Posts Tagged by Wall Street Journal
Renewable Energy — Conservatives vs. Liberals?
| September 3, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
It seems that affection for renewable energy often breaks down across political (conservative vs. liberal) lines. I’m not sure I understand how this can be. Obviously, everyone cares about the quality of the planet we live on and leave to our descendents. So I’m guessing the fundamental issue is the cost of renewables.
But, as Tom Rooney points out in his recent article Why Conservatives Are Bad on Energy, the financial analysis of clean energy is largely based on misconceptions. A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal referred to photovoltaic solar energy as a “speculative and immature technology that costs far more than ordinary power.” The author went on to point out that the only thing holding the industry together were subsidies. Didn’t this guy get the memo? A few weeks ago, the International Energy Agency said worldwide, fossil fuels receive $550 billion in subsidies a year — 12 times what alternatives such as wind and solar get. Read More
Related posts:
Scott Adams (of “Dilbert” fame) in the Wall Street Journal
| August 23, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
In my estimation, Scott Adams (of “Dilbert” fame) is one of the brightest people living among us. His sardonic observations on the realities of the workplace have amused – and, I dare say, enlightened — people for many decades.
For anyone who missed his piece on building a “green” house in this weekend’s weekend Wall Street Journal, I’ve linked it above. Of course, the only reason it wound up in the WJS is the fact that, to some degree, it lampoons those of us who care about the quality of the world we’re leaving to future generations. But true to form, Adams’ article gets so many things right – and provides so many chuckles – that that it’s more that worth your time.
Related posts:
Regarding Renewable Energy, Think for Yourself
| August 10, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
From today’s Wall Street Journal:
At 6-foot-2 and 240 pounds, Steven Kemp had to move his size 14 shoes to avoid tripping toddlers at his pediatrician’s office in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. “It’s kind of awkward, but we’re good friends,” says Mr. Kemp, now 19 years old and a student at Butler University, still looking for a doctor he likes as much and still consults his pediatrician occasionally….These days, more and more are staying with their pediatricians through their college years,” says the past president of the American College of Pediatrics.
Here’s a wonderful example of the WSJ telling you exactly what they want you to believe. Yes, they’re serious; they want you to accept the idea that you’re better off with a doctor of some sort walking around with you every day of every year of your life – through your childhood, then through your college days—and, of course, until the day you die.
How roped and tied to you have to be to believe this, though? If I asked you – and a thousand randomly chosen people like you — to choose which of the following two statements you thought better approximated the truth, what would you say:
A) It’s good for your children to become associated with modern medicine and its associated practices (pharmacology, psychiatry, etc.) — and remaining so from the time they’re born, or
B) If your kids eat well and play outdoors, you’re much better off with a very infrequent relationship with these practices.
Which would you choose? Read More
Related posts:
Renewable Energy Financial Report – Bill Paul
| May 11, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
It’s amazing how coincidences pile up around us. I’m going into the Alternative Energy Investing webinar with Bill Paul wondering what I should ask him about, and I happen to be looking at yesterday’s Wall Street Journal with its huge and utterly glowing report on shale gas. This got me thinking:
I wonder how objective these people are? Am I just cynical, or do I perceive that there is a reason behind virtually every word in that paper? All I really learn from articles like this is that someone wants me to believe shale gas is a huge game-charger in the energy industry. Perhaps I’m being unfair. Let’s ask Bill and get his opinions.
But aren’t these extraction techniques fantastically unsound ecologically? And does shale gas impact anyone outside the US?
Hope you’ll join us.
