<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 13, 2022</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<i>[ Information battles for hearts and minds - Poll results ]</i><br>
<b>Majorities in US back climate change proposals: Gallup</b><br>
BY CHLOE FOLMAR - 04/11/22 <br>
The majority of Americans are in favor of six recent climate change
proposals from the Biden administration, according to the annual
Gallup environment poll released Monday.<br>
<br>
Gallup found that American adults are most supportive of tax credits
to incentivize environmentally friendly living and less supportive
of government limits and policies.<br>
<br>
President Biden proposed a $2 trillion bill last year that included
each of the six policies considered by the random sample of 1,017
adults surveyed.<br>
A large majority of survey respondents, 89 percent, favored
providing tax credits to incentivize installing clean energy systems
in homes, and three-quarters favored tax incentives for businesses
to use clean energy systems...<br>
- -<br>
These numbers differ along party lines.<br>
<br>
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 68 percent
said they would prioritize the economy over the environment, while
75 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said
they would prioritize the environment.<br>
<br>
Before the pandemic, the share of Americans that prioritized
protecting the environment was significantly higher, comprising
about two-thirds of respondents.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3263848-majorities-in-us-back-climate-change-proposals-gallup/">https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3263848-majorities-in-us-back-climate-change-proposals-gallup/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ symbolic feather in the wind ] </i><br>
<b>Biden taps ethanol to help lower fuel prices as consumer
inflation surges</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-allow-higher-ethanol-fuel-sales-summer-check-gas-prices-2022-04-12/">https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-allow-higher-ethanol-fuel-sales-summer-check-gas-prices-2022-04-12/</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ Video - shows why corn-based ethanol is a dumb idea - 24% more
dumb ]</i><br>
<b>America Was Wrong About Ethanol - Study Shows</b><br>
Mar 4, 2022<br>
Engineering Explained<br>
Using Corn For Fuel Seems Like A Dumb Idea In Light Of New Research<br>
<br>
Ethanol makes up 10% of most of the gasoline sold in the United
States. A large part of why Ethanol is so prevalent is that the
Renewable Fuel Standard, created in 2005, wanted to reduce the
emissions of the fuels we use. Ethanol created from corn is
renewable, because the corn takes carbon from the atmosphere to
grow, creating a cycle that minimizes how much carbon is added to
the atmosphere. At least, that's the story we were told.<br>
<br>
New research out of University of Wisconsin - Madison, suggests that
"the carbon intensity of corn ethanol is no less than gasoline and
likely at least 24% higher." What's the solution? We need to choose
options that have a greater percentage of net emissions reductions,
so that we don't unintentionally increase emissions if regulators
estimated predictions are incorrect. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ NYTimes audio presentation - worth a click to hear ] </i><br>
<b>Biden's Climate Shift</b><br>
The war in Ukraine has led the president to retreat on his ambitions
climate policies...<br>
Coral Davenport - <br>
On the campaign trail and when he first came to office, President
Biden had ambitious plans to deal with climate change, including
promises to reduce fossil fuel production.<br>
<br>
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, however, Mr. Biden has
largely stopped making the case for these plans, instead turning his
focus to pumping as much oil and gas as possible.<br>
<br>
What is behind the president’s retreat on climate?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/podcasts/the-daily/biden-climate-ukraine-war.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/podcasts/the-daily/biden-climate-ukraine-war.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ AKA runaway, self-reinforcing ]</i><br>
<b>NOAA: Record increases in atmospheric methane may be evidence of
a climate-related feedback loop</b><br>
For the second year in a row, data gathered by NOAA show a record
annual increase in atmospheric methane. Methane is one of the most
powerful greenhouse gasses, second only to carbon dioxide...<br>
- -<br>
Given that relatively short lifespan, NOAA scientists are concerned
that recent record increases in methane are evidence of a
climate-related feedback loop.<br>
<br>
“We think there are some signals that are acting on top of the
long-term increase and that’s possibly related to the natural
wetland emission,” said Xin Lan, a researcher with NOAA's Global
Monitoring Laboratory.<br>
<br>
Wetlands contain lots of decaying organic matter. That decay process
releases methane. Rain can accelerate that release. As the
atmosphere warms, it's able to hold more moisture and produce more
rain over those wetland areas, leading to more methane release.<br>
<br>
“And if that is the case, that could indicate something quite
concerning, which was the climate feedback that we think that might
be happening already,” Lan said...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.kcra.com/article/noaa-increases-atmospheric-methane-climate-related-feedback-loop/39694802#:~:text=NOAA%3A%20Record%20increases,to%20carbon%20dioxide">https://www.kcra.com/article/noaa-increases-atmospheric-methane-climate-related-feedback-loop/39694802#:~:text=NOAA%3A%20Record%20increases,to%20carbon%20dioxide</a>.<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Book Review in the </i><i>Journal nature ]</i><br>
<b>Climate change — four decades of missed opportunities</b><br>
The United States should learn from its mistakes on decarbonization.<br>
Alexandra Witze - 11 April 2022<br>
- -<br>
<u>Fire and Flood: A People’s History of Climate Change, from 1979
to the Present</u><br>
Eugene Linden - - Penguin (2022)<br>
- -<br>
Linden argues that extreme weather events,such as prolonged droughts
in Australia and<br>
hurricanes in the Caribbean and North America, are now so pronounced
and obvious that<br>
they might force political change when previous discussions could
not. Yet the path forward<br>
is not so clear. The clocks of public awareness and of business
interests, especially, continue<br>
to lag behind the reality of what’s transpiring.<br>
The outlook becomes even more bleak towards the end.<br>
- -<br>
Linden concludes that the global response to COVID-19 shows that the<br>
world is ill-equipped to deal with any complex, far-reaching
problem. Tribalism, autocracy<br>
and misinformation are on the rise, and even the promise of jobs in
a decarbonized economy<br>
is not enough to trump those forces. Will the collapsing Russian
economy drive many nations<br>
back to a reliance on fossil fuels, or will the fuel shock caused by
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine<br>
accelerate the transition to renewable energies?<br>
That, like so many other things in these uncertain times, remains to
be seen.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00998-4">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00998-4</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-022-00998-4/d41586-022-00998-4.pdf">https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-022-00998-4/d41586-022-00998-4.pdf</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ The </i><i>magazine </i><i>Foreign Policy examines
International institutions $] </i><br>
<b>The World Bank and IMF Are Getting It Wrong on Climate Change</b><br>
Rich donor countries are working to deprioritize poverty reduction
and economic development in the global south.<br>
By Vijaya Ramachandran<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/11/the-world-bank-and-imf-are-getting-it-wrong-on-climate-change/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/11/the-world-bank-and-imf-are-getting-it-wrong-on-climate-change/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ from E&E News and Scientific American on activism ]</i><br>
<b>Scientists Risk Arrest to Demand Climate Action</b><br>
A growing international movement called Scientist Rebellion calls on
world leaders to end the burning of fossil fuels<br>
By Chelsea Harvey, E&E News on April 11, 2022...<br>
<br>
In both cases, their demands were clear: faster, stronger climate
action from world governments and an end to the burning of fossil
fuels.<br>
<br>
“It was my first experience with civil disobedience for any reason,”
said Abramoff, a climate scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
who emphasized that her activism is conducted on her own behalf and
does not reflect the positions of her institution. She also spoke
with E&E News only on her own behalf.<br>
- -<br>
In Los Angeles, four scientists were arrested after handcuffing
themselves to the entrance of a Chase bank. In Germany, scientists
demonstrated outside the Ministry for Economy and Climate
Protection. In England, they protested outside Shell PLC
headquarters. They pasted documents to government buildings in
Mexico, occupied an oil and gas company’s headquarters in Italy, and
threw fake blood onto the facade of the National Congress in Spain.<br>
<br>
Scientist Rebellion estimates that a total of around 1,000
scientists in 25 countries participated in last week’s
demonstrations, often wearing lab coats to identify themselves...<br>
- -<br>
On the door behind them, they posted a forest-green sign stating,
“We are nature defending itself.”<br>
<br>
“The scientists of the world have been ignored, and it’s got to
stop,” Kalmus said in an emotional speech as he stood chained to the
bank’s door. “It’s time for all of us to stand up and take risks and
make sacrifices for this beautiful planet that gives us life, that
gives us healthy air.”<br>
<br>
Police eventually arrested all four scientists after they declined
to clear the area. They were later released...<br>
- -<br>
“I feel actually genuinely desperate and terrified,” he said. “I can
see so clearly where we’re heading in terms of climate change, and I
don’t sense any momentum or any intention on the part of world
leaders to actually genuinely take care of this planet and take care
of this problem, which really does require ending the fossil fuel
industry as quickly as possible.”...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eenews.net/">https://www.eenews.net/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-risk-arrest-to-demand-climate-action/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-risk-arrest-to-demand-climate-action/</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Watch out for Hydrogen - a reactive element ] </i><br>
<b>Hydrogen 1 times worse than CO2 for climate, says new report</b><br>
By Loz Blain <br>
April 11, 2022<br>
Hydrogen will be one of humanity's key weapons in the war against
carbon dioxide emissions, but it must be treated with care. New
reports show how fugitive hydrogen emissions can indirectly produce
warming effects 11 times worse than those of CO2.<br>
Hydrogen can be used as a clean energy carrier, and running it
through a fuel cell to produce electricity produces nothing but
water as a by-product. It carries far more energy for a given weight
than lithium batteries, and it's faster to refill a tank than to
charge a battery, so hydrogen is viewed as a very promising green
option in several hard-to-decarbonize applications where batteries
won't cut the mustard – for example, aviation, shipping and
long-haul trucking.<br>
But when it's released directly into the atmosphere, hydrogen itself
can interact with other gases and vapors in the air to produce
powerful warming effects. Indeed, a new UK Government study has put
these interactions under the microscope and determined that
hydrogen's Global Warming Potential (GWP) is about twice as bad as
previously understood; over a 100-year time period, a tonne of
hydrogen in the atmosphere will warm the Earth some 11 times more
than a tonne of CO2, with an uncertainty of ± 5.<br>
- -<br>
Does this mean "green hydrogen" should be avoided in the race to
zero emissions?<br>
No. The UK Government report explains that "the increase in
equivalent CO2 emissions based on 1 percent and 10 percent H2
leakage rate offsets approximately 0.4 and 4 percent of the total
equivalent CO2 emission reductions, respectively," so even assuming
the worst leakage scenario, it's still an enormous improvement.<br>
<br>
"Whilst the benefits from equivalent CO2 emission reductions
significantly outweigh the disbenefits arising from H2 leakage," it
continues, "they clearly demonstrate the importance of controlling
H2 leakage within a hydrogen economy."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/">https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Informed and classic video from last year -- what will 3C
look like? ] </i><br>
<b>See what three degrees of global warming looks like | The
Economist</b><br>
Oct 30, 2021<br>
The Economist<br>
If global temperatures rise three degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels, the results would be catastrophic. It’s an
entirely plausible scenario, and this film shows you what it would
look like.<br>
<blockquote>00:00 - What will a 3°C world look like?<br>
00:57 - Climate change is already having devastating effects<br>
02:58 - How climate modelling works<br>
04:06 - Nowhere is safe from global warming<br>
05:20 - The impact of prolonged droughts <br>
08:24 - Rising sea levels, storm surges and flooding<br>
10:27 - Extreme heat and wet-bulb temperatures<br>
12:51 - Increased migration and conflict <br>
14:26 - Adaptation and mitigation are crucial <br>
</blockquote>
Read our briefing about a three degree world:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://econ.st/3nJiXYS">https://econ.st/3nJiXYS</a> <br>
View all of The Economist’s climate change coverage:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://econ.st/3b1RwU2">https://econ.st/3b1RwU2</a> <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uynhvHZUOOo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uynhvHZUOOo</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Westervelt on the front lines of propaganda warfare ]</i><br>
<b>DOCUMENTS SHOW HOW POLLUTING INDUSTRIES MOBILIZED TO BLOCK
CLIMATE ACTION</b><br>
Since its inception, the IPCC itself has been the target of
corporate obstructionism.<br>
Amy Westervelt - April 12 2022<br>
One key entity in that movement was the Global Climate Coalition,
which emerged in 1989 as a project of the National Association of
Manufacturers, with founding members from the coal, electric
utility, oil and gas, automotive, and rail sectors. Many scholars
have noted the influential role the GCC played in obstructing
climate policy in the 1990s, but the first peer-reviewed paper on
the group, published this week, reveals that the original and
lasting intention of the GCC was to push for voluntary efforts only
and torpedo international momentum toward setting mandatory limits
on greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
<br>
Casting doubt on the science was part of that strategy from the
beginning — the paper points to a 1994 communications strategy, for
example, that suggested industry spokespeople downplay IPCC findings
with following talking point: “The IPCC reports no evidence that
directly links manmade GHG emissions to changes in global average
temperatures.” Also common, though, were the delay tactics we still
see today, particularly the economic argument against acting on the
climate crisis and the jingoistic argument that America shouldn’t
allow the rest of the world to tell it what to do.<br>
<br>
“People have been very stuck on this idea that the industry strategy
went from climate denial to delay,” said the paper’s author, Brown
University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle. “That’s
historically inaccurate. It was always about delay, and the PR guys
viewed casting doubt on climate science as one of their key talking
points, but not the only one and not the central one.”<br>
<br>
Leaning on economic and cultural arguments came naturally for the
public relations teams working on climate. Those arguments were
first developed to help companies like Standard Oil and American
Tobacco stave off regulation at the turn of the 20th century and
have been deployed consistently, and effectively, ever since.<br>
Brulle points to the GCC’s involvement in the passage of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC — the
framework underpinning the annual Conference of the Parties meetings
of global leaders to discuss international climate commitments — as
a prime example of how industries have suggested voluntary action as
a way to preempt government regulation. “They supported that because
it was toothless. It was all about the need to further study the
problem and for corporations and governments to take voluntary
action.”<br>
<br>
Melissa Aronczyk, a media studies scholar at Rutgers University,
also documented the influence that the GCC and its primary PR
person, E. Bruce Harrison, had on the UNFCCC process in “A Strategic
Nature: Public Relations and the Politics of American
Environmentalism,” a new book written with Maria Espinoza. “Harrison
was invited as communications counsel to the CEOs who were
participating at that Earth Summit in Rio [de Janeiro] in 1992,”
Aronczyk explained. That was the summit at which global leaders
drafted and adopted the UNFCCC. Notably, the U.N.-appointed
organizer of that conference was Maurice Strong, a former oilman who
believed that no effective climate treaty could be passed without
buy-in from corporate interests.<br>
<br>
“Because business communities had been invited to the conference and
because they knew that their buy-in was so important, they planned
extensively in the lead-up to the conference to be able to present
what they call their own sustainable development charter. It was a
nonbinding, nonlegal document that proposed a voluntary,
self-regulating approach,” Aronczyk said. “And as you can imagine,
this charter did not contain anything that would have really
transformed how companies did business. … But it paid a lot of lip
service to the idea of going green, and because they got out in
front of the actual conference, they were really able to put that
document forward and stave off other kinds of more binding
legislation.”<br>
<br>
The GCC worked to steer the Conference of the Parties and the IPCC
in this direction as well. Many of the source documents Brulle cites
in his paper, including Harrison’s 1994-1995 communications plan for
the GCC, show this strategy explicitly. “The economic consequences
of future actions by the COP are likely to attract more attention
than statements about scientific uncertainties,” Harrison’s plan
reads. “Especially if the economic stakes can be made apparent to
‘people on Main Street.’” It goes on to lay out specific messages
that GCC members should emphasize to the press, politicians, and the
public, including: “Voluntary programs for reducing [greenhouse gas]
emissions are allowing industry to balance economics and
environmental performance without impairing competitiveness.”<br>
<br>
What’s also painfully obvious in these documents is just how close
the international process came to forcing action on climate in the
1990s — the decade in which it would have had the most impact. The
1994-95 GCC communications plan shows that the group and the
industries it represented were losing the fight and that momentum
was building for a binding international treaty that would mandate
emissions reductions. “Dozens of U.N. agencies, international
organizations and special interest groups are driving events —
regardless of economic costs and remaining scientific uncertainties
— toward a conclusion inimical to the interests of the GCC and the
U.S. economy,” the plan reads.<br>
A few pages later it notes, “The window for influencing U.S.
decisions on future U.N. actions is relatively narrow. During the
next 18-24 months there will be a number of critical decision points
as the Parties to the FCCC advance toward the COP’s 1997 deadline
for elaborating new policies and measures.”<br>
<br>
The 1997 Conference of the Parties was, of course, when the Kyoto
Protocol was introduced; the international agreement mandated
emissions reductions for certain countries, something the Clinton
administration had already indicated it supported. It was a
make-or-break moment for industries concerned about the impact that
mandatory emissions reductions would have on their bottom line, and
the GCC redoubled its efforts.<br>
<br>
First it targeted key U.S. politicians. Working with Sens. Chuck
Hagel and Robert Byrd, Brulle writes, the group rounded up support
for an amendment to set strict criteria for any international
climate accord. “This effort contributed to the passage of the
Byrd-Hagel Amendment in July 1997,” Brulle writes. “This amendment
required that any climate accord would have to include [emissions]
reductions by developing countries and could not result in serious
harm to the U.S. economy. These provisions damaged the credibility
of the U.S. because it showed a lack of consensus among the
different branches of government about an international climate
accord.”<br>
<br>
That argument stands in stark contrast to the fossil fuel industry’s
narrative today, which holds that out-of-touch climate elitists are
trying to force emissions reductions on countries that deserve to
use fossil fuels to develop. Passage of the Byrd-Hagel amendment was
the GCC’s first big victory after its success in shaping the UNFCCC.
In the wake of that victory, GCC members poured $13 million into a
PR campaign centered on the argument that the international accord
would raise gasoline prices and harm the economy. The tag line of
the anti-Kyoto campaign was “It’s not global and it won’t work.”<br>
<br>
“They get a map of the globe and they start cutting out the
countries that don’t have to comply,” Brulle said. “And then they
hold up this map with all of these holes in it, and they said, ‘This
is unfair. It won’t work and it’s not fair.’ And that’s what they
ran on. And guess what? It works! It was very effective. And you
still hear that today when folks argue against climate policy by
saying, ‘What about China? What about India?’”<br>
<br>
The group also commissioned third-party economists and policy
analysts to bolster its argument that mandatory emissions cuts would
spell death for the American economy. “It was very much, play up the
economic impact, play up the threat to the ‘American way of life,’”
Brulle said. “When you can attack the science, do that, but always,
always play up the economics.”<br>
<br>
That’s particularly interesting in the context of recent research in
which some of the same economists the GCC hired have admitted that
their models were deeply flawed. The paper “Weaponizing Economics,”
published last year by Stanford University researcher Ben Franta,
shows that the economists working for the GCC and other anti-climate
policy groups in the 1990s were using models that inflated the cost
of climate policy while ignoring entirely the economic benefit of
avoiding climate impacts.<br>
<br>
Franta found that the same small group of economists was being
routinely commissioned not only by the GCC but also the American
Petroleum Institute (a founding GCC member) and various conservative
think tanks; every time a policy was proposed that would limit
carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, this same model
would get trotted out, and industry spokespeople and politicians
would warn that acting on climate change would put companies out of
business and cost the average American family thousands of dollars.<br>
<br>
“Eventually their analyses became conventional wisdom,” Franta said.
“The scientific merchants of doubt ultimately failed; their power
waned. But this, the economics part, their power did not really wane
in the same way. And you know, the implications are larger. I mean,
it’s a fraudulent economic product. And now we have economists who
worked on those models saying, by their own admission, that this
analysis that showed it would be too expensive to act on climate is
not true. And this has been going on for decades. So now the
question is, what do we do about this?”<br>
<br>
Brulle’s recent findings make it that much more concerning that the
IPCC allowed mentions of obstructionism and vested interests to be
scrubbed from its summary for policymakers. “That document was like
Star Wars without Darth Vader,” he said. “This research gives us a
history of what actually happened. It puts Darth Vader back in the
story.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theintercept.com/2022/04/12/ipcc-report-global-climate-coalition/">https://theintercept.com/2022/04/12/ipcc-report-global-climate-coalition/</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ Brulle on attacks of dis-information and mis-information. New
documents added to archive ]</i><br>
<b>Advocating inaction: a historical analysis of the Global Climate
Coalition</b><br>
Robert J Brulle<br>
Published online: 11 Apr 2022<br>
<blockquote><b>ABSTRACT</b><br>
Ever since climate change became a political issue in the late
1980s, a number of industry coalitions have formed to oppose
mandatory carbon emissions reductions. One key coalition was the
Global Climate Coalition (GCC). This paper conducts a historical
and empirical review of the activities of this coalition. This
review shows that the GCC engaged in four distinct activities to
obstruct climate action: 1) monitoring and contesting climate
science, 2) commissioning and utilizing economic studies to
amplify and legitimate their arguments, 3) shifting the cultural
understanding of climate change through public relations campaigns
and 4) conducting aggressive lobbying of political elites. Through
these activities, the GCC played an important role in obstructing
climate action, both in the U.S. and internationally. Further
analysis of similar coalitions can aid in our understanding of the
organized opposition to climate action.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2022.2058815">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2022.2058815</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2058815">https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2058815</a><br>
<p>full paper available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GCC-Paper.pdf">https://www.cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GCC-Paper.pdf</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="5"><b>April 13, 2012</b></font><br>
<br>
In the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review, "Democracy Now" host
Amy Goodman observes: <br>
<p>"The Pentagon knows it. The world’s largest insurers know it.
Now, governments may be overthrown because of it. It is climate
change, and it is real. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, last month was the hottest March on
record for the United States since 1895, when records were first
kept, with average temperatures of 8.6 degrees above average. More
than 15,000 March high-temperature records were broken nationally.
Drought, wildfires, tornadoes and other extreme weather events are
already plaguing the country."</p>
<p>Mitt Romney is on track to be the Republican candidate for
president, with the support of former challengers like Perry. They
are already attacking President Barack Obama on climate change.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has been
promoting legislation in statehouses to oppose any climate
legislation and rallying members of Congress to block federal
action, especially by hampering the work of the Environmental
Protection Agency. As the Center for Media and Democracy has
detailed in its “ALEC Exposed” reporting, ALEC is funded by the
country’s major polluters, including ExxonMobil, BP America,
Chevron, Peabody Energy and Koch Industries. The Koch brothers
have also funded tea party groups like FreedomWorks, to create the
appearance of grassroots activism.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/apr/13/climate-change-a-hot-issue/">http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/apr/13/climate-change-a-hot-issue/</a></p>
<br>
<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>
*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>
<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>
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>
*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>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<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>