Green MBA?

I have believed that one of the hidden causes of financial crisis is MBA. MBA educated "financial and management experts" drove economies too far and to wrong way. I found an article at Guardian.co.uk, "MBA course: 'blind pursuit of profit is destroying the planet.'" This title is exactly what I want to say. I am sorry to my MBA earned friends, but unfortunately, what you learn at the course is the way eventually to ruin human economies and the environment.

I welcome the efforts to install alternative MBA program, namely 'green MBA.' Not fully sure, how much the program can make difference. But curriculum and spirit of current MBA program should be changed immediately. I believe 'blind pursuit of profit' should never be taught at school.

What to do with nuclear...

Nuclear option seems totally dead. Well, not yet. Ironically, some environmentalists claim that nuclear is the certain bridge option to mitigate climate change. Here, the bridge option means that we need nuclear gerneratioin before renewable energy are fully available for commercial generation.

But, safety issues of nucelar plants are hard to swallow. I read one article about safety of nuclear plants at the Washington Post. Its title is "Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study." It shows safety record data of nuclear plants and compare them with other fossil fuel generation. When we compare numbers, nuclear generation is safe and cheap enough, for sure. As the article points out at the end, however, the problem is the dire image of nuclear generation in people's mind. The conception.

Very well organized article. I recommend to read it if you are concerned about nuclear and other energy options.

Can 'peak oil' help slow climate change?

This is a title of a news article at the Guardian.co.uk. Peak oil raises many questions about the future of civilization. Economic and social stability is # 1 of them. Impact on climate change has not been received much attention yet: Climate change can be finally tamed down by decreased supply of fossil fuel? At a glance, it seems to be. But it is not that easy question. The article concludes that peak oil will worsen climate change because economies probably  move to cheap but dirty fossil fuels such as tar sands and shale oil. What do you think? Here is a part of the article:

indeed the longer-term impact of the oil peak could be to accelerate rather than decelerate global warming. That's because falling availability of crude oil could boost the production of even more carbon-intensive alternatives such as oil extracted from tar sands or "synfuel" produced from coal.