Bankers, too, worried about climate
When the Federal Reserve Bank starts warning its peers about the risks of climate change, it might be time for our government to take action.
Executive Vice President Kevin Stiroh points to dramatic increases in loss ($500 billion in direct losses over the past five years) due to climate and weather-related events.
He is concerned about the “physical risk that disrupts business, destroys capital and interrupts economic activity.” Risk management is a tool banks and insurance companies use every day when insuring a person or business or deciding on business or personal loans.
Stiroh said, “Supervisors (of banks and insurance companies, I presume) should focus on the risks that emerge along the path decided by the public at large and their elected governments.” The Federal Reserve can’t make policy, but they are sending out a clarion call for federal action.
We need our senators, Deb Fischer and Ben Sasse, and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry to acknowledge his advice and protect our citizens and economy by supporting policy to address climate change.
There is a market-based carbon pricing bill in the House, Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividends Act (EICDA), which will lower carbon emissions by 40% in 12 years by making fossil fuel companies pay the true cost of polluting.
Instead of taking the fees paid by the fossil fuel companies and growing government, EICDA sends the money back to Americans in the form of a dividend check. Conservative economists agree that this market based approach will spur business innovation, increase jobs and grow our economy.
Can we invest in America while stopping climate change? Yes, and the time to do it is now.
Moni Usasz, Lincoln
Historical claims need verification
I wonder, does Michael Coatney have any documentation at all — from the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers or anyone who supported the passage of the Bill of Rights — for his claim (“Maintaining a God-given right,” Nov. 15) that the founders wrote the Second Amendment to provide “for an armed citizenry for protection against a tyrannical government”?
If he does, he ought to have cited it, for the claim at least sounds like it came from the superheated imaginations of the self-appointed “militias” of the last 30 years.
Perhaps we can leave aside his claim that the right to bear arms was ordained by God; questions of faith are not subject to verification. But claims about history are.