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.

[News Clip] CO2 to Fossil Fule

Interesting article at Science Daily. Researchers made a seemingly critical finding which could be a key step to make man-made fossil fuel. Don't be so excited, though. Reporters are always exerating. Read this first, how does it sound? Can it be commercially available in the future?

The University of Minnesota team is using Synechococcus, a bacterium that fixes carbon dioxide in sunlight and converts CO₂ to sugars. Next, they feed the sugars to Shewanella, a bacterium that produces hydrocarbons. This turns CO₂, a greenhouse gas produced by combustion of fossil fuel petroleum, into hydrocarbons.

If we can make fuel out of CO₂, that will be awesome. Especially, on these nuclearly screwed days. Closing cricle, that is the goal!

Climate fight without nuclear generation?

Japanese earthquake turned many things upside down. Nuclear power is one thing, the hot potato. Governments are reviewing their nuclear policy. German government is planning to fade out their nuclear power plants.

Surprisingly, strong support for nuclear power is coming from some environmental groups. They claim that it is almost impossible to achieve cliamte goal without nuclear generation. Climate benefit from nuclear generation is bigger than potential danger of it. It is hard to tell when we see the horrible pictures of Fukushima nuclear plants.

For your reference, Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas, carbon and coal research group, at French bank Societe Generale provides estimates of potential GHG emissions:

A global freeze on nuclear expansion projects would mean an additional 280 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in annual average emissions over the next 20 years. And if existing plants are retired and replaced with fossil-fuel burning generation and some renewables, then annual emissions could increase by as much as 860 million tonnes on average over the period 2010-2030.
(from Carbon Market News by Point Carbon, Published: 18 Mar 2011 01:01 PM CET)

What do you think? Keep going with nuclear power in order to achieve climate goal? Or, find and promote alternative energy risking climate future? We all are facing tough decisions.

Droughts, Floods and Food by Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman wrote a column about current food price crisis at New York Times. He is pointing out that there exist food crisis possibly caused by climate change behind the scene of current social and political turmoil in the middle east. I strongly recommend it. Prof. Krugman says,

As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.

That's right. What righties and lefties have to urgently agree on is not the cause of climate change but the consequences of climate change. Personally, I think that we don't have much time to mitigate climate change. We need to focus on adaptation to climate change.

James Howard Kunstler talks about Peak Oil and Financial Decline

Kunstler is clearly one of the most unique thinkers of our time. I do not agree with him in some points, but his idea about post-oil era urban design is worth to listen. At least, he is entertaining.