<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>April 8, 2022</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<i>[ innovation ! - yes, please hurry]<br>
</i><b>Solar panels that can generate electricity at night have been
developed at Stanford</b><i><br>
</i>April 7, 2022<i><br>
</i><i>- - <br>
</i>While standard solar panels can provide electricity during the
day, this device can serve as a "continuous renewable power source
for both day- and nighttime," according to the study published this
week in the journal Applied Physics Letters.<br>
<br>
The device incorporates a thermoelectric generator, which can pull
electricity from the small difference in temperature between the
ambient air and the solar cell itself.<i><br>
</i><i><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091320428/solar-panels-that-can-generate-electricity-at-night-have-been-developed-at-stanf">https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091320428/solar-panels-that-can-generate-electricity-at-night-have-been-developed-at-stanf</a><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ California heat wave now ]<br>
</i><b>Record high shattered amid SoCal heat wave, many more
expected to fall</b><br>
by: Tony Kurzweil<br>
Posted: Apr 7, 2022 <br>
Temperatures are expected to run 15 to 20 degrees above normal the
next couple of days, with many inland areas topping the 100-degree
mark.<br>
A heat advisory is in place until 6 p.m. Friday for all coastal
plains and coastal valleys, the Santa Clarita Valley, and the Santa
Monica Mountains, according to the National Weather Service.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ktla.com/weather/record-high-shattered-amid-socal-heat-wave-many-more-expected/">https://ktla.com/weather/record-high-shattered-amid-socal-heat-wave-many-more-expected/</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ The answer is,... most likely ] </i><br>
<b>Is the world’s most important climate legislation about to die in
US Congress?</b><br>
Daniel Sherrell<br>
Passage of the bill would probably spell the difference between the
US meeting its climate goals and blowing right past them<br>
Thu 7 Apr 2022 <br>
- -<br>
Tucked beneath the headlines on Covid and Ukraine, the most
important climate legislation in US history – and thus, arguably, in
world history – is still stuck in Congressional purgatory. You’d be
forgiven if you weren’t fully aware. It is not trending on Twitter.
President Biden has mostly stopped talking about it. The enormous
moral stakes have been brutally ablated by a broken, farcical, and,
above all, extremely boring legislative kludge known as budget
reconciliation. The months-long saga has turned Biden’s original
“Build Back Better” plan into the juridical equivalent of a Warhol
soup can – a ubiquitous token evacuated of any original meaning...<br>
- -<br>
That the public has largely failed to track the world-historical
implications of this process is an indictment of the way climate
information gets filtered down to ordinary people: in dollar figures
no one understands, in line graphs published by obscure wonks on
Twitter, in front page headlines that exhaust the emotive potential
of journalistic prose. Connecting any of this to, for example,
insurance premiums in Miami Beach, or the fate of the world’s
remaining sea turtles, or the prospect of your own grandchildren
spending the bulk of their crypto-wages on potable drinking water
requires an almost mimetic leap of imagination.<br>
<br>
And yet, the stakes remain what they are. Passage of the bill’s
half-trillion dollars-worth of clean energy investments would likely
spell the difference between the world’s largest economy meeting its
climate goals and blowing right past them. It is not an exaggeration
to say that in that balance—between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius of
warming, between a government responsive to and avoidant of the
greatest crisis of the 21st century – hang millions of human lives.
The potential impact rivals that of nuclear war, except in this case
the default is catastrophe. The fossil fuel industry has already
fired its ICBM at the heart of our coastal cities. It’s up to the
Democrats now to turn it around.<br>
<br>
And turn it around they still might. Joe Manchin, of his own
volition, has returned to the bargaining table with a proposal that
could retain most of the original climate investments from Build
Back Better and potentially leave room for some investment in
low-emission home and health care work. Biden and Schumer must stop
at nothing to hold him to his word and land the deal. If they do,
they could reverse the narrative of Biden’s presidency overnight.
Not only would Biden finally be able to declare victory on his
signature policy agenda, he would be offering a direct rejoinder to
the crisis in Ukraine, pointing global energy markets toward wind
and solar and undercutting fossil-fueled autocrats like Vladimir
Putin. For a war-time president, the combination of crisis-response
and long-term vision would earn him a place next to Churchill in the
history textbooks.<br>
<br>
To be clear, I am profoundly angry that it’s all come to this. That
not a single one of the Republican cowards who claim concern over
climate change – Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Lindsey
Graham – is even considering voting for the bill. That it’s fate
will be determined by a man who makes money hand over fist pumping
carbon into the atmosphere. That President Biden had to dispatch the
head of the National Economic Council to go zip-lining with Manchin
in West Virginia last weekend. That the fate of organized human
civilization would at least partially depend on two grown men
donning intricate safety harnesses and skimming across a river gorge
(though I’ll admit that, compared to your typical round of golf,
there was something weird and almost endearing about this particular
political mating ritual).<br>
<br>
All of which is to say: I won’t let my indignation die. I won’t
succumb to the Stockholm Syndrome of the Beltway pundit, who would
tell my generation that this is just how Washington works. The point
is that Washington doesn’t work. Washington is broken. This process
is proof.<br>
<br>
But to refuse cynicism is not to refuse strategy. That’s why, on
April 23, thousands of people will be showing up in front of the
White House – and in key Senate swing states – to make one last play
at redemption. That’s why, at the risk of repeating myself, you
really should join them. Democrats still have a chance to deliver
big on climate. If they fail, we’ll lose far, far more than the
midterms.<br>
<br>
We cannot allow them to fail.<br>
Daniel Sherrell is the author of Warmth: Coming of Age at the End of
Our World (Penguin Books)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/is-the-worlds-most-important-climate-legislation-about-to-die-in-us-congress">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/is-the-worlds-most-important-climate-legislation-about-to-die-in-us-congress</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ New science on paleo-humans. human survival and disease. - 58
min video ]</i><br>
<b>Past, Present and Future of the Anthropocene with Leslie Aiello
& Michael Purugganan - CARTA</b><br>
Apr 7, 2022<br>
University of California Television (UCTV)<br>
Speakers Leslie Aiello, Michael Purugganan and Vanessa Ezenwa
discuss humanity's part, present and future of the Anthropocene.
Aiello speaks on the human capacity to change the planet is not
something new, but is rooted in our deep evolutionary past. One of
the hallmarks of humans is our large brain size, which began to
expand about 2 million years ago. Purugganan discusses how
domesticated species are an interesting group of organisms that have
co-evolved with Homo sapiens, and have begun important in human
survival and fitness. Ezenwa explores the idea that interactions
between climate change and infectious diseases can increase disease
prevalence in human and animal populations, but disease, in turn,
may exacerbate climate change. [4/2022] [Show ID: 37936]<br>
<blockquote>00:00 Start<br>
01:36 Leslie Aiello<br>
23:09 Michael Purugganan<br>
46:28 Vanessa Ezenwa<br>
</blockquote>
More from: CARTA: Human Origins and Humanity's Future: Past,
Present, and Future of the Anthropocene<br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.uctv.tv/carta-past-present-and-future/">https://www.uctv.tv/carta-past-present-and-future/</a>)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71ur9zZ7-Lo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71ur9zZ7-Lo</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ follow the money ... true cost accounting ]</i><br>
<b>True costs: How the oil industry cast climate policy as an
economic burden</b><br>
For 30 years, the debate has largely ignored the soaring costs of
inaction.<br>
On February 22, 1989, Duane LeVine, Exxon’s manager of science and
strategy, gave a presentation to the company’s board of directions.
Governments around the world had banded together to save the ozone
layer by phasing out chemicals used in aerosol sprays and
refrigerators, LeVine said. And fossil fuels could be targeted next.
<br>
<br>
It was a pivotal moment: Seven months before, during an unusually
hot summer, James Hansen, then director of NASA’s Goddard Institute
for Space Studies, had warned Congress that the signs of global
warming were already upon us, making the issue front-page news
across the country. By the end of the year, politicians had
introduced 32 climate bills in Congress, and the United Nations had
established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group
of scientists and policymakers intended to put global climate policy
in motion.<br>
<br>
In light of these developments, LeVine advised Exxon to temper the
public’s growing concern for the planet with “rational responses” —
not only arguing that the science wasn’t settled, but also
emphasizing the “costs and political realities” of addressing rising
emissions. In other words, the main problem wasn’t fossil fuel
emissions, but that doing anything about them would cost too much. <br>
<br>
This sentiment was echoed by John Sununu, then-President George H.
W. Bush’s chief of staff, who worked to stop the creation of a
global treaty to reduce carbon emissions soon after Hansen’s
testimony. Sununu started a feud with the EPA administrator at the
time, William K. Reilly, because he thought legislation to take on
global warming would hinder economic growth. When Hansen was
preparing to give Congress an update on the “greenhouse effect” in
1989, he was surprised by some strange edits on his draft testimony
from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, run by an
ally of Sununu. They wanted Hansen to say his own science was
unreliable and to encourage Congress to pass legislation only if it
would immediately help the economy, “independent of concerns about
an increasing greenhouse effect.”<br>
- -<br>
Others want to get away from the big-numbers approach altogether and
focus on specific, local needs. Shalini Vajjhala, a former Obama
administration official who now helps cities prepare for the threats
brought on by climate change, says that generalities aren’t helping.
“Nobody needs to hear that we need trillions of dollars for
adaptation,” she said. To drive more money toward climate projects,
people need to hear what it needs to be spent on, where it could go,
and who, specifically, would benefit. What will prevent a wildfire
from burning down the neighborhood? How can we stop homes from
flooding in the next hurricane?<br>
<br>
Steering conversations toward something concrete and vivid — and
away from polarizing topics like climate change and far-off future
scenarios — can speed up action, Vajjhala said. “When people are
debating about doing something, I will ask, you know, ‘Are you aware
of how much money you’re losing if you don’t do this?’”<br>
<br>
Take transit agencies as an example. Extreme heat melted streetcar
cables in Portland last summer. Hot temperatures can warp steel
tracks and overheat engines and have caused long delays for trains
in the Bay Area and speed restrictions on Amtrak trains on the East
Coast in recent years. So during heat waves, transit agencies have
been sending out fewer trains and running them more slowly, Vajjhala
said. That means older adults and transit-dependent workers are
stuck outside waiting for the train on the hottest days of the year,
and in the meantime, transit agencies are also “hemorrhaging money,”
she said. Pointing this out changes the direction of a conversation:
It’s no longer about “if” or “when,” but simply “how” to fix it.<br>
<br>
As for economists, they’re getting better at quantifying why
avoiding catastrophic climate change is worth so much. Franta says
there’s a new generation of economists looking at the costs of
flooding, storms, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other
disasters, quantifying the damages and how much can be attributed to
climate change. “I think society needs them to step up and do that
full analysis, you know?” Franta said. “Not just do part of the
picture, not just look at the cost of a policy because that’s what
they are hired to do, but use it to serve society and look at the
entire problem with the entire picture.”<br>
<br>
Economics is a necessary part of policy discussions, but it has come
to dominate them to the point that people have started to see other
perspectives as irrational and unreasonable, Berman said. The moral
arguments that once brought the Clean Air Act into being have ceded
ground to approaches that tinker with the market. Relying on clean
energy tax credits, as Build Back Better does, is a lot less
ambitious, and harder for normal people to understand, than
declaring that you’re going to try to completely phase out fossil
fuel production.<br>
<br>
“Applying economics in a political context isn’t necessarily going
to get us to where we want to go in political terms, right?” Berman
said. “There’s a gap between abstract models of how things should
work and what it actually takes to create change in the world.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://grist.org/economics/climate-legislation-costs-economics-oil-industry/">https://grist.org/economics/climate-legislation-costs-economics-oil-industry/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/OvhgRR5ZbA8">https://youtu.be/OvhgRR5ZbA8</a>
] </i><br>
<b>Bill McKibben: Latest IPCC Climate Report Underscores “Fossil
Fuel Is at the Root of Our Problems”</b><br>
Apr 7, 2022<br>
Democracy Now!<br>
A new report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change warns the opportunity to mitigate the worst effects
of global warming by maintaining global temperatures at 1.5 degrees
Celsius is quickly closing and that humanity has less than three
years to slash greenhouse gas emissions. “Fossil fuel is at the root
of our problems. It is at the root of the despotisms we see in
Russia or in Saudi Arabia or indeed the Koch brothers’ efforts to
deform our own democracy,” says Bill McKibben, environmentalist and
founder of 350.org. It is time to demand world leaders sign a fossil
fuel nonproliferation treaty, says Ukrainian climate activist
Svitlana Romanko. Romanko is also with the Laudato Si’ Movement,
which exists to implement the second encyclical of Pope Francis
about “care for our common home” and recognizes the war in Ukraine
has been funded by fossil fuels. Pope Francis says he plans to visit
Ukraine, and Romanko says his “leadership may create a difference in
this war.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvhgRR5ZbA8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvhgRR5ZbA8</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Follow the money, Mr Science Guy - but for consumers, "buy NO
PLASTIC at all" especially for sugar waters ] <br>
</i><b>Bill Nye, the Sellout Guy</b><br>
In a new video, TV's favorite scientist parrots hackneyed lines
about "the good people at Coca-Cola" and their near-useless
recycling efforts.<br>
Molly Taft<i> -- </i>April 7, 2022<br>
Bad news for everyone who loved watching Bill Nye the Science Guy
during middle school science class: your fave is problematic. This
week, Coca-Cola, one of the world’s biggest plastic polluters,
teamed up with TV’s favorite scientist for a campaign to create a
“world without waste,” a joke of a corporate greenwashing campaign.<br>
<br>
In a video innocuously titled “The Coca-Cola Company and Bill Nye
Demystify Recycling,” an animated version of Nye—with a head made
out of a plastic bottle and his signature bow tie fashioned from a
Coke label—walks viewers through the ways “the good people at the
Coca-Cola company are dedicating themselves to addressing our global
plastic waste problem.” Coke, Nye explains, wants to use
predominantly recycled materials to create bottles for its
beverages; he then describes the process of recycling a plastic
bottle, from a user throwing it into a recycling bin to being
sorted and shredded into new material...<br>
- - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/1HRadzzvQNY">https://youtu.be/1HRadzzvQNY</a>
The Coca-Cola Company and Bill Nye Demystify Recycling<br>
Most of those plastics can only be reused once or twice before
ending up in a landfill. Nye, for all his talk of science on TV,
should know this. Over recycling’s 60-year history, less than 10% of
plastic that has been produced has ever been recycled. And while in
theory, PET—the type of plastic that makes bottles—can be recycled
more times than other types of plastic, that’s not usually what
happens. Virgin plastic is, simply put, cheaper to make into things
like bottles than recycled plastic. Less than 30% of plastic bottles
are recycled in the U.S., and a lot of that stock is turned not into
other bottles, but “downcycled” into other things, like filler and
fabric. These products, in turn, can’t be recycled again. The
plastic ends up in landfills. Even with effective recycling
mechanisms, research has shown that stuff like bottles can’t be in
use for long and will eventually be delegated to landfills. From
there, the Coke bottles that Shill Nye so cheerily shows off in the
video will last for so long that their lifecycle lasts beyond human
frameworks for time.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://gizmodo.com/bill-nye-sells-out-shills-for-coca-cola-on-plastic-bot-1848763404">https://gizmodo.com/bill-nye-sells-out-shills-for-coca-cola-on-plastic-bot-1848763404</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="5"><b>April 8, 2003</b></font><br>
In the New York Times, climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer
declares: "The threat of global warming, first raised in 1896, has
outlived many foreign policy crises. Our failure to deal with it is
starting to bear a bitter harvest not only in rising seas and
intensified rainstorms, but also in disruption of long-standing
alliances, and interference with other foreign policy objectives. It
is well past time for U.S. leaders to put the climate problem at the
center of America's domestic and international agendas."<br>
<blockquote>Opinion<br>
<b>After Iraq : Declare war on global warming</b><br>
By Michael Oppenheimer, International Herald Tribune<br>
April 8, 2003<br>
<br>
With his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in
2001, President George W. Bush inadvertently caused an upheaval in
international relations. Environmental issues had been long
regarded as the poor stepchild of the foreign policy arena. But as
recent remarks by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and the
United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix made clear, the global
warming issue, and particularly America's handling of it, has
become a central geopolitical concern.<br>
<br>
Speaking at a delicate moment in the Iraq crisis, Blair contrasted
the current situation with "issues that affect us over time. They
are just as devastating in their potential impact" as weapons of
mass destruction and terrorism, "some more so, but they require
reflection and strategy geared to the long-term, often straddling
many years and many governments. Within this category are the
issues of global poverty, relations between the Muslim world and
the West, environmental degradation, most particularly climate
change."<br>
<br>
Challenging U.S. claims that the Kyoto Protocol is too costly,
Blair declared that "it is clear Kyoto is not radical enough" and
committed Britain to cutting its emissions of global warming gases
by 60 percent by 2050. This goes far beyond the Kyoto Protocol's 5
percent reduction mandated for developed countries by 2012.<br>
<br>
Recently, Blix chimed in by commenting, "I'm more worried about
global warming than I am about any major military conflict."<br>
<br>
Blair's speech served the obvious need to buttress his standing
with a British public that is disturbed over his unwavering
support of America's Iraq policy. By opposing the United States
and laying claim to leadership of the dozens of countries that are
working to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force, Blair clearly
intended to counteract the charge that he is subservient to Bush.
That an environmental issue could be deployed in this way is
itself notable.<br>
<br>
Blair's remarks serve a broader purpose, however. They are a
reminder of how severely the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol
and other accords has distorted its relations with erstwhile
allies, preparing the ground for rancor over Iraq by depleting a
decades-old stock of trans-Atlantic goodwill.<br>
<br>
Blair's statement that "the world is in danger of polarizing
around two different agendas" serves as a warning to Bush that his
emphasis on near-term security concerns attends to just half the
equation of human well-being. Global stability depends equally on
the United States stepping up to the plate on global warming and
other long-term issues.<br>
<br>
For environmentalists who have pressed the foreign policy
establishment for 20 years to take their concerns seriously, this
welcome juxtaposition of global environment and international
security brings along a touch of irony. In 1989, Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher of Britain underwent a conversion experience on
the environment, and called for an international treaty on climate
change. Three years later, her leadership was an important factor
in convincing a reluctant President George H.W. Bush to sign the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent document of
the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. Senate ratified that agreement a few
months later.<br>
<br>
The Cold War had ended, and the environment seemed about to get
its turn on the international agenda because matters considered
weightier by the foreign policy establishment had been cleared off
the table. To some, it was the "end of history" but unfortunately,
not the beginning of continuing attention to global warming and
related issues by high-level officials in the United States.<br>
<br>
One reason the Kyoto Protocol fell afoul of the U.S. government,
and one reason the Bush administration fell afoul of Europe in its
hamhanded rejection of the protocol, was a failure in Washington
to understand the emerging importance of the climate issue to
international relations now, as well as to global stability in the
future.<br>
<br>
The situation could worsen. The Kyoto Protocol appears likely to
come into force this year if, as expected, Russia ratifies it. As
Europe, Japan and others implement cuts in emissions, the question
of how to treat the United States, should it continue to abstain,
could point in nasty directions, such as trade sanctions on
products like cars, airplanes and computers whose manufacture
causes emissions of global warming gases. Earlier, sanctions would
have been out of the question. If the current trans-Atlantic
alienation persists, one cannot exclude the possibility that
Europe eventually will turn to such an approach.<br>
<br>
The threat of global warming, first raised in 1896, has outlived
many foreign policy crises. Our failure to deal with it is
starting to bear a bitter harvest not only in rising seas and
intensified rainstorms, but also in disruption of long-standing
alliances, and interference with other foreign policy objectives.
It is well past time for U.S. leaders to put the climate problem
at the center of America's domestic and international agendas.<br>
<br>
The writer is a professor of geosciences and international affairs
at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/opinion/08iht-edoppen_ed3_.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/opinion/08iht-edoppen_ed3_.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/opinion/IHT-after-iraq-declare-war-on-global-warming.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iela3DJDm4SiOMNAo6B_EGKRIpfItI9wzmBAd5bOaZqSPF5yuZFMglyQhPtpZ3Bl5ACKSwx7J26RGY32Z2LXaw99XWiSFiFH9pF5e_1uQOaYn_3COeZiSd_cBBmppY2JV2ujGgNwafGDuJ00oFh1fwnBYR9QGgLYXGAu_joWRRuKZ7ROEGnnwo8UutaXzjSlcfNqO5TNVUPVi-VCS938m0-69hDOd4IPaiZLxQoe8P2g715GXU_Zc7yRMV3H96I4u0s5b3dqhWMy960w-E0EshXvrDEs2W7NDU_WSpphn9a9Pv009DBvTgW0BA&smid=em-share">https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/opinion/IHT-after-iraq-declare-war-on-global-warming.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iela3DJDm4SiOMNAo6B_EGKRIpfItI9wzmBAd5bOaZqSPF5yuZFMglyQhPtpZ3Bl5ACKSwx7J26RGY32Z2LXaw99XWiSFiFH9pF5e_1uQOaYn_3COeZiSd_cBBmppY2JV2ujGgNwafGDuJ00oFh1fwnBYR9QGgLYXGAu_joWRRuKZ7ROEGnnwo8UutaXzjSlcfNqO5TNVUPVi-VCS938m0-69hDOd4IPaiZLxQoe8P2g715GXU_Zc7yRMV3H96I4u0s5b3dqhWMy960w-E0EshXvrDEs2W7NDU_WSpphn9a9Pv009DBvTgW0BA&smid=em-share</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>======================================= <br>
<br>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>More
daily summaries<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
--------------------------------------- <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>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>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><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
<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>
<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>
</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>