The Climate Minute

This was a great week for climate hawks. The Obama administration proposed new regulations on existing coal plants. The rules have lots of interesting implications. There are a large number of interesting links to this story. Here are a few: Check out the EPA's website or read the New York Times or find out what Bill McKibben thinks. Get our your yellow pad and read legal basis for the plan. You can even watch the EPA  Administrator announce the rules. A state by state list of cuts is here. Why the rules are so business friendly is here. Joe Romm suggests some ideas on what else needs to be done. An analogy of fossil fuel to tobacco is here. Some discussion on possible comments and activist opinion is here. Of course ALEC is trying to  cause trouble. Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre   p.s, Thanks to D.R. Tucker, we have this great list of raw links to check out. Have fun!   http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318414868/gop-demonizes-once-favored-cap-and-trade-policy http://legal-planet.org/2014/06/02/epa-releases-section-111d-rule-for-existing-power-plants/ http://www.vox.com/2014/6/1/5770226/june-2-is-the-most-important-day-of-obamas-second-term http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/02/3443593/obama-historic-action-on-climate-change/ http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/c45baade030b640785257ceb003f3ac3!OpenDocument http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/the-epas-new-move-to-combat-climate-change-272184899833# http://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/climate-plan-sparks-political-battle-272217155734# http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/watch/will-new-epa-rules-hurt-dems-in-the-midterms-272266307506 http://www.msnbc.com/now-with-alex-wagner/watch/obama-s-major-move-to-save-the-planet-272297539507 http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/are-new-energy-rules-death-knell-coal-industry-n120786 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=74tffDL1I_g http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/will-climate-plan-have-measurable-impact-272283715920 http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/taking-action-to-cut-carbon-emissions-272371779518   http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/critics-say-carbon-limit-comes-with-hefty-price-tag/ http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/gop-slams-new-rules-to-slash-carbon-emissions-272449603571#  http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/matthews-on-the-gops-i-know-nothin-stance-272448579580  http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwQq2lhIJ8feature=youtu.be http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-272458819887 http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/epa-unveils-historic-carbon-regulations-272459331929 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/new-pollution-rules-bring-chicken-littles-272491587835 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/new-pollution-rules-hailed-by-bush-epa-head-272480323535 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/epa-chief-defends-price-white-house-plan-cut-carbon-emissions/ http://www.npr.org/2014/06/02/318266801/with-new-epa-rules-mccarthy-sees-economic-upside-in-health-savings http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/epa-guidelines-30-percent-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reduction-23964098 http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/debunking-the-medias-misguided-epa-coverage-273051203510# http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/politics/obama-epa-rule-coal-carbon-pollution-power-plants.html?hp_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/opinion/nearing-a-climate-legacy.html?hprref=opinion http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-epa-coal-plant-proposal-is-the-right-step/2014/06/02/8df3b0de-ea7e-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-epas-emissions-plan-should-be-just-the-beginning/2014/06/02/640cd838

Those of us concerned about the impact of runaway carbon emissions finally have some good news—news that must be shared with our representatives and senators in Congress. It comes in the form of a newly released study by the nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based group Regional Economic Models, Inc. and the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based group Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. The report, prepared by economists Scott Nystrom and Ali Zaidi, is entitled The Economic, Fiscal, Demographic, And Climate Impact Of A National Fee-And-Dividend Carbon Tax, and it promises to be a game-changer in the American climate change debate.[1]   The report forecasts the economic benefits of a federal carbon tax if such a tax would be implemented in 2016. The modeling is based on the idea that such a tax would begin at $10 per metric ton of C02 (“collected directly at the well-head, mine or port of entry, based on the carbon content of the material”)[2], rising gradually by $10 per year, with border adjustments—i.e., “import fees levied by carbon-taxing countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-taxing countries.”[3] All collected revenues from the carbon tax would be returned to households as a monthly dividend check.   The report indicates that the implementation of a fee-and-dividend policy would provide a tremendous economic boost to virtually every region of the country over the next decade, specifically leading to dramatic employment increases in the fields of health care, retail trade, construction, finance, real estate, educational services, and manufacturing. The mining industry would be negatively impacted, yes, but that stands to reason; addressing climate change means moving beyond fossil fuels, and moving towards a clean-energy future. There’s no way around that. We will have to have a just and stable transition towards that future—and a national fee-and-dividend policy would create that transition.   Viewed from a regional perspective, a national fee-and-dividend policy would benefit virtually every segment of the country economically. The (literal) petrostates of Texas and Oklahoma would take a hit—but obviously that hit would compel both states to pursue clean-energy alternatives (and it should be noted that Texas has already taken steps to exploit the potential of wind energy).[4]   The economic shift prompted by a fee-and-dividend policy would result in a significant increase in the country’s gross domestic product, with little overall negative impact on the country’s manufacturing sector. The report also makes clear that such a policy would bring about a steep drop in US carbon emissions over the next decade, with only a 2% increase in the overall cost of living. In terms of a needed power shift, a federal fee-and-dividend policy would completely phase out the use of coal in the United States. The use of nuclear power would increase slightly, as would natural gas, wind and solar.   Specifically, the report concludes that a federal carbon tax:   Would add between 2 million and 3 million jobs, and an additional $70 billion to $90 billion in annual GDP;Would result in a 33% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025;And would result in 13,000 avoided premature deaths from pollution annually over the next decade.  Sounds like a win-win-win.   This report is being released as the Obama administration unveils a bold proposal to reduce carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants.[5] Climate-hawk Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has observed that Obama’s proposals would be the key to Congress finally taking market-based action on carbon emissions.    In February 2014, Senator Whitehouse stated:    "When those big power plants are going to face serious EPA regulation, for their owners, suddenly, yeah, maybe a carbon fee doesn't look like such a bad deal."[6]   Senator Whitehouse expanded upon these remarks in a May 2014 op-ed for the Providence Journal,

In this episode, we take a look at policy efforts here in Massachusetts.  Here are some links to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Plan and the assessment from the Global Warming Solutions Project . You can hear about the risk of natural gas leaks here , or read about the Citizens Climate Lobby here.   Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre Download Enhanced Podcast

Lots of news this week. Divestment is sweeping Massachusetts, and Bill McKibben issued a call for action in NYC this September. (Read more commentary here, but note the correction that there will be NO civil disobedience.) The Obama administration will soon release regulations limiting carbon pollution from existing electric power plants. Here is some analysis of what the rules might do. Billionaire Tom Steyer will put money into this fall's election in order to make climate a real issue. We discuss what it means. Pope Francis seems to be getting greener all the time, and even the National Catholic Reporter calls climate change the church’s number one pro-life issue.   Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre Download Enhanced Podcast

In a May 13 post on TheNation.com, Eric Alterman and Reed Richardson denounced what they called “The Two Faces of Climate Change on the ‘Washington Post’ Op-Ed Page.”[1] Alterman and Richardson wrote that “a diffident, often dismissive press corps” bears partial responsibility for our failure to resolve the climate crisis:   “Indeed, when not ignoring the issue altogether, the establishment media—and the Beltway punditocracy in particular—has played a key role in aiding and abetting the right wing’s denialism through stilted, he-said-she-said story framing. Widespread journalistic negligence of this breadth and depth should frustrate all of us. But no single news organization’s take on climate change rises to the level of inexplicable duplicitousness quite like Washington Post op-ed page.   Case in point, on Monday, the Post’s editorial board unabashedly hammered Republican Sen. Marco Rubio for his shameless perpetuation of climate change skepticism. Rubio’s comments, which marked a clear step backward away from the scientific consensus, coincidentally came last Friday during an interview where the senator not-so-humbly said he was “ready to be president." The Post, not mincing words, rightly called out Rubio’s misrepresentations and said his embrace of such falsehoods made him unfit for the Presidency…” “This rhetorical courage on the part of the Post’s editorial staff isn’t unusual. To their credit, they’ve long used the paper’s highly influential platform to champion the fight against global warming. All of which makes the Post’s willingness to host a number of climate change ditherers and outright deniers on its op-ed pages that much more puzzling.   “Of those, George Will sticks out as a climate change denier of the highest order, someone much more visible and voluble on spreading misinformation than Sen. Rubio or almost any other ‘hoax’-hyping Republican in Washington. Indeed, Will’s dissembling on climate change got so bad at one point in 2009, you may recall, that it prompted fellow Post columnist Eugene Robinson, the Post’s weather blog, and two reporters in the news pages to all call him and his lies out—by name.   “He’s by no means moved on or wised up since then. Back in February, there he was, throwing out more disingenuous talking points like ‘the climate is always changing,’ which I would note is almost the exact same phrase that Sen. Rubio used—‘our climate is always changing’—last week when the Post lambasted him. But notably missing from those series of rebukes to Will four years ago or from his column three months ago was a direct rebuttal from Fred Hiatt’s own editorial page.   “Unfortunately, Will is not alone. In [a recent] Washington Post column, conservative Charles Krauthammer scoffed at the notion that climate change is ‘settled science,’ without bothering to note the actual, overwhelming truth as reported by the Post. Instead, he boldly reiterated his stance as a so-called climate change agnostic, [stating]: ‘I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.’ But while one can reasonably claim to be uncertain about matters of pure faith, like, say, the existence of God or a serious House Republican plan to replace Obamacare, one cannot by definition be neither a believer nor a denier of a fact.   “Moreover, for someone who claims not to have chosen a side on climate change, Krauthammer’s mind sounds fairly settled, since he allows no acknowledgement of the broad scientific consensus and instead cherry-picks data where the only perceivable goal is to feed climate skepticism. For example, he drolly points out that, in all of 2012, only one hurricane made US landfall and that 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in the past thirty years. Take that, climate Cassandras! While both of these facts are accurate, they’re also arbitrary and completely lacking in context. What

This was another pretty good week for Climate Hawks.   Massachusetts’ Governor Deval Patrick gave a great commencement address at UMASS Amherst.  We talked with Carolyn Barthel of 350 Massachusetts about what it means. Unfortunately, there was no greatness in the Senate as it killed an energy efficiency bill.   Following the President’s release and full-throated support of the National Climate Assessment, has the Overton Window opened just a tiny bit for climate? After all, the Generals promulgated , Christy Todd-Whitman pontificated and Senator Joe Manchin equivocated.  However, only Marco Rubio could confabulate  an evasive answer on ABC, (or perhaps couldn’t in front of the National Press Club.) Both Time and the Washington Post questioned his presidential timber. So, has climate denial become disqualifying for a politician seeking higher office? Thom Hartman discusses  tobacco and denial  while Dan Farber discusses possible hints of hope in Rubio's comments.  Ed Schulz of MSNBC has his heart in the right place and has made a remarkable public journey to climate reality, but as he highlights Rubio’s confusion he needs to keep his facts straight.   Finally, two downers and one uplifting report.  If you are less than 29 years old, you have never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.  And, by the way, the collapse of parts of the Antarctic Ice shelf is unstoppable. On the other hand, composer John Luther Adams won a Pulitzer for his Earth inspired symphony Being Ocean.   So we will close the way we always close, by saying that because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the US put a price on carbon.   …Ted McIntyre Download Enhanced Podcast

D.R. Tucker looks back at "The Day After Tomorrow", Micheal Crichton and the mechanics of denialDownload Enhanced Podcast

This was a good week for Climate Hawk’s. The President released the National Climate Assessment for 2014. DR Tucker gives us a comment, but the reaction on places like  CNN's CrossFire shows the some folks need to present legitimate policy proposal that they favor, instead of empty talking points about scare tactics.   Stanford divests from coal and provides a good example for colleges on the east coast. NPR’s Yuki Naguchi proves she doesn’t get it with this report.   On the Fracking Front, we learn about a judgment in Texas and the impact of impact of fracking on pets .   Finally on the arts front, learn about “Angel Azul, the Movie”. You can see a related music video and catch of glimpse of the politician with his head in the sand off the coast of Mexico.  Check out the play Sila in Central Square. As a bonus, here are some climate haikus and music inspired by birds on a wire.   So we will close the way we always close, by saying that because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the US put a price on carbon.   …Ted McIntyre     Download Enhanced Podcast

This is the podcast site of the Massachusetts Climate Action Network bringing you climate news and highlighting local action in Massachusetts and across the nation.

We discuss two big topics this week: the meaning of the Obama Administration’s  delay of the KXL pipeline decision and a feeling of malaise people may have around the meaning of Earth Day.   Late last Friday, the administration decided to indefinitely delay the KXL decision.  The decision might have been based on practical concerns , but others put it in context of the midterms. On balance, 350 got it’s assessment just about right.  Keep in mind that a protest in Washington D.C. called “Reject and Protect”   is in progress this weekend. Earth Day occurred this week. Some commentators expressed frustration and disappointment with how and why we celebrate this holiday in the 21st Century. Two interesting examples of this train of though are from Joe Romm who says things like: I don’t worry about the earth. I’m pretty certain the earth will survive the worst we can do to it. I’m very certain the earth doesn’t worry about us. ,,,.We need a new way to make people care about the nasty things we’re doing with our cars and power plants. At the very least, we need a new name. Another thought provoking view comes from Wen Stephenson  who  calls for a new kind of movement: Many of us, rather than retreat into various forms of denial and fatalism, have reached the conclusion that something more than “environmentalism” is called for, and that a new kind of movement is the only option. That the only thing, at this late hour, offering any chance of averting an unthinkable future—and of getting through the crisis that’s already upon us—is the kind of radical social and political movement that has altered the course of history in the past. A movement far less like contemporary environmentalism and far more like the radical human rights, social justice and liberation struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.   Stephenson makes a compelling argument, and is his piece is well worth the effort to read it. In fact, The Nation has an entire issue devoted to climate this month, with articles by MSNBC's Chris Hayes  on The New Abolitionist,  the provocative Naomi Klein and an interesting piece on legal suits against Big Carbon by Dan Zegart.   Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre   Download Enhanced Podcast

 The recent IPCC report on mitigation is the big news. What is it? What does it say? What does it mean? In this week’s show we will discuss the content and context of the report with Malcolm Bliss, the statewide coordinator of 350MA for the Better Future Project.  The stream of IPCC reports can turn in to a parade of acronyms, so let’s review.  The “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the UN in the late ‘80s with the mission to “to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”   The IPCC has three working groups (WG) of scientists who read and combine published scientific papers into reports. The first group works on the physical science basis of climate change, the second on “impact, adaptation and vulnerabilities” while the third group works on mitigation (that is greenhouse gas-GHG for short- reduction.) This third working group has put out the latest report. The website is here. In October, 2015, the reports from these three working groups will be compiled into a “synthesis report.” That is a lot of work! So what is the current report about? The Working Group III contribution assesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues. You can find the bold face statement listed below as paragraph headers in the pdf format of the report. The commentary underneath each statement is our own! 1.     Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently. a.     Exxon sees no risk to carbon reserves. 2.     Climate policy may be informed by a consideration of a diverse array of risks and uncertainties, some of which are difficult to measure, notably events that are of low probability but which would have a significant impact if they occur. a.     Think melting permafrost. 3.     The design of climate policy is influenced by how individuals and organizations perceive risks and uncertainties and take them into account. 4.     About half of cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions between 1750 and 2010 have occurred in the last 40 years. a.     How close to 40 years old are you? 5.     Mitigation policy could devalue fossil fuel assets and reduce revenues for fossil fuel exporters, but differences between regions and fuels exist a.     Pope Francis asked to endorse divestment. 6.     Infrastructure developments and long‐lived products that lock societies into GHG‐intensive emissions pathways may be difficult or very costly to change, reinforcing the importance of early action for ambitious mitigation a.     Jimmy Carter and others call for KXL rejection. 7.     GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal‐fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined‐cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated a.     http://grist.org/news/no-the-ipcc-climate-report-doesnt-call-for-a-fracking-boom/ b.     http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426697/methane-vastly-underestimated/ c.     http://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/epa-research-shows-regulating-methane-is-efficient-and-low-cost/ 8.     In some countries, tax‐based policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions—alongside technology and other policies—have helped to weaken the link between GHG emissions and GDP a.     An article on the BC ca

This week we talk, among other things, about ‘the media’ and climate. [soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/144181831" params="color=ff5500auto_play=falsehide_related=falseshow_artwork=true" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /] But first, we are in the middle of a big transition, from a “less than 400ppm” to a “greater than 400ppm” planet. The fact that carbon is rising dramatically is held in a report from Mashable along with some commentary. Ann Curry’s NBC program "Did Climate Change Just Hit Home?"  included some commentary from the ambiguous figure of Roger Pielke.  The other interesting upcoming item is a nine part series: Years of Living Dangerously.  If you want, join a watch party with 350.The Union of Concerned Scientist put out a report detailing mis-information on climate from cable media.  Then we have  Bill Maher and the oceans and an informative piece from Tom Hartmann cable news' failures. On the artistic front, we discuss Cli-Fi and point back to our own discussion from last year.  You can find an online version of Paolo Bacigalupi’s “The Tamarisk Hunter” here.  Another item is a review of Rivers, for example. Then we have movies, from Noah to an Al Gore sequel.  Back in Cambridge, we have some movement on divestment at Harvard.   Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre   Download Enhanced Podcast

Several landmark events occurred this week, and we try to make sense of them. From the factual but distressing IPCC report to Exxon’s in-your-face response to it’s climate activist shareholders, the implications seem confusing and abstract. In today’s podcast we are joined by MCAN’s acting Executive Director, Amy Tighe, to discuss new ways think about these events. [soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/143018605" params="color=ff5500auto_play=falsehide_related=falseshow_artwork=true" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /] If you want to read the real thing, see the forty four page Executive Summary of the IPCC report, or else check out news reports showing the  5 key points or discussing impact on the developing world. If this makes you want to cry, watch Sting and Robert Downy Jr. “kill” the song "Driven to Tears". You can find some information on the Dalai Lama here or Wendell Berry here.   Then there is the sorry story of Exxon’s carbon risk report. Exxon essentially taunts world governments, saying: ”ExxonMobil believes that although there is always the possibility that government action may impact the company, the scenario where governments restrict hydrocarbon production in a way to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent … is highly unlikely. … Also, as discussed above, we do not anticipate society being able to supplant traditional carbon- based forms of energy with other energy forms, such as renewables, to the extent needed to meet this carbon budget ..." and elsewhere says “Based on this analysis, we are confident that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become “stranded.” Just keep in mind that the ‘highly unlikely’ restrictions are made even more unlikely by Exxon’s well funded lobbying efforts!   Bill McKibben responded in the Guardian, saying: We’ve never thought that there was a small flaw in their business plan that could be altered by negotiation; we’ve always thought their business plan was to keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere. And indeed Exxon’s statements are easy to translate: “We plan on overheating the planet, we think we have the political muscle to keep doing it, and we dare you to stop it.” And they’re right — unless we build a big and powerful movement, they’ll continue to dominate our political life and keep change from ever taking place. And here is a free blog-only bonus: Wen Stephenson’s article on a meeting of students with Governor Patrick.   Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions,  because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that  the United States put a price on carbon. …Ted McIntyre Download Enhanced Podcast

Twenty five years ago this week, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. Analysis of the long term consequences abound, from an admiring look back on NPR to a ‘follow the money’ approach at GRIST to a lament that the Arctic is at risk in The Guardian to a critique of short term thinking at the Motley Fool. Ted and DR try to think about the big picture for climate activists: Where do these singular, horrific events fit into the fight against global warming? [soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/141840421" params="color=ff5500auto_play=falsehide_related=falseshow_artwork=true" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /] Massachusetts has a gubernatorial race underway, and most of the candidates met at historic Faneuil Hall in downtown Boston to discuss environmental issues. For climate activists, the main question to answer is the level of support each candidate has for Massachusetts’ best-in-the-nation Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. You can read a summary  of the candidate forum or see the whole thing if you were not able to make the event.  (The discussion of carbon tax starts at 35:45.)   The other interesting piece of news had to do with an agreement between Exxon Mobil and stockholder activists under which Exxon will provide a public assessment of the risk it carries due to climate change. The ThinkProgress piece is here. Even the coal giant Peabody Coal agreed to make similar reports. For clear statements in favor of divestment vs  stockholder activism, look here and here.   Next week, look for the IPCC report, but in the meantime, call youe Senator about the oil heat efficiency  legislation ( see oilheatsaveenergy.org ) or your State Representative about H3873, which fights gas leaks.   Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre Download Enhanced Podcast

This week we are joined by D.R. Tucker to discuss the somber and ominous reports from the AAAS and NASA. [soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/140861862" params="color=ff5500auto_play=falsehide_related=falseshow_artwork=true" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /] Here are the links for this week’s show: ·      The AAAS "What we know" effort ·      The link is as clear as that to cancer? ·      The NASA report ·      Are the elites driving us to the cliff? ·      Wen Stephenson's piece on divestment ·      Cape Wind legal victory ·      350MA's Climate University ·      Climate Preparedness conference in NH Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon. Thanks for listening. …Ted McIntyre   Download Enhanced Podcast