<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><font face="Calibri"><i><b>April</b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 23, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i><font face="Calibri">[ AP- Associated Press - Poll taken ]</font></i><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Attitudes toward climate change continue to
be divisive</b><br>
While a majority of the public report personal impacts from
extreme weather, attitudes and behaviors related to climate change
continue to be highly partisan.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">April 22, 2023<br>
<br>
A majority of the public report personal impacts from extreme
weather in the last five years, and most think climate change was
the reason. Half of adults have become more concerned about
climate change in the last year. In discussing climate change,
many adults learn or teach new information, though fewer report
changing opinions.<br>
<br>
Seventy-one percent of the public believes climate change is
happening, 12% believe climate change is not happening, and 16%
are not sure, numbers that have not changed much in the last seven
years of AP-NORC polling. Democrats are more likely to believe
climate change is happening (91%) compared to independents (62%)
and Republicans (52%).<br>
<br>
Of those who believe climate change is happening, 63% think it is
the result of human activity. Just 7% believe it is caused by
natural changes in the environment, while 30% say believe it is
caused by both equally. Democrats are more likely to believe
climate change stems from human activity (78%) compared to
independents (52%) and Republicans (38%).<br>
<br>
Forty-eight percent of adults have become more concerned about
climate change in the last year. Just 9% have become less
concerned and 43% say there has been no change. Democrats are more
likely to be more concerned (68%) compared to independents (45%)
and Republicans (24%).<br>
<br>
Seventy-nine percent of adults report being personally affected by
at least one extreme weather event in the last five years. Of
those personally impacted by extreme weather, 69% believe climate
change was a cause, at least in part. Thirty percent do not think
climate change was a cause. Democrats who were personally affected
by extreme weather events are more likely to believe it was caused
by climate change (91%) compared to independents (62%) and
Republicans (42%)...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The nationwide poll was conducted April 13-17,
2023, using the AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of
NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews
using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,230 adults.
The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.9 percentage points.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://apnorc.org/projects/attitudes-toward-climate-change-continue-to-be-divisive/?doing_wp_cron=1682199494.5701050758361816406250">https://apnorc.org/projects/attitudes-toward-climate-change-continue-to-be-divisive/?doing_wp_cron=1682199494.5701050758361816406250</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ Clips from the NewYorker article -- and
Elizabeth Kolbert ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>It’s Earth Day—and the News Isn’t Good</b><br>
New reports show that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are
melting faster than anticipated, and other disasters loom.<br>
By Elizabeth Kolbert<br>
<br>
April 22, 2023 <br>
</font><font face="Calibri">The Greenland ice sheet is, quite
literally, a relic of the last ice age. It consists of snow that
fell year after year, century after century, and never melted; at
the very bottom, there are flakes that fell more than a hundred
thousand years ago. The ice sheet is so enormous—at its center,
it’s more than ten thousand feet tall—that it creates its own
weather, which is one of the reasons it survives and also one of
the reasons it’s so vulnerable. As the world warms, the ice sheet
is shrinking, and, as it shrinks, it’s losing elevation. At lower
elevations, the air is warmer, so it shrinks more, and the cycle
continues...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">I could go on here—global sea-surface
temperatures recently hit a record high; a study released earlier
this month reported that sea levels along the southeast coast of
the United States have been rising at the astonishing rate of half
an inch a year—but I won’t, since I’m sure that you get the
picture. The world is on track for disasters on a scale that
humans have never before experienced. Scientists keep warning us
to get off this track, and yet we seem unable—or, at least,
unwilling—to do so. “Greenhouse gases continued to increase
rapidly in 2022,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration announced earlier this month.<br>
<br>
The original Earth Day, in 1970, was an exuberant, urgent, and
bipartisan event. Some twenty million Americans
participated—roughly ten per cent of the country’s population.
Representative Pete McCloskey, a California Republican, helped
organize the day; Senator Bob Packwood, Republican of Oregon,
spoke at American University; and Senator Charles H. Percy,
Republican of Illinois, spoke in Chicago. “Considering the immense
problem we are faced with, we have to come up with some new, bold,
different ideas,” Percy said. By the end of that year, the
Republican President, Richard Nixon, had created the Environmental
Protection Agency and signed the Clean Air Act. Two years later,
with overwhelming support from both parties, Congress passed the
Clean Water Act.. .</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">At a certain point, lurching from crisis to
crisis, Americans will wish that they had heeded all those
scientific warnings and taken action sooner. There is still,
perhaps, a chance to avoid melting most of the Greenland ice sheet
and shutting down major ocean currents. But only if Americans of
both parties—and, indeed, people around the globe—heed the message
of Earth Day. Considering the immense problem we are faced with,
we truly have to come up with new, bold, different ideas. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/its-earth-day-and-the-news-isnt-good">https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/its-earth-day-and-the-news-isnt-good</a></font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<i><font face="Calibri">[ Fox misunderstands Malm ]</font></i><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>'How to Blow Up a Pipeline' takes on the
thrilling question of climate sabotage</b><br>
The movie focused on sabotage against Big Oil has been blasted by
the right, but it's also sparked debate among people on the left.<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">April 21, 2023,<br>
By Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC Opinion Writer/Editor<br>
The new indie film “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” out in theaters
Friday, can be seen as a kind of heist movie, complete with
tension, twists and a precarious conspiracy to get an illicit job
done. But instead of being driven by a desire for cash, the
characters are motivated by a desire for social change. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">That theory of change is outlined in a 2021
book that inspired the movie and shares its name. Swedish scholar
Adreas Malm wrote the book to persuade climate activists to
consider embracing property destruction and sabotage as an
activist tactic. Malm makes the case by elucidating how
traditional peaceful protest has grown enormously in recent years
yet failed to achieve results that have any hope of warding off
catastrophic climate change. Sabotaging the fossil fuel industry,
Malm argues, will make it less profitable and will make mainstream
climate advocacy look moderate by comparison.<br>
<br>
The movie dramatizes Malm’s argument by following eight people who
come together to try to blow up an oil pipeline. On the surface,
the tension is about whether they’ll be thwarted or even kill
themselves in the process. But underneath, tension also lies in
the audience’s receptivity to the characters’ plan: Is this a
justifiable course of action? <br>
<br>
Naturally, the book and the movie have sparked spirited discussion
and criticism across the political spectrum — Fox News held a
panel slamming the movie as violent propaganda. But it has also
sparked internal debate on the left. When I discussed the movie
with a group of progressive friends in a bar after a screening,
people were split over what the movie was trying to say and
whether it was defensible.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">I called up Daniel Goldhaber, the film’s
director and one of its three co-writers, to discuss how the movie
came into being, what it means and what he thinks of Fox’s
tirades.<br>
<br>
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows:<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri"><b>Zeeshan Aleem:</b> So to start
us off, can you just tell me about how you landed on the idea to
make this movie?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Daniel Goldhaber: </b>It came on the
heels of about a year of Covid lockdown and Black Lives Matter
protests in 2020, the insurrection on Jan. 6, the apocalyptic
fires in L.A. in the winter of 2020. There’s a moment where I
was feeling extremely politically powerless and also having not
really actively worked for a year trying to figure out if I’m
going to keep being a filmmaker and what’s the purpose in that.
</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">One of my co-writers, Jordan Sjol, is an
academic, and he’s always talked about wanting to adapt a work
of academic theory for film. Jordan sent the book “How to Blow
Up a Pipeline” to me and co-writer Ariela Barer, and we read it.
I think this idea of adapting something that delivered literally
on the title was an immediate point of inspiration. And part of
it was this idea of living in a moment in which there is so much
injustice and so many problems in the world and yet fixing them
has never felt slower or more logjammed. Especially when it
comes to the question of climate change, in which there is no
time to afford a logjam, we felt there was an ample opportunity
to make a film and tell a story that wasn’t just an exciting
thriller but that also could really beg this question about what
kind of tactics are going to be necessary to actually solve the
climate crisis...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Aleem: </b>Did you talk to Malm about the
movie, and how did you aim to be true to a book that was of a
fundamentally different genre, in that the book was nonfiction
and the film was fiction?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Goldhaber:</b> Our approach is very much
predicated on this idea that stories are just ideas structured
into narrative and that there is a political identity at the
heart of any story. That’s just the nature of the beast. And
half the time when you’re making a movie, a huge part of the
writing process is trying to figure out what the heck you’re
trying to say. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">With this, it was like somebody handed us the
argument and then we just had to figure out how to dramatize it.
And that process was all about finding these stories in the real
world, doing the research to figure out what kinds of people
have been radicalized toward acts like this and then figuring
out a way to create a diverse enough array of those stories and
people that we felt like the film could kind of capture a
kaleidoscopic array of the different kinds of people who were
involved in the climate fight...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">You’re not just illustrating Andreas’ point
by showing the different kinds of things that radicalized
people, but also you’re giving audiences a firsthand experience
of the different kinds of lives that have been destroyed by the
fossil fuel industry. We very much presented that to Andreas,
that this is going to be a movie that is going to be dramatizing
his ideas but that it’s also going to be pushing back on them
more. We wanted to include some of the criticism to the book,
because that’s where drama comes from. And he was very excited
about that — he immediately sent us some of his favorite
articles critical of the book and said, “I think you should be
thinking about these.”</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">I think that the problem in leftist spaces to
an extent is that these texts only exist for a somewhat niche
and limited audience. And the whole point of this movie was to
bring this conversation into the mainstream.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Aleem:</b> Do you or the movie take a
position on whether or not property destruction and sabotage in
the name of fighting climate change is justifiable or
desirable?...</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Goldhaber: </b>I think that the movie
takes the position that these eight characters see this as an
act of self-defense. And I think that there’s a difference
between the position the movie is taking and what the movie
hopes to provoke as a conversation. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">There is a widespread understanding that if
somebody is holding a gun at you with an intent to kill you, you
have a right to take that gun away and disassemble it. And I
think that when you look at not just what science is predicting
for the climate crisis but that the crisis as we have already
experienced it — the drought, the fires, the extreme weather,
the famine, the loss of life that we’ve already seen — due to
climate change has been significant. And that’s only going to
escalate. So on some level, the fossil fuel industry has a gun
to the head of the world. And the question the movie is asking
is: Do we have a right to take that away from them and
disassemble it to prevent more harm? That is fundamentally the
moral question of our time. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Aleem: </b>I assume you saw that Fox News
held a segment on your story, worrying that Gen Z is being
spoon-fed propaganda and that people are using the movie to
champion violence in the climate movement. What’s your
response?...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Goldhaber:</b> I think that my response is
to question the use of the word “violence.” And I would question
whether or not an oil refinery that exists in a community, that
destroys that community, that gives the people in that community
cancer, that poisons the water, that blights the land is an act
of violence. That’s the question the movie is posing. It’s not
trying to radicalize people toward violence. It’s trying to ask
people to recognize the violence that exists in the world due to
the existence of fossil fuels.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Aleem:</b> Some of the characters in the
film envision their actions as justified out of rationale of
self-defense and even hope that it will serve as a legal
defense. It’s hard to imagine that passing muster in a court
today to shield oneself from being charged with destruction of
property. But there is an ideological and moral coherence to it.
Are these characters naive or knowingly hoping to will a new
kind of world into existence?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Goldhaber: </b>Every revolutionary has
been called naive at the beginning of a revolution. One of the
foundational arguments of the book is that virtually every
social justice movement in history has engaged in property
destruction, sabotage, the disruption of civil society. You can
look at how the suffragettes burned buildings and destroyed
paintings. The gay rights movement was started by a riot. I
think it’s less of whether or not these characters are being
naive and more about these characters looking to the historical
record and looking at the need for change and asking whether or
not an act like this is simply necessary...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Part of what the movie recognizes is that,
whether or not the characters are naive, that if we are going to
see a successful necessity defense [argument], that’s only going
to be because the social and political will exists for that
change to happen in our judiciary. To an extent, part of what
the movie is also aiming to do is create a social and political
will and understanding of where necessity defense would even
come from, what that would even be. That’s the same thing that
characters in the film are trying to do — to lay the groundwork
for a shift in the way that we think and the way that we do
things. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Aleem: </b>I’m sure you saw how a wave of
climate activists vandalizing famous paintings was very
polarizing and received some backlash — some critics focused
more on collateral damage than their message. This movie focuses
more on the act than the response. How did you come to the
conclusion to zoom in like that, and what are the implications
for how the movie is received?...<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>Goldhaber:</b> I think we focused
on the act because we didn’t want to send the message that
there’s some sort of silver bullet to solving climate change.
And that’s also not even the argument that Andreas makes in the
book; the point he makes is that there’s always a radical flank.
And to empathize and understand the radical flank is to
understand and allow space for it to exist inside of a movement.
</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Once you start getting into, like, “They blow
up the pipeline, and then X, Y, or Z happens,” the movie becomes
about the effect of the action, not about the justification of
the action. And the movie is all about the last line of the
film: “This was an act of self-defense.” That’s what the film is
asking people to recognize: the defensibility of what has
occurred. And while also recognizing that there are likely to be
positive and negative consequences of something like this, but
that’s immaterial, to an extent. Because there are often
consequences to any act of self-defense. But that’s why we’ve
carved out such a legal and moral framework around it — because
we recognize its necessity...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Aleem:</b> In recent years, we’ve seen an
uptick in more overtly political and ideologically inspired
movies that tackle various forms of injustice and exploitation,
often from an increasingly left-wing perspective. How do you
think about the balancing act between good politics and good art
or the way that there can be a tension between didacticism and
the kind of ambiguity and complexity to make art that really
moves people?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Goldhaber:</b> I think that there
shouldn’t be a significant difference. I think that every film
is political. Whether it’s explicitly political or not, there is
a political core to telling a story. And there are some great
stories out there that are leftist, and there are some great
stories out there that are very conservative. You know, the
quality of the storytelling does not necessarily reflect on the
quality of the politics, but the quality of the politics
reflects on the quality of the politics. Now, I will say that
“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is a movie that is more explicitly
didactic and discursive than some leftist films. And it’s also
significantly less didactic and discursive than other leftist
films. But it’s a movie that’s adapted from a work of academic
theory — it means to be a bit didactic; it means to be a bit
discursive; the structure of the movie is fundamentally
rhetorically constructed. That’s the nature of the adaptation
and the nature of the collaboration that we have with the book.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/fox-news-how-to-blow-up-pipeline-rcna79138">https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/fox-news-how-to-blow-up-pipeline-rcna79138</a></font>
<p><font face="Calibri">- -<br>
</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[ Malm is not calm ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <b>Climate diplomacy is hopeless,
says author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline</b><br>
Andreas Malm says he has no hope in ‘dominant classes’, and urges
more radical approach to climate activism<br>
Damien Gayle<br>
@damiengayle<br>
Fri 21 Apr 2023<br>
International climate diplomacy is hopeless, the author of How to
Blow Up a Pipeline has said, as the film adaptation of the radical
environmentalist book is released.<br>
<br>
As activists around the world take increasingly desperate actions
against destructive projects, Andreas Malm told the Guardian he had
not “a shred of hope” elites were prepared to take the urgent action
needed to avert catastrophic climate change.<br>
<br>
“If we let the dominant classes take care of this problem, they’re
going to drive at top speed into absolute inferno,” Malm said.
“Nothing suggests that they have any capacity of doing anything else
of their own accord because of how enmeshed they are with the
process of capital accumulation...<br>
- -<br>
“And the Cops [Conference of the parties climate summits] are the
ultimate proof of this. Yes, there’s more intention to them, but the
Cops themselves have degenerated into kind of an annual theatre for
pretending that we’re doing something about global warming while, in
fact, we’re just letting fuel be poured on the fire.”<br>
<br>
Published at the beginning of 2021, How to Blow Up a Pipeline sent
shock waves through the climate movement, less than a year after the
coronavirus pandemic lockdowns brought an abrupt end to its biggest
ever mass mobilisation.<br>
<br>
From 2018 onwards, Extinction Rebellion and the climate strike
movement brought tens of thousands on to the streets. But even as
public opinion swung behind their calls for radical change,
emissions and investments in fossil fuels continued to grow.<br>
<br>
The problem, said Malm, was their absolute commitment to non-violent
civil disobedience – the most stringent rule of XR, in particular –
which left fossil capital nothing to fear from public opinion in
bourgeois states where “capitalist property has the status of the
ultimate sacred realm”.<br>
<br>
Instead of disruptive protests and mass rallies, Malm called for a
campaign of sabotage of fossil fuel infrastructure, to break the
taboo against targeting property. Or, he contended in one of the
book’s epigrams, “property will cost us the earth”.<br>
<br>
“I think the reason for the sort of success of the book is not that
the book itself has such amazing qualities,” Malm told the Guardian.
“It’s because it happened to come out precisely at the moment when
the climate movement was starting to think along these lines...<br>
- -<br>
Since its publication, experiments have begun, starting gently and
becoming ever more radical. Over the past year, across Europe and
North America, in a campaign directly inspired by Malm, climate
activists have gone on night-time raids in their cities’ wealthier
districts, pushing lentils into the tyre valves of SUVs to deflate
them by morning.<br>
<br>
Since then, things have accelerated. In Cambridge, England,
clandestine activists have graffitied and smashed the windows of
buildings linked to fossil fuel extraction companies. In Hampshire,
others sabotaged the site of construction of a new pipeline to
siphon jet fuel from Portsmouth to London’s airports.<br>
<br>
In Lutzerath, Germany, protesters in overalls recently fought riot
police trying to clear a condemned village for the expansion of an
opencast mine, which was needed to supply the dirty coal to keep
power stations burning to feed industries starved of energy from
embargoed Russian coal.<br>
<br>
But the most exciting development in environmental protest, says
Malm, has been in France, where activists under the banner of Les
Soulèvements de la Terre have begun sabotage campaigns against
environmentally destructive targets. Last month, thousands fought
with police in Sainte-Soline in western France, in an attempt to
sabotage a new mega-project to harvest groundwater for industrial
agriculture.<br>
<br>
“The scale of that clash and protest puts everything else in the
shade when it comes to radical tactics in the UK or Germany or
anything like that,” Malm said. “It’s so many people doing so
radical things.”<br>
<br>
But Malm does not believe a new cycle of climate activism has begun.
“My maybe too optimistic take on that would be that we are in
between waves, in between cycles, because at no point since 2019
have we yet come back to the numbers and the scale of activity that
we saw in that year,” he said.<br>
<br>
The movement’s suspension of activities during Covid was “in
retrospect a mistake … a political error”, said Malm. “Since then,
there’s been an attempt to kind of regain the momentum. But that
attempt hasn’t worked. We haven’t come anywhere near to the momentum
that we had in late 2019.<br>
<br>
“What has happened since then is that you’ve had a diversification
of the movement, and in a sense kind of fragmentation, with the UK
being one case with XR continuing to produce these offshoots,
Insulate Britain, Just Stop Oil, these various groups more or less
masterminded by Roger Hallam.<br>
<br>
“And it’s similar in Germany, where you have the Last Generation
playing a sort of analogous role, and, you know, different groups of
committed activists trying out different kinds of tactics.”...<br>
- -<br>
Any new cycle would have to match the numbers of 2019 – but it would
also have to contain a new more radical edge, said Malm. “And what’s
going on right now is that you have an accumulation of experience,
where people in the movement are learning how to do things in a more
radical way. And sort of, you know, building up a bank of skills and
thoughts about more militant kinds of tactics.”<br>
<br>
Just Stop Oil initially appeared to promise the kind of new approach
Malm had argued for. When they began their campaign in spring last
year, supporters told the Guardian they intended to move from civil
disobedience, the kinds of disruptive protests carried out by XR and
its offshoot Insulate Britain, and into “civil resistance”.<br>
<br>
“What that means is stopping pointing out what the government should
or shouldn’t be doing [and instead] actively stopping the government
doing what they shouldn’t be,” they said, in a direct echo of Malm’s
rhetoric – rhetoric he, in turn, had directly quoted from no less
radical a figure than Ulrike Meinhof: “Protest is when I say I don’t
like this. Resistance is when I put an end to what I don’t like.”<br>
<br>
The campaign had begun with an audacious effort to paralyse the
supply of fossil fuels to south-east England. But Malm was critical
of an apparent turn since then towards symbolic protest, of a kind
exemplified by protesters hurling tomato soup at Van Gogh’s
Sunflowers in the National Gallery in London, and most recently by
an action in which an activist threw orange powder paint on a
snooker table.<br>
<br>
Now in France, Les Soulèvements de la Terre have developed the
tactic of the climate camp first invented in the UK and fully
elaborated in Germany with Ende Gelände, the German movement against
coalmining, and combined it with the longstanding Gallic tradition
of political struggle and confrontation.<br>
<br>
“Les Soulèvements de la Terre really has as its tactical agenda to
engage in sabotage,” said Malm. “That was the purpose of this
action, that they wanted to sabotage this water reservoir, which
they have done on previous occasions,” he said.<br>
<br>
“So yeah, that’s a sign of these ideas catching on; I do not take
any personal credit for it whatsoever. It grows organically out of
the concrete political situation on the ground, and of course, a
very deep French tradition – I mean, the very word sabotage comes
from French.”<br>
<br>
The popularity of his book catapulted Malm, an associate professor
of human ecology at the University of Lund in Sweden, to movement
stardom.<br>
<br>
He is as surprised as anyone that such radical ideas have become
mainstream. The very fact of the funding, filming and release of the
How to Blow Up a Pipeline movie, a tense and tightly made thriller,
suggests a radical change in public attitudes towards potentially
violent activism.<br>
<br>
“Things have shifted, in the sense that, if you know something about
the climate crisis, you know that the situation is extremely dire,”
he said. “And that gives you a kind of sympathy for the idea that
some people might want to take things into their own hands, or at
least a measure of understanding of the frustration. And that, I
mean, that’s feeling is going mainstream. And I think this is what
the film is showing as well.<br>
<br>
“Clearly, not everyone is blowing up pipelines – I don’t know if
anyone is doing it. But the idea that the big crime is to build a
pipeline, and not potentially blow it up – that idea has a very
broad appeal.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/21/climate-diplomacy-is-hopeless-says-author-of-how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline-andreas-malm">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/21/climate-diplomacy-is-hopeless-says-author-of-how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline-andreas-malm</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ TED talks bring specific audiences to specific advertisers.
They seem to have my interests in mind as they have one related to
global warming Video ( contains commercials about traveling) ]</i><br>
<b>Swim with the giant sunfish</b><br>
Marine biologist Tierney Thys asks us to step into the water to
visit the world of the Mola mola, or giant ocean sunfish. Basking,
eating jellyfish and getting massages, this behemoth offers clues to
life in the open sea.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim_with_the_giant_sunfish">https://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim_with_the_giant_sunfish</a><br>
Read transcript -- Available Clips:<br>
<blockquote>I'd like to start tonight by something completely
different, asking you to join me by stepping off the land and
jumping into the open ocean for a moment. 90 percent of the living
space on the planet is in the open ocean, and it's where life --
the title of our seminar tonight -- it's where life began. And
it's a lively and a lovely place, but we're rapidly changing the
oceans with our -- not only with our overfishing, our
irresponsible fishing, our adding of pollutants like fertilizer
from our cropland, but also, most recently, with climate change,
and Steve Schneider, I'm sure, will be going into greater detail
on this. Now, as we continue to tinker with the oceans, more and
more reports are predicting that the kinds of seas that we're
creating will be conducive to low-energy type of animals, like
jellyfish and bacteria. And this might be the kind of seas we're
headed for.<br>
<br>
01:01<br>
Now jellyfish are strangely hypnotic and beautiful, and you'll see
lots of gorgeous ones at the aquarium on Friday, but they sting
like hell, and jellyfish sushi and sashimi is just not going to
fill you up. About 100 grams of jellyfish equals four calories. So
it may be good for the waistline, but it probably won't keep you
satiated for very long. <br>
But also what's important is that they're not slacker, lazy fish.
They're super industrious. And this is a day in the life of a
Mola, and if we -- they're up and down, and up and down, and up
and down, and up and up and down, up to 40 times a day. As the sun
comes up, you see in the blue, they start their dive. Down -- and
as the sun gets brighter they go a little deeper, little deeper.
They plumb the depths down to 600 meters, in temperatures to one
degree centigrade, and this is why you see them on the surface --
it's so cold down there. They've got to come up, warm, get that
solar power, and then plunge back into the depths, and go up and
down and up and down. And they're hitting a layer down there; it's
called the deep scattering layer -- which a whole variety of
food's in that layer. So rather than just being some sunbathing
slacker, they're really very industrious fish that dance this wild
dance between the surface and the bottom and through
temperature...<br>
- -<br>
14:27<br>
We see the same pattern -- now with these tags we're seeing a
similar pattern for swordfishes, manta rays, tunas, a real
three-dimensional play. This is part of a much larger program
called the Census of Marine Life, where they're going to be
tagging all over the world and the Mola's going to enter into
that. And what's exciting -- you all travel, and you know the best
thing about traveling is to be able to find the locals, and to
find the great places by getting the local knowledge. Well now
with the Census of Marine Life, we'll be able to sidle up to all
the locals and explore 90 percent of our living space, with local
knowledge. It's never -- it's really never been a more exciting,
or a vital time, to be a biologist.<br>
- -<br>
Which brings me to my last point, and what I think is kind of the
most fun. I set up a website because I was getting so many
questions about Molas and sunfish. And so I just figured I'd have
the questions answered, and I'd be able to thank my funders, like
National Geographic and Lindbergh. But people would write into the
site with all sorts of, all sorts of stories about these animals
and wanting to help me get samples for genetic analysis. And what
I found most exciting is that everyone had a shared -- a shared
love and an interest in the oceans. I was getting reports from
Catholic nuns, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, Christians -- everybody
writing in, united by their love of life. And to me that -- I
don't think I could say it any better than the immortal Bard
himself: "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin." And
sure, it may be just one big old silly fish, but it's helping. If
it's helping to unite the world, I think it's definitely the fish
of the future.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim_with_the_giant_sunfish">https://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim_with_the_giant_sunfish</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ For discussion of disinformation and
misinformation. We live in the age of paltering ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri">From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia<br>
<b>Paltering is the active use of selective truthful statements to
mislead</b><br>
<br>
The term as applied in psychology and mediation studies was
developed by researchers at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government in the late 2000s.[5][6][7] The first known use of
palter to describe acting insincerely or deceitfully was in the
1580s.[8]<br>
<br>
Paltering is considered both more serious and more common than a
lie of omission (a passive failure to correct a wrong
statement).[3] Paltering differs from a lie of omission in the
following way, as described by Todd Rogers of the Kennedy School:
When selling a used car with engine trouble, a lie of omission
would be a silent failure to correct a buyer who said, "I presume
the car is in excellent shape and the engine runs well", while
paltering would involve deceiving the buyer with a statement such
as "I drove it yesterday in 10-below temperatures and it drove
well".[3]<br>
<br>
People who palter often believe it is less unethical than outright
lying.[9]<br>
<br>
Usage<br>
Paltering appears to be common in negotiations. More than half of
184 business executives surveyed in a study by the Kennedy School
admitted that they had paltered. Among those who did, most told
the researchers they paltered to get a better deal. But the
practice is risky, because when it is caught, it causes conflict,
reduces trust and undermines relationships</font><br>
<p><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering</a></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<br>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ Wikipedia ]</i><br>
<b>Rock flour</b><br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Rock flour, or glacial flour, consists
of fine-grained, silt-sized particles of rock, generated by
mechanical grinding of bedrock by glacial erosion or by artificial
grinding to a similar size. Because the material is very small, it
becomes suspended in meltwater making the water appear cloudy,
which is sometimes known as glacial milk.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_flour">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_flour</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri">- -<br>
</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ geology lesson -- how rock flour is ground
]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>Glacial "Rock Flour" at Issunguata
Sermia, Greenland</b><br>
greenmanbucket<br>
Apr 21, 2023<br>
There's a lot of fine powdered rock in Greenland, and more every
year as glaciers retreat. Scientists say it may have uses for the
wider world.<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOy7yGULgeU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOy7yGULgeU</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"></font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>April 23, 2007</b></i></font> <br>
April 23, 2007: <br>
• In a speech on climate change and energy at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Senator
John McCain (R-AZ) notes:<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri"> "The burning of oil and other
fossil fuels is contributing to the dangerous accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, altering our climate
with the potential for major social, economic and political
upheaval. The world is already feeling the powerful effects of
global warming, and far more dire consequences are predicted if
we let the growing deluge of greenhouse gas emissions continue,
and wreak havoc with God's creation. A group of senior retired
military officers recently warned about the potential upheaval
caused by conflicts over water, arable land and other natural
resources under strain from a warming planet. The problem isn't
a Hollywood invention nor is doing something about it a vanity
of Cassandra like hysterics. It is a serious and urgent
economic, environmental and national security challenge. </font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> "National security depends on energy
security, which we cannot achieve if we remain dependent on
imported oil from Middle Eastern governments who support or
foment by their own inattention and inequities the rise of
terrorists or on swaggering demagogues and would be dictators in
our hemisphere. </font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> "There's no doubt it's an enormous
challenge. But is it too big a challenge for America to tackle;
this great country that has never before confronted a problem it
couldn't solve? No, it is not. No people have ever been better
innovators and problem solvers than Americans. It is in our
national DNA to see challenges as opportunities; to conquer
problems beyond the expectation of an admiring world. America,
relying as always on the industry and imagination of a free
people, and the power and innovation of free markets, is capable
of overcoming any challenge from within and without our borders.
Our enemies believe we're too weak to overcome our dependence on
foreign oil. Even some of our allies think we're no longer the
world's most visionary, most capable country or committed to the
advancement of mankind. I think we know better than that. I
think we know who we are and what we can do. Now, let's remind
the world."</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-82G-mEvs">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-82G-mEvs</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77106">http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77106</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301763.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301763.html</a><br>
<br>
• Katie Couric's CBSNews.com "Notebook" segment covers the
calamity of climate change.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://youtu.be/CGJMyei2iQM">http://youtu.be/CGJMyei2iQM</a><br>
<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>