<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>February 3, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i>[ evaporating greatness ]</i><br>
<b>Climate change and a population boom could dry up the Great Salt
Lake in 5 years<br>
</b>February 3, 2023...<br>
- -<br>
Scientists point to climate change and rapid population growth —
Utah is one of the fastest growing states and also one of the driest
— as the culprits. A recent scientific report from Brigham Young
University warned that if no action is taken, the Great Salt Lake
could go completely dry in five years...<br>
- -<br>
"We're talking about something that could potentially make these
neighborhoods, I don't want to say uninhabitable, but for those that
are vulnerable, for those that have lung issues, uninhabitable,"
Bitton says...<br>
- -<br>
Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers unveiled
bills ranging from expanding turf-reduction programs in cities, to
providing more incentives to farmers to divert less water from
rivers that feed the lake. Some pledged to spend upwards of a half
billion dollars to save the lake...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1153550793/climate-change-and-a-population-boom-could-dry-up-the-great-salt-lake-in-5-years">https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1153550793/climate-change-and-a-population-boom-could-dry-up-the-great-salt-lake-in-5-years</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ Rising fungi danger in a warming world ]
</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Dangerous fungal illness rapidly spreading
across country, doctors warn</b></font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Valley fever is an infection of the lungs and
causes respiratory symptoms like a cough, difficulty breathing,
fever, and tiredness or fatigue. In rare cases, the Valley fever
fungus can spread to other body parts and cause severe disease.</font><br>
- -<br>
<font face="Calibri">SAN FRANCISCO – Doctors are warning of a
dangerous fungal illness rapidly spreading across the country,
especially affecting those living or visiting the California and
Arizona areas.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">If you think it sounds like something from the
cutting room floor of "The Last of Us" series, where a parasitic
fungal infection devastates mankind, there are some very
base-level similarities.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Valley fever (also called coccidioidomycosis or
"cocci") is a significant cause of pneumonia, said Dr. Brad
Perkins, chief medical officer at Karius, a company that provides
advanced diagnostics for infectious diseases.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"This is a fungus," said Perkins, a former
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official who led the
anthrax bioterrorism investigation. "Most causes of pneumonia are
caused by bacteria. This is a fungus that lives in the soil and is
breathed in dusty situations, whether it's a dust storm or around
construction or excavation."...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- - </font><br>
<br>
<b><font face="Calibri">Where is Valley fever found?</font></b><br>
<font face="Calibri">The fungi that cause Valley fever are
Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasiii, the CDC reports.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">In the U.S., scientists have found C. immitis
primarily in California, as well as Washington State. C. posadasii
is found primarily in Arizona, as well as New Mexico, Nevada,
Utah, Texas, and portions of southern California. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">According to the CDC, Southern California,
particularly the southern San Joaquin Valley, and southern
Arizona, including metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson, have the
highest reported rates of Valley fever. The disease is likely also
common in parts of West Texas and along the Rio Grande River. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Prevention is challenging, according to
Perkins. Risk is mostly associated with travel to high-risk areas.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"People concerned about their risk of
developing Valley fever should try to avoid dusty situations,
mostly in the summer and in peak heat," Perkins said.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">You should also see your doctor if you develop
signs or symptoms of pneumonia.</font><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/valley-fever-lung-fungal-infection">https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/valley-fever-lung-fungal-infection</a><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gizmodo.com/last-of-us-fungus-climate-change-health-1850061831">https://gizmodo.com/last-of-us-fungus-climate-change-health-1850061831</a></font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[ Article in the Atlantic ]</i></font><br>
<b>1.5 Degrees Was Never the End of the World</b><br>
The most famous climate goal is woefully misunderstood.<br>
By Emma Marris<br>
FEBRUARY 1, 2023<br>
How hot is too hot for planet Earth? For years, there’s been a
consensus in the climate movement: no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius
above preindustrial levels. The figure comes from the Paris
Agreement, a climate treaty ratified in 2016, and world leaders such
as President Joe Biden bring it up all the time: “If we’re going to
win this fight, every major emitter nation needs [to] align with the
1.5 degrees,” he said in November. Youth activists at the Sunrise
Movement call 1.5 degrees a “critical threshold.” Even the corporate
world is stuck on 1.5 degrees. Companies including Apple, Google,
and Saudi Aramco—the world’s largest oil company—claim to be
transitioning their operations in alignment with the 1.5 goal.<br>
<br>
But here’s the thing: 1.5 degrees, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, isn’t
based on any scientific calculation. It doesn’t represent a specific
planetary threshold or ecological tipping point. It was first
proposed during international climate negotiations as a moral
statement, a rebuke of the idea that the world could accept some
disruption and suffering in order to burn fossil fuels just a bit
longer. That’s the takeaway of a new study on the history of the
target from two French academics, Béatrice Cointe from the Centre
for the Sociology of Innovation and Hélène Guillemot from the Centre
Alexandre Koyré, both funded by the French National Centre for
Scientific Research. From the perspective of the present, it’s a
relief that 1.5 degrees doesn’t represent a scientific threshold,
because we are almost certainly going to blow past it. As a rebuke,
however, it may live on.<br>
<br>
Nothing about the 1.5-degree target was inevitable. For decades, the
number on the lips of most climate negotiators was 2 degrees
Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. And you do still hear that
number as the go-to target in some climate circles. But in the late
2000s, a negotiating bloc called the the Alliance of Small Island
States argued that this was simply too much warming for their
vulnerable nations. Their atolls would be overtopped by the sea;
their coastal cities would flood. So they called for a lower target,
and 1.5 seemed like a reasonable half-step down from 2 degrees.<br>
<br>
From there, 1.5 degrees gained momentum in diplomatic back channels
and in conversations within think tanks, NGOs, and a group called
the Climate Vulnerable Forum. But there was at that time very little
science on the target; scientists were busy modeling higher levels
of warming, which they considered more likely. A 2015 scientific
panel hosted by the UN concluded that although the science on 1.5
was “less robust,” “efforts should be made to” set warming targets
as low as possible. That year, after what Cointe and Guillemot
characterize as “intense and difficult negotiations,” the new target
was folded into the Paris Agreement, which calls for “pursuing
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above
pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly
reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”<br>
<br>
Science informs policy. But policy shapes science too. Most climate
scientists thought staying under 1.5 degrees was unrealistic. But
climate diplomats nevertheless asked the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for a special report on what the
planet would look like with 1.5 degrees of warming. A report was
duly delivered in 2018, and it unsurprisingly suggested that, all
things considered, 1.5 degrees Celsius would be less bad than 2
degrees Celsius. Which, duh. More warming is always worse.<br>
<br>
Staying below 1.5 degrees, the IPCC scientists concluded, would be
an extremely heavy lift that would require, among other things,
slashing emissions about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030. This
is the origin of the common idea that we have “12 years left” to
stop climate change. The IPCC puts out lots of reports, but its
report on 1.5 degrees remains its undisputed chart-topping banger.
You can feel its influence in this speech that Greta Thunberg gave
to the U.K.’s houses of Parliament in 2019: “Around the year 2030,”
she said, “10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be
in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond
human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our
civilization as we know it.”<br>
<br>
In 2023, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is a fantasy. It is
not happening. We have already warmed the planet more than 1.1
degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit). Climate scientists say we
could pass 1.5 degrees Celsius within a decade. A December analysis
by The Washington Post suggested that ending the century under 1.5
degrees Celsius without substantial mid-century overshoot would
require reforestation on a mind-boggling scale, plus massive
deployment of machines to suck carbon out of the air and cache it
underground—technology that does not yet exist on a widespread
scale—along with a near-total abandonment of fossil fuels like five
minutes ago.<br>
<br>
That we’re going to warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is not good,
of course. The IPCC’s report on 1.5 degrees Celsius predicted more
extreme heat, altered rain patterns, sea-level rise, increased
wildfire, ocean acidification, and major hits to ecosystems such as
arctic tundra and coral reefs as temperatures rise. But it is also
probably not “the end of our civilization as we know it.” Waking up
to 1.6 degrees Celsius won’t feel like we’ve crossed a threshold,
because it isn’t one. It will feel similar to the hot, disrupted
world we already inhabit—just worse. There are many possible futures
inside the realistic range of warming possibilities; their contours
depend not just on the level of warming as measured in degrees but
on how we adapt.<br>
<br>
The legacy of 1.5 degrees is complicated. The target seems to have
prompted many people, such as Thunberg, to start or join activist
groups to press for change. Some activists framed 1.5 degrees as a
terrifying precipice that we are driving toward at top speed, and to
the extent that it has felt like a point of no return, it has caused
a fair amount of eco-anxiety, which research shows can lead to
paralysis and apathy—the opposite of action. If people give up in
despair when we cross the mark, the figure will have been
counterproductive for the climate movement. For now, knowing whether
it’s done more harm or good to the cause is impossible. Either way,
1.5 degrees will likely soon cease to be a target and become a
historical fact.<br>
<br>
But even then, the 1.5-degree target won’t be entirely obsolete. It
has another function—governments that promised in the Paris
Agreement to “pursu[e] efforts” to limit warming to 1.5 degrees can
now be held accountable for breaking their promise. Enshrined in a
legally binding treaty, 1.5 now represents what humanity should have
accomplished. The target can be used as a basis for measuring the
rich world’s moral failures—and justifying reparations (or “loss and
damage,” as they are now referred to in climate-diplomacy circles)
to the rest of the world. Today, 1.5 degrees is less a feasible
target than a “diplomatic weapon,” Cointe and Guillemot write. It is
also already being used in court to sue governments and force them
to take more drastic measures to limit emissions. “In that sense, it
has a use,” Cointe told me.<br>
<br>
1.5 degrees is just a number: a little better than 1.6 degrees, a
little worse than 1.4 degrees. But as a reference against which
humanity’s failures can be judged, it will remain powerful.<br>
<br>
Emma Marris is the writer of The Weekly Planet, a climate newsletter
from The Atlantic. She is the author of Wild Souls: Freedom and
Flourishing in the Nonhuman World.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/climate-change-paris-agreement-15-degrees-celsius-goal/672909/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/climate-change-paris-agreement-15-degrees-celsius-goal/672909/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i> </p>
<i> </i><font face="Calibri"><i> [ A classic video by the most
respected climate scientist- Dr James Hansen 77 min video ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri"><b>James Hansen
Critical Conversation Public Keynote</b><br>
Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment at the
University of Illinois<br>
7,053 views May 11, 2021<br>
On May 5, 2021, iSEE hosted a public keynote by James Hansen,
Director of Columbia University’s Climate Science, Awareness, and
Solutions Program. This talk, and the May 6-7 iSEE Critical
Conversation, were sponsored by the Alvin H. Baum Family Fund,
directed by Joel Friedman and Erika Cornelison.<br>
<br>
Title: “Global Climate Change: Implications for National and
Global Energy Policies”<br>
Abstract: The reality of human-caused global climate change is
finally beginning to be appreciated by the public. The scientific
and engineering communities, although long aware of the climate
problem, failed miserably to affect energy policies in ways that
could have minimized climate impacts. The greatest failure was
adoption of renewable portfolio standards — rather than clean
energy portfolio standards — and exclusion of nuclear power as a
clean development mechanism. Science and engineering can still
address climate and energy so as to minimize undesirable
consequences of climate change, but it will require promptly
overcoming political obstacles to effective policies. Hansen will
describe the situation and provide some suggestions.<br>
<br>
Hansen Bio: Formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, Hansen is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia
University’s Earth Institute, where he directs the Program on
Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. He was trained in
physics and astronomy in the space science program. His early
research on the clouds of Venus helped identify their composition
as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has focused his
research on Earth’s climate, especially human-made climate change.
Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to
congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad
awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the
National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and was designated by Time
Magazine in 2006 as one of the 100 most influential people on
Earth. He has received numerous awards including the Carl-Gustaf
Rossby and Roger Revelle Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the
Blue Planet Prize. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to
power, for identifying ineffectual policies as greenwash, and for
outlining actions that the public must take to protect the future
of young people and other life on our planet.<br>
<br>
The keynote led to a two-day Critical Conversation May 6-7, 2021,
in which iSEE, the Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological
Engineering, and Levenick iSEE Resident Scholar Denia Djokić
explored issues around "The Role of Nuclear Power in Clean Energy
Future."<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC9l5Jj_9ZU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC9l5Jj_9ZU</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ Big money hiding, Citizen's United and
disinformation, hidden influence, very advanced - 53 min video
]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>How the Citizens United Decision
Changed U.S. Political Campaigns (full documentary) | FRONTLINE</b><br>
FRONTLINE PBS | Official<br>
Jan 31, 2023 #Documentary #CitizensUnited #CampaignFinance<br>
How did the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision change
political campaigns in America? In 2012, FRONTLINE and APM’s
Marketplace investigated how the controversial ruling was playing
out in Montana, an epicenter of the campaign finance debate.
(Aired 2012)<br>
<br>
This journalism is made possible by viewers like you. Support your
local PBS station here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pbs.org/donate">http://www.pbs.org/donate</a>.<br>
<br>
As this documentary, “Big Sky, Big Money,” explored, the Citizens
United decision held that political spending is a form of
protected speech, and let corporations and unions spend unlimited
amounts of money in campaigns. But to avoid corruption, the court
said the money can't go directly to candidates; it has to go to
independent outside groups. <br>
<br>
What did that mean in reality? As the 2012 election loomed,
correspondent Kai Ryssdal traveled to Montana, then a battleground
over campaign finance, and uncovered startling new evidence of
outside interest groups’ influence on local campaigns. The
documentary raised questions about how secret “dark money” was
transforming U.S. politics, looked at a boom in ads made by
tax-exempt nonprofits known as 501(c)(4)s — which generally
weren’t required to disclose their donors publicly — and probed
evidence that appeared to show possible coordination with
campaigns. <br>
<br>
“Big Sky, Big Money” is a FRONTLINE production with American
Public Media’s Marketplace in association with American
University’s School of Communications Investigative Reporting
Workshop. The writer, producer and director is Rick Young. The
correspondent is Kai Ryssdal. <br>
<br>
Explore additional reporting on "Big Sky, Big Money" on our
website:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/big-sky-big-money/">https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/big-sky-big-money/</a><br>
<br>
#Documentary #CitizensUnited #CampaignFinance<br>
<br>
Subscribe on YouTube: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bit.ly/1BycsJW">http://bit.ly/1BycsJW</a><br>
Instagram: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.instagram.com/frontlinepbs">https://www.instagram.com/frontlinepbs</a><br>
Twitter: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/frontlinepbs">https://twitter.com/frontlinepbs</a><br>
Facebook: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.facebook.com/frontline">https://www.facebook.com/frontline</a><br>
...<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri">CHAPTERS:</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Prologue - 00:00</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">After Citizens United, a Boom in Campaign
Spending by Outside Groups - 1:20</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">A Rare Look Inside a Super PAC - 08:57</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">‘The Father of Citizens United’ on Secrecy in
Campaign Spending - 19:43</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Montana Takes on the Supreme Court Over
Citizens United - 27:56</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Did a 501(c)(4) Group Break the Law? - 39:41</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Credits - 51:58</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xxiIejOmSo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xxiIejOmSo</a></font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"> <i>[ News archive -a huge "natural
gas" leak from an un-natural drilling. Just call it methane. ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>February 3, 2016</b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> February 3, 2016:</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The Los Angeles Times reports:</font><b><br>
</b><b>L.A. County files criminal charges over Porter Ranch gas leak</b><br>
BY PAIGE ST. JOHN, ALICE WALTON<br>
FEB. 2, 2016<br>
<br>
Reporting from Sacramento — Southern California Gas Co. on Tuesday
was charged with failing to immediately notify state authorities
about the natural gas leak in Aliso Canyon.<br>
L.A. County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey filed four misdemeanor criminal
charges against the gas company, accusing it of releasing air
contaminants and neglecting to report the release of hazardous
materials until three days after the leak began Oct. 23.<br>
<br>
“We will do everything we can as prosecutors to help ensure that the
Aliso Canyon facility is brought into compliance. I believe we can
best serve our community using the sanctions available through a
criminal conviction to prevent similar public health threats in the
future,” Lacey said in a statement.<br>
<br>
The charges could result in a maximum fine of $25,000 a day for each
day the leak went unreported, and $1,000 a day for each day the well
has polluted the air. An arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 17 in
Santa Clarita.<br>
<br>
“We have just been notified of this filing and we are still
reviewing it,” said Kristine Lloyd, a spokeswoman for the utility.
“We have been working with regulatory agencies to mitigate the odors
associated with the natural gas leak and to abate the gas leak as
quickly as safety allows. We will defend ourselves vigorously
through the judicial process.”<br>
<br>
The leaking well has released about 80,000 metric tons of methane,
and the amount continues to grow. Noxious fumes have driven
residents out of more than 5,000 homes in nearby Porter Ranch and
surrounding communities, the utility has said. Residents have
complained of headaches, nosebleeds and nausea, which are short-term
symptoms associated with the smell in the methane.<br>
<br>
The criminal charges came hours after state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris
joined those suing the gas company, saying the litigation was
necessary to hold the utility accountable.<br>
<br>
The attorney general’s action amends a civil suit filed in December
by Los Angeles city and county officials in Superior Court. The
revised joint complaint accuses the gas company of violating health
and safety codes, public nuisance laws and hazardous materials
reporting requirements, as well as engaging in unfair business
practices. The suit seeks civil penalties, restitution and
injunctions to enforce regulations.<br>
<br>
Harris’ joining in the litigation brings to 11 the number of local,
state and federal agencies now either investigating or suing the gas
company. Her office is the only one that can press some claims, such
as alleging statewide harm through greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
<br>
“Quite frankly, it’s not litigation overkill at all,” said Los
Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander, who represents
communities affected by the leak. “The damage the gas has caused to
residents, the environment, the economy, is unprecedented.”<br>
<br>
Though the amount of gas escaping from the company’s Aliso Canyon
underground storage field has fallen since peaking in late November,
the utility does not expect to be able to attempt to stop the leak
until late this month.<br>
<br>
The lawsuit includes yet-unnamed corporate officers of the gas
company who were in a position of responsibility to either prevent,
or immediately correct, the leak. Southern California Gas is owned
by Sempra Energy, a San Diego-based corporation whose board of
directors includes Kathleen Brown, the sister of Gov. Jerry Brown.<br>
<br>
In a press release, the attorney general’s office said it was best
suited to coordinate multiple agency claims while seeking to force
the gas company to address the environmental effects of such a large
release of methane. The gas has a short lifespan in the atmosphere
but has a powerful greenhouse effect in trapping the Earth’s heat
radiation.<br>
<br>
“Against the backdrop of California’s ongoing efforts to reduce
[greenhouse gas] emissions generally, this leak is a monumental
environmental disaster,” the lawsuit contends.<br>
<br>
Harris’ office stated the attorney general “is already serving a
crucial coordinating role” with state, federal and local agencies.
Agency staff said that effort included mapping out what potential
enforcement actions those agencies can take against the gas company.<br>
<br>
The degree of behind-the-scenes coordination and lack of public
involvement in the leak investigation disturbs some consumer
advocates.<br>
<br>
“This is a coup of government agencies working in secrecy, to figure
out how they don’t step on each others’ toes,” said Jamie Court,
president of Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit organization
frequently involved in insurance and utility regulation. “The public
needs to be part of this process. There are too many political
alliances and allegiances here.”<br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-attorney-general-lawsuit-aliso-canyon-leak-20160202-story.html">http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-attorney-general-lawsuit-aliso-canyon-leak-20160202-story.html</a>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:paige.stjohn@latimes.com">paige.stjohn@latimes.com</a></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font><font face="Calibri"><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:alice.walton@latimes.com">alice.walton@latimes.com</a></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri">======================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><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>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><br>
=========================================================<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><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>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><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>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><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>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri">
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<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>
</font>
</body>
</html>