FIRST LOOK: 

The US S.E.C. proposed climate rules allow some companies to leave 90% of their emissions hidden. A new report from Climate Advisers details the harms to forests and investors, and provides a solution.

Wind Farms Grow Local Economies, Improve Housing Value: A new study published in Energy Policy finds that installing wind power in a community leads "to economically meaningful increases in county GDP per-capita, income per-capita, median household income, and median home values." Debunking a longstanding opposition talking point warning homeowners that wind farms depress value, the study analyzed nearly 3,000 counties and their experiences installing 465 wind turbines between 1995 and 2018. They found that in the counties with wind energy the average per-capita income increase was 5%, home values were boosted 2.6%, and the per-capita GDP increase was 6.5% greater than the growth in counties that didn't install new turbines. Rural areas fared particularly well, getting three times the GDP boost that urban areas did for adding wind power. The study used multiple techniques to show a causal relationship, ruling out the possibility that the economic growth is unrelated. "Is it possible that some other driver that occurred simultaneously was the cause of increases in income? Yes," energy expert Ben Hoen, who was not involved with the study, told Carbon Brief, "but that would be surprising. I am not sure what else could explain this relationship.” (Carbon Brief)

Salt Lake City Facing Risk Of Arsenic Poisoning As Salt Lake Dries Out: Utah's Great Salt Lake has already shrunk by two-thirds as increasing demands for water from a growing population meets the decreasing supply of water due to climate change. As a result, the lake's brine shrimp face a risk of die-off this summer, which in turn threatens millions of birds who depend on them to power their migration. "Most alarming," New York Times' Chris Flavelle reports, "the air surrounding Salt Lake City would occasionally turn poisonous. The lake bed contains high levels of arsenic and as more of it becomes exposed, wind storms carry that arsenic into the lungs of nearby residents, who make up three-quarters of Utah’s population." Though a dramatic warning, "it’s not just fear-mongering" according to local Republican lawmaker Timothy D. Hawkes, "it can actually happen," and indeed has to California's Owens Lake, which is now responsible for some of the worst air pollution in the country. Republican Joel Ferry, a Utah state lawmaker and rancher who lives on the north side of the lake, called it "a potential environmental nuclear bomb that’s going to go off if we don’t take some pretty dramatic action." (New York Times $)

DOE Secretary Granholm On More Oil, More Solar, and More Justice: US Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday that as a result of the Biden Administration's ask of the industry, domestic oil and gas "will have increased production by about a million barrels per day," though "we probably have to increase more than that in order to get prices down to a reasonable level." Granholm also told reporters at an event at a community solar farm in Maryland that the Biden administration’s invocation of the Defense Production Act to boost solar is "totally underscoring this effort to make it in America, to stamp it ‘Made in America,’ to use it in America, and then perhaps, in some instances to export it around the world for others’ use as well.” Congressional Democrats, however, appear somewhat split, with some who represent local solar manufacturers, like Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur or Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, opposed the measure as overly beneficial to China, while others were much more supportive. Granholm said: “We are sending a message to American manufacturers and installers, which is the time is now to invest in expansion, because President Biden will have your back." Also on the Hill, Granholm praised the Senate vote to confirm Shalanda Baker to the Energy Department's Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, saying: "There is no more effective champion for building an equitable, just, clean energy economy than Shalanda." (Oil and Gas production: MSNBC interview; DPA: PoliticoPRO $; Shalanda Baker: PoliticoPRO $)

a(ENVIRONMENTAL) RACISM: ‘Furious and disappointed’: African activists excluded from Stockholm+50 summit (Climate Home), Quick and dirty cash: The pandemic has left many countries deeper in debt. One way out is to sell more fossil fuels. (New York Times $)

COP27: Island states say fund for climate disaster victims must be created by COP27 (Climate Home)

ENERGY GEOPOLITICS: Ukraine war prompts fossil fuel 'gold rush' - report (BBC), Climate lawyers challenge EU support for gas pipelines (Climate Home), EU lawmakers split ahead of votes on more ambitious climate policies (Reuters), MEPs prepare for key climate vote against backdrop of war and inflation (Politico.eu), Green deal sparks clash by EU lawmakers as war hits energy (Bloomberg), Environmental groups challenge EU support for gas projects (AP), Climate lawyers challenge EU support for gas pipelines (Climate Home)

FOSSIL VOLATILITY: High fuel prices could erode public support for energy transition, Chevron CEO says (Reuters)

EXECUTIVE BRANCH: Hurricane chief to take over as weather service director (AP), USDA Undersecretary in Maine touts organic farming to mitigate climate change (WMTW-ABC)

SENATE: Senate Democrats to propose bill imposing carbon import tax, domestic fee (PoliticoPRO $)

WHITE HOUSE: Activists hail Biden’s use of security powers to boost clean energy (Guardian), US solar companies weigh challenge to Biden pause on tariffs (AP), Good news on tariffs won’t solve challenges for solar stocks (WSJ $), Solar-panel makers scorn ‘pittance’ of id in Biden relief plan (Bloomberg $)

CITIES AND STATES: Conditions prime for energy boom in Colorado, so what’s the holdup? (Denver Post), Clean energy homes cut energy bills and pollution. So why is it so hard to buy one in Nevada? (Nevada Independent), 

CALIFORNIA: Automakers back U.S. restoring California emissions authority (Reuters)

IMPACTS: Colorado will look like a different state by 2080 (Gizmodo), Flood alerts issued as more torrential rain forecast to hit China (Guardian)

HEAT: Extreme heat to bake Texas, Southwest with highs topping 110 degrees (Washington Post $), How global warming is changing Richmond’s summers (WBBT-NBC), ‘June gloom’ is threatened by climate change. Enjoy it while it lasts (LA Times $), Heat waves could soon have names (Axios), America is staring down a summer of disasters (Axios)

RENEWABLES: Windfarms raise incomes and house prices in rural US, study finds (Carbon Brief), Shell, the Oil Giant, will sell renewable energy to Texans (New York Times $)

EFFICIENCY: Government failure to boost energy efficiency ‘inexplicable’, says IEA (Guardian)

GAS EXPORTS: The US is now sending the bulk of Its export gas to Europe (Bloomberg $), EIA: U.S. LNG exports reach new highs as shipments to Europe soar (PoliticoPRO $)

METHANE: Louisiana probes source of methane cloud spotted near pipelines (WorldOil), Can we widely adopt a methane tax to cut the greenhouse gas? (Earth.org)

OIL & GAS: Sunak’s tax breaks could lead to more than £8bn of North Sea energy projects (Guardian), Earthquake-causing gas field a 'last resort', Dutch minister says (Reuters)

COAL: Greenhouse emissions from Australia’s coal mines could be twice as high as official figures say (Guardian)

HYDROGEN:  Plug Power Bets on Green-Hydrogen Production (WSJ $), Biden fudges clean H2 definition as $8bn in funding for US hydrogen hubs inches closer (RechargeNews)

(ALLEGED) UTILITY CORRUPTION: New York Dems kill renewable energy bill (Gizmodo)

BITCOIN: Fight looms over New York’s bid to slow crypto-mining boom (New York Times $)

ACTIVISM: From the Middle East to East Baltimore, a Johns Hopkins professor works to make the city more climate-resilient (Inside Climate News), Climate change puts a different spin on fly fishing for once skeptical anglers (USA Today), How do you make a lavish spectacle sustainable? Theatre’s radical green agenda (Guardian)

AGRICULTURE: New Zealand farmers propose paying for emissions to tackle climate change (Guardian), Food strategy for England likely to be watered down (Guardian), Tesco rebuked over greenwashing in adverts for plant-based food (FT $)

BUSINESS: Why climate change is going to make it even harder to find affordable housing (NBC Rebound) 

CARBON PRICING: Critics take aim at ‘wild west’ carbon offset market (FT $)

CARBON REMOVAL: Slag heaps from steelmaking could absorb CO2 and fight climate change (New Scientist), Solution or Band-Aid? Carbon capture projects are moving ahead (Yale e360)

CARS: European Parliament heads for car engine ban nail-biter (Politico.eu)

FINANCE: Malpass defends World Bank's record on climate change, says U.S. supportive (Reuters)

WILDLIFE: Humpback whales face a major setback from climate change (National Geographic)

INTERNATIONAL: Brazilian police open criminal probe amid search for British journalist (Reuters), Europe at risk of winter energy rationing, energy watchdog warns (FT $), Japan to ask households, companies to save energy this summer (Reuters), Next UN assembly president warns world in dangerous crisis (AP), India loosens rules to promote switch to clean energy (Bloomberg $), 'Flawed and Unlawful': Campaigners advance legal challenge to 'inadequate' Net Zero Strategy (BusinessGreen)

• Biden throws US solar industry a lifeline with tariff relief, but can incentives bring manufacturing back? (The Conversation, Emily Beagle op-ed)
• A road map for making inroads into climate change in New York (Crain’s New York, Anita Raman op-ed)
• Deadly heatwaves show why India needs to get serious on climate adaptation (Climate Home, Skand Agarwal op-ed)
• Could the U.S. soon be on track to cut carbon emissions in half? (Washington Post, Leah Stokes analysis $)
• Workers have a plan to kickstart NYC’s stalled climate response (Politics NY, Gary LaBarbera and Vincent Alvarez op-ed)
• How bad is the global food crisis going to get? (New York Times, David Wallace-Wells column $)
• Wildfire smoke reminds us of climate change’s intangible damage on our mental health (Finger Lake Times/SacBee, Robin Eply op-ed)
• Calls to boost natural gas can’t ignore fuel combustion’s deadly impacts (The Hill, Shelley Robbins op-ed)
• Why we can never hear enough about the case for net zero (Independent, James Moore column $)
• Children in the hands of god and climate change (New York Times, Ross Douthat column $)
• Ice world: Antarctica’s riskiest glacier is under assault from below and losing its grip (The Conversation, Ted Scambos op-ed)
• Installing rooftop solar can be a breeze. Just look at Australia. (New York Times, Saul Griffith op-ed $)
• If Australia taxed windfall gas profits we could invest billions in renewables and get off fossil fuels for good (Guardian, Richard Denniss column)
• We will make the right moves to get families through the cost of living crisis (Telegraph, Rishi Sunak op-ed)
• Climate crisis will bring on Russia’s downfall (The Times, Roger Boyes op-ed $)
• Alien species are moving across oceans faster: climate change will accelerate this (The Conversation, Nicole Martin op-ed)
• How the US can stop relying on other countries for energy and fight climate change (CNN, Ralph Izzo op-ed)
• The World Health Organization’s climate neurosis (Wall Street Journal Editorial $)
• Fuel prices aren’t going down soon (Wall Street Journal, William Galston column $)

Why Is Reddit Promoting Climate Denial? Because Algorithms Are Stupid. 

It's one thing for a social media company like reddit to play host to various unseemly communities, as it has over the years (to put it VERY lightly- we're not even going to link out to examples, as they are very easy to find but very hard to unsee.) But it's an entirely different one for the company's algorithm to choose to promote toxic subreddits, which appears to be the case for the site's climate "skeptic" community. 

The biggest communities on reddit, known as subreddits, tend to have relatively strict rules about what kind of content can be posted, so for example reddit.com/r/science only allows links to new peer-reviewed studies, or credible news coverage of them. As a result, the content it shows over 27 million subscribers is consistently free from climate disinformation, and has been for the decade these content quality controls have been in place.

But other subreddits have different rules, like the aptly named /r/politics, which instituted basic standards that, in practice, exclude the spammy, often-debunked, conspiracy-ridden URLs that play host to most climate disinformation, protecting some 8 million subscribers. 

Unfortunately though, because each community is ruled entirely by whoever created it, that means that if a subreddit were built instead to play host to climate disinformation, they could do that, and of course they have. 

The /r/climateskeptics community has grown quite slowly over the past 10+ years, now totalling over 30,000 subscribers- though actual engagement is far lower, with the top posts ever netting only hundreds of upvotes. Interestingly, the peak for the subreddit seems to have been between September 2019 and May of 2020, with 48 of its top 50 posts ever coming from that time period, a pattern that seems consistent for the next 100 or so posts, and not until the net upvotes reach just a couple hundred do more recent posts begin appearing. 

Which definitely suggests that the algorithm was, for a time, heavily promoting the subreddit to users who aren't normally subscribed and upvoting there. 

And the statistics show an unprecedented and dramatic explosion of subscribers, starting in Januaryof 2019, around when the community first hit 10,000 subscribers. It then jumped to 28,000 by March of 2020 and has returned to a much more gradual increase since then. Similarly, there was a spike in comments per day in December of 2019, and a notable increase in posts per day during the September 2019-March 2020 time period. 

Since then, though, things are back to "normal", and in the last year, top posts are still coming from a dedicated handful of users obsessed with Greta and other memetic content, and only netting a couple hundred upvotes and a few dozen comments apiece. (Hardly the viral disinfo load carried by Twitter or Facebook.)  

Recently though, there seems to be a real uptick in content getting once again pushed out past the walls of the community's subscribers, as in multiple posts over the past week, users have commented to complain that the climate disinformation on the page is being pushed into their feeds, despite their not being subscribed. 

The frustration here isn't exactly that tons of reddit users will fall for the disinfo- in fact, more often they're (justly) mocking the handful of users there that do the bulk of the posting, leading to lots of reminders of the community's only rule, of not making fun of the community (for being a bunch of dingdongs in denial and not intellectuals discussing legitimate science, as everyone quickly and easily notices upon engagement.) 

The annoying part is that reddit already has the tools to deal with communities that are toxic and harmful, quarantining them to limit exposure, before banning them all together. 

Given that /r/climateskeptics moderators have all but given up, with two exceptions added in October of 2021 as others got bored and stopped paying attention to the subreddit, it's not exactly a thriving community on its own. But when reddit's algorithm, apparently of its own volition, decided to start sending new potential recruits their direction, it's adding some quite unnecessary fuel to the disinformation fire that's keeping the climate hot. 

And before anyone suggests it's a good thing reddit is constantly exposing people to disinformation because some of those people might inject some reality into the community, unfortunately, as we've discussed before, feeding the trolls doesn't actually turn them back into rational people, it just gives them exactly the engagement they desire. 

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up to receive Hot News every morning!

Send updates or feedback to nkauffman@climatenexus.org
Submit events and other items for consideration for a First Look using this form
Some articles require logins or subscriptions ($)