首页 > 

wow 888

2025-01-25
From Maui to the Caribbean, Thanksgiving tournaments a beloved part of college basketballTake it to the people, says Merriwa over 'treasured' Gumman Place HostelThe United States is imposing sanctions on 35 entities and vessels that play a critical role in transporting illicit Iranian petroleum to foreign markets. This action imposes additional costs on Iran’s petroleum sector following Iran’s attack against Israel on October 1, 2024, as well as Iran’s announced nuclear escalations, building upon the sanctions issued on October 11. Petroleum revenues provide the Iranian regime with the resources to fund its nuclear program, develop advanced drones and missiles, and provide ongoing financial and material support for the terrorist activities of its regional proxies. “Iran continues to funnel revenues from its petroleum trade toward the development of its nuclear program, proliferation of its ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle technology, and sponsorship of its regional terrorist proxies, risking further destabilizing the region,” said Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Bradley T. Smith. “The United States remains committed to disrupting the shadow fleet of vessels and operators that facilitate these illicit activities, using the full range of our tools and authorities.” Today’s action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13902, which provides authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to identify and impose sanctions on key sectors of Iran’s economy. On October 11, 2024, the Secretary of the Treasury identified the petroleum and petrochemical sectors of the Iranian economy as subject to sanctions pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has released sanctions guidance for the maritime industry to aid in identifying new or common fact patterns that may be indicative of sanctions evasion, addressing common counterparty due diligence issues, and implementing best practices to promote sanctions compliance. Iran relies upon a sprawling network of tankers and ship management firms in multiple jurisdictions to transport its petroleum to overseas customers — using tactics such as false documentation, manipulation of vessel tracking systems, and constant changes to the names and flags of vessels. The Marshall Islands-flagged JAYA (IMO: 9410387); Guyana-flagged PHONIX (IMO: 9198317); the Cook Islands-flagged BERTHA (IMO: 9292163), OLIVE (IMO: 9288265), YURI (IMO: 9235737), and MIN HANG (IMO: 9257137); the Sao Tome and Principe-flagged ELVA (IMO: 9196644) and CERES I (IMO: 9229439); the San Marino-flagged VANITY (IMO 9371608); the Liberia-flagged LADY LUCY (IMO: 9341512); the Belize-flagged VESNA (IMO: 9233349); the Honduras-flagged FT ISLAND (IMO: 9166675); the Iran-flagged MASAL (IMO: 9169421); and the Panama-flagged BLACK PANTHER (IMO: 9285756), LIONESS (IMO: 9285744), VERONICA III (IMO: 9326055), FIONA II (IMO: 9262766) and MEROPE (IMO: 9281891), have collectively shipped tens of millions of barrels of oil for Iran. United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Galileos Marine Services L.L.C manages the JAYA, formerly known as the MONOCEROS, which has been involved in transporting Iranian crude oil since at least 2022 and has changed its name or flag multiple times since to evade accountability. The JAYA has carried hundreds of thousands of metric tons of Iranian crude oil on behalf of U.S.-designated China Concord Petroleum Company (CCPC). CCPC was designated pursuant to E.O. 13846 on September 25, 2019 for engaging in a significant transaction for the transport of oil from Iran after the reimposition of sanctions on Iran. Panama-based Ocean Glory Giant OGG SA owns and manages the MASAL, which carried more than a million barrels of Iranian crude oil on behalf of U.S.-designated CCPC, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) as recently as July 2024. Hong Kong-based Gaffodil Co., Limited manages and operates the FT ISLAND, which carried more than 1.6 million barrels of Iranian condensate to buyers in China on behalf of CCPC and NIOC as recently as April 2024. India-based Vision Ship Management LLP manages and operates the PHONIX, formerly known as the LUNA LAKE, which has carried millions of barrels of Iranian crude oil for CCPC since 2022. Vision Ship Management LLP also owns, manages, and operates the Cook Islands-flagged RIO NAPO (IMO: 9256913) and the Panama-flagged LARA II (IMO: 9321421). The RIO NAPO previously transported 35,000 metric tons of Iranian naphtha worth approximately $21.5 million to the UAE. Galileos Marine Services L.L.C, Vision Ship Management LLP, Ocean Glory Giant OGG SA, and Gaffodil Co., Limited are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The JAYA is being identified as property in which Galileos Marine Services L.L.C has an interest. The MASAL and the FT ISLAND are being identified as property in which Ocean Glory Giant OGG SA and Gaffodil Co., Limited have an interest, respectively. The PHONIX, the LARA II, and the RIO NAPO are being identified as property in which Vision Ship Management LLP has an interest. Seychelles-registered Lufindo Holding Limited owns the ELVA, which in July 2023 was used by Iran to ship nearly two million barrels of Iranian light crude oil. The ELVA is managed and operated by Pakistan-based Inaya Ship Management Private Limited. Liberia-registered Constellation Maritime Services Limited is the owner and operator of the LADY LUCY. The LADY LUCY carried Iranian fuel oil worth approximately $18.5 million to the UAE in July 2024, and transported an additional cargo of fuel oil worth approximately $17.5 million to the UAE again in August, both on behalf of NIOC. Lufindo Holding Limited, Inaya Ship Management Private Limited, and Constellation Maritime Services Limited are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The ELVA is being identified as property in which Lufindo Holding Limited has an interest. The LADY LUCY is being identified as property in which Constellation Maritime Services Limited has an interest. People’s Republic of China (PRC)-based Shanghai Legendary Ship Management Company Limited manages and operates the BERTHA, the MIN HANG, and the VESNA. The BERTHA and the MIN HANG have been involved in the illicit transport of Iranian oil since at least 2022. The VESNA has similarly shipped millions of barrels of Iranian crude oil to the PRC since 2019 on behalf of NIOC and CCPC. Shanghai Legendary Ship Management Company Limited is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The BERTHA, the MIN HANG, and the VESNA are being identified as property in which Shanghai Legendary Ship Management Company Limited has an interest. PRC-based Shanghai Future Ship Management Co Ltd manages and operates the VERONICA III and the MEROPE. The VERONICA III and the MEROPE have been involved in the illicit transport of Iranian oil on behalf of NIOC since at least 2022. The VERONICA III has transported hundreds of thousands of metric tons of Iranian crude oil on behalf of NIOC and CCPC. Shanghai Future Ship Management Co Ltd has managed illicit shipments of Iranian oil for years; in 2021, a vessel managed by Shanghai Future Ship Management Co Ltd was seized by Indonesian authorities when it was detected transferring oil from an Iranian-flagged tanker owned by the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC), causing an oil spill. Both vessels were attempting to conceal their identities by concealing their flags and turning off their automatic identification systems (AIS). Shanghai Future Ship Management Co Ltd is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The VERONICA III and the MEROPE are being identified as property in which Shanghai Future Ship Management Co Ltd has an interest. Cayman Islands-registered, PRC-based Eunomia Limited owns the FIONA II. The FIONA II has been involved in transporting illicit Iranian oil since at least 2023. In July 2024, the FIONA II transported nearly two million barrels of Iranian crude oil to the PRC on behalf of NIOC. Marshall Islands-registered Yurimaguas Ltd owns the YURI and the VANITY. The YURI and the VANITY have carried Iranian oil to the PRC since at least 2020; the YURI itself has shipped millions of barrels of Iranian crude oil for CCPC and NIOC. Eunomia Limited and Yurimaguas Ltd are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The FIONA II is being identified as property in which Eunomia Limited has an interest, and the YURI and VANITY are being identified as property in which Yurimaguas Ltd has an interest. India-based Tightship Shipping Management (OPC) Private Limited manages or operates the OLIVE, BLACK PANTHER, and LIONESS, which have collectively carried tens of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian oil for NIOC since at least 2022. The BLACK PANTHER has engaged in ship-to-ship transfers of Iranian oil with Iranian-flagged vessels. Tightship Shipping Management (OPC) Private Limited is involved in the management of a fourth vessel, the Panama-flagged TONIL (IMO: 9307932), which is managed and operated by Ukraine-based Lightship Management Ltd and has skirted sanctions to carry millions of barrels of oil for Iran. Tightship Shipping Management (OPC) Private Limited and Lightship Management Ltd are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The OLIVE, the BLACK PANTHER, and the LIONESS are being identified as property in which Tightship Shipping Management (OPC) Private Limited has an interest. The TONIL is being identified as property in which Lightship Management Ltd has an interest. Hong Kong-based Ceres Shipping Limited owns the CERES I. The CERES I has been involved in transporting Iranian oil since at least 2021. In January 2024, near Singapore, the CERES I transferred via ship-to-ship transfer nearly 300,000 metric tons of Iranian crude oil in the interest of U.S.-designated Jazira Das International Products Trading LLC, CCPC, and NIOC. Notably, in July 2024, the CERES I was involved in a collision with another oil tanker that caused an oil spill in international waters near Malaysia. At the time of the collision, the CERES I’s vessel tracking signals were inconsistent with its position, which inhibited communication with the other vessel. Ceres Shipping Limited is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy. The CERES I is being identified as property in which Ceres Shipping Limited has an interest. As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. In addition, any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, or exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. U.S. persons may face civil or criminal penalties for violations of E.O. 13902. In addition, persons that engage in certain transactions with the individuals and entities designated today may themselves be exposed to sanctions or subject to an enforcement action. Non-U.S. persons are also prohibited from causing or conspiring to cause U.S. persons to wittingly or unwittingly violate U.S. sanctions, as well as engaging in conduct that evades U.S. sanctions. OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines provide more information regarding OFAC’s enforcement of U.S. sanctions, including the factors that OFAC generally considers when determining an appropriate response to an apparent violation. The power and integrity of OFAC sanctions derive not only from OFAC’s ability to designate and add persons to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, but also from its willingness to remove persons from the SDN List consistent with the law. The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior. Source: US Department of The Treasurywow 888

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee Titans coach Brian Callahan said Wednesday that wide receiver Treylon Burks , who's been on injured reserve since mid-October with an injured knee, recently had surgery to fix a partially torn ACL. “It was a loose ACL that wasn’t fully torn, and so they had to go see a specialist, so some weeks went by after he went on IR and he eventually had to have ACL surgery,” Callahan said. “The surgery was a couple of weeks back, and the time from when he went to IR until he had the surgery was also a couple of weeks.” Burks was hurt in practice the week after the Titans lost to Indianapolis on Oct. 13 and placed on injured reserve on Oct. 19. The 2022 first-round pick is no stranger to injuries. He suffered concussions in both 2022 against Philadelphia and last year against Pittsburgh. Burks missed six games in each of his first two seasons with the Titans and played in just five games this season before being placed on injured reserve. He finished 2024 with four receptions for 34 yards. For his three NFL seasons, Burks has 53 receptions for 699 yards and one touchdown catch. The Titans (3-9) host Jacksonville (2-10) on Sunday. Window opened The Titans opened the three-week practice window for offensive tackle Jaelyn Duncan to return from injured reserve. Duncan has started two games, the second against Buffalo on Oct. 20 at right tackle and lasted four snaps before hurting his hamstring. He was placed on injured reserve Oct. 26. ___ AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl Terry Mccormick, The Associated PressHegseth nomination sinking fast in the SenateAdani Gangavaram Port, the deepest and one of the most modern ports in India announced the launch of two state-of-the-art Economic Grab Ship Cranes, marking a significant milestone as the first in India. These advanced electric cranes are designed to handle multi-purpose operations, efficiently managing, loading and unloading processes. This development highlights the port’s commitment to operational efficiency and sustainable practices. The introduction of these cranes demonstrates Adani Gangavaram Port’s continuous efforts to enhance cargo handling operations, thereby improving service offerings to customers. By integrating the latest technology and processes, the port aims to strengthen its position as a leader in trade services. The port remains dedicated to bringing world-class technology and best-in-class processes to further support and streamline trade in India. Adani Gangavaram Port Limited management said, “We are extremely delighted on the induction of the first Economic Grab Ship Cranes in India and it is a witness to our commitment to enhancing efficiency and better serving our customers. We continue to invest in state-of-the-art technologies that improve efficiency, ensure sustainability, and enhance the overall customer experience. Our dedication to bringing the best processes and technology to serve the trade remains steadfast, and these cranes are a witness to our vision of becoming a leader in India’s port and logistics sector.” Source: Adani Gangavaram PortThe other day I recorded the annual predictions wrap-up with Laurent Segalen and Gerard Reid of Redefining Energy. I’d joined the fun last year for the first time after starting up the Redefining Energy—Tech sub-channel, judging their predictions from the previous year and adding predictions of my own. One of my predictions for 2025 was that there was going to be a bloodbath in hydrogen for transportation. It’s not going to help that it’s illegal to call hydrogen trucks, ferries, or rail zero emissions or even low-emissions in North America, Europe, or Australia, with both Canada and the EU allowing non-governmental organizations to bring charges. After all, hydrogen in transportation is actually quite high emissions. In the best possible case, it’s many multiples of battery or grid-tied electric, and in average cases close to diesel. In some cases, it’s worse than diesel. Why? Well, manufacturing hydrogen, in the best possible scenario, requires about three times as much green electricity as just using the electricity in vehicles through batteries, so whatever emissions are related to the electricity are tripled. Also, hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, albeit indirectly by preventing the methane in natural gas or burped out of cows from degrading, with 13 to 37 times the potency of carbon dioxide. And as the smallest or second smallest molecule — depending on whether you ask chemists or physicists — and at the pressures required to have enough of it in one place to do anything useful, it leaks. Every time it moves from container to container or piece of equipment to piece of equipment, a bit leaks. When it’s liquified for long-distance trucking, for example, it turns back into a gas on the road and gets vented. The combination means that for hydrogen-powered vehicles, an average of 10% of the hydrogen is likely to be vented from manufacturing to getting into the fuel cell. This isn’t new news, by the way. In 1976, Paul Crutzen (a Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist) and Dieter Ehhalt were among the first to propose that hydrogen could indirectly impact the atmosphere by interacting with the hydroxyl radical (OH) . OH is crucial in regulating methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere. Hydrogen competes with methane for OH, extending methane’s atmospheric lifespan, thereby increasing its greenhouse effect. In a pivotal 2001 study, Richard Derwent and colleagues quantified how hydrogen leakage could indirectly increase methane levels by reducing OH concentrations. The 2023 multi-author Sand et al study published in Nature only clarified how bad the problem was , not that there was a problem. Industrial use of hydrogen in the 20th century saw numerous explosions linked to leaks, particularly in the emerging oil refining and chemical processing sectors of the 1910s and 1920s. Various industrial accidents led to safety regulations about detection, ventilation, and the like. That hydrogen leaks is incredibly well known. It’s minimized as much as possible in industry because it’s expensive, but it’s mostly been a matter of trying to prevent people from dying or being injured, so accurate estimates of leakage rates have been few and far between. But now the data is coming in. A hydrogen refueling station in California was seeing 35% leakage rates and it took years of remediation and fixes to bring it down to 2% to 10% leakage, just at the site. A hydrogen electrolysis and refueling plant in Europe was seeing over 2% to 4% leakage. A US DOE report on hydrogen boil-off made it clear that even very high-volume refueling stations refilled with liquid hydrogen would see 2% losses just from that part of the value chain. Basically, you have to make hydrogen in industrial-scale electrolysis plants that are closely monitored and maintained by trained chemical processing engineering professionals and use the hydrogen at the same location and immediately as a feedstock in the manufacturing of something that doesn’t leak to have low leakage rates of the stuff. Make it in a small electrolysis facility at a bus garage or dockside for ferries and the small plant will leak like a sieve. Truck it anywhere and leakage occurs. Moving it from an electrolyzer to a pressurized tank will see leakage. Liquifying it will see leakage. Pumping it into a truck, ferry, or rail car will see leakage. The best scenario I assessed was a plan to put an electrolyzer beside a bus garage in Winnipeg, which has exceptionally low carbon intensity electricity, about 1.3 grams per kWh, about as good as it’s possible to get. In that scenario, between manufacturing and leakage, I estimated that a hydrogen fuel cell bus would have 15 to 16 times the carbon emissions per kilometer as just using the electricity in a battery electric bus. And Winnipeg found that was too expensive, and pivoted to a methanol reformer as the plan, asserting falsely that it was low emissions too. In actual fact, as methanol has high carbon emissions in manufacturing, a bus filled with hydrogen made from methanol would have 3.2 times the emissions of a diesel bus. Naturally, the hydrogen-for-energy crowd have not been remotely transparent about this problem. Like the extreme inefficiency of hydrogen-for-energy pathways, the reality that green hydrogen will always be expensive, and the unreliability of fuel cells, most of them are in denial. The ones that aren’t in denial are the ones intentionally delaying decarbonization who don’t care. These realities are catching up to companies that have been trying to make hydrogen vehicles, hence my prediction for next year. I’m pretty sure that at least one of Plug Power, FuelCell Energy, or Ballard will finally disappear, possibly all three. They are trading for pennies on the dollar compared to the 2021 miniblip, never mind the early 2000 maxiblip. Ballard Power has never made a profit, losing an average of $55 million annually since 2000, $1.3 billion in total. Even the hydrogen faithful eventually will cut their losses, eat the capital gains loss for tax breaks, and invest in something useful. I expect that at least one of the major truck and bus firms that’s trying to do both battery electric and hydrogen will follow Quantron into bankruptcy , probably Van Hool or New Flyer. As I noted, hydrogen is appealing because of higher unit prices per vehicle, but every hydrogen truck or bus a firm sells likely costs it 3–5 unit sales of battery electric vehicles because of additional corporate overhead, failure to improve battery electric vehicles to be competitive, and deeply unhappy customers. It’s a recipe for market share loss, not gain. At least one major western bus manufacturer will abandon hydrogen fuel cell buses, maybe Solaris. Norway will finally stop trying to build hydrogen ferries and replace the single operational hydrogen ferry — 2x the emissions of a diesel ferry, 40x the emissions of a battery electric ferry on the same route, 10x the energy cost of a battery electric ferry — with battery electric. But Christmas came early for this prediction. Exit Hyzon from the scene. It was founded in 2020 as a spin-off of Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies, focusing on heavy-duty commercial applications such as trucks and buses. Headquartered in Rochester, New York, the company developed proprietary fuel cell systems targeting higher power density and faster refueling times. With operations spanning Europe, Asia, and Australia, Hyzon collaborated with local partners in a vain attempt to build hydrogen ecosystems, including refueling infrastructure, to support FCEV adoption. Despite all the problems listed above and the failures to establish hydrogen ecosystems, Hyzon forged ahead, signing agreements for fleet deployments and participating in pilot projects worldwide. I’d have included Horizon on the stock chart above, by the way, but it’s privately held not publicly traded so it’s only losing money for its private investors, like mining giant Anglo American. Now all of those contracts and agreements are worth the paper that they are printed on, nothing. Hyzon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 20th of 2024. The filing follows a prolonged period of financial instability, operational challenges, and restructuring efforts aimed at stabilizing the company. Hyzon’s decision to file for bankruptcy reflected its inability to secure sufficient financing or implement effective strategic alternatives, despite earlier efforts to downsize its operations in markets like the Netherlands and Australia. The company had also been dealing with reputational damage stemming from a settlement with the SEC in 2023 over allegations of misleading investors. What was that last part? Oh, of course, Hyzon was a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), and like most of those Wall Street bro enriching vehicles, was a scam to dupe money out of retail investors . Hyzon was on my 2022 list of cleantech SPACs that were going to end badly. The chart above is of 56 cleantech SPAC firms whose stocks had been pumped then dumped by the Wall Street bros. About 60% of them had SEC charges against them. A lot of them are heading for bankruptcy, saddled with absurdly inflated expectations and far too little capital as the Wall Street bros took as much as 65% of it in some deals. After pumping, Hyzon was briefly worth $850 per share. Now it’s stock, soon to be delisted, is worth $1.12. The Wall Street bros made out like bandits. Hydrogen and hydrogen transportation was a theme among SPACs. Nikola Corporation went public in June 2020 through a SPAC merger with VectoIQ Acquisition Corp., valued at approximately $3.3 billion. Shortly after, the company faced fraud allegations from the aptly named Hindenburg Research in September 2020, claiming Nikola had misled investors about its technology and capabilities. Investigations by the SEC and DOJ followed, leading to the conviction of founder Trevor Milton in 2022 on three counts of fraud. Nikola agreed to pay a $125 million fine in 2021 to settle SEC charges for deceiving investors through misleading public statements. Who doesn’t remember Nikola’s lovely video of a hydrogen truck driving long a highway that was faked by towing a truck to the top of a hill and letting it roll down from there? Par for the course for hydrogen transportation plays. Hyzon Motors misled investors by making false statements about its business relationships and vehicle sales. The company falsely claimed to have delivered its first hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle in July 2021, even releasing a misleading video suggesting the vehicle was operational on hydrogen when it was not equipped to do so. Additionally, Hyzon reported selling 87 FCEVs in 2021, when in reality, no such sales had occurred that year. These actions led to settled fraud charges by the SEC in September 2023. But now its false claims — “Delivering heavy duty transport, without emissions” – are gone. At least it won’t be charged with with false advertising for its greenwashing, so there’s that, I guess. As I always say to good engineers and others in hydrogen firms, get out now or at least start getting out. It’s going to end badly and you aren’t actually doing anything for the environment. CleanTechnica's Comment Policy LinkedIn WhatsApp Facebook Bluesky Email Reddit

Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (D-CA) introduced the Zero-Emission Vessel Innovation Act, a bill that would support the development and deployment of clean shipping technology to transition to zero-emission vessels. The legislation would significantly reduce pollution, promote environmental justice, and green the shipping industry—a vital component of the global economy and coastal communities. Maritime shipping is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution in coastal communities. As port economies continue to grow, the need for sustainable maritime solutions is more urgent than ever. “I’m proud to introduce The Zero-Emission Vessel Innovation Act, which provides critical investments to transition the maritime sector toward zero-emission technologies. This will help the U.S. meet its climate goals while addressing environmental justice concerns in our port communities, including the Port of Los Angeles in my district. By investing in the research, development, and deployment of green-shipping technologies, Congress can promote a cleaner maritime sector that aligns with the nation’s broader climate goals,” said Representative Barragan. The legislation authorizes a $1 billion a year Zero Emission Vessel Innovation Fund within the Maritime Administration to provide grants and low-interest loans to accelerate projects focused on zero-emission vessels, clean alternative fuel vessels that reduce ship emissions by at least 90%, and the necessary charging and fueling infrastructure to support both. The bill prioritizes projects that launch job training programs for maritime workers, include extensive input from port communities, use project labor agreements, and bring co-benefits such as reduced underwater noise. Funding for automated ships is prohibited, to safeguard good paying maritime jobs. By prioritizing innovative clean shipping solutions and centering the needs of impacted communities, the legislation is set to redefine the future of maritime transport, paving the way for a cleaner, greener shipping industry. “We applaud Representative Barragán for introducing the Zero-Emission Vessel Innovation Act,” said Antonio Santos, Federal Climate Policy Director, Pacific Environment. “This bill will provide much-needed dedicated funding for the research, development and deployment of zero-emission ships and supporting infrastructure. Importantly, the bill prioritizes projects that advance environmental justice, engage frontline communities disproportionately harmed by maritime pollution and support workforce development. We call on Congress to pass this bill to accelerate the shipping industry’s transition off of dirty fossil fuels and help spur the market for the green-shipping technologies of the future.” “Transitioning the shipping industry to zero-emission technologies has the power to help us meet global climate goals and improve public health, and that starts right here in the U.S. This bill would provide much needed resources to ensure that we have the vessels, technologies, and charging or fueling infrastructure needed to make the transition to clean shipping in the United States. We are grateful for Representative Barragán’s unwavering support in the pursuit of cleaner shipping in the U.S. and a future with clean air for all.” – Caroline Bonfield, Ocean Conservancy’s U.S. shipping emissions policy manager “The Zero-Emission Vessel Innovation Act is a transformative bill, positioning the U.S. to help lead the way in innovative technologies and designs that will propel a new era of green shipping,” said Regan Nelson, senior ocean advocate, Natural Resources Defense Council. “Importantly, Representative Barragan’s bill will support the transition to carbon-free and quiet ships, securing wins for the climate, public health, and marine wildlife that are harmed by ocean noise.” The legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Kevin Mullin (Calif.), Seth Magaziner (R.I.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Valerie Foushee (N.C.), Troy Carter (La.), and Robert Garcia (Calif.) The full text of the bill can be found here. The following organizations have supported the legislation: Pacific Environment, Ocean Conservancy, NRDC, Green Latinos, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Communities for a Healthy Bay, Clean Air Task Force, Move LA, Little Manila Rising, California Environmental Voters, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sunflower Alliance, Coalition for Clean Air, Brightline Defense, Ocean Defense Initiative, Stand.Earth, International Electric Marine Association, ExploMar, ZULU Associates, Fourth Tack LLC, Elliott Bay Design Group, EV Maritime, MOLABO, NT Systems, Waterfront Alliance. Source: Congressmember Nanette BarragánRainbow-laden revelers hit Copacabana beach for Rio de Janeiro’s pride paradeAhead of second Trump term, California vows 'ironclad' abortion access

Previous: wow888 casino login
Next: wow.888