<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>April </b></i></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>21, 2024</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font><br>
<i>[ From Grist ]</i><br>
<b>Taking Big Oil to court for ‘climate homicide’ isn’t as
far-fetched as it sounds</b><br>
Are fossil fuel companies guilty of actual murder?<br>
A new legal theory suggests that oil companies could be taken to
court for every kind of homicide in the United States, short of
first-degree murder.<br>
Kate Yoder, Staff Writer<br>
Apr 19, 2024<br>
The idea of “climate homicide” is getting attention in law schools
and district attorney’s offices around the country. A paper
published in Harvard Environmental Law Review last week argues that
fossil fuel companies have been “killing members of the public at an
accelerating rate.” It says that oil giants’ awareness that their
pollution could have lethal consequences solidly fits within the
definition of homicide, which, in its basic form, is causing death
with a “culpable mental state.” In other words, the case can be made
that oil companies knew what they were doing.<br>
<br>
“It’s sparking a lot of conversation,” said Aaron Regunberg, senior
policy counsel at the advocacy group Public Citizen. After
discussing the idea with elected officials and prosecutors,
Regunberg said, many of them have moved from “‘Oh, that’s crazy’ to
‘Oh, that makes sense.’”<br>
<br>
Starting around the 1970s, oil companies like Exxon understood the
dangers that burning fossil fuels would unleash — unprecedented
warming that would render parts of the globe “less habitable,”
submerge coastal cities, and lead to extensive drought and mass
famine. Yet instead of switching away from coal and oil, they
doubled down, working to block legislation to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and spreading doubt about the science of climate change.
Today, with atmospheric CO2 climbing to levels last seen 14 million
years ago, the predicted consequences have begun to arrive. Since
the start of the 21st century, climate change has killed roughly 4
million people, according to one conservative estimate.<br>
By 2100, that same number of people could be killed by the effects
of climate change every single year, according to the new paper by
David Arkush, the director of Public Citizen’s climate program, and
Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University.
“[T]he scope of the lethality is so vast that, in the annals of
crime, it may eventually dwarf all other homicide cases in the
United States, combined,” they write.<br>
<br>
Criminal law cases are normally brought against individuals, but
Regunberg says there’s a strong case for applying it more broadly.
“It’s supposed to be about protecting us from dangerous actors that
would harm our communities. What if we actually use this system to
protect us from dangerous corporate actors that are doing
incomprehensible harm?”<br>
<br>
Homicide opens up a new flank in the strategy to bring climate
change into the courts. Climate litigation is now in its “third
wave,” according to Anthony Moffa, a professor at the University of
Maine School of Law. The first lawsuits sought to force power
companies to limit their emissions by way of federal public nuisance
claims, a strategy the Supreme Court shot down in 2011. Then people
started suing the U.S. and state governments using the argument that
they had a duty to protect their citizens from climate change. The
approach bore fruit last year, when young climate activists won a
suit against Montana that claimed the state’s failure to evaluate
climate risks in approving fossil fuel projects violated their
constitutional right to a healthy environment. <br>
<br>
That phase also includes a flood of climate lawsuits filed against
oil companies in state courts using laws meant to protect people
from deceptive advertising, and those cases are finally moving
closer to trial after years of delays. Now the strategy has expanded
to include racketeering lawsuits, which use the laws that took down
the Mafia against Big Oil, and potentially criminal law cases
including homicide or reckless endangerment.<br>
<br>
Arkush and Braman’s paper suggests that all types of homicide are on
the table except for first-degree murder, which requires
premeditated intent. One option is “involuntary manslaughter,” or
engaging in reckless conduct that causes death, even if it’s
unintentional. “Negligent homicide” is similar, but for neglectful
behavior. There’s also “depraved heart murder,” which requires
engaging in conduct where you knew there was a substantial risk
someone would be killed. Other variants include “felony murder” and
“misdemeanor manslaughter.” Criminal law differs between states, so
an attorney general or district attorney’s approach would depend on
the jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
Homicide suits could be a powerful force for holding oil companies
accountable and forcing them to change their polluting ways. “Where
tort law merely prices harmful conduct, criminal law prohibits it —
and provides tools to stop it,” Arkush and Braman wrote in the
Harvard Environmental Law Review paper. A successful lawsuit could
result in courts requiring fossil fuel companies to restructure as
“public benefit corporations” that have to balance profits with a
commitment to the public good, replace their boards with new
members, or make legally binding commitments to forgo certain
practices. <br>
<br>
To promote the idea of “climate homicide,” Public Citizen has been
organizing panel discussions in recent weeks at law schools
including Yale, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, New York
University, and the University of Chicago. Another panel will be
held at Vermont Law School on Monday. Public Citizen is also looking
into staging mock trials to see how jurors might react to these
kinds of cases and what evidence they find compelling.<br>
<br>
“There are a number of prosecutorial offices that seem interested in
giving these legal theories serious consideration,” Regunberg said.
“They understand that climate disasters — extreme heat, wildfires,
floods, and more — are endangering their communities, and if there’s
a way to stop criminally reckless conduct that’s contributing to
these threats, they’re going to explore that possibility.”<br>
<br>
The idea has been embraced by Sharon Eubanks, who led the United
States’ racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies in 2005, in
which the court found that companies had conspired to deceive the
public by covering up the health dangers of smoking. “There were a
lot of people who said we were crazy to charge big tobacco with
racketeering and that we could never win,” Eubanks told The
Guardian. “But you know what? We did win. I think we need that same
kind of thinking to deal with the climate crisis.”<br>
<br>
So why has no one seriously considered suing oil companies for
homicide until now? Recent years have brought advances in the
science that connects climate change to extreme weather events and
quantifies how corporate emissions have fueled disasters like
wildfires, paving the way for these types of cases. Still, the need
to include attribution science adds a layer of complexity that
hasn’t been present for similar litigation against tobacco or opioid
companies, according to Moffa.<br>
<br>
And then there’s the fact that prosecutors are reluctant to take
corporations to court with criminal law charges. The first time that
a corporation was charged under a criminal statute for manslaughter
was in 1904, when a steamship owner was found guilty after its ship
caught fire and 900 passengers drowned, but the legal strategy never
really took off. “So then to say, ‘Why haven’t they ever done this
in the environmental law?’ They haven’t really done it in almost any
context,” Moffa said.<br>
<br>
In their paper, Arkush and Braman argued that fossil fuel companies
have been acting as if they were above the law. “Under a plain
reading of the law in jurisdictions across the United States, they
are committing mass homicide,” they conclude. “Prosecutors should
act accordingly.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://grist.org/accountability/big-oil-court-climate-homicide-lawsuits/">https://grist.org/accountability/big-oil-court-climate-homicide-lawsuits/</a>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Since 2009 this opinion has been lost to search engines ]</i><br>
<b>Suborning Murder, Encouraging Mass Suicide</b><br>
By Richard Pauli on July 9, 2009 <br>
Define Suborn - To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil
act.<br>
<blockquote>Hey EnergyTomorrow, API and the entire fossil fuel
industry - we have to speak out. You suborn murder by heavily
promoting carbon fuel usage. You actively encourage species
suicide.<br>
<br>
You have known for decades that CO2 causes global warming. And
you know that fossil fuels are the major human source of CO2
greenhouse gasses that cause catastrophic heating.<br>
<br>
You hide it from consumers, you deny the science and you secretly
fund skeptics, and now you seek political support for your carbon
fueled campaign of mass suicide.<br>
<br>
Science pretty much knows now that we are a doomed species. It
will be a tough life for all our grandchildren, and we cannot
expect many humans after that.<br>
<br>
And you continue lying when you could have been educating and
researching and deploying non-polluting energy. Now your
momentum traps us all.<br>
<br>
Your most evil act is to discount the danger and continue
promoting ignorance and doubt. You have pushed the world into
total adoption of carbon based fuels, and like big tobacco you
covered up science and distracted your market, and now you are
groveling for political support to keep your industry going
through the chaos ahead...<br>
<br>
More than any other industrial segment, yours - oil, gas, coal,
all the CO2 carbon fuels - are the most directly responsible for
the end of our species. You continue to worsen the struggle and
cause an early death for our progeny.<br>
<br>
It is no comfort that your grandchildren are just as doomed as
mine. Eventually we will all be dying for your sins. But now
we know, and we will neither forgive nor forget this mass murder
for money.</blockquote>
Richard Pauli July 4th 2009<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.noenergytomorrow.org/2009/07/suborning-murder-encouraging-mass-suicide.html">http://www.noenergytomorrow.org/2009/07/suborning-murder-encouraging-mass-suicide.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ from an Opinion in the NYTimes ]</i><br>
<b>A Planetary Crisis Awaits the Next President</b><br>
April 20, 2024<br>
By Stephen Markley<br>
Mr. Markley is a novelist.<br>
In the 12 years it took me to write “The Deluge,” my novel of the
climate crisis, I watched as chaotic weather, record temperatures
and shocking political events outpaced my imagination. The book
depicts the human tipping point, when the damage becomes
irreversible and the foundations of our economy, our politics and
our world begin to crack. The plot points I was concocting in 2010
would become a constant drumbeat of headlines into 2024.<br>
<br>
Last year alone, the warning signs included soaring ocean
temperatures, a record loss of Antarctic Sea ice and the highest
global average temperature in recorded human history. Wildfires,
droughts, floods and extreme weather of every variety have come to
shock even the scientists who study the shocking stuff. This is
not the history we want to be living through.<br>
<br>
Yet here we are, and those gears of history will grind together
again this year as another presidential election meets our
permanent emergency. The stakes of the climate crisis render the
cliché of “This is the most important election of our lifetimes”
increasingly true because every four years those stakes climb
precipitously alongside the toppling records of a radically new
climatic regime.<br>
<br>
The White House may soon be recaptured by Donald Trump, who called
the climate crisis a “hoax” and even when backing off that
assertion insisted, “I don’t know that it’s man-made.” He has
demonstrated his thinking again and again, as when he told a
scientist, “It’ll start getting cooler, you just watch.”<br>
<br>
There has recently been a great deal of reporting on Project 2025,
a 900-plus-page road map for a second Trump administration
assembled by the conservative Heritage Foundation. On climate, the
report is succinct: “The Biden administration’s climate fanaticism
will need a whole-of-government unwinding.”<br>
<br>
The report recommends a repeal of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act, which would shred the
tax credits that have led to hundreds of billions of dollars in
investments in clean energy, the jump-starting of factory openings
and the creation of jobs in virtually every corner of the country.
Also lost will be investments in environmental justice, those
measures that aim to reduce pollution in marginalized communities,
provide affordable clean energy and create jobs in low-income
neighborhoods. As for electric cars, which are critical to meeting
the nation’s climate goals, the report recommends an end to all
federal mandates and subsidies.<br>
<br>
A second Trump administration would most likely grant permits for
fossil fuel drilling and pipelines basically anywhere it has the
say-so, scrap the methane fee on oil and gas producers and
dismantle new pollution limits on cars, trucks and power plants.
It would almost certainly revoke California’s waiver to approve
higher standards under the Clean Air Act, seek repeal of the
Antiquities Act used to protect endangered landscapes and attempt
to gut the Endangered Species Act.<br>
But perhaps most ominously, a Trump presidency would impede
Americans’ ability to find out what’s being done to them. Project
2025 proposes dismantling and privatizing parts of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency that
studies and monitors the climate, and using an executive order to
“reshape” the Global Change Research Program, apparently to muddy
its assessments of the pace of climate change and the potential
impact. We would walk into this new dark era with a blindfold on.<br>
<br>
Mr. Trump is at heart a billionaire doing favors for other
billionaires by cutting their taxes and eliminating or not
enforcing rules that protect the rest of us from asthma and
cancer. During his four years in office, he managed to dismantle
or degrade over 100 environmental rules, which brought real-world
death and suffering. The medical journal The Lancet estimated that
in the year 2019 alone these policies led to 22,000 excess deaths
from heart disease, asthma and lung cancer, among other causes.<br>
<br>
For all the damage that was done, Mr. Trump and his administration
fortunately proved incompetent at making the government fulfill
his intentions. We shouldn’t delude ourselves with thinking that
he and his allies will be caught as flatfooted as they were by
their surprise victory in 2016. What Project 2025 demonstrates is
that an enormous amount of thinking has gone in to how to destroy
the government’s capacity to enforce environmental protections,
conduct research or even assess the scientific reality of our
situation. Of course, the worst-case scenario, a full or partial
repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, will depend on the
composition of Congress.<br>
<br>
My advice is to not tell yourself comforting bedtime stories about
the political resiliency of that law when so many of its benefits
lie in the years ahead.<br>
<br>
One can hold up a document like Project 2025 and shout from the
rooftops just how extreme it is. One can attempt to use numbers to
describe this danger. But everyone will fall short — and, surely,
I’ve fallen short — in describing just how frightening a second
Trump presidency could actually be.<br>
<br>
Do not limit your imagination.<br>
<br>
Mr. Trump himself offered a glimpse in a recent meeting with oil
and gas executives at Mar-a-Lago, where, The Washington Post
reported, he said, “I hate wind.” He also told the executives that
they should contribute to his campaign, that his policies would be
much better for oil and gas than President Biden’s and that he’d
do much of what they wanted “on Day 1.”<br>
<br>
History will fork, and in a single day our window of opportunity
for keeping the climate crisis from spiraling out of control could
very well slam shut. Global emissions must peak this decade and
begin a rapid decline for the world to have any chance of avoiding
catastrophic warming. When I began writing my novel, we had
something like 20 years to accomplish that task. After the
election, we will have 62 months.<br>
<br>
This makes the 2024 election a singular event in the climate
crisis. Despite a number of headwinds, renewable energy capacity
boomed last year, increasing 50 percent globally. According to the
International Energy Agency, global renewable capacity is on
course to be at two and a half times current levels by 2030, which
means the world is edging closer to achieving a key climate target
of tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030. The risks of the
crisis are growing rapidly, but so is our capacity to confront
this challenge at the speed and scale necessary. We must
accelerate that momentum at all costs.<br>
<br>
The other major candidate in the race, President Biden, has been a
steadfast proponent of that acceleration.<br>
<br>
I fully admit, Mr. Biden was not my first, nor even my seventh,
choice in the 2020 Democratic primary. Yet when it came to the
immense challenge of confronting this crisis, I am forever
grateful that he proved me wrong, delivering a game-changing
victory with the narrowest of congressional margins. Even as much
of the rest of Mr. Biden’s ambitious policy agenda got hacked away
in Congress, one thing remained: re-industrialization through
clean energy investment.<br>
<br>
This led to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the most
significant climate legislation the country has ever seen and a
more important achievement than the Paris climate accord. In just
two years, that bill has galvanized clean energy investment in the
United States and set a pace for the rest of the world to compete
in the growing clean energy economy. These investments are
expected to create more than nine million jobs over the next
decade. That growth in clean energy is not only breaking records
by the year but also by the quarter, with the end of 2023 seeing a
40 percent increase in investments in clean energy and
transportation over the last quarter of 2022.<br>
<br>
As those industries of decarbonization spread to every state and
to many congressional districts, people’s lives and livelihoods
increasingly will become intertwined and invested in clean energy.
When a Texas congressman can’t survive an election in a solidly
Republican district without the backing of the wind and solar
industries, when a battery factory in Hardin County, Ky., is
employing 5,000 people, when the fossil fuel economy is falling to
the zero-carbon infrastructure we demand, that will change a
politician’s calculations. The increasing political and economic
clout of those clean energy industries will challenge the fossil
fuel status quo. We are at the beginning of an absolute revolution
of the American economy that will send manufacturing soaring and
pollution plummeting.<br>
<br>
Any climate hawk could try to encumber my argument with caveats,
unaddressed pet issues and whatabouts, but as far as our shared
atmosphere is concerned, there are only three pieces of relevant
information: who Joe Biden is, who Donald Trump is, and the
urgency of the crisis before us. While it’s true the United States
continues to produce record amounts of fossil gas and near-record
amounts of oil, these numbers reflect the all-of-the-above energy
policies of the past 15 years. The Inflation Reduction Act and
several critical regulations from Mr. Biden’s Environmental
Protection Agency will drive the decarbonization that should put
us within striking distance of our Paris climate agreement target
by 2030, something that seemed unfathomable four years ago.<br>
<br>
It’s worth dissecting how we achieved such progress. This stunning
victory was made possible only by Stacey Abrams’s tenacious work
in Georgia to flip two U.S. Senate seats in 2020, giving Mr. Biden
a Senate majority on top of a House majority (which he narrowly
lost in 2022).<br>
<br>
Work is also underway on the state and local levels. In the last
four years, Democrats have led efforts in Colorado, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Washington to pass ambitious
climate laws when voters demanded it. In major cities, we see
aggressive action like Minneapolis’s Climate Equity Plan and
Chicago’s push to end natural gas hookups for new construction.<br>
<br>
From small cities like Athens, Ohio, which has a citywide carbon
fee, to high school students campaigning for solar panels and
electric buses, citizens can drive the movement to electrify
everything and crush demand for fossil fuels. State public utility
commissions remain ignored players with their hands on the
controls of enormous amounts of carbon, ripe for campaigns to
elect or appoint climate-oriented members. Whether we’re voting
for president or state legislator or dogcatcher, we should vote
for a dogcatcher who recognizes the imperative of the climate
crisis.<br>
<br>
The lesson being that the only thing that has worked, and must
continue to work, is democracy at every level. None of us have the
option to be cynical, to disdain electoral politics or to pretend
we’re not making a distinct moral choice when voting for a
third-party candidate or sitting out an election.<br>
<br>
Right now, this means electing Democrats. The expiration of many
of the Trump tax cuts in 2025 could create the leverage to push
climate efforts even farther. We must look at this election and
understand that it’s now or never — that we can create the
opportunity for the United States to smash past its emission
reduction goals and spur the rest of the world to follow. The
climate movement can either fight like hell for Mr. Biden’s
re-election or watch as Mr. Trump and his allies set fire to the
planet.<br>
<br>
Climate is not just another issue. I do not deny that we live in a
complex and precarious world or that our consciences are torn by a
web of domestic challenges and geopolitical upheavals. But we are
in denial if we do not recognize that this is the crisis that will
define this century, and if we fail, the entire human future. Our
fossil fuel system is driving the planet to a set of conditions
that humanity has never experienced, where even the imagination of
novelists will fail us.<br>
<br>
And yet the climate crisis is also the foundation on which we can
build a more just, equitable and prosperous world. Every election
is precious, every ballot we cast a moral record of what we did in
this crucial historical moment. Do not sit on your hands, do not
deny the stakes, do not waste that vote.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/opinion/trump-biden-climate-election.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/opinion/trump-biden-climate-election.html</a><br>
</p>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Stephen Markley is the author of “The Deluge” ]</i><br>
<b>The Deluge </b><br>
by Stephen Markley (Author)<br>
<br>
A New York Times Notable Book<br>
“This book is, simply put, a modern classic. If you read it, you'll
never forget it. Prophetic, terrifying, uplifting.” —Stephen King<br>
<br>
From the bestselling author of Ohio, a masterful American epic
charting a near future approaching collapse and a nascent but
strengthening solidarity.<br>
<br>
In the first decades of the 21st century, the world is convulsing,
its governments mired in gridlock while a patient but unrelenting
ecological crisis looms. America is in upheaval, battered by violent
weather and extreme politics. In California in 2013, Tony Pietrus, a
scientist studying deposits of undersea methane, receives a death
threat. His fate will become bound to a stunning cast of
characters—a broken drug addict, a star advertising strategist, a
neurodivergent mathematician, a cunning eco-terrorist, an actor
turned religious zealot, and a brazen young activist named Kate
Morris, who, in the mountains of Wyoming, begins a project that will
alter the course of the decades to come.<br>
<br>
From the Gulf Coast to Los Angeles, the Midwest to Washington, DC,
their intertwined odysseys unfold against a stark backdrop of
accelerating chaos as they summon courage, galvanize a nation, fall
to their own fear, and find wild hope in the face of staggering
odds. As their stories hurtle toward a spectacular climax, each
faces a reckoning: what will they sacrifice to salvage humanity’s
last chance at a future? A singular achievement, The Deluge is a
once-in-a-generation novel that meets the moment as few works of art
ever have.<br>
"To let the infotainment bath of the day stream over you was to
slowly scrub away at the skin of your own humanity."<br>
Highlighted by 91 Kindle readers<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.amazon.com/Deluge-Stephen-Markley/dp/1982123109/ref=sr_1_1">https://www.amazon.com/Deluge-Stephen-Markley/dp/1982123109/ref=sr_1_1</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ sarcasm or humor -- disinformation funnies ]</i><br>
<b>Chris Packham presents…the Porky Pie Press awards for terrible
climate journalism</b><br>
Extinction Rebellion (XR) UK<br>
Streamed 4-19-24 #PorkyPiePressAwards #RebelForTruth
#StopSellingLies<br>
In the hottest year on record, the UK’s billionaire-owned national
newspapers are still busy convincing millions that the climate
crisis is either not real, or not serious.<br>
<br>
To recognise their starring role in setting everyone’s future on
fire, Extinction Rebellion launched the Porky Pie Press Awards for
the Most Climate Wrecking National Newspapers of 2024.<br>
<br>
BBC wildlife legend Chris Packham announces the winners and runners
up - and the XR showbiz team present Golden Porky Pies to stunned
newspaper editors and staff<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_blgSUGY5Y">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_blgSUGY5Y</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news archive - Earth Day ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>April 21, 2004 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
April 21, 2004: At a Washington, D.C. press conference, Martha Marks
of Republicans for Environmental Protection issues an Earth Day
message to the GOP, urging the party to "[pursue] bipartisan
solutions to the very real problem of global warming, instead of
stonewalling and hoping the problem will go
away."<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040602191537/http://www.rep.org/opinions/speeches/44.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20040602191537/http://www.rep.org/opinions/speeches/44.html</a>
<br>
- -<br>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ yes it is a real organization ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Today, the sad remnants of our once-proud
Republican Party ignore the idea of conservation and environmental
protection, which were traditional hallmarks of the true
conservatives who made up the Republican Party for well over a
hundred years.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Sadly, there is nothing left for us “Green
Republicans” in today’s GOP. But here, on this website, we’ve
chosen to preserve the record of how for fifteen years we did our
best to save both our country’s natural resources and our party’s
long and proud tradition of protecting them.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>REPUBLICANS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION</b></font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Once upon a time, between 1995 and 2010 to be
precise, there was an active and energetic national organization
called Republicans for Environmental Protection.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://rep.org/">https://rep.org/</a></font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">/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></font></p>
/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>
<p>/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>
</p>
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>
<p> 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. </p>
<font face="monospace">
=== </font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font>
</body>
</html>