000
people aged 16 to 25, from 10 countries. It revealed a population
riddled by fear and angered by the betrayal they ascribe to people
in power. The authors of the study are part of a burgeoning
community of psychologists who specialize in dealing with climate
anxiety.<br>
<br>
These psychologists urge their colleagues to recognize
climate-related grief and fear as a rational response to actual
events, not as a manifestation of an underlying psychopathology such
as anxiety or depression. Despite offering a necessary forum to
youth in distress, this therapy continues to promote the idea that
climate catastrophe can be avoided, or at least reduced. As Caroline
Hickman, a co-author of the youth climate anxiety study and a
lecturer at the University of Bath, tweeted last month: “Between
apocalyptic thinking and naive misplaced optimism is radical hope.
Things are bad, AND we can change the end of this story.”<br>
<br>
To me, that message is disingenuous, if not unintentionally cruel.
How can youth be supported if their anxieties are initially
validated, only to be amplified as climate commitments are broken by
leaders, and disasters keep coming?<br>
<br>
The Deep Adaptation movement creates a better framework, arguing
that people build psychological resilience by contemplating four
guiding questions:<br>
<br>
What do we most value that we want to keep and how? That’s a
question of resilience. What could we let go of so as not to make
matters worse? That’s a question of relinquishment. What could we
bring back to help us with these difficult times? That’s a question
of restoration. With what and whom shall we make peace as we awaken
to our common mortality? That’s a question of reconciliation.<br>
<br>
Through this framework, Bendell succeeds in distilling a terrifying
future into a series of questions that invite people into
conversation. By doing so, he gives us a language to speak the
unthinkable.<br>
<br>
Bendell’s 2018 manifesto, which laid the foundation for the
movement, has been sharply criticized on scientific and moral
grounds. The most comprehensive critique argues that Bendell
misinterprets the predictions of climate models, ignores important
caveats, and adopts a “doomist” narrative that, the critics say,
will lead to despair and inaction, exacerbating existing
inequalities and sapping energy from the fight for climate justice.
Bendell accepted some of these criticisms, making a few corrections
and updates to his original manuscript. But he countered others,
holding steadfast to the broader principles motivating Deep
Adaptation. (The New York Times reported that Bendell’s original
manuscript was “submitted to and rejected by a peer-reviewed
sustainability journal.”)<br>
<br>
In my assessment, the political context tips the scale in favor of
Bendell’s view: Even if, on a purely scientific level, we could stop
the feedback loops already set in motion, our political, economic,
and governance structures have proven incapable of proactively
responding with measures commensurate to the threat.<br>
<br>
Despite its significant contribution to the thinking about climate
change, Deep Adaptation contains a weakness at its core: the premise
that climate change will lead to society’s collapse, defined as “the
uneven ending of normal modes of sustenance, shelter, security,
pleasure, identity, and meaning,” Bendell writes.<br>
<br>
How can youth be supported if their anxieties are initially
validated, only to be amplified as climate commitments are broken by
leaders, and disasters keep coming?<br>
<br>
Bendell’s logical leap from catastrophic climate change to societal
collapse betrays his stance against capitalism, which he has blamed
for the climate crisis. Bendell denigrates mainstream adaptation
efforts as “encouraging people to try harder to be nicer and better
rather than coming together in solidarity to either undermine or
overthrow a system that demands we participate in environmental
degradation.” By implication, those efforts — the unglamorous work
of revamping infrastructure, engaging in urban and ecosystem
planning, coordinating supply chains for food, water, and raw
materials — are superficial, unlike the profound ethical and
spiritual transformation that Deep Adaptation envisions. Societal
collapse, in this worldview, becomes the event that triggers a
creative reimaging of human civilization.<br>
<br>
Blinded by utopian visions, Bendell seems to overlook the
advancements, in science and technology and other realms, that are
capable of upholding society. In sectors such as energy, water,
materials science, and agriculture, basic science and innovative
technology are spawning new realities that could stabilize
societies, even amid horrific shifts in the natural world. Some of
this technology, including large-scale nuclear fusion reactors and
smaller nuclear batteries, will reduce carbon emissions. Other
technologies, especially those developed with synthetic biology, may
help us adapt to a warming planet by, for example, improving crop
yields and revolutionizing manufacturing. By seizing a power once
reserved for nature — the power to direct evolution — scientists can
tackle some of the very problems humans have created through their
consumption of fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
None of these developments is a panacea. None will stop catastrophic
climate change. None prefigure a world I want to live in. Yet they
all refute the idea of societal collapse.<br>
<br>
Bendell’s failure to recognize the promise of technology is a
tremendous loss for policymakers, activists, psychotherapists, and
industry. We currently lack a framework for discussing the work
needed to prepare for climate change. That work pertains not only to
physical infrastructure but to psychology and ethics — especially as
it regards the predicted mass migration of people whose homelands
will no longer be habitable.<br>
<br>
In my view, Deep Adaptation is perfectly poised to facilitate this
difficult conversation — if it eases its focus on societal collapse.
Bendell’s framework encourages us to “make sense of our situation in
ways that discourage defensive or violent approaches and encourage
more kind, wise, and accountable responses.”<br>
<br>
This type of thinking is lucid, productive, and necessary. I’ll hold
it more fiercely than any vapid statement coming from Glasgow.<br>
<br>
Marianne Apostolides is an award-winning author of seven books, most
recently the novel “I Can’t Get You Out of My Mind.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://undark.org/2021/11/18/profound-climate-change-may-be-inevitable-but-society-can-go-on/">https://undark.org/2021/11/18/profound-climate-change-may-be-inevitable-but-society-can-go-on/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.salon.com/2021/11/24/profound-climate-change-may-be-inevitable-but-society-can-go-on_partner/">https://www.salon.com/2021/11/24/profound-climate-change-may-be-inevitable-but-society-can-go-on_partner/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Thoughtful opinion from George Monbiot ]</i><br>
<b>Domino Theory</b><br>
19 Nov 2021<br>
Our last, best hope of averting systemic environmental collapse is
to use the peculiarities of complex systems to trigger cascading
political regime shifts.<br>
<br>
By George Monbiot<br>
<br>
Now it’s a straight fight for survival. The Glasgow Climate Pact,
for all its restrained and diplomatic language, looks like a suicide
pact. After so many squandered years of denial, distraction and
delay, it’s too late for incremental change. A fair chance of
preventing more than 1.5C of heating means cutting greenhouse gas
emissions by about 7% every year: faster than they fell in 2020, at
the height of the pandemic.<br>
What we needed at the Cop26 climate conference was a decision to
burn no more fossil fuels after 2030. Instead, powerful governments
sought a compromise between our prospects of survival and the
interests of the fossil fuel industry. But there was no room for
compromise. Without massive and immediate change, we face the
possibility of cascading environmental collapse, as Earth systems
pass critical thresholds and flip into new and hostile states.<br>
<br>
So does this mean we might as well give up? It does not. For just as
the complex natural systems on which our lives depend can flip
suddenly from one state to another, so can the systems that humans
have created. Our social and economic structures share
characteristics with the Earth systems on which we depend. They have
self-reinforcing properties – that stabilise them within a
particular range of stress, but destabilise them when external
pressure becomes too great. Like natural systems, if they are driven
past their tipping points, they can flip with astonishing speed. Our
last, best hope is to use those dynamics to our advantage,
triggering what scientists call “cascading regime shifts”.<br>
<br>
A fascinating paper published in January in the journal Climate
Policy showed how we could harness the power of “domino dynamics”:
non-linear change, proliferating from one part of the system to
another. It points out that “cause and effect need not be
proportionate”, a small disturbance, in the right place, can trigger
a massive response from a system and flip it into a new state. This
is how the global financial crisis of 2008-09 happened: a relatively
minor shock (mortgage defaults in the US) was transmitted and
amplified through the entire system, almost bringing it down. We
could use this property to detonate positive change.<br>
<br>
Sudden shifts in energy systems have happened before. The paper
points out that the transition in the US from horse-drawn carriages
to cars running on fossil fuels took just over a decade. The
diffusion of new technologies tends to be self-accelerating, as
greater efficiencies, economies of scale and industrial synergies
reinforce each other. The authors’ hope is that, when the
penetration of clean machines approaches a critical threshold, and
the infrastructure required to deploy them becomes dominant,
positive feedbacks will rapidly drive fossil fuels to extinction.<br>
<br>
For example, as the performance of batteries, power components and
charging points improves and their costs fall, the price of electric
cars drops and their desirability soars. At this point (in other
words, right now), small interventions by government could trigger
cascading change. This has already happened in Norway, where a
change in taxes made electric vehicles cheaper than fossil-fuel
cars. This flipped the system almost overnight: now more than 50% of
the nation’s new car sales are electric, and petrol models are
heading for extinction.<br>
<br>
As electric cars become more popular, and more polluting vehicles
become socially unacceptable, it becomes less risky for governments
to impose the policies that will complete the transition. This then
helps to scale the new technologies, causing their price to fall
further, until they outcompete petrol cars without the need for tax
or subsidy, locking in the transition. Driven by this new economic
reality, the shift then cascades from one nation to another.<br>
<br>
The battery technologies pioneered in the transport sector can also
spread into other energy systems, helping to catalyse regime shifts
in, for example, the electricity grid. The plummeting prices of
solar electricity and offshore wind – already cheaper than
hydrocarbons in many countries – are making fossil fuel plants look
like a filthy extravagance. This reduces the political costs of
accelerating their closure through tax or other measures. Once the
plants are demolished, the transition is locked in.<br>
<br>
Of course, we should never underestimate the power of incumbency,
and the lobbying efforts that an antiquated industry will use to
keep itself in business. The global infrastructure of fossil fuel
extraction, processing and sales is worth somewhere between $25tn
(£19tn) and $0, depending on which way the political wind is
blowing. The fossil fuel companies will do everything in their power
to preserve their investments. They have tied President Joe Biden’s
climate plans in knots. It would be no surprise if they were talking
urgently with Donald Trump’s team about how to help lever him back
into office. And if they can thwart action for long enough, the
eventual victory of low-carbon technologies might scarcely be
relevant, as Earth’s systems could already have been pushed past
their critical thresholds, beyond which much of the planet could
become uninhabitable.<br>
<br>
But let’s assume for a moment that we can shove the dead weight of
these legacy industries aside, and consign fossil fuels to history.
Will that really have solved our existential crisis? One aspect of
it, perhaps. Yet I’m dismayed by the narrowness of the focus on
carbon, in the Glasgow pact and elsewhere, to the exclusion of our
other assaults on the living world.<br>
<br>
Electric cars are a classic example of the problem. It’s true that
within a few years, as the advocates argue, the entire stinking
infrastructure of petrol and diesel could be overthrown. But what is
locally clean is globally filthy. The mining of the materials
required for this massive deployment of batteries and electronics is
already destroying communities, ripping down forests, polluting
rivers, trashing fragile deserts and, in some cases, forcing people
into near-slavery. Our “clean, green” transport revolution is being
built with the help of blood cobalt, blood lithium and blood copper.
Though the emissions of both carbon dioxide and local pollutants
will undoubtedly fall, we are still left with a stupid,
dysfunctional transport system that clogs the streets with one-tonne
metal boxes in which single people travel. New roads will still
carve up rainforests and other threatened places, catalysing new
waves of destruction.<br>
<br>
A genuinely green transport system would involve system change of a
different kind. It would start by reducing the need to travel – as
the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, is doing with her 15-minute city
policy, which seeks to ensure that people’s needs can be met within
a 15-minute walk from homes.<br>
<br>
It would encourage walking and cycling by all who are able to do so,
helping to address our health crisis as well as our environmental
crisis. For longer journeys, it would prioritise public transport.
Private electric vehicles would be used to address only the residue
of the problem: providing transport for those who could not travel
by other means. But simply flipping the system from fossil to
electric cars preserves everything that’s wrong with the way we now
travel, except the power source.<br>
<br>
Then there’s the question of where the money goes. The fruits of the
new, “clean” economy will, as before, be concentrated in the hands
of a few: those who control the production of cars and the charging
infrastructure; and the construction companies still building the
great web of roads required to accommodate them. The beneficiaries
will want to spend this money, as they do today, on private jets,
yachts, extra homes and other planet-trashing extravagances.<br>
<br>
It is not hard to envisage a low-carbon economy in which everything
else falls apart. The end of fossil fuels will not, by itself,
prevent the extinction crisis, the deforestation crisis, the soils
crisis, the freshwater crisis, the consumption crisis, the waste
crisis; the crisis of smashing and grabbing, accumulating and
discarding that will destroy our prospects and much of the rest of
life on Earth. So we also need to use the properties of complex
systems to trigger another shift: political change.<br>
<br>
There’s an aspect of human nature that is simultaneously terrible
and hopeful: most people side with the status quo, whatever it may
be. A critical threshold is reached when a certain proportion of the
population change their views. Other people sense that the wind has
changed, and tack around to catch it. There are plenty of tipping
points in recent history: the remarkably swift reduction in smoking;
the rapid shift, in nations such as the UK and Ireland, away from
homophobia; the #MeToo movement, which, in a matter of weeks,
greatly reduced the social tolerance of sexual abuse and everyday
sexism.<br>
<br>
But where does the tipping point lie? Researchers whose work was
published in Science in 2018 discovered that a critical threshold
was passed when the size of a committed minority reached roughly 25%
of the population. At this point, social conventions suddenly flip.
Between 72% and 100% of the people in the experiments swung round,
destroying apparently stable social norms. As the paper notes, a
large body of work suggests that “the power of small groups comes
not from their authority or wealth, but from their commitment to the
cause”.<br>
<br>
Another paper explored the possibility that the Fridays for Future
climate protests could trigger this kind of domino dynamics. It
showed how, in 2019, Greta Thunberg’s school strike snowballed into
a movement that led to unprecedented electoral results for Green
parties in several European nations. Survey data revealed a sharp
change of attitudes, as people began to prioritise the environmental
crisis.<br>
<br>
Fridays for Future came close, the researchers suggest, to pushing
the European political system into a “critical state”. It was
interrupted by the pandemic, and the tipping has not yet happened.
But witnessing the power, the organisation and the fury of the
movements gathered in Glasgow, I suspect the momentum is building
again.<br>
<br>
Social convention, which has for so long worked against us, can if
flipped become our greatest source of power, normalising what now
seems radical and weird. If we can simultaneously trigger a
cascading regime shift in both technology and politics, we might
stand a chance. It sounds like a wild hope. But we have no choice.
Our survival depends on raising the scale of civil disobedience
until we build the greatest mass movement in history, mobilising the
25% who can flip the system. We do not consent to the destruction of
life on Earth.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.monbiot.com">www.monbiot.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
November 25, 2006</b></font><br>
November 25, 2006: The Washington Post reports:<br>
<blockquote>"While the political debate over global warming
continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy
companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate
change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions
as inevitable.<br>
<br>
"The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the
federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The
companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help
fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state
plans now in the works. They are also working to change some
company practices in anticipation of the regulation."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.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>