Daily Archives: February 22, 2021

As a record-breaking wave of arctic weather sweeps across the nation, the biggest energy producing state, Texas, is crippled. The states leaders are quick to point fingers at green energy alternatives like wind and solar, claiming such sources of power cannot be used in cold-temperature weather. Coal and oil are the answer, we are told.

These arguments against green energy, however, bely the fact that for nearly 50 years, Texas has resisted mandating the winterization of power grid infrastructure. In an interview with the ABC News affiliate in Austin, David Tuttle of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas stated: It would be millions to really bulletproof the system for that. How much do we want to pay to go protect ourselves with insurance policies for rare events?

For a state where oil and gas alone contribute an estimated $502.6 billion to the economy and generate annually upward of $16 billion in tax revenue, mere millions to pay for winterization of equipment seems like a penance.

ABC news in Austin also reports that winterizing equipment making sure it can sustain extended periods of below-freezing temperatures has never been a requirement in Texas like other states. While Texans are, in many cases, going without power for days on end, the ironically named Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) announced across the board rate hikes because energy supply was low due to plant offloads and power failures.

This is not only an economic issue; it is, like all economic issues, a justice issue.

While the oil industry is lining its pockets and state officials are ensuring strong revenues, people are freezing many struggling without power for oxygen tanks, CPAP machines and other medical devices. With lives on the line, finger pointing has ensued. The legislators blame the power companies, and the power companies blame the regulators.

It seems one thing that coal and oil companies and state legislators in Texas can currently agree on is throwing wind and solar energy under the bus. Even the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal has now stated that green energy is more of an existential threat to America than climate change. This is preposterous.

Texas has elected not to connect its own power grid to other states (the only state in the lower 48 to do so), and cannot import power. Since the 1970s, and especially in the eight years of the Obama era, Texas politicians have touted that Texas would become energy independent as a way to avoid federal regulations like the winterization of equipment. Conservative hubris and posturing led to this failure, not wind turbines.

People of faith should encourage their legislators to pass laws that protect the most vulnerable among us.

So what does any of this have to do with the church? Our Scriptural mandate to love our neighbor calls us to consider the needs of other people, especially the poor. As Sally McFague writes in Blessed Are the Consumers: Climate Change and the Practice of Restraint, as we do these things, a narrative emerges in which words like restraint, sharing, limits, boundaries are central, and words like limitless, expansion, growth, development, which have ruled our personal, political and market lives for centuries, move to the margins.

It seems apparent that spending mere millions on the winterization of equipment is a drop in the bucket compared to hundreds of billions in energy revenues. People of faith should encourage their legislators to pass laws that protect the most vulnerable among us.

One thing that makes this a challenge, however, is that many people of faith still deny that climate change is real. In the last few days, my Facebook feed has filled with people making jokes about global warming. What they fail to realize is that climate change leads to weather extremes in all seasons. Despite clear scientific evidence, many Christians appear to be in total denial of reality.

The issue is highly politicized, and to some, global warming and environmentalism seem like left wing political agendas. Change of any kind does not come without political will. Part of the hesitancy of many to embrace environmentally friendly practices stems from political leanings, but hesitancy also stems from a deep-seated distrust of the academy. If the same scientists who believe in evolution believe in global warming, the biblical literalist wants nothing to do with it.

Many people in our churches will have a difficult time considering theology in terms of environmentalism because of their politics or because of their suspicion of science.

A study in the American Sociological Review even found that the religious right and transnational corporations, each have vested interests in scientific outcomes, and both act as major players in the distrust some people have in science. Any plan for bringing environmental ethics into the local church needs to acknowledge these hurdles and find ways to depoliticize them. Pastors should be aware that trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church.

This piece of knowledge deserves careful consideration because many churches are full of political and theological conservatives, and all healthy churches have frequent attendees who are both even on Zoom. Many people in our churches will have a difficult time considering theology in terms of environmentalism because of their politics or because of their suspicion of science. That is the inconvenient truth of environmental ethics in the local church.

Legislators and regulators in Texas should carefully consider making winter weatherization of equipment mandatory for all energy companies (both green and fossil fuel). Not only is this a science-based approach that prepares Texas to deal with climate change, but it also is a way for us to love our neighbor through public policy.

Jonathan Davis is cofounder of the Healthy Churches Institute and founder of the Small-Town Churches Network, helping rural churches thrive in the midst of 21st century change. He provides coaching for individuals and organizations around leadership and vision issues and helps organizations dream about what it means to flourish in the new cultural paradigm.

See original here:

A lesson from Texas: Winterization of power stations and the Golden Rule - Baptist News Global

Nebraskans have been sickened and lost loved ones by COVID-19.

Workers designated as essential are at the highest risk for infection.

Employees preparing beef, poultrynand pork work in meatpacking plants with unsafe conditions.

Unmasked employees, some ill, work side by side in crowded areas. Sick leave is not allowed as they are essential to Nebraskas meat industry and these workers cant afford to quit.

I was raised with the golden rule. Treat other people the way you want to be treated.

Another way to follow it is when you see people being treated in a manner you would not want to be treated, then speak up, do something about it.

The Legislature has three bills proposed to ensure better conditions for essential workers.

LB241 (Meatpacking Employees COVID Protection Act) provides equipment and protocols for a safe work environment during COVID-19.

LB258 (Healthy and Safe Families and Workplace Act) allows workers to earn and use sick leave.

LB441 (Provision Changes to Nebraska Workers Compensation Act) covers expenses incurred due to COVID-19 for designated essential workers in healthcare, corrections, emergency services, education, childcare, meatpacking, trucking and postal services.

Please contact your state senator and the Nebraska Unicamerals Business & Labor Committee by Feb. 25 to let them know you support these bills.

Lets ensure Nebraska workers have the protections needed to provide healthy foods and essential services to us.

Its how we would want to be treated, if we had their jobs.

Lynn Zeleski

Hastings

Read the original:

Voice of the People - Hastings Tribune

by Mark Jardine 19 Feb 21:10 PST 13-22 February 2021

It's a golden rule of Match Racing and much of your race can be defined by it. Win the start and you've a good chance of winning the race.

After the shenanigans, shouting and Covid-related delay of the previous week, the action returned to the water for Race 5 of the PRADA Cup Final. The British INEOS TEAM UK, without a win on the board, had limited margin for error, so the start was crucial, as it so often is.

Racing started on time in an 11 to 12 knot breeze, with clearly more wind on the right-hand side of the course. Entering the start area, the key was going to be time on distance to the start line to gain that essential advantage, and the Italian Luna Lossa Prada Pirelli team proved once again to be the masters, judging the lay line, maintaining a slow and high mode while foiling, absolutely dominating the British team and holding them to windward.

Both teams crossed the start line early as Britannia tried to squeeze in at the right-hand side of the start line. This penalty was scrubbed off since it was the same for both teams, but Ben had clearly barged in with the boats incredibly close to each other, incurring another penalty.

An immediate tack by Ben put Britannia onto the favoured right-hand side of the course, but trying to clear a penalty when on the advantageous side is difficult, leading to head umpire Richard Slater informing INEOS TEAM UK that they had another penalty. A clearly exasperated Ben asked him just what they had to do over the radio, but it was clear they'd gained an advantage on the Italians. The punishment fitted the crime.

Meanwhile Jimmy Spithill and Francesco Bruni on Luna Rossa were using the time to position themselves perfectly to control Britannia once they'd cleared their penalty. In the chess-game element of sailing the Italians were two steps ahead - they literally had the race wrapped up before they'd even started.

Five in a row for Luna Rossa in the race to seven wins, the limited margin for error for INEOS TEAM UK was getting thinner by the second.

A calm Francesco Bruni said after the finish of race 5 that, all he had to concentrate on was the next race, whereas Ben Ainslie talked about struggling for straight-line performance. Sadly, this wasn't the issue we all saw - the British team were out-sailed.

Race 6, and this time INEOS TEAM UK simply had to win the start. After a nervy set of attempted hooks by Luna Rossa, the two teams crossed the line neck and neck, separated a few boat-lengths, with Britannia to leeward. Ben found a high mode to force the Italian team to tack away and they were off. For the first time in the PRADA Cup Final the British team held the lead in a race.

It never felt totally comfortable with a big comeback by Luna Rossa in Leg 5 reducing the lead from 32 seconds to 9 seconds at the final windward mark. This was a nervy 14 second win for Brits, but so needed. With this win INEOS TEAM UK have stayed in the game and just ever so slightly shifted the momentum.

Sir Robin Knox-Johnston often uses the famous quote, "To finish first, first you need to finish". In Auckland in the PRADA Cup Final it's, "To finish first, you need to start first".

Read more from the original source:

You must win the start! - Sail World

If you read nothing else, read this...

I do like to give a plug to others' work in this note, where deserved of course, and today, I would like to draw your attention to an excellent and also short article by John Dizard in the Weekend Financial Times. The article is called "Do not rule out a market panic next month", and breaks the golden rule of forecasters by giving both a forecast and a date. In fact, it only just manages to claw back some ambiguity (which we all normally hide behind) by adding "Do not rule out..." which essentially means that anything can happen, but if it does do this, then "...I told you so!". Clever, but not smug.

Dizard notes that there is a scramble for short-dated T-bills in the US which has caused their yields to drop. Dizard perhaps overdoes the scale of the decline - we are talking a few basis points in reality, though this is admittedly a large percentage of the yield which is practically zero anyway. But the message is not diminished by this, and is essentially the following "If large financial institutions are taking precautions against a market crash, then perhaps we ought to do likewise..."There is also a good refresher on convexity trading, which always gives me a bit of a headache, like cross-currency basis, but is put in such a way that even Ican understand it.

So much for the plug, and I agree, the probability of some market sell-off is increasing with rising yields. But here's the thing, what we now seem to be witnessing, as much as a rise in inflation expectations, is a rise in real yields. To put this in primary school language, the risein "bad" yields is being offset by a rise in "good" yields. That leaves the net effect a bit ambiguous - at least until I do some number crunching and see what is winning this battle - more on that later in the week if Ihave time.

We also have to acknowledge that although we are all aware that headline inflation is picking up and that even the run rate of monthly inflation numbers has picked up a bit, no one really expects inflation to push up and stay at levels that will require central bank tightening anytime soon, especially not the Fed or the ECB. And that means no mirroring movements here in Asia byour central banks. Moreover, let's just try to remember a little further back than 12 months. In December 2019, just a few weeks before Covid changed all our lives, 10Y US Treasuries happily yielded about 1.9%. And no one thought this was unreasonably high. Indeed, the equity market back then was powering higher.

And much as the financial media tends to focus on the impact of higher yields on equities and other risk assets, large parts of the real economy will benefit from higher yields. Ever wonder why there isn't much feedthrough from low rates to bank lending in many of our economies in the region? Well with economic activity weak, banks will be setting aside capital for potential default charges, and frankly, the price of money which they borrow short-term isn't much of an incentive when the long-term rates are barely any higher. This is still a maturity transformation business, and a steeper yield curve and recovering economy will help banks to lend more.

Higher yields are also an indication of expectations of a stronger macroeconomy, where it makes sense to lend to profitable companies, and where it is possible to make a return from doing so. And don't get me started on the large portion of many populations that is currently panic-saving to offset the anticipated shortfall in income in retirement from woeful returns on fixed-income investments. Some of them might be able to spend a little more freely in a higher yield environment.

In short, while there is every chance that we will see some fairly choppy market action if, as we suspect is the case, bond yields rise much further (that will be convexity at work), let's not get overly worked up about this. The economies of the world are still in a veryearly cycle upturn. There is still plentiful economic slack in most economies, and central banks really will be very slow to start taking away their stimulus. So any pullback may be more of a correction in a market that is still trending higher, and not necessarily the end of the bull-run. Bleeding out some air from over-inflatedrisk assets may be no bad thing if it breathes some life into the real economy.

The Wall St vs Main St argument is playing out in front of us as the adjustment from emergency policies unfolds, and there will undoubtedly be some unwelcome jolts along the way, but it isn't all bad.

Here is the original post:

Rising yields arent necessarily bad - ING Think

I was born in 1940. My childhood values and rules for conduct were instilled in me by my parents, relatives, teachers, and other adults around me. They were members of The Greatest Generation and, as such, knew the value of sacrifice and commitment to honorable behavior.

The three cardinal rules instilled in me from my earliest memories were tell the truth; dont be a bully; and you must not steal. Failure to abide by these rules brought immediate correction and, in some cases, suitable punishments. And always there was the Sunday School insistence upon living by The Golden Rule of In everything, do unto others what you will have them do unto you. (Matthew 7:12)

My progress through childhood and adolescence was measured by milestones that all involved HONOR. My Boy Scout oath began with on my honor. I was in the National Honor Society. Every Sunday I was exhorted to honor my parents. There were honor rolls, honor guards, holidays to honor patriots and important events in history. I served on Honor Councils and every school I attended, or where I taught, operated under highly respected honor codes that were emphasized in academics and in campus behavior. My marriage vows included one to honor my wife.

Honor was a tangible, universally understood concept. Death before dishonor. That sterling measuring stick has apparently vanished from popular use, from a place in our daily lives. Witness our U.S. senators as they sat in rude inattention at a trial they swore to honorably adjudicate!

Bullies were anathema to school officials and to parents alert to the insidious danger of allowing school yard tactics to inform the development of their charges. We all know what bullying looks like. It should not be tolerated in children or in adults.

It is especially dangerous in adults who should stand as models for behavior, both personal and public, on small stages and on the national stage. Telling lies is still a major fault line in a persons character. (A few white lies are acceptable, even necessary, when they are crafted to avoid inflicting needless pain on someone). Selection of colleagues determined by their submission to bullying and fear is reprehensible. Yet we have condoned both for four long years.

During the impeachment trial, the greatest disappointment was the exposure of a subtle evil that infects our government, the evident reluctance of the United States Congress to condemn lies, bullying, and the abnegation of honor, and to allow behavior that we would try our best to eradicate from our childrens codes of conduct, to remain unpunished, in fact, rewarded.

The verdict brought by the senatorial jury is not my concern here. Future generations and history will render a verdict on Donald Trump and his presidency. This was a moment for personal integrity from those jury members that seems to fall appallingly short of what is required.

I do not so greatly fear some final judgment of my life as I dread the thought of looking in the mirror each day and seeing a hollow man who deserted the principles he once held dear in order to protect some powerful tyrant and a set of values based on prejudice and hatred. I fear seeing the reflection of someone who valued the security of his bank account and worldly wealth above the preservation of his own ethical core. For what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

Those of us who came of age in the 1950s have been labeled The Silent Generation and I have, in the main, been a man of the generation. Except for times among close friends, I have kept my political opinions away from public view.

In the face of a monstrous betrayal by so many who should stand up for the values they were brought up to value, I cannot remain silent. Speaking out may cost me some friends, but if our friendships are based on shared politics, then they are shallow indeed.

Here is the original post:

Silence and the face in the mirror | Letters | northwestgeorgianews.com - Northwest Georgia News