Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

Environmental and consumer advocates say the DOE has ​“manufactured an emergency” to keep a costly, polluting coal plant running and serve Trump’s pro-coal agenda.

Students do learn about methane, but not about eating less meat.

The paper is here

Access options:

• gift link - registration required
• archive.today

The paper is here

Archived copies of the article:

• archive.today
• web.archive.org

Importantly, he has backed out of a pledge to reject money from top fossil fuel executives and lobbyists:

Miller said Villaraigosa signed a pledge during his unsuccessful run for governor in 2018 not to accept campaign contributions from oil companies and “named executives” at fossil-fuel entities. She said he took the pledge shortly after accepting the maximum allowable contributions from several oil donors in 2017.

Miller said that more than $100,000 in donations that Villaraigosa has accepted in this gubernatorial cycle were clear violations of the pledge.

The paper is here

A reminder folks: people engage in this kind of radical protest because it works:

Results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples (N = 2,772), including a study of the animal rights movement and a preregistered study of the climate movement, show that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant. This perception led participants to identify more with and, in turn, express greater support for the more moderate faction. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, despite pursuing divergent approaches to social change.

I'm not so sure this is really new; it's something that's been around for decades, albeit in a marginal kind of way, with a scientific understanding of cause and effect being far more central.

This post uses a gift link with a view count limit. When it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article

Archived copy of the article:

• archive.today

Access options:

• gift link - requires registration
• archive.today - has text, but is missing illustrative animations, and key diagrams are broken.

Ahead of oil-rich Suriname's election, the country's president tells AFP that a looming energy windfall will not spell a shift away from climate-friendly policies.

The country of 600,000 recently discovered a vast oil field off the Atlantic coast that within years should be capable of producing 220,000 barrels daily.

There will be "a huge amount of income for the country" once drilling gets underway in 2028, Chan Santokhi told AFP in an interview on the eve of the vote. (...)

Note: He got re-elected, which means more oil drilling, there too unfortunately.

While Alberta premier Danielle Smith demands new oil corridors, the Macdonald Laurier Institute notes that pipeline capacity is currently ‘sufficient.’

This post uses a gift link with a view count limit. If it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article

For context, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, including CO2, are responsible for approximately all of the warming that has happened in recent decades:

With carbon dioxide being the largest part of that:

And human burning of fossil fuels (as in power plants) is substantially responsible for that increase:

Based on multiple lines of evidence using interhemispheric gradients of CO2 concentrations, isotopes, and inventory data, it is unequivocal that the growth in CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750 (see Section TS.2.2) is due to the direct emissions from human activities. The combustion of fossil fuels and land-use change for the period 1750–2019 resulted in the release of 700 ±75 PgC (likely range, 1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) to the atmosphere, of which about 41% ±11% remains in the atmosphere today (high confidence). Of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for about 64% ± 15%, growing to an 86% ±14% contribution over the past 10 years.