The good thing about being at home…

first_imgMost of us have been trying our best to stay at home for at least two weeks now. These days, two weeks feels like two months. We don’t all have celebrity-sized estates that allow us to forget we’re under quarantine, so cabin fever is a real battle. While being stuck at home isn’t ideal, it’s hopefully shortening the life of the coronavirus, and that’s a definite plus. If you’re looking for some other advantages of having to stay at home, here are a few things to think about…You can stop putting “it” off: There’s probably a million projects you’ve been wanting to get to around your house. There’s probably a million books you’ve picked up and then put back down. And I know there’s a million shows that have been recommended to you, only for you to say “I’ll add that to my list.” If you’ve been putting stuff off until “tomorrow”, it is now “tomorrow”.You can examine your habits: I don’t know about you guys, but this quarantine has made me realize a lot of things. One thing I’ve realized is how often I dine out. I’ve tried to continue to support some of my favorite restaurants by getting take out here and there, but I’ve definitely been cooking at home WAY more than I ever have. I’ve enjoyed the savings. If you’re used to drinking the coffee at work every day you may not realize how much caffeine you’re drinking, but when you start running out of k-cups, you’ll realize real fast if you’re drinking too much.You can learn a lot about distractions: You’re at home, your spouse is home, and your kids are home. There are distractions everywhere. This will be life for now. Because of all the distractions around you, you’ll figure out quickly how to fight through them to get stuff done. Once this is over, you’ll hopefully be able to apply some of these distraction-fighting techniques to life at the office. 79SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,John Pettit John Pettit is the Managing Editor for CUInsight.com. John manages the content on the site, including current news, editorial, press releases, jobs and events. He keeps the credit union … Web: www.cuinsight.com Detailslast_img read more

Low carbon transition ‘here to stay’ despite US exit from Paris deal

first_imgThe decision by Donald Trump to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change is unlikely to derail the momentum behind the transition away from fossil fuels, according to investors and observers.They argued that the US in fact stood to lose out the most due to the decision, while China was poised to benefit.In a video address, Philippe Desfossés, chief executive of ERAFP, France’s €27bn civil service pension scheme, said that the decision was “a very sad event”, but large companies would continue to invest in the transition to low carbon.Tom Sanzillo – director of finance at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and a former first deputy comptroller for New York State, where he had oversight of its $150bn-plus pension fund – said Trump had made a “bad business decision” and that the US would lose out on opportunities from the growth of the renewable sector in the US and abroad. Investors should demand new fossil-fuel-free investment products from investment managers and be prepared to deploy them as they see fit, he added. Georgina Laird, sustainable investment analyst at Kames Capital, said it was too late to slow the adoption of environmentally-friendly technologies: “The genie is already out of the bottle in this respect.” “From solar power, to wind power to electric vehicles, momentum has been building for some time,” she added. “Barriers to adoption have been falling and returns on investment improving to the point where subsidies are largely no longer necessary.”In a speech last night, Trump argued he was protecting the US economy by pulling out of the agreement, and said he would seek to renegotiate the deal.The Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change called Trump’s decision “misguided”.Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO, said in a statement: “By opting out, the US administration is failing to recognise what is already an inevitable and irreversible direction of travel away from dependence on fossil fuels and towards a low carbon future – with all the jobs, growth and innovation that this entails,” it said.Nico Aspinall, a consultant and chair of the resource and environment board of the UK’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, said backing out of the agreement would amount to Trump “effectively consigning the American century to history, and guaranteeing that they will be on an import-only basis from here on in”.“In the long run this will take the exorbitant privilege from the dollar, and presumably give it to the renminbi,” he said.Others also noted that China – which has been positioning itself as a leader on climate change – stood to benefit from Trump’s decision.China has been “amply filling the US’s shoes on climate change issues”, said Cindy Rose, Aberdeen Asset Management’s head of responsible investing.Karine Hirn, partner and senior adviser at East Capital, an asset manager specialised in emerging and frontier markets, said Chinese companies represented a third of the global universe for environmental protection investment opportunities. Investors’ interest could shift to China after its onshore market was recently opened to foreign investors, she said. The withdrawal mechanicsThere are two main ways in which the US could withdraw from the Paris Agreement, according to Matt Christensen, global head of responsible investment at AXA Investment Managers.One is to withdraw from the Paris accord only, which any party to the deal can do four years after it has become effective for that party.The other option would be to exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which covers the Paris pact and other treaties. This option “would be faster but more extreme” and is likely to require support from the US Congress, according to Christensen.last_img read more

Hazard Penalty Hands Chelsea FA Cup Victory over Man United

first_imgEden Hazard’s penalty Saturday secured Chelsea the FA Cup for the eighth time as they beat Manchester United in what could be Antonio Conte’s final match in charge. Hazard sent goalkeeper David de Gea the wrong way at Wembley, having won the kick when brought down by Phil Jones.United, having offered minimal attacking threat in the first half, were much better in the second. Alexis Sanchez had a goal ruled out for straying just offside – referee Michael Oliver using VAR to confirm the call. Thibaut Courtois later denied Marcus Rashford, before Paul Pogba headed wide with a clear chance from a corner. Romelu Lukaku and Anthony Martial, who had both been doubts for the final because of injury, appeared as substitutes for the final 17 minutes, but United were unable to find an equaliser.Conte has been widely tipped to leave Chelsea at the end of the season, teasing the media when asked about his future on Friday.Victory in the cup final provided a positive antidote to a disappointing Premier League season, with Conte’s side failing to qualify for the Champions League after finishing fifth.For securing the trophy, last season’s Premier League champions can thank Hazard, who has cast doubt over his own future at Stamford Bridge in recent days. The Belgium forward, making his 300th appearance for the club, was the game’s key player, shrugging aside United manager Jose Mourinho’s attempt to nullify him by using Ander Herrera in a man-to-man marking role.That plan had worked to perfection when United beat Chelsea 2-0 in the Premier League in April 2017, but Hazard responded at Wembley by dragging Herrera back towards United’s defensive line, unbalancing Mourinho’s side in the opening 45 minutes. Herrera was nowhere to be seen in the build-up to the winner as Hazard ran clear on to Cesc Fabregas’ through pass, and was brought down for a penalty by Jones, who was shown a yellow card.There was plenty of debate on social media after Oliver’s decision to show a yellow card to Jones for conceding the penalty.The referee’s decision was dictated by a law change in 2016 that was intended to abolish ‘triple punishment’ in such circumstances.Before the change, any denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity inside the area resulted in the offender receiving a red card and a suspension, as well as conceding a penalty.Under the amended Law 12, which relates to fouls and misconduct, a player judged to have made a genuine attempt to win the ball is shown a yellow card instead.The law states: “Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball.“In all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.” Mourinho’s side threw off their defensive shackles after half-time, and may well have saved the match had they been more ruthless in front of goal.Sanchez was judged – correctly – to have strayed just offside as he turned in the loose ball, after Courtois had saved Jones’ header from a Rashford free-kick, and the Chelsea goalkeeper was alert to beat away a Nemanja Matic shot.Yet it was Pogba, perhaps, who had the best chance to equalise, putting his head into his hands in frustration after nodding wide from just seven yards following a set-piece.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegramlast_img read more