yum, pie!

Like many problems, there are many potential solutions. I think people are right to have a bit of a dig at economists who view the economy in isolation without externalities - They haven't modelled the whole system, so they won't get the whole answer. However many of the famous economists who give us the economic theory we have today considered and voiced the shortcomings of these theories, and their limitations. Smith even commented that GDP as a measure of quality of life had some serious drawbacks, but at least could be objectively calculated with a fair amount of ease.
So I don't think 'free market' capitalism can't be part of the answer. I believe free market capitalism in it's purest form would put a capital value on the services nature provides us that we don't pay for, and thus create forces to preserve it - environmental capital is capital after all, we just aren't used to putting it on a balance sheer. However it is probably not the whole answer.
Whenever you need to attack something from more than one angle (i.e. there is no silver bullet, any one step towards a solution is not by itself adequate) there is a good risk of being distracted by only one dimension. So in this sense the pie-er's are right, however they haven't offered up another course to a solution, and they should be focussing their efforts on doing/showing another way to have a positive impact, rather than detracting from the efforts of someone who is attempting to do so.

Neither is right. Yet. Both have ideas. Ideas should be respected. No-one has a lock on predicting the future. Most people think they do.

But I'll give the nod to Friedman. He may be a bit overbearing, but he's fundamentally discussion-friendly. The pie throwers are not. Friedman is able to debate his ideas. The pie-throwers squelch debate, and that's beneath contempt. They see no need forr discussion, because they're absolutely certain, seemingly, that they're right. Personally, I find absolute certainty absolutely disgusting.

Pie throwing can be a great thing, when it's used to deflate people who seriously need deflating. Friedman can be a bit of a windbag, but he's definitely not one of those people.

All the pie throwers have done is show a serious contempt for intelligent discourse and freedom of expression. Treating dissent with contempt, implying that certain opinions aren't worth hearing, is a step towards fascism. It's precisely what the Bush administration does. Whatever their position, their actions make the pie throwers no better than Dick Cheney.

Pie throwing is a Belgium invention ;)) Please go on doing it ;))
It's a non ( sugar aside ;)) violent way ;))

As another poster has suggested, there is no one-size-fits-all method. This is a boon to the environmental scene just as the "protesters" have their own methods. However, just because we have one method that works REALLY WELL, doesn't mean we should discount others who have methods that might not work as well, but have more mass appeal. You have to realize that John Q. Public isn't even close to being as environmentaly aware as the type of people who visit this blog. Something that says "good for the environment" is something they can attach themselves to and might eventually persuade them to explore further. Outright hatred against those who don't go 110% into the green freak crowd doesn't help anyone though. It makes us all look bad by association and doesn't promote the green movement whatsoever.

Spread environmental awareness in a friendly and healthy way!

I'm on the side of the pie-ers. A biologist's dissection of his "economics" here, in several sequential posts; http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/04/muscular-green.html

The pie-throwers are right in the long term, Friedman is right as a transition strategy that may help us reach the long term. The problem is that nobody want to admit that the technology or philosophy that they are pouring their life's energy into is only transitional, and should have a lifespan of ten or fifteen years at most.

On another note, I always disappointed at how repugnant TH survey responders find political action. Shopping is really not going to solve the problems. Besides, if pies are not meant to be thrown, why do they come in the handy recyclable pie plate?

"their actions make the pie throwers no better than Dick Cheney."

Huh? Run that by me again? I don't think the pie throwers did anyone any favors, but to compare them to Abbadon is amusing.

What about a mix of the two messages? The free market (keep in mind, we don't have a very free market now with all these government subsidies and the like) is a powerful tool for solving environmental problems, but the real answer is something Ray Bradbury-esque. We need to utilize technology, but utilize it intelligently, and realize that it alone will not solve all of our problems, but make them worse.

What about a mix of the two messages? The free market (keep in mind, we don't have a very free market now with all these government subsidies and the like) is a powerful tool for solving environmental problems, but the real answer is something Ray Bradbury-esque. We need to utilize technology, but utilize it intelligently, and realize that it alone will not solve all of our problems, but make them worse.

Everyone has the right to say what they think is right. It is up to the people to gain enough information to really know what is right and not to put someone down for what they believe in but to try to convince that person that there is a better way.

Friedman is irresponsible and dangerous.

We already have the technology for alternative energy.
We do not need to do research. We need to implement what we have. We have small wind turbines that sit on a roof. We have solar panels of all kinds of led and cfl lighting. BMW and Honda have hydrogen cars. We have fuel cells. We already had electric cars but the oil industry actually demolished them.

We do not need to use the oil or coal we have or invest in clean coal or build nuclear plants. We need to stop complaining about the price of gas and have the government subsidize hydrogen technology and fuel cells..

We need to reduce, if not stop, eating meat. Besides for causing health problems and contributing to animal suffering, runoffs from slaughter houses poison the land and water and cows emit methane gas by belching which is one of the largest contributors to global warming.

We must recycle and reduce our use of plastic (water bottles and garbage bags for starters).’

We must stop the destruction of the rainforest..

We need to use all the green technology available in building and decorating our homes-from low voc paint to bamboo and cork flooring and bamboo towels and sheets.
We must stop trying to make fossil fuel more available and start investing in and using the alternative energy and products we already have.

In fact, Detroit should tool up and mass prod.uce hydrogen cars the same way Henry Ford did.