California Joins The Effort To Persecute, Suppress Scientific Dissent On Climate Change

TN Note: The religious nature of climate-change dogma cannot be dismissed: If you don’t believe their way, you deserve to be punished and probably will be. It is reminiscent of Al Gore’s statement in March 2015 that “climate change deniers must be punished.” America was founded on the principle of free speech and the right to dissent, but the climate-change believers quickly dismiss that.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”

Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing—which amounts censoring or restricting speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they want not just to stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties. As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.

Perhaps we should investigate what Harris “knows” about global warming or climate change, which Harris (and Schneiderman) treats as if it is a proven, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris has pointed out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.”

According to Loris, leaked emails and documents from various universities and researchers have “revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.” Furthermore, the “gaffes” that have been exposed in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports “have only increased skepticism” about the credibility of this scientific theory.

These investigations are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those who he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Besides sending them a copy of the Constitution so they can review the First Amendment, residents of both New York and California might also want to include a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.

Read the full story here…

Study Says Early Man’s Actions Caused Global Warming

TN Note: Stretching credulity beyond recognition, climate scientists are now arguing over the role of “early man” – and in particular, farmers – in causing modern global warming. These people have completely gone off the rails.

The world’s first farmers and their slash-and-burn agriculture may have set off global warming.

A new analysis of ice-core climate data, archaeological evidence and ancient pollen samples is being used to suggest farming some 7,000 years ago helped put the brakes on a natural cooling process of the global climate, possibly contributing the warmer climate seen today.

But the study is expected to raise a few eyebrows, given there were far fewer people on Earth back then and industrialization — and the coal-fired power plants that come with it — was still a long ways off.

A study was the work of an international team led by William Ruddiman, a University of Virginia climate scientist, who first grabbed attention a dozen years ago with a controversial theory that humans altered the climate by burning massive areas of forests to clear the way for crops and livestock grazing. Dubbed the “early anthropogenic hypothesis,” Ruddiman and his colleagues found that that carbon dioxide levels rose beginning 7,000 years ago, and methane began rising 5,000 years ago.

It sparked heated debate back then and continues to be debated among some climate scientists.

In the latest paper, Ruddiman and his 11 co-authors from institutions in the United States and Europe conclude that that accumulating evidence in the past few years, particularly from ice-core records dating back 800,000 years ago, show that an expected cooling period was halted after the advent of large-scale agriculture. Otherwise, they say, the Earth would have entered the early stages of a natural ice age, or glaciation period.

“Early farming helped keep the planet warm,” Ruddiman said in a statement, regarding the study that appeared in a recent edition of the journal Reviews of Geophysics, published by the American Geophysical Union.

Read full story here…

Christiana Figueres Postmortem On Paris Climate Summit: Flame Of Hope

TN Note: The non-traditional nature of the Paris summit on Climate Change is key to the future of global transformation. As the article explains,

“The agreement abandoned the idea of a traditional international treaty with clear rules and fixed obligations, in recognition that the US would never sign on to an agreement that needed approval from a Republican-controlled Senate.”

Upcoming summits can be expected to use the same modus operandi, and will thus bypass the U.S. Senate altogether. 

The Paris climate agreement kindled “a huge flame of hope”, establishing a new model of 21st-century diplomacy, the woman behind the deal has declared.

In her first public reflections on the climate accord signed in December, Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change official, said that after two decades of meandering negotiations, countries had at last discovered their “higher purpose” and risen to the challenge of dealing with global warming.

The Paris agreement, in which 195 countries committed to limiting the temperature increase to well below 2C, set a new standard for dealing with complex global problems, she said.

“Climate change is a very, very good example of how we are moving to a completely new social contract from the last century,” Figueres told the Guardianat a conference hosted by the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) in Abu Dhabi. “The social contract that is going to underpin the 21st century has at least five very, very different ways of dealing with challenges and very different ways of delivering solutions.

“To have Paris is a huge flame of hope. We can really take some confidence from there that if we decide we want to do something, then we can,” said Figueres, who will step down this summer after guiding the negotiations for six years. “We are not bound by situations we are confronted with. We can rise above them. It’s fantastic.”

A number of key players in the Paris climate deal attended the annual Irena conference at the weekend.

More than 80 countries committed in their climate plans in Paris to expand their use of solar and wind power as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These countries are now looking for financing and technological assistance to make the switch to cleaner energy sources.

Figueres said countries had overcome multiple faultlines to arrive at a deal in Paris – the divide between rich and poor countries, between the public and private sector, between different regions.

Unlike other negotiations, the Paris climate talks involved governments, business leaders and campaign groups. A number of foreign policy experts have held up Paris as a new model for diplomacy, and commentators have praised the French hosts for skilfully guiding the talks to a successful resolution. “It is the way that we are going to operate increasingly in the 21st century,” Figueres said.

Read the full story here…

Why Solving Climate Change Will Be Like Mobilizing For War

TN Note: The author states: “In the war against climate change, powerful technocrats will be far more consequential than energy-sector technologists… What Gates and others are advocating for is not so much a technological revolution as a technocratic one.”

As the 19th century entered its final decade, the War of Currents was nearing its peak. On one side of this war was Thomas Edison, who had invested heavily in direct-current (DC) technology. Tesla and Westinghouse backed alternating-current (AC), which they believed (correctly) to be more efficient.

In the spring of 1891, a seemingly small event in Telluride, Colorado, decisively turned the tide in favor of AC. The Ames hydroelectric-power plant, financed by mining entrepreneur L. L. Nunn, and built around equipment supplied by Westinghouse, began transmitting AC power to Nunn’s gold-mining operations 2.6 miles away.

It was the first successful demonstration of AC’s efficiency advantages over long distances, and it led to the unveiling of AC at the 1893 Chicago World Fair, followed by Westinghouse winning the contract to build an AC-based power plant at Niagara falls. The rest is history. Edison lost the plot, and AC came to dominate the story of electricity.

The victory of AC over DC, in the midst of a noisy debate fueled as much by misinformation and propaganda as by science, is the sort of outcome under uncertainty that markets excel at delivering.

In 2015, the climate-change debate is where the War of Currents was in 1893. The December climate convention in Paris, COP 21, is shaping up to be the most significant since Kyoto in 1997. It might well do for clean-energy technologies what the Chicago World Fair did for electricity. It might be an inflection point.

Except this time around, the drama centers on government and UN technocrats rather than technologists and private investors. Rather than trusting market serendipity, climate experts are hoping that strong regulatory forcing combined with aggressive government investment in energy R&D will do the trick. In the November issue of The Atlantic, Bill Gates makes a persuasive case for just this approach.

Is Gates right that this dual-pronged attack is necessary? Probably. Can it work? There’s a slim chance.

t’s clear that the market is unlikely to solve the problem of climate change on its own. If scientists are right, and there is no reason to think they aren’t, averting climate change will require such large-scale, rapid action, that no single energy technology, new or emerging, could be the solution. Neither could any single non-energy technology, such as video-conferencing as a substitute for travel, solve the problem on its own.

There is always a possibility that a single cheap and effective solution will emerge, rendering expensive interventions moot, but few climate experts are willing to trust the future to that unlikely prospect.

The challenge therefore, is one of rapid, concerted deployment of a portfolio of emerging and mature energy and non-energy technologies. This means accepting a certain level of attendant risks. The Volkwagen emissions scandal illustrates these risks well: Aggressive forcing, through EU policy instruments, of the adoption of diesel engines (which are better suited to reducing emissions) created incentives that led to sophisticated gaming.

Read the full story here…

Climate Change Nightmare: Humans Could Evolve Webbed Feet, Cat Eyes And Gills

TN Note: When scientists practice unhinged speculation about the future, how can this possibly be compared to real science? Indeed, people need to distinguish between science fiction and science and realize that there is a total disconnect between the two. Dr. Skinner is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs, but he should be taken to the woodshed by serious academics and schooled in the limits of good science.

Humans may evolve bizarre features such as webbed feet and eyes like cats in response to changing environments, a scientist claims today.

Experts calculated how our physical appearance could change under a number of scenarios, including a ‘water world’ if melting ice caps cause rising sea levels.

They also considered what would happen in a second ice age which could be triggered by an asteroid strike, and if humans colonised other planets.

Dr. Matthew Skinner, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Kent, examined the three scenarios and worked with artist Quentin Devine to help visualise how humans could look in the future.

Dr. Skinner said some changes – such as webbed feet and hands becoming widespread – could take place very quickly as some humans already have a genetic mutation that produces webbing.

Other changes to allow humans to live in extreme conditions might only take place over hundreds of generations of natural selection, or require genetic engineering.

He said: ‘We could genetically engineer ourselves if important enough to survive. Some of these things we might try to develop as a necessity rather than occurring over time naturally. Others could occur over tens of thousands of years.’

To adapt to a ‘water world’, Dr Skinner expects humans would develop webbed hands and eyes like those of cats to help us see in the poor lighting conditions underwater.

We would also retain a layer of baby fat into adulthood as an insulator for spending long periods submerged.

Regular foraging in shallow waters could lead us to develop artificial ‘gills’ to help us breathe, extracting oxygen from the water and delivering it to the bloodstream.

This would also lead to our lung capacity becoming greatly reduced, and our rib cages shrinking.

An additional layer in the retina – like cat’s eyes – could develop to help us see in poor light under water. We might also evolve an extra translucent eyelid to protect the eyes from water.

In the scenario of an ice age, Dr Skinner predicts that our skin would become very pale to help us produce more vitamin D from less sunlight, we would have more body hair, and we would develop more muscular physiques.

Our noses and face size would increase to help warm inhaled cold air in the nasopharynx, the area behind the nose.

We would become stronger, as reduced resources and technologies would mean physical power becomes more important.

This would be particularly true for men, who would need to attract a mate through their physique rather than intellect, much like gorillas in the natural world.

Read full story here…

This Woman Left Paris Climate Summit With Memorial Tatoo

TN Note: This climate activist explains, “It has been said that for the climate movement, COP21 marks the “end of the beginning.” With this rite of passage marked forever on my body, and my continued dedication to climate justice, I now know that for my 24 years on Earth, it’s the end of the beginning as well.”

Trilateral Commission member Mary Robinson created the Mary Robinson Foundation Climate Justice, where her website states,

“Climate justice links human rights and development to achieve a human-centered approach, safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable people and sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change and its impacts equitably and fairly. Climate justice is informed by science, responds to science and acknowledges the need for equitable stewardship of the world’s resources.”

What if the science is faulty? What if the activists are misinformed? Do you still divvy everything up according to your perception of “equitable stewardship”?

I never imagined I would get a tattoo during the U.N. Climate Summit in Paris. Yet here it is, newly healed and permanently inked on the inside of my right wrist.

The tattoo is three numbers and a symbol: “355<” in 25-point font, styled as if from a typewriter. It’s my commitment to the people of the climate movement, to listening to and sharing their stories of climate justice.

When I was born in October 1991, the concentration of carbon dioxide — the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity — in our atmosphere was 355 parts per million. In the early 20th century, we topped 300 ppm for the first time in 800,000 years, beginning the destabilization of our climate and society through rising planetary temperatures.

I never knew these exact numbers before, but now that they’re printed on my wrist, I will never forget.

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — the first international climate treaty — came into force in March 1994 in order to stabilize the concentration of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It brought together all nations to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” that would “adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.”

In 2008, nine of the world’s leading climate scientists determined 350 ppm to be that safe upper limit for our climate. Today, nearly a month after a new international climate treaty was drafted at COP21, we’re hovering around 402 ppm.

For me, climate change is everything these numbers are not. While there is direct causality between parts per million, climate disruption and human suffering, it’s not the numbers that capture the heart. The < symbol on my wrist is a reminder: Data informs, but stories awaken.

I learned this while traveling to Paris over the course of five months, cycling and story-gathering in 11 countries with artist Garrett Blad. Our journey was fueled by tales of courageous mobilization, from First Nations peoples standing in front of fracking trucks in New Brunswick to thousands of people flooding a coal mine with their bodies in Germany.

Read full story here…

Bill Clinton

Global Cities Initiative C40 Celebrates 10 Years of City Climate Action

TN Note: C40 is a global NGO that promotes green cities. US member cities include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC. The Board of Directors includes Michael Bloomberg and Bruce Lindsey, the CEO/Chairman of the Clinton Foundation. Major C40 funding is received from the Clinton Foundation, the World Bank, Ford Foundation, ICLEI and Siemens. 

2015 was an important year for C40, and for our mayors. We saw cities firmly establish their place in the global dialogue on climate change, from gathering at the Vatican to committing in large numbers to the Compact of Mayors, culminating in a fantastic series of events at COP21 in Paris. On top of these milestones, 2015 also marked C40’s 10th anniversary. Throughout the year C40’s 10 Years of Results series featured contributions from our mayors, partners, international political figures and global thought leaders. Below we take a look back through a very productive and exciting year.

C40 Executive Director Mark Watts kicked off our 10th anniversary year, reflecting on the growth of C40 and Celebrating 10 Years of Results. We also took a look back on 10 Defining Moments in C40 History.

As a data-driven organization, C40 loves to talk numbers. This month we shared the 10 most important metrics of 2015.

This month C40 Chair and Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes told us why 2015 will be a critical year for C40 as well as his city, and discussed the creation of the Compact of Mayors and how committed cities are leading the way in filling the emissions reductions gap.

In a video address, special guest 42nd President of the United States William J. Clinton looked back fondly on his participation in C40 over the years and congratulated the organization on becoming the preeminent network of cities working to address climate change.

Following on the success of our first-ever Latin American Mayors Forum, we also looked at 10 ways that Latin America is driving climate action.

This month we featured a video message from World Resources Institute President & CEO Andrew Steer, who wished C40 a ‘Happy Birthday’ and reflected upon the impact C40 has had over the last ten years.

In 2015, C40 continued to expand its reach through our social media channels, where we post the most important news about cities and climate change. To honour another successful year on Twitter (a big ‘thank you’ to our more than 29,000 followers!), we shared 10 of our favourite Twitter handles to follow. Don’t forget to join the conversation and follow @c40cities and the hashtag #ycities for updates.

We featured a guest post from UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, who applauded C40 for ten years of excellent work, discussed some of the co-benefits of climate action already experienced across the world, and called for the scaling up of climate action.

To commemorate C40’s 10th Anniversary, we launched a new booklet celebrating 10 years of climate action and showcasing our vision for a bright, urban future. We also heard from Deputy Mayor of London for Environment & Energy, Matthew Pencharz, who highlighted some of C40’s best accomplishments in London.

Read full story here…

Koko The Gorilla Takes Queue From Al Gore: ‘Man Stupid. Protect Earth.’

TN Note: Should you laugh or cry? Yes, the whole thing was completely scripted in the first place, and Koko didn’t originate a single thought about global warming, pollution or man’s care of the earth. However, millions will believe it is true and that even the apes are chastising mankind for his foolish ways. Perhaps Koko will star in Al Gore’s next movie on global warming

Given by a gorilla in sign language, it is among the more unusual messages for the New Year.

Koko was filmed delivering a 38-word bulletin about how ‘stupid’ mankind is harming the Earth.

In the 60-second video, the 44-year-old great ape, which has been learning sign language since she was one, said: ‘I am gorilla, I am flowers, animals. I am Nature. Koko love man. Earth Koko love.

‘But man stupid… stupid! Koko sorry, Koko cry. Time hurry. Fix Earth! Help Earth! Hurry! Protect Earth. Nature watches you. Thank you.’

The message was scripted by NOE Conservation, based in France, whose main focus is preserving biodiversity, and The Gorilla Foundation in Woodside, California, where Koko has lived since 1979, immersed in human company.

She is said to be able to understand 1,000 words of US sign language and 2,000 words of spoken English, but there has been controversy about whether her own use of signs is simple, reward-related mimicry or something more meaningful.

The video was made to help get NOE Conservation’s message across for the recent UN Climate Conference in Paris.

A spokesman for The Gorilla Foundation: ‘Because of her unique ability to communicate with humans in sign language, Koko is a natural ambassador for endangered species.

‘We presented her with a script drafted by NOE and allowed her to improvise during a series of brief daily video discussion sessions. The result was edited from a number of separate takes, for brevity and continuity.’ The spokesman said Koko had to learn ‘a few new signs’ for the video including ‘protect’ and ‘nature’.

Read Original Story Here…

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Trojan Horse For Obama’s Climate Change Agenda

TN Note: This is an important article by an established authority on the subject. The content of the TPP dovetails perfectly with the UN Agenda 2030 and COP21 outcomes. And, why not? The Trilateral Commission architects of the TPP are the same people who created Sustainable Development and climate change in the first place.

What does a 5,544-page treaty touted by its supporters as promoting free trade among 12 Pacific Rim nations have to do with efforts by global elites to impose restrictions on the use of abundant and affordable energy? The answer is far more than the backers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) want you to know.

After six years of behind-closed-doors negotiations, the text of the TPP was finally released to the American public by the Obama administration on Nov. 5. A careful reading of the treaty shows why the White House had gone to such extraordinary lengths to keep the public in the dark about the TPP. The deal is a Pandora’s Box of troubles that, among other things, subjects the U.S. to the whims of an unaccountable trans-national TPP Commission (see below), undercuts patent protection for American pharmaceuticals, slaps quotas on exports of U.S. agricultural products, and greases the skids for imposition of the recently adopted Paris global climate change pact.

The PTT is an outgrowth of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) adopted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico in 1994. In addition to the U.S., other TPP partners are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Aside from the expansion of the number of nations involved, the biggest difference between NAFTA and the TPP is the scope of the agenda hiding behind the latter’s “free-trade” pretensions. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the agreement’s section on the environment.

The TPP and COP 21

Release of the TPP just over three weeks before the opening of the UN-sponsored Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris was, as the old Bolsheviks were want to say, “no coincidence.” Like the launch of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in late September, the TPP is intimately related to the climate change talks in Paris. Those talks culminated in the adoption of an agreement — enthusiastically backed by the Obama White House — that will see the U.S. commit to steep reductions of its carbon emissions, mostly CO2, below 2005 levels over the next few years. China, on the other hand, refused to fast-track its emissions, even though it is a larger emitter than the U.S.

As pointed out by Howard Richman, Raymond Richman, and Jesse Richman in the American Thinker (Nov. 20), the Paris treaty “will set up its own governing body, its own court system, and its own tax collecting system. The treaty will also include annual reparations to be paid by the developed countries to the underdeveloped countries of the world. The amount of the reparations will be negotiated in Paris.”

This is where the TPP enters the picture as an auxiliary enforcement mechanism for the Paris treaty. Chapter 20 of the TPP requires compliance with all previous multilateral environmental agreements. That mandate can, and likely will, be extended to include the Paris climate change treaty. The TPP’s all-powerful Commission can incorporate the Paris deal into the trade pact once the global climate agreement has been adopted.

The TPP’s Commission Trumps Congress

And what exactly is the TPP’s Commission? It is modeled after the European Commission, an unaccountable and unelected body that has spewed a torrent of regulations and mandates on the EU’s struggling economies. Once the TPP goes into force, its Commission will have the power to modify or amend the trade agreement “or take such other action that the Parties may agree…” Should any disputes arise over a signatory’s compliance with the TPP, they will be handled by “Arbitration Tribunals,” which will have the power to hand down multi-billion dollar judgements against any member government that violates its decisions. In this way, the TPP’s Commission and its Arbitration Tribunals can punish the U.S or any other signatory for violating the terms of the trade pact, including failure to comply with the Paris climate agreement.

Indeed, because it can amend the TPP, albeit through a unanimous vote of its commissioners (hand-picked by member governments), the Commission can do what the U.S. Congress cannot. When the Republican-controlled Congress last summer, after a bitter political fight, granted Obama fast-track authority to seek approval of the TPP, it surrendered much of its leverage to the White House. Fast-track authority means that the TPP cannot be amended or filibustered in the Senate, greatly enhancing its chances of approval in the Upper Chamber. It’s a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, in which a simple majority in both Houses suffices to approve the trade pact.

Prospects for Approval

Now that the text of the TPP has been released, many in Congress who were so eager to grant the president fast-track authority are having buyers’ remorse. Lawmakers from the Farm Belt are disappointed that U.S. agricultural products will be subject to quotas; pharmaceuticals are worried about patent protection; people who warned about the loss of U.S. sovereignty see their worst fears confirmed. The list goes on. Because 2016 is an election year, the TPP may be too hot to handle until after Americans have gone to the polls next November. The TPP’s opponents can be thankful that Obama’s negotiators agreed to such a patently bad deal.

Sold as a job-creating trade pact, the TPP is really another in a long line of global governance schemes written by trans-national elites for trans-national elites. That’s why Obama supports it.

Read full article here…

Bonner CohenBonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations.

He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S.

Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh.

Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984).

Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.

Pizza Ovens Targeted as Italy Combats Air Pollution

TN Note: Climate change fascists are at work in Italy, of all places, to ban wood-fired pizza ovens. There are a lot of wood-fired pizza ovens in the U.S. as well!

Rome and Milan have imposed bans on cars starting Monday, with one small town near Naples prohibiting wood-fired pizza ovens, as Italian authorities seek to combat air-pollution that has breached alert levels in an exceptionally warm and dry winter.

In the business capital of Milan, where daisies have flowered in a public park, cars will be forbidden for six hours a day from Monday to Wednesday. On Christmas Day, air-pollution alert levels were breached for the 31st day in a row in the city, where it has not rained for the past 50 days.

In Milan, Rome and Turin, authorities sought to encourage travelers to use public transportation by making a single ticket valid for a whole day. In Milan, authorities may ban firework celebrations on New Year’s Eve, Corriere della Sera reported.

 Matteo Salvini, leader of the anti-euro and anti-immigrant Northern League party, dismissed Milan’s ban on cars, saying on his Facebook page it “doesn’t solve the problems of the air (which is disgusting), but bothers only those who would want to work.”

In Rome, where mimosas flowered unseasonally, cars with odd-numbered license plates will be banned for nine hours on Monday, while cars with even-numbered plates will be banned for the same period on Tuesday. Environmentalists said the measure was insufficient as it still allows 1.3 million cars to take to the roads.

Read full story here…