<!DOCTYPE html>
<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>November </b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>12, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i>[ Opinion from The Atlantic ]</i><br>
<b>One Huge Contradiction Is Undoing Our Best Climate Efforts</b><br>
The math isn’t adding up.<br>
By Zoë Schlanger<br>
NOVEMBER 10, 2023<br>
<p>You’d be forgiven for thinking that the fight against climate
change is finally going well. The clean-energy revolution is well
under way and exceeding expectations. Solar is set to become the
cheapest form of energy in most places by 2030, and the remarkable
efficiency of heat pumps is driving their own uptake now. Sales of
electric vehicles could surpass those of gas-burning cars in the
next six years. The world’s biggest powers are putting huge sums
toward infrastructure to usher in some form of energy
transformation. Pledges are being made; legislation is being
passed. The world, it seems, is finally lurching in the right
direction.</p>
But none of that is enough, practically speaking, because of one
enormous hitch: The world is still using more energy each year, our
consumption ticking ever upward, swallowing any gains made by
renewable energy. Emissions are still rising—more slowly than they
used to but, nonetheless, rising. Instead of getting pushed down,
that needle is fitfully jiggling above zero, clawing into the
positive digits when it needs to be deeply pitched into the
negative. We are, in other words, simply not making a dent...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/11/climate-change-policies-contradictions/675967/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/11/climate-change-policies-contradictions/675967/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ this </i><i> controversial </i><i>Net Zero lecture repairs
her previous version -- video ]</i><br>
<b>[Re-upload] The Net Zero Myth. Why Reaching our Climate Goals is
Virtually Impossible</b><br>
Sabine Hossenfelder<br>
Nov 11, 2023 #science #climatechange #environment<br>
- -<br>
Everyone is talking about Net Zero. But Net Zero what? What does
this even mean? Is it a reasonable goal? How far are we on the way?
And do we have any chance of reaching it? For this video, we have
collected all facts and numbers that you need to join the
discussion.<br>
<br>
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699515745778x206633411542960240">https://quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699515745778x206633411542960240</a><br>
<br>
Many thanks to Jordi Busqué for helping with this video
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jordibusque.com/">http://jordibusque.com/</a><br>
<blockquote>00:00 Intro<br>
00:20 Net zero definition<br>
01:56 Why aim for Net Zero?<br>
05:05 Where are we on the way to net zero?<br>
07:19 Not all is bad<br>
10:54 Carbon Capture<br>
15:03 Resistance<br>
16:25 Summary<br>
16:36 Make a Difference with Planet Wild!!<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJTOymi3eo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJTOymi3eo</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ He helped with a bubble gum repair to a Titanic gash. a shrewd
politician just beginning to act against a world of a hundred
Pearl Harbor catastrophes per day - Manchin is trying to harness
this dilemma. Maybe some day, but for now anything less than World
Government will be tepid tokenism. ]</i><br>
<b>Joe Manchin deserves (some) credit for fighting climate change</b><br>
You do, in this circumstance, gotta hand it to him.<br>
By Umair Irfan Nov 11, 2023,<br>
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — with nearly $370 billion
allocated to wind turbines, electric cars, transmission lines, heat
pumps, and environmental cleanup — is the single largest piece of US
legislation to keep climate change in check.<br>
<br>
And West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who this week announced he
will not seek reelection, was absolutely essential to getting it
over the line. Don’t take my word for it: President Joe Biden
specifically praised Manchin this week for his vote on the IRA,
which passed the Senate 51-50 on August 7, 2022...<br>
- -<br>
It’s hard to overstate how big of a deal the Inflation Reduction Act
is for climate change. The country has committed to cutting its
greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels by
2030. The IRA on its own is poised to cut emissions by about 40
percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Manchin
was also critical in shaping the $1 trillion Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) that includes funding for adapting to the
effects of climate change, though that law passed the Senate 69-30.<br>
<br>
It’s also important to note how difficult it was to pass these
bills, in no small part due to Manchin himself. As the deciding
vote, he previously tanked the $555 billion Build Back Better Act in
2021. And as legislators scrambled to come up with a backup plan,
Manchin’s opposition to the Clean Energy Performance Program — which
would pay power utilities to switch from fossil fuels to clean
energy sources — kept a powerful tool to limit emissions in the box<br>
- -<br>
In response, environmental activists focused their ire on Manchin,
noting his longstanding ties to the fossil fuel industry. According
to Open Secrets, Manchin was the largest Senate recipient of money
from the coal, oil, and gas industries in 2022. Campaigners also
painted him as wealthy and out of touch: They accosted him on his
houseboat and surrounded his Maserati.<br>
<br>
During negotiations for the BIL and IRA, Manchin effectively
leveraged his position. He landed a $925 million hydrogen hub to
develop clean hydrogen in West Virginia. In the IRA, Manchin secured
a permanent extension of the federal fund for coal miners affected
by black lung disease, incentives to build renewables in old fossil
fuel mining regions, and tax credits for hydrogen and carbon
capture, technologies that could extend a lifeline to coal, oil, and
gas.<br>
<br>
He’s been pleased with the results. “Today, West Virginia is
attracting more investment, opportunity, and jobs than it has in
decades,” he said in a video announcement. “Here at home and across
the country, we are building more roads, bridges, manufacturing
plants, and energy infrastructure than almost any time in American
history.”...<br>
- -<br>
So why credit Manchin on climate?<br>
<br>
In short, he easily could’ve said no, but he didn’t. Keep in mind
that climate change legislation has long struggled in Congress, even
under far more favorable circumstances. In 1997, the Senate, with a
52-seat Republican majority, voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Protocol,
an early attempt at an international climate treaty. The 2009
American Clean Energy and Security Act, a.k.a. Waxman-Markey, which
would have created a cap and trade scheme to limit carbon dioxide
emissions, didn’t even come up for a vote in the Senate where
Democrats had a 60-vote majority because of the threat of a
Republican filibuster.<br>
<br>
Manchin, a Democrat in a state Trump won by almost 39 points in
2020, has also been in a dicey position. Despite this, Manchin voted
with Joe Biden 88 percent of the time. Meanwhile, Republicans, if
anything, have become even more hostile to action on climate change.
Every Republican voted against the IRA, including the two senators
from Texas, the largest wind energy-producing state; the two
senators from Louisiana, which is losing land to sea level rise; and
the two senators from Florida, where insurers are fleeing due to
mounting losses from extreme weather. None of the Republican
contenders for president are willing to say that humans are heating
up the planet.<br>
<br>
Climate change, at its core, is a collective action problem. To
limit warming, everyone is going to have to eventually zero out
their greenhouse gas emissions, not just in the US but around the
world. That demands a radical transformation of the global economy,
and the window for action is slamming shut. Those changes require
building coalitions, making concessions, and taking steps that
appear frustratingly inadequate because the alternative is dithering
as the situation gets worse. This year is likely to be the hottest
year humanity has ever measured and possibly the hottest humans have
ever experienced, a grim window into the future of a warming world.<br>
<br>
The same challenge is playing out at an international scale. At the
end of November, climate negotiators from around the world will
gather at the COP28 conference for a deliberative process somehow
even more arcane and vexatious than the US Senate. At the meeting —
held in the United Arab Emirates, a major oil producer — countries
whose economies depend on fossil fuels will have to come to an
agreement with countries baking under extreme heat or being
swallowed up by rising seas. Countries that are literally at war
with each other will have to sign off on the next steps to limit
carbon dioxide.<br>
<br>
So one can deride all the features of the US political system that
end up putting so much weight on one Senate vote — Senate
malapportionment, a right-wing-dominated Supreme Court, archaic
legislative traditions — but unless any of these variables change,
that single vote matters, even if it’s always milked for maximum
drama.<br>
<br>
Whether his decision was sincere, cynical, or hypocritical, actions
speak louder than words, and Manchin ultimately delivered a victory
for Democrats and US efforts to curb climate change. And whether or
not Democrats and environmental campaigners are feeling grateful,
they’re facing a much more hostile landscape for the Senate in the
next election and may soon find that they will miss him when he’s
gone...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vox.com/climate/23955967/joe-manchin-climate-change-senate-biden-inflation">https://www.vox.com/climate/23955967/joe-manchin-climate-change-senate-biden-inflation</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Exxon Knew - updating video indictment of disinformation ]</i><br>
<b>How Long Did Exxon Know About Climate Change?</b><br>
Planet Zero - Climate Change<br>
Nov 11, 2023 #climatecrisis #exxonmobil #greenwashing<br>
It should come as no shock that ExxonMobil is aware that their
product is harming the planet and contributing to climate change.
But what may surprise you is that they had knowledge of this going
as far back as 1977. Yet, with all this research about carbon
emissions and their impact on climate, Exxon refused to inform the
public, openly lied on record, and made no changes to their
operations. Now, in 2023, with our climate showing warning signs of
a breakdown, what consequences should Exxon face for their actions?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9jvU0Ygus">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9jvU0Ygus</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<b>[ Planet Zero is a worthy and interesting channel ]</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/@PlanetZeroVideos/featured">https://www.youtube.com/@PlanetZeroVideos/featured</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ discussions familiar across the simple and the complex ]</i><br>
<b>Peak Oil Chat: October Edition w/ Simon Michaux</b><br>
Andrii Zvorygin<br>
Streamed live on Oct 30, 2023<br>
See our Peak Oil Chat with Simon Michaux. Topics: Michael Dowd,
Saudi demand vs supply, deep dives into Net Zero 2050, Baseline
calculations, Power & Metal Production, Hydro storage, Hydrogen,
Sensitivity Scenarios, Alternative Batteries, Commodities, Thorium,
Q&A, and more.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4E_rlxwzDI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4E_rlxwzDI</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[The news archive about Tax Killer Grover
Norquist ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>November 12, 2012 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> November 12, 2012: Powerful
conservative activist Grover Norquist is quoted in the National
Journal as saying that a federal revenue-neutral carbon tax would
not violate the Republican Party's "no new taxes" position. After
being viciously criticized by representatives from Koch Industries,
Norquist abruptly flip-flops.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1182511/grover-norquist-abruptly-reverses-position-on-carbon-tax-after-facing-criticism-from-koch-backed-group/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1182511/grover-norquist-abruptly-reverses-position-on-carbon-tax-after-facing-criticism-from-koch-backed-group/</a><br>
<br>
<b>Grover Norquist Abruptly Changes Position On Carbon Tax After
Facing Criticism From Koch-Backed Group</b><br>
By Stephen Lacey on Nov 13, 2012 <br>
<br>
Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist raised a lot of eyebrows on Monday
when he told National Journal that a carbon tax might be on the
table if it were swapped with a cut to the income tax.<br>
<br>
“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase
and didn’t violate the pledge,” he reportedly said.<br>
<br>
As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist has convinced
hundreds of members of Congress to sign a pledge that they will
never raise taxes. While his influence appears to be waning in
Washington, Norquist’s tax pledge is still considered gospel for
many Republicans. That’s why his willingness to consider a tax on
global warming pollution is a big deal in political circles.<br>
<br>
But one day later, after being criticized by the American Energy
Alliance, the advocacy arm of a Koch-supported energy think tank
devoted to promoting fossil fuel development, Norquist has
completely reversed his statement, saying there virtually “no
conceivable way” he could support a tax on carbon.<br>
<br>
“Grover, just butch it up and oppose this lousy idea directly. This
word-smithing is giving us all headaches,” wrote AEA in its
newsletter, while promoting a newly-published study labeling carbon
taxes “political cronyism.”<br>
<br>
Americans for Tax Reform issued this statement this morning:<br>
<blockquote><b>Americans for Tax Reform opposes a carbon tax and
will work tirelessly to ensure one does not become law.</b><br>
<br>
Taxing American energy consumption not only opens up a new revenue
stream for proponents of big government, but threatens to forever
damage the American economy.<br>
<br>
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist describes a
carbon tax this way:<br>
<br>
“The creation of any new tax such as a VAT or energy tax — even if
originally passed with offsetting tax reductions elsewhere — would
inevitably lead to higher taxes as two taxes would be at the
disposal of politicians to increase taxes. Two smaller tapeworms
are not an improvement over one big tapeworm. Tapeworms and taxes
grow.<br>
<br>
There is no conceivable way to add an energy or VAT tax to the
burdens American taxpayers face that would not violate the pledge
over time. If someone first passed and implemented a
constitutional amendment with 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4
of the states concurring to forbid the restoration of the income
tax, we might more safely consider passing a VAT or energy VAT.
And then it would be foolish and economically destructive thing to
do.”<br>
</blockquote>
Meanwhile, conservatives who understand the threat of climate change
continue to discuss the prospects for pricing carbon in Obama’s
second term, possibly as part of a grand bargain on a deficit deal.
While some consider taxing carbon pollution a “pipe dream,” others
believe it’s one of the only opportunities to get Congressional
Republicans to support a carbon reduction policy. Norquist’s
immediate reversal shows just how difficult it will be to bring
enough Republicans around on the issue and get something done.<br>
<br>
The Obama Administration said last week that it has no intentions to
introduce a carbon tax proposal.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121115231519/https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1182511/grover-norquist-abruptly-reverses-position-on-carbon-tax-after-facing-criticism-from-koch-backed-group/">https://web.archive.org/web/20121115231519/https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1182511/grover-norquist-abruptly-reverses-position-on-carbon-tax-after-facing-criticism-from-koch-backed-group/</a><br>
<br>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><br>
=== Other climate news sources
===========================================<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>