Interesting Stories Brewing

(mtcspike)
There are several interesting stories brewing in the Dutch media right now, all of which need further vetting.

(links are to de Telegraaf, in Dutch).

First, a blood bank that has lost 37,000 donors after the salaries of the top three managers came out _ a combined EUR800,000.

File that one among the "the righteous Dutch anger at pay inequalities." It's an area where I think a lot of people understand where our Dutch brethren are coming from. The real question is why Americans are so easygoing about CEOs who get paid massive amounts to fail.

(megatick)

But in this case I do wonder: what do other blood bank directors make? And, does this mean there is now a blood shortage?

Second, Greenpeace is feeling a little heat after dropping large rocks in the North Sea to screw up fishermen. Reportedly this is a lethal danger for the fishermen. because it could cause a boat to capsize, and bad for the marine life to boot.

I wonder: is it really so dangerous, and does the marine life really suffer? Is it flat-out against the law to go dumping big rocks in the sea? And does Greenpeace stand by the action as a good idea or was it a one-off mistake?

(johnny shaw)

And third, the incredibly sad story of a 28 year old guy who reportedly had himself euthanized after a stabbing left him paralyzed from the neck down.

Dutch media are focusing on whether the stabber here should be charged with murder or attempted murder. One other matter needs more reporting though please: did the doctors really agree to euthanize somebody who's only 28 years old?

I have only sympathy for the man who died and his family.

My question is, I understood that legal euthanasia was only for the terminally ill, suffering great pain, with no hope of recovery...surely this report must be wrong?


(lingual x)

On a lighter note, there's also the "Penis Plant to Bloom" story, but I think I'll just leave that one to, uh, unfold.

The "Penis Plant" is better known to you and I as Amorphophallus Titanum, the reuzenaronskelk, titan arum, or just plain old "schwanz."
MORE

If I could put just one question to Shell (and Greenpeace)

(flickr:james at 42)

Having recently seen Shell's first quarter earnings, I have a question: why does the company not disclose how much money it invests in renewable energy?

Don't get me wrong (and if you're hoping for a good big oil-bashing article stop reading now). But when the CFO starts talking about how the company is investing heavily in oil capacity in the Artic Circle (subtext: which is opening up to exploitation due to global warming) you to have to wonder about what they think of the future.

(zorzimo croquezz)

Actually on second thought they break it down pretty clearly that they see fossil fuel use growing massively in the future.

"We are increasing our investment, ploughing most of our profits into finding, producing and refining oil and natural gas. Our investment levels have more than doubled since 2000, to $25 billion in 2006."

"Affordability has been the main problem for new alternatives like biofuels, wind and solar. Even at recent high oil and natural gas prices, they cannot yet compete on price on a large scale."

-Shell website

So it doesn't bother me that Shell won an award from Transparency International last week about disclosing revenue streams: it's the equivalent of saying "at least they're honest in that regard."

(nelgallan)

But returning to the question of how much $$ investment they're putting into alternatives: it's a really basic one for me. I think it would help people judge *how seriously* a huge energy company _ for better or worse _ takes renewables as a business as time goes by.

It doesn't help that Shell has stopped disclosing numbers on alternative electricity generation, which they used to do. The reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that it's become such a significant amount that it's now considered a normal business and folded into their "power generation" numbers. And/or that it's commerically sensitive.

Yet, they began reporting on profits from oil sands separately this very quarter (US$250M). Why one "new" energy source and not others?

I notice their ''external ' review panel' was complaining about the lack of disclosure of investment in renewables last year so maybe we'll get more when they release their sustainability report this year.

For balance in this post, I have an open question for Greenpeace as well.

(gunnar.olafsson)



Why is the organization so monolithic in its viewpoints? I'm not saying that they're right or wrong, I'm just surprised that members appear to move in such lockstep / groupthink.
I'll just throw out two examples:

Everybody at Greenpeace opposes nuclear energy.
Everybody at Greenpeace opposes genetically modified organisms.

Yet these are complicated ethical questions.

And Greenpeace is such a large organization _ wouldn't you expect there to be some dissenting views among the ranks? I've never encountered any.



MORE