CRIMINAL CRYPTO CAPITALI$M

Binance to delist Ripple’s XRP cryptocurrency due to SEC lawsuit

Photo: Marco Verch/Flickr

BY DUNCAN RILEY

Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by volume, today announced that it will delist Ripple Labs Inc.’s XRP cryptocurrency following a lawsuit filed against Ripple by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that the cryptocurrency is an unregistered security.

The announcement comes after Coinbase Inc. announced on Dec. 28 that it was also planning to suspend XRP trading in light of the SEC lawsuit again Ripple.

The SEC filing, which targets both Ripple and two of its executives — Christian Larson, the company’s co-founder and executive chairman of its board and former chief executive officer, and Bradley Garlinghouse, the company’s current CEO — alleges that XRP is an unregistered security.

Specifically, the SEC claims that Ripple raised capital to finance the company’s business beginning in 2013 through the sale of unregistered securities, XRP tokens, to investors in the U.S. and worldwide. The SEC alleges Ripple distributed billions of XRP in exchange for noncash considerations such as labor and market-making services, which is the key to its complaint.

Offering cryptocurrency is not illegal when the purpose is to provide a digital currency for trading, but per the Securities Act of 1933, any offer that involves funds being raised for a company must be registered as a security.

Binance said in a support article that its support for XRP will end on Jan. 13. While support for XRP including trading and deposits will be suspended, Binance users will still be able to withdraw XRP holdings from their Binance wallets.

Ripple continues to deny the allegations strongly. “XRP is a currency and does not have to be registered as an investment contract,” Garlinghouse previously said. “In fact, the Justice Department and the Treasury’s FinCEN already determined that XRP is a virtual currency in 2015 and other G20 regulators have done the same. No other country has classified XRP as a security.”

Coinbase and Binance are not alone in looking to delist XRP. According to Pyments.com, Bittrex and Crypto.com have also announced that they will delist XRP in light of the SEC lawsuit. Bittrex will delist XRP on Jan. 15, while Crypto.com will delist the cryptocurrency on Jan. 19.

Siam Blockchain suggests that XRP may just be the beginning when it comes to the SEC targeting so-called “stable coins” or similar tokens, noting that Tether and USDT may also be targeted soon.

At a time where bitcoin continues to hit record highs, XRP investors have been hit hard. After having traded as high as 68.43 cents in November, XRP was trading at 20.814 cents as of 8:45 p.m. EST.

Coinbase sued by US California federal court for illegal XRP sales

CRYPTOS | Dec 30 2020, 

Following the SEC's lawsuit against Ripple, Coinbase has been sued by the California federal court for illegal XRP sales.

Coinbase has recently applied to conduct an IPO and which could be affected by the lawsuit.

The United States District Court Northern District of California has filed a lawsuit against Coinbase for the violation of the unfair competition law, alleging the exchange was selling XRP which is an unregistered security, and taking commissions from the sales. 

The main idea behind the lawsuit is that Coinbase somehow knew that XRP was not a commodity and falsely represented it as such. However, considering that the SEC has just sued Ripple to clarify this exact question, it's hard to understand how Coinbase would know beforehand. 

Additionally, the complaint states that Coinbase knew about XRP being a security because of his technological integration into XRP's nodes. It also accuses Coinbase of being unfair because selling XRP securities allowed the exchange to gain a competitive advantage over other exchanges that only sold commodities. 

Anderson Kill partner Stephen Palley thinks the lawsuit will most likely fail as he sees a couple of issues with it. Palley stated that it is not a huge risk to Coinbase compared to SEC enforcement.

'That Terrifies Me': Trump Rule Allows Natural Gas Transport By Rail In Dense

Dec 29, 2020
Heard on All Things Considered
SUSAN PHILLIPS

Vanessa Keegan, her boyfriend and 3-year-old son live a block from where rail cars will carry liquefied natural gas to an export facility on the Delaware River. Emma Lee/WHYY

In an effort to boost natural gas exports, the Trump administration has reversed longstanding federal policy and approved transport of gas by rail anywhere in the country. Opposition has come from Hollywood stars, state attorneys general and local residents who worry about the danger this poses. But plans are moving ahead for a New Jersey project that calls for one of the longest such transport routes in the country: 200 miles through densely populated areas of the East Coast.

The gas from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale would first be sent by pipeline to a new liquefaction plant in the rural northeast part of the state. Refrigeration units would chill it to negative-260 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it becomes liquid and easier to ship. The part of the plan that scares a lot of people is the next step — transporting the gas by truck or rail down the busy I-95 corridor to a planned export terminal along the Delaware River in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

"That terrifies me," says Vanessa Keegan, who lives nearby with her family, including her three-year-old son Theo. She points to where rail cars full of highly flammable liquefied natural gas — or LNG — would roll about a block and a half away from her house. "That train track that you could skip on down to in about a minute and a half."

A daycare center sits right next to the gate of the planned export terminal.

Pipelines are the more common way to move gas long distances, but battles over them have delayed or even scrapped some projects. Trucks are also allowed to transport LNG. But using rail cars in densely populated areas had been limited until the new rule took effect in August.

Even before that, Delaware River Partners, a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, which has ties to President Trump, secured a special federal permit to move the LNG by rail. It allows two 100-car trains to transport the gas each day.

Homes next to train tracks in Gibbstown, NJ, where up to 200 rail cars a day will be allowed to carry liquefied natural gas to an export terminal.Emma Lee/WHYY

In this rust-belt region of New Jersey the project does have support, including from building trade unions and powerful state lawmakers. State Assemblyman John Burzichelli says his grandfather worked at a shuttered DuPont dynamite plant that will house the planned LNG export terminal.

"That site will create jobs as it once did, contribute to the tax base as it once did, and be an important economic driver for people to make a living and feed their families," says Burzichelli.

He says safety issues should be addressed, but that rail cars carry much more hazardous materials through the region every day. "The history of moving this stuff is pretty sound," he says.

The new rule does require rail cars to be built with a thicker outer tank than is mandated for other hazardous cryogenic liquids like ethylene and ethane. (Although it's unclear if that applies to projects like this one, greenlighted earlier through a special permit.)

Ray Mentzer, a chemical engineer at Purdue University, spent his career working on LNG projects for Exxon Mobil. He says the specially designed containers that transport hydrocarbons have a good safety record. But he says transporting the gas through densely populated areas increases the risk if there's a leak.

"It's not flammable until it's vaporized, but it's going to be vaporized pretty darn quickly and then it's going to seek an ignition source," he says. "Believe me, it will find an ignition source pretty darn readily."

The developers of the New Jersey export project — New Fortress Energy and Delaware River Partners — did not respond to multiple requests for an interview, and would not confirm details of their plans.

Rail companies lobbied for the rule and downplay the potential for accidents.

Earlier this year, Ian Jefferies, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, told NPR "the track record speaks for itself: 99.99% of all hazmat moved by rail reaches its destination without any incident whatsoever." He also said industry uses "risk-based routing analysis to ensure that railroads are using the lowest risk routes."

Fifteen state Attorneys General, including those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, have challenged the move saying it put people's lives at risk.

"We're going to court because our families expect our government to put their safety first, not put them in harm's way," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement. Becerra is now president-elect Joe Biden's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary.

Despite joining that suit, New Jersey recently signed off on construction of a dock for the LNG export project, although N.J. Governor Phil Murphy says the state "will explore all avenues within its authority to prevent the use of this dock for LNG transport."

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has challenged a number of state and federal permits for the project, saying a thorough Environmental Impact Statement was never done.

"The Biden Administration could step in and set a policy that this project, and all other LNG export projects, require comprehensive environmental review," says the network's deputy director Tracy Carluccio.

Standing on her porch along the route to the planned export terminal, Vanessa Keegan worries that transporting LNG by rail is untested. "If an accident happens," she says, "we don't get to show up the next day and say, 'Look, I told you so.'"

She also thinks fossil fuel projects like this should be abandoned in favor of renewables like wind or solar.

In fact, if the export facility gets built, none of the gas traveling through the area will go to power New Jersey homes. The state is planning a large offshore wind farm to help reach its goal of using all clean energy by 2050.

After Decades-Long Push, It's Not Clear Who Will Bid In Arctic Refuge Oil Lease Sale

January 1, 202O ALASKA NPR

A polar bear with cubs in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2014.Barcroft Media/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

Just two weeks before President-elect Joe Biden takes office, the Trump administration is trying to lock-in oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with a hastily scheduled and controversial lease sale.

The event, January 6, marks a major moment in a 40-year fight over whether to develop the northernmost slice of the refuge's coastal plain, home to migrating caribou, birds and polar bears.

Biden, as well as his pick for Interior Secretary — Rep. Deb Haaland — oppose drilling in the refuge. The hand-off of drilling rights to the highest bidders could make it more difficult to reverse course.

But despite the high stakes, uncertainty looms over how much oil is actually trapped under the million acres of tundra up for leasing, and how much industry interest there is to go find it.

'We don't know very much about this area'

The data on what's under the coastal plain is decades old.

"We don't know very much about this area," says David Houseknecht, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. Oil seeps and rock formations seem promising, but he says the agency hasn't estimated the coastal plain's oil potential since the late 1990s.
Article continues after sponsor message



Back then, it relied on seismic testing from a decade prior, technology that's now outdated. It found that anywhere from about 4 to 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil could lie beneath the federal lands. That's a whole lot of oil, but also "a very large range of uncertainty," Houseknecht says. "The seismic data that we have are quite old, low resolution and a sparse grid."

The other challenge, he says: There's no data from actual wells in the refuge.

Just one exploratory well has been drilled in the coastal plain, on Alaska Native land in the 1980s, and the results are a closely-guarded secret.

Mark Myers, a former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, is among only a few people who have seen the well results outside of the oil companies that paid for it.


ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COLLABORATIVE
As Oil Drilling Nears In Arctic Refuge, 2 Alaska Villages See Different Futures

"I signed a confidentiality agreement, and it didn't have an end date on it," he says with a small laugh. "I can't comment on it, in terms of what I saw."

A New York Times investigation based on interviews and legal documents suggested the results were not promising.

Houseknecht says geologists don't know more about the coastal plain's oil potential because it wasn't until late 2017 that Congress decided to allow drilling there, after decades of debate.

In recent years, he says, USGS had the 1980s seismic data commercially reanalyzed and planned to use it for a new oil assessment. But after the opening of the refuge three years ago the Interior Department called off the work without providing a reason why.


Bidding could be "fairly lukewarm"

As for who will bid in the lease sale, that's another mystery.

Oil and gas companies aren't talking about their plans publicly, which isn't surprising, says Kara Moriarty, head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade group.

"Participation in lease sales is one of the most competitive and secretive things between companies," she says.

Bidding has already taken place, but Moriarty says she doesn't expect to know more until the federal government unseals companies' bids during the January 6 event, which will be streamed online.

Oil industry analyst Rowena Gunn, with the research firm Wood Mackenzie, believes enthusiasm could be "fairly lukewarm."

Controversy is one reason.

"It wouldn't necessarily be good PR for them to be seen as drilling in the Arctic, or drilling in environmentally-sensitive areas," she says.

Environmental organizations and some tribal groups have been lobbying oil companies, banks and other financial institutions to stay away from developing the refuge. A number of major banks say they won't fund oil projects in the Arctic.

Opponents have also filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block drilling. They've raised concerns about its impacts on Indigenous people, the global climate, and wildlife, including the caribou that give birth in the coastal plain and the polar bears that den there. Even if leases are sold, legal experts say it's possible that courts could later cancel them.

ENVIRONMENT
2020 May Be The Hottest Year On Record. Here's The Damage It Did

In response to concerns about wildlife, as well as oil industry interest, the Bureau of Land Management recently removed nearly a third of the original 1.6 million acres from the sale. Geologist Houseknect says those areas do not have high potential for oil.

'Very little capital for exploration'

Supporters of drilling the refuge, including many Alaska politicians, argue that it's good for the economy and jobs.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski worked with the White House to open the coastal plain to drilling as part of Trump's massive 2017 tax bill. The idea was to create revenue to offset tax cuts, so the legislation directed the federal government to carry out two oil and gas lease sales by 2024.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the leasing program could generate a windfall of $1.8 billion over a decade, to be split between Alaska and the federal government.

Critics of the sale, including the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, say they expect the dollar-figure to be much lower.

"For right now, this absolutely seems to make no fiscal sense," says Autumn Hanna, vice president of the group. "We don't need the oil. Why would we be going into such hard-to-access, sensitive places where the costs of exploration and development are so high?"

Myers, the former Alaska commissioner, agrees development costs could dampen interest.

It's already more expensive to drill in the Arctic compared to, say, Texas. On top of that, he says, oil prices are still relatively low after an oil-price war and the coronavirus pandemic hit the industry hard.

"The prices have fallen down to a level that leaves very little capital for exploration in these companies," Myers says. "So that's one of the biggest negatives."

But perhaps the greatest uncertainty is the changing administration.

President-elect Biden says he opposes drilling in the refuge, and that he'll take steps to permanently protect it, though he hasn't said how.

POLITICS
With Biden's Boost, 2 Obama Veterans Are 'Ready To Run' Climate Efforts

It's possible his administration could delay the environmental permitting process for companies that buy leases from the Trump administration. Or a Biden administration could try to buy the leases back.

Citing concerns about limited industry interest, Alaska politicians have lobbied for the state to step in. The board of a state-owned economic development corporation recently voted to bid up to $20 million at the lease sale.

The idea is the corporation could operate as a backstop, to submit minimum bids on the tracts and secure drilling rights in case no one else makes any offers. Then, at some point, it could partner with oil companies to do the actual drilling.

If any leases are bought and finalized, it will be just the start of a long process. Industry analysts say it would take at least a decade to actually pump oil out of Alaska's Arctic refuge.

Wall Street to ditch three Chinese telecom titans after Trump’s blacklisting
1 Jan, 2021 
Get short URL

FILE PHOTO: The boot on the statue of George Washington across from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) © Reuters / Andrew Kelly

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the largest bourse in the world, has started delisting proceedings for three Chinese telecom providers targeted by the Trump administration over their alleged military ties.

After being present on the US market for nearly two decades, the securities of China Mobile, China Telecom, and China Unicom Hong Kong will be suspended from trading between January 7 and January 11, the exchange announced in a statement. While the proceedings are already in progress with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the issuers still can appeal the decision, it added.

ALSO ON RT.COMChinese firms raised almost $12 billion through IPOs on US exchanges this year

The trio are dominating China’s mobile business and are at the forefront of the 5G networks rollout in the country. However, they do not have a significant presence in the US stock market, according to Bloomberg. All of them are listed on the Hong Kong exchange, which has been competing with Wall Street for IPOs. 

Removal from US stock markets won't halt investments in blacklisted Chinese companies, Beijing says

The NYSE cited an executive order issued by the Trump administration that barred US investors from investing in firms it claims are affiliated with the Chinese military. For the same reason, some securities of other Chinese corporations mainly involved in manufacturing and construction were dropped from indexes on Nasdaq and from those compiled by MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Global Indices and British FTSE Russell.

The move, even by such a major stock exchange, is not expected to become a significant blow for the three firms, with Beijing earlier saying that de-listings will not stop foreign investment inflows to its companies.

Despite inking the first phase of their trade deal a year ago, tensions between the US and China kept escalating in 2020. The order, cited by index providers and the NYSE, was signed by US President Donald Trump in November. The document barred US investors from funding more than 30 Chinese firms it deemed “Communist Chinese military companies.”

Beijing had previously called on Washington to stop the arbitrary suppression of investments into Chinese businesses. It also said the US government had been “viciously slandering” China’s military-civilian integration, and vowed to protect the interests of its companies.

Largest study of Asia's rivers may help predict changes in region's water cycle: Scientists

The findings have important implications for water management and power production

 By PTI January 01, 2021


'Mega-droughts' of the past have often simultaneously hit sites that are currently home to power production along Asian rivers, says the largest study of the continent's river systems which may help predict long term changes in the region's water cycle.

The study, published in the journal Water Resources Research, noted that the findings have important implications for water management and power production, especially when a country's economy depends on multiple river basins.

"Our records show that 'mega-droughts' have hit multiple power production sites simultaneously, so we can now use this information to design a grid that is less vulnerable during extreme events," said study co-author Stefano Galelli from Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD).

According to the research, rivers in Asia behave in a coherent pattern, with droughts stretching as far as from the Godavari in India to the Mekong in Southeast Asia, explained study first author Nguyen Tan Thai Hung from SUTD.

As the region is home to many populous river basins which provide water, energy, and food for more than three billion people, the scientists said it is crucial to understand past climate patterns in the Asian Monsoon region in order to better predict long term changes in the water cycle and its impact on the water supply.

Following two years of analysing tree rings to reconstruct the courses of streams in the continent, the scientists produced data on 813 years (from 1200 to 2012) of annual river discharge at 62 stations in 41 rivers flowing through 16 countries, including India.

The researchers also obtained data from a previously published study of an extensive network of tree ring data sites in Asia and prehistoric drought record called the Monsoon Asia Drought Atlas (MADA).

Based on an analysis of the underlying tree ring data, the scientists extracted the most important climate signals that influence river discharge in the continent.

While earlier research had already found that droughts in Asian rivers are influenced by temperatures of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, the new study revealed that this ocean-river connection is not constant over time.

According to the researchers, rivers in Asia were much less influenced by the oceans in the first half of the 20th century compared to the 50 years before, and 50 years after that period.

"This research is of great importance to policy makers -- we need to know where and why river discharge changed during the past millennium to make big decisions on water-dependent infrastructure," Galelli added.

Ranked: the environmental impact of five different soft drink containers

People are increasingly aware of the harm plastic waste causes to wildlife, and many would avoid buying single-use plastics if they could help it. But are the alternatives to plastic much better?

Let’s look at one example – fizzy drinks. You might assume that plastic bottles are the least green option, but is that always the case?

To find out, we compared five different types of pressurised drinks containers. We tested their environmental impact according to a range of criteria, including how each contributes to climate change and the pollution each produces during manufacture, use and disposal.

Here they are, ranked from worst to best.

Read news coverage based on evidence, not alarm.Get newsletter
Fifth place: glass bottles

It might come as a surprise, but glass bottles actually ranked last in our analysis. You might instinctively reach for a glass bottle to avoid buying a plastic alternative, but glass takes more resources and energy to produce. Glass making involves mining raw materials such as silica sand and dolomite, and that can release pollution which, when inhaled, can cause the lung condition silicosis.

High temperatures are also needed to melt these materials, a process overwhelmingly powered by fossil fuels. During production, the glass itself releases carbon dioxide.

Our analysis found that glass bottle production used the most natural resources, due to the sheer amount of material used. A one-litre glass bottle can weigh up to 800g, while a similar plastic bottle weighs around 40g. That extra weight means vehicles transporting glass bottles consume more fossil fuels to deliver the same amount of liquid. For these reasons, we found that glass bottles have about a 95% bigger contribution to global warming than aluminium cans.

More weight means more emissions. Makushin Alexey/Shutterstock

Fourth place: recycled glass bottles

If a regular glass bottle is the worst, then surely those made from 100% recycled glass are much better, right? Unfortunately, no.

Some energy is saved in recycling rather than extracting, processing and transporting raw materials. But recycling glass still uses a lot of energy because of the high temperatures needed to melt it. More energy means more greenhouse gas emissions, and during the process, the glass may release carbon dioxide again.

In the UK, the recycling rate for glass is 67.6%. This would need to improve for glass bottle production to be self-sufficient by recycling alone.
Third place: plastic bottles

In third place is the plastic bottle. Plastic has ideal qualities for containing drinks. It’s strong, resistant to chemicals (so the ingredients in your drink don’t degrade the plastic), and it’s lightweight, meaning more can be transported on less emissions. That gave plastic a significantly lower impact on global warming than glass in our analysis.

But the effects of plastic waste globally are well documented. Glass and aluminium don’t break up into harmful microparticles like plastic does.

Plastic recycling requires less energy due to the lower temperatures involved in melting the raw material. But plastic, unlike glass or aluminium, cannot be endlessly recycled. Each time it’s recycled, the chains of molecules that make up plastics are shortened. All plastic reaches a point when it can no longer be recycled and so becomes destined either for landfill, incineration or the environment.
Second place: aluminium cans

In second place are aluminium cans. We found that they contribute less to global warming than glass and plastic because making them consumes less energy and resources. Cans are lighter than glass and aren’t made from fossil fuels either, like plastic.

Because of the processes involved in making them, cans also contribute less to environmental problems like acid rain and oxygen-free zones in the ocean. That’s because creating glass and plastic requires more electricity, and so it generates more sulphur dioxide pollution on average – a leading cause of acid rain. Making glass and plastic, and extracting the materials to make them (particularly soda ash for glass production), also releases more phosphates into the environment, which can overload rivers and coastal seas and deplete oxygen from the water.

But aluminium has its own environmental impacts. Making it involves refining bauxite ore, and mining bauxite can pollute water in the countries it’s sourced, including Australia, Malaysia and India. Rivers and sediment contaminated with heavy metals threaten the health of people and wildlife near mines.

Bauxite exists in the topsoil of some tropical and subtropical countries.

  Alexey Rezvykh/Shutterstock

First place: recycled aluminium cans

Recycled aluminium cans were the least environmentally damaging single-use container we looked at. Aluminium can be constantly recycled with no change in properties. Recycling an aluminium can saves 95% of the energy used to make a new can and no new material needs to be mined or transported.

But aluminium isn’t always recycled. The UK’s recycling rate for aluminium packaging is just 52%. This must be drastically improved to make recycling the main supply of new cans.

Even if some of these containers are better than others, all of them have an environmental impact. The best option would be to phase out single-use packaging entirely, and introduce a system of reusing containers. Think self-serve drinks machines in local shops, where you could fill a bottle that you bring from home, or bottle return and reuse schemes.

Reducing waste and reusing materials, where possible, should come before recycling something. By reusing bottles, we reduce the amount of single-use packaging that needs to be created, reducing waste and a whole host of global environmental problems.

November 17, 2020


Authors

Ian Williams
Professor of Applied Environmental Science, University of Southampton

Ian Williams receives funding from EPSRC and EU Horizon2020.

Alice Brock
PhD Candidate in Environmental Science, University of Southampton
Disclosure statement
Alice Brock receives funding from ESRC.

Lawsuit challenges Trump's lifting of roadless rule in Alaska's Tongass forest



Yereth Rosen
December 23, 2020

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - A coalition of Alaska Native tribes and environmentalists filed suit on Wednesday challenging a new Trump administration policy that opens vast swaths of the largest U.S. national forest to logging, mining and other commercial development.

The lawsuit, joined by tourism and fishing organizations, seeks to reinstate prohibitions on road-building through previously protected areas in the Tongass National Forest of southeastern Alaska, the world's largest temperate rain forest.

The Clinton-era rule, effectively banning timber harvests and mineral extraction in undeveloped areas of national forests across the country, was lifted for the Tongass in October, part of President Donald Trump's aim of easing various environmental regulations opposed by industry.

It marked a victory for state officials who petitioned for the change because they said the roadless rule - closing off 9.2 million acres (3.7 million hectares) of the 17-million-acre (6.8-million-hectare) Tongass - had cost Alaskans jobs.

But Wednesday's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Juneau, said the Trump policy imperiled indigenous tribal homelands and the ecosystem supporting southeast Alaska's fishing and tourism industries, while disregarding sound science.

“The need for this litigation is a mark of shame upon the federal government for violating the trust and responsibilities it has to the indigenous peoples of the Tongass," Robert Starbard, tribal administrator for the Hoonah Indian Association, said in a statement.

The lawsuit also said increased logging in the Tongass would undermine efforts to combat global warming because the forest is a significant natural repository for stored carbon.

“The complete removal of roadless protections on the Tongass will only worsen the climate crisis, not to mention fragment wildlife habitat and destroy salmon runs,” Andy Moderow of the Alaska Wilderness League said.

U.S. Forest Service representatives were not immediately available for comment on the lawsuit. But the agency has said its Tongass exemption plan would allow new timber production on fewer than 200,000 acres (81,000 hectares), while permitting no more than 50 additional miles (80 km) of road construction over the next century.

The national roadless rule was imposed in 2001 in the last days of President Bill Clinton's administration. It was challenged by Alaska and, at times, other states seeking exemptions. The most recent court rulings, in 2015 and 2016, upheld the rule for the Tongass.

The incoming Biden administration could reverse the Trump policy and accomplish the lawsuit’s objective, plaintiffs' attorney Kate Glover said.

(Reporting by Yereth Rosen in Anchorage, Alaska; Editing by Steve Gorman and Peter Cooney)

The UK approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine. The US might not get it until April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is cheaper and easier to distribute than other vaccines being deployed.

By Umair Irfan Dec 30, 2020, 

People line up to receive vaccinations on December 30 in London. Hollie Adams/Getty Images

The United Kingdom on Wednesday authorized its second Covid-19 vaccine for distribution. Developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, the newly approved vaccine costs less and is easier to store than the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine that received similar approval in the UK on December 2.

Officials said the advantages of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine could accelerate the vaccination effort as the UK contends with a new, more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

“This approval means more people can be protected against this virus and will help save lives,” June Raine, chief executive of the UK’s health regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, said in a statement.

The UK aims to vaccinate 1 million people per week and is shifting to a more aggressive vaccination schedule, according to the New York Times. The country will administer the first vaccine dose to “as many people as possible,” rather than try to keep supplies in reserve to ensure everyone receives a second dose, as other countries, including the United States, have done so far.

The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine’s high stability and low cost could also be a boon to less wealthy nations. If its efficacy is high — and if the vaccine is distributed quickly — it could save countless lives. However, some lingering questions about the results of clinical trials for this vaccine are holding it back from approval in the US, which is conducting its own trials of the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Why the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine is different from those developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna

In the UK, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is approved for people over the age of 18 and will normally be administered as two doses spaced four to 12 weeks apart. It costs $3 to $4 a dose and can be stored in regular refrigerators. By comparison, the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines that have received emergency use authorizations in the US cost between $15 and $25 per dose and require freezers. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in particular needs cold storage at minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit) or lower.

The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine also uses a different technology from the Covid-19 immunizations approved so far. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines harness a molecule called mRNA as their platform to deliver the instructions for making a part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Oxford and AstraZeneca used a different innovative method, reprogramming another virus to transmit DNA instructions for making parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Using another virus to package and deliver genetic material helps the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine remain stable even at higher temperatures.

However, Oxford and AstraZeneca encountered some problems in their clinical trials, including a dosage mistake that led to one group receiving less than a full dose for their initial shot. So far, its efficacy seems to be less than that of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, though well above the 50 percent threshold the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency set for vaccine approval.

But the actual efficacy value remains unclear, ranging between 70 percent and 90 percent efficacy in preventing Covid-19. And Oxford and AstraZeneca have been cagey about certain details surrounding their research.

RELATED
The new UK coronavirus mutations, explained

One reason the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved in the UK but not in the US is that UK regulators evaluate clinical trial data on a rolling basis. The FDA prefers to have more complete trial data. In the US, phase 3 clinical trials of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine are still being conducted.

During a press call on December 30, Moncef Slaoui, the scientific lead for the US government’s Operation Warp Speed, said it might be months before the US gives this vaccine the green light. “We project, if everything goes well, that the readout and emergency use authorization may be granted somewhere early in the month of April,” Slaoui said.

But as in the UK, having another vaccine available in the US, particularly one that’s cheaper and easier to store, would help control the spread of Covid-19. The US government has already invested $1.2 billion in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and has committed to purchasing 300 million doses.

Strongest low in the world heading towards Alaska

It's quite the fitting ending for 2020: The strongest low in the world closing out the year and ushering in 2021.

On Wednesday, a monster storm was born across the western Pacific and caused record-breaking cold temperatures to stream east across Japan.

By Thursday, the low straddled the International Date Line as it reached peak intensity - meaning half the storm had already entered the next year, while the other half was currently stuck in 2020.

Embedded content: https://twitter.com/50ShadesofVan/status/1344729431202557954

As it crossed the date line, the storm's pressure was around 928 millibars, not far off from the record of 924 millibars, with some strengthening still expected into Thursday evening.

What that will amount to is epic winds nearing 200 km/h on the southern side of the low Thursday, whipping up the waves to possible maximum heights close to 30 metres. The swell will propagate across the Pacific, and there is the possibility that parts of western Vancouver Island could see 6 to 8 metre waves

.

© Provided by The Weather Network

For reference, only two Atlantic hurricanes in 2020 had lower pressure readings, Hurricane Eta and Iota, although this comparison is apples to oranges – hurricanes extract their power from warm sea surface temperatures, while the extreme temperature gradients in the northern latitudes fuel the storms tracking across the northern Pacific.

In the case of this low, Siberian air flowing across the western Pacific has interacted with a warmer, sub-tropical flow south of Japan, creating the necessary conditions to push the atmosphere to the limit.

DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON CANADA

All of that energy traversing the Pacific Ocean will create some weather chaos across Canada. B.C. ski resorts will be measuring snowfall, not in centimetres, but in metres in the days and weeks to come

.

© Provided by The Weather Network

The strong jet stream that creates intense storm conditions for British Columbia will keep the rest of the continent void of any consistent Arctic air through mid-January.

*Editor’s note: This article is no longer being updated. Click here to read the recent updates on this powerful low pressure system. *

‘Bomb cyclone’ builds in Aleutian Islands

Author: Jason Samenow, Andrew Freedman, The Washington Post


Computer model view of the Pacific storm, showing wind direction and speed. (Earth.nullschool.net)

A powerhouse storm explosively intensifying in the northern Pacific could rank as the strongest nontropical cyclone observed in that ocean basin.

The storm’s pressure has already dropped to 921 millibars on New Year’s Eve, which is even lower than extreme cyclones that formed in the same vicinity in 2014 and 2015. It now qualifies as the strongest storm on record to hit Alaska, according to Rick Thoman, a climate scientist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

The lower the pressure, generally, the stronger the storm. The two northern Pacific cyclones that set records in 2014 and 2015 saw their pressures level off at around 924 millibars, which means this storm has eclipsed their intensities.

On Thursday morning, the National Weather Service’s Ocean Prediction Center confirmed that the storm is already generating 110 mph winds. On satellite imagery, the storm appears as a giant comma-shaped swirl of clouds, a textbook appearance for a strong nontropical weather system.

At 7 a.m. Wednesday, the European model had analyzed the storm’s pressure at 972 millibars. It predicted the pressure will tumble to 921 millibars just 24 hours later, a 51-millibar drop. This plunge in pressure is double the criteria for “bombogenesis,” in which a storm’s pressure drops 24 millibars in 24 hours and earns the “bomb cyclone” moniker.

The Weather Service’s Ocean Prediction Center, which analyzed the storm at 921 mb, stated it ranks as “one of the strongest storms to ever impact the North Pacific.” The strongest wind gust recorded at Shemya Island in Alaska, located about 1,450 miles southwest of Anchorage, was 83 mph, with high winds and pounding waves battering the western Aleutian Island chain.

This 2020 Pacific bomb cyclone and its ultralow pressure represent an amazing contrast from an exceptional high-pressure zone over Mongolia, which may have set a world record on Tuesday.

At 7 a.m. local time on Tuesday, the mean sea-level pressure at Tsetsen-Uul, Mongolia, rose to 1,094.3 millibars, about 174 millibars higher than the projected pressure in the Pacific cyclone.

East Asia sits in the transition zone between these two extreme pressure centers, and the resulting northerly winds funneling over the Sea of Japan are predicted to cause a massive “sea effect” snowstorm for the Japanese Alps downwind.

Multiple feet of snow are forecast for the high terrain on Honshu through Saturday morning. This same region is just recovering from up to seven feet of snow earlier this month.

Rain, snowfall warnings issued ahead of next potent B.C. storm

www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/rain-snowfall-warnings-issued...

\

13 hours ago · Yet another low-pressure system makes its way to B.C. on Saturday ... expected to be the strongest of the forthcoming systems. This will likely be a washout for the day, as the low will bring

Meanwhile, the Pacific storm, in addition to unleashing winds topping 100 mph, is predicted to generate waves over 45 feet over the open waters.

Such storms generally go unnoticed except for meteorologists and those with maritime interests such as shipping, military and fishing. They are common in winter, although this particular storm is likely to reach the upper echelon of those ever observed in terms of its intensity.

While their pressures are extremely low, they do not fall as low hurricanes and typhoons, which have been known to drop below 900 millibars.

“Unlike hurricanes, these large and powerful storms go unnamed,” Capital Weather Gang’s severe-weather expert Jeff Halverson wrote in describing these storms in 2015. “And unlike hurricanes, they derive their energy from an entirely different process. While hurricanes extract heat from the ocean, maritime cyclones create energy by drawing together warm and cold air masses. When the warm air rises and cold air sinks, the kinetic energy of swirling wind is generated.”

Halverson continued: “The juxtaposition of warm and cold air is also what powers the polar jet stream - and indeed, maritime cyclones and the jet stream are inextricably linked - the one feeding back upon, and enhancing, the other.”

Indeed, the European model forecasts the jet stream transiting the Pacific to reach astonishing speeds of 230 mph (200 knots) at an altitude of 30,000 feet Thursday into Friday.

This rip-roaring jet stream is likely to carry weather disturbances into the Pacific Northwest and even California over the next week.

The National Weather Service is predicting four to eight inches of rain from the coast of Northern California into Washington state over the next seven days. In the high elevations, snowfall will be extreme, measured in feet.

With the jet stream bombarding the West Coast and drawing in Pacific air, the eastern United States is expected to be generally mild next week as the flow of Arctic air into the Lower 8 is4 cut off.

India’s huge farmer protests, explained

Thousands of India’s farmers have set up camp in Delhi.

By Christina Thornellchristina.thornell@vox.com  Dec 30, 2020,

In November 2020, thousands of farmers marched from the northern states of India to Delhi to protest farming reforms passed by Prime Minister Modi’s government. Those protests have continued throughout the month of December and show little sign of letting up. The farmers have set up camp in and around the capital city to pressure the government to repeal the laws, but the government won’t budge.

The government says these new laws will modernize farming by liberalizing the industry, but India’s farmers say it will be their downfall. Under these new policies, farmers will have fewer government protections and will likely lose the government-regulated markets and prices they have relied on for years.

To make matters even more difficult, all this is happening as India’s farmers grapple with a shrinking share of the economy that has contributed to a suicide crisis around the country.

To understand the three farming reforms and why they have driven so many farmers into the streets, as well as the history behind the problems India’s farmers have been facing for decades, watch the video

• Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
•