jili369 real money no deposit bonus
World reaches $300 bn climate finance deal at COP29Evans scores again as Canadiens down Lightning 5-2
Pat Bryant caught a 40-yard touchdown on fourth down with four seconds remaining as No. 25 Illinois rallied for a dramatic 38-31 victory over Rutgers on Saturday afternoon in Piscataway, N.J. With Rutgers playing cover-zero defense, Bryant caught Luke Altmyer's sidearm toss on fourth-and-13 at the 22-yard line in the middle of the field and ran in from the right side for a 36-31 lead. Bryant's dramatic catch came after Illinois initially decided to attempt a go-ahead 57-yard field goal into the wind. Following a timeout, the Ilini went for it on fourth down. Altmeyer's two-point conversion attempt to Bryant was incomplete, but the visitors recorded a safety on the game's final play. Bryant finished with seven catches for a career-high 197 yards, and his score came after Rutgers took a 31-30 lead on a 13-yard rushing TD by Kyle Monangai with 1:08 left. Monangai gave the Scarlet Knights the lead after Illinois overcame a nine-point deficit on Aidan Laughery's 8-yard TD run with 13:48 remaining and Altmyer's 30-yard run with 3:07 left. Bryant's clutch catch gave Illinois (8-3, 5-3 Big Ten) eight wins for the second time in three seasons on a day when it committed 11 penalties. Altmyer finished 12-of-26 passing for 249 yards and threw two touchdowns. He also gained a team-high 74 yards on the ground as the Ilini totaled 182 rushing yards. Monangai finished with 122 yards on 28 carries and Kaliakmanis completed 19-of-37 passes for 175 yards, but Rutgers (6-5, 3-5) was unable to win a third straight Big Ten game for the first time. Kaliakmanis also rushed for 84 yards and two touchdowns on 13 carries. The Scarlet Knights saw their losing streak against ranked teams reach 41 games after taking a 17-9 halftime lead and a 24-15 advantage early in the fourth. --Field Level Media
No. 2 Ohio State takes control in the 2nd half and runs over No. 5 Indiana 38-15Several wounded N.Korean soldiers died after being captured by Ukraine: Zelensky
The United States is expected to announce that it will send 1.25 billion dollars (£1 billion) in military assistance to Ukraine, US officials said on Friday, as the Biden administration pushes to get as much aid to Kyiv as possible before leaving office on January 20. The large package of aid includes a significant amount of munitions, including for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems and the Hawk air defence system. It also will provide Stinger missiles and 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds, officials said. The officials, who said they expect the announcement to be made on Monday, spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The new aid comes as Russia launched a barrage of attacks against Ukraine’s power facilities in recent days, although Ukraine has said it intercepted a significant number of the missiles and drones. Russian and Ukrainian forces are also still in a bitter battle around the Russian border region of Kursk, where Moscow has sent thousands of North Korean troops to help reclaim territory taken by Ukraine. Earlier this month, senior defence officials acknowledged that the US Defence Department may not be able to send all of the remaining 5.6 billion dollars (£4.5 billion) in Pentagon weapons and equipment stocks passed by Congress for Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in. Mr Trump has talked about getting some type of negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, and spoken about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many US and European leaders are concerned that it might result in a poor deal for Ukraine and they worry that he will not provide Ukraine with all the weapons funding approved by Congress. The aid in the new package is in presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Pentagon to take weapons off the shelves and send them quickly to Ukraine. This latest assistance would reduce the remaining amount to about 4.35 billion dollars (£3.46 billion). Officials have said they hope that an influx of aid will help strengthen Ukraine’s hand, should Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky decide it is time to negotiate. One senior defence official said that while the US will continue to provide weapons to Ukraine until January 20, there may well be funds remaining that will be available for the incoming Trump administration to spend. According to the Pentagon, there is also about 1.2 billion dollars (£0.9 billion) remaining in longer-term funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is used to pay for weapons contracts that would not be delivered for a year or more. Officials have said the administration anticipates releasing all of that money before the end of the calendar year. If the new package is included, the US will have provided more than 64 billion dollars (£50.8 billion) in security assistance to Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022.The world approved a bitterly negotiated climate deal Sunday but poorer nations most at the mercy of worsening disasters dismissed a $300 billion a year pledge from wealthy historic polluters as insultingly low. After two exhausting weeks of chaotic bargaining and sleepless nights, nearly 200 nations banged through the contentious finance pact in the early hours in a sports stadium in Azerbaijan. But the applause had barely subsided in Baku when India delivered a full-throated rejection of the dollar-figure just agreed. "The amount that is proposed to be mobilised is abysmally poor. It's a paltry sum," said Indian delegate Chandni Raina. "This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face." Nations had struggled to reconcile long-standing divisions over how much rich nations most accountable for historic climate change should provide to poorer countries least responsible but most impacted by Earth's rapid warming. EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra said COP29 would be remembered as "the start of a new era for climate finance". Sleep-deprived diplomats, huddled in anxious groups, were still revising the final phrasing on the plenary floor hours before the deal passed. At points, the talks appeared on the brink of collapse, with developing nations storming out of meetings and threatening to walk away should rich nations not cough up more cash. In the end -- despite repeating that no deal is better than a bad deal -- they did not stand in the way of an agreement, despite it falling well short of what they wanted. The final deal commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developed countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters. That is up from $100 billion under an existing pledge but was slammed as offensively low by developing nations who had demanded much more. "This COP has been a disaster for the developing world," said Mohamed Adow, the Kenyan director of Power Shift Africa, a think tank. "It's a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously." A group of 134 developing countries had pushed for at least $500 billion from rich governments to build resilience against climate change and cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. UN climate chief Simon Stiell acknowledged the deal was imperfect. "No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work still to do. So this is no time for victory laps," he said in a statement. The United States and EU have wanted newly wealthy emerging economies like China -- the world's largest emitter -- to chip in. The final deal "encourages" developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis, reflecting no change for China which already provides climate finance on its own terms. Wealthy nations said it was politically unrealistic to expect more in direct government funding. Donald Trump, a sceptic of both climate change and foreign assistance, returns to the White House in January and a number of other Western countries have seen right-wing backlashes against the green agenda. The deal posits a larger overall target of $1.3 trillion per year to cope with rising temperatures and disasters, but most would come from private sources. Wealthy countries and small island nations were also concerned by efforts led by Saudi Arabia to water down calls from last year's summit in Dubai to phase out fossil fuels. The main texts proposed in Baku lacked any explicit mention of the Dubai commitment to "transitioning away from fossil fuels". A number of countries had accused Azerbaijan, an authoritarian oil and gas exporter, of lacking the experience and will to meet the moment, as the planet again sets temperature records and faces rising deadly disasters. bur-np-sct/lth/tym
“Climate change isn’t waiting for international pledges, and neither can the world’s most vulnerable nations, because every delayed dollar costs lives, livelihoods and a chance at survival.” The conclusion of COP29 reiterates a troubling reality for emerging economies: the yawning gap between climate finance needs and actual disbursements. Estimates to address the escalating climate crisis stand at US$1.3 trillion, but developed nations have pledged to mobilize only $300 billion annually by 2035. Although touted as a tripling of the previous $100 billion annual target set in 2009, this commitment has met with sharp criticism from developing nations, which deem it insufficient. Analysts from the Center for Global Development estimate that existing commitments, including contributions from multilateral development banks and private finance, could already account for approximately $200 billion annually by 2030. Contributions from emerging economies such as China could potentially raise the total to $265 billion. However, concerns about inflation eroding the real value of these funds persist. By 2035, the $300 billion commitment is projected to shrink to the equivalent of $175 billion, assuming a 5 percent annual inflation rate. Whether you're looking to broaden your horizons or stay informed on the latest developments, "Viewpoint" is the perfect source for anyone seeking to engage with the issues that matter most. By registering, you agree with 's Please check your email for your newsletter subscription. The absence of explicit provisions for new and additional funding raises concerns about how much of this finance may be redirected from existing aid, potentially undermining the Sustainable Development Goals. This financial chasm, symptomatic of a global system ill-equipped to address pressing climate challenges, demands a new approach. Emerging economies, constrained by limited resources, cannot afford to rely solely on international pledges. They must explore innovative, pragmatic strategies to mobilize capital, ensuring returns that align with the current economic structure. Climate resilience hinges on mitigation and adaptation projects. Mitigation focuses on reducing or preventing the causes of climate change, for instance, through renewable energy projects. These include jobs such as those in construction, operations and maintenance of renewable energy facilities. Adaptation involves adjusting systems and practices to cope with the impacts of climate change. Flood protection and growing drought-resistant crops are examples. But here’s the paradox. Mitigation projects may generate tangible economic benefits such as direct, indirect and induced employment opportunities. But adaptation measures – equally essential, if not more – such as building climate-resilient infrastructure or improving water management, often lack direct revenue streams. For emerging economies where public budgets are stretched thin, financing these efforts is particularly challenging. Here, large sections of people don’t have the disposable income to invest in financial instruments, such as green bonds or insurance schemes. Thus, the key lies in reimagining climate finance frameworks to attract private capital while ensuring measurable returns. This requires blending financial innovation with tangible incentives and institutional reforms. One promising approach is linking returns to local economic multipliers. For instance, if the government invests in flood protection infrastructure, it generates jobs in construction, opportunities for suppliers providing material and allied local businesses. These workers and businesses, in turn, spend their wages or profits on goods and services within the local economy, stimulating further economic activity. This will ensure that investments generate tangible community benefits while offering returns to investors. Another solution is tying payouts for impact-linked bonds to metrics such as job creation, agricultural productivity or improved public health outcomes. Such bonds, designed to finance projects with social or environmental objectives such as improving health and boosting agricultural productivity attract a diverse range of investors including governments, development banks, private investors and impact investment funds. Unlike traditional bonds with fixed interest payments, these bonds offer payouts depending on the success of the project. For instance, if a project meets specific goals such as reducing carbon emissions or improving literacy rates, the bond issuer may offer higher returns to investors. This performance-based structure attracts investors who are looking to achieve both financial returns and positive social or environmental outcomes. With partial underwriting by governments or international organizations, these bonds also reduce investor risk while driving societal benefits. Similarly, local carbon credit markets can empower communities to take up projects like reforestation or urban greening and thus generate carbon credits. These credits can be traded internationally, providing revenue for reinvestment and compensating investors in the process. Another avenue lies in monetizing climate resilience through public infrastructure. Green infrastructure projects such as flood-resistant housing or renewable-powered transit systems can be designed to generate revenue through user fees, tolls or public-private lease agreements. Shared energy saving models, where savings generated from reduced energy consumption are shared between stakeholders, are good solutions too. Here, savings generated from energy efficiency improvements leading to reduced energy consumption are shared between all parties involved: building owners, tenants and investors. Such models create financial incentives to invest in energy saving technologies and practices. Given the heavy debt burdens of many emerging economies, restructuring climate debt also offers a viable pathway to free up resources for climate projects. Debt-for-climate swaps allow international creditors to forgive portions of debt in exchange for climate investment commitments. A country could, for example, use these funds to build mangrove forests that serve as natural flood barriers, reducing future disaster costs. International financial support might be available for countries that get debt relief, particularly if the project contributes to global climate goals. Another option is issuing green sovereign debt instruments that tie lower interest rates to achieving specific climate targets. Impact investors looking for both returns and sustainability outcomes would be attracted to such measures. The potential of the international diaspora remains largely untapped. Governments can issue diaspora green bonds, appealing to communities abroad with higher disposable incomes and a vested interest in their home country. These bonds could fund visible projects, such as solar farms or water systems. Remittance-based financing platforms could also automatically channel a fraction of remittances into dedicated climate funds, creating a steady funding pipeline for adaptation projects. Technology-driven solutions can also address one of the biggest challenges in climate finance: perceived risk. For instance, AI-driven climate risk insurance can use advanced analytics to design tailored insurance products that pool risks across industries or geographies. The premiums collected could fund adaptation efforts, while payouts provide a safety net for investors if climate events disrupt projects. Likewise, blockchain for transparent financing can boost investor confidence by ensuring accountability. For example, blockchain could track funds raised for reforestation in real time, verifying progress on planting, maintenance and carbon sequestration, thereby enhancing trust and reducing financial risks. Striking a balance between financial returns and social impact is critical. Risk mitigation through guarantees from multilateral development banks or international financial institutions can play a pivotal role. These could cover a portion of losses on climate bonds, making them more attractive to private investors. Blending philanthropy and profit also offers a hybrid model where philanthropic funds cover high-risk costs, while private investors benefit from the profits. Integrating social return metrics such as lives saved can further broaden the appeal of climate investments. By adopting strategies such as tying investor returns to measurable local benefits, leveraging technology to reduce risks and mobilizing underutilized resources such as diaspora capital, emerging economies can reshape their climate financing landscape. ---Saharanpur: A video surfaced online showing students of a government primary school cleaning a vehicle on the school premises, prompting an investigation from the education department, an official said on Saturday. According to sources, the video appears to be of the primary school in Palli village of Block Puwarkan. Some students were seen leaving their classes and cleaning a car while teachers stood nearby. The District Basic Education Officer (BSA) Kumari Komal handed over the investigation to the Block Education Officer of Sadar and said that strict action would be taken against the authorities.
‘Hapless’: Postecoglou left a laughing stock