<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>December 21, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ a few clips looking to the future - from the Nation ] </i><br>
<b>Life Circa 2050 Will Be Bad. Really Bad.</b><br>
Future widespread suffering won’t be caused by some unforeseen
disaster but by all-too-obvious, painfully predictable reasons.<br>
By Alfred McCoy - Dec 20. 2021<br>
- -<br>
And keep in mind that I can write all this now because such future
widespread suffering won’t be caused by some unforeseen disaster to
come but by an all-too-obvious, painfully predictable imbalance in
the basic elements that sustain human life—air, earth, fire, and
water. As average world temperatures rise by as much as 2.3° Celsius
(4.2° Fahrenheit) by mid-century, climate change will degrade the
quality of life in every country on Earth...<br>
- -<br>
Recent scientific research has found that, by 2050, the key drivers
of major climate change will be feedback loops at both ends of the
temperature spectrum. At the hotter end, in Africa, Australia, and
the Amazon, warmer temperatures will spark ever more devastating
forest fires, reducing tree cover, and releasing vast amounts of
carbon into the atmosphere. This, in turn (as is already happening),
will fuel yet more fires and so create a monstrous self-reinforcing
feedback loop that could decimate the great tropical rainforests of
this planet.<br>
<br>
The even more serious and uncontrollable driver, however, will be in
the planet’s polar regions...<br>
- -<br>
In fact, a “worst-case scenario” by the National Academies of
Sciences projects a sea-level rise of as much as 20 inches by 2050
and 78 inches in 2100, with a “catastrophic” loss of 690,000 square
miles of land, an expanse four times the size of California,
displacing about 2.5 percent of the world’s population and
inundating major cities like New York. Adding to such concerns, a
recent study in Nature predicted that, by 2060, rain rather than
snow could dominate parts of the Arctic, further accelerating ice
loss and raising sea levels significantly. Moving that doomsday ever
closer, recent satellite imagery reveals that the ice shelf holding
back Antarctica’s massive Thwaites Glacier could “shatter within
three to five years,” quickly breaking that Florida-sized frozen
mass into hundreds of icebergs and eventually resulting “in several
feet of sea level rise” on its own.<br>
Think of it this way: In the Arctic, ice is drama, but permafrost is
death. The spectacle of melting polar ice sheets cascading into
ocean waters is dramatic indeed. True mass death, however, lies in
the murky, mysterious permafrost. That sloppy stew of decayed matter
and frozen water from ice ages past covers 730,000 square miles of
the Northern Hemisphere, can reach 2,300 feet below ground, and
holds enough potentially releasable carbon and methane to melt the
poles and inundate densely populated coastal plains worldwide. In
turn, such emissions would only raise Arctic temperatures further,
melt more permafrost (and ice), and so on, year after year after
year. We’re talking, in other words, about a potentially devastating
feedback loop that could increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
beyond the planet’s capacity to compensate.<br>
According to a 2019 report in Nature, the vast zone of frozen earth
that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere is a
sprawling storehouse for about 1.6 trillion metric tons of
carbon—twice the amount already in the atmosphere. Current models
“assume that permafrost thaws gradually from the surface downwards,”
slowly releasing methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But
frozen soil also “physically holds the landscape together” and so
its thawing can rip the surface open erratically, exposing
ever-larger areas to the sun.<br>
<br>
Around the Arctic Circle, there is already dramatic physical
evidence of rapid change. Amid the vast permafrost that covers
nearly two-thirds of Russia, one small Siberian town had
temperatures that reached a historic 100 degrees Fahrenheit in June
2020, the highest ever recorded above the Arctic Circle. Meanwhile,
several peninsulas on the Arctic Sea have experienced methane
eruptions that have produced craters up to 100 feet deep. Since
rapid thawing releases more methane than gradual melting does and
methane has 25 times more heating power than CO2, the “impacts of
thawing permafrost on Earth’s climate,” suggests that 2019 report in
Nature, “could be twice that expected from current models.”...<br>
- -<br>
No one can predict with any certainty whether reforms like these and
the power to change national behavior that would come with them will
arrive in time to cap emissions and slow climate change, or too late
(if at all) to do anything but manage a series of increasingly
uncontrollable feedback loops. Yet without such change, the current
world order will almost certainly collapse into catastrophic global
disorder with dire consequences for all of us.<br>
<br>
Alfred McCoyAlfred McCoy is the J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A TomDispatch regular, he is
the author of In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and
Decline of US Global Power and Policing America’s Empire: The United
States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-future-disasters/">https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-future-disasters/</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Clips discussing politics as planned acts of social groups ]</i><br>
<b>Increased political polarization found to thwart global
environmental goals</b><br>
December 17, 2021<br>
The latest UN climate summit — the 26th edition of the “Conference
of the Parties,” or COP26 annual meeting — ultimately delivered on
its primary goal of keeping alive the Paris Agreement’s aim to limit
global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above
preindustrial levels.<br>
<br>
Nations agreed on the Glasgow Climate Pact, which states that carbon
emissions will have to fall by 45% by 2030 to keep alive the
1.5-degree goal.<br>
<br>
ASU professor Charles Perrings<br>
<br>
But according to new research led by School of Life Sciences
Professor Charles Perrings, it may become even harder for nations to
reach a consensus within this modern era of increased political
polarization. <br>
<br>
“What we found is that polarization leads to greater treaty
non-compliance. It's more difficult to negotiate and sustain
international agreements, the more polarized the electorate is and
the more polarized political parties are,” Perrings said. <br>
<br>
At Arizona State University, Perrings directs — along with School of
Life Sciences colleague Ann Kinzig — the ecoSERVICES Group within
The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The group studies the
causes and consequences of change in ecosystem services — the
benefits that people derive from the biophysical environment.<br>
<br>
Perrings led a team that viewed international environmental
agreements from this big-picture perspective. <br>
<br>
In a new research study published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, a team comprising Perrings, ASU political
scientist Michael Hechter, a professor in the School of Politics and
Global Studies, and Robert Mamada of Grand Canyon University used a
complex adaptive systems approach to analyze the effect of
polarization on national compliance with international environmental
treaties.<br>
<br>
Complex adaptive systems occur when the seemingly uncoordinated
responses of nation-states adapt to changes in the conditions
addressed by particular environmental agreements. These changes may
generate seemingly coordinated patterns of behavior at the level of
the system. <br>
<br>
For the study, they considered how polarization of political parties
and stakeholders on the issues addressed by international
environment agreements affects commitment to those agreements.<br>
<br>
There have been more than 3,600 International Environmental
Agreements (IEA) since the 19th century. Of these, the big majority
(80%) represent bilateral agreements: 10% involving 10 or fewer
signatories, and less than 1% involving 100 or more signatories.
According to Perrings, this network of IEAs has been characterized
as a complex adaptive system in which, in the absence of
international controls, simple behavioral rules at the national
level may give rise to complex international adaptive dynamics. <br>
<br>
The network of treaties has evolved from a single node (treaty) in
1857 to 747 nodes with 1,001 directed links by 2012 — with waves of
increased activity following the 1972 United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment (the Stockholm Conference) and the 1992 Earth
Summit (the Rio Conference).<br>
<br>
Fanning the flames<br>
The complex adaptive systems approach sees decentralized
interactions between nation-states pursuing their own agendas on
particular issues as a potential source of seemingly coordinated
adaptive behaviors across the network. <br>
<br>
The approach anticipates the emergence of herd-like adaptations to
changes in environmental conditions as a function of the topology of
the system. ..<br>
- -<br>
“The simplest analogy would be to the way that a forest fire
spreads,” Perrings said. “If you think about a forest area as a set
of pixels, then there are well-defined relations governing
combustion within and between the individual pixels. Each one has a
very simple relationship to the next, but the spread of the fire
across multiple pixels may be very, very complicated.”<br>
<br>
However, within politics, the fire spreading is an increased
political polarization that leads to less diversity of opinion, and
less ability to reach consensus.<br>
<br>
“It's a similar kind of thing when we look at human behavior,”
Perrings said. “Individuals are interacting — very often through
social media — and those interactions can generate at the level of a
wider system.<br>
<br>
“Interactions between individuals in a society that's polarized may
be increasingly limited to those who share the same opinions. The
social media they access then become echo chambers that amplify
differences between groups.”...<br>
- -<br>
Existential threats<br>
How much of the environmental crisis is seen as an existential
threat by the nations that govern the response? Perrings notes that
even during the great threat of the current COVID-19 pandemic, one
might have been expected a coordinated international disease control
effort under the World Health Organization. But the immediacy of the
threat to national populations led to an almost the polar opposite —
a wholly decentralized response to the pandemic...<br>
- -<br>
The general cost of polarization is that it makes it more difficult
to coordinate action to cooperate across groups to provide things of
benefit to the wider public.<br>
<br>
Polarization puts environmental issues and solutions off the table,
and a range of consequences that are really quite significant are
completely ignored.<br>
<br>
“Whether the system is robust enough that it can adapt to
environmental threats that are not being addressed is an open
question. This should be one of the objectives of governments. You
want to be able to survive the bad stuff,” Perrings said. “In the
long run, we are all better off if 1,000 flowers are let to bloom.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.asu.edu/20211217-global-engagement-increased-political-polarization-found-thwart-global-environmental-goalsll">https://news.asu.edu/20211217-global-engagement-increased-political-polarization-found-thwart-global-environmental-goalsll</a><br>
<p><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i><br>
<i>[ Dave Roberts on messaging - great audio interview ] </i><br>
<b>Volts podcast: how the left can suck less at messaging, with Anat
Shenker-Osario</b><br>
Including some advice on climate change.<br>
David Roberts<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-how-the-left-can-suck">https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-how-the-left-can-suck</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Here's examples of legislative manipulation ] </i><br>
<b>Revealed: the Florida power company pushing legislation to slow
rooftop solar</b><br>
Florida Power & Light delivered bill text to a state lawmaker.
Its parent company sent $10,000 to her campaign coffers<br>
<br>
Mary Ellen Klas for the Miami Herald and Mario Alejandro Ariza for
Floodlight<br>
Mon 20 Dec 2021<br>
The biggest power company in the US is pushing policy changes that
would hamstring rooftop solar power in Florida, delivering
legislation for a state lawmaker to introduce, according to records
obtained by the Miami Herald and Floodlight.<br>
<br>
Florida Power & Light (FPL), whose work with dark money
political committees helped secure Republican control of the state
Senate, is lobbying to hollow out net metering, a policy that lets
Florida homeowners and businesses offset the costs of installing
solar panels by selling power back to the company.<br>
<br>
Internal emails obtained from the Florida Senate show that an FPL
lobbyist, John Holley, sent the text of the bill to state senator
Jennifer Bradley’s staff on 18 October. FPL’s parent company
contributed $10,000 to Bradely’s political committee on 20 October.
A month later, Bradley filed a bill that was almost identical to the
one FPL gave her. Another lawmaker introduced the same measure in
the House.<br>
<br>
Bradley said the donation was unrelated to the bill.<br>
<br>
“Any decision I make to file legislation is based entirely on
whether it’s in the best interest of our state and my district,” she
said. “This discussion about fairness in metering is happening in
legislatures across the country and it’s time for it to happen in
Florida.”<br>
<br>
FPL’s parent company, NextEra, said its political committee did not
make its contribution to Bradley’s campaign “with an expectation of
favor”.<br>
<br>
An FPL spokesman, Chris McGrath, said the company does not oppose
net metering but that the law should be revised so rooftop solar
users are not subsidized by other customers who continue to buy
electricity and pay to maintain the power grid. FPL argues that
rooftop solar could cost Florida utilities about $700m between 2019
and 2025, according to documents submitted to state regulators.<br>
<br>
“We simply believe rooftop solar customers should pay the full cost
of this investment,” McGrath said.<br>
<br>
The solar industry is fiercely opposing the effort. Katie Chiles
Ottenweller, south-east director for Vote Solar, said she was wary,
given FPL’s clout in the legislature.<br>
<br>
“Companies do not pass legislation,” she said. “Legislators pass
legislation. I’m hopeful this is a conversation-starter but at the
same time it’s really hard to have a conversation when you have a
gun to your head. The bill as it is written will decimate this
industry.”<br>
<br>
Only about 90,000 Florida electricity customers, about 1%, sell
excess energy back to the grid. But the arrangement has driven
significant rooftop solar expansion. The proposed legislation could
seriously curtail that growth.<br>
<br>
Nationwide, power companies are feeling pressured by the rise of
distributed renewable energy. Rooftop solar, while critical to
fighting climate change, is a threat to the traditional utility
business model. Electricity companies like FPL make money off of the
things they build: mainly large power plants and lines that bring
that energy to customers. They don’t make money off of solar power
generated from rooftops.<br>
<br>
The Florida bill is just one front in a decade-long battle against
the policy. FPL backed a failed ballot amendment in 2016 that would
have allowed regulators to impose fees and barriers to rooftop solar
installation. FPL has also invested millions in swaying elections in
favor of Republicans.<br>
<br>
According to reporting by the Orlando Sentinel, FPL executives have
been tied to a series of “dark money” groups with untraceable
donors. One group, Grow United, was behind a candidate who had no
political background but the same last name as the incumbent
Democrat. The candidate diverted votes and helped Republicans
maintain a majority in the state Senate. A Florida state attorney is
investigating. In response to questions for this story, FPL denied
any wrongdoing related to political campaigns.<br>
<br>
‘Significant costs’<br>
Bradley, the bill sponsor, is a first-term senator but is close to
Senate leadership. She is married to former state senator Rob
Bradley, an influential politician who was head of the budget
committee. Bradley said the bill language emerged after a meeting
with Holley and other members of the utility industry.<br>
<br>
“I looked at the language,” she said. “It was based on our
discussion and it was one that I could support as a starting point.”<br>
<br>
Emails show Bradley’s staff followed up with FPL after that
discussion. On 8 October this year, legislative aide Katie Heffley
emailed Holley under the subject line “Net Metering Bill”.<br>
<br>
“Good afternoon, Hope you’re doing well,” Heffley wrote. “I just
wanted to check in and see if you had any follow up information or
language in regards to the net metering bill you discussed with
Senator Bradley.”<br>
<br>
Eight minutes later, Holley replied: “I do. Can I bring it to you
all later today?”<br>
<br>
Heffley suggested he could “send it via email today or we will be at
the Capitol next week”.<br>
<br>
Holley opted instead to drop off a copy in person. Ten days later,
Heffley emailed him again.<br>
<br>
“I just want to reach out and see if I could get an electronic copy
of the net metering bill so I can put it into drafting,” she said.<br>
<br>
Emails obtained in a public records request show FPL drafted a bill
to end net metering so that a Florida state lawmaker could introduce
the legislation.<br>
<br>
Two days after that, on 20 October, NextEra Energy gave $10,000 to
Bradley’s political committee, Women Building the Future, according
to campaign records.<br>
<br>
The email records were provided to the Herald and Floodlight by the
Energy & Policy Institute, a watchdog that works to counter
misinformation about renewable energy.<br>
<br>
Under the bill, customers whose solar panels deliver energy back to
the grid would be compensated less, at wholesale rather than retail
rates. Utilities could also charge rooftop solar customers more by
adding in facility charges, grid access fees and minimum monthly
payments. Customers already using rooftop solar power before 2023
would be grandfathered in and keep previous compensation rates for
10 years.<br>
<br>
Bradley said she was open to discussing alternative models,
including a system in use in the Carolinas to pay rooftop solar
customers for sending power to the grid when it is most in demand.<br>
<br>
In an interview, Lawrence McClure, the House sponsor of the bill,
said it was “not baked”.<br>
<br>
“[It’s] very early on in this bill’s ride,” he said. “I think it has
a real chance to settle out in a way that most parties are not
upset.”<br>
<br>
McClure noted that the net metering law is due for a discussion
because it has not been updated in 13 years.<br>
<br>
“I feel rooftop solar is beneficial to the environment, and
Floridians,” he said. “I am concerned that it will result in
significant costs here, but I also don’t want to destroy the rooftop
solar industry in Florida.”<br>
<br>
McClure did not receive campaign donations from FPL or its parent
company in the period the bill was under discussion. But his
campaign did get a $10,000 donation from a related political
committee on 4 November. It came from Voice of Florida Business,
which is linked to an industry group, Associated Industries of
Florida. The group’s consultants also worked on the dark money
campaigns in the state senate, according to the Orlando Sentinel.<br>
<br>
McClure said the contribution “had absolutely nothing to do with the
sponsorship of the bill”.<br>
<br>
“I don’t think there’s ever been any contribution that motivated me
to sponsor a bill,” he said.<br>
<br>
An Associated Industries of Florida consultant, Sarah Bascom, said
the group “does not discuss specific political giving”..<br>
<br>
“However, if you are implying that contributions given are tied to
specific legislation being filed or not filed, the answer is an
emphatic no,” she said.<br>
<br>
‘Forced to subsidize’<br>
Florida is one of 47 states to allow households and businesses that
produce power to sell it back to the grid at a set rate. However,
utilities are increasingly concerned about how the growth of
distributed solar energy affects their bottom line. In California,
regulators plan to increase fees for rooftop solar customers. Even
some environmental advocates say the change is fair and necessary
because of the fast rate of rooftop solar development in that state.<br>
<br>
In Florida, rooftop solar expanded slowly until 2018, when
regulators allowed electricity customers to lease solar systems with
little or no upfront costs. That decision catapulted the growth of
small-scale solar capacity in the state. It grew by 57% in 2020,
according to the US Energy Information Administration.<br>
<br>
FPL says its 24,000 net-metering customers cost the company $30m in
2020, or about $1,250 per customer. Utility experts have testified
to Florida regulators that rooftop solar in the state could grow at
39% a year until 2025 if the current net-metering system is left in
place. Such growth has the utilities and legislators worried.<br>
<br>
“As a result of the current system, my constituents are being forced
to subsidize the decisions of neighbors in other counties who are in
a position to be able to put these expensive systems on their
homes,” Jennifer Bradley said.<br>
<br>
The solar industry frequently counters that rooftop solar in most
states has not grown enough to substantially increase costs for
other customers.<br>
<br>
Florida has the second-largest solar workforce in the US, according
to the Solar Energy Industries Association. It ranks third among
states for installed solar capacity, although much of that is
large-scale and utility owned.<br>
<br>
Justin Vandenbroeck, president of the Florida Solar Energy
Industries Association who also owns an Orlando-based solar
installation company, said if the bill passes it could “send Florida
back to 2013”.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/20/revealed-the-florida-power-company-pushing-legislation-to-slow-rooftop-solar">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/20/revealed-the-florida-power-company-pushing-legislation-to-slow-rooftop-solar</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Some more history -- ]</i><br>
<i> </i><b>Strange Weather We’re Having</b><br>
How early 20th century journalists wrote about climate change.<br>
BY ALICE BELL - DEC 20, 2021<br>
The weather of 1911 was weird—or so reported the March 1912 edition
of Popular Mechanics. Among reports of zeppelins, new developments
in submarine tech, an electronic hearing aid from France, and the
innovative use of canaries in coal mines in Tennessee, there’s a
four-page illustrated feature on climate change.<br>
<br>
The author, Francis Molena, describes a heavy heat having begun to
dig in around June of the previous year: “The cities baked and
gasped for breath, while the burning Sun and hot winds withered the
corn and cost the farmers a million dollars a day.” What had started
in the U.S. soon made its way to Europe. Whalers brought back
reports of once-icy Arctic regions full of water. Then, around the
middle of the summer, “the flood-gates of the heavens opened.”
Kentucky was deluged while a cyclone devastated Costa Rica, and the
Philippines were “more thoroughly drowned than they had been before
since the time of Noah.” By this year, temperature records had been
kept in the U.S. for several decades, and a graph illustrated how
temperatures in 1911 had been beaten in each month but November.
It’s the sort of reporting we’re all too used to today—but this was
1912...<br>
- -<br>
Molena notes “a general impression among older men” that the “good
old-fashioned winters” they knew in their youth—snow 15 feet deep,
lasting six months—had gone. The weather just wasn’t what it used to
be. Molena reminds readers that once upon a time, parts of the Earth
had very different climates. After taking them through a basic
explanation of the greenhouse effect and the warming role of carbon
dioxide, he asks whether, as we know burning oil and coal produces
carbon dioxide, we might now be producing sufficient quantities to
alter the climate?...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/climate-change-history-journalism-alice-bell.html">https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/climate-change-history-journalism-alice-bell.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[The news archive - looking back]</i></p>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
December 21, 2013</b></font><br>
<p>December 21, 2013: On MSNBC's "Melissa Harris-Perry," guest host
Joy Reid discusses the ecological leadership of Pope Francis.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/pope-francis-places-focus-on-environment-97805379704#">http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/pope-francis-places-focus-on-environment-97805379704#</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<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>