<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 30, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ NYTimes reports from Chile ] </i><br>
<b>Chile Rewrites Its Constitution, Confronting Climate Change Head
On</b><br>
Chile has lots of lithium, which is essential to the world’s
transition to green energy. But anger over powerful mining
interests, a water crisis and inequality has driven Chile to rethink
how it defines itself...<br>
- -<br>
Their work will not only shape how this country of 19 million is
governed. It will also determine the future of a soft, lustrous
metal, lithium, lurking in the salt waters beneath this vast
ethereal desert beside the Andes Mountains.<br>
<br>
Lithium is an essential component of batteries. And as the global
economy seeks alternatives to fossil fuels to slow down climate
change, lithium demand — and prices — are soaring...<br>
- - <br>
Dr. Dorador is vying to be the convention’s president. She wants the
constitution to recognize that “humans are part of nature.” She
bristles when asked if lithium extraction is necessary to pivot away
from fossil fuel extraction. Of course the world should stop burning
oil and gas, she says, but not by ignoring yet unknown ecological
costs. “Someone buys an electric car and feels very good because
they’re saving the planet,” she says. “At the same time an entire
ecosystem is damaged. It’s a big paradox.”<br>
<br>
Indeed the questions facing this Convention aren’t Chile’s alone.
The world faces the same reckoning as it confronts climate change
and biodiversity loss, amid widening social inequities: Does the
search for climate fixes require re-examining humanity’s
relationship to nature itself?<br>
<br>
“We have to face some very complex 21st century problems,” said
Maisa Rojas, a climate scientist at the University of Chile. “Our
institutions are, in many respects, not ready.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/climate/chile-constitution-climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/climate/chile-constitution-climate-change.html</a><br>
<br>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ small regional magazine makes a perfect summary on why there is
still denial ]</i><br>
<b>Why Climate Change Denial Still Exists in the United States</b><br>
DEC 27, 2021 HUDSON VALLEY STYLE MAGAZINE<br>
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>
<p><b>The Fossil Fuel Industry</b><br>
If you don’t know how lobbyists and special interest groups affect
politics, it’s time to brush up on your knowledge. In politics, a
lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislators
(Congressmen/women, Senators and their aides) or members of
regulatory agencies to advance or defeat legislation. In other
words, a lobbyist advocate for policy changes at all levels of
government—local through federal. Lobbying helps ensure laws go
into effect that favor certain businesses, industries, or
interests. On one hand, lobbyists help organizations express their
opinions about important issues before public officials have made
any decisions about them.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>The Power of Big Money</b><br>
A lot of politicians and lobbyists are funded by big oil, a
lobbying group formed from oil companies. Companies like Exxon,
Shell, BP, and Chevron make hundreds of millions every year by
extracting oil from our country—and they don’t want to stop. They
can afford to pay big money to keep their operations going.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Politicians Have Sworn Oaths to Lobbyists</b><br>
Politicians have an ethical obligation to follow through on their
campaign promises. And, thanks to money from lobbyists, many
politicians have conflicting interests that cloud their
judgment—which means they may put what they think is best for
their reelection chances ahead of what’s actually good for the
People.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Our Media Is Dictated by Advertisers</b><br>
The problem with our media is that there is a direct correlation
between how much big oil and fossil fuel lobbies spend on
advertising, and how much said fossil fuel companies are featured
on the mainstream news. If we want to change these statistics, we
have to cut down on our fossil fuel usage. Every time you turn
your car on or flick your lights on, you’re pouring money into
corporate coffers. When you think about it, watching TV actually
causes more harm than good if you’re fueling climate change
denial. Big Oil money wallets like Koch Family Foundation are
secretly funding the climate change denial machine, according to
Greenpeace. 100% of mainstream media companies take money from Big
Oil in one form or another.<br>
<br>
<b>Americans Don’t Vote on Issues</b><br>
Why do climate change deniers still exist? To some extent, it’s
because climate change has not been a serious issue for most
voters. Not enough has been said about why politicians should fear
discussing climate issues. Here’s one good reason: About 90
percent of congressional campaign contributions come from economic
sectors that benefit from polluting and emitting greenhouse gases.<br>
<br>
<b>Voting Isn’t as Effective as Lobbying</b><br>
Because climate change deniers are incredibly well-funded,
corporations and governments will continue to ignore them. As a
result, climate change denial is unlikely to disappear anytime
soon, especially given that most people still don’t understand how
it’s affecting our planet.<br>
<br>
<b>We Live in an Information Desert</b><br>
Americans are among some of the most ill-informed people in
regards to global warming, and it’s not hard to see why. Climate
change is a multi-faceted issue, but thanks to big oil lobbyists
and other special interest groups who fund climate change denial
campaigns, there isn’t nearly enough media coverage on it. In
short, we live in an information desert when it comes to climate
change.<br>
<br>
<b>Conclusion</b><br>
It’s true that many corporate and lobby groups have taken measures
to foster climate change denial in order to protect their profits.
However, there is a danger to ignoring global warming—an increased
risk of catastrophic natural disasters. Although some argue that
these events might be beneficial for the industry—like rising sea
levels may turn uninhabitable areas into prime real estate for new
construction—it’s not a risk worth taking. The decision is clear:
We need decisive action on climate change before it’s too late.<br>
</p>
<p><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></p>
<p><b><i> </i></b></p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Clips from an article that's responding to the movie ]</i><br>
<b>Critics of “Don’t Look Up” Are Missing the Entire Point</b><br>
It’s not about Americans being dumb sheep, but about how
billionaires manipulate us into trusting them, how the reckless
pursuit of profit can have catastrophic consequences, and the need
to come together to fight those who prevent us from solving our
problems.<br>
<br>
Nathan J. Robinson - 26 December 2021 ...<br>
- -<br>
The crucial turning point in the plot is when the president decides
the comet is too valuable for future GDP to destroy, and thus
Silicon Valley needs to be allowed to try something experimental.
This is not a simplistic,
everyone-knows-this-already-how-obvious-can-you-be point. The same
kind of thinking guides some of the worst public policy
prescriptions on climate. In mainstream newspapers, and from the
mouths of mainstream economists, you can hear that we don’t need to
do much because letting climate change rip will be better for the
GDP than trying to stop it. The reviewers who think the film’s
messages are Obvious seem to have missed that the “tech solution” to
the comet is a clear commentary on geoengineering, the
cheap-but-incredibly-risky approach to climate favored by those who
don’t want anything to be done that would substantially hurt the
bottom lines of fossil fuel companies. (The first, ultimately
abandoned approach to dealing with the comet, based on massive
government investment, is the comet equivalent of a Green New
Deal.)1<br>
<br>
Don’t Look Up actually shows us an America that was perfectly
prepared to come together to stop the comet, and where people are
angry when they find out that their lives are being put at risk in
order to protect the future profits of cell phone manufacturers. But
they are distracted by a media that won’t do its job, and misled by
demagogues who say that they should trust the “cool rich” more than
“them.” At the end, however, those who perish are able to take some
solace from the fact that they did everything they could. They do
not die screaming in terror, nor have they lost faith in each
other.2 It is a similar moral to Albert Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus”:
the near-certainty of failure should not lead to resignation, but to
even more determination. To end your life contentedly and without
regrets, you need to know that you tried, regardless of the outcome.
This is not a film that is telling Americans they will die because
of how much they suck. Instead, it says that we could solve our
problems. It does depict a successful plan for stopping the comet
that nearly works. But that plan is derailed by those who would
gladly gamble with other people’s lives if it meant they themselves
might get richer. The question it asks us is: will we stop these
people? It is an exhortation and a warning, not a work of
misanthropy or nihilism.<br>
<br>
The film’s depiction of its tech billionaire is impressive. He is
clearly based on Elon Musk, but also has a weird touch of Joe Biden
in him. He is, as the Intercept’s Jon Schwarz put it, “bizarre and
frightening… a kind of omnipotent baby, soft and vulnerable and
mushy and completely unaware that anyone else is real.” Importantly
for the film’s message, though, the billionaire sounds half the time
like he might be a genius and half the time like he’s probably an
idiot. You can see very easily how people could be misled into
thinking that he knows what he is doing, because he seems like he
knows everything even though he also appears to know nothing. He’s
deeply unsettling but also effective at inspiring confidence, and
can silence critics with his seemingly endless knowledge. I have
long been fascinated by the strange way that Elon Musk manages to
convince people of his genius despite also frequently sounding like
a complete fool, and the film shows well how people can come to
place trust in a guru entrepreneur that we assume must be far
smarter than ourselves, even if half the time he appears to be
speaking nonsense. In the film, it is only when it is too late that
people discover they should have trusted their gut all along, that
the man assuring them he had it all under control in fact had
nothing under control at all.<br>
<br>
I am glad the film had its billionaire and president escape the
apocalypse. My first thought about the comet as a stand-in for
climate change was that it would miss a crucial aspect of the
climate crisis, which is that it is not like a planet-destroying
asteroid, because some people will suffer far more than others. A
great many people will be pretty much fine, at least in the near
term, while countless others will experience the horrific effects.
But Don’t Look Up does show how the super-rich see their first
priority as escaping the fate they have inflicted on the rest of us.
They will devise “solutions” to existential problems that put all
the risk on other people while protecting their own assets.3 <br>
<br>
This is not a point that is widely enough understood, and clearly
McKay did not make it “heavy-handedly,” since reviewers have not
really noticed it. In fact, there are a number of interesting and
important observations in the film that are easy to overlook but
useful to understand for dealing with the crises of our own time.
Consider the way DiCaprio is co-opted. He is well-intentioned and
wants to solve the problem, but for much of the film he is not
courageous enough to confront the powerful directly, and he
rationalizes weakening his stances on the grounds that it gets him
“access.” The daytime TV host played by Cate Blanchett is also seen
to have made queasy compromises: she is revealed to have three
master’s degrees, yet she plays an idiot on TV (shades of former Fox
News host Gretchen Carlson, a Stanford and Oxford alum who pretended
on-air not to know what words like “czar” and “ignoramus” meant). <br>
<br>
Other bits of satire or insightful observations go by quickly and
can be missed. The scientists fail in the media not just because
they are bumped for celebrity news, but because they never figure
out how to communicate with people without either boring them or
starting a riot. Spurious “national security” justifications are
used to bring legal claims against rogue government whistleblowers.
There is the Hollywood actor who tries to “depoliticize” the comet
debate by saying he believes in looking “both up and down,” and
laments how partisan the debate has become. The coldness with which
the president abandons her devoted son at the critical moment shows
how those who lick the boots of the rich will find that, no matter
how loyal they are, they will be heartlessly abandoned the moment
they become an inconvenience. <br>
<br>
I have not commented on the quality of Don’t Look Up as a film. But
as I said, I think that’s somewhat beside the point. I’m not
interested in even making that evaluation, because I see this as a
parable making an important point and I’d like to discuss the point,
not give a star rating to the parable. We can imagine, in the world
of the film, those concerned about the comet making a film that
satirized the lack of national action to stop the comet. And in the
world of the film, reviewers simply respond by calling it
“heavy-handed,” the director’s “worst film yet,” saying it “misses
its targets,” that its humor is too “broad.” Instead of discussing
the issues the film raises, they discuss whether the film is good or
bad and whether it is successful in the way that it approaches the
issues. I don’t really care about any of that. I am far less
interested in whether Streep’s president is completely plausible
than in having a conversation about the various barriers standing in
the way of serious climate action, a serious pandemic response, and
a rational approach to every public policy issue that has
consequences for human lives. A central point made by Don’t Look Up
is that when things are matters of life and death, we need to treat
them as such. Giving such a film a thumbs-up or thumbs-down and
assessing the quality of its humor shows that one has missed the
point entirely. Let us not have a discussion about Don’t Look Up
itself. Let us have a discussion about how we can avoid the very
real tendencies that the film illuminates.<br>
<br>
In fact, the terrifying thing about Don’t Look Up is that if there
was an approaching deadly comet full of material that could juice
corporate profits, I could imagine it would be difficult for the
United States to gets its act together to destroy it, if by doing so
it would hurt corporate profits and require significant sacrifice
from the rich. I genuinely think you would have very mainstream
economists saying that it would be “irrational” to destroy this much
“economic value,” if Elon Musk promised he could destroy the comet
and save the mineral wealth...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/12/critics-of-dont-look-up-are-missing-the-entire-point?s=04">https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/12/critics-of-dont-look-up-are-missing-the-entire-point?s=04</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Warning, embedded advertising , otherwise a strong, informed
documentary - 15 min video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/X6C493n3SCM">https://youtu.be/X6C493n3SCM</a> ]</i><br>
<b>Exxon Mobil: The Most Evil Business in the World</b><br>
Dec 29, 2021<br>
Jake Tran<br>
✨ Follow us on TikTok: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jake.yt/tiktok">https://jake.yt/tiktok</a><br>
✉ Be the first to watch new videos with email notifications:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bit.ly/jt-inbox">http://bit.ly/jt-inbox</a><br>
📸 Follow me on IG: @jaketran.io // <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bit.ly/jt-ig">http://bit.ly/jt-ig</a><br>
<i><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6C493n3SCM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6C493n3SCM</a><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ John Cook delivers an inoculation in basic logic ]</i><br>
<b>The Science of Cranky Uncle Part 3: Fighting Misinformation with
Critical Thinking</b><br>
Dec 29, 2021<br>
John Cook<br>
Part 3 of the Science of Cranky Uncle looks at how to use critical
thinking to deconstruct misinformation and identify any misleading
reasoning fallacies. This is based on research published in
Environmental Research Letters - the URL for the paper is <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sks.to/criticalclimate">http://sks.to/criticalclimate</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cbnWIDNYas">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cbnWIDNYas</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Another small radio station broadcasts an opinion -- audio
and transcript ] </i><br>
<b>No votes without dealing with global warming</b><br>
WAMC Northeast Public Radio | By Stephen Gottlieb<br>
Published December 28, 2021<br>
Some don’t want to hear bad news about global warming and climate
change, but the good news is that we can make government take care
of it by making clear that our votes depend on strong environmental
action. “Sí, se puede,” yes, we can, Obama’s rallying cry, applies
to protecting the environment that sustains us and our families.<br>
<br>
Let’s start with some good news. There’s a new malaria vaccine. And
vaccine makers have become so adept that several anti-Covid vaccines
competed in record time. But the bad news is that more healthy
people on this planet will aggravate global warming, killing many
more in horrible deaths from starvation, de-hydration and fire, on a
scale beyond any Biblical plagues. No vaccines will protect us from
fire, drought and lack of food. If more people survive, grow up and
have children of their own, we’ll have to act much faster to protect
a livable environment. Improvement of medicine and public health are
wonderful only if we pay the price to take care of our earthly home
before it finds still more painful ways of paying us back for
abusing our planet.<br>
<br>
Insurance – Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare – won’t save you. We
have to wise up. Freedom to make your own private choices won’t save
you. Either we insist that government do its job or we all burn,
starve, dehydrate and thirst together. Whoopee. Our medical
accomplishments are useless unless we solve the bigger problem.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile we argue about how much we can get away with without
acting to stop the world from continuing to warm.<br>
<br>
The good news is that we can deal with this by putting global
warming at the top of our requirements when we vote, both in the
primaries and the general elections – and make sure our elected
representatives know what we’re going to do. But the bad news is
that without strong action by us, the earth will get its revenge,
and annihilate us all. Formerly habitable places are already
uninhabitable. Even if we uproot ourselves and move to temporarily
habitable areas, the changing climate will keep us moving until
there’s nowhere left to go. That’s already happened to some people
and several other species.<br>
<br>
The good news is that we could overcome the nay-sayers, and stop
global warming here and abroad. But the bad news is that people
aren’t paying attention – fights over racial or religious
superiority push environmental catastrophe out of focus. Issues of
respect could be satisfied cheaply by praising each other, but the
world wants blood. Too many focus on reinstalling an ousted
president who scorns at environmental threats. And the Senate logjam
has blocked, delayed and shrunk productive policy. The European
Union and United Nations seem scarcely better. If the politics is
bleak, can our future be bright?<br>
<br>
Perhaps another country, like China, could solve the problem. China
seems aware of the threat but keeps building new coal plants. And
there seems little reason to expect China to treat Americans kindly
in the process.<br>
<br>
A ghoulish possibility is that environmental issues could lead to
World War III – it could start as war over forests and rain forests
which many rely on to manage CO2 in the atmosphere, or war over
refugee migration – a source of war almost since the beginning of
time. By flattening factories, oil rigs and killing millions, World
War could reduce production of greenhouse gasses and global warming
– but might well make the earth uninhabitable anyway.<br>
<br>
Life won’t be pretty unless we learn to respect our earthly
environment, and make strong environmental action determine our
votes. The good news is that we can. “Sí, se puede,” yes, we can. We
just have to let our politicians know that we demand action.<br>
<br>
Happy New Year to all.<br>
— If you think I’m on target, please pass it on.<br>
<br>
Steve Gottlieb’s latest book is Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts
Court and The Breakdown of American Politics. He is the Jay and Ruth
Caplan Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Albany Law School, served
on the New York Civil Liberties Union board, on the New York
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and as a US
Peace Corps Volunteer in Iran.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.wamc.org/commentary-opinion/2021-12-28/no-votes-without-dealing-with-global-warming">https://www.wamc.org/commentary-opinion/2021-12-28/no-votes-without-dealing-with-global-warming</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<i>[ Yawn, TV tries to catch up - videos have lots of
advertisements - no more wine grapes ] </i><br>
This week on 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reports that climate change is
altering some of the world's prime wine-growing regions. Extreme
weather episodes are upending the practices and economics of
winemaking - and in some cases, changing the taste of the wine
itself - in Old World and New World vineyards alike.<br>
<br>
It is the broadcast's latest report to detail the impact of a
warming planet. From flooded cities to parched rivers, melting
glaciers to scorched forests, 60 Minutes continues to cover all the
ways a changing climate is transforming life on Earth. Here, a look
back at some of them...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-60-minutes-2021-12-26/">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-60-minutes-2021-12-26/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
December 30, 2014</b></font><br>
Dcember 30, 2014: <br>
The Washington Post reports:<br>
<blockquote> "The methane that leaks from 40,000 gas wells near this
desert trading post may be colorless and odorless, but it’s not
invisible. It can be seen from space. <br>
<br>
"Satellites that sweep over energy-rich northern New Mexico can
spot the gas as it escapes from drilling rigs, compressors and
miles of pipeline snaking across the badlands. In the air it forms
a giant plume: a permanent, Delaware-sized methane cloud, so vast
that scientists questioned their own data when they first studied
it three years ago. 'We couldn’t be sure that the signal was
real,' said NASA researcher Christian Frankenberg.<br>
<br>
"The country’s biggest methane “hot spot,” verified by NASA and
University of Michigan scientists in October, is only the most
dramatic example of what scientists describe as a $2 billion leak
problem: the loss of methane from energy production sites across
the country. When oil, gas or coal are taken from the ground, a
little methane — the main ingredient in natural gas — often
escapes along with it, drifting into the atmosphere, where it
contributes to the warming of the Earth.<br>
<br>
"Methane accounts for about 9 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions, and the biggest single source of it — nearly 30 percent
— is the oil and gas industry, government figures show. All told,
oil and gas producers lose 8 million metric tons of methane a
year, enough to provide power to every household in the District
of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.<br>
<br>
"As early as next month, the Obama administration will announce
new measures to shrink New Mexico’s methane cloud while cracking
down nationally on a phenomenon that officials say erodes tax
revenue and contributes to climate change. The details are not
publicly known, but already a fight is shaping up between the
White House and industry supporters in Congress over how intrusive
the restrictions will be.<br>
<br>
"Republican leaders who will take control of the Senate next month
have vowed to block measures that they say could throttle domestic
energy production at a time when plummeting oil prices are cutting
deeply into company profits. Industry officials say they have a
strong financial incentive to curb leaks, and companies are moving
rapidly to upgrade their equipment.<br>
<br>
"But environmentalists say relatively modest government
restrictions on gas leaks could reap substantial rewards for
taxpayers and the planet. Because methane is such a powerful
greenhouse gas — with up to 80 times as much heat-trapping potency
per pound as carbon dioxide over the short term — the leaks must
be controlled if the United States is to have any chance of
meeting its goals for cutting the emissions responsible for
climate change, said David Doniger, who heads the climate policy
program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental
group.<br>
<br>
"'This is the most significant, most cost-effective thing the
administration can do to tackle climate change pollution that it
hasn’t already committed to do,' Doniger said."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/delaware-sized-gas-plume-over-west-illustrates-the-cost-of-leaking-methane/2014/12/29/d34c3e6e-8d1f-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/delaware-sized-gas-plume-over-west-illustrates-the-cost-of-leaking-methane/2014/12/29/d34c3e6e-8d1f-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<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>