Home Builder Developer - Interior Renovation and Design

MPNnow

The following deed transfers were recorded at the Ontario County Clerks Office in October 2020.

1173 Earls Drive: Amanda L. Tuttle and David M. Tuttle to Amanda L. Tuttle, $0.

8 Moraine Point: Elizabeth A. Missick and Gregory J. Missick to Laura Marie DiMarco and Michael Andrew Leshley, $571,000.

1160 Cork Road: Norbert W. Kaiser to Hamid Kamal, $250,000.

6969 Wyndham Hill: S and J Morrell Inc. to Beverly J. Lanoue, $299,982.

6984 Hackney Circle: Terrill L. Morgan to Daniel Gajewski and Janine M. Gajewski, $459,500.

6608 Boughton Hill Road: Betsy H. Riedman, Betsy Holden Riedman and David J. Riedman to 6608 Boughton Hill Road Investments LLC, $950,000.

3 Beach Flint Way: Renee L. Paulsen and Peter C. Paulsen to Georgia K. Queri and Thomas K. Queri, $440,000.

41 Stoneleigh Trail: Sevasti R. Stathopoulos and Constantino G. Stathopoulos to Sevasti R. Stathopoulos, $1.

1049 Warters Cove: Sarah L. Cammilleri to Gregory Hoffman-Fragale and Chad Hoffman-Fragale, $550,000.

23 Kent Drive: Nancy L. Bethel and Kirk J. Bethel to Marney C. Womble, $190,000.

65 Barchan Dune Rise: Jennifer Paszkiewicz and Jeffrey M. Paszkiewicz to Vadym Vasyliev, $901,000.

7216 Lane Road: Carol F. Forest and Carol F. Robinson to Michael Yeaple, $216,000.

6708 Setters Run: Julie MacAnn and Gregory MacAnn to Melanie C. Caccamise and Todd R. Caccamise, $321,000.

395 Fisher Road: Jay A. Yates to Heidi C. Piper, $0.

Fisher Road: Jay A. Yates to Heidi C. Piper, $0.

916 Fenwick Lane: Naresh K. Vedula to National Transfer Services LLC, $435,000.

916 Fenwick Lane: National Transfer Services LLC to Jeffrey A. Richardson, $435,000.

192 Miles Cutting Lane: Sheri Kobryn and Roman Kobryn to Sheri Kobryn, $0.

25 Barchan Dune Rise: Barbara S. Moore and William B. Moore to Barbara S. Moore, $0.

921 Taylor Rise: Jeffrey J. Salzburg and Colleen M. Salzburg to Christine Karaoguz and Adam A. Karaoguz, $450,000.

155 Huxley Way: Sarah S. Brown and Bruce E. Brown to Laura OBrien and Robert Marks, $236,000.

7443 Summerhill Lane: Woodstone Custom Homes Inc. to Thomas A. Crescuillo and Irene M. Crescuillo, $401,086.

93 Barchan Dune Rise: David J. Klein and Dawn K. Klein to Michael S. Hess, $1,630,000.

6830 Citation Way: Salvatore M. Guglielmino and Donna L. Guglielmino to Chad W. Boehly and Angelina M. Boehly, $390,000.

7243 Hertfordshire Way: Nancy L. Vaniseghem and Kerry E. Vaniseghem to Michele Beachner and Brett E. Beachner, $410,000.

71 Barchan Dune Rise: Rosemary Zaepfel to Thomas Delaney Jr., $895,000.

242 Haywood Glen: Caitlin R. Magiera and Randall J. Magiera to Joseph J. Seiler, $425,500.

48 Hillcrest Drive: Thompson Living Trust to Zachary Byron, $270,000.

4 Beach Flint Way: Barbara K. Bernier and Kurt J. Bernier to Shawn Marshall and Wendy C. Marshall, $414,000.

6931 Wyndham Hill: Redding Living Trust to John C. Emerson, $400,000.

6741 Falcons Point: Patricia J. Popielec and Michael D. Popielec to Kalagh M. Campbell and Jonathan Caswell, $927,500.

6689 Golf View Rise: Melanie M. Butler and Melanie L. McNally to Daniel Megelick and Aimee Fried-Hardy, $451,500.

6670 Golf View Rise: Lois S. Palomaki and John M. Palomaki to Paul Nardozzi, $545,000.

324 Meadowlark Lane: Debra S. Stirone to Nicholas Samuel Farnsworth, $309,900.

12 Ambassador Drive: Sandra K. Ayers Estate to Amanda Robinson and Friend R. Olsen, $168,500.

6945 Wyndham Hill: Lori J. Thompson and Russell D. Thompson to Mary Anne Kiernan and Robert E. Lazeski, $407,500.

1277 Wellington Drive: Nancy Zavaglia and Robert Zavaglia to Sandra J. Deutsch, $224,000.

6401 Erica Trail: Trina Viggiano and Dan Viggiano III to Haley S. Erwin and William K. Erwin, $392,000.

Log Cabin Road: Martha J. Rossi and Thomas M. Rossi to Laura Anne Byrne and Patrick Norman Byrne, $20,000.

7434 Summerhill Lane: Woodstone Custom Homes Inc. to Joseph M. Pilger and Brittany A. Pilger, $555,730.

1169 Wellington Drive: Brenda Randall to Mitchell James Long and Amanda Kamarck Long, $390,000.

1530 Brace Road: Susan Brown and Susan Ricci to Vanessa I. Wooden and Steven E. Wooden, $305,000.

20 School St.: Robert Chiapperino to ESL FCU, $100,000.

32 School St.: Victor Coal and Lumber Co. Inc. and Elaine Bliss Estate to ESL FCU, $691,600.

259 County Road 9: Christina Stewart and Mitchell R. Stewart II to Christine Schillaci, $387,500.

1226 The Grove: Catherine E. Varalli to Kendra A. Kosten, $125,000.

0 W. Main St. and state Route 96: James H. Northrop to Bruce Stenglein, $7,000.

State Route 96: Lake Edge LLC to Victor East Holding Co. LLC, $535,000.

0 School St.: Michael K. Bliss to ESL FOC, $68,400.

1291 Blossom Drive: CED II LLC to PREA LLC, $50,000.

6829 Citation Way: Robert O. Bailey to Robert A. Bailey, $0.

7359 Sachem Trail: Paul M. Nardozzi to Marlene B. Jones and Jeffrey M. Jones, $422,000.

4 Medford Way: McStay Family Wealth Trust to Kiersten Palmer, $0.

Link:
DEED TRANSFERS: Town of Victor - MPNnow.com

Following the war between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 1990s, deminers spent decades and tens of millions of dollars clearing the former battleground of land mines and unexploded ordnance.

Now, after 44 days of renewed fighting, they have to start again.

According to a survey of local media reports, at least 11 people have been killed by leftover explosives following the cessation of hostilities on November 10.

In the deadliest single incident, four members of an Azerbaijani family who were visiting their former home in the region of Fuzuli were killed when their car hit a land mine on November 28, the Azerbaijani general prosecutors office reported.

The only member of the Russian peacekeeping mission who has thus far been killed in action was a sapper who died as a result of an explosion on December 17.

Among the other victims: an Azerbaijani sapper, another Azerbaijani civilian visiting his former home in Fuzuli, an Azerbaijani colonel working with Russian and Armenian colleagues to recover bodies from the battlefield, two Armenian sappers, and an Azerbaijani soldier.

Until the war started this September, the last fatality as a result of unexploded ordnance on what used to be the Armenian side of the line of control was registered in 2018. The last time someone other than a deminer died was in 2015. On the Azerbaijani side, the last fatal accident was recorded in January.

But following the war, in which Azerbaijan managed to retake a large part of the lands it had lost to Armenians in the first war, a large swath of territory has again been rendered deadly. Much of that is due to the use by both sides of cluster munitions, which contain small bomblets intended to explode on impact but which have a high failure rate, leaving duds that act like anti-personnel landmines for years and even decades, Human Rights Watch said in a December 11 report on their use in the recent conflict.

There also has been some apparent laying of new anti-tank and anti-personnel land mines. The Azerbaijani prosecutors office said that the explosion that killed the family of four was the result of an anti-tank land mine laid by retreating Armenian forces. The Russian Defense Ministry said that the explosion that killed the Azerbaijani colonel (which also wounded a Russian peacekeeper) was caused by a mine. Halo Trust, the UK-based organization that carries out demining in Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories, said in a post-war report that [n]ew use of anti-vehicle mines has also been reported and that [t]he extent of landmine contamination from the current conflict is unknown.

Neither side has acknowledged using land mines in the recent conflict.

A spokesperson for the Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action (ANAMA) blamed Armenia for laying the mines that have been found on territory now controlled by Baku. The Armenian army, while being pushed away, were putting mines almost everywhere in order to delay the Azerbaijani army, the spokesperson, Sabina Sakarova, said in response to written questions from Eurasianet.

There are several countries and agencies already involved in the UXO-clearing process. On the Armenian-controlled side of the line of contact, Russian peacekeepers have been clearing up material, while Halo is carrying out assessments of the work that lies ahead.

On the Azerbaijani-controlled side, ANAMAs work is being supplemented by Turkish military mine-clearance experts. Azerbaijans Defense Ministry reported that 136 Turkish soldiers arrived in early December and have begun training their Azerbaijani counterparts. The Turkish soldiers themselves also will be involved in clearing Azerbaijans newly retaken territories.

The amount of ordnance reported to have already been cleared since the war ended is substantial.

Russian military engineers had neutralized more than 6,000 explosive objects as of December 17, a peacekeeping officer in Karabakh said. ANAMA says that the explosives it has found as of December 20 include 1,376 pieces of unexploded ordnance, 4,507 pieces of anti-personnel mines and 1,344 pieces of anti-tank mines.

But deminers on both sides are only beginning to assess the work ahead of them.

To clean up its newly retaken territories, ANAMA is planning a substantial expansion, to increase its staff from under 500 to on the order of 12,000-15,000, Sakarova said. Halo says it is planning to roughly double its staff, from 130 before the war up to 250.

Azerbaijani officials have given varying timelines as to how long clearing their side will take, but ANAMAs head of operations, Idris Ismayilov, has said that "it will take up to 10 years to completely demine the territory but people would be able to return to their ancestral lands in between three and five years.

Halo has not given an estimate of how long it will take to render the Armenian-controlled land safe, and organization officials did not respond to requests by Eurasianet for comment. But in an interview with local news website EVN Report, the organizations director for Europe, Nick Smart, said that to clean up a single site an ammunition dump just outside the regional capital of Stepanakert that was destroyed during the war would take two years and $2.6 million.

The organization was still working on assessments of the cities of Stepanakert, Martakert, and Martuni. It hadnt even started yet on surveying rural areas, but I would imagine there will be a big problem there, Smart said. Planting season will be on us in no time. Farmers are going to want to get on and plow their fields and to do so right now would be very dangerous.

See the article here:
Following war, Armenia and Azerbaijan reckon with unexploded ordnance - Eurasianet

There are those who would take a gamepad over mouse and keyboard combo any day. It may be necessary for their hacking and slashing agenda, and there's certainly merit to using literally anything else over a mouse and keyboard for driving games. But if you want to exhibit any level of accuracy, a responsive gaming mouse is the best piece of kit in your arsenal to land those winning headshots.It's

This year has seen an explosion of 'esports' branded gaming mice coming out, whatever that really means. As such, the latest trend has seen companies fighting for the crown of lightest gaming mouse, while DPI figures have also been steadily climbing to reach unnecessarily astronomical heights. I mean, how many dots per inch do we need, really? Chill out guys.

Anyway, here are the nominees for this years best gaming mouse. While these nominations may not be perfect for everyone's grip style, they each have something special to offerbe it heaps of customization like the Naga Pro, or cheap, sleek, ambidextrous chops like that of Logitech's G203.

Logitech G203One of the most affordable big brand gaming mice around today, the G203 does the bare minimum and does it in style. It's sleek, it's light, and it's certainly one for smaller hands. But into that tiny shell, it manages to pack a more than capable 8,000 DPI, and sports enough buttons for the standard FPS player, though it may be unacceptable to an MMO enthusiast. Still, you can't argue at such impeccable quality for that priceplus, you still even get tri-zone Lightsync RGB.

Razer Naga ProThe Naga Pro comes with three interchangeable panels, each with a different number of programmable buttonsone for every occasion. While it doesn't follow the feather-weight trend, it makes up for its 117g with excellent battery life, extreme speeds, pinpoint accuracy, and boatloads of comfort. Unfortunately you do have to put up with that edgy Razer style, and Razer Synapse software which aren't to everyone's tastes. Plus there's a bit of a hefty price tag, especially if you want a dock charger for it.

Razer DeathAdder Pro V2A little more reserved than the Naga Pro, but just as nippy with a 20k sensor. The DeathAdder Pro V2 manages to marry its no-frills 6 button setup, and simple ergonomics with the flawless tracking Razer prides itself on. It's not the lightest, stepping in to the ring at 2.9oz, but it sure packs a punch. Don't punch it back, though, because the buttons are a little flimsy. Still, it's big enough for larger hands, unlike the G203, but does come with a much mightier price tag.

New Year's Eve is the unveiling for the winner of each category, so check then to find out which of these nominee bagged Best Gaming Mouse of 2020. And while you wait, feel free to browse our list of best gaming mice so far, to get an idea of which of these might take the crown as queen of the gaming rodents.

PC Gamer Hardware Awards 2020: The nominees

Logitech G203 LIGHTSYNC Wired...

Follow this link:
PC Gamer Hardware Awards: What is the best gaming mouse of 2020? - PC Gamer

Our deficiencies have always driven us, even among our distant ancestors, back in the last Ice Age. Having neither the speed and strength to hunt large prey, nor sharp teeth and claws to tear flesh, we improvised spears, flint knives, scrapers. Lacking a thick pelt, we took the fur of other animals. As the ice receded, we devised more means of survival and comfort stone dwellings, plows, wheeled vehicles. All these inventions allowed small oases of civilization to be wrested from a natural wilderness that seemed endless.

The idea of a natural world that dwarfed humanity and its creations long persisted, even into modern times only to run, lately, into concerns that climate was changing, and species were dying through our actions. How could that be, with us so small, and nature so large?

Now a new study in Nature by a team of scientists from the Weizmann Institute in Israel upends that perspective. Our constructions have now indeed, spookily, just this year attained the same mass as that of all living organisms on Earth. The human enterprise is growing fast, too, while nature keeps shrinking. The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here.

It seems a simple comparison, and yet is fiendishly difficult in practice. But this team has practice in dealing with such impossible challenges. A couple of years ago they worked out the first part of the equation, the mass of all life on Earth including that of all the fish in the sea, microbes in the soil, trees on land, birds in the air, and much more besides. Earths biosphere now weighs a little less than 1.2 trillion tonnes (of dry mass, not counting water), trees on land making up most of it. It was something like double that before humans started clearing forests and it is still diminishing.

Heavyweights. Andreas C. Fischer / shutterstock

Now, the team has delved into the statistics of industrial production and mass flows of all kinds, and reconstructed the growth, from the beginning of the 20th century, of what they call anthropogenic mass. This is all the things we build houses, cars, roads, airplanes, and myriad other things. The pattern they found was strikingly different. The stuff we build totted up to something like 35 billion tonnes in the year 1900, rising to be roughly double that by the middle of the 20th century. Then, that burst of prosperity after the second world war, termed the Great Acceleration, and our stuff increased several-fold to a little over half a trillion tonnes by the end of the century. In the past 20 years, it has doubled again, to be equivalent to, this year, the mass of all living things. In coming years, the living world will be far outweighed threefold by 2040, they say, if current trends hold.

Most of the weight is in concrete. Lijphoto / shutterstock

What is this stuff that we make? It is now of extraordinary, and exploding, diversity. The number of technospecies now far exceeds the estimated 9 million biological species on Earth, and counting them exceeds even the formidable calculating powers of this team. But our stuff can be broken down into ingredients, of which concrete and aggregates take a gargantuan share about four-fifths. Then come bricks, asphalt, and metals. On this scale, plastics are a minor ingredient and yet their mass is still greater, now, than that of all animals on Earth.

Its a revealing, meticulous study, and nicely clear about what the measurements include and exclude. They do not include, for instance, the rock and earth bulldozed and landscaped as foundations for our constructions, nor all of the waste rock generated in mining the ingredients: currently, nearly a third of a trillion tonnes of such material is shifted each year. Add in the Earth material that we use and abuse in other ways, in plowing farmland, and letting sediment pile up behind dams, and humans have cumulatively used and discarded some 30 trillion tonnes of Earths various resources.

Whichever way that you cut the cake, the teamsfinal point in its groundbreaking study hits home, and chimes with that of another recent analysis we both worked on. Since the mid-20th century, the Earth has been set on a new, human-driven trajectory one that is leaving the stable conditions of the Holocene Epoch, and is entering the uncertain, and rapidly changing, new world of the Anthropocene. The weight of evidence, here, seems unarguable.

This article byJan Zalasiewicz, Professor of Palaeobiology, University of Leicester and Mark Williams, Professor of Palaeobiology, University of Leicester is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The rest is here:
Tipping point? Humanitys stuff now weighs more than all living things - The Next Web

Slash and burn deforestation is one of the principal threats to the regional environment. | AP

A third of the Amazonian rainforest is threatened by extreme pressure. For the last few years, the deterioration has intensified. The following is a special interview with Julia Jacomini from a publication of the Amazonian Network of Socioenvironmental Information (RAISG), which puts the latest data about the rainforest into perspective, in the first additions to the original document published in 2012.

Atlas: The Amazon Under Pressure was released on Dec. 8 by the Socioenvironmental Institute (ISA). The document, the first version of which was published in 2012, includes a series of indicators that together represent an X-ray of the regions current situation. The time period of the study, based on the majority of the statistics, is between 2000 and 2018 and includes different degrees of data classified as pressures and threats and symptoms and consequences.

As geographer and researcher Julia Jacomini explains, in an on-line telephone interview, in the 2020 Atlas, we classify as pressures and threats all infrastructural works, including roads and hydroelectric plants, extractive activities like drilling for oil and mining (including prospecting for precious metals and stones) and mixed crop and animal farming. We also have data we call symptoms and consequences, like deforestation, slash and burn clearing, and variations in carbon density, which has been incorporated recently in the Amazon Web of Georeferenced Socioenvironmental Information (RAISG) analyses.

In recent decades we have witnessed very rapid growth of pressures and threats and of the symptoms and consequences of human activities in the entire Amazon region. The first analysis in 2012 revealed what was already a complicated picture, now all these matters have become more acute. Unfortunately, not a single threat has ceased to exist. Now all threats are increasing.

The document points out that, beginning in 2012, there was a resumption of the rise in deforestation that intensified between 2015 and 2018, when the size of the affected area tripled. The final results show that, between 2000 and 2018, more than 500,000 square kilometers of Amazon forest were cleared, a territory the size of Spain. Among the main pressures leading to this deforestation is mixed crop and animal farming, responsible for 84% of the total, according to Julia. All these threats accumulate, leading to the current situation: 30% of the Amazon is under high or very high pressure. This means that apart from the evaluation of each theme separately, we attempt to make an integrated analysis of all the data.

If, on one hand, the scene is far from hopeful, it has demonstrated that what has happened to the protected natural areas and Indigenous territories is an excellent indicator of what we have to do to protect the forest. Almost 90% of the deforestation, in these last 18 years, occurred outside of Indigenous territories and nature preserves, Ms. Jacomini emphasizes.

Julia Jacomini is a researcher with ISA and RAISG. She has a degree in Geography from UNESP-Rio Claro, specialized in Applied Geoprocessing at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, and has a Masters in Latin American Integration from the University of So Paulo. [Brazilian custom is to refer to individuals by their first name, such as Lula and Dilma.]

Julia Jacominis interview with IHU (Humanitas Institute, Unisinos)

IHUWhich indicators are studied and presented in Atlas: The Amazon Under Pressure?

Julia JacominiRAISG is a non-governmental network of organizations from six Amazonian countries. One of the great contributions of the publication of Atlas: The Amazon Under Pressure (2020) is to present a regional analysis that extends beyond the politico-administrative borders of those countries. Usually, we content ourselves with studies on a national scale, whereas a study like this one by RAISG provides an integrated, Amazonian standpoint.

RAISG began in 2007, ready to provide this kind of regional analysis, and published the first Atlas: The Amazon Under Pressure in 2012. Subsequently, some maps were published, but more thorough analyses were only published in 2020, in the document we are discussing. In this context, it was important to make comparisons, but from then until now some new themes were incorporated in the analyses and new methodologies were developed. For that reason, any comparisons have to be made carefully.

When it comes to pressures and threats, we consider works of infrastructure, like highways and hydroelectric plants, extractive activities such as drilling for petroleum and all sorts of mining (including riverine prospecting) and, finally, mixed crop and animal farming, all incorporated in the 2020 Atlas.

Aside from the pressures and threats, we have data we call symptoms and consequences, namely, deforestation, burn-offs, and variations of carbon density, the latter incorporated for the first time in the RAISG analyses.

IHUWhat are the main weaknesses of the current Amazon region?

Julia JacominiI want to start with the data about deforestation since it is information produced by RAISG. Each of the six countries produced its official statistics, but if we were to put them together, the periodicity and the methodologies are not contradictory. RAISG developed its own methodology, beginning with an analysis of the use of the soil, so the data may be similar to that divulged by INPE (National Institute of Spatial Studies), for instance.

The base year is 2000 and we continued analyzing the data until 2018. During this period, the largest proportion of the historical series is in 2003. Beginning that year, we have a decline in deforestation, whose smallest numbers are in 2010. As of 2012, the numbers begin to increase again, but the most rapid acceleration is between 2015 and 2018 when deforestation triples. The final results demonstrate that between 2000 and 2018 more than half a million square kilometers of rainforest were demolished, an area the size of Spain! Among the main pressures leading to this deforestation are land cleared for crops and pasture, responsible for 84% of the total.

Against the background of this desolation, there is something noteworthy: the effect of the Indigenous territories and protected natural areas. Approximately 90% of the deforestation, in the course of these 18 years, took place outside these two areas. This shows that such territories are important barriers and also highlights the importance of the activities of the Indigenous peoples and traditional communities in maintaining the surviving forest. At the same time, although they are important barriers, these territories are being ceaselessly threatened.

This tendency to destroy the Amazon forest is being pushed, in great part, by Brazil. This is because the country has more than 60% of the Amazon territory, but also because Brazilian deforestation is moving ahead faster than any other country, which raises the average of the region as a whole.

IHUWhat are the indicators that the Amazon forest is at risk and deteriorating?

Julia JacominiThere are other indicators than deforestation. In the case of cutting and burning the vegetation, we did an analysis from 2001 to 2019, showing that 13% of the Amazon had been affected by fire. This equals an area the size of Bolivia, more than a million square kilometers. Although we know that just one fire will not cause deforestation, we observe that there are various repetitions of fires, year after year, and these consecutive burns can lead to a great deterioration of the ecosystems and provoke deforestation.

The country in the Amazon region most devastated by slash and burn agriculture happens to be Bolivia, with 27% of its Amazon territory stricken by fire. Next comes Brazil. This helps us understand that, depending on the theme, some threats are more serious in some countries than others.

Mining

Mining is another very serious issue in the Amazon which affects 17% of the regions territory and is present in all the countries touched by the rainforest. However, 90% of all such activity is concentrated in four nations: Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, and Peru. Brazil is the country that has the greatest interest in extractive areas with 75% of all such areas located within its borders. This does not imply that all these areas are already being exploited.

Prospecting is another subject presented in this study. First, it is necessary to stress that this kind of data collection is difficult, mostly because it is an illegal activity and thus has no official information source. Data collection via satellite is made difficult by the number of clouds in the Amazon and also because prospecting is a very itinerant activity, with sites that are activated and deactivated surreptitiously, according to the advance of inspectors. There is still a lot of gold mining that takes place in riverbeds with light wooden rafts that are used to move explorers and equipment from place to place. Therefore, the data we present in the report are classified as the best information available, which falls far short of substantive.

In the 2020 Atlas, we collected evidence of more than 4,400 activities of illegal prospecting in the Amazon region, of which more than 87% are actively exploiting available resources at their own risk and to the detriment of the regions natural resources. More than half of these prospecting locales are in Brazil. The runner-up is Venezuela, which accounts for 32% of this total although only 6% of the Amazon territory falls within that countrys borders. Both strip mining and panning for gold and gemstones represent great threats in both Brazil and Venezuela.

IHUWhat is going on with oil drilling in the Amazon?

Julia JacominiIn Brazil, there is little oil drilling, but in Ecuador, the situation is very grave. From a general point of view, drilling lots occupy 9.4% of the Amazon area, and most of this is in the so-called Andean Amazon in territories of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Ecuador is the country with the greatest percentage occupied in this kind of activity, 51.5% of it in Amazonian territory.

When it comes to petroleum, there are significant impacts caused by spills. Much of the activity characteristic of this pursuit involves the construction of infrastructure. It is always important to think of these pressures and threats with an eye to associated requirements, because all these explorations, including mining and generating hydroelectric power, are associated with the building of roads, which are the great vectors of deforestation. A region that is impacted by petroleum and mining will also have to deal with subsidiary needs for roadways, railways, and powerlines and, especially in the Amazon, with construction of hydroelectric facilities.

All these threats mount up, leading to the 30% of the Amazon that is currently subjected to high or very high pressure. This means that, as well as evaluating each theme separately, we attempt to make an integrated analysis of the data. The same region may be subject to more than a single pressure or threat. It follows then, that a completed roadway has more impact than one that is still in the planning stage. Thus, our analyses must also take into account the weight of each theme, depending on the stage of the work and activities, as well as how such activities are superimposed.

Returning to the problem of Ecuador, this is the most dramatic case of the pressures and threats in relation to petroleum production. According to RAISG analyses, 88% of the Ecuadorian Amazon is being affected by some kind of pressure, from the lowest to the highest, all of them in active process.

IHUWhat is the importance of thinking about these themes as connected?

Julia JacominiThe Amazon region is very large, and the realities of each nation involved in the study are quite different, so it is fundamental that we think in a connective way. Even when we consider the data within a single country, we see that there are regions more affected by one or another activity. However, when we analyze the data in an integrated way, we get a more complex and realistic image of the situation, that helps us to understand the process of accelerated deterioration. But at this moment we have highlighted the problems of mining, deforestation, and the burn-offs as the great threats that are rapidly encroaching on the Indigenous territories and the environmentally protected natural areas that, while they are important barriers of contention, are becoming increasingly fragile.

In Brazils case, the illegal prospecting on Yanomami Indigenous Land, apart from being a big threat in relation to environmental impact, has brought an additional risk to bear, as the prospectors are contaminating the local populations with the COVID-19 virus. We had high contamination rates as a result of the invasion of prospectors transmitting the virus.

IHUBy the way, how has the global COVID-19 pandemic impacted the Amazon region?

Julia JacominiWe have been working on consolidating this data on a regional scale. The difficulty we have had to face is how this data is being employed by the countries in question when it comes to differentiating the Amazonian populations. Also, sometimes the countries data do not include specific information about the Indigenous populations.

The effect of the pandemic has been very problematic in the Amazon region, particularly because of the difficulty of isolating when these territories are very fragile and being subjected to invasion, as is the case with the Yanomami. In Brazil, there have been cases where frontline health workers themselves are vectors of the virus within the villages, especially because of the systemic weakness of the environmental and government agencies charged with the protection of the Indigenous peoples, with ever fewer teams and resources, with the result that supporting the traditional populations has become increasingly difficult. Venezuela has also carried out a COVID-19 survey in its Indigenous territories but as yet we have nothing consolidated on a regional scale.

IHUPutting things into perspective, relative to the first Atlas produced in 2012, what has changed from then to now?

Julia JacominiFirst, the methodology, and that has had an impact on the analyses. That is why, in the current edition, our area of analysis has widened. Before, we were considering only the Amazon basin and its political and administrative aspects. Whereas now we are contemplating the headwaters of the Amazon tributaries. This means that we are analyzing the Andean region, as well as the forested Bolivian Chaco and the Cerrado, an area of dense, herbaceous vegetation and short twisted trees in the high plains of central Brazil.

Unfortunately, none of the threats have disappeared. Rather, they are in an expansive mode. As for the comparisons, it is important to emphasize that, since the last edition, published in 2012, the RAISG analyses have improved in terms of methodology, information access, and cartographic precision. As a result, it is possible to find some disparities in relation to the 2020 data. That is why the temporal comparative analyses are merely referential.

The following data, in quotes, are citations extracted from the 2020 Atlas: The Amazon Under Pressure.

Roads

The density of roads in the Amazon, calculated from the extension of roads and territory, grew by 51% between 2012 and 2020, growing from 12.4 square kilometers to 18.7 square kilometers. The countries that led this expansion were Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela.

Hydroelectricity

In 2012, 171 hydroelectric plants were registered as functional or under construction within the RAISG limits for the Amazon, a number that does not include the headwaters located in the Andes and in the southeastern region of the Brazilian Amazon. In 2020, this number had grown by 4%, reaching a total of 177 hydroelectric facilities. Their proliferation rate was 47%, from 51 in 2012 to 75 in 2020.

Petroleum

Between 2012 and 2020, the Amazon region registered 13% growth in the number of drilling sites (from 327 to 369 in 2020). However, in the same period, the use of land by petroleum extractors diminished by 350,184 square kilometers. This does not necessarily mean that the petroleum industry is shrinking in the Amazon region as the reduction is related to lots listed as potential extraction sites which, when they have no lessees, are removed from the official database.

Mining

In the period from 2012 to 2020, the Amazon region registered an increase in the number of mining zones (52,974 in 2012 to 58,432 in 2020). However, there was a reduction in the territorial lands occupied (from 1,628,850 square kilometers in 2012 to 1,322,600 square kilometers in 2020), which does not necessarily mean that there was a diminution of such activities in the Amazon region.

Deforestation and burn-offs

The analytic methodology was improved from 2012 to 2020, invalidating direct comparisons. However, the following information was highlighted and discussed in the preceding interview.

Deforestation

Although 2003 continues to be the worst year for Amazon forests since 2000 with a total loss of 49,240 square kilometers, deforestation has accelerated since 2012, after reaching the minimum 2010 (17,674 square kilometers). The annual area lost tripled between 2015 and 2018. In 2018 alone, 31,269 square kilometers were deforested in the entire Amazon region, the largest yearly deforestation since the 2003 peak.

Between 2000 and 2008, the cumulative loss of forest native to the Amazon region was 513,016 square kilometers, a loss equivalent in size to the total landmass of Spain, as we have said before, or 8% of the total area of 6.3 million square kilometers of rainforest that existed in 2000.

The regional reality can be different from the national in each of the Amazon countries. The tendencies described above as Amazonian are strongly determined by the Brazilian situation which contains 61.8% of the Amazon territory. Outside Brazil, Bolivia and Colombia are the countries that have most closely imitated these tendencies in recent years, with a total deforestation of 425,051 sq. km. (Brazil), 31,878 sq. km. (Bolivia), and 20,515 sq. km. (Colombia). The other RAISG member countries have not exhibited clear tendencies of growth or diminution.

Slash and burn damage

Around 13% of the surface of the Amazon region burned, at least once, since 2001; in all, 1.1 million square kilometers were affected. This area is comparable in size to the whole of Bolivia, which, coincidentally, is the country most affected by the phenomenon, with up to 27% of its Amazonian territory subjected to burns. On average, each year since 2001, 169,000 sq. km. of land were burned in the Amazon region, 26,000 of them inside the Protected nature areas and 35,000 inside Indigenous lands.

IHUIn a global warming scenario, what could be the consequences for life on the planet if the deterioration of the Amazon region is not immediately braked?

Julia Jacomini The consequences are already happening, for example, in the case of the annual burn-offs. The Amazon region has some burns that are considered natural in the dry season, when part of the vegetation burns, nourishing and strengthening the forest soil. We have observed that the dry seasons have become longer and longer. So climate changes are not something in the future, they are here now. When the dry seasons last longer, so do the fires, growing increasingly severe and difficult to control, as we have seen the last two years, both in Brazil and in Bolivia. Even though it is a distinct ecology, we have the example of what occurred in the Pantanal this year, because these drought conditions make these ecologies increasingly vulnerable.

In the long term, we have an intensification of all these processes and the impacts that the loss of biodiversity brings to the Indigenous populations and traditional communities, whose lives are very integrated with nature, affecting their ability to adequately manage their territories. What is more, the environmental devastation impacts the way they organize culturally and the way they live.

IHUIs there anything else you want to say?

Julia JacominiIt is fundamental to underline the importance of strengthening this vision of the Amazon region in an integral way. That is why it is important that we strengthen the links among Amazonian countries to combat the accelerated advance of the factors we have been discussing. It is necessary to consider the Amazon region in its entirety rather than on a country by country scale.

Translated for Peoples World by Peter Lownds, Dec. 18, 2020.

Visit link:
New Amazonian Atlas reveals that a third of the rainforest is threatened - People's World

One of the tools used to clear-cut forests is called a feller buncher. Imagine an excavator or small crane, but with large, metal claws at the end. The claws grip trees by their trunk, slice through their base, and ease everything but a stump to the ground before moving onto their next target.

Waabigonikwe Raven watched this process repeat through five miles of forest in northern Minnesota earlier this month. For her, it was a disturbing sight. It feels like youre in some kind of apocalypse movie, she says. Its really hard to watch.

But for Raven, as well as many other environmentalists and Native people, the reason for the clear-cutting was even worse than the actitself. The forest was razed to create a path for the new Line 3 oil pipeline, a nearly $3 billion Enbridge Energy project to replace the previousLine 3 pipeline, which will carrytar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries. After a years-long regulatory process,Enbridge received its final permits in late November and began construction early this month.

Critics have long opposed the pipeline because of its contribution to climate changeand the more immediate environmental risks it poses. In Minnesota, more than 200 bodies of water and nearly 80 miles of wetlands sit along the 330-mile route where Line 3 will carry a daily load of 760,000 barrels of crude oil.If spilled, the sinking, toxic sludge could be a disaster for wildlife and humans alike. Thewetlands the pipeline crosses are thriving habitats for native and migratory birds, as well as a diverse array of other species. For localNative communities, the pipeline threatensancestral lands and a critical modern lifeway:wild rice beds. Italso violates treaty rights, they argue.

Environmentalists dont need to look back far to find an example of the disasters that can happen with such projects. In 2010, an Enbridge pipeline in Michigan spilled more than 1.2 million gallons of tar sands crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. Nearly 4,000 birds and other wildlifeincluding Canada Geese, Great Blue Herons, and hundreds of turtlesrequired care from issues relating to the oil. More than 150 animals died, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Line 3 opponents haven't forgotten that day, and say the lesson is clear: Pipelines spill, and we need to stop using them, not build more. Despite Enbridge having the legal go-ahead to start building, people like Raven say theyll remain on the frontlines to try to stop construction and keep watch on the land. Thats why she and dozens of others have braved the cold to witness Enbridges work, which has included clearing the forest, making road approaches, and stringing pipe. Some activists are also putting their bodies into the fight, standing in the way of Enbridges machinery and, in at least one case, tying themselves to the very trees workers were trying to fell.

Even though we're focusing right now on the construction in Minnesota, Raven says, the line will be put underneath very crucial wetlands, including the Mississippi River that flows all the way south and will affect people that live down there too.

The environmental harm from the project and others like it begins even farther to the north, where tar sands oil companies in Alberta are tearing down forests en masse and creating poisonous tailings ponds so big theyre visible from space. These tailings pondspools of wastewater and other tar sands mining byproductsare a death trap for birds that land in them. They can leak into nearby rivers and groundwater sources, too.

The crude oil carries its potential danger south as its piped into the United States. Tar sands crude is thicker than conventional oil and must be diluted with chemicals so it can travel through pipelines. Safety advocates have argued that tar sands crude is more corrosive than conventional oil, thus making it more likely to spill. Studies have disputed that claim. But when tar sands oil does spill, it sinks and is tougher to clean up than conventional oil.

After the Kalamazoo River spill, a woman who lived nearby, Deb Miller, told CBC News that Enbridge did the bare minimum required by law when cleaning up the accident and addressing its fallout. She said many of her neighbors moved from the area to escape the spills aftermath.

Enbridge does what they have to do and only that,she told the Canadian broadcaster. When it affects people, residentsthere's a high road and there's a low road. And unfortunately, I think [Enbridge] found that low road.

Earlier this month, 22-year-old Liam DelMain climbed up a tree that stood in the way of Enbridges feller bunchers. Their plan was to stay there for as long as it took to stop the machines.

Line 3 is a threat to the waters I hold dear, and that we all rely on, said DelMain, who uses they/their pronouns, in a statement released at the time by Giniw Collective, an organization fighting the pipeline thats led by Indigenous women. I am here, putting my body on the line, because I have been left with no other choices.

The tree DelMain called home for 10 days before their arrest is part of a young forest. Like much of the country, generations of logging decimated Minnesotas forests. Today, the forests are younger andmore fragilethan the ones before industry laid claim. These trees havent even had a chance to live a full life, says Raven, whos a member of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Ojibwe. They're not just treesthey're also homes for birds and squirrels and other species.

Clear-cutting tracts of forest to make way for the pipeline could force birds and other animals elsewhere, but thats not the only habitat at risk with Line 3.Where the pipeline doesnt cut through forest, it will often cross water. Throw a stick [in Minnesota] and youre gonna hit a lake, says Tara Houska, a long-time environmental activist and founder of Giniw Collective.

Among the many bodies of water the new Line 3 route crosses are beds for wild ricea sacred and critical grain for Native people in the region. Protecting wild rice waters has been a major sticking point for pipeline opponents, who argue that simply installing the pipe damages wild rice habitat and that any spill would be catastrophic.

That's the economy of the people that have been here since before Minnesota [was a state], Houska says. Thats on top of an ongoing history of violations of treaty rights.

In the middle of the 19th century, the Ojibwe people in present-day Minnesota saw their fur trade fall apart, taking a major part of the tribes livelihood with it. The Ojibwe became increasingly reliant on payments from the government, which led to an 1855 treaty between the U.S. government and the tribe. The Ojibwe people ceded much of their remaining land in the territory in exchange for the creation of Leech Lake and Mille Lacs reservations, as well as the promise of continuing payments from the federal government.

While there have been numerous disputes over the treatys exact meaning, tribal members argue that they still have rights to hunt, fish, and gatherincluding harvesting wild riceon the ceded lands. Theres no specific clause in the 1855 treaty granting those rights, but tribal legal experts say the context in which the document was signed makes clear that the drafters intended that Native people have hunting and fishing rights.

Line 3s new route skirts around the reservations, but opponents say that running the pipeline through disputed territory imperils Native peoples ability to use the lands their ancestors had for generations.

However, Gov. Tim Walz, to the ire of environmental and tribal groups, has allowed the pipeline to move forward despite protest from people as high-ranking as his second in command: Minnesotas lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, whos a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe and has long opposed Line 3.

To me, this is a huge blow to any semblance of attempting to demonstrate progressive leadership, Houska says.

Four days before Minnesotans elected Tim Walz as governor in 2018, the Democrat called climate change an existential threat.

If Washington won't lead on it, Minnesota will. Minnesota's future is in the green economy, he tweeted.

In the two years since, Walz has been under pressure from all sidesclimate and conservation activists, Native organizations, and labor unions that want the pipeline built. He saw nearly all members of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agencys environmental justice advisory group resign over the Line 3 approval, calling it a war on Black and brown people. His own government determined that the social cost of carbon from Line 3 would reach over $280 billion by 2050.

While his administration has tried to fight Line 3 at certain points over the past years, Walz ultimately let the regulatory process play out. That wasnt enough for pipeline opponents, who say the governor hasnt kept his promises.

Walz has said that he would do things in favor of Indigenous people and he's clearly not following up with that, Raven says. He must not be watching the same thing that we're watching, like seeing trees being clear cut and their roots being dug up and destroyed.

Line 3 opponents look with envy across the Great Lakes to Michigan, where Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in November forced Enbridge to close its Line 5 oil pipeline over environmental and climate concerns. That was extremely powerful to see somebody say no, for once, Houska says. But that just didn't happen in Minnesota.

While Minnesotas approval of Line 3 is a loss for advocates, Houska says she was reminded about how important direct action and demonstration are after seeing the publicshift following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police last summer.You got millions of people marching in the streets, and all of a sudden the conversation on police and police brutality has tipped forward ahead to abolishing the police outright, she says.

For the climate, environmental, and Indigeneous justice movements, Houska says it will be critical to continue with both policy efforts and front-line activismthe kind that putspeople in the way of clear-cutting machinery in the middle of the Minnesota northwoods. Activists are not backing down:Just last week, 22 people protesting Line 3 were arrestedfor trespassing and unlawful assembly near the town of Palisade.We have to be willing to be uncomfortable to get something done,Houska says.

Link:
As Construction Begins on a Minnesota Oil Line, Native Activists Keep Fighting - National Audubon Society

The Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) has welcomed the finding by the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs Department that a recently published story made a series of errors which showed Australian forestry in a negative light. The complaint to the ABC was made by Justin Law, Managing Director of community group, Forest and Wood Communities Australia.

Chief Executive Officer of AFPA Ross Hampton said, It is very encouraging that the national public broadcasters fact checking processes are clearly working, and this retraction and correction to key parts of the lengthy science article are a great credit to ABC management. The tens of thousands of men and women who work in our native forest industries around the country, and many who were upset by the original story, will join AFPA in welcoming this outcome.

What remains deeply perplexing however is how the serious reporters and producers in the ABC Science unit could have held such views about our sustainable forest management in the first place? Even those with a modest understanding of forest industries in Australia would have known that the state forest agencies emphatically do not practice deforestation, as was implied in the report. In fact, this would be completely illegal. Australian native or regrowth forestry is completely sustainable and can continue forever, as the regeneration and replanting process which takes place after harvest is just as important to our forestry operators as the timber getting.

Similarly, it was extremely puzzling that the ABC Science reporter did not seem to understand how Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) between the State and Federal Governments work. The ABC now admits it was wrong to imply that RFAs do not include environmental protections. RFAs are managed to extremely strict state environmental laws which are monitored and enforced. For more than twenty years this has provided the framework for sustainable forest management and the production of the appearance grade timber products we all love; like stair treads, doors, floors, furniture and even musical instruments and boats.

If we were to cease gathering timber from the tiny percentage of Australian regrowth native forests. demand for these products would not evaporate. All these things would have to be imported and, in some cases, this would lead to actual deforestation in places which do not practice regrowth forestry as we do here.

Whilst the apology to Mr Law and published correction is a very welcome development, the fact that the correction will be disseminated within the wider ABC and reported to the ABC Board, gives us hope that such simple errors regarding our forest industries will be avoided in the future, Mr Hampton concluded.

ABC Science: On 8 October 2020 a story published on the ABC News website incorrectly used the term deforestation when referring to the process of land clearing. The item also failed to clearly identify that agriculture is the leading cause of land clearing, and particularly in sections on Victoria and Tasmania the focus was unduly on the role of forestry in land clearing.

A short video of land clearing, which was captioned as footage of illegal logging, has been removed; it was not verified that the footage did in fact show logging.

Reference to Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) lacked sufficient context and could have left readers with the impression that RFAs do not include environmental protections.

See the article here:
ABC science corrects its misrepresentation of Australian regrowth native forestry - Mirage News

In the aftermath of the Nov. 3 election, President Donald Trump has tried every trick in the book to avoid facing the reality of his loss. A barrage of lawsuits accompanied by disinformation campaigns has attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

But a close look at regulatory actions and executive moves shows that, even as Trump makes a show of refusing to concede or transition power to the incoming Biden administration, his team is pushing through a slew of last-minute rules and regulations.

Many of these changes will harm the environment and public health.

It isn't surprising that an administration that has attempted to roll back more than100 environmental protectionsin the past four years would step up its assault in its waning months. But that doesn't make the continued attacks any less important. Here's some of what's at risk:

1. Tribal lands

Tribes and environmental groups have fought for decades against a proposed copper mine in an area of Arizona known as Oak Flat, which is a sacred site for a dozen tribes, including the San Carlos Apache.

Now the Trump administration is pushing to fast-track a deal that would transfer ownership of the land, which is in the Tonto National Forest, to Resolution Copper, a firm owned by mining companies Rio Tinto and Billiton BHP.

"Last month tribes discovered that the date for the completion of a crucial environmental review process has suddenly been moved forward by a full year, to December 2020, even as the tribes are struggling with a COVID outbreak that has stifled their ability to respond,"an investigationbyThe Guardianfound. "If the environmental review is completed before Trump leaves office, the tribes may be unable to stop the mine."

2. FERC shakeup

Just days after the election, Trump switched up the leadership of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has a hand in regulating hydroelectric projects, as well as interstate transmission of electricity, oil and natural gas.

Chairman Neil Chatterjee was replaced by fellow Republican James Danly, who has amore conservative viewon federal energy policy.Chatterjee, once known as a "coal guy," had recently advocated for policies supporting distributed energy and for regional grid operators to embrace carbon pricing as a market-based solution for addressing climate change.

3. Hamstringing LWCF

The Great American Outdoors Act, a major conservation bill signed into law in August, allocated $9.5 billion to help fix national park infrastructure and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

But despite (falsely) hailing himself as a conservation hero at the law's signing, Trump has already begun undermining the legislation's effectiveness. An order signed by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt on Nov. 9 allows state and local governments to veto any land or water acquisitions made through the fund.

Chris D'Angelo at HuffPostcalled the movea "parting gift to the anti-federal land movement." Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who advocated for the Land and Water Conservation Fund,wrote a letterto Bernhardt urging him to rescind the order. "This undercuts what a landowner can do with their own private property, and creates unnecessary, additional levels of bureaucracy that will hamstring future land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund," he wrote.

In another blow, officials and conservation groups in New Mexico were surprised to learn thatnone of their projectsproposed to receive funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund were selected by the Department of the Interior. Some believe the move is political retribution for being critical of the Trump administration and its policies.

4. Dam raising

On Nov. 20 the Trump administrationfinalized a planto raise the height of Northern California's 600-foot Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet, which would allow for more water storage. The reservoir feeds the federally run Central Valley Project, which funnels water hundreds of miles south to cities and farms. That includes the politically connected Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, which formerly employed Interior Secretary David Bernhardt as a lawyer and lobbyist.

The state of California has strongly opposed the effort to raise the dam's height because it would flood the McCloud River, protected as wild and scenic. Conservation groups also say the plan would threaten endangered species such as Chinook salmon, delta smelt and Shasta salamanders.

California Rep. Jared Huffmancalledit the "QAnon of water projects, meaning it's laughably infeasible and just not real."

The staunchest opposition has come from theWinnemem WintuTribe, which lost 90% of its sacred sites with the construction of the dam and faces the loss of its remaining sites and burial grounds if the reservoir is expanded.

5. Pesticide changes

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Nov. 20 it was taking away a tool states can use to control how pesticides are deployed. The action could furtherendanger farmworkers and wildlife.

ASection 24 provisionof the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act lets states set stricter restrictions on federally regulated pesticides in response to local needs and conditions. But after numerous states sought to limit the use of the weed killer dicamba, the agency will now no longer allow states to set more protective rules for any pesticides.

6. Migratory birds

A gutting of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 took a big step forward at the end of November, clearing the way for the administration to finalize the rule change by the end of Trump's term.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicereleased its Final Environmental Impact Statementto redefine the scope of the law to no longer penalize the energy industry or developers for "incidentally" killing migratory birds.

The agency's own analysis found that the rule change would "likely result in increased bird mortality" because without penalties companies wouldn't take additional precautions to help make sure birds aren't killed by their operations.

That's already proving true. "Since the administration began pursuing its looser interpretation of the law in April 2018, hundreds of birds have perished without penalty, according to documents compiled by conservation groups this year,"TheWashington Postreported.

7. ANWR auction

The Bureau of Land Management announced on Dec. 3 that oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would go on sale on Jan. 6, following a shortened time frame for the nomination and evaluation of potential tracts to be drilled.

"Once the sale is held, the bureau has to review and approve the leases, a process that typically takes months,"TheNew York Timesreported. "But holding the sale on Jan. 6 potentially gives the bureau opportunity to finalize the leases before Inauguration Day. That would make it more difficult for the Biden administration to undo them."

Despite the fact that the Trump administration is intent on opening the door to drilling in the 1.6 million-acre coastal plain one of the wildest places left in the United States it's still unclear how interested the oil industry will be. Or how readily they'll be able to finance their operations. All themajor U.S. bankshave said they'll no longer fund new oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.

8. Dirty air

One week into December, the administration finalized its decisiondeclining to enact stricter standards for regulating industrial sootemissions.

This came despite the fact that the administration's own scientists found that maintaining the current limits on tiny particles, known as PM 2.5, results in tens of thousands of early deaths each year. And despite the fact Harvard researchers found that those who have lived for decades with high levels of PM 2.5 pollution are at agreater risk of dying from COVID-19.

9. Border wall

The incoming Biden administration has vowed to not build another foot of the border wall, but the borderlands ecosystem remains under threat as the Trump administration is continuing to push ahead.

In some cases wall builders are even attempting to speed up the work.

"That's happening from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to Arizona's stunning Coronado National Memorial and Guadalupe Canyon, a wildlife corridor for Mexican gray wolves and endangered jaguars,"NPR reported. "At $41 million a mile, the Arizona sections are the most expensive projects of the entire border wall."

In Arizona they're needlessly razing vegetation andblasting mountainsfor roads in remote areas to help enable construction that likely won't even take place.

10. Harming whales and dolphins

Trump may be leaving office, but marine mammals won't be able to rest easy. NOAA Fisheries issued a rule on Dec. 9 allowing the oil and gas industry to harm Atlantic spotted dolphins, pygmy whales, dwarf sperm whales, Bryde's whales and other marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico while using seismic and acoustic mapping, including air guns, to gather data on resources on or below the ocean floor.

In an effort to further efforts for oil and gas drilling, nearly 200,000 beaked whales and more than 600,000 bottlenose dolphins could be "disturbed." And "pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are expected to be harassed to the point of potential injury, with a mean of 308 whales potentially harmed per year, according to the final rule," E&E Newsreported.

11. More lease sales

The Arctic isn't the only place where the rush is on to exploit public lands. On Dec. 9 the Bureau of Land Managementupdatedan environmental assessment for a2013 plan for leasesto extract climate- and water-polluting tar sands on 2,100 acres in northeastern Utah. But then just days late it hit the pause button on the effort.

While that one may be on hold, the administrationdidkick off the sale of leases for oil drilling on4,100 acres of federal land in California's Kern Countyon Dec. 10. The first such sale in the state in eight years could be canceled by the Biden administration and if not, would face legal challenges from environmental groups.

12. Cost-benefit rule

One of the administration's biggest parting gifts to industry the "cost-benefit" rule was finalized on Dec. 9. It would require the EPA to weigh the economic costs of air pollution regulations but not many of the health benefits that would arise from better protections.

"In other words, if reducing emissions from power plants also saves tens of thousands of lives each year by cutting soot, those 'co-benefits' should be not be counted," in the EPA's new analysis, theWashington Postexplained.

The rule would be a big blow to efforts to improve public health and curb pollution.

"The only purpose in making this a regulation seems to be to provide a basis for future lawsuits to slow down or prevent future administrations from regulating," Roy Gamse, an economist and former EPA deputy assistant administrator for planning and evaluation,told Reuters.

Slowing down the Biden administration will continue to be a big part of Trump's last month in office along with the finalization of more rule changes to add insult to injury.

Legal expertshave begun mapping which rollbacks will be quick and easy to undo and those that will take sustained effort. But one thing is certain: There's a long road ahead to reverse dangerous regulations, restore scientific integrity and make up for lost ground on climate change, extinction and other cascading crises.

Read the rest here:
12 Trump attacks on the environment since the election - Salon

New regulations will commence on 1 January 2021 to impose statutory requirements for land access agreements, including standard minimum protections, and prescribe further circumstances for compensation to landowners.

Following extensive stakeholder consultation with pastoral lease holders, petroleum companies and peak industry bodies, the NT Government has endorsed the new Petroleum Regulations 2020 in order to implement a number of recommendations of the Independent Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northern Territory and provide better certainty for the petroleum industry and landowners alike.

The new Regulations will commence on 1 January 2021 and will repeal the Petroleum Regulations 1994.

Land access agreements

Under the new Regulations, an interest holder must not commence regulated operations on any particular area of land from 1 January 2021 without having a land access agreement in place with the landowner / occupier with a registered interest (designated person), which has been approved by the Minister for Mining and Industry. It will be an offence to commence regulated operations on land without having an approved land access agreement in place. Regulated operations are operations for which an exploration permit, retention licence or production licence is required under Petroleum Act 1984 (NT) (the Act), other than preliminary activities.

A land access agreement must at least contain provisions that address each of the 25 standard minimum protections prescribed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The standard minimum protections relate to, amongst other things, minimum notice periods, access points, rehabilitation and remediation, compensation for drilling and for decrease in value of land and a general obligation to make good.

An approved land access agreement is not required:

Existing land access agreements and transitional period

Where regulated operations have commenced prior to 1 January 2021, a 12-month transition period will apply and a land access agreement approved under the Regulations does not need to be in place in order to continue those operations during the transition period. However, some form of agreement between an interest holder and a designated person about land access needs to be in effect during the transition period in order for those operations to continue during that period.

After the end of the transition period, an interest holder will need to have a land access agreement in place, which has been approved by the Minister under the Regulations, in order to continue regulated operations. A party to an agreement entered into before 1 January 2021 may, during the transition period, apply to the Minister to register that existing agreement about land access as an approved agreement under the Regulations. In this case, the Minister is not required to be satisfied that the agreement meets the standard minimum protections and only needs to be satisfied that the agreement makes reasonable provision about access to land for the purposes of carrying out regulated operations.

If satisfied, the Minister can register the agreement and it is taken to be an approved land access agreement under the Regulations that continues for the balance of its term. Where the Minister refuses to register the existing agreement, the party who submitted the agreement for registration may apply to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of the Minister's refusal.

Initiation of negotiations on new land access agreements

In order for an interest holder to initiate the process of negotiating a land access agreement, the interest holder may give a negotiation notice in the approved form to each designated person for the area of land to give notice of the interest holder's intention to obtain a land access agreement.

The negotiation notice must include details about the land to be accessed, the petroleum interest, the proposed regulated operations, the maximum period of access, the interest holders contact details, a request to negotiate a land access agreement and a statement that the interest holder will cover the reasonable costs necessarily incurred in connection with the negotiation between the parties. The interest holder may also provide a draft land access agreement with the negotiation notice.

Once a negotiation notice has been given, the interest holder and the designated person must take reasonable steps to negotiate a land access agreement (in good faith) within a period of at least 60 days from when the designated person received the negotiation notice. This period can be extended by agreement.

The interest holder must pay the reasonable costs of the designated person incurred as a consequence of participating in the negotiation for a land access agreement within 30 days after a request for payment is made (subject to the commencement of Tribunal proceedings because of a dispute about those costs). These costs include:

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

Where the interest holder and designated person cannot agree on a land access agreement within the negotiation period (ie at least 60 days or a longer agreed period) the interest holder may give notice in the approved form requesting agreement from the designated person to participate in an ADR process (other than an arbitration). This includes using a facilitator or mediator to achieve a negotiated outcome for entering into a land access agreement. The interest holder may specify the period within which the ADR process is to occur which must be a period of at least 14 days (nominated period). The interest holder must provide a draft access agreement for the ADR process.

If an agreement has not been reached on an ADR process and the facilitator or mediator to be used by the end of the nominated period, the interest holder or the designated person may apply to the CEO of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade for the appointment of a member of the Mediators Panel (being a panel of mediators appointed by the Minister and published on the Department's website) to conduct mediation.

If an interest holder commenced negotiations about land access before 1 January 2021, the interest holder may also apply to the CEO to appoint a member of the Mediators Panel to conduct a mediation under the Regulations. For these pre-existing negotiations, the CEO may appoint a member of the Mediators Panel if satisfied:

Similar to the initial negotiation process, the interest holder is to pay the reasonable costs of the designated person to participate in an ADR process as well as the costs of the agreed facilitator / mediator or the CEO appointed mediator (as the case may be) (ADR Convenor) within 30 days of a request for payment (again, subject to the commencement of Tribunal proceedings because of a dispute about those costs).

If after a period of at least 30 days from a date fixed by the ADR Convenor a negotiated outcome for a land access agreement is not achieved and either:

the ADR process is terminated and the interest holder may apply to the Tribunal for a determination about the terms of the land access agreement to allow for access by the interest holder. In making such a determination, the Tribunal must take into account and apply the standard minimum protections.

Approval of an agreed land access agreement

Where a land access agreement is successfully negotiated, an interest holder may apply in the approved form to the Minister for the approval of the land access agreement. The land access agreement does not allow the interest holder to access the relevant land until it has been approved by the Minister.

A land access agreement that has been determined by the Tribunal after the termination of an ADR process (as noted above) is taken to be an approved access agreement (and does not require approval of the Minister).

The Minister must make a decision about the application for approval of a land access agreement within 28 days after receiving the agreement or within a longer period as the Minister may reasonably require. The Minister may decide to approve the land access agreement or, if not reasonably satisfied that the land access agreement at least meets the minimum protection requirements, give notice to the parties that the land access agreement may be varied and resubmitted for approval.

If a varied land access agreement is resubmitted, the Minister may decide to approve or refuse the land access agreement.

The interest holder may apply to the Tribunal to review a decision of the Minister to refuse to approve a land access agreement.

Registration and variation of a land access agreement

An approved access agreement must be registered and included in a register to be maintained and updated by the Minister.

There is an ability to vary an approved land access agreement in accordance with the terms of the access agreement, by an agreement between the parties or by determination of the Tribunal (after an ADR process is conducted). A land access agreement that is varied (other than by the Tribunal) needs to be approved and registered by the Minister. A refusal by the Minister to approve a varied land access agreement is a reviewable decision and the party who submitted the variation for approval may apply to the Tribunal for review.

Preliminary activities and aerial surveys

As noted above, an approved land access agreement is not required to carry out preliminary activities or aerial surveys. For these activities, the interest holder must give notice to the designated person, at least 14 days prior to commencing the relevant activity.

Preliminary activities are preliminary or preparatory activities that are associated with the commencement of regulated operations and that have no impact, or only a low impact, on land. These include:

Compensation to landowners

Under the Act, a holder of a petroleum interest must pay to the owner of the petroleum interest land and any occupier who has a registered interest in the land, compensation for:

The new Regulations prescribe that compensation must be paid with respect to:

These matters are contained within the standard minimum protections (being matters that must be addressed by an approved land access agreement). The method of compensation is to be determined by agreement between the landowner / occupier and interest holder or, if they are unable to agree, by the Tribunal.

Offences

In addition to it being an offence to commence regulated operations on land without an approved land access agreement, it will also be an offence (amongst other things):

Read more:
Statutory land access agreements and new compensation rules for NT petroleum operations: what you need to know for 2021 - Lexology

Depending on the earbuds, set up could be as simple as bringing the Bluetooth accessory near your Android phone. This is made possible by Fast Pair, which Google updated in recent weeks to take after iOS.

Since Fast Pairs launch in 2017, the process has started with a standard notification that includes a thumbnail of the device in question. Appearing at the top of your screen, a simple tap would initiate pairing and then provide a confirmation.

Google has tweaked the set up experience so that it now features a tall sheet sliding up from the bottom. The name of your device is centered above, while a bigger picture and Connect button appears below. Once paired via Bluetooth, you have the option to continue Setup or Close.

Androids new Fast Pair design, which was quietly introduced in November (or earlier), very much takes after iOS and AirPods. There is a clear advantage to this approach as pairing new accessories should be a very prominent event. Compared to a notification, youre less likely to miss or swipe away a bottom sheet.

Meanwhile, Google has improved on the experience. This UI appears when setting up a new Fast Pair accessory for the first time with your phone. Android still uses a compact notification to note the battery status of each item (earbuds and case), while Apple opts for bringing up the entire sheet to show percentage. The smaller alert is also leveraged for re-pairing accessories, especially on phones and tablets already signed-in to your Google Account.

With the launch of the Pixel Buds earlier this year, Google introduced a slew of related features, including Find My Device integration, low battery alerts, and button customization.

Thanks Michael, Dee!

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Google on YouTube for more news:

Go here to read the rest:
Androids Fast Pair UI for setting up headphones updated to look like iOS - 9to5Google