<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>December 4, 2022</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ putting more faith in the courts -- ]</i><br>
<b>Puerto Rican Cities Sue Fossil Fuel Companies in Major
Class-Action, Climate Fraud Case</b><br>
Municipalities aim to hold industry liable for damages from
catastrophic 2017 hurricanes.<br>
Dana Drugmand - Dec 2, 2022<br>
Nearly 25 years ago, oil major Shell predicted in an internal 1998
report that a class-action lawsuit would be brought against fossil
fuel companies following “a series of violent storms.” That
prediction is finally coming true: A group of Puerto Rican
communities, which were ravaged by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in
2017, are suing Shell and other fossil fuel producers in a
first-of-its-kind, class action climate liability lawsuit. <br>
<br>
The groundbreaking case — filed November 22 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico — is the first climate-related
class action lawsuit in the United States filed against the fossil
fuel industry to target the industry with federal charges of
racketeering. It alleges that the fossil fuel defendants engaged in
a coordinated, multi-front effort to promote climate denial and
defraud consumers by concealing the climate consequences of fossil
fuel products in order to inflate profits. <br>
<br>
Sixteen Puerto Rican municipalities are suing as a class or
representatives on behalf of the more than 60 municipalities on the
island that all experienced devastating losses from the 2017
hurricanes. The case demands that fossil fuel companies pay for
damages associated with catastrophic storms, beginning with the 2017
hurricanes, and their lingering impacts, arguing that these
disasters are worsened by climate change...<br>
- -<br>
<b>A “New Front in the Climate Liability War”</b><br>
The lawsuit brings more than a dozen legal claims under federal and
Puerto Rican law, such as consumer fraud, violation of Puerto Rican
consumer protection rules, and violation of federal antitrust law.
Notably, it also alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute designed to
fight organized crime or other corrupt conduct. <br>
<br>
RICO has been successfully used to hold the tobacco industry
accountable for lying about the health hazards of their products,
and has been applied in litigation against opioid and auto
manufactures. Until now, it had yet to be asserted in a climate
liability lawsuit, although several Democratic senators have
previously called for a federal probe of Big Oil that could result
in potential racketeering litigation. <br>
- -<br>
Representatives for several of the oil company defendants said in
emailed statements that this litigation is a “baseless distraction”
and that climate solutions must be reached through “smart policy
from governments” rather than courts. <br>
<br>
“Addressing a challenge as big as climate change requires a truly
collaborative, society-wide approach. We do not believe the
courtroom is the right venue to address climate change,” Shell
spokesperson Anna Arata said in a statement. <br>
<br>
A lawyer for Chevron also described the climate crisis as a societal
challenge resulting from “worldwide conduct” of consumers, including
Puerto Ricans.<br>
<br>
“Residents and public officials in Puerto Rico rely every day on oil
and gas to live and work on the island, power their homes, become a
tourist destination, and grow their economy. This lawsuit is one in
a series of suits that attempt to punish a select group of energy
companies for a challenge that is the result of worldwide conduct
stretching back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,”
said Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher,
counsel for Chevron Corporation. <br>
<br>
A 2021 peer-reviewed study by Harvard researchers Naomi Oreskes and
Geoffrey Supran, however, suggests that these kinds of statements
are part of a misleading narrative framing that downplays the
gravity of the climate crisis, normalizes dependency on oil and gas,
and focuses blame on individual consumers. According to the study,
which examined communications from ExxonMobil, “These patterns mimic
the tobacco industry’s documented strategy of shifting
responsibility away from corporations—which knowingly sold a deadly
product while denying its harms—and onto consumers.”<br>
<br>
ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment on the new
lawsuit from Puerto Rico.<br>
<br>
Boutrous added: “Chevron believes the claims alleged are legally and
factually meritless, and will demonstrate that in court.”<br>
<br>
But if the federal racketeering litigation that determined that
tobacco companies had committed fraud on a massive scale is any
indication, the fossil fuel companies could be in real legal peril
with this new RICO litigation. <br>
“Tobacco opened the door to using RICO, and let’s face it—RICO was
enacted to fight organized crime,” said Sharon Eubanks, an attorney
who previously led the U.S. Justice Department’s successful RICO
litigation against Big Tobacco in United States v. Philip Morris
USA, et al. “That seems to be what we have here with Big Oil as
well.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/12/02/puerto-rico-climate-liability-lawsuit-racketeering-fraud-shell-bp-chevron-exxon/">https://www.desmog.com/2022/12/02/puerto-rico-climate-liability-lawsuit-racketeering-fraud-shell-bp-chevron-exxon/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Today is more than 12 years later -- ]</i><br>
<b>Greenpeace Releases 20-Year History of Climate Denial Industry</b><br>
James Hogganon Mar 26, 2010<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2010/03/26/greenpeace-releases-20-year-history-climate-denial-industry/">https://www.desmog.com/2010/03/26/greenpeace-releases-20-year-history-climate-denial-industry/</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ An old lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court - is worth a
simple review ]</i><br>
<b>Listed Claims against the Carbon Fuel Industry accepted in
Federal District Court 2007</b><br>
Kivalina vs. Exxon,et al 2007<br>
<blockquote>
<p>The... claims are directly from the 2007 filing of Kivalina v.
Exxon, et al . The facts were never in dispute, but the case was
rejected for standing.</p>
<p><b>D. Civil Conspiracy Allegations</b><br>
<br>
1. The Use of Front Groups<br>
189. There has been a long campaign by power, coal, and oil
companies to mislead the public about the science of global
warming. Defendants ExxonMobil, AEP, BP America Inc., Chevron
Corporation, ConocoPhillips Company, Duke Energy, Peabody, and
Southern (“Conspiracy Defendants”) participated in this
campaign. Initially, the campaign attempted to show that global
warming was not occurring. Later, and continuing to the present
, it attempts to demonstrate that global warming is good for the
planet and its inhabitants or that even if Geopoliticus child
watching the birth of the new manthere may be ill effects, there
is not enough scientific certainty to warrant action. The
purpose of this campaign has been to enable the electric power,
coal, oil and other industries to continue their conduct
contributing to the public nuisance of global warming by
convincing the public at-large and the victims of global warming
that the process is not man-made when in fact it is.<br>
<br>
190. The campaign has been conducted directly by the Conspiracy
Defendants, and through trade associations such as the Edison
Electric Institute (“EEI”) (which represents the electric power
industry), the National Mining Association (which represents the
coal industry), and the Western Fuels Association (which
represents coal-burning utilities that own Wyoming coal fields).
The industries have also formed and used front groups, fake
citizens organizations, and bogus scientific bodies, such as the
Global Climate Coalition (“GCC”), the Greening Earth Society,
the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Cooler Heads
Coalition. The most active company in such efforts is and has
been defendant ExxonMobil.No danger ahead, OK to pass me!<br>
191. The tactics employed in this campaign include the funding
and use of “global warming skeptics,” i.e. professional
scientific “experts” (many of whom are not atmospheric
scientists) who regularly publish their marginal views
expressing doubts about numerous aspects of climate change
science in places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page
but rarely, if ever, in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The
skeptics are frequently quoted in newspapers such as the
Washington Times and are offered up to numerous mainstream
unsuspecting, news outlets as scientific experts in order to sow
doubt among the public about global warming... [more]<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://novote4energy.org/">http://novote4energy.org/</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[From the misinformation battlegrounds -- bad messages from a
worsening network ] </i><br>
<b>#ClimateScam: denialism claims flooding Twitter have scientists
worried</b><br>
Many researchers are fleeing the platform, unnerved by the surge in
climate misinformation since Musk’s chaotic takeover<br>
Oliver Milman<br>
@olliemilman<br>
Fri 2 Dec 2022 <br>
Twitter has proved a cherished forum for climate scientists to share
research, as well as for activists seeking to rally action to halt
oil pipelines or decry politicians’ failure to cut pollution. But
many are now fleeing Twitter due to a surge in climate
misinformation, spam and even threats that have upended their
relationship with the platform.<br>
<br>
Scientists and advocates have told the Guardian they have become
unnerved by a recent resurgence of debunked climate change denialist
talking points and memes on Twitter, with the term #ClimateScam now
regularly the first result that appears when “climate” is searched
on the<br>
Twitter has fired content management teams, dismantled the
platform’s sustainability arm and lifted bans on several prominent
users with millions of followers, such as Donald Trump and the
rightwing commentator Jordan Peterson, who has espoused falsities
about the climate crisis. The changes have been too much to bear for
some climate experts.<br>
<br>
“Since Musk’s takeover I have ramped down my own use of Twitter,
using it less both to look for news and to share science,” said
Twila Moon, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center who
said she was worried that years of connections formed between
scientists could “crumble” if trust in Twitter collapses.<br>
<br>
“Folks noticing a rise in climate denialism and disinformation is
particularly worrying and I am concerned that it could slow climate
action in ways that are devastating to economies, communities and
health,” she said.<br>
<br>
Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at University of
Pennsylvania, said he has no immediate plans to depart Twitter but
he’s noticed that climate disinformation has “become a bit more on
the nose, with climate deniers who had been deactivated making a
reappearance, and climate denial getting somewhat more traction”.<br>
<br>
Mann has created a profile on Mastodon, a new social media site seen
as an alternative to Twitter, and has been joined by a cadre of
other climate scientists dismayed by Musk’s tenure. “I don’t think
I’m getting much value from being on Twitter now, there are more
interesting conversations happening at Mastodon,” said Bob Kopp, a
Rutgers University climate scientist who expressed alarm at Twitter
ending its policy on Covid-19 misinformation, which he said “tends
to go hand in hand” with climate denialism.<br>
<br>
Musk, a self-proclaimed defender of free speech and previously
lauded by environmentalists due to his leadership of the electric
car firm Tesla, has said that Twitter “obviously cannot become a
free-for-all hellscape”. But his recent actions suggest “that he is
interested in creating a massive, worldwide cage fight. If it comes
to that, we’ll take a pass,” according to Ed Maibach, an expert in
climate communications at George Mason University who claimed that
many people in the climate community have discussed leaving the
site.<br>
- -<br>
Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and media personality who was
reinstated to Twitter by Musk following a ban, has recently become
fixated upon climate change, often firing off a dozen tweets or more
in a single day on the issue to his 3.5 million followers.<br>
<br>
The rightwinger has shared debunked theories that excess carbon
dioxide is beneficial to the world, that “automotive freedom” is
under threat from efforts to reduce pollution from cars and that
climate campaigners want to “wreak envious and narcissistic havoc”.<br>
“Peterson is a big one because his brand extends beyond the
environment but now he’s doubling down on climate,” said King.
“We’ve seen time and again these accounts that espouse climate
denial and delay also spread misinformation on other topics, such as
electoral fraud, racial politics or reproductive rights.”<br>
While false claims about the climate crisis have been deployed for
decades by the fossil fuel industry and various conservative
figures, there is some evidence there has been a rise in
polarization over climate on social media over the past two years. A
recent study by researchers in the UK and Italy found there was a
fourfold increase in “contrarian” rightwing climate conversations on
Twitter during the UN Cop26 climate talks last year, compared with
the same summit held in 2015.<br>
<br>
The increase in minority voices on climate, who make claims such as
that people favoring climate action are somehow hypocrites or that
reducing emissions is pointless or expensive, is being fueled by
well-known rightwing politicians in the US and Europe turning their
fire on climate activists who have become more prominent in recent
years, the researchers said.<br>
<br>
“We’ve entered a new era of conversation around climate change,
where there is diminished trust and no interaction between groups
who disagree,” said Andrea Baronchelli, co-author of the study and a
researcher at City University London. “If you’re in one camp, you
aren’t necessarily exposed to the views of the other camp, other
than to mock them.”<br>
<br>
For climate scientists, this breakdown has raised fears that
previously mainstream online spaces like Twitter will be ceded to
conspiracy theorists and others without any expertise of global
heating. Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University, has
moved to Mastodon, too, but lamented that it feels “fairly tame and
pretty nerdy” compared with Twitter.<br>
<br>
“As someone who followed lots of women scientists, and scientists of
color, I’m noticing the absence of these treasured voices,” she
said.<br>
<br>
“Maybe they’ve left Twitter, or maybe they’ve fallen silent, or
maybe the network has deteriorated to the point that I’m just not
seeing them being retweeted by mutuals. Twitter is a shadow of its
former self when it comes to climate change.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/02/climate-change-denialism-flooding-twitter-scientists">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/02/climate-change-denialism-flooding-twitter-scientists</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ from an Inconvenient Apocalypse ]</i><br>
<b>Four Hard Questions: Size, Scale, Scope, Speed</b><br>
To address ecological crises, it’s time to leave behind those who
are holding us back. <br>
by Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen<br>
The Progressive Magazine, December 2022/January 2023<br>
This essay is adapted from An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental
Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity (Notre Dame
Press, 2022).
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203665/an-inconvenient-apocalypse/">https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203665/an-inconvenient-apocalypse/</a><br>
<br>
People are sometimes reluctant to ask questions when they suspect
that they will not like the answers.<br>
How many churchgoers who have doubts about their congregation’s
doctrine decide to squelch their questions out of fear of losing
friends and community? How often do people in intimate relationships
avoid confronting tension because they know a problem cannot be
resolved? How many people have delayed a trip to the doctor because
they know<br>
that an examination may lead to a diagnosis they do not want to deal
with?<br>
<br>
Here is an exercise for all of us: For one day, pay attention to all
the forms of denial you practice and that you see others practicing.
How many times do we turn away from reality because it is too hard
at that moment to face? Dare we list the things that scare us into
silence?<br>
<br>
We all have personal experience with this hesitancy to face reality.
At some point in our lives, we all have avoided hard questions,
precisely because they are hard. <br>
<br>
What we experience individually is also true of society. There are
hard questions that, collectively, we have so far turned away from,
either because we have no answers or because we will not like the
answers that are waiting for us. Contemporary societies face
problems for which there likely are no solutions if we are only
willing to consider solutions that promise no dramatic disruption in
our lives. Hard questions often demand that we acknowledge the need
for <br>
dramatic change.<br>
<br>
Our ecological crises cannot be waved away with the cliché that
necessity is the mother of invention, implying that human
intelligence, perhaps in combination with market incentives, will
produce magical solutions. We believe that the most productive way
to face today’s hardest questions is to focus not only on human
creativity but also on human limitations. The techno-optimists
emphasize the former, betting that we can do anything we set our
minds to. Those who lean toward nihilism focus on the latter,
suggesting that there is no way off the path to ruin. We believe
that responsible planning requires careful consideration of both
humanity’s potential and its propensities—not only what can get us
out of trouble but also what got us into trouble in the first place.
<br>
<br>
Four hard questions that are essential to confront now are: What is
the sustainable size of the human population? What is the
appropriate scale of a human community? What is the scope of human<br>
competence to manage our interventions into the larger living world?
At what speed must we move toward different living arrangements if
we are to avoid catastrophic consequences?<br>
<br>
When we have raised these issues in conversation, the most common
response is that while these hard questions may be interesting, they
have no bearing on what is possible today in real-world struggles
for justice and sustainability. The implication is that such
questions either somehow do not really matter or are too dangerous
to ask. <br>
<br>
We have heard this not only from people within the conventional
political arena but also from environmentalists and activists on the
left. Their argument generally goes something like this: The
questions raise issues that most people simply will not engage with
and suggest a need for changes that most people simply will not
make. Sensible environmentalists and activists know that you cannot
expect people to think about such huge questions when they face the
everyday problems<br>
of living, and making a living, which take up most of their time and
energy. And what is the point of thinking about these things anyway,
when we all know that politicians can only move so far and so fast
in our political system? Why ask questions and offer policies that
are certain to be ignored?<br>
<br>
Sensible people, we have been told, are those who accept the Overton
Window. Named after the late Joseph P. Overton from the Mackinac
Center for Public Policy, the idea is that politicians “generally
only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as
legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton
Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing
popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie
outside the Overton Window.”<br>
<br>
That can be a useful concept for thinking about what laws might be
passed today, but it becomes an impediment to critical thinking when
people use it to avoid hard, but necessary, questions that cannot be<br>
put off forever. When confronting questions of size, scale, scope,
and speed, we encourage people to climb out of the Overton Window to
get a wider view of the world, to think not about how human
political processes limit what actions are possible today (which
they do) but about what the larger living world’s forces demand of
us (which dictate the material conditions in which we live our
lives). <br>
<br>
When attempting to come to terms with biophysical realities,
refusing to look beyond the Overton Window guarantees collective
failure. That window certainly exists in the realm of environmental
policy—politicians fear the loss of support if they move too far,
too fast. But that does not exempt anyone from asking the hard
questions. The environmental policies that are possible today are
important, but we also must recognize that we likely face a
dramatically different set of choices in a far more challenging
tomorrow. And that tomorrow is not as far away as we might want to
believe.<br>
<br>
We realize that asking these four hard questions in the mainstream
political arena today is nearly impossible, and that the key actors
in our current political system will not engage them anytime soon.
But to cite these impediments as a reason not to ever grapple with
these questions in any context is not sensible. It’s an indication
of moral and intellectual weakness. The nineteenth-century Austrian
writer Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach put it succinctly: “There are
instances in which to be reasonable is to be cowardly.”<br>
<br>
The four questions are so complex that detailed answers are beyond
our capacities, but that does not render them irrelevant. With these
caveats, we assert the following rough conclusions as a place to
start the necessary conversations.<br>
<br>
In terms of size, the Earth’s ecosystems can sustainably support far
fewer than eight billion people, even if everyone were consuming far
less energy and material than they do today. For scale, we will have
to learn to live in<br>
smaller and more flexible political and social units than today’s
nation-states and cities. On scope, we are far less capable of
controlling modern technology than we think, and we cannot manage
the current high-energy/high-technology infrastructure we have
created for much longer. Regarding speed, we must move faster than
we have been, and faster than it appears we may be capable of.<br>
<br>
We believe that more and more people are willing to climb out of the
Overton Window. We constantly meet people who are tired of being
told they must be “sensible.” If we can refuse to be limited by
other people’s fears—if we can see beyond both a naive
techno-optimism and a corrosive nihilism—we create space for a
conversation about these questions without having to pretend that we
have all the answers. We can make realistic assessments, drawing on
science and human history. But we have to be willing to drop
sunny-side-of-the-street fantasies captured in phrases such as “the
impossible<br>
will take a little while” and “necessity is the mother of
invention,” while at the same time refusing to slip into a
paralyzing despair.<br>
- -<br>
Wes Jackson is president emeritus of The Land Institute. Robert
Jensen is an emeritus professor at the University of Texas at
Austin. They are the authors of An Inconvenient Apocalypse:
Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity,
from which this essay is drawn. Jensen can be reached at at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rjensen@austin.utexas.edu">rjensen@austin.utexas.edu</a>. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203665/an-inconvenient-apocalypse/">https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203665/an-inconvenient-apocalypse/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ every choice makes a difference ]</i><br>
<b>Culture shift: Young workers prioritize companies with green
policies over salaries</b><br>
Kana Ruhalter <br>
Boston University Statehouse Program<br>
BOSTON — Despite a labor shortage that has companies desperately
looking to hire and an economy wreaking havoc on bank accounts,
young people are increasingly hesitant — or outright against —
working for a firm that does not have climate-friendly policies. <br>
<br>
The cultural shift in attitudes from that of prior generations shows
that Gen Z and younger millennials are factoring in more than just
wealth when making life decisions. <br>
<br>
Earlier this month, the Boston Foundation held a virtual forum to
analyze the Inaugural Boston Climate Progress Report conducted by
Northeastern University researchers. They found that Boston is on
the path to failure to achieve its key climate goal: net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/climate-change/2022/12/03/young-workers-prefer-to-work-for-companies-with-climate-change-policies/69685052007/">https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/climate-change/2022/12/03/young-workers-prefer-to-work-for-companies-with-climate-change-policies/69685052007/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Isn't today Sunday? ]</i><br>
<b>A Biblical Basis for Christian Engagement</b><br>
"Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment"<br>
Executive Summary <br>
Overview<br>
<blockquote>"Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing
Environment" is an updated report<br>
showing how climate change impacts the world’s most vulnerable.
The 2022 report<br>
explores the biblical basis for Christian engagement, the science
of climate change, how<br>
climate change affects the poor, and practical ways to move
forward. Each section<br>
includes a reflection from an expert and a real life example from<br>
someone working on the issues.<br>
<br>
<b>Section 1: A Biblical Basis for Christian Engagement</b><br>
Evangelicals look to the Bible for guidance in all areas of life.<br>
Though the Bible does not tell us specifically how to evaluate<br>
scientific reports or respond to a changing environment, it does<br>
offer several helpful principles: Care for creation, love our
neighbors<br>
and witness to the world. Bishop Timothy Clarke shares why<br>
climate change is an issue the faith community must address.<br>
<br>
<b>Section 2: A Changing Environment</b><br>
This section looks at the science underlying our understanding of
climate, discusses<br>
research about the future of Earth’s climate, considers how to
untangle scientific<br>
controversies, and includes the perspective of a Christian climate
scientist, Thomas<br>
Ackerman. Mitch Hescox and Jessica Moerman describe the impact of
warming and<br>
air pollution on children’s health.<br>
<br>
<b>Section 3: How Climate Affects People in Poverty</b><br>
This section details how climate change affects people in poverty,
discussing natural<br>
disasters, health outcomes, adaption and mitigation costs,
conflicts, and displacement,<br>
among other issues. Christopher Shore, Jenny Yang and Lanre
Williams-Ayedun share<br>
what they have experienced in other parts of the world.<br>
<br>
<b>Section 4: What Should We Do?</b><br>
The threats we face are real, and the needs can feel overwhelming.
Christians can<br>
respond in many ways through both individual and collective
action, including in areas<br>
of discipleship, supporting others’ work, stewardship and
advocacy. As an<br>
advocate, Galen Carey lists seven practical ways to make a
difference. <br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nae.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Loving-the-Least-of-These_Executive-Summary.pdf">https://www.nae.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Loving-the-Least-of-These_Executive-Summary.pdf</a><br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nae.org/biblical-basis-christian-engagement/">https://www.nae.org/biblical-basis-christian-engagement/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Yale program on Climate Change Communication ]</i><br>
<b>What Do Video Gamers Think About Global Warming?</b><br>
<b>Executive Summary</b><br>
This report describes global warming beliefs, attitudes, policy
preferences, and behaviors among U.S. adults who play video games (n
= 2,034). The survey was conducted from May 30 – June 7, 2022.<br>
<br>
Video games have become one of humanity’s favorite forms of
entertainment, with an estimated 3 billion players worldwide. People
of all ages, nationalities, genders, and socioeconomic statuses
play, and it is this broad and extensive reach that creates an
enormous opportunity to address climate change. This study helps lay
a foundation for engagement that the gaming community can build on.<br>
<br>
Key findings from this study include the following:<br>
<blockquote>Global Warming Attitudes & Risk Perceptions<br>
<br>
About three in four video gamers (73%) think global warming is
happening, and the majority of video gamers (56%) understand that
global warming is mostly human-caused. These proportions are
nearly identical to the proportions in the U.S. population
overall, as measured in the Climate Change in the American Mind
study conducted in April and May of 2022 (72% believe global
warming is happening, 56% believe it is human-caused).<br>
<br>
Seven in ten video gamers (70%) say they are either “somewhat” or
“very” worried about global warming, compared with 64% of the U.S.
population overall.<br>
<br>
Video gamers feel a range of emotions related to global warming.
Half or more video gamers say they feel either “very” or
“moderately” interested (68%), sad (57%), afraid (54%), disgusted
(54%), angry (52%), hopeful (53%), or outraged (50%) when thinking
about global warming. In comparison, fewer U.S. residents overall
say they feel most of these emotions related to global warming
(interested, 62%; disgusted, 51%; sad, 51%; afraid, 46%; angry,
44%; outraged, 42%; hopeful, 38%).<br>
<br>
About half of video gamers (48%) either “strongly” or “somewhat”
agree that they have personally experienced the effects of global
warming, compared with 43% of U.S. residents overall. By contrast,
only about one in three (33%) video gamers say that global warming
is harming people in the U.S. “right now,” which is much lower
than the proportion of U.S. residents overall who say so (48%).<br>
<br>
Most video gamers think global warming will harm plant and animal
species (74%), future generations of people (72%), people in
developing countries (69%), the world’s poor (69%), people in the
U.S. (67%), people in their community (60%), their family (58%),
and themselves personally (56%). These proportions are similar to
the U.S. population overall, although the percentage who think
global warming will harm them personally is higher among video
gamers than among the U.S. population overall (47%).<br>
<br>
Who Should Act on Global Warming?<br>
<br>
About half of video gamers are at least “moderately confident”
that people from the gaming community, working together, can
affect what local businesses (52%), corporations (52%), their
state government (50%), the federal government (49%), or their
local government (48%) does about global warming.<br>
<br>
Most video gamers (56%) say that the gaming industry has a
responsibility to act on global warming, and it should do what it
can to reduce its own carbon emissions.<br>
<br>
Additionally, more than four in ten video gamers (45%) think the
video gaming industry should be doing either “much more” (14%) or
“more” (31%) to address global warming.<br>
<br>
Most video gamers (54%) think global warming should be either a
“very high” or “high” priority for the president and Congress.
Additionally, about six in ten video gamers (61%) think developing
sources of clean energy should be either a “very high” or high
priority. These proportions are about the same as the U.S.
population overall (51% and 61%, respectively).<br>
<br>
Personal and Collective Actions to Limit Global Warming<br>
<br>
More than half of video gamers (59%) say they either “probably” or
“definitely” would sign a petition about global warming. Many
video gamers also say they would volunteer their time (49%) or
donate (48%) to an organization working on global warming, contact
government officials about global warming (45%), or meet with an
elected official or their staff (41%). The proportion of video
gamers who say they would engage in these actions is higher than
the U.S. population overall, where half or fewer say they would
sign a petition (51%), volunteer (32%), donate (31%), contact
officials (29%), or meet with an elected official (27%).<br>
<br>
Additionally, more than four in ten video gamers (44%) would
support an organization engaging in non-violent civil disobedience
against corporate or government activities that make global
warming worse, and 38% would personally engage in such non-violent
civil disobedience. In contrast, only 27% of U.S. residents
overall say that they would support non-violent civil
disobedience, and 17% say they would personally engage in it.<br>
<br>
A majority of video gamers (52%) say they are either “probably”
(25%) or “definitely” (19%) willing to join a campaign to convince
elected officials to take action to reduce global warming or are
currently participating in such a campaign (7%). In contrast, only
27% of U.S. residents overall say they would participate in a
campaign for climate action, and only about 1% say they are
currently doing so.<br>
<br>
About half of video gamers (49%) say they have rewarded companies
that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their
products one or more times in the past 12 months. More than four
in ten video gamers (43%) say they have punished companies that
are opposing steps to reduce global warming by not buying their
products one or more times.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-do-video-gamers-think-about-global-warming/toc/2/">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-do-video-gamers-think-about-global-warming/toc/2/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-do-video-gamers-think-about-global-warming/">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-do-video-gamers-think-about-global-warming/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at attitudes, platitudes and
platters of meat. ]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>December 4, 2008</b></i></font> <br>
December 4, 2008: <br>
<p>• Washington Post writer Ezra Klein calls upon climate activists
to highlight the role meat consumption plays in fueling the
climate crisis.</p>
<p>Ben Adler has an excellent article in this month's American
Prospect detailing the environmental movement's curious silence on
meat. For a bunch of folks willing to tell you that greenhouse
gases will crisp the earth and kill countless human beings, they
seem oddly afraid of advocating one of the simplest and most
powerful meliorating steps:</p>
<blockquote> <br>
Why are environmental groups and even politicians willing to tell
Americans to drive smaller cars or take the bus to work but
unwilling to tell them to eat less meat? If you live in a recently
built suburb you must drive most places whether you wish to or
not. Walking or public transit simply isn't an option. But you
could stop buying ground beef and start buying veggie burgers
tomorrow, saving yourself some money and sparing yourself some
cholesterol in the process. And yet no one, other than a small
cadre of lonely fringe activists like Hartglass, devotes much
energy to making the connection. Food experts and
environmentalists generally worry that Americans might react with
hostility similar to Boris Johnson's if asked to put down their
hamburgers.<br>
[...]<br>
But while politicians may have reason to fear the meat lobby,
environmental groups are supposed to push the political envelope.
They began calling for caps on carbon emissions in the late 1990s,
before it was politically palatable, and both major party
candidates for president endorsed cap-and-trade in 2008. Many
people see their car or truck as a part of their identity, but
that hasn't stopped the Sierra Club from ensuring that every
American is aware of the environmental threat their vehicle poses.
And yet, the major environmental groups have been unwilling to
push the meat issue. <br>
<br>
"I don't know of anyone in the environmental community that has
taken a stance of 'we support no meat consumption because of
global warming,'" says Tim Greef, deputy legislative director for
the League of Conservation Voters. Adds Nierenberg, "It's the
elephant in the room for environmentalists. They haven't found a
good way to address it."The Sierra Club's list of 29 programs --
which includes such relatively small-bore issues as trash-transfer
stations (they threaten "quality of life and property values") --
does not include any on the impact of meat consumption. Their main
list of things you can do to help prevent global warming mentions
hanging your clothes out to dry instead of using a dryer but makes
no mention of eating less meat. "The Sierra Club isn't opposed to
eating meat, so that's sort of the long and short of it. [We are]
not opposed to hunting, not opposed to ranching," says Josh
Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, the nation's oldest and
largest grass-roots environmental organization.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course not. Then they'd seem like effete coastal elitists. But
when the Sierra Club is afraid of being called effete coastal
elitists, it's not really clear where that leaves you. Someone
needs to push the envelope on this stuff, and it may as well be
the professional tree huggers. It's their job to be called
environmentalists. The PB&J Campaign is great, but they need
some support.Anyway, read Adler's article.<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://prospect.org/article/are-cows-worse-cars-0">http://prospect.org/article/are-cows-worse-cars-0</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>======================================= <br>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*Mass media is
lacking, many </span>daily summaries<span class="moz-txt-tag">
deliver global warming news - a few are email delivered*</span></b>
<br>
<br>
=========================================================<br>
<b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day
or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top
headlines deliver the full story, for free.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <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 </b><span class="moz-txt-star"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><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>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>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 at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<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"><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 personal 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">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><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">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">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><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>
</body>
</html>