<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>January 20, 2023</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ attacks of disinformation ]</i><br>
<b>Fossil fuel sector spent millions on ads to influence public
during Cop27</b><br>
By Ellen Ormesher | Reporter<br>
JANUARY 19, 2023 <br>
The Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition has
revealed the scale of paid advertising climate disinformation
detected around the United Nations climate conference (Cop27) in
Sharm el-Sheikh.<br>
The ‘Deny, Deceive, Delay’ report, released January 19, reflects the
efforts of the coalition’s Cop27 Intelligence Unit, which includes
analysts from 18 organizations, having been led by the Institute for
Strategic Dialogue (ISD). The unit tracked the most prominent false
and misleading narratives posted to social media.<br>
<br>
What did it find?<br>
$3m-$4m was spent on Meta by the fossil fuel sector between
September 1 and November 23, 2022.<br>
<br>
Broader tactics have changed from climate denial to subtler forms of
‘delayism’ and ‘inactivism’.<br>
<br>
A small number of groups drove the majority of false or greenwashed
advertising on Facebook. These included misleading claims on the
climate crisis, net-zero targets as well as pushing the necessity of
fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
The analysis identified 3,781 ads during this time. Many were from
Energy Citizens (a PR group of the American Petroleum Institute),
while America’s Plastic Makers alone spent over $1m and the Saudi
Green Initiative ran 13 ads.<br>
<br>
Some organizations, including PragerU and The Heartland Institute,
posted ads with active climate denial – for example, claiming that a
‘New poll debunks the 97% consensus claim about #climatechange’ or
asking ‘Has environmentalism become a religion?’<br>
<br>
Analysts also detected a surprising increase in content related to
outright climate denial, including a spike on Twitter for the
hashtag #ClimateScam since July 2022.<br>
<br>
The term ‘Climate Scam’ was actively recommended by Twitter for
organic searches of ‘climate’, often as the top result, as well as
when ‘#climate’ is included within a post. This was observed during
Cop27 and remains the case despite direct flagging by campaign group
Climate Action Against Disinformation’s (CAAD) partners to the
platform.<br>
<br>
“This research shows that climate disinformation isn’t going away
and, in fact, it’s getting worse. During Cop27, Twitter’s search
engine pushed #ClimateScam as a top result without any justification
for the data behind it,” said Erika Seiber, climate disinformation
spokesperson at Friends of the Earth US.<br>
<br>
“Until governments hold social media and ad companies accountable,
and companies hold professional disinformers accountable, crucial
conversations around the climate crisis are going to be put in
jeopardy. To start, Twitter should offer an explanation of how this
inexcusable climate denial trend came to be.”<br>
What happens now?<br>
The report emerges not long after Sultan Ahmed Jaber was announced
as the new president for Cop28, making the next UN Climate Summit
the first to be led by an active oil executive.<br>
<br>
CAAD highlights that Cop27 saw record-breaking attendance for fossil
lobbyists and that these developments set the stage for a greater
spread of disinformation at next year’s climate conference and
around other climate policy moments.<br>
<br>
“Cop27 became the first conference where climate misinformation
became part of the conversation among country delegations and
leaders,” says Jake Dubbins, co-chair of Conscious Advertising
Network. “Leaders we spoke to from countries Germany to Saint Lucia
were all deeply concerned about the disinformation war. If the
urgency of the climate crisis continues to be undermined by mis- and
disinformation, then the climate action we all so desperately need
will continue to be delayed to the point of no return.”<br>
<br>
CAAD is now calling on the US government, EU, UN, IPCC and Big Tech
companies to acknowledge the climate disinformation threat and take
the required steps to improve transparency and data access to
quantify disinformation trends, to stop misleading fossil fuel
advocacy in paid ad content, enforce policies against repeat
offenders spreading disinformation on platforms, and to adopt a
standardized and comprehensive definition of climate disinformation.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-sector-spent-millions-ads-influence-public-during-cop27"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-sector-spent-millions-ads-influence-public-during-cop27</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ an important organization ]</i><br>
<b>Climate Action Against Disinformation</b><br>
A global coalition of over 50 leading climate and
anti-disinformation organisations<br>
<b>Universal Definition</b><br>
Climate disinformation and misinformation refers to deceptive or
misleading content that:<br>
<br>
Undermines the existence or impacts of climate change, the
unequivocal human influence on climate change, and the need for
corresponding urgent action according to the IPCC scientific
consensus and in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement;<br>
Misrepresents scientific data, including by omission or
cherry-picking, in order to erode trust in climate science,
climate-focused institutions, experts, and solutions; or<br>
Falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in
fact contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific
consensus on mitigation or adaptation.<br>
<b>Problem</b><br>
Climate change misinformation and disinformation are major threats
to climate action. They create a distorted perception of climate
science and solutions; meanwhile they weaken the public mandate for
effective domestic and international policies aligned with the goals
of the Paris Agreement.<br>
<br>
Outright climate denial no longer has as much traction in mainstream
media, but continues to flourish across social media, with
algorithms often amplifying the worst and most extreme content.
Discourses of climate delay also continue to pervade the mainstream
media and social media platforms around topics such as net zero
policy, and pose a real threat to implementing targets or agendas in
line with the urgency of the threat. In parallel, digital
advertising and monetisation through social media and the open web
diversify opportunities to spread climate mis/disinformation –
including ‘greenwashing’ – and, in many cases, create active
financial incentives to do so.<br>
<br>
More than 20 leading climate and anti-disinformation organisations
established a global coalition in the summer of 2021, to safeguard
public debate and mitigate information attacks against the COP26
summit. These efforts led to the creation of a universal definition
of climate mis/disinformation; initiated a long-term process for
decision makers to acknowledge the threat; spotlighted climate
disinformation threats; provided insight for media outlets globally;
and helped decision makers to understand the scale of the problem.
It also inspired Google to roll out a global climate misinformation
policy across all its monetised products and services including
YouTube and to ban disinformation adverts that deny the existence of
climate change or humanity’s impact on the climate. While good
progress, these efforts were only the initial steps of what is
needed to solve the problems detailed above.<br>
<br>
<b>Solution</b><br>
We need more robust, coordinated and proactive strategies to deal
with the scale of the threat to platforms. (For the purposes of this
document, ‘platforms’ henceforth refers to both tech platforms and
ad networks serving the open web.)<br>
<br>
To prevent climate mis/disinformation and its impacts on climate
action, civil society needs to pressure platforms, governments and
regulators to rein in the problem of climate denial and wider
discourses of delay. As a first step, we need acknowledgement and
transparency about mis/disinformation of all forms from the
platforms, and to support international and national government
legislation that would enforce this.<br>
<br>
The coming two years will provide opportunities to turbo-charge
climate disinformation in the mainstream, `including: the COP27
& COP28 summits; elections in key geographies such as Australia,
Brazil, France, India, Nigeria, Turkey, Ukraine and the United
States; the release of major IPCC reports; updated announcements on
nationally determined contributions (NDCs); and other key milestones
in climate financing and governance. Fortunately, the stars are also
aligning for opportunities to create strong policies from both
governments and tech platforms, if we continue to build up what we
achieved together in 2021 and organise collective interventions for
decision-makers and the tech platforms to ramp up their action
against climate mis/disinformation.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://caad.info/what-is-climate-disinformation/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://caad.info/what-is-climate-disinformation/</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ </i><i>Davos 2023</i><i> Greta wades into international
affairs ] </i><br>
<b>‘Ridiculous’: Greta Thunberg blasts decision to let UAE oil boss
chair climate talks</b><br>
Climate activist at Davos says lobbyists have been influencing
conferences ‘since forever’<br>
Four years after taking the World Economic Forum by storm, Greta
Thunberg returned to Davos on Thursday to blast the United Arab
Emirates for appointing the head of its state-owned oil company to
chair the Cop28 climate talks later this year.<br>
<br>
Thunberg said it was “completely ridiculous” that Sultan Ahmed
al-Jaber, chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
(ADNOC), will preside over the next round of global climate talks in
Dubai in November.<br>
<br>
She told an event on the sidelines of the WEF’s annual meeting in
Davos that lobbyists have been influencing these conferences “since,
basically, forever”.<br>
<br>
“This just puts a very clear face to it,” she added. “It’s
completely ridiculous.”<br>
- - video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/EU6vQXif5Xo" moz-do-not-send="true">https://youtu.be/EU6vQXif5Xo</a><br>
A “cease and desist” order, signed by Thunberg, and fellow activists
Gualinga, Neubauer and Vanessa Nakate from Uganda, said Big Oil has
known for decades that fossil fuels cause climate breakdown, and has
misled the public and deceived politicians.<br>
<br>
“You must end these activities as they are in direct violation of
our human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment,
your duty of care, as well as the rights of Indigenous people,” the
notice says.<br>
<br>
The people who are mostly fueling the destruction of the planet, who
are at the very core of the climate crisis, investing in fossil
fuels, are in Davos, Thunberg said.<br>
<br>
“And yet somehow these are the people that we seem to rely on
solving our problems, where they have proven time and time again,
that they are not prioritising that,” she said. “They are
prioritising self greed, corporate greed and short term economic
profits above people and above planet.”...<br>
Nakate said the climate crisis is evident in the areas that are most
affected, such as the horn of Africa, where children are suffering
from severe, acute malnutrition.<br>
<br>
The quartet were joined by Fatih Birol, head of the International
Energy Agency.<br>
<br>
In 2021, the IEA said that exploitation and development of new oil
and gas fields had to stop that year, if the world was to meet the
goal of net zero emissions by 2050.<br>
<br>
On Thursday, Birol said he was “very happy” that the activists were
pushing the climate agenda forwards...<br>
Birol warned it might not make sense for banks to fund new fossil
fuel projects.<br>
<br>
Asked about the banks who fund new oil and gas generation, despite
their net zero pledges, Birol said it was “their money”, not the
IEA’s. But added there was a risk that demand might not be there
when new oilfields come online, perhaps six or seven years after the
decision is taken to drill.<br>
<br>
In 2019, Thunberg warned Davos delegates that “our house is on
fire”, after travelling by train to the ski resort in a 32-hour
journey, and camping with climate scientists on the mountain slopes
– where temperatures fell to -18C..<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/greta-thunberg-uae-cop28-davos-climate"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/greta-thunberg-uae-cop28-davos-climate</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Covering Climate Now ]</i><br>
<b>“Exxon Knew” Story Finally Goes Mainstream</b><b><br>
</b>“Exxon really did know.” So wrote Bloomberg columnist Mark
Gonglof, commenting on the latest revelations that the oil giant
knew decades ago that it would dangerously overheat the planet. A
peer-reviewed study released last week in Science cited internal
ExxonMobil documents showing that, as far back 1977, the company’s
scientists were predicting the future trajectory of global warming
“correctly and skillfully.” Geoffrey Supran, the study’s co-author,
told the Guardian: “We now have the smoking gun showing that [Exxon]
accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the
science [in public].”<br>
<br>
The fact that “Exxon Knew” was first revealed in 2015 by
investigative reporters at the Los Angeles Times, Inside Climate
News, and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. But
this latest episode in the saga comes with an important twist: This
time, some of the world’s biggest news organizations also covered
the story. So now, it’s not just climate insiders who know that Big
Oil lied — the general public is hearing about it as well.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mailchi.mp/coveringclimatenow/us-supreme-court-v-climate-action-and-the-stories-that-will-follow-16748781?e=d61cfe5aa4"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mailchi.mp/coveringclimatenow/us-supreme-court-v-climate-action-and-the-stories-that-will-follow-16748781?e=d61cfe5aa4</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ study validates common sense - does this mean there is no free
will? Can psychology help? ]</i><br>
<b>‘Born into a time of chaos’: how being pregnant amid a climate
disaster can affect children</b><br>
Study suggests children who were in the womb during Superstorm Sandy
are more likely to have behavior disorders<br>
Paige Perez<br>
Wed 18 Jan 2023 <br>
Four days before Superstorm Sandy made landfall and about three
weeks before her due date, Sporer-Newman gave birth to a baby boy
named Izzy. He was 7lb 6oz and jaundiced, and otherwise appeared
healthy. But as the rain from Sandy began to come down,
Sporer-Newman and her baby would face challenges beyond their
expectations...<br>
- -<br>
A study released this fall suggests there may be other more
insidious, long-term effects. Children who were exposed to
Superstorm Sandy while in the womb have “substantially” higher risks
for developing depression, anxiety and attention deficit and
disruptive behavior disorders, including ADHD.<br>
<br>
The research, published in September in the Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, surveyed 163 preschool-age children and
found that those exposed to Sandy in utero were more than twice as
likely to be diagnosed with anxiety disorders and nearly four times
as likely to be diagnosed for attention deficit and disruptive
behavior disorders. The study also found a sex difference in
diagnosis among girls and boys. Girls were more at risk of anxiety
and depression, and boys were more at risk of ADHD. About 86% of the
study’s participants were from racial and ethnic minorities and
low-income backgrounds.<br>
<br>
Dr Yoko Nomura, the study’s lead author and a professor of
psychology at City University of New York’s Queens College, said she
did not anticipate the magnitude or consistency of these findings.
“Superstorm Sandy turned out to be really a bad, bad guy,” she
said...<br>
- -<br>
All of a sudden, expecting parents were forced to change their birth
plans. One study participant reported having gotten stuck alone in
an elevator. “[She was afraid she would] have a baby in the elevator
without anybody’s help,” Nomura said.<br>
<br>
Sporer-Newman participated in the study. “All I could think about
was how stressed I was,” she said, thinking back on Superstorm Sandy
and Izzy’s birth.<br>
<br>
Though Izzy was born a few days before the storm made landfall,
researchers included him in the group with kids of mothers who
watched news reports of the storm. She went into labor ahead of her
scheduled C-section and gave birth without an epidural – there was
no time for one, she said. “I don’t know if the stress induced
[labor] or … I had so many other things to do that I just wasn’t
paying attention to my own body,” Sporer-Newman said.<br>
<br>
Sporer-Newman wanted to get home before the storm struck and left
the hospital with her son against medical advice. She said hospitals
can get overwhelmed and didn’t want to risk an evacuation. She felt
her chances of staying safe were better at home and, as a medical
professional, she was able to monitor herself and her baby. <br>
- -<br>
At Izzy’s one-month visit, the doctor said that he was not gaining
weight. He was taken to the emergency room, where he remained
hospitalised for 10 days. He was diagnosed as “failure to thrive”,
meaning his weight was below average, and he was not receiving the
nutrition he needed to grow. But hospital staff couldn’t pinpoint
exactly what was wrong. The baby cried and fussed a lot and, in
retrospect, Sporer-Newman wonders if he was in pain. Eventually,
doctors and his mother learned ways to help Izzy gain and maintain
enough weight that allowed him to go home.<br>
<br>
Sporer-Newman said if she had brought Izzy to his early doctor’s
visits, then his struggle to gain weight would have been noticed and
treated earlier. Now, she wonders if the unease around the storm
affected the medical attention Izzy received. “He was born into a
time of chaos. I’m not blaming anybody for missing things … but
like, maybe he would’ve had a little bit more attention,” she said..<br>
- -<br>
Today, Izzy Newman is ten years old and in the fifth grade. His
mother describes him as active, empathic and happy, but said that he
struggles with focusing and sometimes misplaces his belongings.
Sporer-Newman recalled that one question in Nomura’s study asked
parents if their child said please and thank you. “The answer is
absolutely,” said Sporer-Newman. “And meanwhile he’s bouncing,
like literally on his feet going, ‘thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you.’”<br>
<br>
She said his personality is different compared to her other three
boys. He will run a block ahead of the family on walks and they will
stroll behind, struggling to keep up with him.<br>
<br>
Sporer-Newman said she plans to have Izzy tested for ADHD. Such a
diagnosis could be an opportunity for early intervention, said
Nomura, who led the study published in September. It would help him
access certain accommodations, like a quiet room without
distractions to take tests, which may help him in school.<br>
<br>
“In all of his jittery movements, inability to sit still, brilliant
mind. We love him. All of our kids are different. We love them each
for what they are,” said Sporer-Newman<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/18/study-pregnant-climate-disaster-children-behavior"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/18/study-pregnant-climate-disaster-children-behavior</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ From the PubMed.gov ]</i><br>
<b>Prenatal exposure to a natural disaster and early development of
psychiatric disorders during the preschool years: stress in
pregnancy study</b><br>
Yoko Nomura # 1 2 3, Jeffrey H Newcorn # 3, Christine Ginalis 1 2,
Catherine Heitz 1, Jeenia Zaki 1, Farzana Khan 1 4, Mardia Nasrin 1
5, Kathryn Sie 1, Donato DeIngeniis 1, Yasmin L Hurd 3<br>
Affiliations expand<br>
PMID: 36129196 DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.13698<br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
Background: Growing evidence shows an association between in utero
exposure to natural disasters and child behavioral problems, but we
still know little about the development of specific psychopathology
in preschool-aged children.<br>
<br>
<b>Methods:</b> Preschool children (n = 163, mean age = 3.19, 85.5%
racial and ethnic minorities) and their parents (n = 151) were
evaluated annually at ages 2-5 to assess the emergence of
psychopathology using the Preschool Age Psychopathological
Assessment (PAPA), a parent-report structured diagnostic interview
developed for preschool-age children. Sixty-six (40.5%) children
were exposed to Sandy Storm (SS) in utero and 97 (59.5%) were not.
Survival analysis evaluated patterns of onset and estimated
cumulative risks of psychopathology among exposed and unexposed
children, in total and by sex. Analyses were controlled for the
severity of objective and subjective SS-related stress, concurrent
family stress, and demographic and psychosocial confounders, such as
maternal age, race, SES, maternal substance use, and normative
prenatal stress.<br>
<br>
<b>Results:</b> Exposure to SS in utero was associated with a
substantial increase in depressive disorders (Hazard Ratio (HR) =
16.9, p = .030), anxiety disorders (HR = 5.1, p < .0001), and
attention-deficit/disruptive behavioral disorders (HR = 3.4, p =
.02). Diagnostic rates were elevated for generalized anxiety
disorder (GAD; HR = 8.5, p = .004), attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD; HR = 5.5, p = .01), oppositional-defiant disorder
(ODD; HR = 3.8, p = .05), and separation-anxiety disorder (SAD; HR =
3.5, p = .001). Males had distinctively elevated risks for
attention-deficit/disruptive behavioral disorders (HR = 7.8, p =
.02), including ADHD, CD, and ODD, whereas females had elevated
risks for anxiety disorders (HR = 10.0, p < .0001), phobia (HR =
2.8, p = .02) and depressive disorders (HR = 30.0, p = .03),
including SAD, GAD, and dysthymia.<br>
<br>
<b>Conclusions:</b> The findings demonstrate that in utero exposure
to a major weather-related disaster (SS) was associated with
increased risk for psychopathology in children and provided evidence
of distinct psychopathological outcomes as a function of sex. More
attention is needed to understand specific parent, child, and
environmental factors which account for this increased risk, and to
develop mitigation strategies.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36129196/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36129196/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ opinion in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry ]</i><br>
<b>Editorial: ‘In our time’: Has the pandemic changed the way we
write and read mental health and neurodevelopmental disorder
research reviews?</b><br>
Sara R. Jaffee<br>
First published: 27 April 2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13424" moz-do-not-send="true">https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13424</a><br>
It has long been recognized that the prevalence of mental health
problems among young people and adults exceeds the number who
receive treatment. One potential benefit of the pandemic might be
the widespread transition to telehealth, which has made traditional
treatments more widely available to individuals who live in areas
with few available high-quality services or who find it challenging
to access treatment for other reasons. Creswell et al. (2021)
explore the possibility that nontraditional treatments, such as
gaming and virtual reality interventions, offer another opportunity
to meet the need for mental health services, particularly for young
people who are sophisticated users of technology. They review the
evidence that gaming and virtual reality interventions are effective
in treating depression, anxiety, and phobias in young people and the
evidence that young people find these interventions relevant and
engaging.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13424"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13424</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Spotify --</i><i>start about 20 mins in </i><i>to hear about
misinformation and opinion manipulation ]</i><br>
<b>Hot to talk to a climate denier</b><br>
with Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd<br>
<p>Episode Description </p>
<p>Hello! This week we’re talking about climate misinformation and
how we tackle it. Mis- and disinformation about the climate crisis
is not new: since the 1970s industry players and fossil fuel
giants have been denying the reality of climate change in order to
sow confusion and polarise public support for taking action. Delay
is the new denial, according to Jennie King, who talks to us about
some of the arguments used to delay action on climate change.
Professor Sander van der Linden tells us about the psychology of
misinformation spread and why social media has only turbocharged
it. Finally, Sean Buchan talks to us about the grassroots campaign
Stop Funding Heat which aims to make climate misinformation
unprofitable.Plus: Geoff goes on a gastronomic journey with Ed's
latest cooking attempt.GuestsJennie King, Head of Climate Research
and Policy, Institute for Strategic Dialogue (@jkingy,
@ISDglobal)Professor Sander van der Linden, Professor of Social
Psychology, University of Cambridge (@Sander_vdLinden)Sean Buchan,
Campaign Director, Stop Funding Heat (@seanforachange,
@stopfundingheat)More infoWhat is climate
mis-/disinformation?Deny, deceive, delay: documenting and
responding to climate disinformation at COP26 and beyond Report
from the ISDTaxonomy of climate contrarian claims Academic paper:
Coan, Boussalis, Cook, NankoDiscourses of Climate Delay Comic by
Céline KellerClimate Action Against Disinformation Pre-order a
copy of Sander's book Foolproof: Why we fall for misinformation
and how to build immunityStop Funding Heat CampaignOther
resourcesDeSmog Journalism to clear the 'PR Pollution' clouding
the science and solutions to climate changeSkeptical science
Website set up by academic Jon Cook to examine the science and
arguments of climate scepticismEd and Geoff mentioned:Three
policies making life in Paris better for children</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/5pgmKM09CQ3aSOs9EqXjDm"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://open.spotify.com/episode/5pgmKM09CQ3aSOs9EqXjDm</a><br>
</p>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/5pgmKM09CQ3aSOs9EqXjDm?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=242163476&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Yph_SfU_XYHQyCbeczhVKmhWNPCzBJooirNZAqlBEBstTJUXVBpEKu29H-1qTSDRmxSnZ0fWAVAsP8Ebvue31L8A9dQ&utm_content=242163476&utm_source=hs_email"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://open.spotify.com/episode/5pgmKM09CQ3aSOs9EqXjDm?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=242163476&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Yph_SfU_XYHQyCbeczhVKmhWNPCzBJooirNZAqlBEBstTJUXVBpEKu29H-1qTSDRmxSnZ0fWAVAsP8Ebvue31L8A9dQ&utm_content=242163476&utm_source=hs_email</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ the book comes out March 21, 2023 ]</i><br>
<b>Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build
Immunity</b><br>
Sander van der Linden<br>
Informed by decades of research and on-the-ground experience
advising governments and tech companies, Foolproof is the definitive
guide to navigating the misinformation age.<br>
<br>
From fake news to conspiracy theories, from inflammatory memes to
misleading headlines, misinformation has swiftly become the defining
problem of our era. The crisis threatens the integrity of our
democracies, our ability to cultivate trusting relationships, even
our physical and psychological well-being―yet most attempts to
combat it have proven insufficient. In Foolproof, one of the world’s
leading experts on misinformation lays out a crucial new paradigm
for understanding and defending ourselves against the worldwide
infodemic.<br>
<br>
With remarkable clarity, Sander van der Linden explains why our
brains are so vulnerable to misinformation, how it spreads across
social networks, and what we can do to protect ourselves and others.
Like a virus, misinformation infects our minds, exploiting shortcuts
in how we see and process information to alter our beliefs, modify
our memories, and replicate at astonishing rates. Once the virus
takes hold, it’s very hard to cure. Strategies like fact-checking
and debunking can leave a falsehood still festering or, at worst,
even strengthen its hold.<br>
<br>
But we aren’t helpless. As van der Linden shows based on
award-winning original research, we can cultivate immunity through
the innovative science of “prebunking”: inoculating people against
false information by preemptively exposing them to a weakened dose,
thus empowering them to identify and fend off its manipulative
tactics. Deconstructing the characteristic techniques of
conspiracies and misinformation, van der Linden gives readers
practical tools to defend themselves and others against nefarious
persuasion―whether at scale or around their own dinner table.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/039388144X?psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&ref_=chk_typ_imgToDp"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.amazon.com/dp/039388144X?psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&ref_=chk_typ_imgToDp</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Carbon offsets allow the deceit of carbon neutrality ]</i><br>
<b>Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest
provider are worthless, analysis shows</b><br>
Investigation into Verra carbon standard finds most are ‘phantom
credits’ and may worsen global heating<br>
Patrick Greenfield<br>
@pgreenfielduk<br>
Wed 18 Jan 2023<br>
The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider
and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are
largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to
a new investigation.<br>
<br>
The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the
rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found
that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects,
more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most
commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and
do not represent genuine carbon reductions...<br>
- - <br>
The investigation found that:<br>
<blockquote>-- Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed
evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies,
with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no
benefit to the climate.<br>
-- The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on
average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022
University of Cambridge study.<br>
-- Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl
Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have
bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental
claims.<br>
-- Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of
the offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project
in Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their
homes being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and
police. They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park
authorities.<br>
</blockquote>
- - <br>
How companies use carbon offsetting to hit emissions goals<br>
<blockquote><b>Step 1 Offsetting project set up</b><br>
<br>
A project is established to mitigate global heating. Many are
avoided-emission projects that prevent greenhouse gases from being
released from deforestation or fossil fuels, but do not remove
carbon from the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
<b>Step 2 Credits are calculated</b><br>
<br>
Carbon credits are calculated using dozens of methods.
Avoided-deforestation projects estimate what would happen if the
project was not there. Projects claim the difference between what
happens and what could have as credits.<br>
<br>
<b>Step 3 Company makes net zero strategy</b><br>
<br>
Firms work out the emissions they are producing every year from
their own activities. In order to meet their net zero strategy,
alongside efforts to cut emissions, some companies decide to buy
carbon offsets.<br>
<br>
<b>Step 4 Company acquires carbon credits</b><br>
<br>
Firms get carbon credits through a specialist broker, others go
directly to a project. Most offsets are approved by Verra and Gold
Standard. These credits are used to offset emissions, allowing
them to claim large net reductions.<br>
<br>
<b>Step 5 Company makes climate claim</b><br>
<p>Once a firm has worked out the amount of carbon they want to
offset, they buy the equivalent amount of credits. Many then
claim the company or product they are selling has become carbon
neutral.</p>
</blockquote>
Shell told the Guardian that using credits was “in line with our
philosophy of avoid, reduce and only then mitigate emissions”.
Gucci, Pearl Jam, BHP and Salesforce did not comment, while Lavazza
said it bought credits that were certified by Verra, “a world’s
leading certification organisation”, as part of the coffee products
company’s “serious, concrete and diligent commitment to reduce” its
carbon footprint. It plans to look more closely into the project.<br>
<br>
The fast food chain Leon no longer buys carbon offsets from one of
the projects in the studies, as part of its mission to maximise its
positive impact. EasyJet has moved away from carbon offsetting to
focus its net zero work on projects such as “funding for the
development of new zero-carbon emission aircraft technology”.<br>
<br>
Barbara Haya, the director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project,
has been researching carbon credits for 20 years, hoping to find a
way to make the system function. She said: “The implications of this
analysis are huge. Companies are using credits to make claims of
reducing emissions when most of these credits don’t represent
emissions reductions at all.<br>
<br>
“Rainforest protection credits are the most common type on the
market at the moment. And it’s exploding, so these findings really
matter. But these problems are not just limited to this credit type.
These problems exist with nearly every kind of credit.<br>
<br>
“One strategy to improve the market is to show what the problems are
and really force the registries to tighten up their rules so that
the market could be trusted. But I’m starting to give up on that. I
started studying carbon offsets 20 years ago studying problems with
protocols and programs. Here I am, 20 years later having the same
conversation. We need an alternative process. The offset market is
broken.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ I want to live in this grid -- audio interview ]</i><br>
<b>An energy provider attempts to achieve 24/7 clean energy</b><br>
A conversation with Jan Pepper of Peninsula Clean Energy.<br>
Dave Roberts <br>
JAN 18 2023<br>
Back in November of 2021, I did a series of stories and podcasts on
the hottest new trend in clean energy: attempting to achieve not
just 100 percent clean energy but 24/7 clean energy, ie, clean
energy at every hour of every day.<br>
<br>
For reasons explained at length in those pieces, 24/7 is a much more
difficult goal. Offsetting 100 percent of your energy use with clean
energy mainly involves buying bulk wind and solar wherever and
whenever they are cheapest. But matching your energy use with clean
energy on an hourly basis means finding sources that can cover for
wind and solar when they are not available.<br>
<br>
Some big corporate players like Google have taken the first steps
down this road, but the first energy provider to attempt it, as far
as I know, is Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Bay Area community
choice aggregator (CCA) that serves all 20 of the cities and towns
in San Mateo County, as well as the City of Los Banos.<br>
In December 2021, PCE issued a white paper on the need for 24/7
clean energy, its rationale for pursuing 24/7 by 2025, and the steps
it intended to take to get there. Earlier this month, it issued a
follow-up white paper reporting on the tool it built to map out 24/7
and the lessons learned.<br>
<br>
I am fascinated by the practical challenges of getting to 24/7, so
I’m excited to talk to Jan Pepper, CEO of Peninsula and lead author
on the latest white paper, about why PCE is setting out to achieve
24/7, the main barriers, and the ways it may get easier in the
future.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.volts.wtf/p/an-energy-provider-attempts-to-achieve"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.volts.wtf/p/an-energy-provider-attempts-to-achieve</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.volts.wtf/p/an-energy-provider-attempts-to-achieve?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=193024&post_id=95976713&utm_medium=email#details"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.volts.wtf/p/an-energy-provider-attempts-to-achieve?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=193024&post_id=95976713&utm_medium=email#details</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ ( more about Peninsula Clean Energy’s 24/7 push — charts and
Jeff St. John’s latest article for Canary Media.) ]</i><br>
<b>24/7 carbon-free energy is about to become a reality in
California</b><br>
Peninsula Clean Energy says it can deliver affordable clean energy
to its Bay Area territory nearly every hour of the year by 2025.
Here’s the data to prove it.<br>
18 January 2023<br>
Jeff St. John<br>
Five years ago, California community energy provider Peninsula Clean
Energy decided that buying enough clean energy to match its average
annual electricity demand wasn’t enough. Instead, it wanted to
deliver clean energy to its customers during every hour of every day
— what it calls “24/7 carbon-free energy.” And last week, Peninsula
explained how it plans to get there. <br>
<br>
The goal of 24/7 carbon-free electricity is also being pursued by
corporate giants Google and Microsoft, cities including Los Angeles
and Des Moines, Iowa, and a growing number of other companies and
communities across the world. But Peninsula Clean Energy appears to
be the first energy provider to set a target of getting there by
2025, well ahead of other zero-carbon mandates at the utility or
state level. <br>
<br>
Achieving 24/7 carbon-free energy is a lot harder than achieving 100
percent carbon-free energy on an annual basis. As climate journalist
and Canary Media editor-at-large David Roberts explains in a new
Volts podcast on Peninsula Clean Energy, “Offsetting 100 percent of
your energy use with clean energy mainly involves buying bulk wind
and solar wherever and whenever they are cheapest. But matching your
energy use with clean energy on an hourly basis means finding
sources that can cover for wind and solar when they are not
available.” (Here’s a basic primer on 24/7 carbon-free energy.) <br>
But there’s a debate over 24/7 carbon-free energy. Is trying to get
clean power to serve every single hour of the year a laudable way to
match an energy buyer’s decarbonization commitments with concrete
actions? Or is it an excessively expensive pipe dream that sucks
investment away from more effective alternatives, like building more
solar and wind power in places where the grid is the dirtiest? <br>
<br>
Last week, Peninsula Clean Energy unveiled an analysis showing that,
at least for the residents of San Mateo County and the town of Los
Banos, California that it serves, round-the-clock clean energy by
2025 is not only theoretically possible but well within its
technical and financial reach. <br>
<br>
Peninsula Clean Energy CEO Jan Pepper said the new white paper,
which uses data from a modeling tool PCE developed with partners
over the past two years, validates the importance of the 24/7
carbon-free energy goal PCE set back in 2017. PCE’s board of
directors is planning to use the findings of the analysis to
formally set the 99 percent target into a “final procurement
strategy” for the coming years, Pepper told Canary Media. “This is
what we’re after.” <br>
<br>
PCE’s modeling shows that procuring enough clean energy to supply
its customers 99 percent of the hours of the year by 2025 is
expected to cost only 2 percent more than its baseline
energy-procurement plans, which deliver carbon-free energy roughly
70 percent of the hours of the year. That’s far less of a cost
premium than one might expect for achieving round-the-clock clean
energy almost every hour of the year. After making this finding, PCE
adopted 99 percent 24/7 carbon-free energy as its official goal
starting in 2025. <br>
<br>
Cost comparisons for different procurement strategies were
calculated using conservative assumptions about energy prices and
the costs of contracting a portfolio of solar, wind, geothermal
power and lithium-ion batteries, Pepper noted. With more optimistic
assumptions, the costs are significantly lower, as this chart
indicates. .<br>
- - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-17.jpg.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=2578217676b0f63b77f93a81fa798587"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-17.jpg.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=2578217676b0f63b77f93a81fa798587</a><br>
Keeping costs in check is vital for PCE, one of California’s many
community choice aggregators that have been created with the goal of
offering a greater proportion of clean energy at lower prices than
the state’s investor-owned utilities. <br>
<br>
But the slight cost premium for delivering carbon-free energy nearly
every hour of the day will have outsize benefits in reducing the
carbon-intensity of the power PCE consumes, the analysis shows. As
of 2021, PCE’s average hourly energy consumption contributed roughly
222 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour — less
than half the California utility average of 456 pounds per
megawatt-hour, but well above the 26 pounds per megawatt-hour that a
99 percent 24/7 clean energy portfolio is expected to enable...<br>
The resulting impact on carbon emissions is made clear in the
following two “heat maps” that show the carbon-intensity of
electricity purchased across every hour of the year. The first heat
map shows the emissions from a portfolio that delivers 100 percent
clean energy measured on an annual basis.<br>
<br>
And the second heat map shows the emissions impact of a portfolio
designed to deliver clean energy in 99 percent of the hours of the
year.<br>
- - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-12.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=20f8627d0cf0902781d415cad76c4bef"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-12.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=20f8627d0cf0902781d415cad76c4bef</a><br>
Heat map of carbon intensity of energy on an hourly basis under an
99 percent clean energy procurement strategy for PCE<br>
- - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-13.jpg.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=3585ad85191d9b9f1da9e47622f4d59a"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-13.jpg.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=3585ad85191d9b9f1da9e47622f4d59a</a><br>
“For slightly more cost, we’re able to make these huge impacts on
reduced emissions,” Pepper said. <br>
- -<br>
PCE also didn’t factor in the potential for emerging technologies
such as offshore wind power or long-duration energy storage, both of
which are seen as vital to enabling California to reach its
zero-carbon goals in the coming decades. <br>
<br>
The open-source modeling tool that PCE developed to do its analysis,
dubbed Matching Around-The-Clock Hourly Energy, is available for
other California community choice aggregators or energy buyers that
are interested in investigating their own 24/7 carbon-free energy
opportunities, Pepper said. “We would be happy to work with anyone
who wants to look at how they can use the model and put their data
in,” she added.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/24-7-carbon-free-energy-is-about-to-become-a-reality-in-california"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/24-7-carbon-free-energy-is-about-to-become-a-reality-in-california</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[The news archive - looking back a famous opinion in the
Washington Post - still applies today ]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>January 20, 2015</b></i></font> <br>
• Washington Post columnists Catherine Rampell and Eugene Robinson
denounce the GOP's continued refusal to do anything about
human-caused climate change.<br>
<blockquote>Opinions<br>
<b>Dangerously in denial on climate change</b><br>
By Catherine Rampell - January 19, 2015<br>
Last year, government scientists tell us, was the hottest year on
record.<br>
<br>
This news is terribly — what’s the word? — inconvenient.<br>
<br>
No, not for polar bears or drought victims or coastal dwellers.
It’s inconvenient for politicians across the country who, despite
whatever data or overwhelming scientific consensus might be
proffered, insist on denying global warming.<br>
<br>
In recent weeks, West Virginia has snatched national headlines for
its attempts to doctor school science standards to discredit
climate change. The sixth-grade science curriculum, for example,
was amended so that, rather than having students “clarify evidence
of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures
over the past century,” they would examine causes behind the rise
“and fall” in global temperatures.<br>
<br>
After a national outcry from educators, West Virginia backed down.
But the science curriculum standards — which come from
recommendations developed and adopted by a partnership of states —
have already been rejected by Wyoming. South Carolina blocked the
standards before they were even finalized, and other states are
gearing up for similar battles. Climate change has slipped into
the same contentious curricular role that evolution once occupied,
and some sort of Scopes penguin trial or a debate over
“intelligent warming” seems inevitable.<br>
<br>
The question is why. Passionate anti-evolution skepticism was
clearly borne of biblical teaching. But the motivations behind
climate denialism — which, to my knowledge, remains unaddressed in
Genesis — are a bit blurrier.<br>
<br>
To some extent, of course, economic self-interest discourages a
belief in man-made climate change, particularly if you’re from a
state heavily dependent on fossil fuel production. West Virginia
happens to be one such state, and a school board member there who
backed the curricular changes even publicly alluded to the coal
industry’s stake in the matter. Wyoming legislators’ thinking
might be similarly influenced by their state’s status as both the
nation’s top producer of coal — it is responsible for 39 percent
of domestic production — and the top consumer of energy in per
capita terms. In these states, man-made global warming is simply
too economically inconvenient to be true.<br>
<br>
But plenty of other states keep voting climate-change deniers into
office even though doing so is against their interests. South
Carolina is one obvious example, since its lucrative coastal
tourism industry is vulnerable to rising seas. Florida and Texas
are likely to be hit with more and increasingly devastating
hurricanes, but both have elected federal lawmakers who are
outspoken skeptics of human-caused climate change: Sen. Marco
Rubio of Florida, and Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,
all Republicans.<br>
<br>
I mention these lawmakers in particular because they have the
power to do a lot of damage on the science policy front, seeing as
they, among other Republican climate “truthers,” all lead
important committees or subcommittees that help set science
policy. And in fact, it’s hard to talk about their party’s views
of climate change without considering the broader context of its
attitudes toward the entire scientific community.<br>
<br>
The Republican War on Science has become a bit of a cliche, and
GOP leaders have denied that they are indeed waging such a war.
But who could blame them if they were? Survey data show that
conservatives — who, back in 1974, were the political group that
expressed the highest amount of trust in science — are now the
most distrusting of the scientific community. Decades of
anti-elite, anti-intellectual rhetoric, combined with the
Internet’s uncanny ability to connect like-minded conspiracy
theorists, have sowed a great distrust not only of climate change
research specifically but of scientific researchers in general.<br>
<br>
The ivory tower’s sole mission, in the minds of Republican leaders
such as Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.) and his constituents, is not to
push the boundaries of human knowledge but rather to perpetuate a
great liberal hoax upon the world while crippling businesses and
hoovering up Americans’ hard-won tax dollars for dubious research
projects. Thus Republicans’ near-obsessive condemnations not only
of strategies to combat climate change but also of the
Environmental Protection Agency and of the relatively small
amounts of tax dollars delivered through peer-reviewed grants. (A
good way to delegitimize the science community further, by the
way, is to cut public funding so that research agendas are more
often dictated by the whims of private donors and corporate
sponsors.)<br>
<br>
Conservative climate-change denialism is indeed dangerous, and not
just because it threatens coral reefs and polar bears tomorrow.
It’s also dangerous because it’s a symptom of a much greater
anti-intellectual, anti-science epidemic, one that prioritizes
populist punch lines over smart policy and threatens our ability
to compete in the global economy today.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-dangerously-in-denial-on-climate-change/2015/01/19/20796658-a01c-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html?tid=HP_opinion?tid=HP_opinion"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-dangerously-in-denial-on-climate-change/2015/01/19/20796658-a01c-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html?tid=HP_opinion?tid=HP_opinion</a>
<br>
<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/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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*"
moz-do-not-send="true">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/"
moz-do-not-send="true">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/"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
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 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"
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>
</body>
</html>