Call of Duty: Warzone developers stage walkout over Activision layoffs



Stephen Totilo
Mon, December 6, 2021

Organizers say more than 60 workers at the Call of Duty: Warzone studio Raven Software, owned by Activision Blizzard, walked out today, demanding the reinstatement of a dozen workers from the testing department.

Why it matters: Walkouts, long a maneuver of organized labor, are becoming a tactic in the non-unionized U.S. video game sector.

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free

Workers from another wing of the company, Blizzard, walked out in July to protest years of alleged abuse at the studio.

The details: On Friday, management began informing a dozen contractors in Raven's quality assurance department their contracts would not be renewed past January.

An Activision Blizzard worker group say the testing team had been told that positive changes were coming to the department and noted some of the dozen had just relocated to Wisconsin, where Raven is based.

The protesting workers are demanding that all testers are offered full-time jobs.

"The end goal of this walk out is to ensure the continued growth of Raven as a studio and to foster a positive community for everyone who works there," the worker group A Better ABK said in a statement.

What they're saying: Activision says the cuts are part of a plan to convert 500 other temporary workers to full-time employees.

"Unfortunately, as part of this change, we also have notified 20 temporary workers across studios that their contracts would not be extended," an Activision rep told Axios.


They have not commented on the protesting workers' demands.

Between the lines: Raven is the lead studio behind Warzone, a popular battle royale game that industry analyst firm Super Data estimates generates over $5 million in revenue a day.

Tesco facing pre-Christmas strikes in Northern Ireland and England

Action is in protest over the supermarket group's offer of a 4% pay rise

The Belfast and Antrim workers will be taking all-out strike action from December 16.

TUE, 07 DEC, 2021 - 09:02

Workers at several Tesco distribution centres across the UK are set to strike in the run-up to Christmas, potentially hitting product availability, the Unite union said.

It said warehouse and truck drivers based at depots in Belfast and Antrim in Northern Ireland, Didcot in southern England and Doncaster in northern England were taking strike action in protest over the supermarket group's offer of a 4% pay rise.

The Belfast and Antrim workers will be taking all-out strike action from December 16. Didcot and Doncaster workers will strike for 48 hours from the same day and for five days from December 20.

Tesco, Britain's biggest retailer, said it had made a fair pay offer.

"We welcome the decision by our colleagues at the sites who have voted against industrial action. We are disappointed that some have voted to proceed, and we have contingency plans in place to help mitigate any impacts," said a Tesco spokesperson.

British retailers are already grappling with delays in international supply chains that are being compounded by labour shortages in domestic transport and warehousing networks, with a lack of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers particularly acute.

But Tesco said in October it was coping well.

Reuters

Oil CEOs clash with U.S. Energy Dept official over energy transition



World Petroleum Congress in Houston

Mon, December 6, 2021, 11:10 PM
By Marianna Parraga and Erwin Seba

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Top energy executives this week urged a more cautious transition of energy policy away from oil and gas, but a U.S. Energy Department official said the industry has a moral obligation to address climate change and the economic opportunity it represents.

Executives from Saudi Aramco, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, speaking at the World Petroleum Congress in Houston on Monday, blamed demand for renewables and lack of investment in fossil fuels for recent fuel shortages and price volatility.

The conference was marked by withdrawals of top energy ministers over travel restrictions and concerns over the Coronavirus. The verbal skirmish occurred at a time when oil demand has recovered sharply from a collapse during the coronavirus pandemic even as world governments have stressed the urgency of addressing climate change.

"The volatility in commodity prices and the impact on business and people," said Equinor ASA Chief Executive Anders Opedal, "illustrates the risks we face in an imbalanced transition."

U.S. deputy Energy secretary David Turk pushed back against the industry position, saying addressing climate cannot be put on the back burner.

"There is not an alternative to stepping up and fixing the threat to climate change," he said to an audience in a largely empty hall.

Consumers in Asia and Europe have been dealing with shortages of natural gas, coal and power due to production declines that pushed prices to multi-year highs. In the United States, the Biden administration has criticized oil and gas companies, saying they put profits over consumers.

The tension between investing in oil and gas, carbon reduction technologies and responding to investors demanding higher returns will be a continuing issue for major oil firms, executives said.

"The future of energy is lower carbon from exploration discoveries and production," said Liz Schwarze, vice president of global exploration at Chevron.

Amin Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil producer, said there are too many incorrect assumptions made about the pace at which consumers will shift to renewables from oil and gas.

People "assume that the right transition strategy is in place. It’s not," said Nasser. "Energy security, economic development and affordability are clearly not receiving enough attention."

(Reporting by Marianna Parraga, Erwin Seba, Liz Hampton and Sabrina Valle in Houston; Editing by David Gregorio)

Opinion | Biden’s Democracy Summit Was Never a Good Idea. But Here’s How To Make It Work.



James M. Goldgeier and Bruce W. Jentleson
Sun, December 5, 2021

President Joe Biden will convene more than 100 world leaders, along with civil society and private-sector representatives, for his much-touted “Summit for Democracy” on Thursday and Friday. The virtual event, focused on “renewing democracy in the United States and around the world,” fulfills a pledge Biden made repeatedly in his presidential campaign — and one that we urged him to ditch shortly after he was elected.

In an article laying out our case last December, we stressed that determining who is sufficiently democratic to make the invite list would inevitably create tensions, and that the entire concept of a democracy summit relies on an overly ideological approach to managing the global agenda. Better, we thought, to skip the summit and get to the work of promoting democracy by working with already existing international institutions and partnerships, while revitalizing our own programs like USAID. Finally, we feared the U.S. had questionable credibility to position itself as a leading democracy, worries that were heightened after January 6 and amid ongoing efforts by many Republicans to undercut our own democratic system.

The Biden team, obviously, chose differently. We still think the summit risks becoming a self-inflicted wound, but given that it is happening anyway, here are four ways in which the administration can mitigate the most likely pitfalls.

First, don’t be afraid to call out your guests. Taking geopolitics into account, even when it means compromising your ideals somewhat, is a fact of life in foreign policy. With a summit billed as being literally “for democracy,” though, this risks going from complication to contradiction. The administration did draw a line by declining to invite NATO allies Hungary and Turkey, whose democratic credentials are in serious doubt. A number of other backsliding democracies that we raised concerns about — Poland, the Philippines, Brazil and India — did get invited. Each has its geopolitical rationale. But their undemocratic practices have grown worse over the past year.

The Biden administration argues that these countries aren’t just being invited for reasons of realpolitik, but that including them provides opportunities for their civil societies to challenge authoritarian trends. (The White House might be looking for inspiration to the 1975 signing of the Helsinki Final Act, which ultimately helped foster the collapse of Eastern Europe’s communist regimes.) Still, the risk is that leaders may walk away able to say the United States recognized them as democratic. Each needs to get the message that their invitation does not mean the Biden team is letting them off the hook regarding their undemocratic trends. While it may be tough for the administration to be too blatantly public during the summit, well-placed leaks to the press can help ensure that behind-the-scenes diplomatic pressure is not so quiet as to lack teeth.

The message to Polish President Andrzej Duda should be that while the U.S. stands with him against Belarus’ weaponization of migrants at the border, it also supports the efforts of the EU Court of Justice, which has been fining Poland more than 1 million Euros per day for violating EU law regarding judicial independence. And though Tucker Carlson may heap praise on Duda, the Biden administration should make clear it will use its leverage to help those working to reverse Poland’s assaults on the courts and a free media.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte needs to be reminded of the crucial role the U.S. played in bringing down Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship and re-establishing Philippine democracy in the 1980s. The U.S. should convey that it is committed to helping ensure next year’s Philippine elections are free and fair, with a particular eye on the autocratic family unity ticket of Marcos’ son and Duterte’s daughter.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, long self-styled as the “tropical Trump,” is already making foreboding statements like “only God can take me from the presidency.” Given the United States' disturbing record of supporting anti-democratic forces in Brazil during the Cold War, it is especially crucial that the Biden administration be clear that its commitment to a “long-term” strategic partnership” with Brazil doesn’t mean the U.S. will ignore the state of Brazilian democracy.

On India, the administration got off to a good start with the March 2021 human rights report from the State Department, which extensively delineated human rights violations and criticized the “lack of accountability for official misconduct … at all levels of government.” But the U.S.-India security partnership has grown closer as part of the enhanced Indo-Pacific Quad, even as the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance recently ranked India as worst among all “backsliding” democracies. This makes it all the more important that the next human rights report be no less frank and the U.S. not be afraid to call out Narendra Modi’s government.

Second, don’t let democracy alone dictate whom you work with. Another challenge for Biden at the summit will be affirming the shared affinities among democracies without further dividing the world into two camps. Ideology and interests do not always align. Democracies often have divergent interests. Democracies and autocracies can have convergent ones.

Fellow democracies are frequently economic and geopolitical competitors, and often have different ideas about how to manage the threats posed by authoritarian states. In that regard, the summit is a good time to reaffirm Secretary Antony Blinken’s assurance to NATO in March that “The United States won’t force allies into an ‘us-or-them’ choice with China.”

Meanwhile, democracies cannot afford to be opposed to autocracies on every issue. In the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union shared interests on issues like arms control and smallpox eradication. Today, the United States and China (as well as Russia) have a shared interest in combating climate change, reducing the risks of nuclear proliferation and fighting pandemics. Moreover, China is intertwined in the global economy in a way the Soviet Union never was.

The administration’s decision to invite Taiwan highlights this delicate balance between values and geopolitical reality. In one sense, Taiwan absolutely belongs on the invitation list; its democracy gets one of Freedom House’s highest rankings. But the invitation is obviously a delicate matter given Chinese concerns. Whatever sense of greater comity the Biden-Xi virtual summit fostered was punctured days later by Beijing’s protests over Taiwan’s summit invitation. The administration is keeping Taiwanese participation at a relatively lower level, but this diplomatic distinction doesn’t fully finesse the challenges.

While showing support for Taiwan and its democracy is an important foreign policy objective, the Biden team also needs to be firm with the Taiwanese government that it cannot use the summit invitation to insinuate support for independence or other goals inconsistent with the One China policy. Otherwise, the invite risks not only further complicating U.S.-China relations but also having Taiwan’s presence — and subsequent China tensions — becoming a main storyline crowding out the summit’s intended narrative. More generally, Biden should emphasize that, framing of the summit notwithstanding, democracies retain practical interests in working with non-democracies.

Third, use civil society groups to hold countries accountable. A common critique of the summit — which we agree with — has been that it will be nearly impossible to force countries to deliver on the democratic commitments they are being asked to make. The Biden administration has compiled an “illustrative menu of options” for initiatives they hope invited countries will choose to sign onto, and they plan to hold another summit a year from now to assess progress. These pledges need to be concrete enough to make the summit more than “just a photo op” — a risk that became clear with how few Paris climate commitments from 2015 were fulfilled, a failure that now hangs over the Glasgow COP-26 summit.

To ensure participants are held accountable, Biden should fully endorse the June 2022 Fifth Copenhagen Democracy Summit, whose more than 500 participants will undertake a “civil society stocktaking of the commitments made” at Biden’s summit. The Copenhagen meeting is a great opportunity to empower a consortium of groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Transparency International and various NGOs in the Global South to provide the kind of accountability scorecards governments on their own will not.

Fourth, use the summit to make real progress on fixing America’s broken democracy. Finally, we expressed concerns last year that this was the wrong moment for the U.S. to host an international gathering focused on democratic values. Since then, those concerns have only been exacerbated by the January 6 insurrection; the refusal of many Americans — fed lies by their political leaders — to accept the results of the 2020 election; rampant political violence against election officials, health care workers and school board officials; and a systematic effort by Republicans in a number of states to curtail voting rights.

We give the administration credit for being humble about the United States' challenges. In announcing the summit, Biden acknowledged that for ourselves and for how the world sees us, “we must openly and honestly grapple with our history of systemic inequity and injustice and the way it still holds back so many in our society.”

Indeed, in the past, foreign policy considerations have spurred crucial domestic political change. Historian Mary Dudziak writes that during the Cold War, “as presidents and secretaries of state. . . worried about the impact of race discrimination on U.S. prestige abroad, civil rights reform came to be seen as crucial to U.S. foreign relations.” Even Hans Morgenthau, the intellectual godfather of power politics, stressed the need to “concentrate efforts upon creating a society at home which can . . . serve as a model for other nations to emulate.” Were Biden to use the summit to launch a major initiative for repairing American democracy so that it is once again emulatable, the summit may prove worthwhile after all.

A ONE MAN SUPERSPREADER EVENT
Trump came into contact with about 500 people from the day he tested positive for COVID-19 in late September 2020, report says
Grace Panetta
Mon, December 6, 2021,

Judge Amy Coney Barrett applauds as President Donald Trump announces Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court, in the Rose Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington.

AP Photo/Alex BrandonMore


Trump came into contact with around 500 people from the day he tested positive for COVID-19.


A new Washington Post analysis traced Trump's events and interactions in late September 2020.


Mark Meadows revealed Trump's previously-undisclosed September 26 positive test in his memoir.

Former President Donald Trump came into contact with about 500 people, excluding attendees at his rallies, in the seven days after testing positive for COVID-19 in September 2020, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

Trump's fourth and final chief of staff Mark Meadows disclosed the president's previously-unknown September 26 positive test in his memoir "The Chief's Chief," a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication.

According to Meadows's account, Trump seemed a bit tired and appeared to have a slight cold on September 26, the day he hosted a large ceremony and reception at the White House for then-Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

But Meadows received some bad news that evening on the way to a Trump rally in Middletown, Pennsylvania, when White House physician Sean Conley called to inform him that Trump had been infected with the coronavirus.

"Stop the president from leaving," Conley told Meadows as Trump was on Marine One. "He just tested positive for Covid."

"Mr President," Meadows recalled saying, "I've got some bad news. You've tested positive for Covid-19."

Meadows, in the book, sums up Trump's response as rhyming with "'Oh spit, you've gotta be trucking lidding me,'" according to the Guardian.

The chief of staff then told Trump that the first positive test came from an older model kit, saying they would do another test with "the Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive."

Instead of conducting a new COVID-19 test, officials simply re-ran the same sample through another testing device — not a proper procedure for COVID-19 testing — and got a negative result, according to The Post.

Trump came in contact with 150 people on November 26, the day of the Rose Garden ceremony; 70 people on November 27, when he held a White House ceremony with Gold Star families that he later blamed for infecting him; and 30 people on September 28, according to The Post's analysis.

Trump then had contact with 20 people — including now-President Joe Biden — on September 29, the day of the first presidential debate at Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio; 55 people on September 30; and 200 people on December 1, the day he and former first lady Melania Trump both tested positive, per The Post.

Trump issued a statement last week, responding to a story in The Guardian about Meadows' book.

"The story of me having COVID prior to, or during, the first debate is Fake News. In fact, a test revealed that I did not have COVID prior to the debate," he said.

Ben Williamson, a spokesperson for Meadows, later said, "The book is quite clearly referring to a 'false positive' rapid test the president received," The Post reported. Williamson added that Trump "did not have COVID before or during the debate." And Meadows retweeted Trump's statement, posted by Trump's spokesperson Liz Harrington, decrying the account in his own book as fake news.

Trump doubled down in a Monday morning statement.

"The Fake News continues to push the false narrative that I had Covid prior to the first debate. My Chief of Staff Mark Meadows confirmed I did not have Covid before or during the debate, saying, 'And yet, the way that the media wants to spin it is certainly to be as negative about Donald Trump as they possibly can while giving Joe Biden a pass,'" Trump said, adding, "Biden goes around coughing on people all over the place, and yet the Corrupt News doesn't even cover it."

Meadows did not disclose Trump's positive test to those who attended the Rose Garden ceremony, the organizers of the September 29 presidential debate — where Trump risked exposing Biden and other debate attendees, or the public. Meadows also kept Vice President Mike Pence and senior White House staffers who had been in contact with Trump in the dark about the former president's first positive test, The Post reported.

THE NEW KINGFISH

‘This Must be Stopped’: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Plans to Establish a Militia That Answers Solely to Him

Niara Savage
Mon, December 6, 2021

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced a budget proposal on Thursday that includes plans to establish a militia that would answer solely to him.

Unlike the Florida National Guard, the Florida State Guard wouldn’t receive federal funding or embark on federal missions.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced a budget that would create a militia. (Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

DeSantis wants to use $3.5 million of the $100 million budget proposal to fund the state guard he said will “not be encumbered to the federal government.”

The guard, made up of up to 200 volunteers, would support the Florida National Guard during state emergencies, the proposal says.

“The $3.5 million to establish the Florida State Guard will enable civilians to be trained in the best emergency response techniques. By establishing the Florida State Guard, Florida will become the 23rd state with a state guard recognized by the federal government.”

DeSantis’ proposal isn’t completely outside of the norm. There are 22 states who currently have defense forces independent from the National Guard.

However, DeSantis’ track record, including violently quelling protesters has some Democrats sounding the alarm over the governor’s plan.

“No Governor should have his own handpicked secret police,” said Rep. Charlie Crist, who represents Florida’s 13th District in Congress.

Crist, who previously served one term governor after being elected to the office in 2006, is running against DeSantis in the 2022 gubernatorial race.

“Can’t believe I have to say this, but Florida doesn’t need a paramilitary force that only answers to @RonDeSantisFL,” tweeted fellow Democratic guberbnatorial candidate and Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried.

“Millions of Floridians know what it’s like to live under regimes like this — and came to our state to escape them. This must be stopped,” she said.

“DeSantis is making moves to advance his own reign of terror. We’ve seen this type of militia before in Syria & Iraq,” tweeted Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross.



The original Florida State Guard was established in 1941 to replace members of the National Guard who were serving overseas during World War II. It was disbanded in 1947 as states dropped those adjunct military groups after the war ended. In the 1980s many states revived state guard forces.

The largest chunk of DeSantis’ $100 million military budget proposal, $87.5 million, will fund the expansion of a readiness center in Miramar and establish three new armories in Homestead, Gainesville and Malabar.

The proposal also includes plans to fund armory maintenance, establish a new headquarters for the National Guard Counter Drug Program and support members of the state National Guard who are seeking college degrees.

“Florida is one of the most veteran friendly states and I think there are very few places that you would rather be on duty than in the state of Florida,” DeSantis said.

“In Florida, we are going to continue our momentum of supporting our military, supporting our veterans and being good stewards of our military installations.”

Cities, buildings, named for Lewis Cass a wrong to Native Americans that must be corrected

Gerry Congleton, guest writer

Lansing State Journal
Sun, December 5, 2021

Cities, roads and bodies of water all across Michigan are named to honor Lewis Cass, appointed governor of the Michigan Territory in 1813 when most of the land belonged primarily to the Native Americans. Cass negotiated 20 different treaties with Native tribes, coercing them to hand over thousands of acres of land to the United States.

Gerry Congleton

President Andrew Jackson and Lewis Cass orchestrated and implemented their "Humane Plan" for the Indian Removal Act. The rationalization for the Indian Removal Act was to save "Indians" from becoming extinct — to become civilized, to become assimilated. The obvious intent was to take the fertile land being in control of the Native Americans east of the Mississippi River.

Cass expressed his attitude about Native Americans in an essay he wrote in 1826. Cass said, "the Indians were inherently savage and incapable of assimilating."

Rationalizing Removal: Anti-Indianism in Lewis Cass's North American Review Essays on JSTOR

In an 1827 essay, Cass wrote, "The Indians are compelled to war of passions, they have not only no principles of religion or morality to repress their passions, but they are urged forward in their career of blood by all around them."

Lewis Cass, excerpts from "Removal of the Indians," North American Review, January, 1830 (nationalhumanitiescenter.org)

American Expansion Turns to Official Indian Removal (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

cherokeeremoval.pdf (scpronet.com)

Cass was not only a major orchestrator of the Indian Removal Act, but an advocate of "Popular Sovereignty," the doctrine of allowing states to vote whether or not to allow slavery.

This was not an honorable man and we need to do something to remove the Cass name from areas that were named to honor him. Fortunately, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has already started this by removing the Cass name from a government building in Lansing.

We can further correct these wrongs by removing his name from all locations in Michigan, which would include:

Cass Technical High School, Detroit

Cass Avenue, Detroit

Cass Park Historic District, Detroit

Cass County, in southwest Michigan

Cassopolis, a city and county seat of Cass County

Cass City, in Tuscola County

Cass Lake, in Oakland County

Cass Avenue, in Macomb County

Cass River, in Michigan's Thumb region

Cass Cliff on Mackinac Island

Gerry Congleton is a resident of Haslett and is a retired social studies teacher with a masters degree from Michigan State University with an emphasis in Native American Culture.

THE DEBATE OVER INDIAN REMOVAL IN THE 1830’s 

June 2011 

MA THESIS

 George W. Goss, BA, University of Texas 

 MAT, Emmanuel College 

The US in the 1830s debated the relationship between the US and Indian communities of
North America. The principles calling for equal rights and political democracy of the
people in America were in contradiction with the principles calling for the US to follow
colonial principles of the European empires that had begun to invade North America in
the late 1400s.

 The colonies that had revolted against British rule in the late 1700s had
continued the expansion of settlements and political incorporation that had been practiced since the founding of colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth. The proposal of Indian Removal debated in the US Congress was a straightforward expression of that
expansionism, which dispensed with the past policies of the US that had combined
expansion with treaty negotiations that had the form of a meeting and agreements of
equals, and proclamations of Indian rights and sovereignty.

 There was a national campaign developed in support of the Indian resistance, particularly from the Cherokee, that involved polemics and petitions, pubic meetings and Congressional debates. The opposition to Removal was advancing principles that in effect called for the US to develop practical policy that was in line with its past proclamations that upheld its treaty commitments to the Indian communities. The proponents of Removal, supporting a campaign of the state of Georgia to dispossess and expel Indian communities within its drawn borders, advanced principles that favored the prerogatives of US states. The US treaty commitments to the Indians were argued to be invalid; because the Indians were an inferior race the agreements with them could be annulled by a superior race. The arguments for Georgia’s superior rights and US expansion, based on principles of white supremacy and colonial rights of discovery and conquest, won the day.

#PFAS

Outdoors advocacy group wants Maine to create instate lab to test for 'forever chemicals'


Pete Warner, Bangor Daily News, Maine
Mon, December 6, 2021

Dec. 6—David Trahan was aware that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were discovered in well water near a dairy farm in Fairfield in 2020.

But the revelation by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife that the contaminants were also in deer meat sounded a new alarm for the executive director of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, who is an avid hunter and fisherman.

"It caught us by surprise that this made it into deer; not just the liver, but in the meat of the deer," Trahan, a Clinton native, said. "That was a shocker. Nobody saw that one coming."

After the discovery of "forever chemicals" in eight deer in Fairfield last month, DIF&W will test more deer at other sites suspected to have been affected by toxic sludge. But the testing timeline is a long one, and there are limited facilities in the U.S. where animal samples can be tested for PFAS. That means the wait to receive test results can take several weeks.

"If I'm living in those areas, the shortest period of time we can leave them in limbo, the better, because it's always the fear of the unknown," Trahan said.

Trahan said there is a simple solution to that issue.

"I think it begins with an investment in a laboratory here in Maine," he said, noting that such a facility should be able to handle testing of water, soil, plants and animal tissue.

Trahan said the equipment needed to perform PFAS testing costs approximately $450,000 but represents a significant and critical investment if Maine is to aggressively investigate PFAS contamination.

With a state budget surplus of $8 million and federal money available, Trahan said establishing and staffing a lab should be a priority. Sportsman's Alliance of Maine is contacting legislators and has been in contact with Sen. Susan Collins' office in the hope of generating support for such a project.

"This has to, in my opinion, elevate to one of the highest priorities the state has right now," Trahan said.

"We can't do anything but wonder and be afraid until we have good information. And the faster we get the information, the better."

The testing performed on eight deer in Fairfield found that five contained high levels of the chemicals. DIF&W immediately issued a "do not eat" advisory for deer taken from in and around Fairfield and suggested that all meat harvested there be destroyed.

The news triggered a whirlwind of worry and questions about how wildlife in other parts of Maine may be sickened by PFAS. There is serious concern about people's exposure to the chemicals near other sites where industrial sludge and septic waste have been applied to farm fields as fertilizer.

"It's extremely disturbing," said Trahan, who has been spearheading Sportsman's Alliance of Maine's efforts to help facilitate a speedy and effective response to what he called an environmental crisis.

DIF&W will conduct future testing of deer — and possibly fish, turkeys and other wildlife — based in part on the findings of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection at sites in 33 towns suspected to have been affected by toxic sludge.

More vigorous and expanded PFAS testing is likely to require more funding and staffing for state agencies such as the Department of Environmental Protection and DIF&W, which Trahan said will need more manpower to execute the studies.

DIF&W enlisted the assistance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services to kill and process the deer at the Fairfield location.

"[The Sportsman's Alliance of Maine] have some influence in the Legislature and we're going to use it to get them the resources that they need," Trahan said.

Even though DIF&W has thus far issued a "do not eat" advisory only for venison from deer harvested near Fairfield, hunters — particularly those who live in and around other suspected contaminated sites — may in the meantime want to consider not eating deer liver or kidneys, Trahan said.

DIF&W already had a recommendation in place not to consume moose or deer liver and kidneys because of possible contamination with the heavy metal cadmium.

Trahan's hope is to make people aware of what's going on so they can take whatever steps are needed to help protect themselves.

"This is an environmental crisis," Trahan said. "It's also a crisis of information and figuring out how to get all this information accurately and effectively as soon as possible. We have to make people as safe as they can possibly be."

BIOMASS IS NOT GREEN

Idle biomass plant near Delano would reopen under carbon burial proposal


John Cox, The Bakersfield Californian
Sat, December 4, 2021

Dec. 4—Kern's ambitious list of carbon burial proposals has lengthened with the addition of an early-stage, relatively inexpensive plan for reusing an idle biomass plant near Delano to combust local ag waste then burying the byproduct gas while generating small amounts of electricity or hydrogen.

A company based in Rancho Cordova that uses rocket technology to increase burn efficiency has initiated preliminary talks with Kern County government as it pursues a similar biomass plant-reuse project in Mendota under a new partnership with Microsoft and oil industry giants Chevron and Schlumberger.

The projects are not without skeptics who question claims the process is carbon negative and doubt the technology itself. Environmental groups have been critical of carbon capture and sequestration generally; they're no more receptive to burning biomass and burying its byproduct carbon dioxide.

If Clean Energy Systems' project in Mendota lives up to its billing as a safe, financially viable, zero-emission solution for handling the Central Valley's massive production of ag waste, the company's proposal in northern Kern could join at least three other projects in the county that, though unrelated to biomass, all aim to address climate change by injecting CO2 deep underground.

CES has purchased the former 50-megawatt, 1,200-ton-per-day Covanta Delano LLP biomass plant that was shut down in 2015. That was after a large share of the state's biomass power plants shut down several years ago in the face of competition from against other renewable energy producers.

The loss of facilities that had taken in ag waste resulted in a glut of feedstock, leading many farmers to burn their woody waste openly. Regulations on such pollution have since tightened while mulching of shredded orchards and vineyards has become more common. Even so, some growers are finding customers for their biomass.

After CES initiated a conversation with officials in Kern, the county did a preliminary assessment that led it to inform the company in early 2020 it would have to perform a full environmental review and pay certain fees. Things have stopped there.

"We are not actively processing any permit for any Clean Energy Systems project anywhere in unincorporated Kern County," the county's top energy-permitting official, Lorelei Oviatt, said by email.

Environmental advocates who would prefer the project remain on hold have raised a number of concerns not unique to the CES proposal near Delano.

They question calculations suggesting biomass combustion combined with carbon sequestration is truly carbon negative. They note it takes a great deal of energy to capture, compress and inject carbon, not to mention the associated activities of gathering and transporting biomass.

Environmental groups point to the risks of transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline to an injection site, considering its dangers as an asphyxiant. Plus, they worry what might happen decades later after the company that buried it is no longer legally liable for its safe sequestration.

"Bringing the Delano facility back online presents real dangers to air quality, public health and our climate," Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, staff attorney for the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, said by email.

"Instead of investing in more carbon burning and risky pipelines, the (Central Valley) needs clean energy solutions like distributed solar," she continued. "Communities in the San Joaquin Valley shouldn't be made a dumping ground for carbon waste."

Clean Energy Systems President and CEO Keith L. Pronske promised there will be no emissions at all in Delano but that it will sequester more than half a million tons per year of carbon dioxide while also producing hydrogen or electricity for the transportation sector on the order of 5 to 10 megawatts.

The operation will employ 35 to 50 people when it opens within five years, Pronske said. He added that the project's cost is in the hundreds of millions of dollars — well below the price tag of billions attached to other local carbon burial projects — and that the privately held company is talking to potential financial partners.

He acknowledged there's plenty of work to do in Delano but that the focus now must be on the Mendota project, which has applied for a federal carbon injection permit and last month hosted a public hearing.

"We shut down half the biomass plants in the state," he said, "so the plan is to get them back on but without the pollution."

Trump's new social media company is under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission




Kelly McLaughlin,Bryan Metzger
Mon, December 6, 2021, 8:19 AM·2 min read


The SPAC backing Trump's new social media venture disclosed in a SEC filing that it's under investigation.


Regulators have requested information from the company, but there's no indication of wrongdoing yet.


The SPAC has seen investment from 2 Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The deal between a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) and former President Donald Trump's new social media company is being investigated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators, according to a report filed with the SEC that was first reported by the New York Times.

According to the document from Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC) — the SPAC that intends to merge with Trump's new media venture, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (TMTG) — the SEC has requested documents about meetings of the SPAC's board of directors, "policies and procedures relating to trading," identification of certain investors, and copies of communication between DWAC and TMTG.

Trump first announced on October 20 that he was launching a new social media company, "TRUTH Social," under the auspices of TMTG.

"We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter, yet your favorite American President has been silenced," Trump said in his statement announcing the launch. "Everyone asks me why doesn't someone stand up to Big Tech? Well, we will be soon!"

The investigation, according to the filing, began in early November. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a private regulator, also began looking into the partnership in late October following the October 20 merger announcement.

The company noted that neither FINRA nor the SEC had found any indication of wrongdoing, and the company said it was cooperating with both agencies.

"The inquiry should not be construed as an indication that FINRA has determined that any violations of Nasdaq rules or federal securities laws have occurred," the document states. "According to the SEC's request, the investigation does not mean that the SEC has concluded that anyone violated the law or that the SEC has a negative opinion of DWAC or any person, event, or security."

The investigation comes after Trump's digital media company, TRUTH Social, and Digital World Acquisition Corp. announced that they were raising nearly $1 billion from investors.

Two Republican members of congress — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Larry Bucshon of Indiana — have invested in Digital World Acquisition Corp.