Next Page: 10000


Overnight Energy: Protesters plan Black Friday climate strike | 'Father of EPA' dies | Democrats push EPA to abandon methane rollback

NOT THAT KIND OF BLACK FRIDAY: Cities across the U.S. will see climate strikes on Black Friday with youth protesters aiming to bring attention to climate action.The protests, organized by nine youth climate activist groups, will take place in cities...

Democratic senators push EPA to abandon methane rollback

Four Democratic senators are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to abandon a regulatory rollback they say benefits the oil and gas industry.The agency has twice issued proposals to roll back a 2016 Obama administration rule on methane...

Reverse sweep as BCCI seeks SC's approval to rollback Lodha reforms

The decisions to seek apex court's approval for dilution of tenure cap, which is aimed at clearing the path for an extended stint for Ganguly, and appoint Shah for the ICC meet were taken at the Board's 88th Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Mumbai.

Politicians have come a long way on climate since 2016. Are voters ready?

Story 353181695

This story was originally published by Slate and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

As much as I try to forget it, one of the enduring moments of the 2016 election was Hillary Clinton, in her speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president, deploying “I believe in science” as a laugh line. It was supposed to be humorous because the thought of a president who had said climate change was a Chinese hoax still felt ludicrous. Three years and so many terrible environmental decisions later, it feels a lot less funny. This election cycle, though, Democratic candidates have advanced from where Clinton was in 2016. They’re finally speaking cogently, compellingly, and gravely about the threat we face and the urgency with which we ought to act.

One of the more surprising themes of the past few years has been the mainstreaming of worry over climate change, thanks to the work of scientists, activists, journalists, and, due to our new normal of floods and fires, lived experience. It’s increasingly considered an urgent issue among the Democratic base: Data for Progress ranks climate change as the second most important priority, topped only by beating President Donald Trump, while Pew Research puts it third in terms of issues for Dems. Former candidate Jay Inslee centered his entire short-lived primary campaign on the idea that addressing climate change was the most important action any president could hope to take in 2020. Voters’ interest and candidates’ prioritization seem to have worked together to make climate a focus in many of the Democratic debates so far. According to Vox, climate change ranks fourth in terms of time spent on topics (after health care, immigration, and racial equality), with about 45 minutes devoted to it total before the November debate.

All of this adds up to a remarkable departure from years past, when climate has been so overlooked that environmental journalists essentially made a minibeat out of tracking how little time presidential debates spent on the topic. (In the previous five cycles, 37 minutes and 6 seconds of prime time, general-election debate time was spent on climate change, out of some 1,500 aired minutes.) It’s hard for the counters to break the habit. Even following Wednesday night’s debates, in which climate came up naturally multiple times (better, I think, given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the topic), there were still confused takes lamenting the lack of time devoted to the subject.

There’s something frustrating about how the candidates are talking about climate change, but you can’t measure it in debate minutes. It’s certainly a relief that we’ve moved on from the years when debating climate change was the time for certain candidates to demonstrate their scientific bona fides and explain the greenhouse gas effect. We’ve finally turned the corner: During Wednesday’s debate, climate change was a business, health, and infrastructure problem, highlighting how much it now weaves through so many aspects of American politics, from housing to natural disasters to the refugee crisis. It is no longer an abstraction but something connected to human needs. Our understanding of this makes obvious why addressing it is a political priority.

But the rapid nature of the turn has left us a bit lost, too. Years of debating health care have left even casual observers with strong feelings on “Medicare for All” and individual mandates. Climate is trickier: Candidates are attempting to detail their plans to curb emissions, but our current lack of existing legislation on this means only those extremely steeped in climate policy are positioned to effectively judge their strategies. (Grist has a very thorough look at every 2020 candidate’s climate policy. It is, by no fault of theirs, an incredible amount of information to parse.) We can slice through the debate chatter in which everyone promises climate action matters to them to understand how the plans compare on a relative spectrum (Senator Bernie Sanders’ and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s are, unsurprisingly, the most ambitious), but two scary questions still hang over everything: Will any of these plans become law? And: Will it be enough?

I think this second question is what the debate-timers really want to know. Before he dropped out in August, Inslee had pushed for an entire debate focused solely on climate, a reasonable enough strategy to up expectations and set standards. The Democratic National Committee refused to grant this request, but others were happy to. Since the DNC rules bar the candidates from participating in traditional debate-style forums they don’t approve, we ended up with events like September’s “Climate Crisis Town Hall,” where 10 candidates took turns individually fielding questions from a moderator on CNN. The whole thing took seven hours. The candidates were able to get very specific about climate policies thanks to the format, but the ratings were terrible.

In early November, another attempt was made at a climate-focused forum. The Weather Channel, along with the journalistic collaboration Climate Desk, released an hourlong climate-focused special featuring several presidential candidates called “Race to Save the Planet.” (Slate contributes to Climate Desk but did not participate in this project.) Perhaps learning from CNN, the hosts did not even attempt to allow all the candidates their own time to describe their plans. Instead, the special makes somewhat ruthless use of the interviews toward presenting the case that climate change is happening and costing Americans dearly, and therefore requires action. It was not dissimilar from what’s been happening on the Democratic primary debate stage — this mainstreaming of climate action as a political necessity — and it’s also of a piece with a larger ongoing project of the Weather Channel’s. For years now, it has been quietly and methodically including climate change in its coverage of the weather, while also investing in big-picture projects that attempt to explain the breadth of the problem to its often very-center-of-the-road audience. (Its “United States of Climate Change” feature, for example, takes pains to have one story for every state.)

One interesting thing about the special, relevant to the question of how climate legislation could ever pass: It featured eight presidential candidates, three of them Republicans. On the Democratic side, there was Sanders, Warren, Senator Cory Booker, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Kamala Harris. (Beto O’Rourke participated before he dropped out of the race, so his portion was cut. Former Vice President Joe Biden, like Trump, was invited but declined to participate.) And then it had Republican primary challengers Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, and Mark Sanford. (Sanford dropped out of the race in mid-November, after the special had already aired.)

Why would Republican candidates, even long-shot Republican candidates, show up for such a thing? I think it’s because they realize they ought to. Their voters are starting to care. Since 2016, most Americans, almost always more than 65 percent, have told Gallup that they know climate change is happening and that most scientists agree on this fact. By some counts the percentage is even higher — a survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication suggests 73 percent of registered voters think it’s happening, and 63 percent are worried about it. The situation is still split along partisan lines, as you might expect. Gallup divides respondents into three groups: “concerned believers,” “mixed middle,” and “cool skeptics”; 77 percent of Democrats are “concerned believers” while 52 percent of Republicans are “cool skeptics.” But as the Yale study points out, “Worry about global warming has increased among liberal/moderate Republicans by 15 percentage points since May 2017 and by seven points among conservative Republicans since October 2017.” Part of this shift may be thanks to younger voters. One survey found that 77 percent of Republicans younger than 38 think climate change is a serious threat — compared with 76 percent of Democrats in the same category.

That’s not to say this is anywhere close to simple. Even as acceptance of global warming has grown among Republican voters, Republican lawmakers, seemingly enabled by Trump’s outlandish positions, have only grown more opposed to taking action on climate change. According to the League of Conservation Voters, elected Republican officials now vote against environmental legislation 95 percent of the time (this divergence has only sprung up in the past couple of decades). As the Guardian further points out, there might be a simple explanation for this: “Data collected by the transparency group OpenSecrets shows donations from oil and gas interests were split relatively evenly between the parties until the 2000s,” Guardian reporter Oliver Milman writes. “By the 2018 election cycle, 87 percent of industry contributions went to Republicans, with the proportion in the 2020 cycle, which is yet to be completed, reaching a record 89 percent.”

This underscores the real divide between the parties. It’s not so much that one believes in science and the other doesn’t. Not accepting the science on climate change has become so untenable that even Charles Koch has ostensibly reversed course. (Even Trump isn’t really a denialist. Instead, as the Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer smartly explained in a recent piece, it’s more useful to understand Trump as a carbonist, a person who thinks, for no good reason, that burning fossil fuels is basically macho and therefore good.) But it’s becoming ever clearer that the divide is basically that one party is willing to act to help the people who will suffer through the crisis and the other is aligned with companies hoping to keep on making money off it. The question is whether the latter will remain an option for the Republican Party.

To answer that question, it’s instructive to look back to what sparked the environmental movement of the 1960s and ’70s, prompting the bipartisan creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The story starts with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, serialized in the New Yorker in 1962, which explained how pollution, and particularly the insecticide DDT, was leeching into the natural world, weakening birds’ egg shells to the point that they couldn’t reproduce. America’s national bird, the bald eagle, was existentially threatened. And then — the story goes — the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, the photos went the 1969 version of viral (they were published in Time magazine and National Geographic), and the environmental movement was born. There were Earth Day protests in every city. Even Richard Nixon had to get on board.

The story is only partially right. By 1969, the Cuyahoga River, and other rivers around America, had been catching fire because of pollution for years. In fact, the infamous Time magazine photo was actually taken during another fire — in 1952. What happened in 1969 was that people were ready to act on what they were seeing, instead of dismissing or ignoring it. They had been primed by the years of activists ringing alarm bells. It wasn’t so much that the image of the fire woke people up — it was that the image of the fire finally tipped people over into action.

It feels like we could be on the cusp of an analogous situation now. Yes, it’s all made harder by the years of disinformation from fossil fuel companies that has been reinforced by the right, and yes, America is also facing a perplexing set of existential problems with regard to representative democracy in Washington. But we’ve also had years of alarm bell ringing and patient explanation. And we’ve had years of climate-linked catastrophe, years of stories about the climate-exacerbated natural disasters that are destroying people’s homes and lives with increasing frequency and furor. Democrats sound different when they talk about climate change now. They realize how many of us are finally ready to hear it.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Politicians have come a long way on climate since 2016. Are voters ready? on Dec 1, 2019.


You can care about climate change and still drive an SUV. I do.

Story 352048696

This story was originally published by Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists other Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

When I pull into a parking lot in my Toyota 4Runner, I hope I won’t see any of my friends who are environmental activists. I hope I’ll fit into the eco-conscious (read: small) parking spaces at some of the places I shop. I feel like a skinny-car person in a fat-truck body.

It turns out that vehicles like mine — known as sport utility vehicles, or SUVs — are even worse for the climate than I had imagined. And I imagined they were pretty bad.

A massive carbon footprint

According to a summary analysis of a report by the International Energy Agency that was released on November 13, SUVs are the second-biggest cause of the rise in global carbon dioxide emissions during the past decade. Only the power sector is a bigger contributor.

The analysis, which surprised even its own authors, found a dramatic shift toward SUVs. In 2010, 1 in 5 vehicles sold was an SUV; today it’s 2 in 5. “As a result, there are now over 200 million SUVs around the world, up from about 35 million in 2010,” the agency reports.

The preference for heavier SUVs is offsetting fuel-efficiency improvements in smaller cars and carbon savings from the growing popularity of electric cars. “If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions,” reported the Guardian.

I’m part of that imaginary nation. I don’t have kids. I don’t fly often. But I have a big honkin’ SUV that is killing the planet. For those of us who are worried about our carbon footprints, driving an SUV is like wearing a pair of size-18 steel-toe boots.

Status symbols on wheels

What’s the attraction of SUVs? Consumers who buy them hand manufacturers a higher profit margin than for smaller vehicles. The weight and boxy shape of SUVs makes them less fuel-efficient, so they cost more to operate and are less nimble than passenger cars. Some people feel safer in a vehicle where they sit high above the road, but the raised center of gravity makes SUVs more prone to rollovers than cars, said Consumer Reports. Some people want an SUV because they believe that an all-wheel-drive or four-wheel-drive option will make them safer in bad weather. In reality, many drivers do not need this expensive and fuel-economy-lowering feature, and would be better off with front-wheel-drive and good tires.

Still, those disadvantages didn’t stop me and my husband from buying a full-size SUV that weighs 4,675 pounds and averages only about 19 miles per gallon. We claim we “need” an SUV to get around in the rural, mountainous area where we live, but somehow we managed to survive here for a decade without one.

People often buy vehicles for reasons that have very little to do with functionality. For many people, an SUV is a status symbol. And that is also true — perhaps even more so — for people who drive hybrid or all-electric passenger cars. A 2007 survey of Toyota Prius buyers found that more than half said they purchased a Prius because “it makes a statement about me.” Some of them are now incensed that Toyota is siding with the Trump administration against California’s efforts to improve fuel economy.

I have the opposite problem. I appreciate the utility of my sport utility vehicle, but I’m embarrassed to be seen in it. Call it “SUVskam,” Swedish for SUV shame. I’m not so ashamed (or wealthy) that I will drive to the nearest junkyard and have it crushed for its scrap metal. But I am doing everything I can to reduce the carbon footprint of my SUV.

What would Greta drive?

SUVskam isn’t a thing yet, but flight shame (or “flygskam” in Swedish) is, thanks in part to the efforts of Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg to raise public awareness of the carbon emissions associated with air travel. In Europe, many flight-shamed people are switching from planes to trains. Thunberg went a step further, avoiding flygskam by taking a sailboat instead of an airliner when she traveled to the United States — and again when she left for Spain last week. Flight shame has reduced air travel enough to catch the attention of the International Air Transport Association, which is launching a campaign to tout its environmental efforts.

Calculating the carbon emissions of air travel is not as simple as “planes bad, trains good,” though. It’s complicated. It depends, for example, on how far you’re traveling and how many people are traveling with you. The same is true for SUVs. A 16-mpg Chevrolet Suburban carrying six carpoolers is burning less fuel per person than a 52-mpg Toyota Prius with no passengers.

Even if you drive an SUV, there are plenty of ways to reduce your carbon footprint. For starters, not all SUVs are created equal. My 4Runner is a gas guzzler, for sure, but it gets much better mileage than a Mercedes G550 or Jeep Grand Cherokee or Nissan Armada. Hybrid SUVs, which get even better mileage, are available for some models — but cost an average of nearly $4,000 more than their gasoline-only counterparts. Mainstream manufacturers are beginning to introduce all-electric luxury models to compete with the Tesla Model X, which costs more than twice as much as an SUV like mine. GM might even bring back the notorious Hummer as a zero-emissions SUV.

While a plug-in SUV is certainly better for the climate than a gasoline-powered model, automakers aren’t introducing these vehicles because they’re committed to climate action. They’re simply trying to capitalize on the popularity of SUVs, and to make people like me feel okay about choosing an SUV over a smaller electric vehicle that would be better for the climate.

Of course, shame isn’t a solution to anything. Those of us who already own SUVs must try to minimize our carbon footprints by reducing the miles we drive in these beasts — for example, by combining errands and walking or biking or taking public transportation when that’s an option. We can also do our best to maximize fuel efficiency — for example, by removing roof boxes and other items that add weight when not in use, taking it easy on the pedals, and optimizing fuel economy by keeping tires properly inflated.

Finally, SUV drivers can support policies such as higher gasoline taxes and higher fees for licensing heavier vehicles, even if doing so makes it more expensive to drive an SUV. After all, if you can afford to buy a vehicle that costs $30,000 or more, there’s no good reason why you can’t pay a little more than the owners of smaller vehicles toward public transportation and road maintenance. I voted against Initiative 976 in my home state of Washington, but the majority of voters just approved a flat $30 licensing fee for all vehicles — replacing a fee structure in which heavier, more damaging vehicles paid more.

Shame on the White House

Of course, individual actions are no substitute for corporate and government leadership. Whether I drive an SUV or a Prius will make very little difference for the climate. But if Akio Toyoda (the president of Toyota) and Donald Trump (who rides in an armored Cadillac that weighs more than 15,000 pounds) continue to support a rollback of auto-emissions standards, their choices will dramatically increase global warming and air pollution.

As leading climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University recently observed, climate deniers are attempting to deflect attention away from necessary systemic changes by encouraging well-meaning people to point fingers at one another instead of at the fossil fuel industry. Still, peer pressure can help move people toward healthy habits, as the popularity of bicycling has done in places like Copenhagen — where people of all ages ride bikes to work and school in any weather.

There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to climate change. Only by examining our own choices, and demanding that businesses and governments adopt emissions-reducing policies and regulations, can we make the progress that will be required if we are to leave future generations with a stable climate. On November 5, 11,000 scientists published a warning that the planet is facing a “climate emergency” that is “closely linked to excessive consumption” and will result in “untold suffering” if society does not undergo major transformations.

“Excessive consumption” is an apt description for the glut of SUV sales worldwide. SUV purchasing has been called an “arms race,” in which people are buying bigger vehicles mostly for one reason: Everyone else is.

That’s a shame.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline You can care about climate change and still drive an SUV. I do. on Nov 24, 2019.


California asks for clarity in clean car rollbacks


The Trump administration’s new rule stripping California of its power to police tailpipe pollution took effect Tuesday — but the immediate consequences are so murky the state’s clean air enforcers ...

Agitation to continue till complete rollback of hostel fee hike: JNUSU

The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) said on Sunday that the agitation against the proposed hostel fee hike would continue till the authorities announce a complete roll back of the proposal.

U.S.-China 'phase one' trade deal expected 'year-end at the earliest': report


A "phase one" trade deal is unlikely to be agreed upon before late December, Axios reported Sunday. Citing a source close to the trade negotiations, Axios reported the deal has stalled over the bill President Donald Trump signed last week supporting Hong Kong's pro-democracy demonstrators, and that China needs time to allow domestic politics "to calm" -- "year-end at the earliest," the source said. The report said Trump is expected to put off tariff hikes scheduled to take effect Dec. 15 to keep negotiations alive. Axios said the deal still has a number of obstacles, including how much Trump will roll back in tariffs, an enforcement mechanism and the location of a signing ceremony. Regardless of exact timing, Axios reported its sources believe the deal will ultimately be made. Separately, Chinese state media reported Sunday that a rollback of tariffs is a requirement for a phase-one deal.

Market Pulse Stories are Rapid-fire, short news bursts on stocks and markets as they move. Visit for more information on this news.


China 'insists' on tariff rollbacks as part of 'phase one' trade deal: report


China is insisting that U.S. tariffs be rolled back as part of any "phase one" trade deal, China's state-run Global Times said Sunday. "Sources in Beijing informed the Global Times that China insists the tariffs must be rolled back as part of the first-phase trade deal. A US pledge to scrap tariffs scheduled for December 15 cannot replace the rollbacks of tariffs," the newspaper said in a tweet. An accompanying article written by China's former vice minister of commerce, Wei Jianguo, said lifting tariffs is the "essential problem" for the phase-one deal. "The phase one agreement is unlikely to include too much substance, instead, it should solve the most pressing issues," he wrote. While both sides have said an agreement is close, it is uncertain if a deal will actually get done.

Market Pulse Stories are Rapid-fire, short news bursts on stocks and markets as they move. Visit for more information on this news.


Новые возможности Veeam Availability Suite v10 - что там интересного?


Как некоторые из вас знают, новый пакет продуктов для обеспечения доступности датацентра Veeam Availability Suite v10 был анонсирован еще в 2017 году. С тех пор лидер в сфере резервного копирования виртуальных машин, компания Veeam, выпускала обновления Veeam Availability Suite 9.5 (например, вот последний Update 4) и параллельно рассказывала о новых возможностях десятой версии.

Недавно мы анонсировали лайв-форум VeeamON Virtual 2019, который прошел 20 ноября. На форуме, собравшем 7 тысяч человек онлайн, компания Veeam сделала несколько интересных анонсов, где главным был рассказ о новых возможностях Veeam Availability Suite v10.

Вот эти возможности:

1. Масштабируемый репозиторий резервных копий.

Благодаря этой возможности будет доступна немедленная резервная копия в объектное хранилище. Ранее Veeam Cloud Tier перемещал резервные копии в объектное хранилище в соответствии с политикой хранения (через заданное число дней), теперь вы можете отправлять их туда сразу после их создания.

Copy Mode — это дополнительная политика, которую можно задать для объектных хранилищ в составе масштабируемого репозитория ("Copy all backups to object storage as they are created"). Любые выбранные файлы резервных копий, созданные в рамках обычных заданий резервного копирования или заданий автоматического переноса, будут скопированы в Capacity Tier. Это позволит в любой момент полностью соответствовать правилу резервного копирования "3-2-1", согласно которому один экземпляр данных должен храниться на удаленной площадке.

2. Блокировка объектов S3 (защита от удаления).

Функция Immutability в Veeam Backup and Replication 10 позволяет организовать блокировку файлов резервных копий, отправленных в объектное хранилище для предотвращения их удаления программами-вымогателями (Ransomware). Например, вы ставите такую блокировку (immutability flag) на 3 дня, чтобы защитить бэкапы не только от Ransomware, но и от потенциальных вредоносных действий собственных администраторов. В течение этого времени никто, включая администраторов, не сможет удалить эти резервные копии из облака S3.

Реализуется это с помощью стандартной функции "object lock", которая есть в сервисах Amazon AWS (к сожалению, ее пока нет на платформе Azure).

3. Резервное копирование NAS-хранилищ.

Теперь Veeam Backup and Replication сможет делать резервное копирование файлов SMB (CIFS) и NFS. Вы можете восстанавливать хранилище целиком, отдельные файлы или делать откат к предыдущим версиям файлов на заданный момент времени.

Функция появилась как ответ на запрос Enterprise-пользователей Veeam, которые хранят в 10 раз больше неструктурированных данных в файловых помойках, чем структурированных данных в виртуальных машинах.

Бэкап можно делать как с файловой шары напрямую, так и из нативного снапшота на хранилище (Native Storage Snapshot):

При восстановлении можно выбрать откат к точке во времени (Rollback to a point in time):

4. Прямое восстановление в VMware.

Работает это аналогично прямому восстановлению в Hyper-V. Поддерживает данная функция резервные копии как виртуальных, так и физических машин. С помощью Direct Restore to VMware можно, например, восстановить свой физический ноутбук в виртуальную машину на платформе vSphere.

5. Интерфейсы Data Integration API.

С помощью интерфейсов Veeam Data Integration API можно получать доступ к содержимому резервных копий в целях дата майнинга, который не нагружает производственные системы компании. Например, этот API можно использовать для аналитики по данным в резервных копиях ВМ или построения отчетов без нагрузки на продуктивные хранилища.

Выпуск Veeam Availability Suite v10, включая Veeam Backup and Replication v10, ожидается уже в самое ближайшее время. Следите за анонсами у нас на сайте!


Evacuation order lifted as huge Texas plant fire ‘contained’

AUSTIN, Texas – Officials lifted evacuation orders Friday for about 50,000 people on the Texas Gulf Coast, determining a massive fire was under control at a chemical plant rocked by two major explosions two days earlier.

“We are in a position to say it’s contained. We feel comfortable with the efforts that have been made by our firefighters,” Jefferson County Judge Jeff Branick said at a news conference in Port Neches, about 80 miles east of Houston.

But the area around the TPC Group plant remained dangerous. Several isolated fires were still blazing and visible at the facility, which makes chemical and petroleum-based products. Officials said they could not predict when those would be fully extinguished.

The explosions began early Wednesday morning and were so big that nearby homes captured the bright balls of fire on front-porch security cameras. The blasts shattered windows and ripped doors off hinges. Three workers were injured, and when a second blast erupted 13 hours after the initial overnight explosion, evacuation orders covering a 4-mile radius around the plant took effect.

Debris thrown across Port Neches – and potentially neighboring towns – by the sheer magnitude of Wednesday’s explosions also posed risks to families returning home. Branick, the top county official, cautioned that construction on the plant began in the 1940s and that asbestos could have been hurled into people’s yards. He urged homeowners to steer clear of any “white, chalky substance” and call health officials if any are found.

Branick said it might be several months before the cause of the explosions is known. He said the air quality posed no threat to residents.

“There’s still going to be smoke in the air. There’s still going to be flames visible at night,” said Troy Monk, the director of health safety and security for the TPC Group. “I would love to tell you we’re going to be done by the end of the day. I would not be telling you the truth if I made that statement. It’s very difficult for us to quantify in days how long this is going to take.”

The explosion was the latest in a series of high-profile accidents this year up and down the Texas Gulf Coast, which is home to the highest concentration of oil refineries in the nation. In July, an explosion at an ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown left more than a dozen people with minor injuries and put nearby residents under a shelter-in-place for three hours.

Toby Baker, the head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, called it an “unacceptable trend of significant incidents” this week and said the petroleum industry must be held accountable.

But environmental groups for years have accused Baker’s agency of being a toothless watchdog that provides inadequate oversight and slaps highly profitable corporations with only meager penalties.

The TPC Group plant had been labeled a “high priority” violator by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after its last inspection in 2017 and had been cited multiple times in recent years for clean air violations.

Environmentalists were also quick to point out that the TPC Group explosion occurred just a week after the Trump administration scaled back chemical safety plant measures that had been prompted by a 2013 explosion at a Texas fertilizer storage facility that killed 15 people. The rollback included eliminating a required public access to information about dangerous chemicals companies keep on site.

Officials have said the first blast occurred around 1 a.m. Wednesday in an area of the plant that makes butadiene, a chemical used to make synthetic rubber and other products. It sent a large plume of smoke stretching for miles and started a fire. The second blast ripped through the plant about 2 p.m., sending a steel reactor tower rocketing high into the air.

The plant has 175 full-time employees and 50 contract workers.


Trump Targets Roadless Rule Rollback in Alaska: Is Missouri Next?

Trump Targets Roadless Rule Rollback in Alaska: Is Missouri Next? JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - The Trump administration wants to reverse roadless protections for the country's largest national forest, and opponents fear pristine land in Missouri and other states could be next. A U.S. ...(Read More)

Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day


Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day(Bloomberg) -- Want the lowdown on what's moving European markets in your inbox every morning? Sign up here.Good morning. Security has moved to the center of the U.K. election campaign, Germany’s coalition government is on the brink and investors are digesting mixed signals on the impact of the trade war. Here’s what’s moving markets.SecurityThe focus of the U.K. election campaign has taken a swing towards law and order following the attack at London Bridge on Friday, and the Conservatives are planning a major review of both defense and foreign policy if they win. The Labour Party has gained ground, narrowing the gap with the Tories in four of five opinion polls, one of which suggested the country is headed for a hung parliament. The campaign will be disrupted again this week as the U.K. welcomes NATO allies to the latest summit of the defense alliance, where U.S. President Donald Trump won’t be the only wild card attending.Coalition Breakdown?German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government was thrown into doubt after her coalition partners, the Social Democrats,  elected new leaders over the weekend who have threatened to pull out of the ruling pact. Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken, two critics of the government, won the poll, beating Finance Minister Olaf Scholz. In his victory speech, Walter-Borjans insisted he would rather improve the current coalition rather than take it down, but it creates a significant headache for Merkel to keep the government together and an extra political risk for European investors to take into account.Mixed SignalsSome slightly better news emerged for China at the weekend, with its factory activity gauge unexpectedly jumping in November thanks to government support and a more stable global outlook. Yet another closely watched bellwether for global trade, South Korean exports, dropped more than expected. That will put even more focus on European and U.S. manufacturing data due on Monday. China’s central bank, meanwhile, says it intends to retain a prudent policy approach as it predicts a prolonged downturn in the global economy, saying it is in a “mid- and long-distance race’’ and will stick to conventional methods as long as possible.Cyber MondayBlack Friday online sales in the U.S. hit a record level, yet again underscoring a shift among consumers to eschew heading to bricks-and-mortar stores to get their bargains and instead sitting and clicking from home. It bodes well too for Cyber Monday, the online cousin of Black Friday, given this is when the offers are most concentrated to online stores. Over the coming days, it will be worth watching for signals from Europe’s biggest retailers how they fared across what is now a global shopping bonanza. On the down side, retail sales from a protest-hit Hong Kong are due on Monday and could impact luxury goods stocks exposed to the city.Coming Up…Stocks in Asia were higher and U.S. Treasuries tumbled as investors took heart from the better-than-expected China data, which added to a feeling that the global economy is turning a corner. Local reports also suggested China wants a tariff rollback in the first phase of a trade deal with the U.S., keeping eyes trained on any further headlines about progress in talks between the two. Oil prices are higher going into the new week, bolstered by Iraq signaling that OPEC and its allies will consider deeper production cuts when they meet this week.What We’ve Been ReadingThis is what’s caught our eye over the past 24 hours. It’ll be tough to top 2019 for stocks. The cure for an economy hooked on debt may be more debt. Chefs pick the best cities for great restaurants. A community rallies around London’s oldest food market. The cherry blossom scandal in Japan is starting to bite. Gulf states are backpedaling on Iran. The rise and rise of Big Toothbrush.Like Bloomberg's Five Things? Subscribe for unlimited access to trusted, data-based journalism in 120 countries around the world and gain expert analysis from exclusive daily newsletters, The Bloomberg Open and The Bloomberg Close.Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. Find out more about how the Terminal delivers information and analysis that financial professionals can't find anywhere else. Learn more.To contact the author of this story: Sam Unsted in London at sunsted@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Phil Serafino at pserafino@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at©2019 Bloomberg L.P.


Asian Shares Rally as China’s Manufacturing Activity Expansion Offsets Worries Over Trade Deal

A private survey on Monday showed China’s manufacturing activity expanded more than expected in November. Chinese state media said Sunday that Beijing wants a rollback of tariffs in the phase one trade deal that the two economic powerhouses are aiming to reach.

Comment on WebStorm 2019.3: Faster Startup, More Advanced Vue.js Support, Smarter Code Completion for JavaScript, and More by Ekaterina Ryabukha

Hello Paul, No, it's been renamed, now it's called "Rollback" (please see this issue for details if you'd like to know why we did that This is not an exhaustive list of what we've done: in this blog post, we've only highlighted the ones we find most important. You may find the full release notes here:

China Repeats Demand for Rollback of U.S. Tariffs for Trade Deal

China expects the U.S. to roll back some tariffs on its exports as part of a trade deal, an official newspaper said Monday, reiterating Beijing’s insistence that President Donald Trump’s administration be “flexible” and “reasonable.” The Communist Party newspaper Global Times ran several articles Monday that emphasized there would be no deal without a promise to phase out the tariffs imposed by Washington. It cited officials saying that China will buy American farm products and the amount “could be substantial, […]

China Repeats Demand for Rollback of U.S. Tariffs as Part of Trade Deal

“Rolling back tariffs is a must," a former Chinese commerce minister said

JNU protests timeline


For around three weeks, constant protests by the JNU students has been going outside the Jawaharlal Nehru University against the latest draft hostel manual which includes hostel fee hike, dress code and curfew timings. What te JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) are demanding is the complete rollback of the hostel manual. According to the administration and […]

The post JNU protests timeline appeared first on .


China repeats demand for rollback of U.S. tariffs for deal


BEIJING >> China expects the U.S. to roll back some tariffs on its exports as part of a trade deal, an official newspaper said Monday, reiterating Beijing’s insistence that President Donald Trump’s administration be “flexible” and “reasonable.”


China Repeats Demand for Rollback of U.S. Tariffs as Part of Trade Deal

“Rolling back tariffs is a must," a former Chinese commerce minister said

Podcast #262 – Rollback

Jó hír, hogy Trump visszakozott, de nehéz kompenzálni ezzel azt a tényt, hogy egy napi lélegzetvétel Delhiben felér 2 doboz cigi elszívásával.

1011 Captain II - General   - After latest L-1011 update, CIVA doesn't come on

Applied the latest update for L-1011:

1011 Updates history/change log

VERSION 1.003 (14OCT’19)
– Cold and dark state has flaps down
– A/L APR GS Modes
– CIVA Pages
– VC pressing Nav-light button not changing variable LIGHT NAV
– VC pressing Beacon-light button not changing variable LIGHT BEACON
– Flaps transition sound stuck
– Panel State: external/GPU power
– Flaps Lever Position

VERSION 1.001 (13AUG’19)
New features:
– Panel States management added to the sim menu
– Payload Manger shortcut added to the sim menu
– Battery Switch in the OFF position on the first load
– Flood lights
– Backlights

***After this was applied, no CIVA.  "Rollback" the update (uninstall/reinstall prior version) the CIVA works fine again.

China urges rollback of US tariffs, Huawei exec's release

BEIJING (AP) — China's foreign ministry on Monday urged Canada to free an executive of telecom equipment giant Huawei Technologies held for more than ...

China says Trump needs to be 'reasonable' to get trade deal

China repeats demand for rollback of US tariffs to reach deal on trade
my image

Forum Post: RE: RAM SS 17 Release status

We just rolled back to V16 at our office a couple of days after installing v17 until all the bugs get worked out on v17. Between the licensing issues here, and the program stability/errors reported elsewhere, a rollback seemed the simplest, safest option.

California asks for clarity in clean car rollbacks

The Trump administration’s new rule stripping California of its power to police tailpipe pollution took effect Tuesday — but the immediate consequences are so murky the state’s clean air enforcers asked the feds for clarification. It’s the latest example of the chaos surrounding federal efforts to roll back Obama-era vehicle standards. Announced at the end […]

[FINISHED] Maintenance on many domain name registries


Type : Maintenance
Services : Domain
Last update : 2019-11-21 07:06:14 +0000
Date start : 2019-11-21 06:00:00+00:00
Date end : 2019-11-21 07:00:00+00:00

Update on 2019-11-21 07:06:14.643230+00:00 :

All registries connections have been updated, we have rollback on some registries and will contact them to complete the migration in the following days.

All TLDs are now in nominal operation.

Update on 2019-11-21 06:23:43.187541+00:00 :

Half of the registries connections have been updated, some are still not working, we will finish the other half and debug the problematic connections afterwards.

We will update the communication in 15 minutes.

Update on 2019-11-21 05:57:58.976838+00:00 :

The maintenance begins.

We will update you in 30 minutes.

Initial message

Due to an update on our side on the backends handling the connections between us and the domain name registries, there will be a maintenance the Thursday 21st of November 2019 from 7AM to 8AM CET.

The predicted impact will be an interruption on many TLDs for a few seconds, and for some minutes if we are encountering issues on some registries.

Operations such as domain name search or creation for example won't be possible on some TLDs during the maintenance.


Center for Reproductive Rights Releases New Brief of European Abortion Laws

Center for Reproductive Rights Releases New Brief of European Abortion Laws ehorwitz Wed, 11/27/2019 - 11:37

News Type

Europe leads the world with its number of liberalized laws on abortion, but many women still face access barriers due to regulatory restrictions or regressive threats
Primary Content

(PRESS RELEASE) --A new comparative overview of European abortion laws, released today by the Center for Reproductive Rights, reveals that more than 95% of women of reproductive age currently live in countries where laws allow abortion either on request or on broad social grounds.

This impressive statistic nevertheless masks the fact that some of these countries maintain restrictive pre-conditions, such as mandatory counselling or enforced waiting periods, that can impede or delay women accessing services. In addition, abortion is still outlawed or extremely restricted in six countries in the region.

The report, European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview, outlines that the trend is squarely towards positive and progressive liberalizing reform in the European region, such as the recent legalization of abortion on request in Cyprus, Ireland and Iceland. It also warns, however, that the region remains at considerable risk of attempts to rollback abortion rights, such as current proposals before the Slovakian parliament that would introduce extreme mandatory requirements prior to abortion that are contrary to international human rights principles and law. 

The new report reveals that, currently, across the European region:

  • Thirty-nine countries (ranging right across the continent, from Portugal and Spain in the West to Turkey and the Russian Federation in the East) have legalized abortion on request (i.e where abortion is legal without the need for a medical practitioner or other authority to certify a particular reason for the abortion)
  • Two countries (Finland and the United Kingdom) have legalized abortion on broad social grounds
  • Six countries retain highly restrictive abortion laws – Andorra, Malta and San Marino do not allow abortion in any circumstances; Liechtenstein allows abortion only when a woman’s life or health is at risk, or where the pregnancy resulted from sexual assault; Monaco and Poland allow abortion only when a woman’s life or health is at risk, following a sexual assault, or where a severe foetal anomaly has been detected

Some countries have set time limits on abortion on request at between 18-24 weeks of pregnancy, while others set these limits around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. All of these countries’ laws allow access later in pregnancy in specific circumstances, such as where a woman’s health or life is at risk, and here the standard practice is not to impose any time limitation at all.

Despite having legalized abortion, some European countries have maintained a range of procedural rules and regulations that can impede and delay women’s access to abortion care.  These include:

  • mandatory waiting periods between the date on which an abortion is first requested and the date on which it may take place;
  • laws compelling women to undergo counselling, which can sometimes be required to be biased or directive;
  • short rigid time limits for accessing abortion that may disproportionately affect certain groups of women; and
  • criminalising women or medical professionals who act outside of the legal framework for abortion provision

Although the general trend in Europe has been towards increasing liberalization and removing barriers to access, in recent years some countries in Europe have attempted to roll back existing legal protections for women’s access to abortion care. Initiatives have ranged from attempts to introduce regressive pre-conditions before abortions can take place, such as mandatory biased counselling, or waiting periods, to attempts to fully ban abortion or remove existing legal grounds for abortion.

“Women in Europe have fought long and hard for legal entitlements to access abortion care,” said Leah Hector, Regional Director for Europe at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

As recent events in Poland and Slovakia demonstrate, rights to access abortion may be arbitrarily threatened by attempts to introduce new barriers or scale back on the legality of abortion care, and we must be ever vigilant.

“Comparative reports like this one help to capture the current status of abortion law and practice across the region, and provide advocates and policy makers with information on where and how their efforts should be focused moving forward. There is much progress still to be made if Europe is to achieve the promise of gender equality.”

To download a copy of European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview go to:



Next Page: 10000

© Googlier LLC, 2019