SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (146422)10/25/2014 12:36:38 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Speaking of The Valley, here is a comedy routine written by one of its most famous losers. The business community won't take her any more seriously than the California electorate did.

Companies shouldn’t cave in to the demands of climate-change activists

By Carly Fiorina October 24 at 8:41 PM

The writer was the deposed chief executive of Hewlett Packard from 1999 to 2005 and the most recent Republican to be demolished at the ballot box by Babs Boxer. She has turned losing into an art form.

In recent months, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been under siege by an army of professional activists. Its weapons: radically oversimplified arguments and online pressure campaigns. Its victim: free and open debate. The attacks have prompted Google, among other tech giants, to part ways with ALEC, an alliance of state legislators who advocate limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. Unfortunately, such shortsighted thinking all too often shapes corporate strategy at a time when policies with enormous, and potentially damaging, economic implications are gaining ground.

ALEC and its supporters are not alone as the targets of such attacks. While climate change is these activists’ current wedge, they strive to drive business out of politics by any means necessary, including protests, online petitions, letter-writing campaigns, attacks on secondary targets or membership organizations and shareholder resolutions.

This month, a climate-related pressure campaign by Greenpeace forced the Danish toy-maker Lego to end its relationship with Shell. Too often companies succumb to the interests of a small minority of well-organized, professional activists intent on chilling speech and marginalizing the voice of business and job creators in U.S. society. The goal of these activists is to have business bow to their ideological will and reshape companies in their desired image. Their attacks on businesses’ protected speech and political participation are intended to sideline the entrepreneurial perspective and silence the opportunity for nuanced policy discussions.

More pressure campaigns are underway, and the attacks won’t stop until companies — and their leaders — take a stand.

Climate change is a big issue; informed discussion is desperately needed and solutions are not immediately obvious. It is counterproductive and dishonest to assign people and companies to one of only two possible camps when complicated policy and economic issues need to be addressed. Decisions on climate revolve around energy production and consumption, which in turn have implications in such vital areas as job growth, innovation, global air quality, grid maintenance and power generation. These are not small considerations.

When discussing climate, scientists may agree that some policy change is warranted, but they also agree that action by a single state or nation will make little difference. China and India are the biggest and third-biggest producers, respectively, of carbon dioxide emissions, and their leaders were absent from the recent U.N. Climate Summit. At a time when American families are still recovering from joblessness and the recession, should the United States commit to an energy policy that puts U.S. jobs, and the economy, at risk?

Last month, 15 governors sent a letter to President Obama expressing their concern over the power-plant regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that are estimated to retire enough electrical capacity to power 60 million homes. To be sure, the Cato Institute used an EPA-supported climate model to find that if the power plant plan is implemented entirely, a mere 0.018 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature would be averted.

But this information seems to be lost on the activists, who are all too willing to brand companies and groups as “climate change deniers.”

No form of energy is perfect. The debate is so much more complicated than the simplistic notion of switching from traditional energy sources to renewable ones. Energy sources generate power in very different ways, and unlike traditional coal-burning power plants that reliably generate power, wind energy is volatile and unpredictable.

As we head into the election season, corporate leaders should remain aware of the cyclical nature of campaigns and understand the source and purpose of activist pressure. Caving on an issue only invites more attacks. If a company is a good steward of customer and shareholder interests, pursues appropriate policy and delivers on its brand promise, there is nothing to fear.

We need more business leaders who are willing to stand up and contribute to our public discourse. Reasonable people can disagree on the substance of policy while they engage in civil discourse, and business leaders should not let the urgency of a manufactured crisis direct their policy priorities. Our democracy has never — and should never — demand consensus, but a forced consensus will surely be on our horizon if companies keep bowing to activist pressure.

washingtonpost.com

re: deposed chief executive of Hewlett Packard
A blast from the past...

Can Fiorina trump competition for 'worst tech CEO' title?
usatoday30.usatoday.com



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (146422)10/28/2014 8:40:42 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Yes, I do. You just don't like the message. SV: 1) San Jose (I fly here often), 2) Cupertino, 3) Milpitas, 4) Santa Clara, 5) Saratoga, 6) Sunnyvale, 7) Mountain View, 8) Palo Alto...and others.

I've lived in Cupertino and also Willow Glen in San Jose. Lived in Silicon Valley for many years as a tech worker, before I went off to be a Partner in a tech consulting firm. Now I live in another state, but I still fly back to San Jose and San Francisco quite a bit to work with clients.

How's the economic miracle of money printing going? Not good. Nothing can repeal the business cycle, no matter how hard the Democrat Keynesians try. San Francisco housing is often considered a pretty good leading indicator. Below is for your viewing displeasure.

----------