Thomas Friedman: There is No Green Revolution
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09.19.07
The New York Times has finally ended its Times Select policy where we could link to news (available everywhere) but not opinion. Thus we can now inflict upon our readers the full silliness and wrongheadness of writers like Thomas L. Friedman, who goes to Doha in the Mideast and Dalian in China, two booming cities covered in construction cranes, consuming oil and spewing CO2 like there is no tomorrow. He uses them to make that point so beloved of those who would have us do nothing about global warming:
Hey, I’m really glad you switched to long-lasting compact fluorescent light bulbs in your house. But the growth in Doha and Dalian ate all your energy savings for breakfast. I’m glad you bought a hybrid car. But Doha and Dalian devoured that before noon. I am glad that the U.S. Congress is debating whether to bring U.S. auto mileage requirements up to European levels by 2020. Doha and Dalian will have those gains for lunch — maybe just the first course. I’m glad that solar and wind power are “soaring” toward 2 percent of U.S. energy generation, but Doha and Dalian will devour all those gains for dinner. I am thrilled that you are now doing the “20 green things” suggested by your favorite American magazine. Doha and Dalian will snack on them all, like popcorn before bedtime.
Thanks, Tom, for making all of your readers on Central Park West feel better about their four homes. Thanks for your conclusion "There is no green revolution, or, if there is, the counter-revolution is trumping it at every turn." It makes all of us feel really useful. ::New York Times
It would seem to me that Thomas (give war a chance) Friedman has an agenda to serve.
There is lots of positive change happening, in spite of Thomas (I love modernity) Friedman and the interests that he serves.
Try comparing the per capita emissions from the average NY Times editorial writer to the per capita average in India and suddenly this Friedman guy sounds very very lame.
Don't worry Friedman, things will turn around in another 6 month's. We're entering a critical 6 month period in the fight against global warming. We will no longer see this problem in another 6 months.
(For those not familiar, please see Friedman Unit at Wikipedia)
While Friedman is yet another reason to not subscribe to the NYT, his article does highlight that we should really do something about the trade agreemendts we have. If we tied taxes on imported good to the environmental, social welfare, and labor practices of the exporting countries, we could simultaneously give other countries incentive to improve conditions, improve our balance of trade, reduce outsourcing of jobs, and reduce the federal deficit. The down side is that we will pay more for our flat screen TVs and other cheap imported goods. Nobody said that saving the world would be free.
Did you even read the article?
Friedman is right, regardless of how you feel. Fellings have nothing to do with environmentalism.
At this point we need more drastic action, which I felt was the point of his artilce.
He said;
" Without a transformational technological breakthrough in the energy space, all of the incremental gains we’re making will be devoured by the exponential growth of all the new and old “Americans.”"
and
"But, as I said, this is not just about “them.” It is still very much about us. "
What is wrong with that? He is also exposing the thin veil of "green" many companies hide behind.
This post is a prime example of the decrease in quality that I have noticed in treehugger recently. The lack of fact checking, the assumptions, and superior attitude ... it is a trend I find most perturbing as I have found treehugger to generally be a valuable resource.
The point of the article seems to be not to blame developing countries for climate change, or put the responsibility on China, India, etc. first. Rather he argues that the high consumption lifestyle of the average American, that is now being exported to developing countries is unsustainable. Thus, he contends that nibbling at the edges of the problem, such as CFL bulbs and hybrid cars, won't be enough with the continued massive growth in consumption both in developed and developing countries. Hence he says:
without a transformational technological breakthrough in the energy space, all of the incremental gains we’re making will be devoured by the exponential growth of all the new and old “Americans.” and Our planet cannot tolerate so many “Americans,” unless we take the lead and change what it means to be an American in energy terms
I'm not a reader of the NYT, nor am I familiar with Friedman, so he may well be a regular denier. But in this case he seems to be making a fair point. He claims to be sceptical with regards to what is being done to mitigate climate change. That significant change in the 'western', especially the 'American' lifestyle and level of consumption is required ... all the more so as more countries begin to produce groups, at least minorities, who are living up to the examples set by the 'American' lifestyle.
Despite how it makes you feel, he has a point. This problem has to be dealt with globally and on a scale that no one has imagined yet.
I have a lot of problems with Friedman (after all, he supported one of the dumbest and most unnecessary wars in history) but I haven't seen anything that makes me question his green credentials. On the contrary.
In this case, he's only pointing out what is a fact--that conservation alone is not going to get us out of this mess, especially since many countries are reaching industrialization levels, and making up for the lost time with a vengeance. What would you prefer? That he slaps you on the back for using CFLs and ignores reality? Will denial make you feel better? You sound like you belong in the Bush administration, Lloyd. Those people eat, drink and sleep denial. You might be able to get a job there--lately there are a lot of vacancies.
Robert, I am sorry that you feel that the quality of TreeHugger has declined, but you quote the single most annoying line: "without a transformational technological breakthrough in the energy space, all of the incremental gains we’re making will be devoured by the exponential growth of all the new and old “Americans."
the two points that everyone will take from this article are:
1) everything we do is irrelevant because it is subsumed by all of the growth in the rest of the world, -so why bother?
2) the only thing that will save us is a "transformational technological breakthrough in the energy space" (he likes sequestered coal and nukes, Annick, who is in denial?) -so why bother?
There is absolutely no disagreement here that changing a lightbulb pales in the face of a new coal plant in China every week, but you would be surprised at how many coal plants could be avoided if we all did the CFL and hybrid thing. why give people excuses not to? Annick, this is the prime argument used by Bush and the right, that why should we do anything when China isn't? How do you lump me in with that, I am saying the opposite.
Christian and Robert said it for me. Freidman makes sense. Our efforts of far are only window dressing.
But if you can export a lifestyle that uses CFLs, drives little, has high tech but low power consumption gadgets etc., these 'new' Americans wouldn't be such a problem.
The argument that 'we shouldn't do anything because India/China/US are increasing their consumption' is used by EVERYONE! Passing the buck around the world whilst nothing changes. 10 years ago and before - yes you could claim ignorance of these problems. But we all know now, and we can only change the future. If we give up and do nothing the problem will be even worse.
It's the legacy of the West that stops the developing countries from having the lower growth we say they should. They (rightly) say that we caused most of this problem, and have got rich in the process, so how can we say with any authority that they shouldn't have what we had?? Plus we've had 100 years of it - they've just started. So if we don't provide some leadership, and set some tough goals for ourselves, why on earth shouldn't they have their time in the sun?
Lloyd, you condemn Friendman for his comment about a "transformational technological breakthrough", but this is certainly what is required (though I do not agree with nuclear or coal, which Friendman makes no reference to in this article). In public policy terms we need to be using tax dollars to fund research and streamline the way for privately-developed alternative energy technologies, and that was the message that I got out of this article.
Folks, if you think this article is anti-green, you are seriously mistaken. Thomas "Green is the new red-white-and-blue" Friedman is one of the most influential and positive voices for sustainable energy. And as far as the NYTimes goes, he is probably among their most rabidly liberal commentators. He does us a service by forcing us to face up to the magnitude of our world petro-carbon energy situation and the problems it produces: mideast terrorism, global warming, corporate malfeasance, financial deprivation of the citizenry. I can find nothing but great facts and insights in his writings. And he is not just a complainer, he makes suggestions - like embrace sustainable/renewable energy and efficiency in how we use it. That he rubs our nose in how small our positive efforts are in the face of an industrializing China is something we need to hear and understand, though his style might rankle.
Hey, Tom...
Suck. On. This.
he is probably among their most rabidly liberal commentators
Right, because it's "rabidly liberal" to rabidly support Bush's Iraq War.
Both sides of the argument have validity- little steps help, and if everyone makes little steps we will progress in the direction that we want.
However, the situation is dire and needs a serious paradigm shift, but unfortunately a huge systemic shock is what is generally required to create a large scale change. Even more so when our leaders serve business and profit, then mitigate what information reaches us.
I have to say that I agree with the other commenter who mentioned a decline in the quality of posts lately.
Friedman's point is that we need to make a "man on the moon" kind of effort to create clean energy sources that are as cheap or cheaper than coal.
If it isn't cost competitive with fossil fuels, then developing economies like India and China are not going to use it, which leaves us worse off on a world scale.
His point isn't that we should do nothing, and that we are wasting our time by conserving. He is just putting that conservation in perspective of what's really happening on a world scale, and what else we need to be looking at.
He says that we should transform the entire energy sector to some type of cheap renewable energy that has not yet been discovered, which would be a game changer.
Those coal plants that China is building have a life expectancy of 50 years or more, so it is important that we start looking for big scale clean energy sources now, before they build 500 more coal electricity plants.
He is in no way, shape or form an anti-environmentalist. He is a big picture thinker, and was trying to make a point.
I don't read treehugger often but this is the 2nd thread this week where I (and also other readers) felt the poster did not do justice to the original article (thomas F in this case). I hope this does not become the norm.
The anti friedman remarks caught me off guard. His latest book was pretty good and I never got this "anti green" vibe at all. He always seemed like the kind of person that would promote working together.
I agree with Annick. The writer of this post assumes that the average reader of the NY Times is an uneducated lump of clay. It's clear through Friedman's tone that he's not arguing the abandonment of everyday conservation. If anything, he is arguing for more urgency on this whole matter, at every level.
I think what people are responding to in their comments on this post is the lack of sophistication and nuance in the criticism of Friedman, which has resulted in a post that does nothing but finger-point.
I think TreeHugger quality is good. Some posts may be more subjective than others but so what. This is still the Go To resource for things Green.
The quote was good before - we need a Man on the Moon style initiative to get around our energy problems. The established industries are just keeping their heads in the sand while great profits can be made doing things more efficiently. Whether it's electric transport, renewable energy production and distribution, or manufacturing, we are Americans and we can do it better. When the old boys wake up maybe they will realize that. Then when we are doing something better, the world may copy us to reap benefits. Like they usually do.
Maybe it's a little PollyAnn-ish or pie in the sky but so what. Things have to be thought about and worked through.
I hope such an item as the prematurely iconic Tesla Roadster does not go the way of the EV1.
Big Oil and Big Coal can become Big Solar or something like that. It would be great to have the Middle Easterners cut someone else's heads off for a change. It will be great to say we don't need their bloody oil ... before it runs out or becomes unobtainable due to someone's nuclear trigger finger.
If we can reduce our dependence on a volatile commodity like oil or a dirty one like coal, the world will follow suit I am sure of it. The market will speak.
Good Luck,
vsk
That's ironic. Friedman can say "Suck. On. This." on the Charlie Rose show, but apparently that's too rough of a comment to get approved by Treehugger, even if done in humor.
I just read the column and, like other commenters, I don't understand why you have a problem with it. He's making some valid points and his overall message is that we need to do even more if we are going to solve this crisis. I didn't get a "so why bother" vibe from this column at all.
Saying that one thing is meaningless because another thing happened is a fallacy.
Things would be even worse if nobody made efforts to be more efficient, and industries wouldn't be moving toward greener directions without a consumer interest.
Yes these developing countries are using lots of energy and resources, but they are also bringing a lot of people out of complete poverty and misery. Now we only have to find a way to keep those benefits but mitigate environmental impacts.
being rich doesn't mean being like the us. the developing world should be encouraged to develop, but it is unfair - and insulting - to assume that it will develop the same way the us did, with the same values. friedman's "american" values aren't innate human values.
this is a global problem and will continue to need to be treated as such. i don't propose any solutions. but certainly neither does friedman, and to be such an overt downer (especially on the day when the nytimes opens his columns to many million more readers) seems to do nothing but muddle the issue further. thanks friedman, you've told us that the world is developing and that we can offload any personal responsibility to participate in change by placing blame on china and the middle east. that's really helpful. if you don't mind, step out of the way and let someone useful speak.
so happy about the demise of times select; at least krugman and kristol can get me past my daily friedman rant.
http://strangethingsareafoot.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/thomas-friedman-hates-the-green-revolution-and-the-chinese/
I am glad I was not the only one to notice the poor writing of the original post.
Friedman's article makes me want to march on Washington, not sit in my room with the AC at 60 degrees watching three televisons while I eat individually wrapped hot pockets.
I am afraid the green movement has been taken over by people who are too afraid to make the real changes and only want to relieve their personal guilt. Corporations are marketing on that fear while still encouraging consumption.
Treehugger, why are you not on a solar powered or wind powered host?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/more_wind_and_s.php
Billionaire Thomas Friedman (look it up) is rather forgetting the laws of thermodynamics here. We're coming to the end of a one-time-only bonanza of cheap hydrocarbon energy. We got so used to having this cheap energy around, we do everything incredibly inefficiently -- particularly the spread-out nature of sprawl suburbs and all that goes along with them.
Drastically raising our efficiency in all sectors will make a huge difference to North American energy needs, and if we can get up-and-coming countries on the right path at this critical moment, their current spike in energy use will settle down to sustainable levels (hopefully) within a decade or so -- after all, they're facing the same energy future as we are.
The key concept here is that we have to rethink the entire way we do everything, a point that Friedman and others like him seem desperate to miss. Sad as it might be for Friedman's family fortune (in shopping mall development), our entire economy will have to shrink and re-localize, cities and towns need to re-densify, and we'll have to be very cautious about not paving over farmland anymore.
The other step is to debunk the thought process surounding misguided energy developments like ethanol or hydrogen as a "magic bullet" for all our needs. They might be used in some way, on a small scale, but I doubt we'll be able to ramp them up as much as tried-and-true things like solar, wind, geothermal, and again -- efficiency.
I sleep well at night knowing I impacted the natural environment to the smallest extent possible.
Western civilizations are imitated by developing nations. We must therefore set a high standard.
If barbarians choose to overpopulate and unsustainably consume resources, that is a reflection of their unenlightened morals. We must not sink to their level. Their day of reckoning will come.
However, I advise keeping lots of nukes pointed at their nations.
You're right AJ Kandy!
We're all now addicted to crack, but the attitude seems to be "Let's find a natural, homepathic crack subsitute!!"
Highly unlikely - Maybe we shouldn't have got addicted in the first place...
I pray for the end of oil. Actually, I pray oil becomes more expensive than clean energy sources. Greed drives our appetite for cheap. And greed is more difficult to eliminate than guilt.
I was going to say your both right, but I think, in fact, you are both wrong.
Friedman is exhibitng the classic, "Nobody will ever change, so we need a techno-fix." TreeHugger is best known for its 'shop your way green' approach. Sadly, even with Friedmans techno-fix, shopping will still destroy us. AJ Kandy (a couple of posts up) was dead on, though I think I prefer how MY put it, "We're all now addicted to crack, but the attitude seems to be "Let's find a natural, homepathic crack subsitute!!"
Sorry, I just got back from Dubai and a short time in Doha. He's absolutely right. It's even more absurd and alarming than his "eaten for lunch" analogies.
He is right, the 'green revolution' that this and other websites promote are just a 'greenish' fashion version of consumerism re branded for yuppies.
sorry folks, but your help t shirt is not going to save the world.
The issue is not wether another country's waste is eating our savings so fast, it's that we are saving. Yes this does need to be addressed in a world wide setting, but just think about the "Window Dressings" [read: energy savings] that we have done so far and are continuing to do. If we had not done even that small amount, think how bad off we would be.
The problem with momentum and large things is the speed at which it takes to change direction. Although more hands equal more support, and with more support grows more momentum.
FINALLY OTHERS ARE GEETING IT! I mean look at the posts on this site; How to get a green fasionable hand bag! What bullsheat!
If you want to be green it is easy. DO NOTHING!
So China is pumping out all sorts of C02. Does that mean that we should do nothing? Should everyone just give up? So what if at this particular point in time things look bad? Just because work needs to be done is no reason to give up hope.