The World and Everything in It: October 12, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

A Colorado lawsuit seeks damages from oil companies over climate change. But the implications could reach far beyond.

KAVANAUGH: I mean, anyone is a potential defendant for a suit like this, any -- any manufacturer, any business.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead today on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat … why diesel fuel remains scarce even as oil shipments recover … economist David Bahnsen standing by.

And later the World History Book:

WEBB: The stories are a real world in a fantasy place, and that's where children live.

How Winnie-the-Pooh left a lasting legacy.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, October 12th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump says Russia-Ukraine reach energy ceasefire » President Trump is still pursuing an energy cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine. He said Sunday that the two sides had agreed to stop attacking energy sites. But a White House official later told Axios Trump was referring to a potential agreement covering oil refineries.

Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, says his country will halt energy strikes if Russia does the same. But Ukrainian officials reported a Russian strike on a power plant in Kharkiv after Trump's remarks.

Separately, Trump defended Friday's diesel deal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin:

TRUMP: He'd like to see a settlement. President Putin would like to see a settlement strongly. And look, he's, he's freeing up a lot of oil for the world, okay? That's a good thing. At, at, by the way, at a very low price

Trump says temporarily easing sanctions to let Russian diesel reach U.S. and world markets will help lower fuel prices.

A bipartisan group of senators urged him Sunday to reverse course. They argue Russian imports conflict with U.S. law and would help fund Moscow's war.

But others, like Republican Senator John Barrasso defended Trump's effort to bring down energy costs while seeking an end to the fighting.

Zelenskyy responds to Trump’s call for new president » Meantime, Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded Sunday to President Trump's call for a new Ukrainian president.

He told ABC's This Week, he would accept voters' choice, but they need security to cast ballots.

ZELENSKYY: Tell Putin, give us two months, 60 days of total ceasefire, 60 days, and we will organize elections

Trump said Saturday Ukraine needs a leader who can make a peace deal. He accused Zelenskyy of passing up opportunities to end the war and blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries for higher diesel prices.

Zelenskyy’s elected term was due to end two years ago, but Ukrainian law bars presidential elections under martial law, which remains in place amid Russia’s invasion.

Trump and Bessent on Iran » Meantime, the U.S. war with Iran remains at a standstill. The US hasn’t carried out major sustained attacks inside Iran since July. But President Trump says he will not declare an end to the conflict until he can be sure that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.

TRUMP:  I have to keep it that way. I don't want to, to do it in two years. We have to have a guarantee that they won't have it in the future. We could leave right now, but, uh, we have to guarantee that they can't have it in the future, and we'll get that

And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says, says right now, rather than dropping bombs, the US is wielding suffocating economic pressure.

BESSENT:  Iran now has, uh, no oil on the water. They have negative cash flow. Uh, we have cut them off. Uh, we have... We have cut off their airline service to the world

President Trump has said that the U.S. could resume major strikes after next month’s midterm elections, but says he believes the two sides will reach a deal instead.

U.S. - Saudi - Houthis » President Trump said over the weekend that the U.S. military could join Saudi strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. WORLD’s Benjamin Eicher reports:

BENJAMIN EICHER: The Saudi-led coalition says a projectile hit a passenger terminal Sunday at the international airport in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, igniting a fire.

The Houthis claimed responsibility.

That followed Saturday's missile attack at the same airport. Saudi authorities say that strike killed 12 people, including an American, and wounded more than 300.

The airport remained closed Sunday, with no immediate word on casualties from the latest attack.

The coalition also reported intercepting and destroying a cruise missile near the airport.

The Houthis threatened more strikes, warning travelers and airlines to avoid most Saudi airports.

Saudi-led forces have been striking Houthi targets in Yemen. The coalition vowed a firm response to Saturday's attack.

For WORLD, I’m Benjamin Eicher.

U.S. Hurricane aftermath » Gulf Coast families are clearing wreckage after Hurricane Isaias tore a deadly path through Florida and Alabama.

Authorities have linked at least four deaths to the storm as it ripped roofs off buildings and sent trees crashing onto homes. Two people were killed by falling trees.

One homeowner in Pensacola, Florida described the sound:

AUDIO: Wind here was just like, like a freight train or a locomotive. It was so loud.

But Florida Congressman and Republican nominee for governor Byron Donalds said the storm is once again bringing out the best in Floridians:

DONALDS: People were coming out of their homes trying to help their neighbors, cutting trees, uh, out of other neighbors' yards to help them get back on their feet. Uh, that's what Florida does. When the chips are down, we pull together. We make sure we recover and get past these storms.

Farther north, North Carolina emergency officials say rescuers pulled two people and their dog to safety Sunday after the storm's rains swelled a river.

Forecasters say the remnants could bring lingering showers to southern New England this morning before skies brighten.

Meantime, another powerful storm threatens Mexico’s Pacific coast. Hurricane Simon lashed Puerto Vallarta and surrounding areas last night as its core tracked just offshore

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: The bigger implications of a Colorado lawsuit over climate change. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio, celebrating 15 years. Today is October 12th, thanks for making us part of your morning routine. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for Legal Docket. Today, a Colorado county wants oil companies to pay for climate damage. But could one local lawsuit wind up setting energy policy for the entire country?

ROBERTS: We’ll hear argument first this term in case 25-170, Suncor Energy v Boulder County Commissioners of Boulder County.

Chief Justice John Roberts opening the Supreme Court term last Monday.

Suncor v. Boulder began in Boulder, Colorado, where city and county officials want oil companies to pay for damage they link to climate change.

EICHER: The question is not over disputed climate change models. It’s whether federal law bars a Colorado lawsuit seeking damages tied to emissions far beyond the state. Specifically: Is this compensation for damage at home—or regulation of conduct elsewhere?

In 2018, Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy. Boulder alleges the companies misled the public about fossil-fuel risks and contributed to damage from floods and wildfires.

Now the city and county want the companies to help pay those costs.

REICHARD: The companies say the case goes well beyond Colorado. In their view, local courts cannot set worldwide emissions rules.

Kannon Shanmugam is the attorney for the companies.

SHANMUGAM: This case involves an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct. Boulder is suing Petitioners under Colorado law on the theory that their global conduct increased the global use of fossil fuels, which led to an increase in global greenhouse-gas emissions, which contributed to global climate change, which resulted in global harms. Our constitutional system does not permit state law to be used in that manner.

His position: pollution that crosses state lines calls for federal rules. One state should not decide energy policy for everyone.

SHANMUGAM: Because of the ambient nature of air and water and the conflicting rights of states, this Court has held for over a century that federal law governs interstate pollution claims. That principle applies with even greater force to claims involving global climate change.

The Trump administration agrees with the companies. It acknowledges that states sometimes do allow lawsuits for injuries caused elsewhere. But a line has to be drawn between a claim for local harm and one that could change production nationwide. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris:

HARRIS: …the state that is imposing the liability rule is saying: Hey, if you bring your cars in my state, if you bring your opioids in my state, you're liable for conduct within my state. What it's not doing is saying what Colorado is doing here: You're banned from making that product anywhere nationwide.

EICHER: That brings us to a legal doctrine known as preemption—when federal law takes precedence over state law. The energy companies argue that the Constitution and the Clean Air Act bar these Colorado claims.

Boulder answers that states have long provided compensation for injuries within their borders.

One more thing: Before the Supreme Court can settle this dispute, it first has to answer a threshold question: whether it can even hear the appeal at this point.

REICHARD: Greenhouse gases do not respect state boundary lines.

That makes it hard to trace one flood or one wildfire to the actions of particular companies. Boulder would have to prove that connection if its claims reach trial.

EICHER: But proving those allegations is different from deciding whether the lawsuit is allowed in the first place. The Court’s earlier pollution cases help explain the difficulty.

REICHARD: In one ruling, the justices said the Clean Air Act replaced federal judge–made rules for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. In another, the Court allowed certain state-law pollution suits… but placed limits on which state’s law could apply. So those rulings do not squarely answer whether Colorado may use its own law to recover damages linked to emissions from elsewhere.

Both sides claim support from the precedents. Justice Elena Kagan saw a parallel with earlier lawsuits against tobacco and opioid manufacturers. Those cases also involved lawful products and allegations that manufacturers had misled the public.

KAGAN: I suppose the opioid litigation more recently follows the same model. This is chapter 3. So, if this is chapter 3, were chapters 1 and 2 also preempted?

SHANMUGAM: I don't think so. I would submit that this is, in fact, a very different book, and that is for the simple reason –

KAGAN: A very different?

SHANMUGAM: Book, not the same -- not a chapter in the same book…and that is because in the tobacco litigation as your question illustrates, that feels a lot more like a traditional misrepresentation claim where you have representations that are being made about a product. You have consumers relying on those representations.

EICHER: …relying on representations that in turn caused relatively direct injuries.

The companies say climate change involves a much longer chain of cause and effect. But Justice Kagan distinguished the difficulty of proof from the legal right to make a case:

KAGAN: So they might have a bad claim on the merits, a more attenuated claim on the merits. But this is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm. And I guess I'm not understanding how it is that the one would be preempted and the other is not.

REICHARD: Her point: a case can be hard to win without being barred from court altogether.

Kevin Russell, the attorney representing Boulder, defended the states’ traditional power to provide remedies for injuries within their borders—even when the conduct began elsewhere.

RUSSEL: Since the Founding, states have had the power to provide tort remedies for injuries occurring within their borders even when the conduct causing those injuries occurred elsewhere. When somebody in New York defames a citizen of Boulder on national television or somebody in California releases a computer virus on the Internet or a biological virus into the world and it causes mass damage in Colorado, it has never been thought that only federal law can provide a remedy…

Boulder says Congress can restrict those state-law claims. But federal courts should not assume Congress has done so without a sound legal basis.

Chief Justice Roberts seemed to like that idea:

ROBERTS: There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of the state has broad effects among other states and all that, and yet we allow the state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that whether it's a mass tort sort of thing or maybe complaints about the operation of the Internet. I guess I'm not quite sure what makes this situation different from those…

So Boulder has a pretty good federalism argument. States —unless federal law says something else—do usually control their own tort laws. Tort, those are civil wrongs.

EICHER: But lurking in that argument is a weakness: if Boulder can recover damages for global emissions, why can’t every county in the United States sue for the same reason?

Justice Clarence Thomas pressed the county on that:

THOMAS: If you prevail, is there a limiting principle …as to whom you can sue?

Boulder’s lawyer cited existing limits on lawsuits, including the need for a connection to the state.

But Justice Thomas didn’t let it go.

THOMAS: So you could just as easily sue large retailers of…these products?

RUSSELL: I think nothing in the Constitution would prevent that. I think that we would have --

THOMAS: But nothing in your theory prevents that either, right?

RUSSELL: Nothing in our theory prevents that.

REICHARD: That’s a big concession. That answer leaves the door open to lawsuits against retailers as well as producers. It does not mean those claims would succeed. But it does raise the question of where a court could draw a line.

EICHER: Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Boulder’s attorney on a central distinction: If Colorado cannot directly regulate emissions beyond its borders, could it seek damages instead?

BARRETT: So, even if Colorado says…these emissions are harming the residents of Colorado… that would not be okay?

RUSSELL: I don't think so. And, again –

BARRETT: So the same thing can happen through the tort suit, though?

RUSSELL: It isn't the same thing.

Boulder’s answer is yes. A court ordering a company to stop and a court making it pay for proven harm are not the same thing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether large damages awards could have much the same practical effect as regulation:

KAVANAUGH: It's going to bankrupt -- you know, if there are enough of these, bankrupt… these various defendants and certainly other defendants out there. I mean, anyone is a potential defendant for a suit like this, any -- any manufacturer, any business. So why is the state tort suit different than the state law? I’m just not understanding that.

Boulder hasn’t put a dollar figure on its own claim.

But here’s a possible comparable: Another climate lawsuit in Oregon seeks tens of billions of dollars. And dozens of state and local governments have filed similar lawsuits.

The companies warn that enough damages awards could reshape national energy policy.

Boulder disagrees, saying that merely making companies pay up for proven harm isn’t the same as setting rules for emissions.

REICHARD: But the justices may never reach the question. First, they must decide whether the Supreme Court can hear this appeal before the underlying lawsuit is finished.

Justice Samuel Alito is recused in this case, leaving eight justices to decide, meaning the Court could split four to four. That would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in place without setting a nationwide, binding precedent.

Either way, the justices are not deciding whether Boulder proved its claims. If the lawsuit proceeds, Boulder still must connect the companies’ conduct to the alleged harms and establish damages.

The outcome could affect dozens of lawsuits like it across the country.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm, the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning, David.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, David, last week we talked about rising long-term interest rates, and you argued that federal debt was not the explanation for the recent spike in Treasury yields, pointing instead to the enormous amount of borrowing by big tech companies that are now doing the big AI buildout.

And then, in the course of answering that question, you promised a deeper dive Dividend Café on that topic. It came out on Friday.

We’ll link to it in the episode notes, but David, as I read it, something caught my attention. You argue in the Dividend Café that borrowing is already crowding out other borrowers, even though the productivity gains that might justify that crowding out are still unproven. So, where do you see that crowding out effect showing up elsewhere in the economy, where are you seeing it?

BAHNSEN: Well, the issue I think you’re bringing up is more about what it’s done to bond yields. To that, the AI hyperscaler story has now put out, let’s call it, $200 billion of debt this year at the longer end of the curve. All these new loans and bonds, but there’s no commensurate $200 billion increase above and beyond what was already there in terms of appetite for debt.

There’s a certain amount of market force activity that’s organic and natural. It is not necessarily a negative in the way the governmental crowding out is inherently negative, but in the short term, it’s just a tautology to say that there is not 200 billion new dollars in planet Earth, and yet 200 billion, which is a lot of money, went into debt for AI companies, which means it didn’t go into something else, and every day, projects and investments are competing for investor dollars, and capital has a way of migrating to its most rational use. There’s nothing wrong with this, but when you get a big excess of investment in one area, and it means something else was underinvested. Historically, we’ve seen that leave a hangover.

My favorite example was in the dot-com moment with all the silliness of dollars that ended up getting set on fire with some of the internet companies. We were very underinvested in biotech and healthcare, life sciences, they weren’t attracting capital to go make new drugs and treatments, and so they ended up having to do all these kind of inefficient mergers to compete, and then all of a sudden you had a resurgence later when new capital could come into it. three or four years after the dot-com meltdown.

Right now, we can talk about the dollars going into AI, but we can’t talk about the dollars not going into something else because it’s invisible until later. But it is something I’m paying attention to because historically you have to.

EICHER: Well, David, interestingly, there was a piece over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal about stocks of smaller companies having fallen for five straight weeks, and one reason the journal said is this rising cost of borrowing you’ve just described, and maybe that’s an example of the crowding out that you’re talking about. Smaller businesses often depend on loans, not equity.

Higher interest rates can make it a lot harder for them to expand or even refinance existing debts, but in that Dividend Café again, you’re pointing out something curious to me.

The big stock market indexes still look relatively healthy, mostly because of this handful of giant tech companies holding up so well. And you pointed to an irony that these tech companies are helping to push interest rates higher with all their borrowing, yet investors seem to regard those stocks as the safer place to put money than stocks in other businesses. So why do investors seem to think these tech companies won’t be hurt by higher interest rates that they are helping to create?

BAHNSEN: Well, they don’t think they’ll be hurt by higher interest rates, and they don’t think they’ll be hurt by anything, and that’s the bigger risk is that there’s always a parking lot. There’s this thing we call Tina. There is no alternative where what’s the default place people go to with money and treasury bills. In the ’70s it was gold, the money markets and cash. There’s various safe havens people will go and they go look stuff seems overvalued. Something seems wrong. What have you.

Bond yields are putting downward pressure on valuations, and yet right now there. And the reason to answer your question is because for a few years it hasn’t, and there’s trillions of new dollars that have come in. So this particular class of investor, in their own lived experience, doesn’t know any better. But they will find out, my friend, and they will not like the lesson they find out.

But the notion of treating risk assets that trade at 20, 30, 40 times earnings-that they’re just a sort of safe haven to hang out in while you look for something else is one of the greatest signs you will ever see of complacency in capital markets of an apathy about risk and it is unfortunately how people end up getting burned flying way too close to the sun.

EICHER: Well, David, I want to make a radical shift here. I’d like to talk about the war in Iran and the effect on energy prices because I’m seeing reporting that crude oil shipments through the strait largely have recovered, but there’s still a very serious problem sourcing diesel fuel because refineries and other parts of that fuel supply system have been damaged or disrupted, and we see reporting the Trump administration has arranged a deal with Russia to bring in diesel after temporarily easing some sanctions as the trade. So help us understand why this has been judged necessary? If crude oil is moving again, why is it that diesel is still in such short supply that the U.S. would make a deal like this with an adversary like Russia?

BAHNSEN: Because when people talk about crude moving again, they’re not talking about the unbelievable cost right now for transport and insurance. That even though there is ability now to move some of it for now at this time, there’s also vulnerability about how long that will last.

But the refined products are not able to participate, and diesel is a finished product, and so to the extent that you have significant constraint about refined product flows, I think it’s still less than 20% of pre-war levels, and so that’s the issue is that you can get crude out, but the refiner cost, those spreads, the insurance, the shipping—it’s an entire bottleneck supply chain story nowhere near resolved.

EICHER: All right, David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group. David writes weekly at dividendcafe.com, and for WORLD Opinions, we have links to David’s latest Dividend Café we referred to earlier, and some of the reporting that we discussed today. Just tap the episode headline in your podcast player to open the episode notes. You’ll find those links there if you’d like to dig a little deeper. David, thank you. We’ll talk next time.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the anniversary of a beloved children’s book.

When Winnie the Pooh was published in England 100 years ago this week, it was an instant critical success. Publishers sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Disney would produce well-received movie adaptations in the late 1970s, and the character remains popular today.

EICHER: But how did Winnie-the-Pooh achieve status as classic literature?

WORLD’s Emma Eicher has the story.

EMMA EICHER: Winnie the Pooh lives in a world of safety, peace, and happiness. But outside the Hundred Acre Wood lay a much darker reality:

JEAN WEBB: In 1926 it was the general strike; it was a time of strife, of starvation, of poverty that people endured because of the political situation.

That’s Jean Webb, professor at Worcester University in England and Director of the International Forum for Research in Children’s Literature. She says the idyllic environment of the books was purposeful. Author A.A. Milne was a World War I vet living within cultural upheaval in Britain. So he sought refuge in make-believe.

WEBB: He was creating a world that he could actually live in, he could think in. A world that he could laugh in again.

Milne had already achieved success as a contributor to Punch magazine, and a playwright. He wrote stories for more than 20 years before venturing into children’s literature.

Milne’s colleague at Punch, E.H. Shepherd provided the gentle, natural illustrations for Winnie-the-Pooh … including the map of the Hundred Acre Wood. Shepherd drew inspiration from the English countryside.

WEBB: The illustrations live within their own time. … You take the illustrations away from the story, and you have a story which becomes timeless.

Milne’s son, 6 year-old Christopher Robin, and his stuffed animals served as the main inspirations. Christopher Robin became the primary human character, and his toys joined every adventure:

JEAN WEBB: Walk with me into the 100-acre wood. We meet Christopher Robin, Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Rabbit, Owl, good old Eeyore, good old, grumpy old Eeyore! Tigger. Oh, good old Tigger …

And of course Roo and Kanga:

WEBB: She's really rather playful because she plays a trick on Rabbit with Roo, and they live in a world where they each have their own position. They respect each other. There's a sense of working together and helpfulness.

Webb says children can easily see themselves in the characters’ personalities, like Eeyore’s famously gloomy attitude. They can also trace the map, from Christopher Robin’s place to Owl’s treehouse.

WEBB: They're living in this world that you can easily relate to. That's why I think these stories survive. The stories are a real world in a fantasy place, and that's where children live.

And Winnie the Pooh? Webb says he can be silly, and a little pompous. But also …

WEBB: He's a poet. He sings. He communes with nature. There is a kindness in Pooh, and that kindness, I think, comes from the heart of the poet. “Oh, to be a cloud floating on the blue.” And it's just so peaceful.

The problems Pooh faces can become metaphors for ordinary life. Like this one, adapted from the book into Disney’s 1977 film, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

Pooh visits Rabbit’s house for lunch.

POOH: Oof. Oof! Oh help and bother! I’m stuck.

RABBIT: Oh dear! Oh gracious! It all comes from eating too much!

WEBB: He can't get out of Rabbit's house because he's stuck in the doorway …

POOH: It all comes from not having front doors big enough!

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN: Pooh bear, there’s only one thing we can do. Wait for you to get thin again.

POOH: Oh bother.

WEBB: That's life. We all have to stay somewhere and put up with it until we get a bit thinner, whatever that might mean.

Milne kept writing as his son grew older… so the character got older too.

WEBB: You see Christopher Robin growing up, taking more charge, as it were, making more decisions.

Pooh appears in four of Milne’s books. The final book, The House at Pooh Corner, was published in 1928. It was time for Christopher Robin to leave the Hundred Acre Wood.

WEBB: Christopher Robin is going off to school and he’s talking to Pooh, and it's: “will we still be friends in the future?” It's all of those questions about, I'm moving on, will we remember each other? Will this be lost? And what you know is that Pooh will be forever in Christopher Robin's heart.

Webb says the books have had a lasting legacy because Milne seemed to remember childhood.

WEBB: The stories have that great attraction because they are childlike. They're not childish. It's about the now, the future, and the togetherness, and that's what's at the center of the Milne stories.

Winnie-the-Pooh has sold more than 50 million copies worldwide. And still regularly tops lists of bestselling children’s books.

But Milne never wrote another children’s book and regretted exposing his son to fame. He later became estranged from Christopher Robin, who said he hated how the public spotlight had changed his life.

The Disney adaptations helped spread its popularity. So did the events of the ‘20s and ‘30s: families liked the peace and safety of the Hundred Acre Wood during hard times.

But since then, the stories have proven to be a timeless narrative about childhood and what it means to grow up.

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN: And Pooh? Promise you won’t forget me? Ever?

POOH: Oh I won’t Christopher, I promise.

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN: Not even when I’m 100?

POOH: How old shall I be then?

CRISTOPHER ROBIN: 99. [Laughs] Silly old bear.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: A state lawmaker is teaching families how to spot online predators. We’ll have a report. And, a diver preserves a historic river by keeping it beautiful. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

This is episode 35-06 of The World and Everything In It from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” —James 2:14-17

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.