<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>January 22, 2023</b></i></font></p>
<i>[ Opinion reporting from Davos - video 5 mins</i>]<br>
<b>Climate Limits, Johan Rockström at Davos 2023</b><br>
Peter Carter<br>
22 views Jan 21, 2023<br>
Interview of Johan Rockstrom by DW TV at Davos 2023 World Economic
Forum. The 2023 WEF top risk (yet again) is Climate action failure.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iff0rc6qI0g">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iff0rc6qI0g</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ just physics - understating our situation 14 min video is a
simplification ]</i><br>
<b>Can the Gulf Stream Collapse?</b><br>
Sabine Hossenfelder<br>
97,378 views Jan 21, 2023 #physics #climatechange #science<br>
- -<br>
That the Gulf stream might collapse is one of the scariest
consequences of climate change for us here in Europe, at least if
you believe the headlines. In this video I'll explain why the Gulf
stream can't collapse, what the headlines really mean, and what
climate change might do to Europe.<br>
<br>
👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.patreon.com/Sabine">https://www.patreon.com/Sabine</a><br>
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle">https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle</a>...<br>
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yN">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yN</a>...<br>
<blockquote>00:00 Intro<br>
00:49 Westerlies and Easterlies<br>
04:12 The Gulf Stream<br>
06:32 The Jet Streams<br>
08:52 The AMOC<br>
11:34 What Might Happen?<br>
13:07 Learn Physics With Brilliant<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnVWUIhQ8dE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnVWUIhQ8dE</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ first ban on this dangerous behavior -]</i><br>
<b>Mexico Bans Solar Geoengineering After Startup Stunt</b><br>
Make Sunsets said it released sulfur-filled balloons in Baja
California Sur to counteract global warming. The Mexican government
isn't happy.<br>
By Lauren Leffer<br>
Mexico is cracking down on experiments in solar geoengineering. The
controversial proposed climate solution, in which aerosol particles
are released into the upper atmosphere to reflect the Sun’s heat,
will no longer be allowed to take place in the country, the Mexican
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) announced
last week.<br>
<br>
Both large-scale and in-development projects involving solar
engineering are to be halted, via coordination between the Mexican
environment ministry and the country’s National Council of Science
and Technology, the news statement noted. The goal of the new policy
is to “protect communities and environments.”<br>
<br>
The nationwide ban comes on the heels of climate tech startup Make
Sunsets’ claims that it released weather balloons filled with sulfur
dioxide particles from an unspecified location in the Mexican state
of Baja California Sur—without any sort of dialogue or approval
Mexican authorities. The startup’s co-founder, Luke Iseman (formerly
of Y Combinator and numerous other startups that seem to have
floundered or been abandoned), said in a December interview with MIT
Technology Review that he’d conducted two test balloon launches in
April 2022.<br>
<br>
But Iseman has contradicted his own claims since then. In a
follow-up report from The Wall Street Journal, published Thursday,
Iseman changed his story to “a single weather balloon.” And in a
Wednesday blogpost from Make Sunsets, the company floated the
possibility that it never actually released any sulfur balloons at
all. “Make Sunsets will share all information about its activities
in Mexico to date (if any) with... responsible agencies,” the
startup wrote. “Make sunsets will cease its operations in Mexico (if
there were any),” the post continues.<br>
<br>
Gizmodo reached out to Make Sunsets for more information but did not
receive a response.<br>
<br>
Regardless of whether or not Iseman and Make Sunsets actually did
what they claimed, the alleged stunt drew widespread criticism and
concern from scientists and policy experts alike. Though solar
geoengineering is a simple enough concept, safe implementation of
the theoretical climate change remedy is a complex issue.<br>
<br>
Blocking out sunlight via sulfur particles could trigger rapid and
significant global shifts in precipitation that could leave some
parts of the planet flooded and others arid, according to past
research. If not managed properly, solar geoengineering could lead
to even more erratic and rapid changes in temperature than we’re
currently experiencing under climate change. And the use of sulfur,
specifically, would likely damage Earth’s crucial ozone layer.<br>
<br>
Then, there’s the geopolitical implications of a country or rogue
actor deciding to go ahead and change the stratosphere’s composition
without international buy-in.<br>
<br>
For all of these reasons and more, it’s probably not in Mexico’s
favor to allow this sort of unregulated geoengineering
experimentation on its soil. The ministry’s press statement cites a
United Nations moratorium on geoengineering that Mexico and nearly
200 other countries (though not the U.S.) agreed to in 2010—as well
as the risk of dangerous climactic consequences. “There are enough
studies that show that there would be negative and unequal impacts
associated with the release of these aerosols,” wrote the
environment ministry.<br>
<br>
All that said, Iseman’s experiment (if it happened) probably wasn’t
enough to impact much of anything. From a scientific perspective, it
wasn’t even much of an experiment. The Make Sunsets founder
previously told MIT Tech Review that he doesn’t know if the balloons
released made it high enough in the atmosphere to distribute their
sulfur in the correct place. And Harvard geoengineering researcher
David Keith said that such a small amount of particles would likely
have no effect on the climate.<br>
<br>
Iseman is reportedly disappointed by Mexico’s decision. “I expected
and hoped for dialogue,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “I’m
surprised by the speed and scope of the response,” he added. Prior
to the ban, Make Sunsets indicated it planned to fly three more
balloons from Southern Baja this month. Now, that presumably won’t
happen. But the perpetual founder isn’t giving up. “One of my dreams
is that we could, in some distant future, grow Make Sunsets legally
and responsibility,” he said to the WSJ.<br>
<br>
And maybe Iseman would have better luck back in the U.S., which
hasn’t co-signed any pesky UN agreements to not block out the Sun.
In 2022, the Biden Administration announced it’s developing a
five-year plan for geoengineering research. If the ~$750,000 in
venture capital money that Make Sunsets raised isn’t enough, perhaps
in the near future, the company could apply for some federal
funding.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gizmodo.com/mexico-bans-solar-geoengineering-make-sunsets-stunt-1850006544">https://gizmodo.com/mexico-bans-solar-geoengineering-make-sunsets-stunt-1850006544</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Elon straps-on the rocket boosters of twitter -- his
misinformation company ]</i><br>
<b>Climate misinformation ‘rocket boosters’ on Musk’s Twitter</b><br>
By DAVID KLEPPER<br>
Jan 19, 2023<i><br>
</i>WASHINGTON (AP) — Search for the word “climate” on Twitter and
the first automatic recommendation isn’t “climate crisis” or
“climate jobs” or even “climate change” but instead “climate scam.”<br>
<br>
Clicking on the recommendation yields dozens of posts denying the
reality of climate change and making misleading claims about efforts
to mitigate it.<br>
<br>
Such misinformation has flourished on Twitter since it was bought by
Elon Musk last year, but the site isn’t the only one promoting
content that scientists and environmental advocates say undercuts
public support for policies intended to respond to a changing
climate.<br>
<br>
“What’s happening in the information ecosystem poses a direct threat
to action,” said Jennie King, head of climate research and response
at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based nonprofit.
“It plants those seeds of doubt and makes people think maybe there
isn’t scientific consensus.”<br>
<br>
The institute is part of a coalition of environmental advocacy
groups that on Thursday released a report tracking climate change
disinformation in the months before, during and after the U.N.
climate summit in November.<br>
<br>
The report faulted social media platforms for, among other things,
failing to enforce their own policies prohibiting climate change
misinformation. It is only the latest to highlight the growing
problem of climate misinformation on Twitter.<br>
<br>
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, allowed nearly 4,000
advertisements on its site — most bought by fossil fuel companies —
that dismissed the scientific consensus behind climate change and
criticized efforts to respond to it, the researchers found.<br>
<br>
In some cases, the ads and the posts cited inflation and economic
fears as reasons to oppose climate policies, while ignoring the
costs of inaction. Researchers also found that a significant number
of the accounts posting false claims about climate change also
spread misinformation about U.S. elections, COVID-19 and vaccines.<br>
<br>
Twitter did not respond to questions from The Associated Press. A
spokesperson for Meta cited the company’s policy prohibiting ads
that have been proven false by its fact-checking partners, a group
that includes the AP. The ads identified in the report had not been
fact-checked.<br>
- -<br>
Tweets containing “climate scam” or other terms linked to climate
change denial rose 300% in 2022, according to a report released last
week by the nonprofit Advance Democracy. While Twitter had labeled
some of the content as misinformation, many of the popular posts
were not labeled.<br>
<br>
Musk’s new verification system could be part of the problem,
according to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate,
another organization that tracks online misinformation. Previously,
the blue checkmarks were held by people in the public eye such as
journalists, government officials or celebrities.<br>
<br>
Now, anyone willing to pay $8 a month can seek a checkmark. Posts
and replies from verified accounts are given an automatic boost on
the platform, making them more visible than content from users who
don’t pay.<br>
<br>
When researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate analyzed
accounts verified after Musk took over, they found they spread four
times the amount of climate change misinformation compared with
users verified before Musk’s purchase.<br>
<br>
Verification systems are typically created to assure users that the
accounts they follow are legitimate. Twitter’s new system, however,
makes no distinction between authoritative sources on climate change
and anyone with $8 and an opinion, according to Imran Ahmed, the
center’s chief executive.<br>
<br>
“We found,” Ahmed said, “it has in fact put rocket boosters on the
spread of lies and disinformation.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-science-social-media-a7e2e3214abb4470dcb6e2837aa39c2e">https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-science-social-media-a7e2e3214abb4470dcb6e2837aa39c2e</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Keep an eye on the courts -- clips from the Guardian ]</i><br>
<b>Exxon’s predictions about the climate crisis may have increased
its legal peril</b><br>
Several US states say news that Exxon scientists predicted global
heating accurately strengthens their lawsuits against company<br>
Oliver Milman<br>
@olliemilman<br>
Fri 20 Jan 2023<br>
Further revelations of the extent of Exxon’s historical knowledge of
the unfolding climate crisis may have deepened the legal peril faced
by the oil giant, with several US states suing the company for
alleged deception, claiming their cases have now been strengthened.<br>
<br>
A research paper published last week found that from the 1970s
onwards, Exxon climate scientists “correctly and skillfully”
predicted climbing global temperatures, rising by around 0.2C a
decade due to the burning of fossil fuels, often matching or
surpassing the accuracy of projections by independent outside
scientists...<br>
<br>
Geoffrey Supran, lead author of the new study, which was gleaned
from a trove of internal documents and published scientific papers,
said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so
closely with what subsequently happened.<br>
<br>
Despite this knowledge, Exxon executives spent several decades
downplaying or denying the climate impact of its business practices,
helping stymie action to curb the use of fossil fuels and prevent
dangerous global heating. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then
chief executive of Exxon, said climate models were “not competent”
and “not that good”.<br>
<br>
More than a dozen states and municipalities have launched lawsuits
against Exxon, other oil companies and trade associations, claiming
that by concealing their awareness of climate change they committed
fraud or false advertising. Several Exxon foes now believe their
legal pursuit of the company has been bolstered by the latest
analysis of its climate science work.<br>
<br>
“The study’s findings expand the robust public record of the fossil
fuel industry’s deception surrounding their products’ contribution
to climate change, and are consistent with what we alleged in our
lawsuit,” Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, told the
Guardian. “This study only increases our resolve to hold them
accountable in court.”<br>
<br>
A spokesman for Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota,
said the new research “confirms the need to hold defendants
accountable for their deception”.<br>
<br>
Several jurisdictions declined to comment on their ongoing cases
against Exxon, including Delaware, New York City and Massachusetts,
where the state’s supreme court last year dismissed a claim by the
company that it was being pursued for political reasons and must
face trial over accusations it broke consumer protection laws and
deceived investors by covering up its knowledge of the climate
crisis...<br>
<br>
Exxon has maintained that it has followed the best available science
at any given time and has denied lying to the public in order to
protect its business model. “I don’t believe companies should lie
and I would tell you that we do not do that,” Darren Woods, Exxon’s
chief executive, told a congressional hearing in 2021. Woods has
said that Exxon now accepts that climate change is real and that it
supports the goals of the Paris climate agreement.<br>
<br>
The Texas-based oil giant has deep pockets for a protracted legal
battle – in October it announced a quarterly profit of nearly $20bn
(£16bn), almost matching the earnings of the tech behemoth Apple –
and has sought to have challenges tossed out of court or have them
heard at the federal, rather than the state, level, in the belief
this will lead to a more sympathetic outcome for the company.<br>
<br>
But some legal experts have warned that the latest details of
Exxon’s long-term knowledge of global heating, which was first
revealed to the public via reporting in 2015, could spell trouble
for the business.<br>
<br>
“The recent study provides additional quantifiable evidence and a
new level of detail concerning the length and scale of the
misinformation, which is likely to present further difficulties for
the company in this regard,” said Karen Hutchinson, commercial
litigation lawyer at UK law firm Stewarts.<br>
<br>
Alyssa Johl, vice-president of legal at the Center for Climate
Integrity, said that Exxon “pretty much nailed these predictions
with incredible accuracy. That cannot be refuted at this point.”
Johl said the research helps establish the “two very important
pieces to the puzzle” in the cases against Exxon – that the company
knew about the causes and consequences of climate change and that it
then actively concealed and denied it.<br>
<br>
A spokesman for Exxon said: “This issue has come up several times in
recent years and in each case our answer is the same: those who talk
about how ‘Exxon knew’ are wrong in their conclusions.” The
spokesman quoted a New York judge, Barry Ostrager, who found in 2019
that Exxon’s executives were “uniformly committed to rigorously
discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous
manner possible”.<br>
<br>
But the claims that Exxon intimately knew of the looming climate
emergency more than 40 years ago are of little surprise to Ed
Garvey, now a semi-retired geochemist who worked for Exxon from 1978
to 1983, taking carbon dioxide measurements from oil tankers.<br>
<br>
Garvey said that he and his scientific colleagues at Exxon were
“very much aware of the problem” of global heating within the first
year of his stint at the company. He said the company hired
elite-level scientists and used cutting-edge technology to determine
future temperature trends, so the accuracy of the science was to be
expected.<br>
<br>
“The scientific leaders at Exxon very much saw this as a big deal
that could impact the bottom line of the company and have
ramifications for the whole globe,” Garvey said. “We thought we’d
deliver the news that we couldn’t continue like this to the board
and that Exxon might diversify.<br>
<br>
“It was never in question to us that human activity was causing the
climate to change. It’s really reprehensible that they had this
knowledge and then said: ‘We have no need to change course at all.’
I find it immoral for them to say that there was uncertainty. It’s
beyond the pale. I can’t reconcile myself with it, other than they
just didn’t care.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/exxon-climate-crisis-lawsuits-documents">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/exxon-climate-crisis-lawsuits-documents</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ free link to the NYTimes quiz on reducing
carbon footprint - simple, quick and informative -]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <b>Quiz: What’s the Best Way to
Shrink Your Carbon Footprint?</b><br>
" Although estimating the carbon footprint of specific actions is
not an exact science, we can raise awareness about actions that most
researchers agree are necessary to slow climate change.<br>
<br>
Specifically, we need to fight influential misperceptions. Recycling
is one example; so is misinformation around electric vehicles. Many
Americans believe that electric cars are more expensive to maintain
than gas-fueled cars. In fact, electric cars are often cheaper to
own over their lifetimes. And tax credits in the recently signed
Inflation Reduction Act should significantly reduce the cost of
buying an electric vehicle. These facts are worth bringing up around
the dinner table because preemptively refuting misinformation is one
of the most effective ways to counter its spread.<br>
<br>
While governments and businesses have the most power to reverse
climate change, perhaps the best thing we can do as individuals is
to hold them accountable, dispel influential myths and shift our
collective attention to the actions that matter most. Although the
jury is still out on the effectiveness of throwing soup at famous
artworks, we know that switching to clean energy, flying less and
adopting a plant-based diet are some of the most effective ways to
help save our planet."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/opinion/how-reduce-carbon-footprint-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=juvv12P_KyxIvNRtrBozAa97DY9ADrmUOjAosRiViQWdxptW-IjmTUwpD14hJCxpvNPa_ZXkIpDWO9GpB7sdhZ-QljvWwCIv4INeW5G-ugpmd8DU_iF_TlmsD7vLYje3DtJqZb5J7JCZwCBJ_JM99hw_2GKYlnsVfRxAYk1uEofEknakCDCpIOSFVkUgYAfhPA2XKKrnKEgcNDWeUEvMUaUbGt2Y-ONHfn_tYPTLrPyr_8-_PBkF-F2SZNQjEOk0_SpdRdxBYSA7Y9SCeXvy6onD-gwzRWXcrTs3v-ZiRd4ePeiMIr2_b1bH_t1G4xOLu9KnW5ma3nNbTET38_fa7ftZ2EUUmEv8hSN0Mjo8WNCcSWMKiddAOhIOKz5mQkC_TW-XvlA&smid=share-url">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/opinion/how-reduce-carbon-footprint-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=juvv12P_KyxIvNRtrBozAa97DY9ADrmUOjAosRiViQWdxptW-IjmTUwpD14hJCxpvNPa_ZXkIpDWO9GpB7sdhZ-QljvWwCIv4INeW5G-ugpmd8DU_iF_TlmsD7vLYje3DtJqZb5J7JCZwCBJ_JM99hw_2GKYlnsVfRxAYk1uEofEknakCDCpIOSFVkUgYAfhPA2XKKrnKEgcNDWeUEvMUaUbGt2Y-ONHfn_tYPTLrPyr_8-_PBkF-F2SZNQjEOk0_SpdRdxBYSA7Y9SCeXvy6onD-gwzRWXcrTs3v-ZiRd4ePeiMIr2_b1bH_t1G4xOLu9KnW5ma3nNbTET38_fa7ftZ2EUUmEv8hSN0Mjo8WNCcSWMKiddAOhIOKz5mQkC_TW-XvlA&smid=share-url</a><br>
<br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ book by the author of The Quiz ]</i><br>
<b>Foolproof</b><b> <br>
</b><b>Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build
Immunity</b><br>
by Sander van der Linden (Author, University of Cambridge)<br>
- -<br>
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://wwnorton.com/books/9780393881448/about-the-book/description">https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393881448/about-the-book/description</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ unvented gas stoves are instantly dangerous to mind and body ]</i><br>
<b>I Hate to Say It, but We Should Ban Gas Stoves</b><br>
The appliances are outdated and dangerous. We should look into
changing that.<br>
By Molly Taft<br>
Jan 18, 2022<br>
- -<br>
Gas stoves are one of those things where, the more you learn about
them, the freakier they become. When you think about it, it’s kind
of wild that we’ve all accepted the idea that it’s normal to have an
appliance that actively spews fossil fuels inside our homes (and one
that occasionally leads to deadly explosions at that). There’s a
mounting body of evidence that these appliances are, in fact,
extremely bad for our health. Gas stoves are big sources of nitrogen
dioxide, which damages the respiratory system. They also leak
benzene, a chemical known to cause cancer. Just last month, a study
found that gas stoves could be linked to one in eight cases of
childhood asthma in the U.S. That all seems like a high price to pay
for the pleasure of cooking on a gas range.<br>
<br>
And all this is before we even get into the climate stuff. Turns out
that getting rid of something that is affecting our health could
also help the environment. Americans’ use of gas stoves, research
has found, really adds up: more than one-third of people in the U.S.
use gas stoves, and all those appliances leak the greenhouse gas
equivalent of 500,000 cars each year.<br>
<br>
The scariest part, for me, is that a staggering amount of these
emissions happen when the stove is off: A study published last year
found that more than 75% of the stoves’ emissions happen when
they’re not in use. Even if we don’t ban them altogether, at the
bare minimum we ought to discuss regulation and improvements to
tighten efficiency and safety. As we’re transitioning the world to
electric vehicles and thinking about how to phase out fossil fuels
entirely, electrification is a natural fit for this conversation.<br>
<br>
In light of the overwhelming evidence about their impact on our
health and climate, it’s easy to forget why people are so fussed
about a possible change in their kitchen. One of the main outcries
appears to be the idea that cooking is less effective or enjoyable
on an electric range than a gas one—which seems, frankly, like a
pretty dumb argument to put up against the idea that your stove
could give your kid asthma. My bad cooking experiences at my
parents’ house aside, there seem to be a whole host of opinions on
this, ranging from professional chefs who say electric is “less
efficient” than gas, to home-cooking superstar Alison Roman, who
hosted an impromptu “ask me anything” on Twitter to extol the
virtues of her electric range. It’s also important to note that the
oil and gas industry has a documented history of working with
restaurateurs to escalate anti-electric opinions, meaning that the
pro chefs who do enjoy their electric ranges have had their
perspectives drowned out by industry money propping up the opposing
side.<br>
<br>
The opinions of professional chefs aside, it’s incredibly strange
how this whole conversation seems to have turned GOP
politicians—many of whom look like the extent of their cooking is
microwaving a personal pizza or drizzling salad dressing onto checks
from fossil fuel companies—into diehard home cooking defenders.
Sure, restaurateurs can have serious discussions about the pros and
cons of gas versus electric. But, seriously, Ron DeSantis, what are
you cooking at home that has you so worried about the quality of
your range? I’d think that your busy schedule stripping gay people
of their right to exist in Florida would be a little too packed to
leave room to cook your way through Julia Child.<br>
<br>
Proposing regulations on imports or future bans on gas ranges
doesn’t mean the government is coming to rip the stove out of your
wall—just that it may have some influence on the types of appliances
you can install in the future. We should certainly consider the
practicalities of making a big change like banning a certain
appliance; there are real conversations to be had about making
electric ranges efficient and available to everyone. Starting this
year, the Inflation Reduction Act will make millions of dollars in
rebates available to lower-income households to help them install
new electric appliances, including electric stoves.<br>
<br>
Mandating changes to problematic appliances is nothing new.
Refrigerators used to spew toxic gasses; hairdryers used to blow
asbestos directly into people’s faces. It’s a pretty simple
proposition for the Consumer Product Safety Commission—which some
politicians have suggested defunding as a result of this hoopla—to
suggest updates and changes to technology when the evidence calls
for it. It’s very clear from the butch pro-stove merch that GOP
politicians have started hawking that stoves are a symbol of what is
known around the climate community as petro-masculinity: the idea
pushed by the right that climate fixes are a threat to American
culture. Instead of caving to this macho insanity, climate advocates
should double down and own the fact that this is something we should
do.<br>
<br>
I may be too harsh on my parents’ range. The things I don’t like
about it can either be chalked up to unfamiliarity or model
design—and those are pretty simple issues to solve. My mom and I
cooked lots of delicious meals on it together over the holidays, and
it’s really cool to watch water boil so damn quickly. If this is the
future of stoves, I think I’ll adapt just fine.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gizmodo.com/why-ban-gas-stoves-1850000240">https://gizmodo.com/why-ban-gas-stoves-1850000240</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[Video, audio and text archive looking at Richard Nixon and the
environment -- and an early mention of "reparations"]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>January 22, 1970 </b></i></font> <br>
January 22, 1970: In his State of the Union address, President Nixon
declares: <br>
<blockquote>"The great question of the seventies is, shall we
surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with
nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done
to our air, to our land, and to our water?<br>
<br>
Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and
beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of
this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young
Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim
consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed
now if we are to prevent disaster later.<br>
<br>
Clean air, clean water, open spaces-these should once again be the
birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be.<br>
<br>
We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and
neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is
high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to
nature, and now that debt is being called.<br>
<br>
The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most
comprehensive and costly program in this field in America's
history.<br>
<br>
It is not a program for just one year. A year's plan in this field
is no plan at all. This is a time to look ahead not a year, but 5
years or 10 years--whatever time is required to do the job.<br>
<br>
I shall propose to this Congress a $10 billion nationwide clean
waters program to put modern municipal waste treatment plants in
every place in America where they are needed to make our waters
clean again, and do it now. We have the industrial capacity, if we
begin now, to build them all within 5 years. This program will get
them built within 5 years.<br>
<br>
As our cities and suburbs relentlessly expand, those priceless
open spaces needed for recreation areas accessible to their people
are swallowed up--often forever. Unless we preserve these spaces
while they are still available, we will have none to preserve.
Therefore, I shall propose new financing methods for purchasing
open space and parklands now, before they are lost to us.<br>
<br>
The automobile is our worst polluter of the air. Adequate control
requires further advances in engine design and fuel composition.
We shall intensify our research, set increasingly strict
standards, and strengthen enforcement procedures-and we shall do
it now.<br>
<br>
We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property,
free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences.
Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources,
which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw
garbage into our neighbor's yard.<br>
<br>
This requires comprehensive new regulations. It also requires
that, to the extent possible, the price of goods should be made to
include the costs of producing and disposing of them without
damage to the environment.<br>
<br>
Now, I realize that the argument is often made that there is a
fundamental contradiction between economic growth and the quality
of life, so that to have one we must forsake the other.<br>
<br>
The answer is not to abandon growth, but to redirect it. For
example, we should turn toward ending congestion and eliminating
smog the same reservoir of inventive genius that created them in
the first place.<br>
<br>
Continued vigorous economic growth provides us with the means to
enrich life itself and to enhance our planet as a place hospitable
to man.<br>
<br>
Each individual must enlist in this fight if it is to be won.<br>
<br>
It has been said that no matter how many national parks and
historical monuments we buy and develop, the truly significant
environment for each of us is that in which we spend 80 percent of
our time--in our homes, in our places of work, the streets over
which we travel.<br>
<br>
Street litter, rundown parking strips and yards, dilapidated
fences, broken windows, smoking automobiles, dingy working places,
all should be the object of our fresh view.<br>
<br>
We have been too tolerant of our surroundings and too willing to
leave it to others to clean up our environment. It is time for
those who make massive demands on society to make some minimal
demands on themselves. Each of us must resolve that each day he
will leave his home, his property, the public places of the city
or town a little cleaner, a little better, a little more pleasant
for himself and those around him.<br>
<br>
With the help of people we can do anything, and without their
help, we can do nothing. In this spirit, together, we can reclaim
our land for ours and generations to come.<br>
<br>
Between now and the year 5000, over 100 million children will be
born in the United States. Where they grow up--and how will, more
than any one thing, measure the quality of American life in these
years ahead.<br>
<br>
This should be a warning to us.<br>
<br>
For the past 30 years our population has also been growing and
shifting. The result is exemplified in the vast areas of rural
America emptying out of people and of promise--a third of our
counties lost population in the sixties.<br>
<br>
The violent and decayed central cities of our great metropolitan
complexes are the most conspicuous area of failure in American
life today.<br>
<br>
I propose that before these problems become insoluble, the Nation
develop a national growth policy.<br>
<br>
In the future, government decisions as to where to build highways,
locate airports, acquire land, or sell land should be made with a
clear objective of aiding a balanced growth for America.<br>
<br>
In particular, the Federal Government must be in a position to
assist in the building of new cities and the rebuilding of old
ones.<br>
<br>
At the same time, we will carry our concern with the quality of
life in America to the farm as well as the suburb, to the village
as well as to the city. What rural America needs most is a new
kind of assistance. It needs to be dealt with, not as a separate
nation, but as part of an overall growth policy for America. We
must create a new rural environment which will not only stem the
migration to urban centers, but reverse it. If we seize our growth
as a challenge, we can make the 1970's an historic period when by
conscious choice we transformed our land into what we want it to
become.<br>
<br>
America, which has pioneered in the new abundance, and in the new
technology, is called upon today to pioneer in meeting the
concerns which have followed in their wake--in turning the wonders
of science to the service of man.<br>
<br>
In the majesty of this great Chamber we hear the echoes of
America's history, of debates that rocked the Union and those that
repaired it, of the summons to war and the search for peace, of
the uniting of the people, the building of a nation.<br>
<br>
Those echoes of history remind us of our roots and our strengths.<br>
<br>
They remind us also of that special genius of American democracy,
which at one critical turning point after another has led us to
spot the new road to the future and given us the wisdom and the
courage to take it.<br>
<br>
As I look down that new road which I have tried to map out today,
I see a new America as we celebrate our 200th anniversary 6 years
from now.<br>
<br>
I see an America in which we have abolished hunger, provided the
means for every family in the Nation to obtain a minimum income,
made enormous progress in providing better housing, faster
transportation, improved health, and superior education.<br>
<br>
I see an America in which we have checked inflation, and waged a
winning war against crime.<br>
<br>
I see an America in which we have made great strides in stopping
the pollution of our air, cleaning up our water, opening up our
parks, continuing to explore in space.<br>
<br>
Most important, I see an America at peace with all the nations of
the world.<br>
<br>
This is not an impossible dream. These goals are all within our
reach.<br>
<br>
In times past, our forefathers had the vision but not the means to
achieve such goals.<br>
<br>
Let it not be recorded that we were the first American generation
that had the means but not the vision to make this dream come
true.<br>
<br>
But let us, above all, recognize a fundamental truth. We can be
the best clothed, best fed, best housed people in the world,
enjoying clean air, clean water, beautiful parks, but we could
still be the unhappiest people in the world without an indefinable
spirit--the lift of a driving dream which has made America, from
its beginning, the hope of the world.."<br>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://youtu.be/5LpspwT0ZwA">http://youtu.be/5LpspwT0ZwA</a>
( start about 24 minutes in )</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-the-congress-the-state-the-union-2">https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-the-congress-the-state-the-union-2</a><br>
</p>
<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>