<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>December 5, 2022</b></i></font></p>
<i>[ from The Intercept ] </i><br>
<b>Addressing Climate Change Will Not “Save the Planet”</b><br>
The dismal reality is that green energy will save not the complex
web of life on Earth but the particular way of life of one
domineering species.<br>
Christopher Ketcham<br>
December 3 2022<br>
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FINDS itself in a terrifying place today,
witness to mass extinction, helpless to stop the march of industrial
Homo sapiens, the pillage of habitat, the loss of wildlands, and the
impoverishment of ecosystems. Many of its leading figures are in
despair. “I’m 40 years into conservation biology and I can tell you
we are losing badly, getting our asses kicked,” Dan Ashe, director
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President Barack Obama,
told me recently. “There are almost no reasons to be optimistic.”<br>
This might explain the discipline’s desperate hitching of its wagon
to the climate movement. Climate, after all, is the environmental
cause du jour, eclipsing all other sustainability concerns,
increasingly attractive as a rallying cry for a public that has
canonized it as one of the major political, social, and economic
issues of our time. Mainstream climate activism of the Bill McKibben
variety points toward a grandly hopeful end within the confines of
acceptable capitalist discourse: decarbonization of the global
economy, with technologies driven by profit-seeking corporations
subsidized by governments. Taking up this banner of optimistic
can-do-ism, the environmental movement has convinced itself, and
sought to convince the public, that with a worldwide build-out of
renewable energy systems, humanity will power its dynamic industrial
civilization with jobs-producing green machines while also — somehow
— rescuing countless species from the brink.<br>
<br>
“But this happens to be a lie,” Ashe told me. “The lie is that if we
address the climate crisis, we will also solve the biodiversity
crisis...<br>
- -<br>
Pondering these matters, Dan Ashe had arrived at a revelation that
amounted to a conservation biologist’s worst nightmare. “I’ve come
around to the idea that a lot of the diversity of life on Earth may
be incompatible with human ambitions and aspirations. On the other
hand,” he told me, “I can be very optimistic about climate because
ultimately humanity is going to deal with carbon pollution. It’s an
issue for our well-being. We can solve it by building machines and
making money. That’s obvious in the Inflation Reduction Act. … But
with the biodiversity crisis, you can’t solve it with machines, and
it involves constraints on our making money. And history shows we
aren’t very good at constraint.”<br>
Ashe suggests that conservation biologists cease the empty claims
about “saving the planet” with climate mitigation and start speaking
truth: There is at present no plan, in any country, anywhere, on a
global or national scale, to address extinctions, biodiversity
crash, and habitat loss. The dismal reality is that with a green
build-out, we will be saving not the complex web of life on Earth
but the particular way of life of one privileged domineering species
that depends for its success on a nature-ravaging network of
technological marvels. Only once this truth is understood can honest
decisions be made about what kind of world humanity wishes to
inhabit in the age of ecological disorder.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/">https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/</a><br>
- - <br>
[ author]<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.christopherketcham.com/?page_id=243">https://www.christopherketcham.com/?page_id=243</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ A slightly radical, philosophical essay re-evaluates our
condition - interesting discussions ]</i><br>
<b>Eleven wrong ideas about climate</b><br>
Many of them are full of good will and good intentions—the road to
hell, as we know, is paved with them<br>
Michael Löwy - October 20, 2022 <br>
In various speeches on climate and climate change, we find a large
number of commonplace ideas, repeated a thousand times in all tones,
which constitute wrong ideas. These lead, voluntarily or not, to
ignoring the real issues, or to belief in pseudo-solutions. I am not
referring here to negationist or denialist speeches, but to those
that claim to be ‘green’ and ‘sustainable.’ These are assertions of
a very diverse nature: some are real manipulations, fake news, lies,
mystifications; others are half-truths, or a quarter of the truth.
Many of them are full of good will and good intentions—the road to
hell, as we know, is paved with them.<br>
<br>
This is the road we are on: if we continue with business as
usual—even if painted green—in a few decades we will find ourselves
in a situation much worse than most of the circles of hell described
by Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy.<br>
<br>
The following eleven examples are just a few of the common mistakes
to avoid.<br>
<blockquote><b>1. We must save the planet</b><br>
We see it everywhere: on billboards, in the press, in magazines,
and in statements by political leaders. In fact, it is nonsense:
the planet Earth is not at all in danger! Whatever the climate, it
will continue to revolve around the sun for the next many millions
of years. What is threatened by global warming are the many forms
of life on this planet, including our own: the species Homo
Sapiens.<br>
<br>
“Saving the planet” gives the false impression that it is
something that is external to us, that is somewhere else, and that
does not concern us, directly. People are not asked to worry about
their lives, or their children’s lives, but about a vague
abstraction, ‘the planet.’ No wonder that the least politicized
people react by saying: I am too busy with my own problems to
worry about ‘the planet.’<br>
<br>
<b>2. Do something to save the planet</b><br>
This common mistake, infinitely repeated, is a variant of the
previous formula.<br>
<br>
It contains a half-truth: it is necessary that each one personally
contributes to avoid the catastrophe. But it conveys the illusion
that it is enough to accumulate ‘small gestures’—turning off the
lights, closing the tap—to avoid the worst. We thus
evacuate—consciously or not—the necessity of deep structural
changes in the current mode of production and consumption; changes
that question the very foundations of the capitalist system, based
on a single criterion: the maximization of profit.<br>
<br>
<b>3. The polar bear is in danger</b><br>
It’s a picture that is everywhere, repeated over and over again: a
poor polar bear trying to survive in the middle of drifting ice
blocks. Certainly, the life of the polar bear—and of many other
species in the polar regions—is threatened. This image may arouse
the compassion of a few generous souls, but for most of the
population it is a matter that does not concern them.<br>
<br>
But the melting of the polar ice is a threat not only to the brave
polar bear, but in the long run to half, if not more, of humanity
living in large cities by the sea. The melting of the immense
glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica can raise the sea level by a
few dozen meters. However, it only takes a few meters for cities
like Venice, Amsterdam, London, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai
and Hong Kong to be submerged. Of course, this will not happen
next year, but scientists can only observe that the melting of
these glaciers is accelerating. It is impossible to predict how
fast it will happen; many factors are difficult to calculate for
the moment.<br>
<br>
By putting forward only the poor polar bear, we hide that it is a
terrifying affair which concerns us all.<br>
<br>
<b>4. The Global South is at risk of suffering a lot with climate
change</b><br>
It is a half-truth, full of good will: global warming will affect
mainly the poor countries of the South, which are the least
responsible for carbon emissions. It is true that these countries
will be the most affected by climate disasters, hurricanes,
drought, reduction of water sources, and so on. But it is not true
that the countries of the North will not be affected, to a very
large extent, by these same dangers: haven’t we seen terrible
forest fires in the USA, in Canada, in Australia? Haven’t heat
waves caused many victims in Europe? We could multiply the
examples.<br>
<br>
If we maintain the impression that these threats only concern the
peoples of the South, we will only be able to mobilize a minority
of convinced internationalists. However, sooner or later it is the
whole of humanity that will be confronted with unprecedented
catastrophes. It is necessary to explain to the populations of the
North that this threat weighs on them too, very directly.<br>
<br>
<b>5. By the year 2100, temperature may rise to 3.5 degrees (above
pre-industrial period)</b><br>
This is a statement that is, unfortunately, found in many serious
documents. This seems to me a double error. From a scientific
point of view, we know that climate change is not a linear
process; it can have sudden ‘jumps’ and accelerations. Many
dimensions of global warming have feedbacks, whose consequences
are unpredictable. For example: forest fires emit huge amounts of
CO2, which contribute to warming, thus intensifying forest fires.
It is therefore very difficult to predict what will happen in four
or five years. How can we pretend to predict a century away?<br>
<br>
From a political point of view: at the end of the century, we will
all be dead, as well as our children and grandchildren. How can we
mobilize people’s attention and commitment for a future that does
not concern them, neither from near nor from far? So we should
worry about the generations to come? Noble thought, argued at
length by the philosopher Hans Jonas: our moral duty toward those
not yet born. A small minority of very respectable people could be
touched by this argument. For most ordinary people, what will
happen in 2100 is not a matter that interests them much.<br>
<br>
<b>6. By 2050 we will be carbon neutral</b><br>
This promise of the European Union and of various governments in
Europe and elsewhere is not a half-truth, nor is it naïve
goodwill. There are two reasons why it is pure and simple
mystification.<br>
<br>
Instead of committing now, immediately, to the urgent changes
demanded by the scientific community (the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change) for the next three to four years, our
governments promise wonders for 2050. This is obviously much too
late. Besides, as governments change every four or five years,
what guarantee is there for these fictitious commitments in 30
years? It is a grotesque way to justify present inaction with a
vague promise in the distant future.<br>
<br>
Moreover, ‘carbon neutrality’ does not mean a drastic reduction of
emissions, quite the contrary! It is a misleading calculation
based on offsets, ‘compensation mechanisms’; company X continues
to emit CO2, but plants a forest in Indonesia, supposed to absorb
the equivalent of this CO2—if it does not catch fire. The
ecological NGOs have already denounced the farce of offsets
enough, I won’t cover the same ground here. But this shows the
perfect mystification contained in the promise of ‘carbon
neutrality.’<br>
<br>
<b>7. Banks finance renewable energies and thus participate in the
ecological transition</b><br>
This common method of green-washing is also deception and
manipulation. Of course, banks and multinationals also invest in
renewable energies, but precise studies by ATTAC and other NGOs
have shown that this is a small—sometimes tiny—part of their
financial operations: the bulk continues to go to oil, coal, gas.
It is a simple question of profitability and competition for
market shares.<br>
<br>
All ‘reasonable’ governments—unlike Trump, Bolsonaro and co.—also
swear, in every tone, that they are committed to the ecological
transition and renewable energies. But as soon as there is a
problem with the supply of a fossil energy—gas recently, because
of the aggressive Russian policy—they take refuge in coal,
reactivating lignite power plants, or they implore the (bloody)
royal family of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.<br>
<br>
The fine speeches about the ‘ecological transition’ hide an
unpleasant truth: it is not enough to develop renewable energies.
First of all, renewable energies are intermittent: the Sun does
not always shine in Northern Europe… Of course, technical advances
exist in this field, but they cannot solve everything. And above
all, renewables require mining resources that are likely to be
exhausted. If the wind and the Sun are unlimited, it is not at all
the case of the materials necessary to use them (lithium, rare
earth metals). It will therefore be necessary to consider a
reduction in the global consumption of energy, and a selective
decrease: unimaginable measures within the framework of
capitalism.<br>
<br>
<b>8. Thanks to carbon capture and sequestration technology, we
will avoid the climate catastrophe</b><br>
This is an argument that is increasingly used by governments, and
it can even be found in some serious documents. It is the illusion
of a technological miracle solution, which would save the climate,
without the need to change anything in our (capitalist) mode of
production and in our way of life.<br>
<br>
Alas, the sad truth is that these miraculous techniques of capture
and sequestration of atmospheric carbon are far from being a
reality. Certainly, a few attempts have been made, a few projects
are underway here and there, but for the moment we cannot say that
this technology is effective and operational. It has not yet
solved the difficulties of either capture or sequestration (in
underground regions impervious to leakage). And there is no
guarantee that in the future it will be able to do it.<br>
<br>
<b>9. Thanks to the electric car, we will substantially reduce
greenhouse gas emissions</b><br>
This is another example of a half-truth: it is true that electric
cars are less polluting than thermal cars (gasoline or diesel),
and therefore less damaging to the health of urban residents.
However, from the point of view of climate change, their record is
much more mixed. They emit less CO2, but contribute to a
disastrous ‘all-electricity’ situation. And yet, in most
countries, electricity is produced with… fossil fuels (coal or
oil). The reduced emissions of electric cars are ‘compensated’ by
the increased emissions resulting from the higher consumption of
electricity. In France, electricity is produced by nuclear energy,
another dead end. In Brazil, it is the mega-dams that destroy
forests and are therefore responsible for a poor carbon balance.<br>
<br>
If we want to drastically reduce emissions, we cannot avoid a
significant reduction of private car traffic, thanks to the
promotion of alternative means of transport: free public
transport, pedestrian zones, cycle lanes. The electric car
maintains the illusion that we can continue as before, by changing
the technology.<br>
<br>
<b>10. It is through market mechanisms that we will succeed in
reducing CO2 emissions</b><br>
Among sincere environmentalists, this is an illusion; in the
mouths of governments, it is still a mystification. Market
mechanisms have proven their inefficiency in reducing greenhouse
gases. Not only are they anti-social measures that make the
working classes pay the price of the ‘ecological transition,’ but
above all they are incapable of making a substantial contribution
to limiting emissions. The spectacular failure of the ‘carbon
markets’ instituted by the Kyoto agreements are the best
demonstration of this.<br>
<br>
It is not by ‘indirect’ or ‘incentive’ measures, based on the
logic of the capitalist market, that we will be able to put a
brake on the omnipotence of fossil fuels, which have kept the
system going for two centuries. To begin with, it will be
necessary to expropriate the capitalist energy monopolies, to
create a public energy service, which will have as its objective
the drastic reduction of the exploitation of fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
<b>11. Climate change is inevitable, we can only adapt</b><br>
This kind of fatalistic assertion can be found in the mainstream
media and among political ‘leaders.’ For example, Mr. Christophe
Bechu, Minister of Ecological Transition in the new Macron
government in France, recently declared:<br>
<br>
Since we will not be able to prevent global warming, no matter how
hard we try, we must manage to limit its effects while adapting to
it.<br>
<br>
This is an excellent recipe to justify inaction, immobility, and
the abandonment of any ‘effort’ to try to avoid the worst.
However, the IPCC scientists have clearly explained that if
warming has indeed already started, it is still possible to avoid
exceeding the 1.5 degree red line—provided that we start
immediately to reduce CO2 emissions in a very significant way.<br>
<br>
Of course, we must try to adapt. But if climate change becomes
uncontrollable and accelerates, ‘adaptation’ is only a decoy. How
can we ‘adapt’ to temperatures above 50°C?<br>
</blockquote>
We could multiply the examples. All of them lead to the conclusion
that if we want to avoid climate change, we must change the system
and replace it by another form of production and consumption. This
is what we call ecosocialism. But this is the subject of another
text.<br>
<br>
Michael Löwy, a philosopher and sociologist of Brazilian origin, is
a member of the New Anti-capitalist Party in France and of the
Fourth International. He is the author of many books, including The
Marxism of Che Guevara, Marxism and Liberation Theology, Fatherland
or Mother Earth? and The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin
America. He is joint author (with Joel Kovel) of the International
Ecosocialist Manifesto.<br>
<br>
This article originally appeared on the Global Ecosocialist Network
website.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/eleven-wrong-ideas-about-climate">https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/eleven-wrong-ideas-about-climate</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Radio interview -- ask a Hollywood insider --- audiences seek
hopeful messages - and stories that ignore climate change, will
soon be ignored ]</i><br>
<b>Climate change continues to be vacant in our movies and TV shows</b><br>
December 2, 2022 Ryan Patrick Hooper<br>
Sammy Roth is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times who focuses a
lot on the energy beat, and recently wrote about this lack of
climate change representation in media.<br>
Ryan Patrick Hooper<br>
One of the main things on young people’s minds these days is climate
change. They worry about the future and their place in it. Some are
at the perfect age where it feels like it’s too late to do anything
about climate change, even though at the same time, it’s all they
can think about. <br>
<br>
When these younger generations reach 60 years old or so, will they
have to spend their later years in life fighting in the water wars?
We hope not. But they’re not alone in worrying about climate change
and how it’s going to affect our lives in the future. <br>
<br>
Usually, when something is rattling around our consciousness, it
ends up in our arts, in our writing, in our paintings, in our TV
shows and in our films. But a recent survey points out that this is
not the case for the subject of climate change. <br>
<br>
You might have a high profile film or two that turns it into a plot
point, but statistically, it’s not something we’re seeing on our
screens. So why is that? <br>
<br>
Sammy Roth is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times. He focuses a
lot on the energy beat, and he recently wrote about this lack of
climate change representation in media, writing that, “The climate
crisis is the biggest story of our time. So why isn’t the
entertainment industry acting like it?” Roth joined CultureShift to
talk about climate change representation in our movies and TV shows
— and the lack thereof. <br>
<br>
“If we don’t have some ability to be optimistic, if we don’t have
some ability to envision a better, safer future, there’s no way
we’re going to bring it about. I think that starts with our
imagination.” — Sammy Roth, LA Times <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wdet.org/2022/12/02/climate-change-continues-to-be-vacant-in-our-movies-and-tv-shows/">https://wdet.org/2022/12/02/climate-change-continues-to-be-vacant-in-our-movies-and-tv-shows/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUeM1WI2xg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUeM1WI2xg</a><br>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> [ Beckie is a young woman journalist, has assembled a nice
video news show ]</i><br>
<b>Dutch government plans to forcibly buyout farms, Greta and 600
young activists sue Sweden | Recap</b><br>
Beckisphere Climate Corner<br>
107 views Dec 3, 2022<br>
If you like the work I do, please consider joining the Beckisphere
Patreon at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.patreon.com/beckisphere">https://www.patreon.com/beckisphere</a>
or buying me a cup of coffee at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.buymeacoffee.com/beckisphere">https://www.buymeacoffee.com/beckisphere</a>.
Remember to talk about the climate crisis every day and support your
local news organizations! <br>
<br>
Source list- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://heavenly-sceptre-002.notion.site/Climate-Recap-Dec-3-90e500c2c76d4abdb55aa70a37a039ab">https://heavenly-sceptre-002.notion.site/Climate-Recap-Dec-3-90e500c2c76d4abdb55aa70a37a039ab</a><br>
Timestamps-<br>
00:00 Intro<br>
00:47 Corporate solar<br>
02:45 Clean energy labor abuses<br>
04:50 Swedish lawsuit<br>
06:36 Puerto Rican lawsuit<br>
09:39 Personal ad<br>
10:41 Germany + Qatar = LNG<br>
11:52 Dutch farm buyout<br>
14:43 Canada adaptation<br>
17:00 Rue break<br>
17:18 Alaska oil lease sales<br>
19:16 CCS verification<br>
21:08 Closing notes<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUeM1WI2xg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUeM1WI2xg</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ For our climate education --- basic history of climate science
- video 31 mins]</i><br>
<b>Global Warming: An Inconvenient History</b><br>
Simon Clark<br>
60K views Nov 30, 2022<br>
This is the story of how we discovered the planet was warming, and
why. Learn the building blocks of climate science with Brilliant: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.brilliant.org/simonclark">https://www.brilliant.org/simonclark</a><br>
<br>
The climate crisis is caused by a build up of carbon dioxide in the
Earth's atmosphere, which traps energy and raises the planet's
average temperature. This was discovered over the course of 200
years by a large cast of chemists, physicists, geologists, and other
scientists. Some of them you may know, such as Joseph Fourier and
Charles Keeling, but many of them are less well known. This video
tells the remarkable story of men and women like Eunice Foote, Roger
Revelle, Guy Callendar, and James Croll. But there's still more to
be told! If you would like to see part 2 of the story, focusing on
the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, let me know in the comments.<br>
- -<br>
Our Biggest Experiment: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://geni.us/biggestexperiment">https://geni.us/biggestexperiment</a><br>
Discovery of Global Warming: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://geni.us/weartdiscovery">https://geni.us/weartdiscovery</a><br>
Firmament: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://geni.us/firmament">https://geni.us/firmament</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGtAilkWTtI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGtAilkWTtI</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at early attempts to discuss
morality ]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>December 5, 2007</b></i></font> <br>
December 5, 2007: In a monologue that clearly explains why he had
spent the previous nineteen years claiming that climate change was a
hoax, Rush Limbaugh declares:<br>
<br>
"Can I give you a real simple reality? It may be controversial, but
it's inarguable. This is a world that runs on fossil fuels, folks,
and it's going to run on fossil fuels long after you and I and your
grandkids are dead. Wind, solar, all pipe dream stuff, as we sit
here and speak now. Would somebody explain to me what is so immoral
about the leaders of this country attempting to maintain a supply
and access to the fossil fuel that runs the world and runs our
economy?...What I'm suggesting here is that even if a part of all of
the strategy here [with the Iraq War] is to maintain the free flow
of oil at market prices, what in the name of Sam Hill is wrong with
that? What's the crime? Where's the immorality in it?"<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/12/05/what_s_wrong_with_war_for_oil2">http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/12/05/what_s_wrong_with_war_for_oil2</a><br>
<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>