<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2"><i><b>March 26, 2022</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<i>[ Ciao Roma, the size of LA, or as big as NYC ] </i><br>
<b>Satellite data shows entire Conger ice shelf has collapsed in
Antarctica</b><br>
NASA scientist says complete collapse of ice shelf as big as Rome
during unusually high temperatures is ‘sign of what might be coming’<br>
An ice shelf about the size of Rome has completely collapsed in East
Antarctica within days of record high temperatures, according to
satellite data.<br>
<br>
The Conger ice shelf, which had an approximate surface area of 1,200
sq km, collapsed around 15 March, scientists said on Friday.<br>
<br>
East Antarctica saw unusually high temperatures last week, with
Concordia station hitting a record temperature of -11.8C on 18
March, more than 40C warmer than seasonal norms. The record
temperatures were the result of an atmospheric river that trapped
heat over the continent...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/satellite-data-shows-entire-conger-ice-shelf-has-collapsed-in-antarctica">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/satellite-data-shows-entire-conger-ice-shelf-has-collapsed-in-antarctica</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ socialist politics video - 12 min - causes me to rethink much
]</i><br>
<b>Why Borders Make Climate Change Worse (ft. @Second Thought)</b><br>
Mar 25, 2022<br>
Our Changing Climate<br>
Borders make climate change worse, explained. Check out @Second
Thought's video on fascism and climate change here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/aA1T_0pZHXk">https://youtu.be/aA1T_0pZHXk</a><br>
<br>
In this Our Changing Climate climate change video essay, I look at
how climate change will create a massive refugee crisis and how
militarized borders are making the climate crisis worse.
Specifically, I look at a number of studies that project hundreds of
millions of people will be displaced from their homes due to climate
change by the end of the century. Unfortunately, imperial core
countries like the United States have started building walls to keep
people out instead of building bridges to help people escape the
storm that the imperial core is largely to blame for. Militarized
borders will only make the climate refugee crisis worse, so it's no
wonder that the ties between private border security contractors and
fossil fuel companies are intimate. In a time when the imperial core
needs to be repaying their climate debt and helping countries in the
imperial periphery adapt and thrive in a zero-carbon future, they
are doing the exact opposite and strengthening their borders and
surveillance states.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI59G-Uup-0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI59G-Uup-0</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ climate politics - 18 min video - suggest zero-carbon plus
open borders ]</i><br>
<b>How Fascists Are Taking Advantage Of Climate Change</b><br>
Mar 25, 2022<br>
Second Thought<br>
We all understand that climate change is real, it's here, and that
the consequences of our inaction will be disastrous for our species
and countless other forms of life around the world. But what happens
when those in positions of power see climate change as a means to an
end? A way to make truly draconian policies seem rational? In this
week's episode, we're talking about two distinct forms of climate
fascism: Fossil Fascism and Ecofascism.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA1T_0pZHXk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA1T_0pZHXk</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ consider political power -- but physical reality of survival
(ahem) trumps all other political power ]</i><br>
<b>Why Liberalism Won't Solve Anything</b><br>
Mar 11, 2022<br>
Second Thought<br>
Get your first month of Audible completely free when you sign up at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://audible.com/secondthought">https://audible.com/secondthought</a> or text secondthought to 500-500<br>
<br>
How many times have you heard "we need to vote for the lesser evil,"
or "they're not perfect, but they're better than the alternative"?
The entire philosophy of harm reduction is based on "who is the
least bad," and when that is your only criterion, things will get
worse and worse with every election. Let's talk about the
insufficiency of liberalism and the "harm reduction" strategy.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb8bBWnHflk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb8bBWnHflk</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[ scientist's brief rants ]<br>
<b>Cross Section of Key Scientists on Climate Extremes and the
Impact on Infrastructure</b><br>
March 17, 2022<br>
greenmanbucket<br>
Clips from recent interviews, March 2022.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35JzjT2lTyM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35JzjT2lTyM</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ “The disinformation ecosystem is highly cooperative and
coordinated and their goal isn’t to convince someone of something,
their goal is to flood the zone with garbage.”</i><i> </i><i>–
Debra Lavoy ] </i><br>
<b>Instagram Ads Can Help Climate Facts Reach the ‘Super Online,’
Report Suggests</b><br>
A new report highlights how paid ads on social media platforms might
help reach people who are often susceptible to disinformation.<br>
<br>
By Sharon Kellyon - Mar 21, 2022 <br>
When it comes to online disinformation, does it make sense to fight
fire with fire using paid social media ads?<br>
<br>
A new report by Reality Team, a nonprofit digital marketing group,
suggests that social media ads can help reach people who aren’t
closely watching topics like climate change or vaccine science and
are often targeted by disinformation campaigns.<br>
<br>
Surrounded by an endless array of questionable information online,
lots of people aren’t quite sure what to think or how to sort truth
from falsehoods. “They feel like there’s a lifetime of this stream
of information that they haven’t caught up with,” Reality Team’s
Debra Lavoy told DeSmog. “I can’t cope with the news, I know people
are out there lying to me, so — I’m out.”<br>
<br>
Reality Team ran Instagram ads aiming to put easy-to-digest
information about climate change and vaccines in front of those
viewers as they scrolled through social media feeds and ads. The
group aimed to build people’s confidence in facts, arm them against
disinformation campaigns, and help them sort what’s real from what
isn’t.<br>
<br>
The new report’s early findings seem promising, experts said, though
they emphasized the importance of accountability for social media
platforms and that more research could help show to what degree
Reality Team’s results can be replicated and whether their work
produces long-lasting change. <br>
<br>
<b>Reaching the ‘Super Online’</b><br>
From the jump, Reality Team took a pragmatic path. Responding to
disinformation “needed an approach that could be put into play
quickly,” the new report says. “It had to be effective and couldn’t
depend on help from the platforms, exotic technology, celebrity, or
large sums of cash.”<br>
<br>
“We knew this approach was unlikely to de-radicalize those already
lost to delusional or extreme ideologies,” Reality Team wrote. “So
we focused on the group we thought was both vulnerable and
reachable.”<br>
<br>
They relied on social media’s algorithms to help them find those
people, folks who are already more likely to stumble on political
issues in memes, social media feeds, and TikTok videos than anywhere
else.<br>
<br>
“It’s people who are super online but don’t read news,” said Lavoy,
adding that depending how you measure, that can be about 20 percent
of adults — and up to 80 percent of Instagram users under 35. “They
casually run into news but they don’t seek it out.”<br>
<br>
More than 1 in 20 viewers clicked on Reality Team’s Instagram ads,
according to the report, giving the campaign a cost-per-click of 18
cents.<br>
<br>
“At the outset it wasn’t our intent to focus on paid ads but we
quickly realized that we got incredible levels of engagement on our
paid ads at very cost-effective rates,” Lavoy said, adding that it
cost about $8 to reach 1,000 viewers. “When I actually was in the
marketing world, I would have killed for those sorts of stats.”...<br>
- -
<blockquote><b>“The disinformation ecosystem is highly cooperative
and coordinated and their goal isn’t to convince someone of
something, their goal is to flood the zone with garbage.”</b><b><br>
</b><b>– Debra Lavoy</b></blockquote>
Lavoy emphasized that Reality Team’s ads were built to be just one
tool in an anti-disinformation toolbox.<br>
<br>
The Center for Countering Digital Hate, for example, focuses on 12
people, dubbed “The Disinformation Dozen,” whose work is behind
roughly two-thirds of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media,
Lavoy noted. “There’s similar stuff for climate, they call them the
‘toxic ten’ pushers of climate disinformation. And the platforms
absolutely tolerate this,” Levoy said. “But while we wait for the
platforms to take responsibility, for regulators to force them to
take responsibility, for technology to help them and/or others solve
the problem, we are trying to engage in sort of hand-to-hand
combat.”<br>
<br>
That’s despite the fact that the odds, in many ways, are stacked in
favor of disinformation, which can be sensationalistic and isn’t
tethered to provable facts — which helps explain why it doesn’t take
a lot of it to make big waves. <br>
<br>
“The disinformation ecosystem is highly cooperative and coordinated
and their goal isn’t to convince someone of something, their goal is
to flood the zone with garbage,” Levoy said. “Last year, we sort of
followed where the disinformation was. This year, we are trying to
predict where the disinformation will be by looking at where
competitive elections are and we’re going to focus on climate,
vaccines, election integrity, and something we call dirty disinfo
tricks.”<br>
<br>
“We can compete with them,” Levoy said. “At the very least we can
put up a fight.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/03/21/instagram-ads-can-help-fight-climate-disinformation/">https://www.desmog.com/2022/03/21/instagram-ads-can-help-fight-climate-disinformation/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>[ "Looking at Carbon Inequality Differently" says Bloomberg news
] </i><br>
<b>How the World’s Richest People Are Driving Global Warming</b><br>
By Eric Roston, Leslie Kaufman and Hayley Warren<br>
March 23, 2022<br>
It’s the bedrock idea underpinning global climate politics:
Countries that got rich by spewing greenhouse gasses have a
responsibility to cut emissions faster than those that didn’t while
putting up money to help poor nations adapt.<br>
<br>
This framework made sense at the dawn of climate diplomacy. Back in
1990, almost two-thirds of all disparities in emissions could be
explained by national rankings of pollution. But after more than
three decades of rising income inequality worldwide, what if gaps
between nation states are no longer the best way to understand the
problem?<br>
<br>
There’s growing evidence that the inequality between rich and poor
people’s emissions within countries now overwhelms the
country-to-country disparities. In other words: High emitters have
more in common across international boundaries, no matter where they
call home.<br>
<br>
Analysts from the World Inequality Lab, which is led by the Paris
School of Economics and University of California at Berkeley
recently put forward an alternative assessment focusing more on
varying measures of consumer income than gross domestic product.
After a generation of poorly distributed gains from globalization,
it turns out that personal wealth does more than national wealth to
explain the sources of emissions. Climate progress means first
curbing the carbon output of the wealthier among us...<br>
- -<br>
Researchers at WIL drew on a range of data, from diet to car
ownership, stock market investments and global trade to estimate
individual carbon output. The top 10% of polluters – about 770
million people, roughly the population of Europe – are the climate
equivalent of the world’s wealthiest decile who earn more than
$38,000 a year, according to Oxfam. The trend is clear: Emissions
generally rise with wealth.<br>
<br>
The richest 1%— the more than 60 million people earning $109,000 a
year—are by far the fastest-growing source of emissions. They live
all over the world, with about 37% in the U.S. and more than 4.5%
each in Brazil and China...<br>
- -<br>
<b>The rich and poor pollute differently</b><br>
As people get richer, diets tend to diversify and meat consumption
rises. We’d need a second Earth if everyone had the diet of an
Australian or Brit. The average American in 2019 ate 53 pounds of
beef—the most carbon intensive meat—according to USDA. But families
in Argentina and Uruguay—where a lot of cattle are farmed—consumed
even more than that, according to an industry website. Growing
middle classes in developing countries from China to South Africa
are eating more meat than ever.<br>
<br>
Far higher up the income distribution, the emissions increase
exponentially. The single-most polluting asset, a superyacht, saw a
77% surge in sales last year. An 11-minute ride to space, like the
one taken by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is responsible for more
carbon per passenger than the lifetime emissions of any one of the
world’s poorest billion people, according to WIL.<br>
<br>
One-tenth of all flights departing from France in 2019 were on
private aircraft. In just four hours, those individually-owned
planes generate as much carbon dioxide as an average person in the
European Union emits all year. Four-fifths of the people on the
planet never get on an airplane in their entire lifetime, according
to market analysis by Boeing...<br>
- -<br>
Owning a car, meanwhile, is one of fastest ways to enlarge an
individual’s carbon footprint. SUVs were the largest contributor,
after power, to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to
2018, according to the International Energy Agency. In the U.S.
there are about 84 cars on the road for every 100 people, compared
with just 24 vehicles in India. But there’s often a huge divide
within countries as well. In São Paulo, more than two-thirds of men
in the poorest 10% will walk or cycle to work, emitting no carbon.
That car-free lifestyle holds true of only about 10% among the
Brazilian city’s richest 10%, according to a 2016 study.<br>
<br>
When it comes to energy consumption, the difference can be even more
stark. An average person in Nigeria uses about half as much
electricity in a year as a U.S. high-definition television...<br>
- -<br>
<b>The world has changed, and so should the discussion of emissions</b><br>
The huge gap between high and low emitters suggests the current
nation-centered approach to cutting carbon needs to be rethought.<br>
<br>
Lucas Chancel, a researcher at the Paris School of Economics who
co-directs WIL, points to carbon taxes as an example. That policy
has been deployed in many places as a regressive measure, meaning
poorer people pay more as a proportion of their income. The further
you look down the wealth distribution, the higher a percentage
people pay for energy.<br>
<br>
<i>We should put a little more effort on the top of the
distribution, who concentrate a lot of the emissions, and who have
not really been the focus of policies of the past decades — World
Inequality Lab’s Lucas Chancel</i><br>
As more of the global poor become able to afford sport-utility
vehicles, air travel, meat and other elements of the high-carbon
lifestyle, political impediments to reducing these new emissions
will likely rise. “There is a window of opportunity of a few years
before things can completely go crazy,” Chancel says. “If we miss
this window, it will be more socially complicated, because carbon
policy will not be as concentrated on a small elite anymore. It will
be widespread and it will impact the entire population.”<br>
<br>
Addressing emissions inequality within countries is just as
important as reducing pollution on a national level. WIL’s research
shows that, for example, to even out carbon footprints in the U.S.,
its top emitters would have to cut pollution by 87% by 2030 while
the bottom half could actually increase theirs by 3%...<br>
- - <br>
<b>The inequality shift means policies should shift</b><br>
Over the last two decades policy researchers have left a substantial
library of strategies, options and tactics to put national
greenhouse-gas pollution on a glide path to zero. The same isn’t
true for wealthy individuals.<br>
<br>
That’s started to change. A small group of researchers published a
paper in Nature Energy in September that put forward five ways in
which the global rich can leverage change much larger than
themselves.<br>
<br>
As consumers and investors, the choices of the wealthy can have
outsize impact, especially on transport and housing. Just 1% of the
world’s population is responsible for half the aviation emissions.
Cars are the biggest source of per-capita emissions in the U.S. and
the second biggest in Europe. Changing that, and much else, requires
changing social norms. But creating demand for low-emission products
such as electric vehicles and heat pumps can help subsidize a
carbon-free path for others around the world to enter the middle
class.<br>
<br>
And just as companies generally decline to fully use their lobbying
power, social capital and brand identities to press governments to
take stronger climate action, rich people tend not to use the full
extent of their influence: as role models, as corporate executives
or board members, as citizens. Financing and supporting political
campaigns, advocating for change within companies and lobbying
governments directly all represent untapped levers for the carbon
elite.<br>
<br>
“If you’re in the top 10% you have the most power and possibility to
help make those systemic changes happen,” says Kimberly Nicholas, a
sustainability science professor at University of Lund and an author
of the Nature Energy paper.<br>
<br>
WIL’s data shows runaway emissions from a class of individuals—the
top 0.001%—whose responsibility is so great that their decisions can
have the same climate impact as nationwide policy interventions.
Together, the top 10% of emitters generate more than four times as
much carbon as the global average. They remain a significant source
of warming even though many of those people saw a surprising decline
in emissions between 1990 and 2019. That’s because the group largely
consists of lower and middle classes in rich countries, who have
often been left out of economic booms that have benefited their
wealthier peers at home.<br>
<br>
And while the 65% of the people who pollute the least have seen
steady income gains—and consequently rising emissions—over the last
three decades, they still contribute a relatively tiny share to
global warming. A February study found that lifting hundreds of
millions of people out of extreme poverty will only raise global
emissions by less than 1%.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Runaway Emissions</b><br>
The top 1% of emitters are responsible for 21% of emissions growth
since 1990<br>
- -<br>
“Many people do not see themselves being part of either the problem
or the solution but look for governments, technology and/or
businesses to solve the problem,” wrote the authors of a 2020 Nature
Communications journal article called “Scientists’ Warning on
Affluence.” But that paper concluded people, not institutions, need
to solve the problem. The organizations engaged in climate
debates—governments, companies, NGOs—are ultimately legal or social
structures made up by people. And if people don’t change, the
institutions won’t either.<br>
<br>
Carbon inequality math is so new, and so intimidating, that
researchers assessing it are left mostly with questions. Perhaps the
biggest one comes in the “Affluence” paper: “Can a transition to
reduced and changed consumption be achieved while at the same time
keeping economic and social stability?” As consumption and emissions
continue rising, that remains very much an open question.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissions-inequality-powers-world-climate/">https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissions-inequality-powers-world-climate/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
<i>[ Waking up to global warming only about 4 decades late -
recall the story of the 3 Little Pigs ] </i><br>
<b>Climate change is spurring a movement to build stormproof homes</b><br>
By Michele Lerner<br>
Today at 7:30 a.m. EDT<br>
- -<br>
“If you buy a house in California or another wildfire-prone area,
you can do simple things like buy ember-excluding screens for your
soffit and ridge vents,” Wilson says. “Put in a patio instead of a
raised deck, because decks are more flammable and debris tends to
accumulate underneath them.” Landscaping can also be important to
protect your home depending on the hazards you face. Adding trees
for shade can add protection from extreme heat and reducing
density or choosing less flammable plants can be helpful in a fire
zone.<br>
<br>
“Every project to improve the resilience of a home depends on the
local conditions,” Wallis says. “For example, in Florida our
issues are wind and water, especially from hurricanes. So
homeowners would be wise to invest in storm shutters.”...<br>
Resilient home tips<br>
</p>
<blockquote>· Assess the location for all current and future
hazards.<br>
· Check the code for the year the home was built and any
subsequent renovations.<br>
· Have a home inspector look for signs of previous damage.<br>
· Do an energy audit to find potential air leaks.<br>
· Evaluate the landscaping in the context of storms and shade.<br>
· Review your homeowner’s insurance policy for adequate coverage.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/25/resistant-homes-natural-disasters/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/25/resistant-homes-natural-disasters/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[Disinformation and misinformation battles]</i><br>
How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2021<br>
Special PROGRAMS<br>
CLIMATE & ENERGY -- 3/24/22 <br>
WRITTEN BY TED MACDONALD<br>
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ALLISON FISHER & EVLONDO COOPER<br>
<br>
2021 was a stand-out year for climate coverage on corporate
broadcast TV networks. In our annual analysis of climate coverage,
Media Matters found that approximately 1,316 minutes — nearly 22
hours — were spent discussing climate change on morning, evening,
and Sunday morning news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting
Co., more than a threefold increase from 2020. However, all those
hours of climate coverage on corporate broadcast TV networks
represented roughly 1% of overall news programming in 2021, a figure
that is still far too small in the face of a worsening climate
crisis.<br>
<br>
The increase in coverage was largely driven by various Biden
administration climate initiatives; another year of deadly
climate-fueled extreme weather events across the globe; and the
pivotal 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), which
was held in Glasgow, Scotland, over a two-week period in November.
This rise in the quantity of coverage — after years of advocacy by
climate journalists, activists and researchers pushing for more and
better climate coverage by TV news — was supported by new and
renewed commitments from corporate broadcast networks to cover
climate through collaborative initiatives like Covering Climate Now
and dedicated reporting during key climate events.<br>
<br>
However, some problematic trends continued to materialize in the
quality of corporate broadcast news coverage of climate change,
including, for at least the fifth year in a row, an overwhelming
proportion of white men featured as guests in climate coverage, even
though people of color are most impacted by the crisis. And while
broadcast networks did a decent job of covering key moments and
events in 2021 overall, their climate coverage throughout the year
was uneven.<br>
Top trends from broadcast TV news climate coverage in 2021<br>
<b>Key Findings:</b><br>
Total broadcast news climate coverage in 2021 tripled from 2020:
Morning news shows, evening news shows, and Sunday morning shows on
corporate broadcast TV networks aired nearly 22 hours of combined
climate coverage in 2021 — a total of 1,316 minutes across 604
segments. This is more than triple the amount of climate coverage in
2020, when these networks aired just 380 minutes across 221
segments.<br>
Every network significantly increased its 2021 climate coverage from
2020: CBS led, with the most total coverage across its morning news,
evening news, and Sunday political shows, airing a combined 569
minutes (nearly nine and a half hours) across 220 segments in 2021,
compared to just 125 minutes and 73 segments in 2020. NBC aired 383
minutes (nearly six and a half hours) of climate coverage across 196
segments in 2021, compared to just 159 minutes and 94 segments the
previous year. ABC aired 323 minutes (nearly five and a half hours)
of climate coverage across 175 segments in 2021, compared to 90
minutes and 50 segments the year before.<br>
Nightly news had its highest volume of climate coverage since Media
Matters began tracking this information in 2011: Nightly news shows
on ABC, CBS, and NBC aired nearly six hours of climate coverage (344
minutes) across 181 segments in 2021, which is more airtime than in
the previous three years combined.<br>
PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage increased 160% from 2020 to 2021.
The program aired 151 climate segments in 2021 — compared to 60
segments in 2020 — which represents nearly as many as the corporate
networks' combined coverage. PBS NewsHour, however, is not included
in the full dataset as it is publicly funded and the format of the
program is different than that of its corporate counterparts.<br>
Morning news shows tripled the amount of time spent on climate
change from 2020: For the second year in a row, Media Matters
analyzed the morning news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, which aired
nearly 14 hours of climate coverage (821 minutes) across 363
segments in 2021. This is over double the number of segments that
they ran in 2020 (158), and nearly triple the amount of total
climate coverage (267 minutes).<br>
Sunday political shows aired three times more climate segments in
2021 than the previous three years combined: There were 60 combined
Sunday morning show climate segments across ABC, CBS, Fox
Broadcasting Co., and NBC in 2021. This is over four times the
amount of segments aired in 2020 (14) and is nearly triple the
amount of combined segments that ran from 2018 to 2020.<br>
A summer of global extreme weather, President Joe Biden’s climate
agenda, and the COP26 climate conference were major drivers of
climate coverage in 2021: <br>
Thirty-three percent of nightly news segments — 60 out of 181 —
included discussion of summer extreme weather events. In addition,
13% of segments (24) discussed COP26, while 9% of segments (16)
included discussion of the climate components of Biden’s “Build Back
Better” infrastructure plan.<br>
Twenty-three percent of morning news segments — 84 out of 363 —
included discussion of summer extreme weather events. COP26 was
discussed in 11% of segments (39), while the climate components of
Biden’s infrastructure plan were discussed in 7% of segments (24).<br>
Despite the increase in coverage from 2020, networks failed to cover
climate change consistently throughout the year — 66% of climate
segments aired in the last six months of 2021, with 42% of all
climate segments on broadcast news in 2021 airing in the months of
September, October, and November. <br>
For at least the fifth year in a row, white men dominated guests
featured in climate segments. A whopping 59% of guests on morning
news, evening news, and Sunday morning shows — 314 out of 534 guests
— were white men. Only 7% of guests – 40 total – were women of
color.<br>
2021’s increase in appearances by those most impacted by climate
change, who accounted for 20% of guests across morning news, evening
news, and Sunday morning shows, suggests that broadcast TV news is
beginning to cover the climate crisis as a current rather than a
future event.<br>
<b>The overall volume of climate coverage on broadcast TV tripled
from 2020 to 2021</b><br>
Combined climate change coverage on corporate broadcast morning
news, evening news, and Sunday morning shows saw a threefold
increase from 2020 to 2021, going from nearly six and a half hours
(380 minutes) to almost 22 hours (1,316 minutes). This constitutes a
major expansion in climate coverage across all networks and programs
from the previous year. <br>
<br>
In fact, CBS aired more minutes of climate coverage in 2021 than all
of broadcast news aired in 2020 combined. The network accounted for
43% of all climate coverage across corporate broadcast news, airing
nine and a half hours (569 minutes) across its morning, nightly, and
Sunday morning news shows in 2021.<br>
<br>
NBC aired slightly more coverage — nearly six and a half hours (383
minutes) — than the combined amount of coverage in 2020. Finally,
ABC aired nearly five and a half hours (323 minutes) of climate
coverage in 2021.<br>
- - <br>
Weeknight episodes of PBS NewsHour were also analyzed for a
comparison point with the nightly news programs on ABC, CBS, and
NBC, but they are not included in the full data set. PBS NewsHour
has traditionally outperformed its corporate broadcast counterparts
in both the quantity and quality of its climate change coverage, and
2021 was no different.<br>
<br>
PBS NewsHour aired a record 151 climate segments in 2021, which is a
huge increase from 2020, when the program aired just 60 climate
segments. Its next best-performing year in quantity of climate
segments aired was 2019, when it aired 121 segments. Like its
corporate broadcast counterparts, PBS NewsHour ran most of its
climate segments toward the end of the year, airing 68 such segments
from September to December, accounting for 45% of its overall
climate coverage. And again similar to its corporate broadcast
counterparts, PBS NewHour’s climate coverage dropped off
significantly after November, going from 22 segments to just four
aired in December.<br>
<br>
Morning news shows tripled the amount of time spent on climate
change from 2020 to 2021...<br>
- -<br>
Despite the increase of climate coverage on Sunday shows in 2021,
Meet the Press’ 54 minutes of climate coverage in 2018 remains the
most amount of coverage by a single Sunday show program in Media
Matters’ yearly analysis. This is essentially due to one 46-minute
episode Meet the Press aired on December 30, 2018, which was
entirely focused on climate change...<br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2021">https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2021</a><br>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ "UnKoch" -- thrilling to see such a worthy campus initiative ]
</i><br>
<b>Just Two Funders, Koch and BP, Have Spent Nearly $1,000,000,000
To Buy Credibility Through Universities- UnKoch My Campus Helps
You Stop Them.</b> <br>
<br>
Yesterday when talking about the $50 million going to climate denial
organizations, we mentioned it was just a drop in the bucket
compared to things like fossil fuel advertising budgets. But it’s
also just a tenth of what the Koch network alone has spent on
supporting climate and economic disinformation at Colleges and
Universities. <br>
<br>
Today, that’s our focus, thanks to the work of UnKoch My Campus,
which works to expose and oppose the undue influence of Koch
spending on colleges. And there’s plenty to cover. For example, they
have a petition calling on Koch-funded schools and politicians to
divest, and another calling on George Mason University to rename
Buchanan Hall. <br>
<br>
UnKoch is also doing plenty of real-world activism, for example, an
April 4th event in DC to call on President Biden to cancel student
debt, and as it turns out, Koch has long fought against public
schools and was an early champion for the concept of student debt. <br>
<br>
And for the students out there, UnKoch has a fellowship you can
apply for and some great resources to help you become your own
anti-Koch activist. Specifically, they recently published a Model
Policy report, and it’s basically everything you need to find out if
Koch’s on your campus, and if so, kick them out. <br>
<br>
Because as UnKoch head Jasmine Banks wrote in a recent op-ed,
“College students have been some of Charles Koch’s fiercest
opponents,” and with the success of the divestment movement, “it’s
student activists who are scaring the fossil fuel industry. And it
should stay scared.”<br>
<br>
What should they be scared about? As the report describes, “Charles
Koch’s foundations have overseen over $458 million in grants to over
550 universities and higher ed adjacent non-profits from 2005-2019.”
<br>
<br>
And he’s not doing it out of the goodness of his heart. It’s part of
their strategy. The report describes how “in 2014 the Charles Koch
Foundation described the motivations of its university investments
to other wealthy donors as a means to ‘building state-based
capabilities and election capabilities’ by developing an
‘integrated’ ‘talent pipeline’ to achieve widespread support for,
and adoption of, favorable policies at the state and federal levels.
To this end, Koch has advised businessmen to support ‘only those
programs, departments or schools that contribute in some way to
[their] individual companies or to the general welfare of [the] free
enterprise system.’” <br>
<br>
And as you would be foolish not to expect, there are serious strings
attached to Koch funding to universities. Once exposed, as UnKoch
does, these relationships are self-evidently corrupt and often
change once people realize, as the report details, that funders are
getting say over hiring, curriculum, research targets, and other
serious conflicts of interest. <br>
<br>
It’s not just Koch, either. BP’s $500 million spend on UC Berkeley
Energy Biosciences Institute “gave BP the power to determine which
research proposals deserved funding” while Big Tobacco’s Phillip
Morris had a “ $1.3 million contract with Virginia Commonwealth
University” that “barred researchers from discussing or publishing
research results without first consulting Philip Morris.” <br>
<br>
If you’re a worried student (or parent), then fortunately, there
are some steps you can take. First off, if it’s a public school, you
can submit a Freedom of Information Act request for documents about
who’s funding what at the school. The report then has various
suggestions, based on what you find. <br>
<br>
For example, if funding is referred to as gifts, not grants, UnKoch
has a model policy for that. If you do find a Koch grant, then you
might want to consult the guide for “Disaffiliation with the Charles
Koch Foundation Model Motion” to see how you might get your school
to divest. And if it’s more than just Koch, you might need the more
comprehensive “Institutional Conflicts of Interest Model Motions.” <br>
<br>
These model policies are based on ones that have been adopted, so
they’re essentially built for you to drop your school’s name in and
then run with!<br>
- -<br>
<i>[ Campus Koch Sackers ]</i><br>
<b>WE’VE RELAUNCHED OUR UPDATED MODEL FUNDING POLICIES FOR HIGHER ED</b><br>
<br>
The Charles Koch Foundation has an insidious history of using its
“philanthropy” to colleges and universities to shape local, state,
and federal policies in ways that serve his free-market agenda while
stripping power from the people. With growing awareness of the ways
in which CKF buys influence over hiring, research, and curriculum in
higher education to achieve these goals, a call to protect against
such donor interference in academia is growing. <br>
<br>
Through research and organizing, UnKoch My Campus has identified
widespread gaps in university gift acceptance policies that allow
inappropriate donor influence and fail to hold institutions
accountable to the common good. This document seeks to empower
activists with the resources necessary to close those gaps via
university policy change. <br>
<br>
We hope this document will serve as an advocacy tool for campuses
that already have an overreaching donor and those that want to
proactively protect their institution from potential donor
interference. We also hope this resource will facilitate even more
robust cross-campus relationships and strategizing amongst students
and faculty, as well as create intentional space for community
activists outside of academia to lead us towards solutions on campus
that prioritize the larger communities and systems in which academia
exists and participates. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unkochmycampus.org/">https://www.unkochmycampus.org/</a><br>
- -<br>
[ Classic video -- understanding propaganda - fundamentals ]<br>
<b>Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine</b><br>
Al Jazeera English<br>
According to American linguist and political activist, Noam Chomsky,
media operate through 5 filters: ownership, advertising, the media
elite, flak and the common enemy. <br>
Follow #MediaTheorised, an online project by Al Jazeera English’s
media analysis show The Listening Post <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at information efforts]</i><br>
<font size="5"><b>March 26, 2006</b></font><br>
March 26, 2006: TIME Magazine releases its April 3, 2006 cover-dated
issue, with the cover story: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html">http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html</a> <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html">http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
More information from daily summaries<br>
---------------------------------------<br>
Climate Nexus <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/</a><br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the day,
delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting.
It also provides original reporting and commentary on climate
denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise remain
largely unexposed. 5 weekday<br>
<br>
=================================<br>
<br>
Carbon Brief Daily <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a><br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals.<br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a><br>
<br>
==================================<br>
<br>
The Daily Climate Subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61</a><br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better
than coffee.<br>
Other newsletters too<br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a><br>
<br>
<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>