lowmoor

Total Rating:
0 / 0

2 Comments

    • Sun May 11th 10:50 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      Good decisions usually are not so simple that they do not involve compromise. Yet for several decades, America has been led by utopian visionaries demanding zero risk, zero environmental impact, and promising low cost and little pain. Well, this has clearly been a big lie. I read above about solutions based on finding endless Abiotic oil, smashing big oil conspiracies, subsidising solar, hydrogen,wind...

      But intellectual honesty is missing. Government HAS been much the problem, guided by both corporate greed (think ethanol mandates, coal synfuel and windmill/solar subsidies) and well intentioned zealots. So far, effective solutions have not been popular. Much more pain at the consumer level will probably be required before we can begin to make the compromises towards a rational energy future. Energy is BIG in the interest of the USA, and it has been evident for decades that oil and gas and even coal are being consumed at rates that cannot long be sustained.

      What is evidently not popularly understood is the scale...the magnitude of the energy industry. Each year, nearly 4 tons of coal plus 4 tons oil plus 2 tons of natural gas is consumed by each resident in the USA. The long term displacement and replacement for this consumption is a massive undertaking, and would have been well underway if governments had not been intervening on behalf of every kook and nut. Was it really sensible to burn natural gas to make electric power? Is it really cost-effective to remove the last few percent of nitric and sulfuric oxides? Was it really desirable to dismiss nuclear power generation? Are wind and solar subsidies beneficial? Is ethanol and its cousins environmentally desireable? We have been using much dishonesty, forcing decisions through government regulation and mandated "solutions", and the results are evident. More of the same is not a good solution. But I don't see folks trusting energy industry professionals for answers. Maybe in our future Energy will always be just for dilettantes and politicians.

      View article »
    • Thu Apr 10th 10:08 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why 'Say on Pay' Should Not Be Required of Companies
      Executive pay includes salary, retirement benefits, and share dilution on of shareholders interest. My gauge is that when the total compensation of the board and senior executives of large enterprise exceed one percent of the corporate after-tax income, experience has shown that the business is not being run for the shareholder owner's benefit, but is being looted.
      It strains credibility as to how, in a competitive sense, executives can be worth in excess of 100 times the pay of average workers.
      Unfortunately, many boards now fail to deal responsibly with pay.
      And why should it be considered relevant as to what the pay scale is in other businesses? Pay needs to be market competitive, that's all. You can't hire quality performers for a just a few millions?
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»