Daniel B. Markind, Esq.
Weir and Partners, LLP

Dan Markind sums up his philosophical observations and further reflections on energy development with this Part III conclusion.

The election results are sinking in, and the shock among many is beginning to wear off.  Since election day, we have seen the good (Trump’s acceptance speech, Clinton’s concession speech, the White House meeting between the President and President-elect), the bad (Trump’s continued tweets, Harry Reid’s comments, the over-the-top demands of the media to understand their “pain”) and the ugly (the racist emails sent to students at the University of Pennsylvania, the riots in Portland, Miami and other cities).  We haven’t seen much healing unfortunately, and there are great issues facing our country.

The Story of Bar Kamtza in Mosaic

Regarding energy and its proper place in the modern world, I’ll give the last word to a Philadelphia-area Rabbi: 

1. I believe it was Einstein (could be wrong) who asserted that he (and others) could answer the question of WHETHER atomic energy COULD be harnessed for energy, medicine, and weaponry.  But only religion and philosophy could answer the questions of when and if atomic energy SHOULD be used. 
2. The same is true for almost any of the issues that deal with human agency and influence of the forces of nature.  It is a very recent phenomenon for us to assume that we can (or eventually will be able to) cure, fix, control, etc. the forces of nature (disease, natural forces of wind/water/earthquake/etc.).  Usually in the past we deferred to the power of these forces – chalking it up to our smallness relative to the world (that ended when we escaped the world and could see Earth from space, as itself, small relative to the universe)…. Or chalking it up to the complexity and smallness of the structures/germs/atoms, intricate beyond fathom (that ended with the electron microscope and other technologies)…. Or just chalking it up to “GOD” – as that ENTITY of things we don’t (or don’t YET) understand.
3. But there are some things that science will NOT EVER answer for us:  the “Should we?” question of Einstein… the “Why”…. And perhaps most relevant for the energy question, the “what happens beyond the immediate benefit/pain of this moment and our foreseeable, causative moments to come.”  The Industrial Revolution brought marvel and a belief in human agency as almost limitless, without considering that the short-term benefits (people living at a level of assuredness never before seen, the invention of leisure time, the view beyond one’s own subsistence) may yield longer-term problems (environment being only one).
4. In the Torah, we are told to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth – “v’kivshu’ah” – literally, to conquer or assert dominion over it.  This made sense when humans were “in the mix” of the natural world – namely, the most capable/evolved, but on the spectrum, not above the fray of predator/victim/prey/subject of the earth’s systems.  Now, we are so far above the other natural systems, we must choose whether to be a benevolent conqueror or to follow the path of colonial empires who saw their colonies as resources to drain, and then to move on.

Hopefully, we will use our newly-found status above the other natural systems both to power our economies for the benefit of all humankind and also to preserve our ecological legacy for our children and the other inhabitants of our small planet. 

I started this discussion with suggestions for specific principles to evaluate energy policy questions.  I will continue to welcome those of others.  Now that a Republican administration will be sworn in January 20, the tradeoffs will be different.  However, unless we use our historical founding principles for guidance, I fear we risk making decisions ad hoc based mostly on short-term political considerations (the same would have been true of a Democratic administration).

In this terribly contentious time, I suggest what we must avoid is allowing those who are so bitter on either side to drive the agenda, be it on energy or anything else.  Much more still unites us than divides us.  To take one lesson from history,  2,000 years ago a bumbling, ineffectual and corrupt religious leadership held power in Judea, subject to overall Roman authority.  According to some historic sources, at a party in which much of the religious establishment was invited, a man named Bar Kamtza, who had been mistakenly invited, was humiliatingly thrown out despite his attempts to save face.  Embittered, he told the Roman Emperor that the Jews were revolting, then manipulated subsequent events so that it would occur.  The result was national disaster.   Thanks to personal pique, Mr. Bar Kamtza set in motion the destruction of the Ancient Jewish Temple, the dispersal of his people from the land of Canaan and wholesale slaughter.

Some 2,000 years later, I hope we choose a different course, step back from the abyss and work together.  While I submit our founding religious and philosophical principles should be our guide, I believe they must remain only that – a guide.  I hope we always remain wary of those who use their religious doctrine as a club to demand the country move according to their beliefs, as well as those who use science and environmentalism as a new quasi-religion.  To quote Abraham Lincoln, in September 1862, two weeks after the Battle of Antietam (still the bloodiest day in American history):

“In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God.  Both may be, and one must be wrong.  God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.”

It’s up to us now.  I doubt we can rely on the politicians.  This must come from the bottom up instead of the top down.  With real desire and effort, we can find the best way to evaluate our practical problems, make decisions based on consensus, and save the “last best hope of earth.”

Good luck to us all.