I read this article in Government Executive, of all places.

It’s exhausting, being a walrus. Seals can swim indefinitely. Not walruses. After a day cruising Arctic water for food, they like to plant their tusks onto an ice floe, haul their blubbery selves up, and have a snooze. But it’s been hard to find a comfy chunk of sea ice this summer. So walruses are opting for the next best thing: Alaska.

An estimated 35,000 have overrun the coast north of Point Lay, in northwest Alaska, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Walruses in the Bering Sea use ice floes as floating home bases between dives to the sea bottom, where they snack on clams and other mollusks. In the winter, that’s no problem. And until recently, it wasn’t an issue in summer, either. Normally, female walruses and their young follow the sea ice north into the relatively shallow Chukchi Sea, just north of the Bering Strait, where diving to the bottom is easy. But as summer temperatures rise, the Arctic sea ice has shrunk, receding further and further north, and pulling the ice mass into swaths of the Arctic Ocean as many as two miles deep.

Until solar power matures, we need coal and nuclear power.

World’s first ‘clean coal’ commercial power plant opens in Canada


http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/10...TWT_NatureNews
"The world’s first commercial coal-fired power plant that can capture its carbon dioxide emissions officially launched today in Canada – marking a milestone for so-called ‘clean coal’ technology.
The Boundary Dam project, in Saskatchewan, aims to capture and sell around 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – up to 90% of the emissions of one of its refitted power units”...

The article presents the views of Paul Higgins is the director of the American Meteorological Society’s policy program. He studies climate change and its causes, consequences, and potential solutions.

This article is partially adapted from his report Climate Change Risk Management.
How to deal with climate change http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/PT.3.2548 …
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/PT.3.2548
…"Climate change is a complex and contentious public issue, but the risk-management options available to us are straightforward and have well-characterized strengths and weaknesses.”...

DOD flags risk due to Global warming.

Scientific American ‏@sciam
Immediate Risk to National Security Posed by Global Warming http://goo.gl/fb/g0oZnJ

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ments/CCAR.pdf
…"Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change. Rising global temperatures, changing
precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability,
hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and
resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe. “...

5 things Big Oil's cronies will try to do if they win the Senate:

1. Block critical EPA standards that would reduce carbon pollution

2. Approve the toxic Keystone XL pipeline

3. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for more oil drilling

4. Give Big Oil more tax breaks

5. Cut clean energy investments

From League of Conservation Voters http://www.lcv.org

Vote and support Democrats in Senate and House races on Nov. 4. Calling all "civic" millennials!

"Admit that the waters around ya have grown, and admit that soon you'll be drenched to the bone" "The times, they are a'changin' "

Melting polar and glacial ice and thermally expanding ocean water have accelerated sea level rise to the highest rate in at least 6,000 years according to a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Using data from ancient sediment samples from around Asia and Australia, researchers looked back at 35,000 years of sea level history, finding that over the last 6,000 years little changed — until 150 years ago.

Using indicators of the era’s sea level, like location of ancient tree roots and mollusks, the scientists’ reconstruction found no evidence that sea levels fluctuated by more than about eight inches during the relatively stable period that lasted between 6,000 and about 150 years ago. Then, since the onset of the industrial revolution, sea levels have already risen by about that same amount. The scientists attribute climate change and rising temperatures that cause polar and glacial ice to melt and thermal expansion of the oceans as the primary cause for the rapid and extremely unusual increase in sea level. Water expands as it warms, and there is enough warming water in the ocean to cause a significant impact on sea levels.....

....the sea level increase of the past 100 years is “beyond dispute” and that “what we’ve seen is unusual, certainly unprecedented for these interglacial periods.” ... “sea levels will continue to rise for some centuries to come even if we keep carbon emissions at present day levels.”
....
Sea level rise will cause major damage and displacement along coastlines throughout the world. One recent study found that major U.S. cities along the coast will see ten times more flooding by mid-century. In the U.S., nearly five million people live in areas less than four feet above high tide, an elevation that is especially susceptible to rising sea levels that could increase that much by the end of the century.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...er-6000-years/

Little time left to turn down the world's heat, U.N. says
By Matt Smith and Brandon Miller, CNN
updated 11:27 AM EDT, Mon March 31, 2014

excerpt:

The summary for policymakers was released Monday morning in Yokohama, Japan. It's the second part of the IPCC's benchmark assessment of climate change, a document released every six years with the input of nearly 1,000 scientists. Without checks on emissions, the impacts of climate change will be more severe, more likely, and possibly irreversible, it concludes.

Monday's report underscores "that we have committed to a certain amount of warming," said Kelly Levin, an energy and climate expert at the U.S.-based World Resources Institute.

"Over the next few decades, we are going to lock ourselves into a climate change commitment that is going to paint a very different world, depending on what we choose today," Levin said. "The choices we make today are going to affect the risks we face through the rest of the century."

As a result, "Adaptation is emerging as central area in climate change research," Levin said. But adaptation -- steps such as building sea walls, conserving water and designing cities for warmer climates -- has its limits, she said.
"The report suggests some options are going to be too resource-intensive or too expensive," she said.

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven average temperatures up by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1950, the IPCC says. The first part of its report, released in September, concluded that even a best-case scenario would result in an increase in global average temperatures of 1.6 C; the worst-case scenario estimates a rise of 3.7 degrees Celsius (6.6 Fahrenheit).

The idea that carbon emissions are changing the Earth's climate is politically controversial, but generally accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists. And as emissions continue to rise, driving up CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the impacts will be more severe, more likely and possibly irreversible, Monday's report states.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/30/world/un-climate-report/

People need to make the choice now. You can fret over ebola, or you can face the real threat-- our own use of fossil fuels. You can hide your head in the sand, or realize that this choice is being made at the ballot box. Elect deniers and apologists for greed (Republicans), or common sense politicians who understand the facts and the actions we need to take (Democrats).

As a prelude to developing my own site on climate change, I'm going to be posting more stuff here.

Here's excerpts from an article from International Policy Digest.

Still No Action from the UN Climate Summit Meeting
by Claire McCurdy October 16, 2014
http://www.internationalpolicydigest...ummit-meeting/

A movement to fight climate change has real people power

The most surprising development of the summit didn’t unfold in the halls of the UN. It happened two days before the summit, when an upstart environmental group, 350.org, headed by Bill McKibben, organized a march throughout midtown Manhattan that attracted 400,000 people. Hundreds of smaller demonstrations were staged around the globe. The turnout, especially for the New York march, was far greater than anyone, even organizers, expected.

“Our citizens keep marching,” President Barack Obama said in his Tuesday address, “We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call.”

The U.S. Department of State’s special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, asked about the outcomes of the climate change summit, started talking about the impact of the march instead, calling it the biggest climate demonstration ever. “You had [400,000] people on the streets of Manhattan,” Stern told reporters at the summit’s conclusion. “You have to say that that matters.”

The UN’s Ban marched in the demonstration, held just a day before his climate summit and was overjoyed by the experience: “Two days ago I was part of a massive people’s climate march in New York,” Ban said. “I was overwhelmed by the energy of the tens of thousands of people.”

Once inside the halls of the United Nations, however, the story was different.

The one-day summit drew 120 heads of state as well as high-level government officials, chief executive officers (CEOs), celebrities and civil society representatives.

Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sought to mobilize world leaders’ will to implement bolder policies to fight climate change and develop a more environment-friendly planet. He sought, in short, a vocal consensus, foremost to bring public and business decision makers of the world together.

As such, the summit could be called a success, notably by Ban Ki Moon himself. If one looked for actionable pledges, however, it would be difficult to find much substance.

The Climate Summit is another sort of beast. It has no legally binding status for either setting up or enforcing international action. In fact, no one is even whispering such a goal for the agenda. Voluntary commitments will be made, for sure. However, the summit aims first and ether in an unprecedented push for quick education and inspiration for concerted action…The summit reflects the determination of one man—UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon—and those who agree with him, to put the issue front and center before the movers and shakers of the world’s economy.

If one is searching for a single significant actionable pledge, say, from China, one of the day’s most equivocal wins was a pledge of $6 million by China. This was promptly termed a truly “[p]altry donation” from UN panel participants.
....

Notably absent was any new U.S. pledge of support for a fund designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Instead, Barack Obama pledged to announce new carbon-cutting targets for the United States “next year.” Mashable has a continuously updating map of climate-related pledges made on Tuesday.

Obama’s “commitment” comes a day after new data showed that U.S. emissions grew in 2013 for the first time in five years helping push global emissions to a new record high. Survey results released Tuesday from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs ranks the issue relatively low on Americans’ worry list. Not only is the United States not doing our part, during Obama’s presidency, fossil fuel subsidies have actually grown.

(my note: nothing more can really be expected from a president who doesn't have a congress, or a people able to elect one, and is likely to even have less support for his last 2 years)

Reaction to the day-long U.N. Climate Summit was almost uniformly negative from environmentalists, perhaps best embodied by Bill McKibben, who over the weekend helped organize a massive climate march that drew more than 400,000 people to the streets of midtown Manhattan. In a statement about Tuesday’s climate summit, McKibben said, “President Obama says America has ‘stepped up to the plate’— but if the President really wants collective ambition, he’s got to show a little more can do spirit from the world’s leading economy.”

So what were the outcomes of the climate change march? It appears that collective action on the issue may not happen until the US shoulders responsibility and announces an actual strategy.

Some officials at the UN Climate Summit did make concrete promises related to fossil fuels, deforestation, carbon footprints. More companies are recognizing that halting deforestation is good PR.

The biggest tangible result of the summit was a commitment by nearly 40 companies, including many big multinational corporations, to do their part to slow and eventually stop the loss of forests. The companies include Asia Pulp and Paper, Kellogg’s, Nestle, Johnson & Johnson, Wal-Mart, and Procter & Gamble.

Deforestation is a major contributor to the concentration of heat-trapping gases in Earth’s atmosphere. The companies, together with 32 countries, pledged to do their part to stop deforestation by 2030.

This was largely an aspirational goal without consequences for failing to reach it. And one key country was missing from the list: Brazil, home to the Amazon rain forest.

However, companies and countries did make some specific commitments to work toward this goal. For instance, the world’s three largest palm oil companies recently pledged to source all their oil from suppliers that do not chop down forests. As part of the UN declaration, they agreed to work with the Indonesian government to develop a legal backbone to add teeth to their pledge.

“Many of these companies that are signed on are the historic biggest players in deforestation in places like Brazil and Indonesia, and for them to come before the world and say that they’re going to take steps to reduce deforestation in their supply chain is pretty powerful,” said Jake Schmidt of the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council.

Though the declaration isn’t binding, environmentalists said it’s important because it shows industry is agreeing to address the problem. “Imagine Exxon lobbying for cap and trade,” said Joel Finkelstein of Climate Advisers.

Why did they do it?

“Consumers have sent companies a clear signal that they do not want their purchasing habits to drive deforestation, and companies are responding,” said Paul Polman, chief executive officer of Unilever, a consumer products company.

Responses by country:

1. The United Kingdom announced it would cut subsidies for fossil fuels.
2. Peru will better regulate deforestation, Germany will not support any new coal plants.
3. Congo and Uganda will restore 30 million hectares of damaged forests by 2020.
4. Japan and France will, they say, become low-carbon role models.
5. Georgia said it will become a “hydropower giant.”
6. Northern Europe – several Scandinavian countries claimed they will become entirely fossil fuel-free by mid-century.
7. The European Union promised to reduce emissions by 80 to 95 percent within the same timeframe.

Additionally, more than 30 countries set a 2030 deadline to completely eliminate deforestation—a goal the UN says will have the same effect as taking every car in the world off the road.

But these kinds of actionable pledges were in large part absent from the world’s three biggest polluters: the US, China, and India. Others such as Russia, Australia, Canada and UAE didn’t even bother to send high-level delegations. Heads of states from the world’s two most populous countries: China and India –did not even attend.

Of that group (China and India), Beijing ‘s emissary promised for the first time to work to mitigate the effects of climate change. Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli said that China would reduce its carbon emissions by 45 percent from 2005 levels.

Prakash Javadekar, India’s minister of environment, forests and climate change, said his country would cut emissions by up to a quarter over 2005 levels by 2020. But this is a misleadingly flat figure- it is the same figure that India proclaimed at the RIO+20 climate conference in 2009.

It appears that the US must shoulder responsibility and announce an actual strategy.

Without the US, other powers like China and India—who both happen also to be among the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations—will be reluctant to act.

That’s a sentiment they’ve expressed ever (since) the last major summit in Copenhagen in 2009. Jeffrey D. Sachs, the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, who is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals, says:

Everyone wants to fix the problem, but no one wants to do more than others. This means fundamentally changing the world’s energy systems, moving to a near-zero carbon economy in the next few decades, and outlawing the attitude of impunity that still prevails among multinational corporations.

And time is almost up. “We all have to decide we’re going bold together—and we’re not there by any means,” Sachs told VICE. “Paris is really our last chance to get this right.

But he also said that Obama’s statement fell far short of an actionable plan.

“Where’s the US plan?” Jeffrey Sachs wondered in an interview at the summit. “It doesn’t exist. With all the speeches President Obama may give about the commitment, where is the US pathway to deep de-carbonization by 2050? It doesn’t exist—they’ve never written it down.”

Still, he held on to at least a hint of optimism. “I think there’s a good chance for an agreement next year,” he said, “But whether that is a real agreement or a photo op—that remains to be seen.”

************

A note for Kepi and other Boomer-bashers:

Todd Stern b. 1951
Jeffrey Sachs b. 1954
Bill McKibben b. 1960

Florida city passes resolution for South Florida to secede from North Florida, because North Florida doesn't care that the South is being flooded and pushed out to sea due to climate change (man-made global warming). This is also a key issue in the close governor's race there.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ea-level-rise/

How green are lithium-ion batteries?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...-batteries.htm

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

[img]/10671284_10152736780847708_6392036152340556328_n.j pg?oh=ed27926a1b43887db6e216275465b551&oe=54ECB9DA[/img]

One chance in 2^355 -- it couldn't be coincidence, could it? That gives me an overflow on a calculator that gives numbers only up to 9.999999999 E99.

Estimating the base-10 logarithm of 2 as 0.301 (which it is to three digits) the base-10 log of 2^355 is roughly 106.855. That's a number so large that it contains 107 digits before the decimal point.

It's not the Sun. Neither Mars nor the Moon is getting hotter, which would be happening if the Sun were causing the heating.

http://www.morphizm.com/css/ipcc-onl...limate-change/

IPCC: Only Renewable Energy Can Save Us from the Worst of Climate Change

The new report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that Earth is already swimming in catastrophic dystopia — and only renewable energies like solar can save us from much, much worse.

No one on the planet, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) reminds us, will be left untouched.

Societies around the world are already being hammered by increasing heatwaves, firestorms, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather, due to exponential melting of Earth’s ice caps and shelves. The ripple effects are accelerating dramatically outward, annihilating crops, disrupting food systems, drying up freshwater aquifers and snowpacks, swallowing homes and cities under rising sea levels and lethally intensifying violence worldwide because of worsening poverty and economic shocks.

“Therefore, climate change is already becoming a determining factor in the national security policies of states,” explained a press release (PDF) from Christina Figueres, secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

None of this is a shock to anyone who has been paying attention.

Let's Call Climate Change What It Really Is—Violence
By Rebecca Solnit
(June 24, 1961, Jones/Xer cohort)

Because scientists say that we need to leave most of the world's known carbon reserves in the ground if we are to go for the milder rather than the more extreme versions of climate change. Under the milder version, countless more people – species, places – will survive. In the best-case scenario, we damage the Earth less. We are currently wrangling about how much to devastate the Earth.

In every arena, we need to look at industrial-scale and systemic violence, not just the hands-on violence of the less powerful. When it comes to climate change, this is particularly true. Exxon has decided to bet that we can't make the corporation keep its reserves in the ground, and the company is reassuring its investors that it will continue to profit off the rapid, violent and intentional destruction of the Earth.

That's a tired phrase, the destruction of the Earth, but translate it into the face of a starving child and a barren field – and then multiply that a few million times. Or just picture the tiny bivalves: scallops, oysters, Arctic sea snails that can't form shells in acidifying oceans right now. Or another superstorm tearing apart another city. Climate change is global-scale violence, against places and species as well as against human beings. Once we call it by name, we can start having a real conversation about our priorities and values. Because the revolt against brutality begins with a revolt against the language that hides that brutality.

http://www.alternet.org/lets-call-cl...nce?page=0%2C1

Guy McPherson claims that humans will not survive global warming past the year 2040. He claims that humans do not understand the exponential function.



Part 2:

http://youtu.be/w0_WKDEC38c

However, analysis of the data by knowledgeable science educators such as Scott K. Johnson[4] and scientists such as Michael Tobis[5] shows that McPherson is wildly distorting climate change science -- especially developments about methane emissions from the Arctic -- to support his conclusions.

a few other critical comments:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson

Jones-Boomer cohort: February 29, 1960

Interesting conversation:
http://youtu.be/qGb3v8K1EZU?t=2m40s

Update on climate change by IPCC.

Why scientists are (almost) certain that climate change is man-made
http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...Fclimatechange

…"ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%. The claim forms part of its fifth assessment on the state of the global climate. In its first assessment, in 1990, the IPCC had said that "the observed increase [in air temperatures] could be largely due to natural variability.” “...

New technology in development.

Combing the Atmosphere with Lasers to Measure Global Warming Pollution


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...SA_NightTweets
…"A new technique using a pair of laser-based instruments could one day help scientists more accurately detect concentrations of the greenhouse gases considered responsible for climate change.”...
…"Eventually, the instrument would be part of the global greenhouse gas reference network maintained by NOAA. But scientists and regulators already feel a great need for it to monitor the oil and gas industry, said Pieter Tans, a scientist in the Global Monitoring Division at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory and a co-author of the study.
The industry is the second-highest emitter of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 86 times as potent as carbon dioxide on a 20-year time scale. Companies report their emissions to U.S. EPA every year, but scientists have recently found that they are likely lowballing their numbers.”...

Interesting article.

The threat of sea-level rise

The Dayside: If a region's coasts and hinterlands are valuable, its government should plan for sea-level rise.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...E1PA8Z,AKYSB,1
…"Although Earth's mean sea level iscurrently rising at a rate of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/y, sea levels are falling in North Wales, Canada, and other parts of the world that were covered with vast, thick ice sheets 100 000 to 12 000 years ago. Earth's crust, free of its weighty burden of ice, continues to rebound to the elevation it had before the most recent glacial period began.”…

…"London generates 22% of the UK's GDP. Only the more populous cities of Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, and Seoul have a larger urban GVA (gross value added, the regional equivalent of GDP). When it became clear in the 1950s that rising sea levels were increasing the frequency and severity of floods that beset London, the British government decided to build an adjustable bulwark, the Thames Barrier, to protect the capital. In its first decade of operation, 1982–91, the Thames Barrier was raised 10 times. In its most recent decade, 2004–2013, it was raised 36 times.”...

NRDC is a fairly moderate organization, of which I'm a member. Here is what they wrote me today:

Dear Eric,

Prepare yourself. Yesterday’s election results will put the Senate under new management, and its incoming leader -- Senator Mitch McConnell -- has made no secret of his pro-polluter, anti-environmental agenda.

I wanted to write you and other Legacy Leaders right away to let you know what we see ahead -- and how we’re preparing.

Simply put, come January, both houses of Congress will be run by a faction of climate deniers and friends of the Koch Brothers. A list of the attacks they have threatened to unleash is as long as it is alarming --

They want to force approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline ... cripple the President’s bold plan to crack down on the power plant pollution that is driving climate chaos ... open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling ... launch a full-blown attack on the Endangered Species Act ... restrict the government’s ability to protect our drinking water from fracking ... slash budgets that promote clean energy ... and strip the EPA of its authority to block the disastrous Pebble Mine.

I can promise you this: we are going to give them the fight of their lives. And if you stand shoulder to shoulder with us, I am convinced that we can beat back the worst of this polluter-sponsored assault on our environment.

Why? Because GOP leaders are making a huge mistake -- a potentially fatal mistake -- if they think this election has given them a mandate to deepen our addiction to fossil fuels and shred our environmental laws.

Poll after poll shows overwhelming support for strong environmental protection. An ABC/Washington Post survey has reported that 70 percent of Americans view climate change as a serious problem and want the government to tackle it.

House and Senate leaders ignore these facts at their peril. And, as always, NRDC will be reaching out to both parties -- and especially new members of Congress -- to hammer out agreements on a clean energy future.

But, historically, there seems to be something about the headiness of victory that makes the fossil fuel lobby overreach and try to ram radical policies down the throats of the American people.

We’ve seen this movie before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich swept to power in the House, brandishing a “Contract with America” that never mentioned the word “environment.” But once installed, the new majority claimed a mandate for undoing 25 years of environmental protections.

NRDC and our allies fought back hard by mobilizing an enraged public; more than one million Americans wrote or phoned Congress in protest. In the end, the House leadership gambled everything -- their budget, their power, their agenda -- on an extremist assault on nature. They lost, and found out the hard way that protecting the environment is a bedrock American value.

We must do no less this time.

NRDC will bring everything to bear -- the grassroots power of 1.4 million Members and online activists like you, the advocacy clout of our legal and scientific teams and the unmatched effectiveness of our rapid response operation -- to stave off Mitch McConnell’s Big Polluter Agenda.

But playing defense is not enough. If we are to avoid the most catastrophic outcomes of an overheating planet, we’ve got to prevail on the Obama Administration to reject the Keystone pipeline, deliver on the toughest possible power plant rules and move America beyond all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible.

That is our planet’s last best hope for a sustainable future -- and we are not going to let Congress stand in the way.

I’m counting on you to stay the course with NRDC. We need your idealism. We need your activism. We need your leadership support. If we have all of those, we are going to prevail.

Best regards,
Frances

Frances Beinecke

From 350.org


Friends,

Last night’s election results were pretty rough.

But when times get tough, it’s really important to remember to breathe, and focus on how we’re going to fix this problem together.

Here’s my early sense of what this election means for the climate movement:

1. The fossil fuel industry knows it's in a fight for its life. After years of seeing our movement grow, the fossil fuel industry fought back fiercer and dirtier than ever, spending hundreds of millions to put more oil-soaked politicians in office than ever. The New York Times recently released secret recordings of an industry consultant advising “endless war” against environmentalists. It’s clear the fossil fuel industry is getting desperate, so it’s on us to make climate action a priority -- at the ballot box, in the streets and in our daily lives.

2. Climate action works from the ground up. There were a number of bright spots last night, but they didn’t come from professional politicians. Denton, Texas became the first city in Texas to ban fracking with a locally led ballot initiative. Two counties in California did the same. Richmond, California defied massive spending from Chevron to elect a Mayor ready to take on Big Oil in their backyard. There’s a lesson here: courage counts, local action matters, and voters support bold and direct action against climate change.

3. Keystone XL is back on the agenda. Big Oil helped bankroll the takeover of the Senate, and they’re going to want their new friends to pay tribute. Expect all sorts of shenanigans when the new Congress takes session in January -- even though the pipeline has no permit in Nebraska or South Dakota. President Obama has all the data he needs to reject the pipeline, and we’ve got the movement to back him up. Keystone XL will determine President Obama’s climate legacy, and he must say no if he wants to be remembered as a climate champion and not a pipeline president. We'll be keeping a close eye on this, so stay tuned for updates on how we can fight this pipeline, together.

4. Divestment matters more than ever. We helped launch the fossil fuel divestment campaign the day after the 2012 election. Now, it has spread across the planet and more than 140 institutions representing over $50 billion have committed to divestment. With more gridlock and more denial on tap in Congress, grassroots action that takes on the social and economic power of the fossil fuel industry will be crucial in building momentum for action. If you’re not involved yet, now’s a great time to dive in.

The fact is that last night’s election sent more opponents of climate action to Washington. The path to federal climate action is that much tougher.

But we’re not going to let that drive us to panic or fear. We’re going to use it as a catalyst to get bolder and smarter about how we build a powerful movement for climate action.

Politics is about more than just elections and campaign ads. When 400,000 of us took the streets of New York City on September 21, and hundreds of thousands more marched around the world, we showed that a new sort of climate politics is possible. A politics led by the people, not our politicians.

And so today let’s march forward together. There couldn’t be a more important (or exciting) time to be involved in the climate movement.

If you know someone who is drifting towards despair today, or on the fence about jumping in to this movement, please forward this email to them and encourage them to join us in this fight of our lives.

With more resolve than ever,

May Boeve

As reported by CNN, White House and China set historic greenhouse emissions levels

At the end of the APEC trade summit in China, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a climate change agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping that would cut both countries' greenhouse gas emissions by close to a third over the next two decades.

Under the deal, the United States would cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% -- from levels established in 2005 -- by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.

Historic, yes. Enough? Not so much. We'll see how far Obama can get without Congress.

Yeah, agreements are one thing, but execution is much, much different. I'm not putting a lot of stock into this, yet.

From Robert Reich:

No sooner had Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping this morning announced a historic agreement to reduce carbon emissions in both countries than Mitch McConnell and John Boehner slammed the deal. "Our economy can't take the President's ideological War on Coal,” says McConnell, of Kentucky. John Boehner calls the deal "another example of the President's job-crushing policies." In reality, it's a major breakthrough because (1) the U.S. and China are responsible for 40 percent of the world's carbon emissions, and this is the first time China has agreed to a reduction, and (2) the agreement is essential to convince developing nations whose emissions are rising to reverse course and start limiting them.
The fact that the two Republicans who will be leading Congress starting in January are so eager to block this deal is further proof, as if we needed it, that they are bent on taking America backward. What do you think?

(unquote)

It's time now to call a spade a spade. No more nice guys. If this is not stupid, I don't know another word for it Kepi (or whoever). Well, maybe there are other words, too. It is plain greed and ignorance.