<!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 15</b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i>[ big changes stated today ]</i><br>
<b>Health Risks Linked to Climate Change Are Getting Worse, Experts
Warn</b><br>
The 8th update to a major international report shows more people are
getting sick and dying from extreme heat, drought and other climate
problems.<br>
By Delger Erdenesanaa<br>
Nov. 14, 2023<br>
Climate change continues to have a worsening effect on health and
mortality around the world, according to an exhaustive report
published on Tuesday by an international team of 114 researchers.<br>
<br>
One of the starkest findings is that heat-related deaths of people
older than 65 have increased by 85 percent since the 1990s,
according to modeling that incorporates both changing temperatures
and demographics. People in this age group, along with babies, are
especially vulnerable to health risks like heat stroke. As global
temperatures have risen, older people and infants now are exposed to
twice the number of heat-wave days annually as they were from 1986
to 2005.<br>
<br>
The report, published in the medical journal The Lancet, also
tracked estimated lost income and food insecurity. Globally,
exposure to extreme heat, and resulting losses in productivity or
inability to work, may have led to income losses as high as $863
billion in 2022. And, in 2021, an estimated 127 million more people
experienced moderate or severe food insecurity linked to heat waves
and droughts, compared with 1981-2010.<br>
<br>
“We’ve lost very precious years of climate action and that has come
at an enormous health cost,” said Marina Romanello, a researcher at
University College London and the executive director of the report,
known as The Lancet Countdown. “The loss of life, the impact that
people experience, is irreversible.”...<br>
- -<br>
The indicators of public health tracked in the report have generally
declined over the nine years the researchers have produced editions
of the assessment.<br>
<br>
The analysis also examined health outcomes for individual countries,
including the United States. Heat-related deaths of adults 65 and
older increased by 88 percent between 2018 and 2022, compared with
2000-04. An estimated 23,200 older Americans died in 2022 because of
exposure to extreme heat.<br>
<br>
Forests and carbon capture. Restoring global forests where they
naturally occur could potentially capture an additional 226 gigatons
of planet-warming carbon, according to a new study. But scientists
warned that the outcome couldn’t be achieved without cutting
greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
<br>
Ominous signs. Greenland’s mountain glaciers and floating ice
shelves are melting faster than they were just a few decades ago and
becoming destabilized, according to two separate studies. The
findings are particularly significant as ice melting into the ocean
from Greenland is one of the biggest contributors to global sea
level rise.<br>
<br>
A hot year. A data analysis by European climate scientists found
that October 2023 was the warmest October on record globally, on the
heels of the hottest September on record. The findings round out a
year of rising temperatures that is projected to be the hottest one
on record.<br>
<br>
A new wildfire risk. Forest fires may get more attention, but a new
study reveals that grassland fires are more widespread and
destructive across the United States. Almost every year since 1990,
the study found, grass and shrub fires burned more land than forest
fires did, and they destroyed more homes, too.<br>
<br>
Dire warnings. Global warming may be happening more quickly than
previously thought, according to a new study by a group of
researchers that included former NASA scientist James Hansen, whose
testimony before Congress 35 years ago helped raise broad awareness
of climate change.<br>
<br>
For health practitioners, the statistics are not abstract or
faceless.<br>
<br>
“These numbers remind me of the elderly patients I see in my own
hospital with heatstroke,” said Dr. Renee Salas, an emergency
medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard
Medical School.<br>
<br>
Dr. Salas is one of the report’s co-authors and said she viewed the
project like tracking vital signs in a patient, but on a national
and international scale...<br>
- -<br>
For the first time, this year’s Lancet Countdown included
projections for the future. If the global average temperature rises
by 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial temperatures, an
increasingly likely future unless society significantly reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, the number of heat-related deaths each
year will increase by 370 percent by the middle of this century, the
report found.<br>
<br>
<b>It’s Not Your Imagination. Summers Are Getting Hotter.</b><br>
As the planet has warmed, summer temperatures have shifted toward
more extreme heat.<br>
At the same time, the researchers point out that reducing fossil
fuel pollution is proving beneficial for global health. Deaths from
air pollution related to fossil fuels have decreased by 15 percent
since 2005, with most of that improvement a result of less
coal-related pollution entering the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
The value of The Lancet Countdown is its ongoing monitoring of
climate change’s effects on global health, said Sharon Friel,
director of the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse at the Australian
National University.<br>
<br>
Climate ReportsThe Fifth National Climate Assessment came out
Tuesday. And U.N. findings released the same day paint a dire
picture in which the countries aren’t doing nearly enough to keep
global warming within relatively safe levels.<br>
Dr. Friel was not involved in the report, but read it and wrote an
accompanying commentary.<br>
<br>
Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former special assistant to the director for
climate change and health at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, said the report was a valuable dashboard but that the
climate impacts he most worried about were not the obvious ones
highlighted. Researchers and policymakers need to pay attention to
the health effects of people being displaced by climate change and
migrating, Dr. Frumkin said.<br>
<br>
“If you’re on cancer chemotherapy or if you are getting kidney
dialysis or if you’re getting addiction treatment and you have to
move suddenly, that’s terribly disruptive and threatening,” he said.
Dr. Frumkin was not involved in the new report but was a co-author
on previous editions.<br>
<br>
Over the years, the health experts involved in this project have
included more research about the continued use of fossil fuels being
the root cause of health issues.<br>
<br>
“The diagnosis in this report is very clear,” Dr. Salas said.
“Further expansion of fossil fuels is reckless and the data clearly
shows that it threatens the health and well-being of every person.”<br>
<br>
The researchers point out that health care systems, and other
societal infrastructure health care depends on, haven’t adapted
quickly enough to our current level of global warming.<br>
<br>
“If we haven’t been able to cope today, chances are we won’t be able
to cope in the future,” Dr. Romanello said.<br>
<br>
The report is likely to be discussed at the annual United Nations
climate summit in the United Arab Emirates that starts in a few
weeks. This year the summit will include a greater focus on human
health.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/climate/climate-change-health-effects-lancet.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-kw.UUui.l8ldoL9uIeyG&smid=url-share">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/climate/climate-change-health-effects-lancet.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-kw.UUui.l8ldoL9uIeyG&smid=url-share</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/climate/climate-change-health-effects-lancet.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/climate/climate-change-health-effects-lancet.html</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ other sources of information on over-heating ]</i><br>
<b>The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate
change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world
facing irreversible harms</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01859-7/fulltext">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01859-7/fulltext</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ two years ago Dr James Hansen reminisces ]</i><br>
<b>An URGENT Chat with the Godfather of Climate Science</b><br>
Decouple Media<br>
Dec 6, 2021 Decouple Podcast<br>
In this very special episode, I am joined live in Berlin by the
"Godfather of Climate Science," Dr. James Hansen.<br>
<br>
Dr. James Hansen is the former director of the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, and is now the Director of the "Climate
Science, Awareness and Solutions Program" at Columbia University's
Earth Institute. He was one of the first to bring climate change to
the public eye with his famous testimony before the U.S. congress in
the 1980s. Since then, he has continued to be at the forefront of
the climate debate.<br>
<br>
We discuss a wide range of topics:<br>
<blockquote>• The emergence of the science on global warming from
rising CO2 levels<br>
• Dr. Hansen's experience as a high-caliber climate advocate<br>
• The shift from climate deniers to climate lukewarmists<br>
• The two most important climate actions for Dr. Hansen, a carbon
tax and support for nuclear power<br>
• Why Dr. Hansen didn't go to COP26<br>
• The anti-nuclear lobby<br>
• The virtually unlimited government support for renewables<br>
• Differential responsibility for climate change<br>
• The contrast between German and Chinese approaches to climate
action<br>
• Fukushima, alarmism, and anti-nuclear NRC picks<br>
• Reflections on geoengineering<br>
</blockquote>
Chapters<br>
<blockquote>0:00 Intro<br>
1:14 Becoming Dr James Hansen<br>
5:40 Early Climate research<br>
7:47 Testifying to congress & political interference <br>
10:21 Climate deniers & lukewarmists <br>
12:38 Dr Hansen’s major climate concerns<br>
14:05 Are the COP meetings useful?<br>
16:06 Nuclear energy as a solution<br>
21:35 Environmental groups would lose donations if they supported
nuclear<br>
23:16 Electrify everything, the need for reliable energy & the
rally to save German Nuclear<br>
32:20 Net zero & negative emissions<br>
36:41 Mr Hansen goes to China <br>
42:08 Global North owes it to the Global South to cooperate on
energy<br>
47:47 Germans and Nuclear<br>
51:54 Nuclear accidents, safety & the NRC<br>
57:37 Nuclear Influencers <br>
1:00:33 Geo-engineering <br>
1:06:27 Do we need to be looking beyond 2100?<br>
1:08:31 Dr Hansen health tips & Outro<br>
</blockquote>
Listen to the interview
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/chris15401/episodes/Carbon-Fees-and-Nuclear-Power-feat--Dr--James-Hansen-e1bb433">https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/chris15401/episodes/Carbon-Fees-and-Nuclear-Power-feat--Dr--James-Hansen-e1bb433</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L6cEf87Jyc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L6cEf87Jyc</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ discussion on failure of politics and need to get real faster]</i><br>
<b>Kevin Anderson: Climate Failures and Phantasies | Full episode</b><br>
Nick Breeze ClimateGenn<br>
Premiered 106 minutes ago ClimateGenn #podcast produced by Nick
Breeze<br>
In this full climategenn episode I am speaking with Professor Kevin
Anderson from the Universities of Manchester and Uppsala about how
journalists and experts have failed the public by an over dependence
on reductionist thinking, as opposed to systems thinking, much
needed to avert disaster.<br>
<br>
[PREORDER: MY BOOK ‘COPOUT - HOW GOVERNMENTS HAVE FAILED THE PEOPLE
ON CLIMATE’ (AD LIB BOOKS) IS AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://copout.genn.cc">https://copout.genn.cc</a> ]<br>
Instead of making the space for envisioning a better world,
perpetrators of the status quo instead construct fantasies as a way
to deflect criticism and delay real action.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_7Z58eVzk4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_7Z58eVzk4</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<b>[ Web site for resources ]</b><br>
<b>CLIMATE & MIND</b><br>
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIMATE DISRUPTION, HUMAN
BEHAVIOR & HUMAN EXPERIENCE<br>
Climate & Mind<br>
Resources<br>
Books, academic articles, In the News, reports, people & groups,
podcasts & interviews, videos & movies, climate art, and
more.<br>
<br>
Climate & Mental Health Professions<br>
Social Work, Psychology, Psychiatry, Nursing, and Disaster Mental
Health<br>
<br>
Climate Communication & Behavior Change<br>
What helps people learn, understand, and take action? <br>
Kids, Youth & Climate<br>
Climate Cafe & Climate Circle<br>
<br>
Climate Impacts on Mental Health<br>
Climate Grief<br>
Psychology of Eco-Fascism<br>
<br>
Global Mental Health & Climate<br>
How climate breakdown impacts the mental health and resiliency of
populations (coming soon!)<br>
<br>
Coping in the Face of Climate Breakdown <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.climateandmind.org/">https://www.climateandmind.org/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ quick video comment ]</i><br>
<b>Andrew Dessler and Bill McKibben on Climate Impacts with
Temperature</b><br>
greenmanbucket <br>
Nov 13, 2023<br>
Climate models have been quite accurate predicting the increase in
global temperatures over the last 50 years.<br>
Where they fall short has been anticipating the impacts that a given
amount of temperature rise might have. Dr Andrew Dessler and writer
Bill McKibben explain.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV2xsw3_tfU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV2xsw3_tfU</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news archive - back when, for
a brief moment, Republicans acted properly..... ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>November 15, 1990 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> November 15, 1990: President George
H. W. Bush signs the Clean Air Act of 1990, which utilizes
cap-and-trade--an idea Republicans would later disavow as a means of
reducing carbon pollution--to reduce acid rain pollution. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AirActS">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AirActS</a><br>
<br>
<b>Clean Air Act Signing Ceremony</b><br>
<p>President George H. W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act which was
new legislation requiring pollution controls for automobiles,
factories and electric utilities</p>
<p>NOVEMBER 15, 1990<br>
<b>Clean Air Act Signing Ceremony</b><br>
President George H. W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act which was new
legislation requiring pollution controls for automobiles,
factories and electric utilities.<br>
</p>
<p>...people all over the world. And the new environmental F. OSS is
growing. We see it in community efforts and in school involve that
across America and we're saying it in the innovative response of
private industry in alternative fuel service stations. Electric
vehicles. These companies understand. We must pioneer new
technology. Find new solutions invasion. New Horizons. If we're to
build a bright future and a better America for our children.
There's an old saying we don't inherit the earth from our parents.
We borrow it from our children. We have succeeded today. The cause
of a sense a common sense of global stewardship. A sense that it
is the earth. That indoors and that all of us are simply holding a
sacred trust. Left for future generations. For the sake of future
generations. Again thank each and every one of you for your
commitment to our precious environment. And I am now honored to
sign this clean air bill into law. And thank you all who have
worked so hard for this day....<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?15006-1/clean-air-act-signing-ceremony">https://www.c-span.org/video/?15006-1/clean-air-act-signing-ceremony</a><br>
</p>
<p> - -</p>
<p><b>The GOP Changes Its Tune on Cap and Trade</b><br>
Cap and trade was conceived by Reagan, delivered by the first
Bush, and praised by the second Bush. Ironically, it’s now
threatened by GOP officials, writes Daniel J. Weiss.<br>
</p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> Opposition to “cap-and-trade” legislation
to reduce global warming pollution is a common refrain among
many Republican and a few Democratic officials this fall. The
program is derided as a “cap and tax” that would drain voters’
wallets while bankrupting the nation. But ironically enough, the
three most recent Republican presidents promoted cap and trade,
including Ronald Reagan. They employed such a system to phase
out lead in gasoline, cut chlorofluorocarbons and other
ozone-depleting chemicals, and reduce sulfur pollution from
power plants responsible for acid rain—all without undue cost.
Officials who are criticizing it now are doing so for political
purposes, and they could likely make it harder to employ
cost-effective, market-based policies in the future to
significantly lower pollution at an affordable cost.<br>
<br>
For instance, the “Pledge to America: the 2010 Republican
Agenda” promises to “oppose attempts to impose a national ‘cap
and trade’ energy tax.” After the demise of comprehensive global
warming legislation in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) gloated that “cap-and-trade, which is also
known as the national energy tax, is dead in the United States
Senate.”<br>
<br>
Yet many Republican officials greatly admire the father of cap
and trade: President Ronald Reagan. Former Gov. Sarah Palin
(R-AK) praised Reagan last year:<br>
<br>
When you realize the magnitude of President Reagan’s
achievements, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would
ignore his ‘demonstrably good’ example.<br>
<br>
Nonetheless, she opposes a global warming plan that would employ
the innovative cap-and-trade system first created by President
Reagan. Like Palin, many of today’s public officials are
repudiating Reagan’s legacy of cap and trade for cheap political
gain and to curry favor with the polluting industries that are
supporting attacks on those who voted for a cap-and-trade market
mechanism to reduce global warming pollution.<br>
<br>
A little history is in order. Cap and trade was developed as a
more flexible, market-based system to reduce environmental
pollution compared to the so-called “command and control” model
employed by environmental laws in the 1970s. The old system
required each polluting facility to make a fixed reduction in
air or water contamination, which ignored that some facilities
could cut pollution more cheaply than others.<br>
<br>
Cap and trade is a cost-effective alternative that allows the
firms that can more cheaply reduce their emissions below their
required limit to sell any additional reductions to companies
that are not able to make reductions as easily. This creates a
system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions while
rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap
can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy.<br>
<br>
The Reagan White House conceived the first cap-and-trade program
to reduce pollution. It was used in the 1980s to phase out lead
in gasoline at a lower cost. An EPA analysis shows:<br>
<br>
…estimated savings from the lead trading program of
approximately 20 percent over alternative programs that did not
provide for lead banking, a cost savings of about $250 million
per year.<br>
<br>
President Reagan also signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to
slash the production and use of chemicals that deplete the upper
ozone layer essential to screen out cancer-causing ultraviolet
rays. His administration established a cap-and-trade system to
implement the chemical reductions the protocol required. A 2006
scientific assessment concluded that “the Montreal Protocol is
working” to reduce chemicals and protect the ozone layer.<br>
<br>
President George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, was the first
president to propose the employment of a cap-and-trade system in
an environmental law. The Clean Air Act of 1990 includes his
proposed cap-and-trade system to reduce the sulfur pollution
from power plants responsible for acid rain.<br>
<br>
The Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 89-10 and the
House by 401-25. Many staunch conservatives voted for it
including Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo), Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch
McConnell (R-KY), and Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Conservative House
supporters included Reps. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Joe Barton
(R-TX), Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Fred Upton
(R-MI).<br>
<br>
When President Bush signed the Clean Air Act into law he
highlighted its innovative cap-and-trade mechanism:<br>
<br>
The acid rain allowance trading program will be the first
large-scale regulatory use of market incentives and is already
being seen as a model for regulatory reform efforts here and
abroad.<br>
<br>
By employing a system that generates the most environmental
protection for every dollar spent, the trading system lays the
groundwork for a new era of smarter government regulation; one
that is more compatible with economic growth than using only the
command and control approaches of the past.<br>
<br>
President Bush’s prediction came true. An EPA analysis a decade
after the law was passed determined that the actual cost of
cutting sulfur emissions by 40 percent was substantially lower
than it had predicted: “$1 to $2 billion per year, just one
quarter of original EPA estimates.” A CAP analysis determined
that in 2006 utility rates were 5 percent lower (in real
dollars) than before the act passed in 1990. And the U.S.
economy added 16 million jobs during this time.<br>
<br>
President George W. Bush also included a cap-and-trade mechanism
in his “Clear Skies” bill that would have amended the Clean Air
Act. Upon the bill’s introduction he noted the success of his
father’s cap-and-trade program:<br>
<br>
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have significantly reduced air
pollution, especially through the innovative "cap-and trade"
acid rain control program. [It] has been a resounding success,
cutting annual sulfur dioxide emissions in the first phase by 50
percent below allowed levels. Emissions were reduced faster than
required, and at far less cost…The program only requires a
handful of EPA employees to operate.<br>
<br>
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced several global warming
pollution reductions bills during the previous decade. While
running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global
warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.<br>
<br>
John McCain’s climate plan will be similar to the very
successful acid rain trading program created under the first
President Bush in the early 1990s.<br>
<br>
A cap-and-trade system sends a market signal that organizes the
whole economy around our environmental goals…The market evolves
by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also
allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that
requirement.<br>
<br>
Then-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) also supported a cap-and-trade
system to reduce global warming pollution as the GOP nominee for
vice president. She reiterated that support (see 34:00) during
the vice presidential debate.<br>
<br>
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) also endorsed a
cap-and-trade system to reduce global warming pollution in 2007:<br>
<br>
I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a
trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a
tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that
there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly,
it’s something I would strongly support.<br>
<br>
Gingrich has changed his tune, however, just two years later. He
railed against the “cap-and-trade energy tax” in 2009.<br>
<br>
Why have Republicans and a few Democrats rejected this
successful policy innovation developed and deployed by
Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush? In Gingrich’s case
it may be the $350,000 from oil and coal interests his political
committee received during the first quarter of 2010 alone.<br>
<br>
In addition to giving money to Gingrich, Big Oil, Dirty Coal,
and other special interests have spent hundreds millions of
dollars over the past two years to convince legislators,
politicians, and citizens to oppose cap and trade and other
measures that would create jobs, cut oil use, and reduce
pollution. Center for American Progress Action Fund analyses
find that these interests spent at least $68 million in 2010
alone to air misleading and fictitious ads on global warming.
What’s more, many of these same interests spent over $500
million in 18 months to lobby Congress to oppose clean energy
and global warming legislation.<br>
<br>
The New York Times reports that these efforts are bearing fruit:<br>
<br>
[Tea Party views] in general align with those of the fossil fuel
industries, which have for decades waged a concerted campaign to
raise doubts about the science of global warming and to
undermine policies devised to address it.<br>
<br>
They have created and lavishly financed institutes to produce
anti-global-warming studies, paid for rallies and Web sites to
question the science, and generated scores of economic analyses
that purport to show that policies to reduce emissions of
climate-altering gases will have a devastating effect on jobs
and the overall economy.<br>
<br>
Special interest money, then, has played a big role in public
officials rejecting this tool created and sharpened by
Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush.<br>
<br>
Among Tea Party activists, ideology also plays a part in their
rejection of cap and trade as a solution to global warming. Many
activists do not believe that global warming is real despite
reams of scientific data to the contrary. A New York Times poll
found:<br>
<br>
…that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that global
warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect
now, while 49 percent of the rest of the public believes that it
is. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that global
warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future,
while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view, the
poll found.<br>
<br>
Tea Partiers, therefore, would oppose any solution to a problem
they do not believe exists.<br>
<br>
There’s a bigger point to be made here, though. This summer the
Senate failed to act on global warming legislation that employed
a cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce costs. Noted economists
Richard Schmalensee, who worked in the Reagan White House, and
Robert Stavins warned soon after that rejecting cap-and-trade
programs such as those in the Senate bill could increase the
expense of future pollution reductions. They worry that
policymakers would hesitate to employ a discredited
cap-and-trade system and instead rely on a traditional, more
expensive command-and-control method.<br>
<br>
To reject this legacy and embrace the failed 1970s policies of
one-size-fits-all regulatory mandates would signify unilateral
surrender of principled support for markets. If some
conservatives oppose energy or climate policies because of
disagreement about the threat of climate change or the costs of
those policies, so be it. But in the process of debating risks
and costs, there should be no tarnishing of market-based policy
instruments. Such a scorched-earth approach will come back to
haunt when future environmental policies will not be able to use
the power of the marketplace to reduce business costs.<br>
<br>
Schmalensee and Stavins’s warning should be heeded: This current
crop of Republican and a few Democratic officials—in their zeal
to curry favor with their special interest funders and Tea Party
activists—could doom future efforts to follow the path paved by
Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush to reduce pollution in the
most cost-effective way possible.<br>
<br>
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate
Strategy at American Progress, where he leads the Center’s clean
energy and climate advocacy campaign.</font></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-gop-changes-its-tune-on-cap-and-trade/">https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-gop-changes-its-tune-on-cap-and-trade/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> === 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>