<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>June</b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 5, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font><font face="Calibri"> </font><i>[
fire watch N.America ]</i><br>
<b>Canada ablaze: How wildfires are caused by climate change | World
Environment Day | WION</b><br>
WION<br>
Jun 4, 2023 #wildfire #canada #wion<br>
Wildfires have forced thousands in Canada's nova scotia province to
evacuate. the wildfires are now threatening communities on the
outskirts of Halifax and have resulted in poor air quality.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya7CiDTnm6g">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya7CiDTnm6g</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ BBC in South Africa - the coal industry falling apart - acts
of criminality and treason - a failing state ]</i><br>
<b>South Africa: On the edge of darkness - BBC News</b><br>
BBC News<br>
317,093 views Jun 1, 2023 #BBCNews #SouthAfrica<br>
South Africa’s crumbling energy system is no longer able to keep
the lights on, as lengthy power cuts are experienced daily across
the country.<br>
The BBC’s Andrew Harding uncovers a story of corruption and vested
interest at the heart of South Africa’s power failure.<br>
Please subscribe here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bit.ly/1rbfUog">http://bit.ly/1rbfUog</a><br>
#SouthAfrica #BBCNews<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofwx-kyxHq4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofwx-kyxHq4</a><br>
</p>
<p> - -</p>
<blockquote><i>More info -- once a nation starts to lose electric
power, it begins to fail So it started in 2007</i><br>
Why the lights are going out in South Africa - BBC News
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh4yqhD98HU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh4yqhD98HU</a><br>
SA Power Crisis | Role of politics in fueling Eskom crisis
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL8AoD_WgWs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL8AoD_WgWs</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/ua7ol82Zd9c">https://youtu.be/ua7ol82Zd9c</a> What caused South Africa's energy
crisis? | Inside Story Al Jazeera English<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm1ipKJvaR8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm1ipKJvaR8</a> Is South Africa a
failed state?</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Leave it to a famous movie director to compose such a succinct
message. Almost fits on a T-shirt. McKay directed the
movie"Don't Look Up" -- this article appears in jacobin.com. I
wish he would consider making another movie. ]</i><br>
<b>Adam McKay: It’s Not Too Late to Demand a Sane Government
Response to Climate Change</b><br>
BY ADAM MCKAY<br>
The world will soon cross 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming
beyond preindustrial levels, meaning serious destabilization of the
earth’s ecosystem. But we can still mitigate climate change’s worst
effects with drastic government action.<br>
<b>The hot, pissed off, oil-caked cat is now out of the bag.</b><br>
<br>
We will likely cross 1.5 degrees Celsius (or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)
of global warming beyond preindustrial levels in the next two to
four years. This is the temperature at which scientists have warned,
for quite some time, serious destabilization may occur. While global
temperatures are usually measured as the longer-term trend line
rather than a single year’s temperature, 1.5 degrees Celsius is a
frightening threshold to cross.<br>
<br>
Rather than feeling powerless, frustrated, and terrified at this
moment, it’s vitally important we take a beat to remember one very
important thing:<br>
<br>
it’s not supposed to be like this.<br>
<br>
Collectively, we’ve gotten very used to governments, media, and
industry across the world rarely, if ever, solving problems. It
seems in 2023 they exist primarily to make sure the financial
markets remain robust and working people stay on mute.<br>
<br>
And much how growing up with a gambling-addict dad makes a family
normalize last-second missed free throws meaning no lights or food
for a month, we have gotten comfortable with ridiculous levels of
corruption and incompetence from our elite institutions.<br>
<br>
Word salads, incremental gestures, outright BS, and most of all,
pretending there is no problem, flood our day-in-day-out public
discourse.<br>
<br>
So just a reminder that no, you’re not crazy, there are really
obvious things we should and could be doing.<br>
<br>
Here are six actual steps that any semifunctioning government would
be working on if it were not overrun by billions of dollars in dark
and soft money:<br>
<blockquote><b>1. Declare A Climate Emergency.</b><br>
<br>
Duh.<br>
<br>
We’re in a climate emergency, so declare it. And unleash executive
powers, in the United States, that allow a government to start
problem solving rather than whatever it’s doing right now.<br>
<br>
Joe Biden’s failure to declare an emergency and give a landmark
climate speech makes Neville Chamberlain look more decisive than
the Rock in San Andreas. Shame on him, and shame on a press corps
that rarely if ever asks him about it.<br>
<br>
<b>2. Climate-Proof Our Infrastructure.</b><br>
<br>
We should cover every structure possible in solar, wind power,
battery storage, and reflective paint to protect power grids,
reduce carbon emissions, and mitigate extreme heat.<br>
<br>
How would we pay for this?<br>
<br>
Hmm. If only there was a nearly $800 billion annual budget out
there for wars that aren’t happening.<br>
Oh yeah! The Pentagon budget!<br>
<br>
Use a chunk of it. Now. We’ve changed plowshares to swords, but
now it’s time to change swords into solar arrays and wind farms.
Our military has been without a clear mission for years. And the
climate emergency is the mission of all missions.<br>
<br>
<b>3. Nationalize and Transform Fossil Fuel Companies Into
Renewable Energy Companies.</b><br>
<br>
We did it during the 2007 housing market collapse with banks that
behaved horribly and collapsed. What the oil companies are doing
not only endangers the world economy, it will totally destroy it.<br>
<br>
If this sounds drastic, remember that during World War II, there
were no factories making Panzer tanks for the Nazis in the United
States or the UK, even though I’m sure it would have been good
“for the markets.”<br>
<br>
<b>4. Invest in Carbon Removal Technology.</b><br>
<br>
We should create a dozen multibillion-dollar research labs to
scale up and perfect carbon removal.<br>
<br>
We are already at half the carbon load of the Permian extinction,
and we’ve done it in a small fraction of the time.<br>
<br>
There’s no question we’re going to need to remove carbon from the
atmosphere. And there are promising new technologies being
developed that are only lacking funding and scale.<br>
<br>
Is this the answer?<br>
<br>
No. But it may help, and we have to try.<br>
<br>
<b>5. Ruggedize the Hell Out Of Everything.</b><br>
<br>
Fires, floods, mega-droughts, tornadoes, food shortages, power
outages, and dangerous heat events are shifting into a new gear
across the globe.<br>
<br>
Let’s get ready with cooling centers, new weather alert systems,
sea walls, expanded firefighting capabilities, evacuation plans,
etc.<br>
<br>
This preparation will save countless lives.<br>
<br>
<b>6. Transform How We Cultivate Food and Meat to Reduce Methane
Emissions.</b><br>
<br>
The second biggest producer of greenhouse gases behind the burning
of oil and gas?<br>
<br>
Methane from the hundreds of millions of animals we cultivate for
food on an industrial scale.<br>
<br>
There are alternatives. Very tasty alternatives.<br>
<br>
Transition farmers away from methane-producing animals and toward
carbon-free proteins with huge subsidies and support from the
government agencies offering engineering and infrastructure
emergency support.<br>
<br>
“But I like a good steak!”<br>
So do I. But I like not having my house burn down just a hair
more.<br>
</blockquote>
This is just my list and just a start. If you think it’s terrible,
please, please make a better one.<br>
<br>
If lots of people start talking about “the plan,” maybe Washington
DC will stop looking at poll numbers and collecting checks at
cocktail parties and work on one too.<br>
<br>
Many will say, “You have to be realistic. Work with the system as it
is.”<br>
I would remind them we’ve been doing that for forty years. And the
results couldn’t be any worse.<br>
<br>
It’s time to challenge the system to do something really radical:
actually start solving problems.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jacobin.com/2023/05/adam-mckay-climate-change-fossil-fuels-government">https://jacobin.com/2023/05/adam-mckay-climate-change-fossil-fuels-government</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ letters of deliberate deceit is fraud ]</i><br>
<b>Rio Grande LNG’s Developer Led Ghostwriting Campaign to Get
Federal Approval</b><br>
NextDecade, a company hoping to build an $11 billion LNG project in
south Texas, submitted letters to FERC on behalf of nearly two dozen
public officials.<br>
ByNick Cunninghamon<br>
Jun 1, 2023 <br>
In March, a man named David Irizarry wrote a letter to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in support of a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) project to be built in Brownsville, Texas. The Rio
Grande LNG project (RGLNG), estimated to cost more than $11 billion,
would be the largest private sector investment in Texas’ history.
But it was awaiting a key decision from FERC.<br>
<br>
“As you know, the US appeals court of the DC circuit rejected all
but two of the claims put forward by opponents of RGLNG related to
RGLNG’s FERC order,” Irizarry wrote. Irizarry is not in the gas
business, nor does he deal with energy policy. As the chief
executive of the Valley Regional Medical Center, a medical system
serving Brownsville and the Rio Grande Valley, his letter displayed
an unusually fluent understanding of the ins and outs of the federal
gas permitting process.<br>
<br>
“The project is currently facing regulatory uncertainty that is
related to the court remand, which is hindering its progress,” he
wrote.<br>
<br>
A 2021 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
required FERC to revisit an earlier authorization for the LNG
project, but by early 2023, the agency had yet to take action,
leaving the project in limbo. <br>
<br>
A few weeks after Irizarry filed comments to FERC, the Brownsville
Fire Chief voiced similar concerns. In fact, the language was nearly
identical. “The project is currently facing regulatory uncertainty
that is related to the court remand, which is hindering its
progress,” Chief Jarrett V. Sheldon wrote in a submission to FERC.
“However, after 19 months, the court and RGLNG are still waiting for
the Commission to respond; this seems unusually long,” he added.<br>
<br>
Nearly two dozen other official comments were formally submitted to
the FERC docket in March and April, all with similar language. In
most cases, they were near copies of each other, only differing in
their letterheads. Comments also came from top officials in Cameron
County, Texas, where Rio Grande LNG would be built, including a
Cameron County judge, a county commissioner, a Texas state
representative, a small town mayor, an executive from the Portuguese
gas company Galp, and a half dozen commissioners at the Port of
Brownsville.<br>
<br>
As it turns out, the letters appear to have all been ghostwritten
and submitted by NextDecade, the sponsor of the Rio Grande LNG
project.<br>
<br>
According to emails obtained through a public records request by
DeSmog, NextDecade approached these officials with a draft letter to
FERC, asking for their support.<br>
<br>
“I’m writing to ask if you would be willing to send a letter of
support for the RGLNG project to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) Chairman,” Andrea Figueroa Benton, the head of
community relations at NextDecade, wrote in a March 14 email to
Cledia Hernandez, the acting vice chancellor for the Texas State
Technical College. “Please let me know if you would be willing to
send a letter. Attached is a draft that you may edit as
necessary.”...<br>
- -<br>
Hernandez edited the draft letter to discuss the benefits to the
technical college from an LNG project and sent it back to
NextDecade. “The skills learned in these programs can be applied to
the construction and operation of the RGLNG project creating job
opportunities for our students,” she wrote. <br>
<br>
In an email to DeSmog, Hernandez noted her changes. “With the
exception of the introductory paragraph stating my title and the
purpose of the letter, the two letters have no other common
language,” she said.<br>
<br>
But unlike Hernandez, nearly all of the twenty other prominent
supporters identified by DeSmog made minimal changes to NextDecade’s
draft, and simply slapped their letterhead onto it. They include
Cameron County Commissioner Sofia Benavides, Cameron County Judge
Eddie Treviño, Texas State Representative Erin Elizabeth Gámez, the
Mayor of Los Fresnos Alejandro Flores, and six officials at the Port
of Brownsville, where the LNG project is located.<br>
<br>
DeSmog reached out to the more than dozen public officials who
submitted comments that closely mirrored NextDecade’s draft, and
none of them responded...<br>
- -<br>
“There’s been a lot of public resistance to this project. A lot of
vocal opposition to it,” Jennifer Richards, a staff attorney at
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, who has been involved with litigation
against the project, told DeSmog. “This is likely an attempt for Rio
Grande LNG to bolster the public record to show that people support
it, or that someone supports it. I don’t think that’s the same thing
as community feedback.”<br>
<br>
An “Imbalance of Power”<br>
In early 2023, after suffering repeated delays due to market
uncertainty and legal setbacks, NextDecade seemed to be growing
impatient. The company was conducting some limited site preparation
at the Port of Brownsville, but was awaiting the final go-ahead from
FERC. In 2021, a federal court said that FERC violated the National
Environmental Policy Act when it had authorized the Rio Grande LNG
project, and it ordered the commission to redo its analysis of
environmental justice and climate impacts of the project. The result
was a lengthy delay for the gas export terminal.<br>
<br>
By February 2023, with Rio Grande LNG several years behind schedule,
NextDecade fired off an angry letter to FERC. “[I]t is patently
clear that an ongoing, 18-month process to address two questions
remanded to the Commission is inexcusable,” NextDecade wrote. “We
respectfully request that you rectify this immediately.”<br>
<br>
In the following weeks, a flurry of comments in support of Rio
Grande LNG began to appear in the FERC docket. They came from
notable officials in Brownsville, all citing “regulatory
uncertainty” and calling for swift approval of the project. The
letters also said that “most people” in the community supported the
project.<br>
<br>
But they were all filed by NextDecade, using language written by the
company. NextDecade did not respond to questions from DeSmog...<br>
- -<br>
The comments came at a sensitive time, as FERC was wrapping up its
environmental analysis. On April 21, FERC announced its decision,
reapproving the project. The decision was essentially the same as
its first approval four years ago, only with a bit more homework to
back up its decision.<br>
<br>
FERC expanded the radius in which it assessed impacts, and
discovered 367 additional “environmental justice” communities that
would be impacted by Rio Grande LNG and its associated Rio Bravo gas
pipeline, a proposed 137-mile pipeline that would carry gas from an
energy storage hub near Corpus Christi to the proposed terminal in
Brownsville. It also found that emissions of particulate matter —
tied to asthma, decreased lung function, and cardiovascular ailments
— could potentially exceed federal standards.<br>
<br>
But despite these additional impacts, and the fact that impacts
would disproportionately fall on low-income communities and
communities of color, FERC Chairman Willie Phillips nonetheless said
that the environmental impacts would be “less than significant.”<br>
<br>
Project opponents were aghast. “I’m not sure how a federal agency
can openly acknowledge that all of the impacts of these terminals
will be borne by environmental justice communities and then also
conclude that that’s in the public interest,” Richards said. She
added that NextDecade’s apparent ghostwriting on behalf of public
officials demonstrates “the imbalance of power” between the gas
industry and local communities where polluting facilities will be
built.<br>
<br>
“The LNG companies have access to public officials in a way that
other folks don’t,” she said. “And there was really no attempt by
FERC to try to go out and see what people living on the ground, how
they might respond to this application.”<br>
<br>
One FERC Commissioner, Allison Clements, dissented with the
reapproval decision, stating that the failure of FERC to do a
supplemental environmental impact statement — a more thorough
analysis than the one that FERC did — leaves the Commission with “a
fundamentally flawed record that cannot support a public interest
determination.” She also suggested that the abbreviated analysis
could once again open up the LNG project to litigation.<br>
<br>
Opponents of the project saw it in similar terms. On May 22, a
coalition including the Sierra Club, City of Port Isabel, the
Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, and a local community group called
Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera (Neighbors for the
Wellness of the Coastal Community), filed a request with FERC for a
rehearing of the commission’s recent approval of the LNG project.
Noting multiple deficiencies and the lack of a supplemental
environmental impact statement, the filing called FERC’s approval a
“procedural shortcut.”<br>
<br>
“[R]ather than exercise its independent judgment, FERC has simply
uncritically accepted the representations of the industry FERC is
supposed to regulate,” the filing states...<br>
- -<br>
Meanwhile, Rio Grande LNG has faced scrutiny from some of its
overseas customers regarding its climate impact. The project aims to
ship gas fracked from the Eagle Ford and Permian basin in Texas’
shale fields, where the unchecked flaring of gas and rampant methane
leaks have trashed the industry’s reputation. In 2020, French gas
trading firm Engie backed out of a deal to buy cargoes from Rio
Grande LNG. <br>
<br>
In response, NextDecade promised to implement carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) at the facility, claiming that it would be the
“greenest LNG project in the world.” It’s not clear that the
technology will work — CCS has failed or underperformed at many
other oil and gas sites around the world — but even if it did, it
would only capture a small fraction of the facility’s emissions,
ignoring methane leaked upstream and the burning of the gas
overseas. <br>
<br>
In any event, NextDecade hasn’t made much progress. The company has
thus far not even selected a location for the CCS project. In fact,
FERC suspended its review of the CCS portion of the project in
April, noting that NextDecade has failed to submit enough
information. <br>
<br>
But that might not matter to NextDecade. In an August 2022 filing to
FERC, the company characterized its CCS project as a “voluntary
undertaking,” and stated: “[I]t is possible that the CCS System
Project may not operate at all times. It is also possible that RGLNG
may not be able to move forward with the CCS System Project for any
number of reasons.” <br>
<br>
In other words, NextDecade intends to go forward with the LNG
terminal with or without CCS. <br>
<br>
The CCS claims, even if thin on details, serve a purpose. By
wrapping the project in climate-friendly language, NextDecade
appears to be succeeding in assuaging the concerns of buyers. By May
2022, Engie was back on board, agreeing to a 15-year deal to buy LNG
from the export terminal. <br>
<br>
The last piece of the puzzle is securing one more big buyer for its
LNG. In January, gas brokerage firm Poten & Partners suggested
that TotalEnergies was in talks for a deal with Rio Grande LNG, one
big enough to push the project over the finish line and into active
construction. That has yet to happen, however. <br>
<br>
For NextDecade, time is of the essence. The company said it would
announce a final investment decision by the end of June. But it has
issued such deadlines before, only to push off the decision. Every
delay costs money. The company is burning through $15 million per
month, according to Evercore ISI, an equity analysis firm. If the
final investment decision is not made by the end of the second
quarter, NextDecade will need some sort of “liquidity injection,”
Evercore said.<br>
<br>
But unless FERC decides to rehear the matter, NextDecade has all the
federal permitting it needs to move forward. Opponents are hoping
the commission reconsiders, but it’s not clear if their request for
a rehearing has good odds. Given FERC’s track record, it could be a
longshot. FERC did not respond to questions from DeSmog...<br>
- -<br>
“Our local economy relies on fishing and environmental tourism. If
we damage these vital natural resources, then we stand to lose
thousands and thousands of good paying jobs that sustain our local
workforce,” Jared Hockema, city manager for the City of Port Isabel,
a town that sits very close to the proposed sites, said in a press
conference on May 24. <br>
<br>
“For what? For 150 workers that may work at these plants that aren’t
even from these areas?” he said. “This decision reflects FERC’s lack
of diligence and lack of examination of this development, and we are
calling upon them to reconsider their actions and consider the
extreme danger of these facilities.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2023/06/01/rio-grande-lng-nextdecade-ghostwriting-ferc/">https://www.desmog.com/2023/06/01/rio-grande-lng-nextdecade-ghostwriting-ferc/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news archive - looking back at common
sense danger of fracking ]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>June 5, 2015</b></i></font> <br>
June 5, 2015:<br>
• The New York Times reports:<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri">"A landmark Environmental
Protection Agency report on the impact of hydraulic fracturing
has found no evidence that the contentious technique of oil and
gas extraction has had a widespread effect on the nation’s water
supply, the agency said Thursday.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"Nevertheless, the long-awaited draft report
found that the techniques used in hydraulic fracturing, known as
fracking, do have the potential to contaminate drinking water.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"It notes several specific instances in which
the chemicals used in fracking led to contamination of water,
including drinking water wells, but it emphasized that the
number of cases was small compared with the number of fracked
wells.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"The agency has been working on the study
since 2010, when it was requested by Congress.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"The study 'greatly advances our scientific
understanding of fracking’s impacts, and it serves as a
foundation for future study,' said Thomas A. Burke, deputy
assistant administrator of the agency’s Office of Research and
Development.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">"Both supporters and opponents of fracking
seized on the results. Oil and gas companies cheered the report
as a vindication of the technique, while environmental advocates
pointed to the findings as evidence that the practice is a
threat to safe water supplies."</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/epa-hydraulic-fracking-water-supply-contamination.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/epa-hydraulic-fracking-water-supply-contamination.html</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/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the
day, delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant
reporting. It also provides original reporting and commentary on
climate denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise
remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
</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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days.
Better than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</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/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender. This is a personal hobby production curated
by Richard Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</font>
</body>
</html>