Headlines from "Here and Now" Radio Program

On my way into work I will usually listen to NPR to get caught up on the most recent news.  I do not read the newspaper, and do not check the news before I leave the house on my computer or TV.  One of the programs I listen to is called "Here and Now" and it's on from 12:00 Noon to 1:00PM on WBUR 90.9FM.  The show follows up on developments in the morning news stories and mixes in some other current events.  Today the four headlines were:

Investigation Begins Into Connecticut Gas Explosion

Sifting Through New Credit Card Rules

Alaskan Village Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change

Do Calories Count?

The first story reported on developments in yesterday's power plant explosion in Connecticut.  At the end of the interview, the host asked the guest what rules would be put in place to prevent this in the future.  The guest said there had been new codes that were ready to go into effect but had not yet been made law.  This is after the guest had gone in depth explaining the tragedy of the incident, how the community had been devastated by the loss of life.  Of course the business will suffer as a result of this incident.  Why the automatic assumption that proper codes will prevent these kinds of accidents?

For the Credit Card story, a Chicago Tribune personal finance columnist, Gail MarksJarvis, was interviewed.  MarksJarvis had poured over new rules that would change the way credit card companies would do business.  Among the things changing were consent from cardholders to have overdraft protection, new rules about how overpayment would apply to current balances, and how fees would increase on many transactions to make up for the loss of business after the financial crisis.  Part of the rules will be helpful to consumers because there will be more communication to the cardholder prior to account changes.  However, many of the rules now allow the companies to make changes to your account unless you respond.  Part of me wants to say, let the companies do what they want.  If someone is stupid enough to get a credit card they can't pay off, they should suffer the consequences.  But I can't say that because as someone who has had to deal with unscrupulous credit card practices, I know how harmful the companies can be.  In my view, consumers need more protection in this area, not so much to protect people who do not pay, but to protect the people who do from becoming locked into a spiked rate because their neighborhood demographic changed, or they get hit with a fee because instead of declining a purchase when the cardholder reached their limit, they let it go through and charge a balance overage fee.

The story about the Alaskan village suing Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and other big energy companies who, in their view, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions which cause climate change which causes weather which erodes the shores of their island from rising sea levels.  Matt Pawa, the prosecuting attorney, said that the energy companies defense that everyone who uses energy in this world is responsible in some way to climate change is a myth, and that the companies themselves need to pay for the damage they do.  I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  Singling out few energy producers, who are producing goods people want, are being punished for something that may not be happening because climate change anyway!

Lastly was another story about putting labels on food.  A report that by listing the caloric content of food, people's consumption of foods that contribute most to obesity drops 6%.  The guest said that even though it's a small number, anything that can help reduce diabetes is positive and the cost to the companies is very low compared to the benefit it has to society.  Easy for him to say I suppose.  He's not the one paying for the labels and his is not the business that will lose as a result.  What I have always said about rules banning food or making demands on restaurants to label foods in certain ways is to just let people make their own choices.  People who were interviewed after they found out how many calories were in Panera food were shocked that a the cookies there have 500 calories.  I thought to myself, "Hmm, a cookie that is twice or three times as large as a regular homemade cookie has a lot of calories.  Wow I never would have guessed!"  And aren't cookies generally not a healthy choice?  These food police need something else to do.