Here’s an item from the file “It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.”

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the UN Security Council, “The evidence is clear that (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad’s forces are initiating nearly all the attacks that kill civilians, but as more citizens take up arms to resist the regime’s brutality, violence is increasingly likely to spiral out of control.”

Isn’t it obvious that, in any situation where a nation’s military is killing its own people that the situation has already spiraled out of control? Is there a sense in which a government’s violence against its own people is “in control?”

Related posts:

First, can someone tell me why philosophy isn’t taught in high school?  Is there some reason we think we need to shelter kids from life’s great questions until they’re older? I never taught the subject formally, though I tutored quite a few undergraduates while I was in graduate school, which often caused me to wonder how I would construct my own “101” course if I happened to be in that position, and at what age group I would present it.

What happened when mankind evolved to the point, about 10,000 years ago, that we had a solid grasp on basic agricultural principles, and so no longer needed to roam, hunting for and gathering food in a nonstop life-and-death struggle? What happened when we started to look up into the heavens — and the questions started to flow: Who made all this stuff? Why are we here? What happens when we die?

I’d certainly get the kids into questions like that – “speculative philosophy” as it’s called.  But I wouldn’t do so at the expense of “moral philosophy,” whose questions are different, though no easier: What is the nature of our responsibilities to others? What does it mean to say I have a “right” to do or have something? A “duty?” And from what do these rights and duties come? The bible? Our conscience? The mores of our group?

I bring this up because the debate about energy really unfolds along these lines. It boils down to this:

If we really don’t have a duty to anyone but ourselves, we can serve the world’s energy needs very well with fossil fuels. Yes, we’re running out of oil, but not right this minute. Yes, fossil fuels more generally are ruining our health and our environment, but they’re by far the cheapest way to power our civilization at this point in time. People who scoff at the idea of a duty to others say, “Look, we can generate baseload electricity with coal at about three cents a kilowatt-hour.   If that creates a problem, that’s too damn bad. Until someone can beat three cents, we’ll burn coal. ”

Yes, there is no doubt that we can do that. But don’t all people have certain rights — and others among us certain duties — that make this a more interesting question?

Related posts:

Frequent commenter Greg Chick writes:

I am not sure why good leaders are not in politics. Possibly good leaders can make lots of money (in the private sector) …

The single best answer I can provide is that the political process as it exists today is utterly repugnant to good people. I’m sure there are many fine people with noble aspirations to make a difference in our world, but they immediately meet with the cruel reality: getting elected and staying in office is about raising money and repaying it in favors, not voting one’s conscience and doing what’s right for the majority of the people.

Can you imagine the catfights and back-stabbing that is the essence of local politics? From there, jump to the idea of running for a seat in the U.S. Senate, where the cost of a successful campaign is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Let that idea sink in for a second: nine figures. That money doesn’t come from college students’ $5 campaign contributions, but from sources of money and power beyond your or my wildest dreams. And guess what: they want things in return that have nothing whatsoever to do with your or my happiness, or the welfare of our children.

Looking at this another way, there are plenty of good people in politics, desperately trying to improve our system of government from the outside. The answer, of course, lies in radical campaign finance reform, including a constitutional amendment limiting the power of corporations to influence our elections. I use the word “radical,” derived from the Latin for “root,” because the current system needs to be pulled out by the roots.  

Under today’s laws, ExxonMobil, which made a mere $41 billion in profit last year, can spend as much of that as they wish to ensure that Congressman A is elected and that Congressman B loses.  Call that what you will, but it’s certainly not democracy, my friend.  And if you wonder why we in the U.S. are moving so slowly in the direction of renewable energy, you really don’t have to look much further.  

Speaking of good people, the folks at MoveToAmend are working feverishly to pull off this constitutional amendment; they’re making some headway, and they deserve our continuing support.

Related posts:

Created out of completely natural material, eco-friendly furniture is an immaculate way to maintain harmony between environment and humankind. Be it wood based, bamboo based or rattan topped, its benefits are simply immense. Enlisted here are a few reasons, which perfectly explain why you should consider putting eco-friendly furniture to use.

Affordability- The very first factor that turns tables in favor of eco-friendly furniture is its affordability. You really do not have to shell out huge amounts of money and thus dig a deep hole into your pocket. Being natural in origin, their manufacturing process does not involve any kind of additional costs. Thereby, the supply chain runs healthy and the price, which is finally, passed on to the customers is bearable. This is precisely what makes them comparatively inexpensive.

Safety - Unlike its counterparts, eco friendly furniture is completely harmless to the human health! It is created out of non-toxic substances, which are known to be chemically inert. For this reason, they do not cast an impact over your health in particular or the environment in general. Instead, they have been found to positively influence the quality of air! If you are living with children in your house, this particular feature of eco- friendly furniture gives you even more a better incentive to purchase it.

Variety- Eco-friendly furniture is diverse in its designs and comprehensive in its extent. Whether it is a dining table or a sofa set; be it patio furniture or the furniture for indoor decor- their range and availability is simply massive. There are plethoras of traditional, modern, and other designs, which are beautifully formed by using bamboo, wood, rattan, or other naturally compatible material. This lends them an extra luster and ensures that the furniture lasts for a long period.

Ecology- As the name itself suggests this kind of furniture is truly eco-friendly! Right from its inception to its creation-, the furniture does not harm the environment in any possible manner. More so, it is known to act as a great deterrent to anthropogenic natural difficulties. It has been researched and found that eco friendly furniture helps prevent felling of trees. This, in turn, keeps the soil bound and fertile, thereby, preventing erosion or logging. Collectively, this leads to the reduction of global warming.

Owing to the reasons mentioned above, eco-friendly furniture has found a place in most homes today. They are known to lend an indelible visual impact coupled with the internal satisfaction that your decor activity, has not contributed to the world’s dread. Its purchase and installation is not merely a sound decision- It is also a wise one.

About the author: Kelly is a blogger by profession. She loves writing on technology and luxury. Beside this she is fond of gadgets. Recently an article on baby bedding sets attracted her attention. These days she is busy in writing an article on biomass energy. 

Related posts:

I’m speaking at the “TechBrew MegaMixer” this Saturday afternoon at the Mark Taper Forum in downtown Los Angeles. If you happen to live locally and are looking for something to do, please feel free to stop by. There is no charge for admission, and, having attended these events in the past, they’re really pretty cool. The basic concept is getting good entrepreneurial ideas for cleantech products and services in front of potential investors. Sounds like a legitimate concept, doesn’t it?

The event runs from 1 PM – 5 PM; I hope to see you there.

Related posts:

Here’s a good article for those interested in global climate change and the role of government in our lives. Journalist Christian Parenti points out that private sector interests alone will do very poorly in dealing with the enormity of the challenge facing us all in the form of extreme weather events created by global warming.

He notes, for instance, that 2011 was the driest year in the recording history of Texas, resulting in wildfires that consumed more than four million acres. He points out that the cost of repairing the damage to the thousands of homes and buildings, and rebuilding the agriculture businesses lost in the fires, is an estimated $5.2 billion—not something that the private sector can easily absorb. And of course, the Texas drought was just one of many individual extreme weather events whose frequency is expected to increase over time.

For my money, Parenti does an excellent job in putting this issue in perspective: it’s fashionable to hate government, but without some teeth in the public sector, our planet will soon lie in ruins.

Related posts:

A great number of folks wrote in, commenting on my recent piece in which I outlined Plans A, B, and C, i.e., three broad-level ways in which our society could deal with its sustainability issues vis-à-vis energy. Many people commented that a hybrid approach can – and should – be taken.

Good suggestions include integrating:

 • A holistic approach to transportation that reduces overall fuel consumption and the number of individual cars and trucks in service

 • Energy efficiency and conservation technologies (two different though related things), along with public education and incentive (e.g., time-of-use metering) to encourage use

 • Population control: family planning, and especially education; on average, a literate female will have far fewer children than her illiterate counterpart

 • Realistic ways of phasing out fossil fuels over a period of time, while aggressively developing and deploying renewables; an energy policy that states this clearly would be a good start

Of course, this last item points at the real issue, i.e., there’s a reason this isn’t happening. Our leaders happily take advantage of voter ignorance and apathy, while they rubberstamp the wishes of their paymasters in the traditional energy (oil, coal, and nuclear) industries. We need to communicate that our leaders have two options: 1) make this stuff happen, or 2) get a new job.

Related posts:

When my father died not too long ago, he left me some stock in ExxonMobil, which I recently sold. As I wrote to my mother, “I’m happy to report that I’m out of the oil business.”

A few weeks before, a long-long friend who manages a hedge fund wrote me, “Craig! Looks like Israel might attack Iran. Your Exxon’s up big!” I responded, “Yes, imagine my delight, profiting from the prospect of nuclear war.”

No more trips to “the dark side” for me.

Related posts:

I’m so glad I finally got around to Jeremy Rifkin’s masterpiece “The Third Industrial Revolution.” The central concept is this: we’re entering the point in human history where the first and second industrial revolutions and their unintended consequences (i.e., running out of oil and befouling the environment) have forced our civilization to make a great change in course. And it’s good news; in particular, this shift will take us in the direction of clean energy, generated and sold laterally, i.e., peer-to-peer, as millions of us generate our own energy.

Those who may have participated in our recent discussion of the major modes in which mankind can move forward given these constraints (Plans A, B, and C), will recognize this as “Plan B.”

This concept of a lateral economy was inspired by the success of the Internet, where hundreds of millions of individual entities found a kind of power that never existed previously. Apparently, a great number of thinkers today believe that this can represent a seismic shift in the coming few decades. Some even point out that the new economic model doesn’t need to be as predatory as the one it will replace, that the “greed is good” is proving untrue and unworkable, and that sharing and cooperation, which are part of our DNA, can play important roles in how we get along with one another.

If this sounds more like a hippie love-in than the ideas of a Ph.D. with 18 best-selling books to his credit, you may want to check it out for yourself.

Related posts:

I make a concerted effort to “travel green.” Like most of us, I fly less, and conduct more business electronically. But I also try to replace automobiles with trains.  The Amtrak people will be happy to know that I think of their service as my rolling office. And a bonus awaits at both ends: Did you even notice how much more appealing train stations are than airports?

All aboard!

Related posts: