text:
In Response to Sea Level Rising At Double the Global Rate, Delaware Debates Whether to Accommodate, Avoid, Protect or Retreat
On February 19, 2013, the Delaware Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee ("DSLRAC") held the second of three "public engagement sessions" to solicit public comment on a list of 61 "Options for Preparing Delaware for Sea Level Rise". These public engagement sessions are part of the second phase -- focusing on adapting to sea level rise -- of the DSLRAC's mission. The first phase focused on the preparation of a comprehensive assessment of Delaware's vulnerabilities to sea level rise. The Vulnerability Assessment modeled the effects of three potential sea level increases by the end of the century - 0.5 meters (1.6 feet), 1.0 m (3.3 feet) and 1.5 m (4.9 feet) from mean higher high water - and identified state resources that were vulnerable to sea level rise. The state resources considered were broadly divided into three categories: natural resources; society and economy; and public safety and infrastructure. Within these broad categories, the vulnerability of 79 specific resources to sea level rise was examined, of which 16 were determined to be of high concern statewide: dunes and beaches; coastal impoundments; dams, dikes and levees; evacuation routes; freshwater tidal wetlands; future development areas; habitats of conservation concern; heavy industrial areas; the Port of Wilmington; protected lands; roads and bridges; railways; tidal wetlands; tourism and coastal recreation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges; and wells. The models did not include any effects from storm surge or increased storm intensity, and thus the effects are arguably conservative for each of the three modeled sea level increases. Even so, the Vulnerability Assessment found that all three of Delaware's counties would be directly affected by sea level rise, and 8-11% of the entire state's land area would be permanently flooded (at the public engagement session a tax assessed value of $1.5 billion was estimated for the land which will potentially be flooded). (Full Vulnerability Assessment).Delaware's vulnerability to sea level rise is a function not only of its coastal location and economy, but also because sea level rise is occurring faster in Delaware than elsewhere. Currently the global rate of sea level rise used by the DSLRAC (from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates) is 0.07 inches per year, or 7 inches per century (not considering any increase in that rate in the future). However, in Delaware the sea is currently rising at a rate of 0.13 inches per year (13 inches per century), or almost double the global average. This is occurring, in part, because the part of the earth's crust under Delaware is sinking. (Simplistically, during the last ice age some regions were depressed by the weight of the glaciers, while Delaware was not depressed by such heavy glacial coverage and as a result was raised up relative to other regions. This process is now reversing as other regions rebound upward, while Delaware settles downward.) Thus, in Delaware not only are the seas rising, but the land is literally - although slowly - sinking. (See Vulnerability Assessment at 7-8). With the key vulnerabilities identified, the second phase of the DSLRAC's mission is focused on strategies for adapting to the effects of sea level rise. The DSLRAC has identified four broad strategies: to accommodate sea level rise; to avoid sea level rise; to protect resources form sea level rise; or to retreat from sea level rise. Within these broad strategies - which the DSLRAC does not view as mutually exclusive - are 61 specific options. These range from the very broad - "Increase opportunities for technology transfer and regional coordination for transportation issues affected by sea level rise" (Option 2); "Create new partnerships to increase resources for research and development of adaptation options" (Option 6); "Create a coordinated effort to provide technical assistance to local governments" (Option 56) - to the relatively specific - "Provide sea level rise information to the Delaware Agricultural Land Preservation Program" (Option 7); "Encourage the establishment of a sea level rise group within the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (Option 9); "Add additional tidal observation stations in Delaware" (Option 54).Some of the original proposed options have already proven controversial. For example, Option 33 - "Develop a comprehensive outreach strategy to educate public about sea level rise" - was revised to eliminate a reference to educating public school students about climate change and sea level rise. This revision was reportedly made after objections from the Positive Growth Alliance (which is reported as having described such education as "brainwashing") and the Homebuilder's Association of Delaware (which is reported as questioning the "targeting" of children). Another option would require property owners selling property inside zones predicted to be inundated under a specific sea level rise scenario to disclose that vulnerability to potential buyers (also discussed here). This was met with concern that it might negatively affect sales of or the availability of mortgages for such properties, particularly as some stakeholders questioned the three modeled sea level rise scenarios (0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m) as "speculation" (click here). (It is worth noting that the scenarios modeled by the DSLRAC are generally in line with the recently issued National Climate Assessment (see National Climate Assessment.)As Delaware considers whether to accommodate, avoid, protect or retreat from the consequences of sea level rise, the Options put forward by the DSLRAC serve as an excellent point of discussion. Option 24 - "Develop a statewide retreat plan" - will undoubtedly contribute to that discussion, if not controversy. Given recent retreat oriented developments in other jurisdictions, such as the recent proposal of Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York to use federal disaster funding in the wake of "Superstorm Sandy" to buy out certain willing homeowners (click here) or the determination in the Netherlands - experts in keeping the sea out - to begin letting the sea back in (click here), an honest and complete discussion of how to engage in retreat, before any retreat is necessary, may be entirely prudent. Whether such a discussion is politically palatable is another question entirely.
21ad4ce2-bddb-400d-92b0-6b1ac38a1279|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Insurance | Rising Sea Levels
Tags: Delaware Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee, DSLRAC, Sea Level Rise, Retreat, Adaptation, Vulnerability Assessment
Delaware Advisory Committee Suggests Mandatory Disclosure of Rising Sea Levels in Real Estate Contracts
If the State dropped a notice in the mail advising you that 10% of your property was going to be condemned without compensation, you would immediately hire a lawyer, seek out the press and raise holy **** about the trampling of individual rights, justice and the Constitution. That is the situation in which Delaware contemplates finding itself, but the Constitution is no salve. Rising sea levels of between 0.5 and 1.5 meters are predicted to inundate between 8% and 11% of the state's land area by 2100. Delaware, however, is not one to tear its clothes and beat its chest in lamentation; instead, it is acting. Last July, the Delaware Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee published Preparing for Tomorrow's High Tide: Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the State of Delaware. Besides providing background about sea level rise and the methodology of vulnerability determinations, it looked at 79 resources in the state and assessed the impact of rising sea levels. Sixteen of those resources were assessed as being of high concern statewide. To quote the Executive Summary: "Within those potentially inundated areas lie transportation and port infrastructure, historic fishing villages, resort towns, agricultural fields, wastewater treatment facilities and vast stretches of wetlands and wildlife habitat of hemispheric importance." "[E]very Delawarean is likely to be affected by sea level rise through increased costs of maintaining public infrastructure, decreased tax base, loss of recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat, or loss of community character." From roads to wetlands to tourism, Delaware now has a basis to marshal its resources, and its polity, and move forward into the next phase: adaptation planning. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change defines "adaptation" thus: "Adaptation refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change." Delaware's focus is to "identify ways that government, businesses and citizens can adapt their policies and business practices to reduce the impact of seal level rise on our state's citizens, economy, and natural resources." The committee has wasted little time in taking action on the vulnerabilities identified in July. As reported in Delaware Online, last Thursday the committee offered up for public comment this question: "whether property owners selling inside boundaries where seas are predicted to rise will have to disclose that vulnerability to potential buyers." Hearings will begin in February. Currently, disclosure of a property's location in a flood zone is required, but flood zones are based on the historical record. Requiring a disclosure about a prediction for the future is new. One can quickly see a few of the implications. First, all things being equal, some will be dissuaded from purchasing, demand will drop and prices will fall. How much and when is anybody's guess. Second, the drawing of the sea-level-rise boundary may be intensely litigated. Indeed, we have already seen one ocean front property rights case, Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010), make its way all the way to the Supreme Court. Third, realtors, real estate lawyers and other professionals involved in shore transactions will be pleased by this development as the liability for non-disclosure will be much harder to pin on them. An injured property owner likely will find it difficult to assert an adviser's failure to disclose the risk was the proximate cause of his or her injury. See J. Wylie Donald, Getting Ahead of Storm Surge, Especially in the Era of Climate Change. Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, this small step will set the stage down the road when questions of compensation arise for individuals and entities harmed by rising sea levels. Buyers with such a disclosure in their contracts will be hard-pressed to claim ignorance. That in turn is likely to figure into the public discussion of fairness and the right to compensation. Of course, the committee's raising the point for discussion does not mean anything is going to change. But, with the dialogue initiated, we expect that this issue will no longer be quietly ignored. In any event, we look forward to further discussion in February.
c47abc0b-733c-4b49-aba0-545eb8fbd4e2|2|5.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Regulation | Rising Sea Levels
Tags: Delaware Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee, DNREC, UNFCCC, storm surge, adaptation
Top 6 at 12: Highlights of the Top Climate Change Stories in the Second Half of 2012
2012 has drawn to a close. We chronicle here six of the most significant stories on the climate change front in the last six months. For those looking for hope that government is taking action to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, the focus is on California, where cap-and-trade stepped into reality with California's first emissions auction. Nationally and internationally regulation is at a standstill or going backward. In the courts, the climate change liability plaintiffs were pounded again as the Ninth Circuit confirmed the dismissal of Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. Responding to climate change, however, is a different story. Superstorm Sandy was a wakeup call on adaptation and the impacts of extreme weather; the National Flood Insurance Program managed to obtain statutory authority to include climate change in its considerations. 1. Superstorm Sandy – Climatologists are confident that the changing climate will lead to more frequent and more severe storms. Sandy, following Hurricane Irene the previous year, delivered on both predictions. A nine-foot storm surge at Battery Park. Transformers exploding and putting Manhattan into darkness. The Hoboken PATH station submerged. $50 billion in damage. Superstorm Sandy set records and was completely consistent with the concerns of proponents of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Did it have anything to do with climate change or was it simply a chance confluence of events? The weather pattern was unusual. There was a hurricane (albeit fading), coupled with a nor'easter, intersecting with an arctic high pressure front, under a full moon. Individually, those are independent of climate change. But there was also a record lack of sea ice, which has a measured and observed effect on global atmospheric circulation, which could result in severe weather coming together more severely. So quite possibly Sandy is a result of climate change. More important than the academic debate, however, is the impact on adaptation. Regardless of one's views on climate change, Sandy demonstrated that a major metropolitan area is vulnerable to extreme weather. Steps will be taken to flood-proof subways, bury electric lines, raise seawalls, improve evacuation plans and emergency response, etc. All of these are part of the steps needed to adapt to climate change. Whether it is acknowledged as linked to climate change or not (but see Bloomberg Business Week cover following Sandy: "It's Global Warming, Stupid!"), adaptation is going to happen. 2. Presidential Election - Climate change was an important part of the campaign: "The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families." The 2008 election campaign that is. It was a completely different position in 2012. Or maybe not different at all. No one could tell because nobody was talking about it. Even Sandy wasn't enough to propel climate change into the debate in the last week of campaigning. 3. Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil - The last filed of the original quartet (American Electric Power, General Motors, Comer, and Kivalina) of climate change nuisance cases, Kivalina finally made it to a federal appellate court, where in September it met the same fate as its brethren: dismissal affirmed. Plaintiffs asked for rehearing. The Ninth Circuit wasn't interested. As of this writing, the only case left is Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, which is on appeal following its dismissal last March (for the second time) by the Southern District of Mississippi. According to that court, plaintiffs lose for a wide variety of reasons: standing, political question doctrine, res judicata, collateral estoppel, displacement, statute of limitations and proximate cause. 4. Cap-and-trade - California, alone among the fifty states, instituted its multi-industry full-fledged cap-and-trade program auctions in November. All of its allowances for 2013 were sold at a price slightly above the mandated floor price of $10/ton. Regulators and environmental groups hailed the auction as a success; some business groups were less enthusiastic. The California Chamber of Commerce sued the California Air Resources Board to invalidate the auctions. Meanwhile, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast continues with its allowances trading at the floor price, and with less than 2/3 of its allowances selling in its August and December auctions. Some commentary concludes that it is time for RGGI to shut down as its CO2 emission goals have been met. From where we sit, RGGI's success or failure can't be judged until its carbon trading is done in connection with a robust economy. The world economic malaise suppresses business, and with it, carbon dioxide emissions. California may face the same issue. 5. National Flood Insurance Program Reform - Could a poisonously partisan Congress vote for this: (1) IN GENERAL- The Council shall consult with scientists and technical experts, other Federal agencies, States, and local communities to--(A) develop recommendations on how to--(i) ensure that flood insurance rate maps incorporate the best available climate science to assess flood risks; and (ii) ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency uses the best available methodology to consider the impact of--(I) the rise in the sea level; ..."? Not the Congress we know. Or so we thought. Somehow, somewhere, someone put this into a draft, which made it into and out of a committee, ended up on the floor of both houses, survived two votes and came out as an enrolled bill for the president's signature. The president signed it into law in July. This was part of the miscellaneous section of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (aka the Transportation and Student Loan Bill), which may explain how this occurred. In any event, climate change considerations are statutorily mandated as part of the NFIP. 42 USC § 4101a(d)(1). We can expect a report by July 6, 2013. Id. § 4101a(d)(1)(B). Who'd have thunk? 6. Global GHG Regulation - COP-18, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, wrapped up in Doha, Qatar in the middle of December widely panned as ineffective. While it extended to 2020 the Kyoto Protocol addressing global greenhouse gas emissions, major nations (Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand) dropped out, and the United States continued to refuse to participate. Thus, only about fifteen percent of global emissions are now covered by the protocol (the EU and other European nations, as well as Australia, continue to support the protocol). Developing nations (whose emissions are not restricted by Kyoto) had hoped to obtain commitments for funding "climate finance" of $100 billion, but that did not occur either. One can see parallels between the Kyoto Protocol and the Western Climate Initiative and RGGI. In all three members have dropped out and the commitment to address greenhouse gas emissions waivers. The fiscal cliff was the focus at the end of 2012; climate change got short shrift. 2013 may establish that that was short-sighted.
80eb67ad-d323-4724-8b48-eeb7b1ad91a2|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Carbon Emissions | Climate Change | Climate Change Litigation | Flood Insurance | Rising Sea Levels | Weather | Year in Review
Tags: Kyoto Protocol, NFIP, cap-and-trade, AB 32, Kivalina, Comer, Doha, Obama, Sandy, adaptation
Connecticut Introduces Bill to Incorporate Climate Change Strategic Retreat into Coastal Zone Management Act
Apocryphally, the emperor of the Eternal City took out his violin while the city was consumed in a conflagration. In lay terms, Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Some would like to draw the analogy to climate change policy in the United States, held up based on principles, or partisanship, or grandstanding or blind denial. Whatever the reason, the climate for making climate change policy has grown decidedly colder since the heady days of 2008 when even the Republican party was on board. Nevertheless, some are not waiting until prediction becomes reality. For example, lawmakers in Connecticut, which opened the 2012 legislative session on February 8, have the opportunity to address one of the issues caused by a changing climate: rising sea levels. Two bills introduced in the General Assembly focus on the changing shore. The first, Raised Bill No. 5127, is at first glance an inconsequential revision to the definition of the high tide line. Currently, Connecticut defines mean high tide as "a line or mark left upon tide flats, beaches, or along shore objects that indicates the intersection of the land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide." Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 22a-359(c). It can be determined by, among other things, a line of oil, a line of scum, "a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell", vegetation lines or tidal gauge. Id. Some (including the authors of 5127) might conclude that for regulatory and enforcement purposes that is a little vague. So the proposed bill seeks something a little more rigorous. But if you thought it would be something simple like the Greenwhich Meridian or an atomic clock, you would be mistaken. Under the proposed bill, Connecticut would look to the location of the topographical elevation of the highest predicted tide for the period beginning in 1983 and ending in 2001, referenced to the most recent National Tidal Datum Epoch as published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and described in terms of feet of elevation above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Raised Bill No. 5127(c). This elevation is specified for each municipality along the Connecticut littoral. Id. While this change advances the science of seashore delineation and has been adopted by others, e.g., Fla. Stat. 177.27, other states are still content to rely on a subjective view of the beach. E.g., Rev. Code Wash. 90.58.030(2)(c). So what is driving the change in Connecticut? If one turns to the next Raised Bill before the General Assembly one will have the answer. Raised Bill No. 5128 proposes revisions to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Section 2 adds a new definition, "Rise in sea level," that is keyed to the North American Vertical Data. The definition goes on to report that the rise in Connecticut coastal sea level is projected to occur "at an average rate of not less than 2.4 inches per decade, ..." Id. "Rise in sea level" is important because 5128 makes clear why precise delineation is going to matter. New subsection (b)(1)(K) to Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a-92 seeks "to encourage a fair and orderly legal process to foster strategic retreat of property ownership, over a period of several decades, for coastal lands that have a likelihood of being lost due to erosion and coastal lands that contain structures that are subject to repetitive damage." Napoleon from Moscow. Lee from Gettysburg. The 21st Century's strategic retreat may last far longer and cost far more than anything in the history books. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control described "strategic retreat" as the "remov[al] of oceanfront buildings as the shoreline erodes to maintain a beach width or certain distance between buildings and the water. An effective strategic retreat plan would involve systematic removal of structures as the beach migrates inland and the buildings become threatened by waves and surf." Jim Titus at EPA described it as "minimizing hazards and environmental impacts by removing development from the most vulnerable areas." However one describes it, DNREC's further comment is worth noting: "there are no easy solutions or clear implementation strategies to accompany the issue of strategic retreat while accomplishing the management goal of preserving and maintaining recreational and protective beaches. Strategic retreat requires hard decisionmaking, funding, and firm commitment by the Administration and the Legislature if it is to succeed." Accordingly, the Connecticut Legislature should take note: this is not going to be a walk in the park. Nevertheless, assuming the political hurdles can be overcome, strategic retreat will undoubtedly become part of the climate change response. Kudos to Connecticut for not fiddling around.
4643b394-f78f-4713-8a0b-87012d57d341|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Climate Change | Climate Change Litigation | Legislation | Rising Sea Levels
Tags: strategic retreat, rising sea levels, adaptation, DNREC, 5127, 5128, NAVD, National Tidal Datum Epoch, high tide, Titus
Good COP, Bad COP - Durban and the Future of a Climate Change Treaty
Durban, South Africa. Home to the Shark Tank (where Kwazulu-Natal's rugby team, the Sharks, plays), extensive beaches and South Africa's busiest port. But not home to a new treaty to address climate change. COP-17 gets underway on Monday and the delegates haven't even met yet; some might think we are being somewhat premature. We think not. There is an election here next year. Europe is mired in a sovereign debt crisis. China and India will not derail their economic growth just to appease the industrialized West. Notwithstanding that there will not be any legally binding agreement, the discussions in Durban are of some moment. Before we get to that, let's make sure we are all on the same page. COP-17 is the annual "Conference of the Parties", the yearly meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In diplomat-ese, it is also 7th Session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP7) to the Kyoto Protocol. The ultimate objective of the Framework Convention is "to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system". Nearly all nations (including the United States) are members. There are three primary subjects that will be considered in Durban: 1. Kyoto Protocol - This treaty entered into force in 2005 and established a regime to address greenhouse gas emissions around the world. There were two tiers: developed nations and developing nations. The standards for the first group were stricter than those for the second. While most nations signed on to the treaty, the United States (and Andorra, Afghanistan and South Sudan) did not. The United States' primary criticism is that the Protocol did not appropriately take into account the massive greenhouse gas contributions that are now coming from developing nations like China and India. Now Kyoto is set to expire. COP-17 is to set up the next stage. However, the United States, Russia and Japan have stated that they will not sign on for a second stage. The consensus of observers is that Kyoto will not be extended. 2. Green Climate Fund - At COP-15 (Copenhagen in 2009), developed nations promised to provide by 2020 $100 billion per year or more to help developing nations address climate change. As noted by the Overseas Development Institute in the United Kingdom, how to do this is not simple, even apart from finding the funds. The payors (wealthy nations) favor funds to reduce emissions and running funds through the World Bank (where large donors have more control). The payees (poorer nations) have a much more pragmatic approach. They favor direct access to funds and more adaptation than mitigation. To quote Greenpeace Africa: "The argument is that the developed countries, especially the United States and Western Europe, built their economies on dirty energy – principally coal. So they're chiefly responsible for the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are causing climate change. Yet the worst of the climate change impacts are being felt in least developed countries. So there is definitely a strong argument for the developed countries to greatly help poorer countries to switch to renewable energies." In October the UN Transitional Committee submitted a draft instrument on the structure of the Fund. News reports state that the United States does not support the draft. 3. REDD+ - Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is an additional path to addressing greenhouse gas emissions, separate and apart from combustion sources. Forest degradation is responsible for up to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The UN organized a program in 2008 to address this problem. "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development."REDD+" goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks." Some have claimed that REDD is "the fastest-moving portion of the whole climate negotiations." Some environmental groups want a portion of the Green Climate Fund earmarked for REDD. So why does this have any significance for businesspeople in the United States? We start from the premise that climate change is occurring. No dispute about that. There will be significant changes as a result. No dispute about that either. And humans, as is their nature, will respond to the change in their habitat. Likewise, no dispute. In the jargon, there will be adaptation - armoring the shore against rising sea levels, further restrictions on water usage for drought areas, more hurricane-proof building codes, enhanced floodplain analysis - and there will be mitigation - efforts at reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. For better or worse, the COP meetings set the rules of the mitigation game, and influence responses to adaptation. Although the Kyoto Protocol was not adopted in the United States, it led to the establishment of a billion dollar trading system in Europe on carbon credits. It influenced RGGI and the Western Climate Initiative here. We have written about how the European system is set to impact American air carriers at the first of the year. Down the road, we believe the nations of the world, including the United States, will come together to address climate change. The frameworks that are in place - built by the COP meetings - will inevitably be important in cementing and implementing the mutuality of purpose.
27b702b6-74c3-4108-8b99-36f7570c2ffd|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Carbon Emissions | Climate Change | Regulation
Tags: Kyoto Protocol, Durban, COP-17, Green Climate Fund, REDD, adaptation, mitigation


text:
The M T Void
(Redirected from The-m-t-void)
The MT VOID is one of the longest running fanzines with one of the longest runs. It was founded as a newsletter for the science fiction club at Bell Laboratories, known as the MT HOLZ Science Fiction Society, founded in late 1978 by Mark and Evelyn Leeper. That society's first members were largely from three Bell facilities in New Jersey, Middletown (mail designation MT), Holmdel (HO), and Lincroft (LZ). The club notice was named MT VOID (pronounced "empty void.") The MT VOID notice in months went weekly. In spite of no longer being affiliated with any parent organization, the VOID remains a weekly fanzine. In 2012 it published its 1700th issue. The fanzine features a weekly editorial by Mark Leeper, a reading column by Evelyn, film and book reviews, comments, and general discussion on a wide range of subjects. Evelyn's writing has been nominated for fan writing Hugo awards twelve times.
Publication Website(IA) Reasonator Search
Other contributors:
This is a publication page. Please extend it by adding information about when and by whom it was published, how many issues it has had, (including adding a partial or complete checklist), its contents (including perhaps a ToC listing), its size and repro method, regular columnists, its impact on fandom, or by adding scans or links to scans.
Retrieved from "http://fancyclopedia.org/index.php?title=The_M_T_Void&oldid=84547"
Clubzine
Haswebsite
Nodates

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl