<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>July</b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 13, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ trend in local news has viewers sending in
drone footage ] </i><br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>Viewers share devastating scenes of
flooding, damage across our region</b><br>
WCAX-TV Channel 3 News<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YHfbQdqe8E">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YHfbQdqe8E</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri">- -</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ Antarctic scientist giving a summary to
CCAG - Climate Crisis Advisory Group - we need to consider RISK
]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>Antarctica currently has very little
sea ice – the lowest ever recorded. What are the causes and
likely consequences of this reduction?</b><br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Jun 29, 2023</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2WRb-MOFD0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2WRb-MOFD0</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ recorded archive of live event activist
presentations Wednesday - video ]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>CLIMATE CHANGE: Where do we go from
here? (LIVE AT 8PM ET)</b><br>
Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bill McKibben,
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, David Wallce-Welles<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzEKxRvhOuU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzEKxRvhOuU</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ from an informed journalist ]</i></font><i><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i><b><font face="Calibri">Floods, Heat, Smoke: The
Weather Will Never Be Normal Again</font></b><br>
<font face="Calibri">July 12, 2023</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">By David Wallace-Wells</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Opinion Writer</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">A month ago, when orange skies blanketed New
York, it was a sign to many that this particular climate horror
could no longer be conceptually quarantined as a local phenomenon
of the American West, where tens of millions had already
acclimated to living in the path of fire and every year breathing
in some amount of its toxic smoke. That was normal for them, we
New Yorkers thought, even though San Francisco had turned a
sunless dark amber for the first time only in 2020. It wasn’t
normal for us, we told ourselves. Then, when the air quality index
dropped from 405 back into the 100s again, in the weeks after, the
joggers hit the pavement at their routine times, glad the sky was
merely unhealthily smoggy.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Last weekend, it was Hudson Valley streets
turned into swimming pools by supercharged rain and ravines
disgorging landslides that those in New York City watched with a
mix of horror and false relief. The flooding was “upstate,” we
told ourselves, though by “upstate,” of course, we meant not even
50 miles north of the city. It was so close that as late as Sunday
morning, it seemed possible that the rains would bring a deluge to
the city worse than anything in the past decade. The United States
Military Academy at West Point was briefly flooded by a
once-in-a-thousand-years climate event. And yet the deluge seemed
so quotidian that you could’ve easily missed the alarm — as I did,
not even noting the threat of a storm until a few hours before it
hit.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">It is always comforting to believe disasters
are far away, unfolding elsewhere, but increasingly doing so means
defining ever smaller increments of space as distant. In this
case, New Yorkers drew comfort from the fickle path of a single
local storm system. The rains had pulled just a few miles west, on
Sunday, sparing New York City and instead pummeling Vermont, where
government buildings acquired new moats, Main Streets became canal
towns, and ski resorts were flattened by brown muddy rubble.
People were kayaking through Montpelier, and the Winooski River
rose to levels not seen since catastrophic flooding in 1927. The
governor had to hike his way to an open road.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">It didn’t even seem that freakish, all things
considered — we see so many more climate-fueled disasters now,
with global average temperatures breaking records every day
recently. There were terrifying floods this week in Himachal
Pradesh, in India, where several bridges collapsed and others
carrying dozens of cars and trucks seemed about to. Japan
experienced the “heaviest rain ever,” and in Spain, floodwaters
carried cars backward through traffic at rapid speeds, their
drivers simply watching powerless from the roof, where they’d
taken refuge when the water began filling the cabin. A monthslong
heat wave centered on Texas and Mexico and spread outward as far
as Miami, which, as of Monday, had reached heat indexes north of
100 degrees for 30 straight days. In Death Valley in California,
this week temperatures may reach or surpass the global record of
130 degrees Fahrenheit, set just in 2021. In El Paso, there hasn’t
been a day that didn’t hit 100 for weeks.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Off the coast of Florida, the water was nearly
as warm as a hot tub — 95 degrees according to one buoy, 97
degrees according to another. It was just last month when
life-threatening heat indexes as high as 125 simply parked in
Puerto Rico for days on end. According to a coral bleaching
forecast published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, there is likely to be bleaching across the entire
Caribbean this summer. It’s not clear how much will survive.
According to some estimates, as much as 50 percent of the world’s
oceans will experience marine heat wave conditions this summer;
normally the figure is about 10 percent.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">There are also the Canadian fires, which
continue burning along an off-the-charts trajectory, though the
smoke has more recently dispersed to the north and across to
Europe rather than directly into the airways of the American
Northeast and Midwest. In the first 25 days of June, more land
burned in Quebec than had burned there over the previous 20 years
combined. Across Canada as a whole, more than 22 million acres
have now burned, more than five times the record-shattering
California fire season of 2020 and more than double the totals
from the most destructive American seasons of the past 60 years.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">But with New York’s skies merely unseasonably
gray, we’ve moved on. As my colleague David Gelles noted this
week, writing from inside his own flooding home, recent research
suggests we may come to accept weather extremes as normal within
two years — a grim prophecy of accommodation to disaster as a form
of adaptation.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">A year ago, as potentially lethal wet-bulb
temperatures swallowed parts of India and Pakistan where hundreds
of millions lived, I wrote a long essay headlined “Can you even
call deadly heat ‘extreme’ anymore?” This spring and summer,
lethal heat swept the subcontinent again, delivering temperatures
regularly above 110 degrees Fahrenheit but generating considerably
less media attention in the West, though this time the official
death toll was higher.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">A new analysis of last summer in Europe
suggested that heat was responsible for more than 61,000 deaths —
an eye-popping figure all the more remarkable for approaching the
70,000 dead in the 2003 European heat wave, long described as a
worst-case benchmark. In the aftermath, it was often said that
those heat deaths had changed Europe, which would never again be
quite so blindsided by extreme temperatures. But the 61,000 deaths
last year passed with barely a murmur. This summer is only halfway
over, and Europe has been setting new temperature records almost
by the week. Presumably we won’t even know the mortality impacts
for some time, at which point even the extremes of this summer
will have passed into the rearview mirror, where they’ll look like
some form of familiar, too.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">In fact, what has been perhaps most striking to
me this summer is how often global warming has caused what appears
to be an unthinkable extreme — and then is contextualized, by
careful climate scientists, as merely normal and predicted.
Normally extreme, that is, and predictably scary.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Last month, when mind-bending charts of
anomalous ocean temperatures were feverishly circulated on social
media, it produced a sort of “calm down” response from some of the
world’s most esteemed and careful climate scientists.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">This probably wasn’t a step change, they said,
or a tipping point, or what is often called by those most gripped
by apocalyptic climate panic a “termination shock.” The
record-setting ocean temperatures didn’t need to be explained as a
sudden impact of a 2020 ban on sulfur pollution, which has a
locally concentrated cooling effect when emitted by cargo ships;
or by a slowdown of the ocean’s temperature-regulating system; or
by some other unexpected and therefore alarming turn in the path
of the climate system as it marched farther outside the range of
temperatures that have enclosed all of human history. It may have
had something to do with the amount of Saharan dust circulating
across the ocean. But in the main, they said, it was just climate
change.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">In the end, the message isn’t all that
reassuring. The experience of the near future will mean quite
regular encounters with seemingly unprecedented events, often
quite precisely predicted, but which so few wanted to believe
could ever become real. Fewer still want to believe they might
strike so close to home.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/opinion/floods-vermont-heat-fires.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/opinion/floods-vermont-heat-fires.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<i><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/opinion/floods-vermont-heat-fires.html?unlocked_article_code=tle6r721DpwzWOLQYez0k3l57WXbUQnvTq1imbWPgtWoFHAl9UtoMSlqTde2x0foghitLE4gqyltil9U29FgLwW72GhyfYGYJqnXpzF-dr7Q9efxlm2AEJBzm2Z3aoXCagPV8Ri0aRM9H3TzuoXoHajMIcisF3t1cw6tlNG2GnCYnPCeUpcC4hbVqS3wacS5YXicORxnExzF7J9IvXLk_kqNoup1zrSjFrtc8WKHrdaj4RDAhkBoQG5EbeHoez5lCCklVD4KGNDqEHhzQzmDGHlnYUCvgZPPfuzzPy8jdcG83zkAHOToyQGiZc_glH4yjTAkrT1biEtP_1mxiwwXwcM3SA&smid=url-share">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/opinion/floods-vermont-heat-fires.html?unlocked_article_code=tle6r721DpwzWOLQYez0k3l57WXbUQnvTq1imbWPgtWoFHAl9UtoMSlqTde2x0foghitLE4gqyltil9U29FgLwW72GhyfYGYJqnXpzF-dr7Q9efxlm2AEJBzm2Z3aoXCagPV8Ri0aRM9H3TzuoXoHajMIcisF3t1cw6tlNG2GnCYnPCeUpcC4hbVqS3wacS5YXicORxnExzF7J9IvXLk_kqNoup1zrSjFrtc8WKHrdaj4RDAhkBoQG5EbeHoez5lCCklVD4KGNDqEHhzQzmDGHlnYUCvgZPPfuzzPy8jdcG83zkAHOToyQGiZc_glH4yjTAkrT1biEtP_1mxiwwXwcM3SA&smid=url-share</a><br>
</font></i>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i></p>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i> </p>
<i> </i><i><font face="Calibri"> [ if you follow the money, watch
where you step - audio podcast ]</font></i><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri"><b>The
depthless stupidity of Republicans' anti-ESG campaign</b><br>
A conversation with Kelly Mitchell of the watchdog group
Documented.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">JUL 12, 2023</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">For the last few years, the fastest growing
segment of the global financial services industry has been ESG
(environmental, social, and governance) funds.<br>
<br>
Here’s how it works: one of several ratings firms uses its own
proprietary formula to rate how well a company is responding to
environmental, social, and governance risks. An environmental risk
might be: will the county where you’re locating your data centers
have sufficient water supply in coming years? A governance risk
might be: have you filed all the proper disclosures?<br>
<br>
Fund managers like BlackRock then gather highly rated companies
into ESG funds, which are sold to investors as socially
responsible. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow into ESG funds
every year.<br>
<br>
Note that there’s a bit of a shell game at the heart of the
enterprise. What customers and investors generally think is that a
company gets high ESG ratings because it goes above and beyond in
those areas, that it is trying to “do well by doing good.” But in
reality, high ESG ratings simply mean that a company is responding
to material risks — maximizing its profits, as public companies
are bound by law to do.<br>
<br>
So Tesla gets no ESG credit for accelerating the electric vehicle
market, but it can pull a low ESG rating (and fall out of ESG
funds) over vulnerability to lawsuits over working conditions.
(This is why Elon calls ESG “the devil incarnate.”) McDonald’s
loses no ESG points for the enormous carbon impact of its supply
chain, but it gains points for reducing plastic in its packaging,
because regulations against plastic packaging are imminent in
Europe.<br>
<br>
So investors get to feel like do-gooders and big companies are
rewarded for carrying out their legal obligation to assess risks
to their business. There’s not much social benefit to the whole
thing, but everyone feels good and green and happy.<br>
<br>
Except now there’s a problem: Republicans bought it. The whole
sales pitch — they believe it. They believe that companies in ESG
funds are going out of their way to do social and environmental
good … and they’re furious about it.<br>
<br>
Over the past year or two, an enormous, billionaire-funded
backlash against ESG has consumed the GOP, leading to multiple
congressional hearings, hundreds of proposed state bills, and
red-state treasurers vowing never to do business with woke lefty
activist funds like [checks notes] BlackRock.<br>
<br>
It is stupid almost beyond reckoning. And I’m just brushing the
surface. To dig into the deep layers of dumb and where it all
might go, I called Kelly Mitchell. She’s a senior analyst at the
journalistic watchdog group Documented, which uncovered emails and
other communications between the architects of the anti-ESG
campaign that led to a New York Times exposé...<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-depthless-stupidity-of-republicans?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=193024&post_id=132685761&utm_medium=email#details">https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-depthless-stupidity-of-republicans?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=193024&post_id=132685761&utm_medium=email#details</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news archive - looking back at
early misinformation skirmish ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>July 13, 2003 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> July 13, 2003: Former EPA Climate Policy
Adviser Jeremy Symons recounts the George W. Bush Administration's
assault on climate science in a Washington Post op-ed.</font><br>
<blockquote>washingtonpost.com<br>
<b>How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science</b><br>
By Jeremy Symons<br>
Sunday, July 13, 2003<br>
<br>
Christine Todd Whitman's tenure at the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) ended last month much<br>
the way it began, amid controversy over the Bush administration's
unwillingness to craft an effective<br>
response to global warming. Whitman arrived just before the
president reversed a campaign promise to<br>
reduce global warming pollution from power plants. As she leaves,
leaked EPA documents suggest that<br>
the White House attempted to rewrite an EPA report to play down
the risks of global warming.<br>
Regardless of who replaces Whitman as EPA administrator, a change
in direction is needed from the<br>
White House itself. What began with the Bush administration
exercising its discretion over policy<br>
choices on global warming has devolved into attempts to suppress
scientific information. These efforts<br>
jeopardize the credibility of federal agencies and the information
they provide to Congress and the<br>
public.<br>
<br>
The administration's commitment to protecting the environment has
been an issue from the outset, when<br>
the Bush team made a number of policy decisions on global warming
that matched those advocated by<br>
the coal and oil industries.<br>
<br>
At EPA, where I was then serving as a climate policy adviser, we
believed one of Whitman's first tasks<br>
would be to make good on the president's campaign promise to seek
new laws to reduce pollution from<br>
power plants, the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide emissions
that trap heat in the atmosphere. But as<br>
soon as Whitman publicly reiterated the president's pledge in late
February 2001, a debate ensued within<br>
the administration. White House aides drafted a six-page
memorandum to John Bridgeland, who was<br>
then the president's deputy assistant for domestic policy. It
listed the potential impacts on the coal<br>
industry, but devoted only six sentences to the science of global
warming. Two weeks later, the president<br>
sent a letter to Congress announcing that he would no longer
support new controls on global warming<br>
pollution from power plants. His letter left no room for
compromise.<br>
<br>
Whitman, who had argued throughout the brief but intense debate
that the White House should at least<br>
leave its options open, had been publicly undermined. Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell compared her<br>
to a "wind dummy," a military term for a dummy that is pushed out
of an airplane to determine which<br>
way the wind is blowing. When Vice President Cheney noted that
Whitman was being a "good soldier,"<br>
the tone for the EPA's role in the administration was set.<br>
<br>
Since U.S. power plants alone account for 10 percent of global
carbon dioxide emissions, the Bush<br>
administration next had to address the issue on the international
stage. A State Department options paper<br>
in March 2001 outlined potential next steps for dealing with our
allies on the Kyoto Protocol, an<br>
international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that
the president opposed. According to the<br>
paper, the United States could "repudiate the Kyoto negotiating
process" altogether. Or, the<br>
administration could advance its own proposal in order to "give us
time to develop a credible alternative<br>
approach to Kyoto, rather than simply blowing up the current
negotiations." But the paper warned that<br>
leaving the door open to an alternative agreement "may not fully
satisfy domestic groups that wish to<br>
drive the final stake in the heart of the Protocol." The United
States subsequently walked away without<br>
offering an alternative.<br>
<br>
With more than 80 percent of the nation's global warming pollution
coming from the use of fossil fuels,<br>
the Bush energy plan dashed all hope for proposals to ease global
warming. The plan, released in May<br>
2001, made increased supplies of coal, oil and natural gas the
priority in the coming decades.<br>
In the few months that I worked under Whitman, I represented the
EPA on the interagency working<br>
group that had been charged by Cheney with drafting the energy
plan. Cheney's staff refereed the<br>
meetings, which were attended by representatives from other
federal agencies and the White House.<br>
During the sessions I attended, the Energy Department continually
pushed plans to increase coal and oil<br>
supplies while paying little heed to promoting energy efficiency
and clean energy sources, options that<br>
could help meet the nation's growing energy needs without
increasing pollution.<br>
<br>
The issue of energy conservation came to a head at a Cabinet-level
meeting hosted by Cheney on April 3,<br>
2001. Whitman recommended that the government set a national goal
for energy efficiency measured as<br>
a reduction in the nation's energy use relative to the size of the
economy over the next two decades.<br>
People who attended the meeting told me later that Secretary of
Energy Spencer Abraham spoke against<br>
the proposal, noting that it would only invite unwelcome scrutiny
of the energy plan's modest energy<br>
efficiency provisions. He prevailed.<br>
<br>
Within a few months of taking office, the administration had hung
a "do not disturb" sign on U.S. policy<br>
toward global warming. But the administration's position -- that
new regulations would harm U.S.<br>
industry -- is not shared by most Americans, who are optimistic
about the ability of businesses to<br>
innovate and adapt.<br>
Concerned about public opinion, presidential counselor Karen
Hughes called a White House<br>
communications strategy meeting on the environment in April 2001,
declaring that green issues "are<br>
killing us," according to a Time magazine report. Having ruled out
any significant policy change,<br>
however, the administration's only choice was damage control.<br>
<br>
One example was its effort to raise doubts about the international
scientific consensus that carbon<br>
dioxide pollution is causing global warming. In May 2001, the
White House asked the National Research<br>
Council, part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, for a
second opinion. But the effort backfired.<br>
The council's report confirmed the scientific consensus that
greenhouse gas emissions are major<br>
contributors to global warming,<br>
<br>
Then a June 2002 report by the EPA and the State Department
concluded that "continuing growth in<br>
greenhouse gas emissions is likely to lead to annual average
warming over the United States that could<br>
be as much as several degrees Celsius (roughly 3 to 9 degrees
Fahrenheit) during the 21st century." The<br>
report also detailed deleterious effects on public health and the
environment in each region of the<br>
country, warning, for example, that "drought is likely to be more
frequent and intense" in the Great<br>
Plains.<br>
<br>
Pressed to respond, Bush dismissed the report as a product of "the
bureaucracy," denigrating years of<br>
work by scientists throughout the federal government.<br>
<br>
Afterward, the administration took a much bolder approach to dodge
such embarrassment by trying to<br>
minimize awareness of the threat of global warming. In September
2002, it stripped a global warming<br>
section from an annual EPA report on trends in air pollution. An
annual update had been included for<br>
years.<br>
<br>
Most recently, internal EPA documents obtained by the National
Wildlife Federation show that White<br>
House officials tried to force the EPA to alter the scientific
content of a report in order to play down the<br>
risks of global warming. The EPA has billed the report, released
in June, as "the first-ever national<br>
picture of environmental quality and human health in the United
States." An internal EPA decision paper<br>
noted that White House officials were insisting on "major edits"
to the climate change section and were<br>
telling the EPA that "no further changes may be made" beyond the
White House edits. In the internal<br>
paper, EPA staff warned that the report "no longer accurately
represents scientific consensus on climate<br>
change." The EPA ultimately pulled the global warming section from
the report to avoid publishing<br>
information that is not scientifically credible.<br>
<br>
Former EPA administrator Russell Train responded in a letter to
the New York Times. "Having served as<br>
EPA administrator under both Presidents Nixon and Ford, I can
state categorically that there never was<br>
such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my
tenure," he wrote. "The EPA was<br>
established as an independent agency in the executive branch, and
so it should remain. There appears<br>
today to be a steady erosion in its independent status."<br>
<br>
Perhaps the most disturbing element of the leaked papers is that
so far the White House has been<br>
unapologetic.<br>
<br>
The leaked EPA memo provides only one glimpse into the
administration's recent efforts to control<br>
information on global warming. The Washington Post reported this
month that the EPA scrubbed its<br>
analysis of a congressional plan to require power plants to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide and other<br>
air pollutants. The EPA estimated the cost of the proposal, but
withheld information that it would result<br>
in 17,800 fewer premature deaths every year than would the
president's air pollution plan (dubbed "Clear<br>
Skies" by the administration's spin doctors). The EPA recently
turned down Arizona Sen. John McCain's<br>
request for an analysis of a global warming plan that he and
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman intend<br>
to add to pending energy legislation, breaking the agency's long
tradition of providing such assistance to<br>
Congress.<br>
<br>
The administration's conduct illustrates a broader pattern of
managing information to fend off criticism<br>
on environmental initiatives such as weakening the Clean Air Act
and lifting Clean Water Act<br>
protections for wetlands. For example, the administration
postponed an analysis requested by an EPA<br>
advisory group reviewing toxic mercury emissions from power plants
for fear it would discredit Bush's<br>
proposed changes in the Clean Air Act.<br>
<br>
When President Reagan pursued a more overt agenda of undermining
the EPA's ability to regulate<br>
industry, aggressive congressional oversight led to the
resignation of the EPA head, Ann Gorsuch<br>
Burford. Despite the similarly far reaching impact of the current
administration's proposed rollbacks in<br>
clean water and air protections, Congress has been largely held at
bay by the White House's adept control<br>
of information.<br>
<br>
Soon Bush will pick a new head for the EPA. In the confirmation
hearings, it will be incumbent upon<br>
senators to demand accountability not just from the nominee, but
from the White House itself.<br>
Author's e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:symons@nwf.org">symons@nwf.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Symons.pdf?language=printer">http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Symons.pdf?language=printer</a></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri">======================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*Mass media is lacking, many </span>daily
summaries<span class="moz-txt-tag"> deliver global warming
news - a few are email delivered*</span></b> <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><br>
=========================================================<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every
day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s
top headlines deliver the full story, for free.<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the
day, delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant
reporting. It also provides original reporting and commentary on
climate denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise
remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Carbon Brief Daily </b><span
class="moz-txt-star"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days.
Better than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri">
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender. This is a personal hobby production curated
by Richard Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list. </font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
</body>
</html>