9 July 2017

(1a) Did that New York magazine climate story freak you out? Good. - Vox
I just try to communicate like I would like to be communicated to, frankly and clearly, as though I’m talking to a friend in a bar. There are plenty of ways to communicate accurately — through hortatory rhetoric, poetry, painting, dance, “disaster porn,” whatever. Scientific data are not the only medium of communication or its only currency. Narrative and emotion matter too. Most people simply have no idea how scary climate change is. However that terrible urgency is communicated, the world is better for it.
(1b) Doomsday narratives about climate change don't work. But here's what does | Victoria Herrmann | Opinion | The Guardian
Instead of presenting narratives of helpless victims and an inevitable future of defeat, we should instead report on the climate change heroes who are doing everything they can to avoid that doomsday scenario. When people see strength in communities, we can overcome limiting labels like climate change victim and begin to dismantle our prejudices against people in need of resources.
(1c) When Will Climate Change Make the Earth Too Hot For Humans?
...there’s a well-known “positivity ratio” for optimal engagement of a 3:1 ratio of opportunities to threats. He says the New York Magazine piece was around nine threats to every one proposed solution. In other words, a tripling of the ratio in the wrong direction. ... about 80 per cent of media coverage on the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report used “catastrophe framing,” with less than 10 per cent using “opportunity framing.”
(1d) Fear Factor: A Defense of 'New York's Climate Doom Cover Story
To adequately respond to the climate crisis will require us to embrace the full range of human emotions, fear among them. Some days we will feel sadness, like when we hear about the bleaching of the world’s coral. Some days we will feel anger, like when we learn of another species cast into the void of extinction. Some days will bring optimism, a steely resolve fueled by seeing hundreds of thousands marching for science or rallying for clean energy. When all else fails, gallows humor might have to do. But if you’re not fearful about climate change, either you’re not paying attention or you’re fooling yourself.
(1e) Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on “The Uninhabitable Earth” gets wrong - Climate Feedback
New York Magazine published an article by David Wallace-Wells detailing the potential impacts of climate change if no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the article explores “worst case” scenarios of change in the climate system and the resulting impacts on human populations....The reviewers found that some statements in this complex article do misrepresent research on the topic, and some others lack the necessary context to be clearly understood by the reader. Many other explanations in the article are correct, but readers are likely left with an overall conclusion that is exaggerated compared to our best scientific understanding.
(2) CLIMATE REFUGEES
Short videos of climate refugees
(3) Here’s how much climate change is going to cost your county
Atlantic coastal communities are projected to take a toll from rising seas and strengthening hurricanes, but also much of the South and Midwest will be hurt by a decline in farming caused by rising temperatures, along with increasing energy demands to keep up with the heat. Meanwhile, states in the north and northwest could see their fortunes mildly boosted by warming, with farming yields rising thanks to shorter winters and less need to ward off harsh cold in homes.
(4) Trump Administration is Reopening Case of Highly Controversial Mine in Alaska -
A broad coalition of fishermen, indigenous Alaskan groups, environmentalists, and local business people have opposed the Pebble Mine, which is being proposed by a subsidiary of the Canadian firm Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
(5a) Turning dirt into climate goals via carbon farming
Carbon farming is the umbrella term used for a growing suite of agricultural and land management practices that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it in soils and plants. It can involve practices such as no-till and rotational grazing. Carbon farming can deliver a double benefit: improved agricultural production and sustainability; while simultaneously making the climate system safer for future generations.  
(5b) 6 States Tapping Into the Benefits of Carbon Farming
The Carbon Farming Solution, describes it as "a suite of crops and agricultural practices that sequester carbon in the soil and in perennial vegetation like trees." If carbon farming were widely implemented, it could return billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere—where there's currently too much, to the soil where there's too little. Carbon in the soil, i.e. soil carbon, becomes a resource that increases food, water and climate security.
(5c) Should Regenerative Agriculture Have Certification
Some groups want to compete with the organic label and raise the standards for eco-conscious consumers. But others worry that another label could end up sowing market confusion.
(6) Tillerson is as bad a Secretary of State as you’d expect the CEO of Exxon Mobil to be
Tillerson’s embrace of a 30-percent budget cut for State coupled with his mismanagement has left departmental morale and influence at an all-time low, even while our foreign policy appears to be run more by the president’s erratic twitter account than a well-run State Department. .... Exxon announced that the following year, “we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” Exxon never stopped funding such groups. In 2015 alone, Tillerson’s company gave more than $860,000 to such science-denying groups as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), American Enterprise Institute, and Manhattan Institute. It also gave $5 million to the anti-science U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 2014 to 2018.
(7) Controversy Explodes Over Renewable Energy
The only realistic energy future that David Fridley and I were able to envision is one in which people in currently industrialized countries use far less energy per capita, use it much more efficiently, and use it when it’s available rather than demanding 24/7/365 energy services. That would mean not doing a lot of things we are currently doing (e.g., traveling in commercial aircraft), doing them on a much smaller scale (e.g., getting used to living in smaller spaces and buying fewer consumer products—and ones built to be endlessly repaired), or doing them very differently (e.g., constructing buildings and roads with local natural materials). If powerdown—that is, focusing at least as much on the demand side of the energy equation as on the supply side—were combined with a deliberate and humanely guided policy of population decline, there would be abundant beneficial side effects. The climate change crisis would be far easier to tackle, as would ongoing loss of biodiversity and the depletion of resources such as fresh water, topsoil, and minerals.