<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 29, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ Senator Warren awakens ]<br>
</i><b>Warren urges crackdown on Wall Street over global warming</b><b><br>
</b>28 December 2021 <b><br>
</b>US Senator Elizabeth Warren has blamed Wall Street for
contributing to global warming, calling for action against major
emitters.<br>
<br>
“The volume of greenhouse gas emitted by the financial-services
industry is outrageous,” she said in a tweet on Monday.<br>
US Senator Elizabeth Warren has blamed Wall Street for contributing
to global warming, calling for action against major emitters.<br>
<br>
“The volume of greenhouse gas emitted by the financial-services
industry is outrageous,” she said in a tweet on Monday.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/12/28/673588/US-Senator-Warren-Wall-Street-global-warming">https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/12/28/673588/US-Senator-Warren-Wall-Street-global-warming</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ small regional magazine lays it out]</i><br>
<b>Why Climate Change Denial Still Exists in the United States</b><br>
POSTED DEC 27, 2021 HUDSON VALLEY STYLE MAGAZINE<br>
<blockquote>At first glance, it’s hard to understand why climate
change denial still exists in the United States despite solid
scientific evidence showing that the phenomenon is both real and
man-made. While many of us like to point the finger at
politicians, special interest groups and big oil companies are
also to blame for keeping citizens in the dark about climate
change and its harmful effects on our environment. These three
groups are often referred to as climate change deniers because
they refuse to believe or agree with scientific facts, even when
they have money on the line....<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hudsonvalleystylemagazine.com/why-climate-change-denial-still-exists-in-the-united-states/">https://hudsonvalleystylemagazine.com/why-climate-change-denial-still-exists-in-the-united-states/</a><b><i><br>
</i></b>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ The Movie is still important ] </i><br>
<b>Watch the New Netflix movie "Don't Look Up" Because...</b><br>
DEC 26, 2021<br>
This movie is really about the coming climate change extinction
event and how we are NOT managing it. <br>
The New Netflix movie "Don't Look Up" has a host of big-name
Hollywood stars in it. Every time they mention the comet-causing
extinction event, they are really metaphorically talking about a
climate change extinction event. (Leanardo DeCaprio is a prominent
climate change educator.)<br>
<br>
What You Can Do to Adapt to, Survive, and Slow Down the Coming
Avoidable and Unavoidable Climate Change Extinction Emergency<br>
There is a lot of bad news in the Don't Look Up movie for the future
and in the 2022 climate predictions mentioned above, but we can
still do many things to slow down this climate extinction emergency
and live longer, more comfortable lives.<br>
Watch the new Netflix movie "Don't Look Up" with a host of big
Hollywood stars. It's not so secretly about climate change
extinction and what you have just read...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/watch_the_new_netflix_movie">https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/watch_the_new_netflix_movie</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Young, wisecracking cynical </i><i>Brit</i><i> youtube video
] <br>
</i><b>Climate Change: Capitalism's Final Boss</b><i><br>
</i>münecat<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/YbYpbXMUsYM">https://youtu.be/YbYpbXMUsYM</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ Long transcript of 34 min video from World Economic Forum
-]</i><br>
<b>Stakeholder Capitalism</b><br>
Robin Pomeroy, Digital Editor, World Economic Forum<br>
Stakeholder Capitalism is a series of videos and podcasts that
looks at how economies can be transformed to serve people and the
planet.<br>
In this episode, we ask if a healthy planet can co-exist with the
economic growth required to raise living standards, especially in
developing countries.<br>
The episode features insights from climate activist Risalat Khan,
Lord Nicholas Stern from the London School of Economics and
Mariana Mazzucato from University College London.<br>
27 Dec 2021<br>
Robin Pomeroy - Digital Editor, World Economic Forum<br>
Since the first industrial revolution, economic development has
been powered by fossil fuels. But for decades we have known that
the greenhouse gases from these fuels are building up in the
atmosphere, causing climate change.<br>
<br>
The latest UN climate science report says there is no longer any
doubt. To prevent climate catastrophe, we need to switch away from
fossil fuels fast.<br>
<br>
But what about those parts of the world that, while sharing the
perils of climate change, have not enjoyed the increased wealth or
living standards that come with economic development?...<br>
- -<br>
Planet versus profit: clips from transcript...<br>
Natalie Pierce: So in summary, the same force that is lifting
millions of people out of poverty is the one that is destroying
the liveability of our planet for future generations.<br>
<br>
Peter Vanham: It appears so because there is a long enduring
correlation between economic development and CO2 emissions...<br>
- -<br>
Risalat Khan: I want to share a story that I actually think of
very often. This comes from when I was visiting a village outside
my home city of Dhaka with my father, who is an environmental
activist that I drew a lot of guidance and inspiration from. As we
were in that village I met an old farmer who was working in the
field and I asked him about how he has seen the climate change as
he has lived his life in that land. And he shared about how when
he was a young man he had the bounty of multiple harvests.
Bangladesh is a very fertile soil, so he had that. But now he
shared really devastating stories of how now it would be lucky to
have one good harvest in a year, and that is extremely challenging
to provide for his family. And then he said something I probably
will never forget. He said 'Allah has turned his back on us baba'.
So I feel that that sense of powerlessness, that loss of agency. I
find that one of the greatest injustices of the climate crisis.
People are having to rebuild - they're being forced to - without
having a real contribution to the problem.<br>
<br>
There's no part of the world that is untouched by the climate
crisis, and the whole world is having to adapt and very quickly.
So there is a lot of sharing of knowledge that is needed. And that
is possible because people and communities have been adapting to
climate change for a long time. But at the same time, we are
reaching very rocky seas and some are holding on to a piece of
wood while some might have super yachts.<br>
- -<br>
Peter Vanham: Can you also share with us the story of economic
development in Bangladesh today, because it's actually a booming
economy, isn't it? So what does that look like in Bangladesh? Is
it industrialisation as we've known it in many other countries,
does it look different? What is the story of Bangladesh's booming
economy?<br>
<br>
Risalat Khan: Right now it is being seen, as you said, as a
booming economy really providing a backbone of the global garments
industry, the fashion industry, often based on models of
exploitation, I might add. The country is definitely on a track
towards economic development and doing well for itself. Human
health indicators that Bangladesh has in many ways are examples in
the region in terms of how far we have come in terms of human
development on things like sanitation and water and so on.<br>
<br>
Yet there are challenges, and I do consider climate as one of the
biggest ones. And while we do have a responsibility to transition
like everyone else, some of the things that will actually
determine what will happen to the future of the country in terms
of - some estimates of sea level rise suggest that up to a third
or even a half of the country in future could go underwater. And
when you have a country of more than 160 million people, that
means tens of millions displaced, mass migration over a period of
a very short time. And that would be incredibly difficult for any
government to manage, and it will result in really vast human
crisis unless we act very quickly as a world on climate.<br>
<br>
Peter Vanham: And of course, also the adverse effects of climate
change are not just in the future in Bangladesh, they are also in
the present. I think that Dhaka, the capital, is actually one of
the worst polluted cities in the world, isn't it? Is that also a
consequence of this industrialisation and economic development?<br>
<br>
Risalat Khan: One of the reasons that Dhaka is one of the fastest
growing cities in the world has to do with climate-induced
migration. Every year, there are tens of thousands, potentially
hundreds of thousands of people who are displaced due to various
climate-induced impacts, such as river erosion and flooding. And
what that results in is a lot of unplanned development. For
example, low income communities, where people lack basic services,
where you might have urban flooding, water logging, etc., which
are challenging to manage. The Harvard study that just came out
recently estimating that one in five global deaths are actually
due to the burning of fossil fuels, that is quite stark and worth
pausing on to also imagine how much benefits in terms of public
health we will meet by making this transition rapidly.<br>
<br>
Natalie Pierce: How do you think the global economic development
model for Bangladesh or any other emerging economy needs to
change?<br>
<br>
Risalat Khan: We have introduced growth as a proxy for things that
we want, but it's a highly imperfect proxy that does not say
anything about the quality of life you want for your people. That
does not say anything about the planet that we are literally
pushing past the brink in order to strive for that growth. We have
created societies where there is so much inequality and that level
of inequality creates an extremely polarised society. And what we
need to do that is to really renegotiate and update our social
contract. To say that enough is enough, we need to create a more
humane and just society and keep within the planetary boundaries
and provide for people. And in many ways, the pandemic has really
disrupted our sense of control, our illusion of control and our
sense of invincibility - that we are not going to be affected. So
will we learn the lessons from that is the main question.<br>
<br>
Natalie Pierce: If you had one key takeaway, you hope our viewers
take from this conversation, what would it be?<br>
<br>
Risalat Khan: We have this window of really reimagining how things
could look like, and so many different forces are converging such
that the collective actions that we take as humanity in this
decade in these next few years will really determine in very deep
ways the future of human civilisation, as well as potentially life
itself on our planet for thousands of years to come, maybe even
more. And this history is being written before our eyes. Each of
us have a choice, whether we will be bystanders or will we find
the page of that history book or the sentence, the phrase, the
word or even a comma in that book that is ours to write.<br>
- -<br>
Natalie Pierce: Up next, we are going to turn to our second expert
guest. He is the chair of the Grantham Research Institute for
Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of
Economics. He is Lord Nicholas Stern...<br>
..<br>
Natalie Pierce: In today's episode, we're particularly exploring
the correlation between global development and CO2 emissions, and
I was wondering if you can tell us more about your research in
this area and even potentially the link to the environmental
kuznets curve...<br>
- -<br>
Nicholas Stern: Well, the idea of the environmental kuznets curve,
which is roughly 30 years or so old, is that as incomes go up, you
can either afford to or your preferences are actually to do so, to
cut the pollution that your activities are causing. If you plot
pollution against income per capita, it first goes up and then
goes down as you start to take actions and you can afford to take
actions to cut it. To be honest, I don't think the econometrical,
statistical foundations for it are that good because people can
take choices at any level of income, and they do. But that's the
idea of the environmental kuznets curve.<br>
<br>
Natalie Pierce: And what do you think about that specific link
between emissions and global economic development?<br>
<br>
Nicholas Stern: So there's the production side of it, that
associates economic activity with energy and energy with carbon.
But of course, you can change that. You can change the amount of
energy you use, but often actually energy use will go up with
output. But what you really can break is the relationship between
energy and carbon, and that's a choice. Of course, there's the
whole question of what we do with forests and our land use as
well, and we can let economic activity encroach on our forests and
the environment and our biodiversity, or we can act to control
that. So there are those two forces at work: output, energy,
carbon; and extra activity encroaching on our natural environment
and undermining our natural capital. Those two forces at work are
real forces, but of course they can be changed....</p>
<p> - -<br>
Nicholas Stern: Yes, ... you can grow without increasing your
emissions. In my own country, the UK, since 1990, we've probably
grown by about 70%, emissions cut by around 40%, just in very
round numbers. So that's perfectly possible if you make those
investments. And actually, you can get a stronger, more
attractive, more inclusive, more resilient form of growth. So it's
not simply a decoupling story if you take the right kind of
policies to clean up your energy. I think it's actually becoming
stronger than that - that the kinds of investments we need to make
to change our energy, to invest in our natural capital, are
actually investments with very powerful returns beyond simply the
very important point of cutting carbon emissions. So I think it
should give us hope and it should point to the developing
countries new options now. They don't have to go through the dirty
phase which we sadly went through as rich countries, because there
are different ways of doing things.<br>
<br>
Peter Vanham: That's a very positive message. We heard earlier
from results Risalat who comes from Bangladesh and who's very
concerned that as his country develops, which it is very rapidly
doing right now, that in fact it is still leading to a lot more
pollution. So do you see indeed that positive future ahead also
for countries like Bangladesh, India and China?<br>
<br>
Nicholas Stern: Oh, absolutely. The energy sector is the most
important from the point of view of the emissions of greenhouse
gases. Obviously, burning fossil fuels gives you CO2, and it is
now possible to do things in different ways and we do not have to
get our electricity from fossil fuels. It's as simple as that.
It's actually cheaper to do it without the fossil fuels. Most, in
this last year or two, auctions in the Indian power sector have
seen round-the-clock solar beat out fossil fuels for the cheap
supply of electricity. So that's the kind of activity which should
give us hope. It means that the developing world can build its
infrastructure in very different ways from the past. We're
starting to see coal flatten in China. It has its bumps. It goes
up and down. And I think we're going to see Chinese emissions
start to fall within the next five or six years.<br>
<br>
Natalie Pierce: What are the key changes that we need to see in
our current economic model to put us on a better trajectory?<br>
<br>
Nicholas Stern: That's absolutely the right question, Natalie.
There are two sorts of investments that I would highlight:
investments in physical capital and sustainable infrastructure;
and investment in natural capital - restoring degraded land,
expanding not contracting our forests and so on. And they are
actions with wonderful returns - cities where you can move and
breathe; more efficiency, greater productivity; ecosystems which
are robust and fruitful; and reduced risk of climate change and
more resilient economies. But we do have to make those
investments.<br>
<br>
So then the question is, well, what policy can draw through those
investments? One important policy will be a price of carbon, but
that's not the only one. We have to invest in R&D. We have to
build our networks - good functioning grid systems mean that you
can take in electricity from all sorts of different sources, at
all sorts of different times, so you have to organise those
systems well. Transport - we have to move quickly away from the
internal combustion engine. One way of doing that, of course,
price of carbon will help, but we can also regulate, saying that
you cannot sell, as we will do in the UK after 2030, you cannot
sell internal combustion engine cars. You cannot take that kind of
car into a city. And those regulations can be very powerful. So
you need the right kind of prices, taxes, subsidies, you're going
to need the right kind of regulation. And the rich world has to
work with the poorer world to help with drawing through those
kinds of investments. That includes sharing some knowhow, it
includes some help with finance, lowering the cost of capital and
increasing the flow of capital. So managing change is a
complicated business, but the change itself is extremely
attractive and it's urgent and it's perfectly feasible.<br>
<br>
Peter Vanham: You've made the point of why it's so important to
make these changes, and also that they are rather straightforward.
They're not mysterious, you said. Why do you think we have failed
to make these changes at a massive scale until just a few years
ago? Why did it take so long?<br>
<br>
Nicholas Stern: Since the Paris agreement of 2015, that
international agreement, I think, provided a great deal of
acceleration. That's only half a dozen years ago. I think over the
last few years, particularly the last three years or so, we've
started to see the new technologies come through still more
quickly. The electric car now - all the major manufacturers are
making electric cars, and actually most of them are saying we will
not make combustion engines after a certain date in the future.
You have seen the importance of the idea of net zero. And I think
that has changed the way in which people think about it. We've had
pressure from young people. They have been taught about climate
change. It's clear for them also, they understand the technologies
that are available. So if you put the international agreement, the
technological change, the understanding of net zero pressures,
particularly from young people, you start to see why things are
accelerating, but still not fast enough.<br>
<br>
Natalie Pierce: Thank you, Professor Stern, for sharing your
insights with us...<br>
- -<br>
To demonstrate positive trends and potential solutions, we're
joined next by Mariana Mazzucato.<br>
<br>
Mariana Mazzucato: My thesis is that we have the wrong type of
capitalism. There's varieties and we need to restructure it if we
are going to take climate change seriously. The fact we have so
many companies that continue to prefer just increasing their share
prices and often the interrelationship between the government and
the business sector is often what I would call a parasitic
ecosystem, not a symbiotic one, all of those different problems
need to be changed if we're going to take climate change
seriously. But I don't think we can just keep looking at the
symptoms. We have to go to the structural kind of foundations and
change how we do policy, how we do business, and especially how we
form better types of public-private partnerships.<br>
<br>
Peter Vanham: You do believe, of course, that it is possible. You
also write about this in your book - we can change the world. You
give the example of how in 1960, nobody thought we could ever
reach the Moon yet with the right policies in place we did achieve
that by 1970. If we apply that now to the climate crisis, what do
we need to do to get to a similar outcome, which in this case is
net zero by 2050?<br>
<br>
Mariana Mazzucato: Well, first of all, we need to treat it with
the same level of urgency. With the Apollo mission that I write
about in my book, Kennedy was really, really clear that it was
going to require lots of experimentation. He said: We're going to
do this because it's hard, not because it's easy. But also that it
was going to be quite expensive and that there would be failures
along the way. I think what this requires is an admission that
it's going to be hard. But if we actually do it properly, in other
words form healthy public-private partnerships base it around also
a system of innovation that looks both at the kind of R&D that
people like Bill Gates talk about, but also the demand side
policies that are really crucial in terms of actually making sure
that we fully deploy and diffuse these new technologies that are
so central also for fighting global warming, that just requires a
very different type of public policy, one that I call 'market
creating and shaping' not just 'market fixing'. But also what I
found so interesting when I was doing the research for the book is
how NASA at the time really cared to actually redesign their
policies. And in fact, that led to huge amounts of innovations
across so many different sectors. This is really important with
global warming. We need every sector to innovate. And what they
also really cared about was that their own organisation, NASA, had
to continue to invest within their own capabilities. They were
aware that they needed that public-private partnership, but they
wouldn't even know who to partner with or how to write the terms
of reference if they didn't have their own kind of brains and
capacity, what I call the 'dynamic capabilities' of the public
sector. And I think we've actually lost that. We have so many
governments that have lost their capacity, their capabilities,
because they have overly outsourced that capacity, whether it's to
consulting companies or different types of project management
companies inside the private sector. And one other thing I found
fascinating in terms of the public-private partnership side is
that NASA also had a clause or clauses inside their contracts that
had to do with no excess profits. In other words, of course,
companies should make profits - this is not about charity, it's
not about philanthropy, But it's not about turning this into a
gambling casino. The profits should be fair, given that it's an
outcome of a collective value creation, and that means admitting
that the public sector has taken risks is investing often in the
early stage, much more difficult stage, of innovation. So the way
I sometimes put it as a one-liner is that with the Green Deal, we
don't just need the green bit to be thought about, but also the
deal. What's the right contract with the right way to share the
rewards and not just the risks?<br>
<br>
There should be conditionality attached to any sort of government
subsidy guarantee or investment. And what's interesting was that
recently in Germany, for example, when the steel sector asked for
a large loan from the government, they did something that many
countries haven't done. The loan was conditional on steel reducing
its material content. And they did it through repurpose, reuse,
recycle technologies throughout the whole value chain. Today they
have one of the most sustainable and innovative steel
manufacturing processes. And so really what we need in order to
get carbon-neutral manufacturing across all our different sectors,
but also distribution, is to put this at the centre of the
contracts in that way, with conditionality. But unless it's
actually embedded as a mandatory change that has to happen, as
opposed to relying on kind of voluntary actions, I just don't
think we're going to get there on time.<br>
<br>
Peter Vanham: We also saw how the challenge of getting to zero may
be harder in emerging economies because they're still on a
development path where they naturally would emit more CO2, more
greenhouse gases. What are some of the solutions that you foresee
in such economies and for such governments and companies?<br>
<br>
Mariana Mazzucato: There's many different points that I would
raise on that, but the first is that the developed world has to
definitely take on the greatest burden, which doesn't mean that
developing countries shouldn't change. Of course they must, but it
has to be facilitated by those countries that have historically,
in the last 200 years, led the problem.<br>
<br>
What's interesting is for countries that are developing, sometimes
this need to build infrastructure, for example, especially in
countries with very weak infrastructure, that seems like that's
the priority - let's do that first and then we can worry about
global warming later. I think that's a mistake. I think in
developing countries where there's both an urgency to develop and
to build that infrastructure, having a green lens and a green
design lens to building the infrastructure is absolutely crucial.
So many cities globally are finding themselves fighting against
climate change, but just haven't actually thought at the city
level how to change the current way that we think about
development. And so I think especially in countries that are on
the developmental pathway and that have very urgent problems,
using a green lens to fight those problems is not only very smart,
but is a way to actually innovate with those public sector tools
that I talked about before. So if you have a carbon neutral city
agenda, for example, that should be informing the public
procurement structure for a city or region or a nation. And I
think that need to innovate with the tools, grants, loans,
procurement or if you have a public bank, a development bank, as
many developing countries have, it's really important to get out
of the kind of mentality of just giving out money and handouts to
different organisations, away from that and actually have a
mission-oriented, outcomes-oriented goal, and using climate
targets for those goals, and using that to then cause investment
in innovation in the business sector, of which we often have too
little in developing countries, by putting those conditionalities
that I talked about earlier at the centre. This is, I think, a way
to really catalyse investment in countries that actually have low
business investment...<br>
- -<br>
Mariana Mazzucato: Yes. Well, we need to remember, as I said,
there's different ways to do capitalism and we're doing it wrong
and we have to stop sticking with the ideology of government or
private sector. We need to change the governance models of both
government and the private sector, but especially build that
healthy partnership. And anyone who's interested in stakeholder
value in the business community or talks about purpose-led change
- iIt has to go not just within corporate governance, but in the
relationship. Just like in a marriage - there can be healthy
marriages and dysfunctional marriages. I really think we have a
dysfunctional relationship right now between the public and
private sector. And so that's my call for action, get symbiotic
partnerships, and let's use that in order to bring purpose at the
centre of the system.<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/stakeholder-capitalism-profit-planet-nicholas-stern-risalat-khan/">https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/stakeholder-capitalism-profit-planet-nicholas-stern-risalat-khan/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ ] </i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ ] </i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at the early wisdom that has
crumbled and decayed ]</i><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
December 29, 2009</b></font><br>
<br>
December 29, 2009: Washington Post writer Ezra Klein excoriates
members of the US Senate who have developed cold feet about
addressing global warming:<br>
<blockquote>"Amidst all this, conservative Senate Democrats are
waving off the idea of serious action in 2010. But not because
they're opposed. Oh, heavens no! It's because of abstract concerns
over the political difficulties the problem presents. Sen. Kent
Conrad (D-N.D.), for instance, avers that 'climate change in an
election year has very poor prospects.' That's undoubtedly true,
though it is odd to say that the American system of governance can
only solve problems every other year. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) says
that 'we need to deal with the phenomena of global warming,' but
wants to wait until the economy is fixed.<br>
<br>
"Rather than commenting abstractly on the difficulty of doing
this, Conrad and Bayh and others could make it easier by saying
things like 'we simply have to do this, it's our moral obligation
as legislators,' and trying to persuade reporters to write stories
about how even moderates such as Conrad and Byah are determined to
do this. They could schedule meetings with other senators begging
them to take this seriously, leveraging the credibility and
goodwill built over decades in the Senate. They could spend money
on TV ads in their state, talking directly into the camera,
explaining to their constituents that they don't like having to
face this problem, but see no choice. That effort might fail --
probably will, in fact -- but it's got a better chance of success
than not trying. And this is, well, pretty important."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/climate_change_is_bad_but_the.html">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/climate_change_is_bad_but_the.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><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>