Latest news with #EFW
Time Business News
14-07-2025
- Time Business News
Authentic FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 Exam Dumps Best Way to Pass Fortinet Certification
Why FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 Certification Matters for Fortinet Professionals In today's digital world, cybersecurity is one of the most in-demand fields. The FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 certification stands out as a prestigious credential for professionals aiming to validate their expertise in Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist – Enterprise Firewall (FCSS EFW). It is an advanced-level exam that tests your deep knowledge of Fortinet's firewall solutions. If you're planning to enhance your career in cybersecurity and stand out in job markets, passing the FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 exam is a must. However, this exam isn't easy — and that's where authentic FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 exam dumps from Dumps4Expert can make a real difference in your preparation journey. When preparing for a high-stakes certification like FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4, it's crucial to rely on trusted and up-to-date resources. Dumps4Expert provides you with authentic, verified, and regularly updated FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 exam dumps. Our team of Fortinet-certified experts carefully curates the questions to match the real exam environment. These dumps are not just PDFs filled with questions — they are structured learning materials that help you understand core concepts, reinforce your knowledge, and practice real exam scenarios. What sets Dumps4Expert apart is the accuracy and relevance of our dumps. Unlike random internet files or unreliable sources, our FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 dumps go through a strict quality check. Each question is updated to reflect the latest exam syllabus and real-time industry scenarios. Moreover, our dumps come with detailed explanations, so even if you're not familiar with a concept, you can learn while you practice. These dumps act as a full-fledged learning system, rather than just a shortcut. You can also explore more Fortinet exam dumps here: Many candidates fail because they don't know what to expect in the real exam. Dumps4Expert solves that by offering a realistic exam environment in the form of a PDF and practice test engine. With repeated practice, you become familiar with the exam format, time management, and question types. This reduces anxiety and improves your performance on the actual exam day. Additionally, our materials are accessible on all devices, so you can study anywhere, anytime — perfect for busy professionals. The Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist (FCSS) is not just another certificate — it is your key to high-paying cybersecurity jobs, recognition in the IT industry, and long-term career growth. With more companies relying on Fortinet solutions, this certification positions you as a trusted security expert. Once you pass the FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 exam, you open the door to roles like Firewall Administrator, Security Engineer, and Fortinet Consultant — all of which are in high demand globally. Here's why you should choose Dumps4Expert to prepare for your certification: ✅ 100% Verified and Authentic Questions ✅ Covers Latest FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 Exam Syllabus ✅ Available in PDF Format and Practice Test Software and ✅ Created by Fortinet Certified Experts ✅ Compatible with Laptops, Tablets, and Mobiles ✅ Free Updates for up to 90 Days for up to 90 Days ✅ 24/7 Customer Support By relying on Dumps4Expert, you are choosing accuracy, success, and confidence for your exam journey. The FCSS_EFW_AD-7.4 exam is your pathway to professional excellence in the cybersecurity industry. With authentic exam dumps from Dumps4Expert, you no longer need to worry about outdated content or unreliable sources. We equip you with everything you need to pass the exam on your first try. Our goal is to make your preparation smooth, stress-free, and successful. Take the next step in your Fortinet journey with Dumps4Expert — the most trusted name in certification exam dumps. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
The Herald Scotland
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
What a waste this SNP Government has proved itself to be
Here we are less than six months away from the start of the ban and yet again we are seeing the SNP modus operandi. Make a big announcement of some grand idea, claim to be virtuous by saving the planet, yet don't put the effort in to actually put all the systems in place. It's just like the ferries all over again, although this time it's not the islanders who will be impacted but the English. As Scotland will not have enough incinerators for the next two years according to Ms Martin, 80-100 lorries every day will be heading south to England to go into their landfill. Imagine the impact on the roads, the environment and the cost at doing this, all because the SNP did not make sure that the structures were in place. I can't picture 600,000 tonnes of waste which is how much this will be annually. What I do know is that suddenly our neighbour is of use to the divisive SNP. The minister actually said in the interview that the 'landfill ban is a good thing in terms of reducing emissions, particularly potent methane emissions'. Does she believe that having a landfill ban in Scotland, sending our waste to England to their landfills reduces emissions? Is she really expecting us to believe that? Apparently she also believes the 'positive environmental impact of stopping landfill far outweighs any impact of temporary measures' (ie sending lorries to England). Her spin doctors were working hard when they came up with that line. We will have heavy lorries on the roads, Scottish waste going to landfill in England polluting the environment and the cost of this to the Scottish taxpayer, which she does not mention, all because the SNP has not done the hard graft to get enough capacity to deal with our waste. It's had 14 years to get this right and failed. Jane Lax, Aberlour. • Plans to send waste to England for disposal remind me of the old car sticker that said: 'Keep Scotland tidy, dump your rubbish in England'. This is an area in which we have some considerable skill, in offshoring manufacturing industry to exclude the emissions from our own statistics. Scott Simpson, Bearsden. Read more letters Another problem is looming Despite the fact it has taken the BBC some time to appreciate and understand the effects of the Scottish Parliament's (already-postponed) ban on the landfill of untreated municipal waste at the end of this year, the Disclosure programme on Monday (June 16) highlighted the nub of the problem: in January 2026, Scotland will be generating 600,000-700,000 tonnes of waste that will have to be trucked to England (or further) for disposal. We won't have enough Energy from Waste (EFW) plants to cope, and the prospects of increasing our recycling rates (that have stagnated since 2012) are pretty poor. It was disappointing that the programme makers didn't do some further research into the reasons for this inertia. The options are either to thole umpteen trucks taking Scottish waste to England (or the ports), or postpone the implementation date for the ban (again). If the latter, is that fair on the companies who are currently investing (or have already have invested) heavily in EFW technology in anticipation of the ban? It's yet another example of policy being made up on the hoof with either the waste industry not being consulted or (if it was) its advice being ignored. But there's another problem looming. The Westminster Government is presently consulting on a proposal to unify landfill tax by 2030 by removing the lower rate for inert wastes (soil, rubble etc) that's currently less than 4% of the higher rate (£126.15/tonne). If that happens and Scotland doesn't follow suit, it would create a situation where it could be economically viable to establish new landfills just north of the border for English waste being trucked up here. Cynics might welcome the idea on the grounds that the trucks hauling Scottish municipal waste to England for disposal would then have the opportunity to backload inert waste for the return journey. John Crawford, Preston. Priorities are all mixed up You report that a Treasury Minister, Emma Reynolds, was unable to give either the precise location or the total cost of yet another project in the south-east of England, a dual tunnel under the Thames linking Essex and Kent ("Minister struggles when questioned over new Thames crossing as costs mount", The Herald, June 17). The cost, it seems, will be between £9.2 billion and £10.2bn. This is a cost being borne by all of us, on top of HS2 (now stopping at Birmingham, not Edinburgh), the incredibly expensive nuclear power stations being built in the south, the aircraft carriers and more. Yet, as a nation, we struggle to keep people warm, people housed and children born into families on benefits fed and clothed. We have certainly gone wrong somewhere. Patricia Fort, Glasgow. This pledge is not believable Back in 2007 one of the first things new First Minister Alex Salmond promised was a focus on more efficient government and reform of nine departments of the "executive", 27 executive agencies and the 152 quangos. He added: "I'm not sure we need that complexity for a nation of five million. If you're going to have joined-up government you need less bits to join up." Eighteen years later and one of the relics, or should I say ruins, of that hopeful regime, John Swinney appeared on stage in a gaslit fug of smoke and mirrors to swear he's going to finish the job ("Ministers in plan to save £1bn a year by cutbacks on 'waste'", The Herald, June 17). Where's he getting his inspiration from? The spirit of Alex Salmond or the spectre of Trump, Farage, Reform and DOGE? One thing we can be sure of: it ain't gonna happen on John Swinney's watch. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. • I was almost amused to read that, after 18 years in power, the SNP has decided to save £1 billion a year by cutbacks on "waste". A picture of John Swinney with a newly-grown centre parting would have been even more believable. Duncan Graham, Stirling. Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Image: PA) It's time for Hoyle to go I read with incredulity the letter (June 16) from Jackie Storer, Press Secretary to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons. Only a lackey on the Speaker's payroll could write such drivel. Your readers would have to be 'soft in the head" to believe that Sir Lindsay Hoyle has any 'soft power' as an international peace-keeper. He cannot even keep order in the House of Commons and is an international embarrassment. During over a quarter of a century's membership of the House of Commons, I experienced five Speakers: Selwyn Lloyd, George Thomas, Bernard Weatherill, Betty Boothroyd and Michael Martin. The best by far was the only woman to have held that high office, the formidable Betty Boothroyd, who managed to keep order and chair debates with an admirable combination of professionalism, firmness and humour, while ensuring that even the most humble backbencher got a fair kick of the ball. The current Speaker has none of these attributes. I have never met Sir Lindsay Hoyle but I literally kent his faither, Douglas, who began his Westminster career as an extreme left-wing MP but later transmogrified into an Establishment Member of the House of Lords, where his son will no doubt follow him. Since my retirement, I have more than occasionally watched Parliamentary debates on TV and read reports of the current Speaker's conduct at home and abroad. I have come to the conclusion that Sir Lindsay Hoyle is not only incompetent. He is pretentious and profligate: a perfect example of someone who has been promoted above his abilities. In short, he is not fit to lace Betty Boothroyd's boots and it is time for him to go. Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn.
Hamilton Spectator
11-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Toronto eyes burning trash as landfill capacity nears limit
With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The idea is raising alarms among environmental advocates, who warn that burning trash releases harmful pollutants and poses health risks to nearby communities. To gather public feedback on various disposal solutions, the city is currently running a 10-minute online survey about how waste should be managed in years ahead. Options include expanding landfill capacity, exporting waste to other municipalities or incinerating it to generate electricity — a process known as 'energy-from-waste,' already used in Brampton and Durham Region , and under consideration in Ottawa. Charlotte Ueta, acting director of policy, planning and outreach for Toronto Solid Waste Management Services, says it's too early to commit to any specific plan, and no incineration facility or technology is currently under consideration. However, she acknowledges the situation is urgent, as Canada's largest city still sends an average of 450,000 tonnes of waste annually — more than three CN Towers' worth — to its primary disposal site, the Green Lane Landfill. Ueta says the focus of its ongoing consultation is on waste reduction, reuse and diversion. Toronto has no available land for a new landfill, and provincial policies limit the city's ability to expand or build one elsewhere, she added. However, the survey did ask residents about the option of building an incineration facility within the city. 'That's why we're asking the public about all potential options, including energy-from-waste,' she said. Joseph Lyng, general manager of Brampton-based Emerald Energy From Waste (EFW), says his company has submitted an unsolicited proposal to Toronto to process up to 500,000 tonnes of its garbage annually. The facility already burns about 150,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial waste, generating electricity and heat. Lyng says the plant is expanding to handle up to 900,000 tonnes and produce more than 100 megawatts of energy. Toronto's looming garbage crisis is part of a larger problem across Ontario, where landfill capacity is projected to run out by 2034 . Roughly one third of the province's waste is exported to the US, a strategy many say is unsustainable amid rising trade tensions. Recent changes to Blue Box recycling rules and the scrapping of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic drink containers have further strained diversion efforts. Meanwhile, resistance to new landfills is growing. Under Bill 197, municipalities can block new sites within 3.5 kilometres of their boundaries, making it harder for Toronto to find alternatives. Lyng believes his company offers part of the solution. 'We don't produce the garbage — we manage it,' he said. Lyng argues that by processing waste close to where it's generated, facilities like Emerald's avoid shifting the environmental burden onto unwilling communities. Environmental groups have long opposed incineration, citing toxic emissions and long-term environmental and health risks. Emily Alfred of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said she's disappointed by the direction of the city's current consultation. While Toronto has long promoted a zero-waste goal and a circular economy , she says the framing of the survey places too much focus on whether to choose landfill or incineration — and not enough on how to meaningfully reduce waste in the first place. Alfred criticized the city's survey design, saying some questions appear biased or confusing, particularly those suggesting incineration could occur in the city. She argues that this frames burning waste as a neutral or even favourable option, without clearly outlining the environmental and health risks. 'Incinerators lock cities into decades of burning garbage — garbage that should have been reduced, reused or composted. They undermine the city's goal of zero waste.' Facilities like the Emerald plant in Brampton, she said, would need to burn hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually for decades, regardless of improvements in recycling or waste reduction. Instead of investing in incineration, Alfred believes Toronto should focus on improving organics and recycling programs, particularly in high-rise buildings where access to green bins is often limited. The Zero Waste International Alliance also opposes energy-from-waste , calling it incompatible with circular economy principles. Health experts have voiced similar concerns. The Peel region's medical officer of health warned that expanding the Brampton facility could push pollution beyond safe limits for local communities. The World Health Organization has linked uncontrolled incineration—facilities without proper emission controls—to cancer-causing dioxins and respiratory harm. Lyng says Emerald's operations meet strict environmental standards, with real-time emissions monitoring and annual third-party testing. Health impact studies commissioned by the company found no added risk to the surrounding area, he added. Calvin Lakhan, a professor and co-investigator of the Waste Wiki project at York University, says waste-to-energy incineration has historically been viewed negatively in Canada, largely due to its legacy as a dirty, inefficient and costly technology. In Ontario, it isn't even recognized as waste diversion. But modern systems used in Europe and Japan have changed that perception, and are widely used in dense urban centres. If Toronto moves forward with the idea, Lakhan believes it would likely involve best-in-class technology modelled on international examples. Still, he acknowledged concerns that incineration undermines zero-waste goals by destroying, rather than recovering, materials. While not ideal, he argued the city may need to consider all available tools, including advanced incineration, to address its landfill crisis. He urged the province to help municipalities pilot reuse and repair programs, such as textile repair fairs, which offer affordable, community-based ways to cut waste. Many cities, he said, lack the resources to launch such initiatives on their own. Lakhan called for more consistent provincial policy. Recent shifts — like weakening Blue Box targets and delaying organics bans — have left cities unsure of how to proceed. Clear goals and stable rules, he said, are key to long-term progress. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
11-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Toronto eyes burning trash as landfill capacity nears limit
With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The idea is raising alarms among environmental advocates, who warn that burning trash releases harmful pollutants and poses health risks to nearby communities. To gather public feedback on various disposal solutions, the city is currently running a 10-minute online survey about how waste should be managed in years ahead. Options include expanding landfill capacity, exporting waste to other municipalities or incinerating it to generate electricity — a process known as 'energy-from-waste,' already used in Brampton and Durham Region, and under consideration in Ottawa. Charlotte Ueta, acting director of policy, planning and outreach for Toronto Solid Waste Management Services, says it's too early to commit to any specific plan, and no incineration facility or technology is currently under consideration. However, she acknowledges the situation is urgent, as Canada's largest city still sends an average of 450,000 tonnes of waste annually — more than three CN Towers' worth — to its primary disposal site, the Green Lane Landfill. Ueta says the focus of its ongoing consultation is on waste reduction, reuse and diversion. Toronto has no available land for a new landfill, and provincial policies limit the city's ability to expand or build one elsewhere, she added. However, the survey did ask residents about the option of building an incineration facility within the city. 'That's why we're asking the public about all potential options, including energy-from-waste,' she said. With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The incineration pitch Joseph Lyng, general manager of Brampton-based Emerald Energy From Waste (EFW), says his company has submitted an unsolicited proposal to Toronto to process up to 500,000 tonnes of its garbage annually. The facility already burns about 150,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial waste, generating electricity and heat. Lyng says the plant is expanding to handle up to 900,000 tonnes and produce more than 100 megawatts of energy. Toronto's looming garbage crisis is part of a larger problem across Ontario, where landfill capacity is projected to run out by 2034. Roughly one third of the province's waste is exported to the US, a strategy many say is unsustainable amid rising trade tensions. Recent changes to Blue Box recycling rules and the scrapping of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic drink containers have further strained diversion efforts. Meanwhile, resistance to new landfills is growing. Under Bill 197, municipalities can block new sites within 3.5 kilometres of their boundaries, making it harder for Toronto to find alternatives. Lyng believes his company offers part of the solution. 'We don't produce the garbage — we manage it,' he said. Lyng argues that by processing waste close to where it's generated, facilities like Emerald's avoid shifting the environmental burden onto unwilling communities. Environmental concerns grow Environmental groups have long opposed incineration, citing toxic emissions and long-term environmental and health risks. Emily Alfred of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said she's disappointed by the direction of the city's current consultation. While Toronto has long promoted a zero-waste goal and a circular economy, she says the framing of the survey places too much focus on whether to choose landfill or incineration — and not enough on how to meaningfully reduce waste in the first place. Alfred criticized the city's survey design, saying some questions appear biased or confusing, particularly those suggesting incineration could occur in the city. She argues that this frames burning waste as a neutral or even favourable option, without clearly outlining the environmental and health risks. 'Incinerators lock cities into decades of burning garbage — garbage that should have been reduced, reused or composted. They undermine the city's goal of zero waste.' Facilities like the Emerald plant in Brampton, she said, would need to burn hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually for decades, regardless of improvements in recycling or waste reduction. Instead of investing in incineration, Alfred believes Toronto should focus on improving organics and recycling programs, particularly in high-rise buildings where access to green bins is often limited. The Zero Waste International Alliance also opposes energy-from-waste, calling it incompatible with circular economy principles. Health experts have voiced similar concerns. The Peel region's medical officer of health warned that expanding the Brampton facility could push pollution beyond safe limits for local communities. The World Health Organization has linked uncontrolled incineration—facilities without proper emission controls—to cancer-causing dioxins and respiratory harm. Lyng says Emerald's operations meet strict environmental standards, with real-time emissions monitoring and annual third-party testing. Health impact studies commissioned by the company found no added risk to the surrounding area, he added. Waste-to-energy: A risky fix for a growing problem Calvin Lakhan, a professor and co-investigator of the Waste Wiki project at York University, says waste-to-energy incineration has historically been viewed negatively in Canada, largely due to its legacy as a dirty, inefficient and costly technology. In Ontario, it isn't even recognized as waste diversion. But modern systems used in Europe and Japan have changed that perception, and are widely used in dense urban centres. If Toronto moves forward with the idea, Lakhan believes it would likely involve best-in-class technology modelled on international examples. Still, he acknowledged concerns that incineration undermines zero-waste goals by destroying, rather than recovering, materials. While not ideal, he argued the city may need to consider all available tools, including advanced incineration, to address its landfill crisis. He urged the province to help municipalities pilot reuse and repair programs, such as textile repair fairs, which offer affordable, community-based ways to cut waste. Many cities, he said, lack the resources to launch such initiatives on their own. Lakhan called for more consistent provincial policy. Recent shifts — like weakening Blue Box targets and delaying organics bans — have left cities unsure of how to proceed. Clear goals and stable rules, he said, are key to long-term progress.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mexican carrier Awesome Cargo receives first heavy-duty A330 freighter
Startup Mexican airline Awesome Cargo, which provides dedicated aircraft and flight service to logistics companies and other customers, has taken delivery of its first fully capable freighter aircraft after operating two light-duty freighters since its inception 18 months ago. Airbus affiliate Elbe Flugzeugwerke announced Tuesday it has completed the first conversion of an Airbus A330 passenger jet to cargo configuration for Air Lease Corp., which is leasing the plane to Awesome Cargo. The A330-200 converted by EFW is an ex-Alitalia airframe that was operated until last year by ITA Airways. After some training flights on Wednesday, the aircraft will depart Dresden, Germany, for another facility where it will be painted, EFW spokeswoman Anke Lemke said in an email. Awesome couldn't be reached by press time to determine a specific entry-into-service date, but the company is likely to carry out training and other procedures before flying commences later this summer. Awesome Cargo, incorporated as TM Aerolineas S.A., currently leases two Airbus A330-200 aircraft that were temporarily modified with a Class E cargo compartment to carry light boxes in the main cabin. The partial modification, which is less capital-intensive than a full overhaul but quicker to complete, involved removing the seats and other cabin structures and adding a smoke detection system. The use of auxiliary passenger-freighters was common during the COVID crisis, when travel dried up and airlines yanked seats from some aircraft to take advantage of soaring cargo demand to earn revenue. Industry experts say the planes don't make economic sense at normal cargo rates, especially when fuel prices are high, because the capacity is much less than a heavy-duty freighter and manually loading through the narrow cabin door is labor intensive. Only one of Awesome's aircraft is currently in service, according to Flightradar24 tracking data. Awesome and Air Lease plan to fully retrofit the two aircraft with a cargo door, reinforced floors and walls, and a cargo loading system so they can handle large containers on the main deck. Based at Felipe Angeles International Airport outside Mexico City, Awesome Cargo operates twice weekly to China, via Los Angeles International Airport (returning via Seoul, South Korea, and Anchorage, Alaska), and to Latin America for e-commerce platforms and logistics providers. On May 6, it began a weekly service focused on perishable goods from Tijuana Airport in Mexico to Zhengzhou, China, under a contract with California-based ARC Global Logistics, according to a LinkedIn post. Flight data only shows two Tijuana-China flights so far. The A330-200 converted freighter has a gross payload of 61 tons at a maximum range of 4,200 nautical miles. It is more suited for heavier, general cargo, whereas the A330-300 is the preferred choice for lighter e-commerce shipments because of its extra volume. 'We are adopting a strategic approach that balances fleet expansion with market demand and operational efficiency,' said Awesome Cargo CEO and founder Luis Ramos in the EFW news release. Ramos previously held a senior management position at Mexican carrier Aerounion before taking over as CEO of Mexican ground handling and sales agent Aerocharter de Mexico in 2016. Aerocharter established a U.S. subsidiary at Los Angeles International Airport and then established Awesome Cargo. In 2024, Aerocharter formed a joint venture with PrimeFlight Aviation Services. It typically takes about nine months to convert an A330 to cargo configuration. EFW has fallen behind schedule with A330 deliveries since 2023 because of labor, engine and supply chain challenges, as well as some management missteps. But all aircraft manufacturers and conversion shops are experiencing some level of delay these days for similar reasons. Click here for more FreightWaves/American Shipper stories by Eric Kulisch. Sign up for the weekly American Shipper Air newsletter here. Air Canada reaffirms cargo commitment after 777 freighter cancellation New Air Canada freighters help offset decline in cargo revenue The post Mexican carrier Awesome Cargo receives first heavy-duty A330 freighter appeared first on FreightWaves.
