<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>September </b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>6, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i>[ 4 mins video of sharp sarcasm packed with true facts - from The
Juice Media ]</i><br>
<b>Honest Government Ad | Visit Canada! 🇨🇦</b><br>
thejuicemedia<br>
Sep 5, 2023<br>
The Canadian Government has made a new tourism ad and it’s
surprisingly honest and informative!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s-BgfcFXw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s-BgfcFXw</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ MSNBC's Chris Hayes opinion - text and video
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/all-in/gop-climate-change-denialism-florida-hurricane-rcna102952">https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/all-in/gop-climate-change-denialism-florida-hurricane-rcna102952</a>
]</i><br>
<b>The GOP's climate strategy? Hurl ourselves into the fire.</b><br>
Their position is not even within the realm of a reasonable policy
debate.<br>
Sept. 4, 2023<br>
By Chris Hayes, host of “All In with Chris Hayes”<br>
You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand what's
happening. The basic mechanics are not complicated. As we burn
fossil fuels, we pump more and more carbon into the atmosphere. The
carbon causes the atmosphere to trap more heat, warming the planet
and warming the oceans. Those warmer oceans hold more energy,
fueling storms that get stronger and faster. In fact, the extra heat
increases the likelihood and severity of all kinds of extreme
weather events.<br>
<br>
Before climate change, Florida was already uniquely exposed to
extreme weather. It is a peninsula jutting out into warm waters
directly in the path of hurricanes that form every year. Now as the
threat of severe weather increases, so does the threat of harm to
this beautiful place that millions of people call home. Extreme
weather aside, Florida is a marvel of human engineering. 150 years
ago, much of Florida was an uninhabitable, pestilential swamp. We
drained and developed millions of acres and turned Florida into,
literally, Disney World. It is a great civilizational achievement of
man over nature, and it is at great risk of being undone by the
greatest civilizational threat we have ever faced.<br>
<br>
So you would think that the people who represent that uniquely
precarious slice of land, jutting out into the ocean, in the path of
increasingly severe storms would be fervently trying to mitigate the
risk and reduce the enormous amounts of energy we are pumping into
the atmosphere. But the reality is literally the opposite. Florida’s
Republican leaders are actually trying to make it worse. Gov. Ron
DeSantis is refusing to accept $350 million in energy efficiency
incentives that Florida is eligible for under the Inflation
Reduction Act. He is saying "no, thanks" to hundreds of millions of
dollars to help people retrofit their homes with energy efficient
appliances, a simple way to help tackle carbon emissions and climate
change. It is just insane nihilism.<br>
<br>
His position on climate change is essentially vaccine denialism at
civilizational scale.<br>
<br>
On one level, it is hard to even believe that he would do this. But
of course Ron DeSantis also turned against the Covid vaccines, an
equally obvious benefit for his constituents. It is so rare in life
and in policy that you are handed something so simple that provides
so much benefit. And Ron DeSantis turned it away for political
expedience. His position on climate change is essentially vaccine
denialism at civilizational scale. To DeSantis, the existential
threat to the peninsula he represents is just another political
debate.<br>
- -<br>
And it is not just DeSantis; it is the whole Republican Party. The
Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, has put together a
conservative strategy they are calling “Project 2025.” According to
the New York Times, “the plan calls for shredding regulations to
curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power
plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal
government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”<br>
<br>
They are not even within the realm of a reasonable policy debate.
This is not a difference of opinion about how quickly or how best to
meet targets on curbing emissions. The strategy is literally to hurl
ourselves into the fire. Let a thousand hurricanes bloom. It is
deranged, and it is the consensus view of the Republican Party,
whose nominee will have a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency
next year.<br>
<br>
This is an adapted excerpt from the August 30 episode of “All In
with Chris Hayes.” It has been edited for clarity and length.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/all-in/gop-climate-change-denialism-florida-hurricane-rcna102952">https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/all-in/gop-climate-change-denialism-florida-hurricane-rcna102952</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><i>[ advice from the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists - think of it as making a giant A-bomb ]</i></font><br>
<b>Betting against worst-case climate scenarios is risky business</b><br>
By David Spratt | September 4, 2023<br>
David Spratt is research director for the Melbourne-based
Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration and coauthor
of the book Climate Code Red<br>
Would you live in a building, cross a bridge, or trust a dam wall
if there were a 10 percent chance of it collapsing? Or five
percent? Or one percent? Of course not! In civil engineering,
acceptable probabilities of failure generally range from
one-in-10,000 to one-in-10-million.<br>
<br>
So why, when it comes to climate action, are policies like carbon
budgets accepted when they have success rates of just 50 to 66
percent? That’s hardly better than a coin toss.<br>
<br>
Policy-relevant scientific publications, such as those produced by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focus on the
probabilities—the most likely outcomes. But, according to
atmospheric physicist and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,
“calculating probabilities makes little sense in the most critical
instances” because “when the issue is the survival of civilization
is at stake, conventional means of analysis may become useless.”<br>
Have scientists and policy makers given too much weight to
middle-of-the-road probabilities, instead of plausible-worst
possibilities? If so, it’s an appalling gamble with risk. Humanity
could end up the loser.<br>
<br>
<b>Understanding risk</b>. A key approach to climate “risk” is
estimating how much damage will be caused by a climate event, and
how likely that event is to occur. These two key factors combine
to give the size of the risk in dollar terms by multiplying the
probability (likelihood) of an event happening by the monetary
damage (impact) caused should it happen. The higher those figures,
the greater the risk. Policy makers faced with a number of choices
should rationally pick the option with the lowest overall monetary
risk.<br>
<br>
In everyday life, events may have a relatively high
probability—for example, light rainfall—but cause little damage;
these are low risk events. But very heavy storms made more intense
by climate warming can result in widespread flooding and loss of
property and life, and are considered a high risk because the
potential damage is so large, even though these storms happen
rarely. It is the high-end possibilities that matter most.<br>
<b>Tipping points</b>. One of the big things that make climate
projections difficult is non-linear change. Although complex
systems like the Earth system and its components generally exist
in well-defined stable states, shifts from one stable state to
another are often sudden and disruptive, as when huge areas of
polar sea-ice disappear in just one season.<br>
<br>
Generally, systems are stable in their ability to return to the
same equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance, and
resilient in their ability to absorb change and disturbance and
still maintain the same basic relationships. Ecosystems are a good
example. But too big a disturbance, and positive feedback (or
amplifying) processes internal to the system may destabilize it.
The events that precipitate these non-linear shifts are called
tipping points. The change may be abrupt and irreversible on
relevant human time frames, and this can start a chain reaction
impacting other systems.<br>
<br>
<b>For example,</b> a cyclist can maintain stability on a bike,
even as it tilts or wobbles to some degree. But one big enough
disturbance—a pothole, for example—and stability is lost and the
system quickly transitions to a new state, with bike and rider
horizontal on the road. Other nearby bikes, such as in a race
peloton, may also be affected in a cascade of non-linear changes.<br>
This matters because many large climate systems—polar ice sheets,
ecosystems, atmospheric and oceanic circulation—can be stable
through a certain amount of warming or cooling, but once a
threshold is breached, non-linear change fundamentally alters the
system.<br>
<br>
Jonathan Donges of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research says that “to effectively prevent all tipping risks, the
global mean temperature increase would need to be limited to no
more than one degree – we are currently already at about 1.2°C.”<br>
<br>
<b>Faster than forecast. </b>As I previously wrote in the
Bulletin, scientific observations and data from around the globe
show that many of the changes that scientists thought would occur
later this century are already here, ahead of schedule.<br>
<br>
Many current changes are at the upper limit of scientific
projections, and sometimes beyond them. This year, heat records
have been smashed, and global ocean surface temperatures are at
the top of the projected range. Other events, including
sea-surface warming in the North Atlantic and the eye-watering
decline of sea-ice around Antarctica, have simply astounded
scientists.<br>
<br>
“On the one hand, we knew these things were going to happen. These
have been the predictions for a long time,” Claudia Tebaldi, a
scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, told the
Washington Post earlier this year. “[But] this year, in
particular, has seemed so extreme.… The size of the anomalies is
surprising.”<br>
<br>
In 2007, Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State
University, said the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice in the
northern summer was “100 years ahead of schedule.” And in 2014,
when Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, wrote that “the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea
sector was unstoppable [and] will likely trigger the collapse of
the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” Australian researcher
Malte Meinshausen called it “a game changer” and a “tipping point
that none of us thought would pass so quickly.”This year, the
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, has become a
flashpoint for debating how to express and explain climate risk.
This phenomenon refers to the complex web of ocean currents
covering the breadth and length of the Atlantic, from the Southern
Ocean to the Arctic, which help regulate global weather patterns.
Its collapse, or cessation, would result in much colder weather in
parts of Europe by 3 to 6 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 10.8 degrees
Fahrenheit), a shifting of the tropical monsoon that billions of
people rely upon for food production, and more rapid sea level
rises in parts of the United States and Europe.<br>
This system has already slowed by 15 percent since the mid-20th
century, and in 2021 researchers concluded there is “strong
evidence that the AMOC is indeed approaching a critical,
bifurcation-induced transition” (in other words, a tipping point)
but the timing was unclear. Then, in July, a study again drew
headlines and surprise when it estimated “a collapse of the AMOC
to occur around mid-century under the current scenario of future
emissions,” with a high confidence (95 percent probability) of it
occurring between 2025 and 2095. This finding is contested, but
eminent scientists have said it cannot be easily dismissed.<br>
<br>
This is starkly different from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change projection that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation would weaken in the 21st century but “a collapse is
very unlikely,” with only a 50/50 chance of collapse by 2300 in a
high-emission scenarios.<br>
<br>
Stefan Rahmsdorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at Potsdam
University in Germany, said that while there is still “large
uncertainty where the tipping point of the AMOC is… the scientific
evidence now is that we can’t even rule out crossing a tipping
point already in the next decade or two,” and “the conservative
IPCC estimate, based on climate models which are too stable… is in
my view outdated now.”<br>
<br>
“However, ‘very unlikely’ in IPCC jargon only means less than ten
percent,” Rahmsdorf added, and “this is only of limited
reassurance in the case of a major risk that you want to rule out
with a probability of 99.9 percent.”<br>
<br>
<b>Facing uncertainty. </b>One of the main policy-making tools
for the IPCC’s emissions-reduction analysis and the creation of
carbon budgets are climate–energy–economy models known as
Integrated Assessment Models. How Integrated Assessment Models
deal with risk and uncertainty is a key question because of their
political centrality.<br>
<br>
While the word “model” suggests some technocratic neutrality,
Integrated Assessment Models are in fact social constructs, where
“the very structure of a model depends on the modeller’s beliefs
about the functioning of society.” They have the power to
privilege particular policy pathways and entice policy makers into
thinking that the forecasts the models generate and the way they
deal with risk have some kind of scientific legitimacy.<br>
<br>
But this is not the case. “What they are not, it is important to
note, are forecasts or predictions for the future,” says Joeri
Rogelj, director of research at the Grantham Institute on Climate
Change and the Environment. “Therefore, the scenarios in the IPCC
database have no inherent predictive power—and no amount of
analysis, selection or staring at spaghetti plots will change
that.”<br>
<br>
Integrated Assessment Models deal with risk by providing
cost-benefit risk analysis of various emission-reduction and
energy choice scenarios, and depend on being able to quantify both
the damages caused by climate disruption, and the probabilities of
such events. But this is a deeply-flawed approach, because damages
are essentially unquantifiable, and the likelihoods may be deeply
uncertain.</p>
<p> <b>Unquantifiable damages. </b>We do not have realistic
measures of the economic costs from future climate damages. Tom
Kompas, a professor of environmental economics and biosecurity at
the University of Melbourne, says projections for economic damages
under different global warming scenarios “are difficult to come
by, save for simple, highly aggregated measures drawn from basic
computational models… which can often be very misleading given
their extreme and implicit tendency to average effects.”<br>
<br>
The International Monetary Fund notes a growing agreement between
economists and scientists that “risk of catastrophic and
irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite
costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme,
human extinction.” And a 2020 report concludes that exceeding
climate tipping points “could lead to catastrophic and
irreversible impacts that would make quantifying financial damages
impossible” (emphasis added).<br>
<br>
In other words, we cannot put a dollar figure on how much damage
climate disruption will cause at the levels of warming towards
which we are now heading. It is a case of “deep uncertainty” which
occurs when decision makers and stakeholders do not know or cannot
agree on the likelihood of different future scenarios.<br>
<br>
Adding to the uncertainty are system climate feedbacks and tipping
points. Feedbacks occur when an initial change in a system, for
example warming generated by carbon emissions, causes a secondary
change which in turn magnifies the initial effect and becomes
self-reinforcing. An example is Arctic sea-ice, which is
retreating due to the burning of fossil fuels, but as the
heat-reflecting white ice is replaced by dark ocean water, more
heat is absorbed in this feedback loop.<br>
<br>
In a complex system, second-order social impacts including armed
conflict, state breakdown, and mass migration are deeply
uncertain. Climate change is a “ruin” problem of irreversible harm
and a risk of total failure, meaning negative outcomes are
economically unquantifiable and may pose an existential threat to
human civilization.<br>
<br>
<b>Confronting the unknown. </b>Climate models are complex sets
of mathematical equations that approximate the real world—in the
atmosphere, in the oceans, and on land, and the carbon cycle,
including human emissions—as best they can. Climate science is a
relatively new field, and as knowledge has accumulated rapidly,
models have become more accurate in describing what is likely to
happen.<br>
<br>
Models assume that all relevant processes can be quantified by way
of a mathematical value, formula, or probability. Model
projections are generally communicated as a most likely outcome,
and a range to incorporate uncertainty; for example: “the
projected warming is 2.4°C with a range of 1.6-3.2°C (95%
probability).”<br>
<br>
Models are good at linear processes, and have been right
on-the-money at projecting future temperatures based on increasing
emissions, for example. There is also a straightforward
relationship between warming and how much moisture the air can
carry: an extra seven percent for each 1 degree Celsius rise and
thus the capacity for more intense rainfall events. Warmer seas
can also generate stronger cyclones.<br>
<br>
But assigning probabilities to non-linear or sudden-change events
and tipping points is very difficult.<br>
<br>
The problem is not about a lack of knowledge that the system will
change if it gets hot enough, but when. Current climate models are
not capturing all the risks, and William Ripple and his
co-researchers show that many positive feedbacks are not fully
accounted for in models. This deficiency covers the cryosphere
(the frozen parts of the Earth, like glaciers and sea ice) and
changes in some oceans and atmospheric circulatory
systems—including in the Southern Ocean, the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation, the Arctic Jet Stream, and the Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets.<br>
<br>
If the damages are deeply uncertain, and non-linearity restricts
the ability to assign probabilities to future events, then the
dependence on Integrated Assessment Models to provide action
choices is a very bad policy-making choice.<br>
<br>
<b>Reassessing risk management. </b>When the very foundation of
modern human societies and the complex and fragile, globalized
network within which they co-exist are threatened, the normal
approach to risk management is not appropriate given current model
deficiencies, the largely unquantifiable nature of climate
damages, and the deep uncertainties.<br>
<br>
Yet a key feature of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
reports on the physical science has been the elevation of climate
models to the center of the process, relegating to a secondary
position the bigger picture understandings that come from climate
history (paleoclimatology). Paleoclimatology teaches that in the
long run each one degree of warming will raise the oceans by 10 to
20 meters, or roughly about 30 to 65 feet. Models, unable to
properly include cryosphere processes, suggest sea-rises by the
year 2100 to be so small that the projections are not credible, a
process of scientific reticence highlighted by NASA science chief
James Hansen as far back as 2007.<br>
<br>
In such circumstances, how can scientists and policy makers deal
with the questions of risk and deep uncertainty?<br>
<br>
Firstly, they should recognize the limitations of both Earth
system and climate-economy models and not assign them an exalted
position for which they are ill-suited. Other forms of knowledge
drawn from past climate history should be given more weight, as
should expert opinion. Asking a group of climate experts what they
think is likely to happen given their knowledge and experience
will produce a more frank picture than those drawn strictly from
peer-reviewed literature where conclusions must be “beyond
reasonable doubt.”<br>
<br>
Secondly, they should recognize that the high-end possibilities
have by far the greatest overall risks, and they should receive
special attention. Because climate change represents an
existential risk to human society, particular focus must be given
to one question above all others: “What is the plausible
worst-case scenario and what do we have to do to avoid it?”<br>
<br>
Writing about the “climate endgame,” Luke Kemp from Cambridge’s
Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and his colleagues agree
that “prudent risk management requires consideration of the
bad-to-worst-case scenarios” because low-probability, high-impact
extreme outcomes have damages so large as to perhaps be
unquantifiable. They say that large uncertainties about dangerous
surprises “are reasons to prioritize rather than neglect them.”<br>
<br>
But this is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
climate research and risk managers in the financial system have
overwhelmingly not done. New analysis shows that the potential to
end humanity is “dangerously underexplored” by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with textual analysis
finding that their assessments have shifted away from high-end
warming to increasingly focus on lower temperature rises, even as
“global heating could become ‘catastrophic’ for humanity if
temperature rises are worse than many predict or cause cascades of
events we have yet to consider, or indeed both” as noted by a
paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. “We know least about the scenarios that matter most,”
Kemp says.<br>
<br>
Policy makers and global leaders seem not to recognize that when
risks are existential, a bad outcome means the future is
unrecognizably different from before. By downplaying the high-risk
possibilities, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
others are foolishly conducting a dangerously unprecedented
experiment: how much heat—how much change—can human systems
tolerate before society collapses?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-scenarios-is-risky-business/">https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-scenarios-is-risky-business/</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ From a few academic papers - conjecture
and speculation ] </i><br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>Fossil Fuel Emissions on track to
kill one billion people over century</b><br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Sep 1, 2023<br>
A crucial new peer reviewed scientific paper shows that our
society today, with accelerating fossil fuel emissions driving
abrupt climate change is conservatively on track to kill one
billion people. <br>
<br>
Worst case, is to kill 10 billion people, or in other words
essentially everybody expected on the planet in 2100 (population
projection assuming no climate change). <br>
<br>
Basically:<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri">1) Multiple approaches converge to
the “1000-ton rule”, which is that 1000 tons of C emitted today
will kill one future person (this is an order of magnitude
estimate; namely the range is to kill from 0.1 people to 10
people, with 1 person being the central estimate). Note that
1000 tons of C would be 3700 tons of CO2. Also, 1 ton of C
emitted could be said to kill 1/1000 of a person or 1 millilife.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">2) One degree C of temperature rise beyond
today is expected to kill 1 billion people. Thus, 0.1 C of
temperature rise kills 100 million people, and thus 0.001 C of
temperature rise kills 1 million people. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">3) One trillion tons of C emitted kills 1
billion people. Thus, the “1000-ton rule”.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">4) These calculations do not account for
tipping points and thus are extremely conservative calculations.
We can expect reality to be much worse.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Putting global temperature rise, and C
emissions in terms of future people killed needs to be widely
done by scientists, the media, and politicians so that the
general public understands what is actually happening on our
planet with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kcm7mXNZ5s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kcm7mXNZ5s</a><br>
</font>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i></p>
<br>
<i><font face="Calibri"> [ from the International Association of
Wildland Fire (IAWF) - a look into the future ]</font></i><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>OUR FIERY FUTURE</b><b><br>
</b><b>HOW WE CAN WE FACE AND CHANGE OUR FUTURE WITH WILDFIRE</b><br>
BY LUCIAN DEATON<br>
- -<br>
At Fire & Climate 2022 Conference in Pasadena, Kate Dargan –
founder of Intterra, former California state fire marshal, and
former assistant director for disaster preparedness and response
in The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, posed
a question to a packed hall: What is our fiery future and what can
you do today to impact our future to come? <br>
<br>
Dargan said fire stewardship is at the core of the IAWF and noted
that the audience was positioned at the tip of the spear for the
required effort. <br>
<br>
Setting the scene, Dargan explained that we are entering a dynamic
fire environment, and illustrated this as a “J curve” that is
quickly leaving the relatively stable and comparatively flat
environment of the past to the sharp upturn we are seeing now and
face in the future as well. She used this to also show what
actions we should take now to confront this developing risk with
similar vigor. <br>
<br>
Dargan leveled with the audience early, explaining that she would
talk about the real stuff, and that it would be “dark.” Yet, the
presentation illuminated both the future and the choices we have
to confront the darkness. <br>
<br>
Dargan framed this changing environment in four distinct periods
spanning from the present to beyond 2050; she challenged the
audience to consider not only how to approach these times, but
also how their actions would need to keep up to achieve the future
they most wanted. Providing perspective to the audience, Dargan
thoughtfully explained, “You need to plan for the fire you are
going to have.”<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>2020-2030: SHOCK AND PLANNING </b><br>
<br>
Dargan explained that our near future will be a time of
recognition and initial steps; this is when wildfire will become
“an official problem.” Dargan challenged the audience to
appreciate that our collective relationship with fire will have to
change as tinder-dry landscapes burn and our response system is
overwhelmed. The current reality of large fires, community
destruction and ever-toppling records will set the tone for this
period. <br>
<br>
<b>2030-2040: THE ANGRY YEARS</b><br>
<br>
This not-too-distant future is when climate change “will sit in
everybody’s house” becoming a communal reality and will require
adaptation and mitigation. Dargan suggested this time period may
be one of stricter land use regulations, home development
guidelines, and even community rebuilding considerations. It will
also be a period when the forests of the Northern California
watersheds will reburn. When such valuable landscapes are
impacted, Dargan noted that the challenging future will be as much
about wildfire as it is about water availability. <br>
<br>
<b>2040-2050: THE SAD YEARS</b><br>
<br>
Building upon this progression of wildfire and its impacts, Dargan
explained that we will find ourselves stuck in a future during
which mega fires are normal. No longer will the fires be
“unprecedented” or the stuff of shocked media headlines. Dargan
also suggested that a rural-urban divide about the risk and
response to wildfire would become extreme. The debate about costs
and who should pay will dominate the discussion, Dargan said.
While home insurability has a built-in system elasticity, Dargan
said that during the sad years, this insurability challenge will
find itself in true crisis. <br>
<br>
<b>2050 AND BEYOND: IT’S UP TO US</b><br>
<br>
As this future arrives, Dargan said, water issues will dominate
the discussion. There will be winners and losers in communities
across the western United States, Dargan said, and we will face a
social tipping point in need of positive attention. Hard decisions
will have to be made on climate choices to save our future beyond
this period. <br>
<br>
Turning from the dark, Dargan stressed that we need will to help
each other more in this distant future and be part of the
necessary change. A major lesson to the audience was in Dargan’s
explanation that urgency and humility are needed to make the
future better. Collaboration among agencies and companies on
grants and available data will be needed to approach the issue
holistically. Unified command in federal agency land management
will be required to muster the focus needed, Dargan said. And a
national consensus will be necessary to address the challenge and
win the hearts and minds of a skeptical public for such dramatic
but necessary change<br>
<br>
Dargan explained that we are the lighthouses who can guide change
and encouraged everyone to find consensus and build consortiums
today. And, in a nod to the current reality, Dargan applauded the
work of Oregon state agencies and local groups positively tackling
their wildfire risk saying that “they are nailing it!” <br>
<br>
Dargan closed by offering a proposal: a 50-year plan, an approach
that sets goals, objectives, and uses clear messaging to develop a
vision of where we all want to be in a world of wildfires. Dargan
said such a plan’s first 25 years should be broken into five-year
cycles, and that the first 10 years must be strongly funded.
Dargen felt the plan requires a non-pyramidal approach, and maybe
even new national institutions to guide its success; and requires
international associations to build the change and lay it in front
of governments. <br>
<br>
While Dargan stressed that we are not yet at the new normal that
is coming, every moment of our present counts along this path and
she wanted the audience in Pasadena – and everyone else – to know
that we are the change that is needed. <br>
<br>
ABOUT THE AUTHOR <br>
Lucian Deaton<br>
Lucian Deaton is a program and policy strategist who has worked
for the last 20 years on community safety and advocacy. He is the
senior digital marketing manager for Technoslyva, which focuses on
operationalizing wildfire science. Previously, Lucian managed the
Firewise USA® Program and its international outreach for
adaptation by valued international partners. He also managed
NFPA’s Outthink Wildfire initiative, advancing domestic policy for
community risk reduction. Formerly, Lucian managed the IAFC Ready,
Set, Go! Program and was a lobbyist representing public safety
issues before the U.S. Congress and federal agencies. Lucian holds
a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning and a Masters of Natural
Resources degrees from Virginia Tech and lives in Denver, CO. <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.iawfonline.org/article/our-fiery-future-how-we-can-we-face-and-change-our-future-with-wildfire/">https://www.iawfonline.org/article/our-fiery-future-how-we-can-we-face-and-change-our-future-with-wildfire/</a><br>
</font><br>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><i>[ Probable Futures ]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>Acting Now for a Better Future |
HGSE Convening: Education and Climate Action</b><br>
Harvard Graduate School of Education<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Nov 1, 2022<br>
The Education Sector Can Drive Impact — with Innovation,
Urgency, and Leadership. <br>
"Education Leaders Driving Climate Action" is part of the
convening called Education and Climate Action, held at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education on October 27, 2022. <br>
We’ll look broadly at how education systems can begin to grapple
with their own climate footprint and nurture learning
communities that can drive solutions. <br>
<br>
This session features: Bridget Long, HGSE <br>
Spencer Glendon, Founder of Probable Futures and Senior Fellow
of the Woodwell Climate Research Center<br>
Jim Stock, Harvard University Vice Provost for Climate and
Sustainability; Director, The Salata Institute for Climate and
Sustainability<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuYV6KnKBS0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuYV6KnKBS0</a><br>
</font> </p>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> </font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news archive - looking back
information battle planning ]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>September 6, 2011</b></i></font> <br>
September 6, 2011: On MotherJones.com, investigative journalist
Brad Friedman posts audio from a secretive June 2011 conference in
Colorado hosted by climate-change-denying libertarian billionaires
Charles and David Koch. In one clip, Charles Koch compares
President Obama to Saddam Hussein. That evening, Friedman
discusses the conference on MSNBC's "The Ed Show."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/exclusive-audio-koch-brothers-seminar-tapes/">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/exclusive-audio-koch-brothers-seminar-tapes/</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 -- and carries no
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages 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>