Global Warming Is Accelerating. (In Other News, Democrats Reverse Platform, Won't End Fossil Fuel Subsidies)

The three colors in the chart represent odds that a season will be perceived as cool (blue), normal (white) or hot (red). In 1950 to 1980, if represented on a six-sided dice, there were two blue sides, two red sides and two white sides. "The dice are now loaded, really loaded. ... Four sides of the die are now red (hot) and one side is deep red for extreme heat, more than three standard deviations warmer than in 1951-1980. Dark red (22%) is creeping onto another side" (James Hansen et. al.)

by Thomas Neuburger

As we contemplate the political events of the week — the Republican takeover of the Democratic Party and convention; Democratic media adjunct MSNBC lying about AOC's Party-approved nomination of Bernie Sanders (before changing their headline); Bill Clinton daring to show his face in public, and post-MeToo leadership letting him — it's nevertheless impossible not to be overwhelmed by this.

 • "Good morning. The Greenland ice sheet has past the melting point of no return"

"[I]ce that’s discharging into the ocean is far surpassing the snow that’s accumulating on the surface of the ice sheet" — Michalea King, lead author of the study and a researcher at The Ohio State University’s Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center.

"[S]tarting in 2000, you start superimposing that seasonal melt on a higher baseline—so you’re going to get even more losses,” meaning the melt-rate has permanently accelerated while the snowfall has not. 

But there's a bright side: “It’s always a positive thing to learn more about glacier environments, because we can only improve our predictions for how rapidly things will change in the future ... The more we know, the better we can prepare.”

We're learning how to learn sooner how wrong we are, "so we can better prepare." That's the bright side.

 • "Record Arctic blazes may herald new ‘fire regime’ decades sooner than anticipated"

"Something’s changed in the environment there" — Mark Parrington, senior scientist and wildfire expert at the EU’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service.

“This is the type of fire event that would be described by these worst-case modeling scenarios that were supposed to occur mid-century” — Jessica McCarty, a wildfire expert at Miami University of Ohio.

Mid-century (2050) Arctic fires now occur regularly.

 • "Global warming is accelerating. 12-month mean peaked just below prior maximum"

"[G]lobal temperature is clearly running well above the linear trend that existed for decades" — climate scientist James Hansen

"1) That jump off the linear trend ought to scare the crap out of you. 2) Who but the careful public managers of your emotions say that being batcrap-scared is a useless response to the climate?" — Yours truly

Nonetheless, not everyone is scared.

 • "Democrats Drop Demand To End Fossil Fuel Subsidies From Party Platform"

"Roughly half of all U.S. oil reserves required subsidies to generate a profit, according to a study published in the journal Nature Energy in 2017, and that was before the price of crude plunged far below $50 a barrel." — Huffington Post writer Alexander Kaufman.

“This platform is a step backwards” — Charlie Jiang, Greenpeace.

• "DNC’s Flip-Flop on Fossil Fuel Subsidies Follows Deep Ties the Industry"

"In August 2018, the DNC approved a resolution from Chair Tom Perez that reversed a DNC policy prohibiting it from accepting contributions from fossil fuel PACs. ... Shortly thereafter, donations from fossil fuel executives began flowing into DNC coffers." — Donald Shaw, money-in-politics editor and co-founder, Sludge

 • "A-a-and we're done..." — Yours truly

If the question is climate, who with any power is the answer? Certainly not Joe Biden.

The real answer, of course, is the people, but only if they know it.
 

An Endorsement So Profound That The Democratic Primary Should Now Be Over

Early this morning Varshini Prakash and Evan Weber, respectively the , executive director and political director of the Sunrise Movement, sent out an e-mail to their massive mailing list that shouldn't have really surprised anyone:

In the summer of 2017 we launched Sunrise Movement to create a political home for young people in the United States who are scared about what climate change means for our future. We’ve grown from just eight founders to over 300 local chapters nationwide and shifted climate change from a backburner issue to the top of the nation’s consciousness. Still, we are just ordinary young people who are choosing every day to demand the world we need and fight for it.

Today, at the conclusion of our 6-week long, three-phase democratic Presidential Endorsement Process, we are announcing another choice. It is with immense pride that we get to share with you that, with 76% of voting members selecting him as their first choice,  Sunrise Movement members have voted resoundingly to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States... Read about it in the New York Times here.

We know that no matter who the next President is, we will need to turn millions of people into the streets and disrupt business as usual in order to win a Green New Deal. But our movement has spoken clearly. We believe a Bernie Sanders Presidency would provide the best political terrain in which to engage in and ultimately win that struggle for the world we deserve. Bernie Sanders has made it clear throughout his political career and in this campaign that he grasps the scale of the climate crisis, the urgency with which we must act to address it, and the opportunity we have in coming together to do so. Our generation’s future and the future of human civilization as we know it depend on the next President doing everything in their power to mobilize the resources of the federal government towards achieving a stable climate. Should Senator Sanders become the next President of the United States, we will push to ensure that he make delivering upon the promise of his Green New Deal platform the top priority of his administration.

A Green New Deal can only be achieved by building and sustaining a movement of millions of people of all walks of life from all corners of the country-- of many colors and creeds, from the plains, mountains, and coasts-- who are willing to struggle, sacrifice, and turn out into the streets and at the ballot box to fight for the world we deserve. This is why the slogan of the Bernie Sanders campaign is, “Not Me, Us.” Today, we are endorsing Bernie Sanders for President, but more than that, we are endorsing that movement-- the political revolution-- that we know is necessary to win a Green New Deal. In endorsing, we are also inviting every single person out there who cares about the future of our planet and our democracy to join us in building the movement for the decade of the Green New Deal.

Our endorsement of Senator Sanders should be interpreted as an affirmation of his campaign and the movement it represents, not as an indictment of other campaigns or candidates. In particular, we’d like to acknowledge and praise the campaign of Senator Elizabeth Warren who, at 17.4% of the vote, was the only other candidate to receive greater than a few handfuls of votes from our members. Senator Warren made the Green New Deal an early centerpiece of her campaign, has forcefully gone after Big Oil corruption as one of the leading plagues of our democracy, and worked with us and others in the broader movement for climate and environmental justice to roll out over a dozen detailed climate policies. Her plans are some of the most thoughtful we have seen to date, and she makes it clear she knows that the Green New Deal is a governing lens, not just a singular piece of legislation. We’re grateful for her partnership with our movement and look forward to continuing to work together to win a Green New Deal and raise the political urgency of addressing the climate crisis.

While we believe that Senator Sanders is the best Presidential candidate to fight alongside us for a Green New Deal at this time, the movement for a Green New Deal is bigger than any one candidate. As is stated in our political principles, “No permanent friends, no permanent enemies.” We do not believe in political saviors. No one will save us from the climate crisis but ourselves. We’ll continue to push and critique everyone to live up to the policy positions and political action necessary for a just and livable future, including Bernie. The stakes of the climate crisis demand it.

We wholeheartedly believe that Bernie can win the nomination, defeat Donald Trump in November, and usher in down-ballot victories that will help jump-start the political revolution. But if he doesn’t, the stakes of the climate crisis also demand that we can’t sit this election out. No matter what, we will be steadfast in advocating for the defeat of President Trump and his fossil fuel cronies at the ballot box on November 3rd, 2020. The defeat of President Trump in 2020 is an absolute necessity towards having a shot of the federal government taking any degree of action on the climate crisis and protecting the people and places we love. That’s why we need everyone to join us in 2020 to build the biggest, most existential movement that our nation has ever seen.

Seeing millions of young people get involved in politics for the first time when Bernie ran in 2016 helped us and a few friends believe that a political movement for young people terrified about the climate crisis was possible, and inspired us to launch what became Sunrise Movement. We’re inspired again by the movement that continues with the Bernie Sanders campaign now, and honored to be joining forces.

I said the endorsement shouldn't have surprised anyone because the group had rated Bernie's plan Climate plan so highly (as they did Elizabeth's plan). But there was way more to it than that-- and very transparent and member driven. The threshold for endorsement was high so there were some observers that said the 300 local chapters wouldn't be able to endorse anyone. But Bernie won 76% of the votes (Elizabeth came in second with 17.4%. Next came "no preference" (1.85%), Mayo Pete (1.16%) and Andrew Yang (1.02%). Climate Crisis deniers like Status Quo Joe, Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar were not expected to be competitive in the balloting.

At around the same time of the Sunrise announcement, Mayo Pete announced he finally found a black person to endorse him. Anthony Brown is an unsavoury Maryland New Dem with a right-of-center voting record ("D" from ProgressivePunch), representing the district progressive icon Donna Edwards used to represent. It's the bluest district in the state-- D+28-- but his voting record doesn't reflect that in any way, shape or form. The only thing that surprised anyone about Brown's endorsement of Mayo is that he didn't endorse Status Quo Joe or sell himself to Bloomberg. 

Biden's list of endorsements looks like a list of the worst, most Republican-like Democrats in Congress, mostly reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems. Looking at the support he gets from arch-conservatives like Charlie Crist (ex-Republican Blue Dog-FL), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA-- still not in prison because he made his elderly father take the rap for him), crook and child molester Tony Cárdenas (New Dem-CA), Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA), anti-healthcare fanatic Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA), Chrissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)... as well as a plethora of slime bag former congress members like uber-corrupt lobbyist Al Wynn (MD), gas and oil whore Gene Green (TX), Lieberman-like Richard Swett (NH), Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL), Rahmish Shelley Berkley (New Dem-NV)... makes you even surer that he's the wrong guy for the Democratic Party-- and for America. Compare that the the Sunrise Movement.

The Climate Crisis Is Getting Worse

A couple of days ago, Axios' 1 Big Thing was The Future Of Mankind. I had just gotten off the phone with a Texas candidate we're in the middle of vetting and she had been telling how the Climate Crisis was a paramount issue for people in her district under thirty and even more so for voters under 21. But the urgency of the issue seems to fade rapidly withholder voters. Ben German wrote that "nothing is happening remotely fast enough to save humanity from facing the self-inflicted disaster of runaway climate change. That's the key takeaway from a new UN report that shows greenhouse gas emissions increasing last year, despite the need to cut them substantially by 2030. 'There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris Agreement,' World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said in a statement with the report. Even more ominous, investment in clean energy in developing nations actually fell last year, led by China."

The big picture: The world needs to cut emissions by 25% by 2030 to keep warming to 2°C, and a much steeper 55% to keep it within 1.5°C. But under current pledges, the world is on course for a 3.2°C rise by century's end.

No laughing matter, that's for sure.

And... Next week is the second annual Motherfucker Awards Gala-- to bring attention to those who have been the worst on the Climate Crisis this year. They use comedy and music to make their point, celebrating, in a manner of speaking, the corporations, politicians, and lobbyists that fucked Mother Earth in 2019. Kelly Slater (11 times Surfing World Champion), Lawrence Lessig (Harvard Law Professor), Abby Martin (Investigative Journalist),& Jodi Armour (USC Law Professor), and Kaj Larsen (Navy SEAL/Journalist) have been the first announced to present at this years event.

The gala features top comedians accepting awards on behalf of the ones responsible for inflicting the most impressive damage in 2019. Journalists and celebrities prompt the comedians with basic facts about their "achievements," and the comedians create their own acceptance speeches.

Their press release emphasized that while there are plenty of awards that celebrate efforts to protect the natural environment, it’s clear now that Mother Earth is losing and it’s time the winners got their due. The 2019 Motherfucker Awards use satire to tackle issues in the categories of: Land, Water, Air, Fire, Spirit, and The Lifetime Achievement Award.

LAND: The MOFAS will celebrate the fracking industry, and their outstanding efforts to penetrate Mother Earth, resulting in contaminated drinking water in communities across the country. The fracking industry increases the potential for oil spills, which can harm the soil and surrounding vegetation.

WATER: This year’s Water category will highlight the single use plastics industry and their generous donations of single use plastic to our oceans all over the world.

AIR: Key players within the Amazon fires will be honored for their efforts to make our atmosphere more visible and supercharge climate change.

FIRE: The Fire category will highlight the global firearms industry and the entities responsible for the most egregious military corruption and human rights abuses over the past year.

SPIRIT: The Spirit Award honors outstanding efforts to break the human spirit. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners. This year the award will focus on our country’s private prison system and the groups that profit most from human incarceration.

And finally, to the biggest motherfucker of them all, The Lifetime Achievement Award honors an individual who has screwed Mother Earth the hardest over their entire career. (Guess who that will be!)

Here are some clips from last year's gala:





Doors open at 7. Tickets can be ordered here.

Generating Electricity From the Cold Night Sky

A device that generates electricity from temperature differences, drawing heat from below and radiating it into the night sky (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

Large streams from little fountains flow,
Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.
— Folk proverb

In the race against time to mitigate the coming climate tsunami, people of this century often turn to the hope that the "miracle of science" will save us. Usually this takes the form of some flavor of geoengineering — seeding the sky with debris (technically, aerosols) in an attempt to emulate the global dimming caused by volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991 — or that ultimate unicorn, artificial "carbon capture and storage" (CCS) techniques, which don't exist at any scale worth mentioning.

After all, this generation has seen greater advances in science than any generation ever born. Science has put a man on the moon, exploded the atom, put 75" television screens as thin as your hand in every American home that wants one, connected virtually all of the country to a small set of (billionaire-controlled) minds in the guise of "entertainment" and to each other in the guise of inescapable mobile device–based "social media."

If science could do all that, why couldn't it save us from something as simple as global warming. How hard could it be to re-cool the earth?

Sadly, this isn't going to happen. The earth will be recooled only in the way it always is — through natural processes.

What may happen, though, is a vast reduction in carbon-based energy usage via discoveries like the one below, through ways to generate power from renewable sources unimagined even yesterday. (To quit carbon, though, our billionaires would have to be made to want to, but that's a side note to this discussion.)

Heat From the Cold Night Sky

Consider this: A "solar" panel that draws heat from its lower side, moves that heat to its upper side and radiates it into the cool night sky, and from this simple transfer, generates electricity. That electricity powers the stations that warm your homes. Heat from the darkness of space.

From the study's Summary (emphasis mine):

A large fraction of the world’s population still lacks access to electricity, particularly at night when photovoltaic systems no longer operate. The ability to generate electricity at night could be a fundamentally enabling capability for a wide range of applications, including lighting and low-power sensors. Here, we demonstrate a low-cost strategy to harness the cold of space through radiative cooling to generate electricity with an off-the-shelf thermoelectric generator. Unlike traditional thermoelectric generators, our device couples the cold side of the thermoelectric module to a sky-facing surface that radiates heat to the cold of space and has its warm side heated by the surrounding air, enabling electricity generation at night. We experimentally demonstrate 25 mW/m 2 of power generation and validate a model that accurately captures the device’s performance. Further, we show that the device can directly power a light emitting diode, thereby generating light from the darkness of space itself.

As this write-up at OilPrice.com notes, the process works, but is still in the beginning stages with respect to scale. "The technology is still under development, and the researchers have already planned improvements including enhanced insulation around the top plate that could potentially raise the device’s energy production to 0.5 watts per square meter or more, but the potential outcomes are boundless. If this technology could eventually be refined to produce anywhere close to as much energy as a standard solar panel, it would completely transform the renewable energy sector, making it a far greater contender to take the place of fossil fuels."

It may take a while (though one hopes not), but this is well beyond the concept state. It's entirely new, yet entirely realistic. The whole of the airline industry, the vast and ho-hum world of global travel, started with a powered glidere flight at Kitty Hawk of just 120 feet.

From little acorns...
 

Fighting for a Green New Deal-- in the Heart of Texas

-by Mike Siegel




My friend Harvey Hayek is a vintage Texan. A third generation pecan farmer in Fayette County, he owns a gun club, hundreds of prime agricultural acres on the Texas Colorado River, and a bottomless store of homespun stories. Unfortunately, the most compelling of these relates to a coal plant that opened next door, forty years ago, and destroyed Harvey’s livelihood-- and almost his life.

Harvey’s farm is a stone’s throw from the Fayette Coal Plant, a publicly-owned power plant built in the late 1970s. When it opened, the City of Austin and the Lower Colorado River Authority, joint operators of the plant, promised it would be “clean” and would not hurt local life. Within years, however, the lie was proved, many times over.

Harvey’s pecan trees, which had sustained his family since the late 19th century, and should have provided work and income for generations to come, slowly began to die. The plant’s emissions come back to earth as acid rain. Tree trunk samples tell the story: the rings turn black the year after the coal plant opened. What was once the most profitable pecan orchard in Texas became a place of desolation, producing no edible products.

Harvey himself developed health problems. Soon, he had difficulty walking, and even bouts of temporary blindness. One day, after he collapsed, he was taken to the hospital. An MRI revealed a grapefruit-sized tumor in his skull. His doctor advised that toxic pollution was the likely cause.

I’m running for Congress in a district that stretches east from north Austin, through seven rural counties, and concludes in the west Houston suburbs. When I speak to political “experts,” they tell me to stay away from environmental issues, because the district is an “oil patch” area, and too many people rely on fossil fuel jobs.

And there is some truth to that: in Harris County suburbs like Katy, Cypress, and Tomball, plenty of Democratic voters (and donors) work in fossil fuel-related industries. They are engineers and geologists, lawyers and human resource professionals. They make $100,000 or year or more, working for Exxon and Schlumberger, BP and Halliburton. And certainly, when I address larger groups, they squirm a bit when I say those words.

"A Green New Deal."

The science, of course, is indisputable. That we must take dramatic action to reduce carbon emissions within the next few years. That we must phase out extraction of fossil fuels; that we must become a “net zero” carbon producer by 2050. That we must build an international coalition to combat climate change, to take immediate and substantial action. And that the price, if we do not succeed, will be hundreds of millions of lives, and untold trillions of dollars in economic harm.

Still, the Green New Deal is inconvenient in a state that is the heartbeat of the national energy economy. The Texas 10th, the district I am running in, includes laborers who build pipelines, electrical workers who run coal plants, and thousands of individuals whose family incomes are tied, directly or indirectly, to the fossil fuel economy.

But leadership requires holding uncomfortable conversations. And while the TX-10 incumbent, Republican Michael McCaul, may be comfortable taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry and soft-pedaling any government intervention, I don’t have that luxury. I’m running for Congress in a gerrymandered district against an incumbent worth $300 million. I only win if I galvanize a social movement, by speaking truth to power.

The Green New Deal provides a fantastic framework to provide a real alternative to the status quo. First, we acknowledge the gravity of the climate crisis, and demand immediate, massive governmental action to address climate change. We restructure the American economy, and use the power of the Treasury to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs building a renewable economy. Second, we guarantee a true “just transition” for fossil fuel workers, who should not suffer when we adjust national policy to respond to the environmental crisis. This means much more than job training; we must guarantee income and healthcare, housing and retirement benefits, and we must provide as many comparable high quality jobs as possible. And third, we must remedy the legacy of environmental justice. That means clean-ups, and reparations, for the communities that have been on the front lines of environmental pollution.

And that means justice for Harvey, for his family and neighbors, for everyone who has suffered because of the Fayette Coal Plant.

For many people, even those of us who live an hour’s drive from the coal plant, we haven’t heard about the true costs of its operation. Through my campaign, I’ve met the neighbors. I’ve heard about a corridor of cancer cases near the “pond” in front of the coal plant. I’ve heard about early-onset Alzheimer’s, widespread youth asthma, even elevated lead in children. I’ve heard about dead livestock and wildlife. And dead pecan orchards.

An array of structural impediments have delayed justice for Fayette County. The state environmental commission—responsible for issuing air and water permits—appointed by a Republican governor who can receive unlimited fossil fuel contributions. The river authority that owns two-thirds of the coal plant is largely controlled by the same Republican governor. We have a municipal energy company in liberal Austin, that for many years did not bother to inquire about the conditions of rural neighbors to the east. And we’ve had a delayed national conversation about the real consequences of coal power and the fossil fuel economy.

But now, in 2019, we have an opportunity. A new wave of progressivism has inspired visionary policies like the Green New Deal, and has created a pathway for candidates like me to walk. We have an invigorated labor movement, including unions in Austin and across Texas that want a seat at the table as we confront climate change and develop a national jobs and infrastructure program. And we have a Republican administration, at both the state and federal levels, that is so callous, that is so corrupt, and that is so indiscriminate in its advocacy for fossil fuel interests, that even local independent and libertarian voters are looking for alternatives, to protect their lives and livelihoods. Which brings me back to Fayette Coal. The original New Deal had a project in every congressional district. In 2021, when we enact the Green New Deal, let’s make transitioning this coal plant the project for the Texas 10th. We can create reduce carbon emissions, we can create new jobs, and we can remedy the legacy of pollution for this region.

And in the process, Texas can show the nation what a sustainable future looks like.

Have You Noticed That The Countries Pretending There Is No Climate Crisis Are Countries Led By Fascists And Authoritarians?

Climate Change Denier by Nancy Ohanian

Heads of state have flooded into New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly meetings. One topic of supreme concern is Climate Change-- supreme concern more to some leaders, though, than to others. An AP report emphasized that "Saying humanity is waging war with the planet, the head of the United Nations isn’t planning to let just any world leader speak about climate change at Monday’s special 'action summit.' Only those with new, specific and bold plans can command the podium and the ever-warming world’s attention, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. So sit down, Brazil. Sit down, Saudi Arabia. Sit down, Poland. 'People can only speak if they come with positive steps. That is kind of a ticket,' Guterres said. 'For bad news don’t come.'" Where does that leave Señor Trumpanzee? (The White House has told the media that Señor T is skipping the Climate Crisis session so that he can speak about the persecution of Christians.)

As if to underscore the seriousness of the problem, the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization released a science report Sunday showing that in the last several years, warming, sea level rise and carbon pollution have all accelerated.

Brazil’s, Poland’s and Saudi Arabia’s proposals for dealing with climate change fell short, so they’re not on Monday’s summit schedule. The United States didn’t even bother, according to a U.N. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The bar isn’t that high: Leaders from 64 nations, the European Union, more than a dozen companies and banks, a few cities and a state will present plans at the secretary-general’s Climate Action Summit.

Guterres wants nations to be carbon-neutral by 2050-- in other words, they will not add more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air than are removed by plants and perhaps technology each year. On Sunday, 87 countries around the world pledged to decarbonize in a way consistent with one of the international community’s tightest temperature goals.

There is a sense of urgency, Guterres said, because “climate change is the defining issue of our time.”

“For the first time, there is a serious conflict between people and nature, between people and the planet,” Guterres said.

He wants countries to commit to no new coal power plants after 2020 and reduce carbon pollution by 45% in the next century. The purpose of the summit is to come up with new green proposals a year earlier than the 2020 deadline that is in the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

World leaders agreed in 2009 to try to keep warming to just 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times. Then in 2015 they added a secondary, tougher goal, at the urging of small islands, to keep warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The new weather agency report showed that the world has warmed already by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit). So that means the goals are to limit further warming to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from now or even 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) from now.

Efforts to reduce carbon pollution need to be tripled to keep from hitting the 2-degree Celsius mark and must increase fivefold to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times, the World Meteorological Organization report said.

As bad as that sounds, it’s wrong and overly optimistic to use the mid-1880s as the benchmark, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. Mann said that many studies, including the WMO’s, are overlooking that the world warmed 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) from human causes between the mid-1700s and the 1880s.

The weather agency said the last five years were the warmest five on record and even 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the first half of the decade, a significant jump in just a few years.

“There is a growing recognition that climate impacts are hitting harder and sooner than climate assessments indicated even a decade ago,” the 28-page report said.

If the world keeps temperatures to the 1.5-degree Celsius goal instead of the 2-degree one, 420 million fewer people will be exposed to heat waves and 10 million fewer will be vulnerable to sea level rise, NASA climate scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig said Sunday at a U.N. session.

A larger, more international report looking at climate change and oceans and ice will be released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Wednesday.

“This new WMO report highlights the importance of making more progress on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide,” Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald said. “Hopefully this latest U.N. Climate Summit will motivate more action.”

White House Emissions Standards by Nancy Ohanian

Rebecca Parson is an all-in progressive candidate running for the northwest Washington state seat currently occupied by New Dem chief Derek Kilmer. She's for the Green New Deal; his career is financed by those denying there even is Climate Change. "Every time a new report comes out," she told me today, "the situation seems to be more dire than before. And it's poor, working class communities and communities of color that will be hit the hardest. In Washington's 6th Congressional District, the village of Taholah, which has been at its current coastal site for at least as long as the Quinault Nation can remember, has to relocate. In Aberdeen, poor communities have to deal with sewage on their sidewalks when the river floods. They need action now-- not when the lobbyists and oil companies grant their permission."

She's in a similar situation to the one Marie Newman is in-- running for Congress on values and ideals... and against a corrupt, crooked conservative pretending to be part of the party of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. In Marie's case, that faker is Dan Lipinski who, like Kilmer, also opposes the Green New Deal. "For me," said Marie, "the mere fact that the UN Secretary-General is only allowing countries who have actual 'bold plans' in place to combat climate change to speak at the Action Summit is telling. Secretary-General Gutteres has made it clear that leaders of those countries who are regressing and are stagnant in their climate policies (unfortunately the U.S. is part of that  group), will not be asked to speak. The U.S. in another time, would always be asked to share our policies. Once we left the Paris Accords, we lost that leadership title.  Falling behind on combatting climate change it not only troubling for our collective health and welfare, but also for the economy. Members of Congress who do not support the Green New Deal and its clarion call for action, such as my opponent, Dan Lipinski are short-sighted at best and more importantly, clearly handcuffed to fossil fuel companies. This lack of urgency is going to have long-tentacled repercussions."

Milwaukie, Oregon mayor Mark Gamba is running for a congressional seat held by conservative Blue Dog, Kurt Schrader. One way to look at the race-- as many younger Oregonians do-- is that Gamba very vigorously supports the Green New Deal, while Schrader supports the polluters and poisoners who have underwritten his dreadful political career. "Climate change," explained Gamba, "is more than the defining issue of our time; it is the defining issue for all time. Continual failure to act with strength, audacity and focus will result in massive displacement and political unrest as sea levels rise, temperatures increase, and our food supply is threatened.  That is literally what hangs in the balance and yet we continue to treat it as a political football. The Paris Climate Agreement is a powerful step forward for the world and Trump’s abdication of responsibility is abhorrent. I believe that cities are capable of powerful action that will begin to address the issue without the Federal Government.  I am proud to be the Mayor of a city that is setting a bold and survivable vision for our future. However, with only 11 years left to make dramatic changes in everything from how we create and use energy to the way we farm and manage our forests-- Federal action and federal leadership is critical. As a congressman, I will be an unrelenting and unapologetic advocate for decisive and immediate action to keep us below 1.5 degrees Celsius."

Rachel Ventura (IL-11) decided to run because of the Climate Crisis. Her conservative opponent, New Dem multimillionaire Bill Foster likes to bill himself a "scientist"-- he isn't-- but if he were, he'd be one of the Republicans' favorite kind of scientists-- one who laughs about Climate Change, doesn't acknowledge there's a crisis and can be easily bought off when it comes to acting responsibility in regard to it. Ventura noted that "Trump doesn’t appear ready to do anything positive to address the climate crisis and corporate Democratic members of Congress, after decades of inaction, are at least trying to appear like they care about human existence with photo ops." But its too late for appearances.

Ventura co-hosted an event for the September 2019 global climate strike in Naperville, Illinois. She told us this morning that "It was a successful event with hundreds of people. One of the primary reasons I am running for this seat is because my current congressman has failed to take meaningful steps to combat the climate crisis even though he reminds us he is a scientist. In fact, he still refers to the emergency as "climate change." To become a co-sponsor of the event I worked through the Sunrise Movement and went through their multi-step screening process. Sunrise wanted to make sure that it would be an event promoting a call to action on the Green New Deal and not be a generic call to action to “do something.” The day of the event, Sunrise co-founder Varshini Prakash, fully expected half-measure Democrats to try to co-opt strike events and pretend to support climate legislation even though they have not signed onto the Green New Deal. In an interview with Huffington Post he said, 'they're going to glom onto whatever they can, but we don't want compliments. We want action.' Varshini was correct. Both my opponent, Bill Foster, and Rep. Sean Casten, 'glommed on' by attending the climate strike, shot some photos and left. Foster quickly took a Facebook ad out promoting his attendance at the event because he knows that being a scientist is no longer good enough to be considered the 'climate candidate.' We are going to have to work harder to make sure voters continue to see his 10-years of inaction instead of the photo op with Greta Thunberg and his photo bombing of the Green New Deal Naperville Climate Strike."

Dana Balter, a progressive congressional candidate in Syracuse, New York, is running against Trump-enabler John Katko, a Climate Crisis denier who has worked actively against solutions. Moments ago, Dana told us that "some of the boldest leaders we have on the climate crisis are our young people; they've pushed their elected leaders, changed public opinion, and brought big solutions to the forefront. But their movement continues to face roadblocks because the people with the power to make a difference refuse to listen. We simply cannot make progress on addressing this problem while we have folks in Congress, like John Katko, who take hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry and then vote to allow their financial backers to pollute our planet. It's time that we replace the folks who are holding us back with climate champions; I will be one of those champions."

  The Columbus Dispatch covered the Climate Strike in central Ohio last week. The paper noted that Columbus students "joined in solidarity by hundreds of thousands more around the world as part of a 'global climate strike,' the contingent held up signs with messages such as 'There is no planet B' and 'It’s time to cut carbon.'... Morgan Harper, a Democrat who is running for Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District, gave a speech-- the only one by someone in the political arena-- and signed two pledges, promising to advocate for the Green New Deal and refusing to accept campaign contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industries. 'We have students that are in classrooms that are already under-resourced, don’t have air conditioning, and [they] have no ability to learn in extreme heat conditions,' she said. 'We have people that are already in unstable housing that are going to increasingly feel the effects of climate change... But there’s something we can do about it, and it’s not complicated. All it’s going to take is us coming together to fight for what’s right.'" She followed up this morning with an e-mail to her supporters: "In Congress I am going to advocate for the Green New Deal and be an absolute champion of climate change policies. [I will] not accept any money from the fossil fuels industry."

Let's close this out with a message-- text and video-- from Mike Siegel, who is building his movement around the Green New Deal in central Texas. "The climate movement is growing here in Texas," he told us this afternoon. "On Friday I marched in Austin with 2,000 high school and college students, and I joined their inspiring leaders in speaking out on the steps of the capitol. Meanwhile, many hundreds more students marched in Houston, despite suffering the fifth 500-year flood event in five years. And on Saturday hundreds joined my campaign for a town hall on the Green New Deal, featuring national experts like Raj Patel and Andres Bernal, and local youth and labor leaders. We are disproving the conventional wisdom, that you can’t talk about cutting fossil fuels in Texas, and instead showing how the people are hungry for a bold vision and courageous leadership. These conversations may not be easy, but they are essential to our future."

Is The Climate Crisis Important Enough To You So That It Will Help Determine Who You Vote For In 2020?

Mike Siegel, the progressive candidate running for the Austin-to-Houston area corridor seat (TX-10) shakily occupied by Trump enabler Michael McCaul, put the above video together as part of his campaign to bring Texans along on the Green New Deal. It's worth listening and watching. About a month ago, Mike did a guest post here about the Climate Crisis town-hall he organized for September 21 and how environmental, labor and youth groups can work together to pass this existential program. From deep in the heart of Texas-- and in a district that includes part of the oil patch, Mike has been telling voters that "We must transition from a fossil fuel economy, and provide new opportunities for American workers. Climate change results from humans burning coal, oil and natural gas, combined with deforestation and other causes. On a planet with billions of people, and ever-increasing human development, we need our federal government to take the lead, to reduce carbon emissions and chart a path toward sustainability. We also know our economy is in trouble. A handful of billionaires control as much wealth as half the country. We’ve lost good jobs, in manufacturing and other industries, that allowed workers to support their families. Too many of us are working nonstop, for little pay, and are barely scraping by. The Green New Deal addresses both the environment and the need for good jobs. Let’s use the power of our government to build a healthier future. Let’s invest in renewable energy, and put Americans to work in the process. Let’s make our homes more energy efficient; let’s clean up polluted waterways and industrial areas; let’s create industries inside the United States that will meet the needs of the 21st century. Let's pass a Green New Deal!."

Many Democrats are afraid to be so straight forward with voters. It's what's wrong with politicians. And, in part, it's why we're so enthusiastic about wanting to help Mike get into Congress. Please click on the Take Back Texas thermometer on the right and chip in to his grassroots campaign. The DCCC had recruited a conservative Democrat to run against Mike, before he can take on McCaul.

This week, CNN hosted a 7 hour Climate Crisis discussion for the Democratic 2020 candidates. Even before the forum, Bernie had urged all the other candidates to follow his lead and pledge to ban fracking. Bernie was widely seen as the "winner" of the CNN event and, as expected, the loser was Status Quo Joe, whose campaign theme has been "Nothing Will Fundamentally Change" and who was in a hurry to get the forum finished so he could prepare for a big money fundraiser with his fracking backers.

Biden sympathizer Jeff Greenfield, writing for Politico reported that "for former Vice President Joe Biden, it was a not-quite debate with an unhappily familiar quality: a well-planned attack that left him grasping for an explanation. As with other criticisms of Biden, it may or may not have been fair. But the Democratic front-runner remains a continuing target of opportunity that he seems ill-prepared to defend. The question came from Isaac Larkin, a doctoral student at Northwestern University and a Bernie Sanders supporter, who began by referencing a study that demonstrated a 40-year history on the part of fossil fuel giants like ExxonMobil and Gulf to hide the baleful effects of carbon on global temperatures. Then he asked: 'How can we trust you to hold these corporations accountable when you are holding a high-dollar fundraiser held by Andrew Goldman, a fossil fuel executive?'... Goldman, a co-founder of Western LNG, a natural gas production company based in Houston, Texas, is co-hosting one of two high-dollar fundraisers Biden will attend in New York on Thursday. Western’s major project is a floating production facility off the northern coast of British Columbia designed to provide Canadian gas to markets in northeast Asia. Goldman and Biden have deep ties: Goldman served as an adviser to Biden while he was in the Senate and was the Northeast director of finance for Biden’s 2008 campaign." As usual, Biden fumbled and stumbled and was unable to answer the question or to communicate any kind of a vision for combatting the Climate Crisis. Vox compared his pathetic performance to Bernie: "At the forum, Sanders benefited from following Biden, who was as rambling and unfocused as he has been this whole campaign season. By contrast, Sanders was sharp and on-message, with easy command over the details of his plan. And the more intimate setting allowed Sanders moments of quiet reflection and-- especially in response to a question about fossil fuel workers-- real emotion."

Loser: Joe Biden

Compared to Warren and Sanders, the former vice president and current Democratic frontrunner didn’t offer a clear vision on climate. Biden gave long and often rambling answers about his climate plan, noting that climate groups gave it a “B+ or beyond.” He declined to join some of his opponents in supporting a nationwide ban on fracking. And he kept returning to the point that his experience talking to world leaders as Obama’s vice president would help him build an international climate coalition. In doing so, Biden seemed to suggest that whatever the US did to decarbonize ultimately wouldn’t matter if the rest of the world didn’t follow the lead.

“The fact of the matter is that we make up 15 percent of the problem. The rest of the world makes up 80, 85 percent of the problem,” Biden said. “If we did everything perfectly-- and we must and should in order to get other countries to move-- we still have to get the rest of the world to come along and the fact of the matter is we have to up the ante considerably.”

If you'd like to read Bernie Climate Change plank you can find it here. In an introduction to it, his campaign wrote that "The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately. Climate change is a global emergency. The Amazon rainforest is burning, Greenland’s ice shelf is melting, and the Arctic is on fire. People across the country and the world are already experiencing the deadly consequences of our climate crisis, as extreme weather events like heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods, and hurricanes upend entire communities, ecosystems, economies, and ways of life, as well as endanger millions of lives. Communities of color, working class people, and the global poor have borne and will bear this burden disproportionately. The scientific community is telling us in no uncertain terms that we have less than 11 years left to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, if we are going to leave this planet healthy and habitable for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations. As rising temperatures and extreme weather create health emergencies, drive land loss and displacement, destroy jobs, and threaten livelihoods, we must guarantee health care, housing, and a good-paying job to every American, especially to those who have been historically excluded from economic prosperity. The scope of the challenge ahead of us shares similarities with the crisis faced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s. Battling a world war on two fronts-- both in the East and the West-- the United States came together, and within three short years restructured the entire economy in order to win the war and defeat fascism. As president, Bernie Sanders will boldly embrace the moral imperative of addressing the climate crisis and act immediately to mobilize millions of people across the country in support of the Green New Deal. From the Oval Office to the streets, Bernie will generate the political will necessary for a wholesale transformation of our society, with support for frontline and vulnerable communities and massive investments in sustainable energy, energy efficiency, and a transformation of our transportation system. We need a president who has the courage, the vision, and the record to face down the greed of fossil fuel executives and the billionaire class who stand in the way of climate action. We need a president who welcomes their hatred. Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change."

That's not Joe Biden. And we need a Congress filled with men and women like Mike Siegel aware of what the problem is and how to solve it. Right now, disgracefully, just 94 House Democrats-- out of 235-- have signed on as co-sponsors to AOC's Green New Deal Resolution-- and that number includes fakers who don't believe it in but are just afraid of primary opponents. This is especially off because all of the Democrats running for Congress backed by Blue America and other progressive groups, are backing the Green New Deal and, like Mike Siegel, campaigning on it.

Fact: AOC's Plan For Climate Change Costs Much, Much Less Than The Republican Party Plan

As we mentioned Friday, when Pelosi appendage Ben Ray Luján noticed this his Senate primary opponent, Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, is already campaigning on the Green New Deal, AND that his state party had unanimously endorsed the Green New Deal, he crapped his pants and then scurried over to AOC's office to ask to be a co-sponsor of her Green New Deal legislation. On May Day, Luján became the 94th co-sponsor of what is arguably the most important resolution introduced in Congress for over a decade.

The pushback from the establishment special interests and their corrupt conservative allies (in both parties) is intense and will get far more intense. The media, which does depend on ad revenues from these same sources, takes a "he said/she said" approach to something that is existential for our civilization, if not for humanity itself. The Big Lie about the Green New Deal-- which robotic Republicans repeat at every opportunity-- is that it will cost $93 trillion. They insist their own plan costs nothing, since their own plan is to do nothing. But, as Dave Levitan laid out for New Republic readers yesterday, doing nothing doesn't cost zero... it would cost far more than the Green New Deal.

The $93 trillion figure is not just more than the entire globe’s gross domestic product, it is also made up Republican gibberish. Levitan explains that the conservative think tank that invented it, American Action Forum, "added $5.4 trillion for a low-carbon electricity grid, $2.7 trillion for a net-zero emissions system, and $4.2 trillion for green housing-- which, fair enough. But then AAF added $36 trillion for 'universal health care' ... and $45 trillion for a jobs guarantee. More importantly, AAF refused to consider any net economic benefits from transitioning away from fossil fuels and zeroing out emissions. And why would they? As Amir Jina, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy Studies, told me, 'You say any number like $93 trillion, people’s eyebrows are going to rise.' Democrats are trying to correct this disinformation campaign. Senator Ed Markey, who introduced the Green New Deal resolution along with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called $93 trillion 'a total fabrication.' And other legislators have started talking about the costs of inaction on climate change. But the Democrats aren’t doing enough to hammer home how expensive the Republican alternative to the Green New Deal really is."

The cost to America to do nothing about the climate crisis makes AOC's proposal-- even at that ridiculous made-up price tag-- look like pocket change.

The costs of inaction have been clear in broad terms for a while now. The Stern Review, a massive 2006 publication covering all aspects of climate economics, arrived at an eventual annual loss of between five and twenty percent of the global GDP, which would run into the tens of trillions of dollars. More recently, however, researchers have started to tease out some fairly specific costs associated with inaction-- and the numbers aren’t pretty.

The Climate Impact Lab, a consortium of researchers and experts (including Jina), published a paper in the journal Science almost two years ago that modeled the costs associated with things like agricultural output decline, mortality due to temperature extremes, and increases in electricity demand. They found that by the end of the century, the U.S. could be losing between one and four percent of its GDP-- or a few trillion dollars, most likely-- every single year. The estimated impact was geographically varied: Some parts of the country might fare better, losing little or none of its GDP, while others could be losing hundreds of billions every year.

A paper published in Nature Climate Change last month got into even more detail. In a high-end warming scenario, there would be $26 billion in annual losses due to worsened air quality by 2090; $140 billion due to temperature-related deaths; another $160 billion in lost labor; and $120 billion in yearly damage to coastal property. That was just four of the 22 sectors-- and we’ve already reached almost $450 billion in damages every year.

There’s more. Changes to electricity demand and supply would cost $9.2 billion per year. Damage to rail systems would cost $5.5 billion, and throw in more than $21 billion more for roads and bridges. Increased rainfall totals will stress urban drainage systems, to the tune of $5.6 billion per year. The mosquito-borne West Nile virus will expand its range dramatically, costing $3.3 billion. Inland flooding will cost $8 billion more, along with $4.6 billion due to water quality issues, and $2 billion in lost winter recreation revenue. Damage to various ecosystems will carry extreme costs, from $3.1 billion in damage to freshwater fish stocks to $4.1 billion in losses on coral reefs.

All told, the study suggests, largely unchecked warming would cost about $520 billion dollars across these sectors every year by 2090. If we manage to stave off the worst and instead settle on a more middle-of-the-road amount of warming, that would save $225 billion of that total.

As with most areas of climate science, every new study paints a more dire picture. Research just published in Nature Communications tried to update the computer models commonly used in projecting some of these economic impacts to better reflect reality. Specifically, it incorporated some particularly ghastly climate feedback loops, including carbon released from thawing permafrost in the Arctic and reductions in the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight back into space as ice and snow continue to melt.

With those updated models, the study found that economic losses from climate change would be almost $70 trillion higher than previously estimated for the 2 degrees Celsius warming scenario-- the limit that most countries are aiming for in their Paris Climate Agreement pledges. If the world managed to reduce emissions to a far greater degree-- and thus hit the extremely ambitious 1.5-degree target-- then this additional cost would decrease from $70 trillion down to a mere $24.8 trillion, the study found.

Yet another study found that even without taking into account the economic toll of climate change, a business-as-usual scenario would be more expensive than the strict cost of aggressive climate policies. A 2015 report by Citi GPS, the research arm of Citi, found that an “inaction scenario” where we just build the same way we’ve been building would cost $192 trillion out to 2040 on electricity, transportation, and other trappings of modern life. The “action” scenario, meanwhile, where we build solar and wind power instead of coal and natural gas and switch out the automobile fleet and so on, would cost $190.2 trillion.

“We have to replace quite a lot of our coal-fired power plants with something within the next 20 years,” said Geoffrey Heal, a professor at Columbia University Business School, who has modeled the costs of transitioning to a clean energy supply by 2050. “In some sense, the cost of replacing them isn’t an additional cost. We would have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in replacing power plants as they die.”

The difference between the “action” and “inaction” scenarios may seem small, but the huge difference is that an “action scenario” actually makes money. A 2018 study by Greek researchers found a correlation between increasing renewable energy use and higher GDP; they concluded that “policy-makers … should take all the needed measures to increase [renewable energy sources] contribution to the energy mix.” A report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate found that “bold action” could result in a direct economic gain of $26 trillion by 2030-- a likely underestimation.

Specific policies supporting renewable energy would offer clear economic benefits. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that a “high-end” renewable energy standard could increase jobs in the sector-- which already employs close to a million people in the U.S.-- by 47 percent. The aforementioned Global Commission report found that “ambitious climate action” could generate more than 65 million new low-carbon jobs in 2030.

The Republican plan to do nothing, then, means America would be double-charged for its inaction: The country would lose trillions in missed opportunities for growth, and many trillions more due to a growing catastrophe. Passing a Green New Deal, or something like it, may sound expensive up front, but Republicans should see it for what it is: a sound investment that will generate the greatest returns imaginable-- a livable planet.

Blue America-endorsed congressional candidates are congressional candidates who have endorsed-- and are campaigning on-- the Green New Deal. We spoke with several of them Friday about how they talk with voters in their districts about the "how do you pay for it" question. Kara Eastman has been working on this in Omaha for a long time already, creating energy efficient and healthy housing. "The economic benefits to underserved communities are exponential," she explained this morning-- "increasing the tax base, creating jobs and reducing utility bills. We have to come up with bold solutions to tackle climate change because let’s be honest-- only the very wealthy can withstand its effects. A plan that gets us to invest heavily in renewables and also creates great paying, unionized jobs is something we should all be behind."

Michigan's Jon Hoadley is the newest Blue America endorsed candidate. He sure isn't running as a Republican-lite alternative to Big Oil shill Fred Upton. In many ways, the Green New Deal seems to sum up much of his congressional campaign: "The Green New Deal is, at its core, a jobs program to unleash American innovation while addressing the global threat of climate change," he told us. "Investing in our infrastructure will create jobs in the communities hit hardest by offshoring and outsourcing. Deploying new clean technology with an approach that values environmental justice can improve the health and quality of life for some of the hardest hit communities. Thinking ahead to build more resiliant building and trying to reduce ever more powerful storms will save lives and money for homeowners. It's time we face our challenges head on with fresh ideas, ideas like the Green New Deal."

Eva Putzova, who is challenging the Blue Dog "ex"-Republican in Arizona's sprawling first congressional district puts this into perspective for voters she talks with: "How did we pay for the 16 years of war? Where did the nearly $6 trillion come from? We have to recalibrate our priorities. When it comes to climate change, we are already paying for our inaction. The Green New Deal proposes investments that not only mitigate climate change but also revitalize communities that have been left behind. Shifting spending away from the Pentagon, ensuring corporations pay their fair share, and taxing excessive wealth are among the strategies to consider to front-load the Green New Deal investments."

The climate crisis has been a big motivator for many candidates running for office, Mike Siegel (TX-10) among them. "We have a moral obligation, for the future of this planet and the human race," he told me today, "to take immediate and profound action to address climate change, and the Green New Deal represents a framework that hits three key elements: restructuring the American economy to avert environmental collapse, caring for workers and families that will be displaced by this economic shift, and remedying the historic legacy of environmental racism. As to the cost, let’s frame it as a wonderful investment opportunity: to create bountiful good jobs that will improve the quality of our air, water and climate; to establish an example for the world to follow; to incubate new industries and entire sectors of the economy that will lead to innovation and sustainable growth. Building the Interstate Highway system was expensive, too, but it made a middle class lifestyle attainable for tens of millions of Americans. Even if the Green New Deal costs $93 trillion-- and clearly, it will not-- that would be money well spent if it meant that this country, and really the whole world, could experience a safer, healthier future for years to come."

Audrey Denney, up in the northeast corner of rural California is the first-- and so far only-- candidate endorsed by the Sunset Movement, which is the group that wrote the Green New Deal with AOC. "Climate change is not a threat in the distant future," wrote Denney. "It is threatening the lives, homes, and livelihoods of people who live in my district today. We have to take bold action to mitigate climate change and restore our forests to health. The Green New Deal is not a plan to mitigate climate change-- it is a bold commitment to the belief that we can. I want to be a policymaker who crafts pragmatic policies that support the vision of the Green New Deal-- tailored to benefit the people and the communities of California’s first district. I will be the voice at the table that represents rural America, our farms, ranches, and forests. A lot of misinformation about the GND has been propagated and folks in conservative districts range from skeptical to afraid of it. I believe the GND is a tremendous opportunity for us to push forward innovative policies that will help our farmers and ranchers prosper, make our forests healthy and our communities safer from wildfires, and restore our rural economies-- all while doing our part to mitigate climate change. We can equip farmers and ranchers with the technical expertise to implement practices that sequester carbon into the soil-- like cover-cropping, minimal tillage farming, and holistic managed grazing. We can create ecosystem service markets where farmers and ranchers are compensated for stewarding the public’s air, land, and soil. Farmers and ranchers can increase their razor thin profit margins and we can keep more family farmers on their land. Under a GND policy framework we can set the initiatives in place to do the large-scale, forest wide, restoration projects. Only by restoring our forests to health by doing the critical thinning, selective logging, and fuels-reduction work, will we be able to lesson our wildfire risk and mitigate the dangerous result of climate change. We can create economic incentives to find new industry utilization for the woody biomass removed from our forests. This will look like manufacturing sustainable building materials like cross laminated timber (CLT) and processing woody biomass into low carbon transportation fuels. We can set policies in place to support the career and technical education programs and apprenticeship programs that will be necessary to build the required local workforce. All of these opportunities mean high paying jobs and more economic opportunity for the real people of California’s first district."

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

And do these rocks come from, the heads of Republicans?

First of all, just look at this goon. Look at those eyes! By Republican "reasoning" such as the "reasoning" suggested by Rep. Mo Brooks (KKK-AL), one would also have to assume that fish being fruitful and multiplying and growing larger and larger would displace enough water to raise the levels of the seas. For instance, a 4400 pound Great White (Republicans love that name) was recently caught in the Mediterranean and sold in a fish market. In the Republican Hive Mind, that is, no doubt a good thing for the Italian city of Venice since less of the Mediterranean's waters will now be flowing into the Adriatic. And, growing fish and an ever-growing fish population maybe the reasons that Republicans come up with policies and strategies designed to kill all of the flora and fauna in the oceans. Is that, in their heads, their ingenious and diabolical way of trying to keep sea levels where they are?

Thinking he has had a "eureka moment," Brooks cites erosion and rocks falling into the seas as the culprit in causing our rising seas, not man-induced climate change accelerating the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Archimedes he is not, and I don't even want to think of Mo Brooks playing in his tub with rubber duckies or whatever he plays with. In the non-Republican reality, however, science, yes the dreaded science, tells us that it would take the top 5 inches of all land surface of the United States falling into the oceans to raise the world's sea levels 3.3 millimeters in a year's time. Damn, there's that math thing again! Brooks has probably already asked one of his born again nutball staffers to calculate how much of a sea level rise there has been in the entire 6000 years of the existence of humankind, or mankind, as a Republican would say.

Where will this Republican "reasoning" and "logic" end? Remember that goofball $enator who brought a snowball into U.S. Senate Show And Tell as "proof" that there's no global warming? Will some other wacko congresscretin now suggest that no one can go for a swim at the beach this summer, for fear of millions of people splashing in the world's waters raising sea levels? What will Chris Christie, especially Chris Christie, do?