In this report, Aegon and Roche receive their comeuppance as responsible public companies.
Monthly Archives: November 2008 - Page 2
Lithium, Electric Cars and the Future of Transport
Posted by
on November 25, 2008
1 comment
Executives of the U.S. auto industry – flanked by their cadre of lobbyists – are now busy begging lawmakers for handouts. So far, GM, Ford and Chrysler have failed to present a strong case for using taxpa
yer money in their resuscitation. We know that Wagoner (GM), Mulally (Ford) and Nardelli (on behalf of Cerberus Capital, owner of Chrysler ) will get one more chance to prove their case once Obama takes office, if not sooner. And regardless of whether the “big 3″ automakers end up filling their golden chalices with federal money, a mandate stipulating an increase in the production of plug-in electric cars will emerge. This much is sure.
So it seems that this is an opportune time to consider what the next era of America’s auto industry might usher in. Let’s start by taking a quick trip back to high school chemistry class since the future of the auto industry and the new fleet of next generation cars starts with the letters “Li” on the periodic table.
The element lithium is one of nature’s more flexible atoms. Lithium salts were used during the 19th century to treat various ailments and millions of people around the world today rely on it to treat psychosis and manic-depression. Lithium is also used as an industrial agent to kill algae and to filter carbon dioxide from the air in spaceships.
Lithium is the lightest metal and the least dense solid element and because of this it is very effective in heat transfer applications used in rechargeable and primary batteries because of its high electrochemical potential, light weight, and high current density. A lithium-ion battery is the “engine” (non-combustion of course) of today’s electric cars and will likely remain so in the foreseeable future.
5 Reasons to Save the Big Three
Posted by
on November 24, 2008
1 comment
During the past week, the media has railed about the performance by the CEOs from Chrysler, General Motors and Ford. Like beggars in mink coats, Mssrs. Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally marched to Washington DC last week to plead for $25 billion in financial aid from the government to an incredulous audience. Ill prepared for the onslaught by Congressional inquisitors, the Big Three CEOs looked like angry zebras ready to face down a brood of lions. What was obvious to everybody but the “zebras” was the fact that that the even angrier public and Congress have lost patience for these business leaders who expect financial aid, no questions asked. Lions 1, Zebras 0. Read more »
California Dreamin'…and Warmin'
Posted by John Richardson
on November 22, 2008
No comments
The University of California at Berkeley and the not-for-profit Next 10 have released a research report regarding the long-term economic threat to California from global warming. The report explores the potential toll on the state’s assets under three scenarios ranging from climate stabilization to high emissions. It also examines seven economic sectors and the issues they will likely face.
Here are three key passages from the report:
Taken together, real estate and insurance represent the largest economic climate risk for California, yet they are the least studied to date. The report finds that the state has $4 trillion in real estate assets, of which $2.5 trillion are at risk from extreme weather events, sea level rise, and wildfires, with a projected annual price tag of $300 million to $3.9 billion over this century, depending on how warm the world gets. If no action is taken in the face of rising temperatures, six additional sectors, including water, energy, transportation, tourism and recreation, agriculture, and public health, would together incur tens of billions per year in direct costs, even higher indirect costs, and expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risk.
Chevron: Burning Oil for the Environment?
Posted by
on November 21, 2008
2 comments
Is it just me or does anybody else find corporate ad campaigns eschewing social responsibility a bit duplicitous?
I was standing on the subway platform in Washington DC this weekend. Looking around, I saw this ad sponsored by Chevron. They have been waging this campaign on billboards and television for a while now touting all things sustainable: save energy, turn off lights, drive a hybrid car, and so on. These are nice virtues that we can all agree with. The problem is I am being told to be more environmentally responsible by a FREAKING OIL COMPANY!
Here is my question: Do campaigns and non-core business activities like this serve the public interest or is this really just a bad publicity stunt that wastes money?
From a corporate social responsibility perspective, I want to see companies behave better and be responsible to all stakeholders. The problem is that I often notice that companies choose form over substance: a corporate ad campaign condemning energy use or smoking cigarettes (Chevron, RJR), charitable giving while destroying social infrastructure (Wal-Mart), helping children while undermining public health (McDonalds). For those of us looking at and evaluating companies from a social and environmental perspective, it’s easy to take a quick look at what a company says it does and give them a thumbs up or down. Sustainability reports, charitible giving and codes of conduct are nice to see but at the end of the day, does it really matter? Isn’t what companies “do” as companies the primary if not the only factor by which we should measure their true responsibility?
I invite your comments on this question. I would also like to hear from you about examples of what you would consider corporate social hypocrisy. Email me at info@jmr-financial.com
