<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> 26, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ BBC reviews recent science ] </i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri"><b>Recent,
rapid ocean warming ahead of El Niño alarms scientists</b></font><br>
<font face="Calibri">By Matt McGrath and Mark Poynting</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">BBC Climate and Science team</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">A recent, rapid heating of the world's oceans
has alarmed scientists concerned that it will add to global
warming.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">This month, the global sea surface hit a new
record high temperature. It has never warmed this much, this
quickly.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Scientists don't fully understand why this has
happened.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">But they worry that, combined with other
weather events, the world's temperature could reach a concerning
new level by the end of next year...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">An important new study, published last week
with little fanfare, highlights a worrying development.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Over the past 15 years, the Earth has
accumulated almost as much heat as it did in the previous 45
years, with most of the extra energy going into the oceans.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">This is having real world consequences - not
only did the overall temperature of the oceans hit a new record in
April this year, in some regions the difference from the long term
was enormous...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Even this seemingly small average increase has
significant real-world consequences.</font><br>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri">-- Loss of species: more frequent
and intense marine heatwaves lead to mass mortality of sea life.
This is particularly damaging for coral reefs.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">-- More extreme weather: increased heat in
the upper ocean surface means hurricanes and cyclones can pick
up more energy. This means they become more intense and
longer-lasting.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">-- Sea-level rise: warmer waters take up more
space - known as thermal expansion - and can greatly accelerate
the melting of glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica that flow
into the oceans. This raises global sea levels, increasing risks
of coastal flooding.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">--Less ability to absorb CO2: the oceans
currently take up about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.
Warmer waters have less ability to absorb CO2. If the oceans
take up less CO2 in future, more would accumulate in the
atmosphere - further warming the air and oceans.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934">https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934</a></font><br>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<i><font face="Calibri">[ Courts as the new battleground ]</font></i><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>‘Like a dam breaking’: experts hail decision
to let US climate lawsuits advance</b><br>
Cities bringing climate litigation against oil majors welcome US
supreme court’s decision to rebuff appeal to move cases to federal
courts</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Hilary Beaumont<br>
Tue 25 Apr 2023<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The decision, climate experts and advocates
said, felt “like a dam breaking” after years of legal delays to
the growing wave of climate lawsuits facing major oil companies.<br>
<br>
Without weighing in on the merits of the cases, the supreme court
on Monday rebuffed an appeal by major oil companies that want to
face the litigation in federal courts, rather than in state
courts, which are seen as more favorable to plaintiffs.<br>
<br>
ExxonMobil Corp, Suncor Energy Inc and Chevron Corp had asked for
the change of venue in lawsuits by the state of Rhode Island and
municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California and Hawaii.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Six years have passed since the first climate
cases were filed in the US, and courts have not yet heard the
merits of the cases as fossil fuel companies have succeeded in
delaying them. In March, the Biden administration had argued that
the cases belonged in state court, marking a reversal of the
position taken by the Trump administration when the supreme court
last considered the issue.<br>
<br>
The Rhode Island attorney general, Peter Neronha, said his state
was now finally preparing for trial after “nearly half a decade of
delay tactics” by the industry. A joint statement from the
California cities of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Richmond and Marin
county said the oil companies knew the dangers of fossil fuels but
“deceived and failed to warn consumers about it even as they
carried on pocketing trillions of dollars in profits”.<br>
<br>
The cases have been compared to tobacco lawsuits in the 1990s that
resulted in a settlement of more than $200bn and changed how
cigarettes are advertised and sold in the US.<br>
<br>
“It was a really amazing feeling to see that the supreme court was
ruling in a very logical way by continuing with the unanimous
decisions that have been made in the previous courts to not [grant
petitions for review] and to allow these cases to move forward,”
said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate
Litigation.<br>
<br>
“It removes this dam that industry has been building to prevent
these cases from being heard on their merits,” she said. “We can
finally have the real conversations about what the industry knew
and what their actions were despite that knowledge.”<br>
<br>
She hopes communities will have the chance to speak in court about
the climate emergencies they are experiencing as a result of the
industry’s actions.<br>
<br>
As jurisdictional battles have dragged on, climate emergencies
have added up.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The Colorado case was filed in 2018. In 2021,
the state saw the Marshall fire, the most destructive wildfire in
its history, which killed two people, destroyed nearly 1,000 homes
and businesses, contaminated drinking water and amounted to
billions in damages.<br>
<br>
“There’s real impacts that are happening now, and that’s why it’s
so important for these cases to have the opportunity to be heard,
and have a chance for justice,” Merner said.<br>
<br>
The cases allege fossil fuel companies exacerbated climate change
by concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with
burning fossil fuels. The lawsuits say the companies created a
public and private nuisance and violated state consumer protection
laws by producing and selling fossil fuels despite knowing the
products would cause devastating climate emergencies, including
melting ice caps, dramatic sea level rise, and extreme
precipitation and drought. Local governments are seeking damages
for the billions of dollars they have paid for climate mitigation
and adaptation.<br>
<br>
The oil companies have denied the allegations.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Financial accountability<br>
<br>
“We were all pretty excited. It feels like justice might be
possible,” Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate
Integrity, said after reading the decision on Monday.<br>
<br>
“There’s clearly trillions of dollars of damages in the US alone
from climate change that has to be dealt with.”<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The plaintiffs aren’t suing the companies to
put them out of business, but the cases could ultimately affect
the industry’s bottom line.<br>
<br>
If the lawsuits are successful, they could limit the fossil fuel
industry’s ability to greenwash and lie to consumers, Merner said.
Rulings against the companies could also reinforce banking
industry concerns that fossil fuels are a risky investment.<br>
<br>
In state court, fossil fuel companies will attempt to have the
cases dismissed.<br>
<br>
The Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous said in a statement he was
confident the cases would be dismissed, arguing that climate
change requires a coordinated federal response, “not a disjointed
patchwork” of actions from numerous state courts. “These wasteful
lawsuits in state courts will do nothing to advance global climate
solutions, nothing to reduce emissions and nothing to address
climate-related impacts,” he said.<br>
<br>
“I don’t think there’s any reason for that confidence yet,” said
Korey Silverman-Roati, climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for
Climate Change Law, in response to Boutrous.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">It’s unclear what will happen in state courts,
but Silverman-Roati pointed to the Hawaii case, in which a state
court denied the industry’s motion to dismiss.<br>
<br>
If plaintiffs clear motions to dismiss, the cases move to
discovery. The plaintiffs will use the process to try to gather
more evidence of what the companies knew and when they knew it.
Internal company documents will probably become public when the
trials get under way.<br>
<br>
Recent studies have shown that Exxon accurately predicted that its
products would cause climate change.<br>
<br>
Attribution science will play a key role in connecting local
climate disasters to the industry’s responsibility. “Studies can
explain how much hotter a heatwave is, or how much greater the
intensity of a downpour is during a hurricane event due to climate
change. And they can look to see where those emissions came from,
and what percentage of those emissions tie into those direct
climate impacts,” Merner said.<br>
<br>
With each decision in favor of plaintiffs, the cases are
snowballing and more local governments are filing new cases.
“There’s a growing number of lawsuits. And I imagine after today,
that will continue,” Merner said.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/25/experts-hail-decision-us-climate-lawsuits-advance">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/25/experts-hail-decision-us-climate-lawsuits-advance</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<i><font face="Calibri">[ </font></i><i><font face="Calibri">"The
decision sends a powerful message to fossil fuel companies:
Evading responsibility will not be tolerated."</font></i><font
face="Calibri"><i>]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>US Supreme Court's Blow to Big Oil 'Should
Open the Floodgates for More Lawsuits'</b></font><br>
<font face="Calibri">"The high court's decision is a major victory
for communities across the country that are fighting to hold Big
Oil accountable and make them pay for the climate damages they
knowingly caused," said one advocate.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">JESSICA CORBETT</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Apr 24, 2023</font><br>
Campaigners and frontline communities celebrated Monday after the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear five appeals from major fossil
fuel companies hoping to shift climate liability cases from state to
federal court, where polluters are more likely to prevail.<br>
<br>
"Big Oil companies have been desperate to avoid trials in state
courts, where they will be forced to defend their climate lies in
front of juries, and today the Supreme Court declined to bail them
out," said Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles.<br>
<br>
"The high court's decision is a major victory for communities across
the country that are fighting to hold Big Oil accountable and make
them pay for the climate damages they knowingly caused," he
continued. "Now it's time for these polluters to face the evidence
of their deception in court."<br>
<br>
The new denials come after the nation's highest court handed fossil
fuel giants a narrow win two years ago. They involve lawsuits
brought against several companies—including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil,
Shell, Suncor, and Sunoco—in recent years by the state of Rhode
Island as well as municipalities across California, Colorado,
Hawaii, and Maryland...<br>
- -<br>
"ExxonMobil, Suncor, Chevron, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies
have known for decades that heat-trapping emissions from their
operations and the use of their products drive climate change and
its impacts, but they have continued to deceive the public and
obstruct meaningful action," she said. "The decision sends a
powerful message to fossil fuel companies: Evading responsibility
will not be tolerated."<br>
<br>
Earlier this month, documents exposed that Shell knew about the
impact of fossil fuels even earlier than previously thought—a
revelation that came just a few months after a peer-reviewed study
showed that ExxonMobil accurately predicted global heating decades
ago.<br>
<br>
"As we become more adept at identifying the specific contributions
of individual companies to the climate crisis through attribution
science," said Merner, "we are increasingly able to trace the lines
of responsibility from the boardrooms of fossil fuel companies to
the shattered homes and lives of those harmed by climate change."<br>
- -<br>
<font face="Calibri">The Supreme Court next month is still set to
decide on a petition involving Delaware and Hoboken, New Jersey.
Sher Edling highlighted a few lines from related the 3rd Circuit
opinion: "Our federal system trusts state courts to hear most
cases—even big, important ones that raise federal defenses.
Plaintiffs choose which claims to file, in which court, and under
which law. Defendants may prefer federal court, but they may not
remove their cases to federal court unless federal laws let them.
Here, they do not."...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">"Honolulu taxpayers are ready to hold these
defendants accountable for their deception and the enormous costs
that their conduct is imposing on our communities," said Matthew
Gonser, who leads the Hawaiian city and county's Office of Climate
Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency. He noted the decision
aligns with district and appellate court rulings.<br>
<br>
According to the environmental law firm Sher Edling, fossil fuel
companies' federal removal claims also have been rejected by the
appeals courts for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th circuits,
demonstrating agreement among 33 district and appellate judges
nominated by five former presidents.<br>
<br>
The Supreme Court next month is still set to decide on a petition
involving Delaware and Hoboken, New Jersey. Sher Edling
highlighted a few lines from related the 3rd Circuit opinion: "Our
federal system trusts state courts to hear most cases—even big,
important ones that raise federal defenses. Plaintiffs choose
which claims to file, in which court, and under which law.
Defendants may prefer federal court, but they may not remove their
cases to federal court unless federal laws let them. Here, they do
not."<br>
<br>
Mat Marshall, a spokesperson for Democratic Delaware Attorney
General Kathy Jennings, welcomed the developments on Monday and
said that "the question presented to the Supreme Court by
defendants in our case is identical, so we look forward to the
same outcome in a few weeks when that petition is considered."</font><br>
- -<br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-fossil-fuels-climate">https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-fossil-fuels-climate</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ Philosopher of climate change ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Podcast: Why we can still avoid imminent
extinction with Daniel Schmachtenberger</b></font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Harvest Series</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Mar 15, 2023 SIX SENSES KAPLANKAYA<br>
Some of Daniel Schmarchtenberger's friends say you can be
"Schmachtenberged". It means realising that we are on our way to
self-destruction as a civilisation, on a global level. This is a
topic often addressed by the American philosopher and strategist,
in a world with powerful weapons and technologies and a lack of
efficient governance. But, as the catastrophic script has already
started to be written, is there still hope? And how do we start
reversing the scenario?<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyJJ-mNcmK0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyJJ-mNcmK0</a></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"></font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ CBS Sat Morning - notice their studio
comments ]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>To mitigate impacts of climate
change, some turn to controver(s)ial "geoengineering"</b><br>
CBS Mornings<br>
Apr 22, 2023 #news #climatechange<br>
As scientists work to blunt the impacts of climate change, a
controversial method called geoengineering is being considered as
a way to help cool the planet. Ben Tracy has more.<br>
<br>
#news #climatechange <br>
<br>
"CBS Saturday Morning" co-hosts Jeff Glor, Michelle Miller and
Dana Jacobson deliver two hours of original reporting and breaking
news, as well as profiles of leading figures in culture and the
arts. Watch "CBS Saturday Morning" at 7 a.m. ET on CBS and 8 a.m.
ET on the CBS News app.<br>
- -<br>
Watch CBS News live: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c">https://cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c</a><br>
Download the CBS News app: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8">https://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8</a><br>
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/3A13OqA">https://bit.ly/3A13OqA</a><br>
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/3tpOx00">https://bit.ly/3tpOx00</a><br>
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Twitter: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/38QQp8B">https://bit.ly/38QQp8B</a><br>
Subscribe to our newsletter: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T">https://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T</a><br>
Try Paramount+ free: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/2OiW1kZ">https://bit.ly/2OiW1kZ</a><br>
For video licensing inquiries, contact: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:licensing@veritone.com">licensing@veritone.com</a><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVsat8-Dso">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVsat8-Dso</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[ The Power of Big Oil part 3 ]</i></font><br>
<b>The Power of Big Oil, Part Three: Delay (full documentary) |
FRONTLINE</b><br>
FRONTLINE PBS | Official<br>
May 3, 2022 #Docuseries #ClimateChange #BigOil<br>
Watch the final episode of “The Power of Big Oil,” a three-part
FRONTLINE docuseries investigating what scientists, corporations and
politicians have known about human-caused climate change for decades
— and the missed opportunities to mitigate the problem.<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>
Throughout the first two episodes of “The Power of Big Oil,”
FRONTLINE went inside the fossil fuel industry’s efforts in the
1980s, 1990s and 2000s to stall action on climate change by
cultivating denial and doubt.<br>
<br>
The third and final episode of the series brings the story up to the
present.<br>
<br>
“Delay,” part three of “The Power of Big Oil,” investigates how,
even as the warnings about climate change grew, the <br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8UOJqs5F9Q&t=108s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8UOJqs5F9Q&t=108s</a></font><br>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[ This classic video is worth sharing
widely ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri"><b>The Troll
Army of Big Oil | Climate Town</b><br>
Climate Town<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOi05zDO4yw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOi05zDO4yw</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>April 26, 1978</b></i></font> <br>
April 26, 1978: The Supreme Court explicitly gives private-sector
entities (including polluters) 1st Amendment rights in the First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti case.<br>
</font>
<blockquote>
<p>First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978),
is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech
right of corporations for the first time. The United States
Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment
right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns.[1]
The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that
prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the
corporation's interests were directly involved.<br>
<br>
In 1976 several corporations, including the First National Bank
of Boston, were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts
referendum regarding tax policy and subsequently sued. The case
was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral
arguments in November 1977. On April 26, 1978, the Court ruled
5-4 against the Massachusetts law.<br>
<br>
As a result of the ruling, states could no longer impose
specific regulations on donations from corporations in ballot
initiative campaigns. While the Bellotti decision did not
directly affect federal law, it has been cited by other Supreme
Court cases such as McConnell v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Facts of the case</b><br>
The National Bank of Boston, along with two other national banks
and three corporations, wished to spend money to publicize their
opposition to a ballot initiative that would permit Massachusetts
to implement a graduated income tax. The Attorney General of
Massachusetts informed the organizations that he intended to
enforce a state statute that prohibited such organizations from
making contributions to influence the outcome of a vote that does
not materially affect their assets and holdings. The organizations
sued and argued that the statute violated their First Amendment
rights. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the
constitutionality of the statute.<br>
<br>
<b>Question</b><br>
Does the First Amendment protect the rights of corporations to
attempt to influence the outcome of elections in which they have
no direct monetary interest?<br>
<br>
<b>Conclusion</b><br>
Sort: by seniority by ideology<br>
5–4 DECISION FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON<br>
MAJORITY OPINION BY LEWIS F. POWELL, JR.<br>
Warren E. Burger<br>
William J. Brennan, Jr.<br>
Potter Stewart<br>
Byron R. White<br>
Thurgood Marshall<br>
Harry A. Blackmun<br>
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.<br>
William H. Rehnquist<br>
John Paul Stevens<br>
<br>
<b>Yes. </b>Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the opinion of the
5-4 majority. The Court held that the right to attempt to
influence the outcomes of elections is one of the primary rights
the First Amendment was meant to protect. If this form of speech
came from a person rather than a corporation, there would be no
question about whether it was protected speech. The Court also
held that its previous decisions regarding the First Amendment
rights of corporations emphasized the role that such speech played
in creating public discussion.<br>
<br>
<b>In his concurring opinion,</b> Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
wrote that the Massachusetts risked stifling the speech of
organizations who use the corporate form to ensure mass
communication with the public. He also argued that the statute
could easily interfere with the First Amendment protection of the
freedom of speech, since many newspapers and other news sources
are part of large media conglomerations.<br>
<br>
Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion and argued that
the majority’s opinion vastly underestimates the importance of
state regulation of competing First Amendment interests,
especially given the disproportionate economic power of
corporations. Since corporations are funded by the money of
investors, Justice White argued that it was the state’s duty to
ensure that shareholder money was being used for its primary
purpose: to make money, not pursue unrelated political objectives.
The statute ensured that shareholders’ money is not funding
political initiatives they would not individually support. He
pointed out that the statute did not prevent the individuals who
make up the corporations from communicating their views to the
public on an individual basis.<br>
<br>
<b>In his dissenting opinion,</b> Justice William H. Rehnquist
argued that corporations are, and had always been, considered
artificial persons under the law, and therefore not granted the
rights of natural persons. Since the right of political expression
is not necessary for a corporation to function economically and
could be detrimental to the overall political sphere, he argued
that the statute was justified...</p>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1172">https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1172</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>