FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Reuters:U.S. coal-fired power plants shut down at the second-fastest pace on record in 2019, despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to prop up the industry, according to data from the federal government and Thomson Reuters.Power companies retired or converted roughly 15,100 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired electricity generation, enough to power about 15 million homes, according to the data, which included preliminary statistics from the Energy Information Administration and Reuters reporting. That was second only to the record 19,300 MW shut in 2015 during President Barack Obama’s administration.The replacement of coal with power generation from natural gas and renewables has cut total U.S. carbon emissions in four of the past five years. Gas emits about half the carbon dioxide, a leading contributor to global warming, as coal.The coal industry has been in steep decline for a decade due to competition from cheap and abundant gas and subsidized solar and wind energy, along with rising public concern over coal’s contribution to climate change.Trump has downplayed climate change threats and sought to revive the coal industry to fulfill pledges to voters in coal mining states like West Virginia and Wyoming, mainly by rolling back Obama-era environmental protections. Still, since entering office in 2017, an estimated 39,000 MW of coal-fired power plant capacity has shut.If that trend continues, more coal plants will have shut during the first four years (2017-2020) of the Trump administration – an estimated 46,600 MW – than during Obama’s second term (2013-2016) – around 43,100 MW.[Scott DiSavino]More: U.S. coal-fired power plants closing fast despite Trump’s pledge of support for industry Reuters: U.S. coal plant closures topped 15GW in 2019
ICJ Border controversy case– after Venezuela fails to file counter-memorialThe Guyana Government will be moving to have the International Court of Justice (ICJ) go ahead with the proceedings after Venezuela failed to submit its counter memorial on jurisdiction within the court-imposed deadline.The International Court of JusticeBack in March 2018, Guyana went to The Netherlands-based World Court to confirm the validity of the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899, which fixed the land boundary between the two neighbouring countries.Last year, the ICJ found that it would be appropriate to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case before considering its merits.To this end, Guyana submitted its written Memorial on Jurisdiction back in November, demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the Arbitral Award and the resulting boundary.As a result, the ICJ had fixed April 18, 2019 as the date for Venezuela to submit a Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction in response to Guyana’s submission. However, the troubled Spanish-speaking state has failed to make a submission on that date, and according to a statement for the Guyana Foreign Affairs Ministry on Thursday, Venezuela has indicated in a letter from its Foreign Minister that it had chosen not do so.“In consequence, Guyana has decided to ask the Court to proceed directly to the holding of oral hearings, at the earliest possible date, to determine its jurisdiction over the case. Guyana is confident that the Court will agree that it has jurisdiction, and then proceed to decide on the merits of Guyana’s suit,” the missive on Thursday stated.Guyana submitted the case to the Court after the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) determined, pursuant to his authority under the Geneva Agreement of 1966 – to which Guyana, Venezuela and the United Kingdom are parties – that the dispute over the validity of the Arbitral Award, and the resulting boundary, must be decided by the Court. That constitutes a sufficient jurisdictional basis for the Court to proceed.According to the Foreign Affairs Ministry release, Guyana regrets that Venezuela, notwithstanding its obligations under the Geneva Agreement and the Secretary General’s decision to refer the matter to the Court, has chosen not to participate in the case.However, as the Court itself has made clear, the door remains open to Venezuela to join in the proceedings, which will continue to a final and legally-binding judgment, pursuant to the Court’s rules, whether Venezuela participates or not.“Guyana takes note of the Venezuelan Foreign Minister’s recent tweet that, at some point in the future, it will supply the Court with “information” about the case to assist it in the exercise of its judicial functions. If this is a first step toward Venezuela’s full participation in the case, Guyana welcomes it.At the same time, Guyana has reserved its right to object to any submission by Venezuela that violates the Court’s rules or is otherwise prejudicial,” the missive added.The next step going forward now, according to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, will be for the Court to schedule the dates for the oral hearing on jurisdiction.
Advertisement Memorable Moments:-Read Also:-Boxing: Jean Pierre “JP” Augustin becomes free agentFIFA World Cup 2018 : Portugal fend off Iran to book their place in the Round of 16 KALININGRAD, RUSSIA – JUNE 25: Iago Aspas of Spain back heels in past Monir El Kajoui of Morocco to score his sides second goal during the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia group B match between Spain and Morocco at Kaliningrad Stadium on June 25, 2018 in Kaliningrad, Russia. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)AdvertisementIago Aspas scored an equalizer in stoppage time with VAR’s help as Spain manage an unconvincing draw against Morocco to top Group B at Kaliningrad.In Round of 16, Spain will face hosts Russia for a place in the Quarterfinals.A dreadful mix-up in the Spanish defence led to the first goal by Khalid Boutaib, Isco amending it 5 mins later from a pass by Andres Iniesta. But Spain looked wobbly in defence when pressed by a committed, aggressive Morocco side. Then, Youssef En-Nesyri looked to have won it for Herve Renard’s side when he powered in a clinical header in the 81st minute. But Aspas flicked in Dani Carvajal’s low cross to make it 2-2, with referee Ravshan Irmatov initially disallowing the goal calling it an offside before changing the decision courtesy to VAR. Nordin Amrabat was unlucky not to score in the 2nd half when his outside foot shot hit the bar and came back.