A world without ice cream is unthinkable. But serving up frozen food in the U.S. in the middle of the summer (when we scream most loudly for ice cream) is creating greenhouse gases due to the hydroflourocarbons used in most refrigerators and freezers. Something must be done.

Enter Ben & Jerry's, whose parent, Unilever (NYSE: UL) has been working with Greenpeace, McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) and Pepsico, Inc. (NYSE: PEP) to develop more global-warming-friendly (or unfriendly?) freezers. The company will be rolling out the country's first HFC-free freezer in convenience stores and supermarkets across the U.S.; and as a bonus to your favorite ice cream outpost, the green freezers use about 10% less energy than their HFC-emitting cousins.

The new freezers use butane rather than HFC as a refrigerant and required special permission from the EPA; which has banned the use of butane and propane (which are used throughout Europe and Central and South America for refrigerators and freezers) because these hydrocarbons are flammable and are blamed for depleting the ozone layer. The 2,000 freestanding Ben & Jerry's freezers are just a test, and it may be eight to 10 years before the company is allowed to replace all of its 100,000 freezers nationwide.

While it will likely be an extremely moderate impact on expense reduction, the rollout of green freezers stands to underscore Ben & Jerry's ethical, do-gooder image in the mind of its consumers and give it yet another edge over rival Haagen-Dazs.

With CEOs taking home absurd amounts of money, many top companies are hearing calls from shareholders to limit pay to senior executives. The AP reports: "Fund managers and individual investors alike are campaigning for a 'say on pay' rule giving shareholders a vote on executive compensation at major corporations, especially America's biggest banks. This is the latest salvo in the battle against Wall Street's exorbitance, and this time it appears shareholders might stand a chance."

The argument for limitless compensation says that in order to attract the best leaders you need to pay them. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact one need only look at what happened to Ice-Cream maker Ben and Jerry's to see how the principle works in real life. They wanted to limit the CEO pay to a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. What happened was that they couldn't find anyone worthy enough to take the job. In the end they gave in to the forces of capitalism and paid a normal CEO salary.

My question is simply why can't we compensate senior executives based on their performance? Why should a CEO who managed to lose his company $5 billion, and lose his shareholders 60% of their investment, receive $50 million plus stock? Why not incentavize CEO's so that if they do a good job, they make tons of money, and if not, they don't. On the other hand a CEO that creates shareholder value as well as corporate profits should make lots of money.

There is no doubting that CEO's work extremely hard and 99% of the population couldn't do their jobs. That being said we shouldn't be rewarding them just because they have the title "CEO." We should reward them based on their success.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 4/13/08.