The worst column of the year

Somebody hide Tom Friedman’s ball 46

Posted 11:29 AM on 9 Apr 2009
by David Roberts
- More from this author
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Politics,
- Climate & Energy
Read More About
- cap-and-trade,
- carbon tax,
- jackassery,
- renewable energy,
- Thomas Friedman

Share
- del.icio.us
- digg
- Facebook
- Reddit
- MySpace
- Buzz Up!
- Twitter
- Newsvine
- Google Bookmarks
- StumbleUpon
Comment

Thomas Friedman

“Where is my ball?”

Editor’s note: See David’s follow-up post to this piece.

...

Tom Friedman has done stellar work on green issues lately. He’s certainly given them a higher profile than any dirty blogger could. So I guess he’s owed some latitude. But his recent column is a disaster: wrong on the merits, politically tone deaf, and timed so poorly as to be malicious.

Timing

Next week, the House begins an intense round of hearings on a comprehensive Democratic energy/climate bill. This is not a pundit’s daydream or backbencher making a point. It’s a serious piece of legislation: the bill Democrats on the relevant committees will sign off on; the bill Obama will support; the bill that will go to the Senate; the bill that could, if everything goes well and progressives rally behind it, become law.

On the cusp of an enormous fight against well-funded proponents of doing nothing at all, Friedman has decided it’s time for “an alternative strategy, message and messenger”? Seriously?

There will be no grand retooling in the next week. If it has any real effect, Friedman’s endorsement of an alternative bill will simply divide supporters of the best chance for a serious energy/climate bill in 30 years. His timing could not possibly be worse.

Of course, Friedman is not a Democratic operative. He’s under no obligation to stump for a bill that doesn’t make his mustache tingle. When it comes to climate legislation, though, everybody has their own pony plan, their own messaging, their own strategy—the one those silly legislators should be using. The opposition is united, and keeps winning, but hey, at least those on the side of action are clever.

Message

The bill that’s heading into hearings next week is a comprehensive effort to address energy/climate issues. It’s got provisions boosting clean energy, accelerating energy efficiency, and upgrading the national electricity grid. It sets standards for fuels, for electrical generators, for appliances. It’s 600 pages long, and about a fifth is devoted to the carbon cap-and-trade program. That’s deliberate. Dems are well aware that clean energy, energy security, green jobs, and economic renewal are their strongest messages. They know the carbon stuff is wonky and unpopular. They put everything together into One Big Plan so that the stronger parts could be foregrounded and the carbon cap recede.

Yet Friedman says the Dems’ message is all wrong because ... they’re too focused on the carbon cap. “[O]ur energy policy should be focused around ‘American renewal,’ not mitigating climate change,” he says.

Who’s focusing on the carbon cap here? Who’s calling it the “center” of the Democrats’ plan? Why, Friedman! Did he read the bill?

Politics

I have read the following sentence 50 times and I cannot make a lick of sense out of it:

Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?

Opponents of the carbon cap think they can kill the bill by calling it a tax. So the obvious political move is to… make it a tax. Because why again?

Maybe it’s because of the new requirement that seems to have sprung up recently for federal legislation that tackles the most complicated set of interlocking problems in the nation’s history: it has to be easy to explain to your grandmother. The tax code? Military budgeting? Medicaid? That stuff can be complicated. Dealing with energy and climate apparently has to be done via legislation that can be summarized in a Tweet. Because “people won’t support what they can’t explain,” says Friedman.

Friedman supports a bill with a “simple” tax that would rise automatically unless an independent board determined that emissions were no longer on track for the target, in which case the tax would be adjusted; also there would be a border tax assessed on imports based on their carbon content. According to Friedman, “people get that.”

It’s Friedman who doesn’t seem to “get” cap-and-trade, which he characterizes as “a firm in London trading offsets from an electric bill in Boston with a derivatives firm in New York in order to help fund an aluminum smelter in Beijing.” Indeed, he says, that’s what cap-and-trade is “all about.” Except it’s nonsense.

Best of all: “Americans will be willing to pay a tax for their children to be less threatened.” This is asserted with no supporting evidence, indeed in the face of virtually all available polling and the experience of the last three decades of American politics. Perhaps Friedman heard it in a taxi?

Manly man

Of course, no Friedman column is complete without the claim that people will fall in line if they are told what to think by a manly man. That’s what people understand: “Suck. On. This.” Friedman wants Gen. James Jones to ride to the rescue on his heaving steed, saving poor environmentalist damsels in distress. Jones, a Marine general in charge of coordinating defense policy, could sell a historic piece of domestic policy because, well, he’s military. And “imposing,” which makes some columnists tumescent.

The ball

Friedman says the Dem bill “hides the ball” because it’s not explicit about the price put on carbon. But this obsession with price misses the point. The price is not the ball. The cap is the ball. And that ball is right up front.

The price is unknowable in advance, since no one knows what it will end up costing to achieve the cap targets. So there is by definition no way to be transparent about the price before the fact. That’s why all “simple, transparent” carbon tax plans sneak in a provision whereby tax rates are continually adjusted based on progress toward ... a cap. Except the price is adjusted by Smart Bureaucrats instead of markets. This is preferable, because a marine can explain it to your grandmother.

Somebody needs to hide Tom Friedman’s ball. When he plays with it in public like this, he does real damage to the most important legislative effort of this generation at exactly the time it most needs support.

Comments

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Bart Anderson Posted 12:30 pm
09 Apr 2009
Gotta side with Friedman on this one.Agree with him or not, it's worth paying attention to Thomas Friedman because he has an intuitive grasp of the American psyche. For example, I think he's absolutely right about people being suspicious about the complexity of cap-and-trade. Yes, a carbon tax is prone to manipulation too, but cap-and-trade is much more so. The record from Europe is poor and I don't have much confidence in Obama and the Democrats preventing manipulation here.Keep in mind that the Zeitgeist is changing. A few years ago, the Market was God, the solutions to all our problems. Now, with the financial debacle, we are acutely aware of how markets are manipulated. The response of the Obama administation to the crisis has been disgraceful, a giveway of titanic proportions. This does not inspire trust in cap-and-trade. I think what Friedman is picking up on, is that American attitudes are undergoing a sea change. They will be much more open to the idea of a direct tax - if it is presented directly for what it is.I am unsympathetic to David's argument that This Is A Crisis, You Have No Other Choice. Nah - energy policy is going to be around for a long time. We've just begun to think about this. Cap-and-trade and a carbon tax won't solve the problem by themselves. There is much more to come.The posts iin Grist by people from industry and mainstream economics have turned me off. I get the feeling that they have a stake involved in cap-and-trade which distorts their analyses. They are more interested in repeating their line, than in advancing understanding.It's important to lobby from the green side, and not to cave in to threats. Naomi Klien's idea of The Shock Doctrine applies as well to Democrats, as it did to the Bush administration. Hold out for what you want, rather than be cowed by manipulative politicians.At a certain point one has to compromise, but we have to make sure we get something in return for our support.
Permalink
1. RUserious Posted 9:03 pm
  09 Apr 2009
  Simple is better.I have been an avid reader of Grist from the get-go and have been a fan of Thomas Friedman too. I read his book, Hot Flat and Crowded. I have to agree with almost everything Thomas Friedman said in his recent column, Show Us the Ball. A cap and trade system would be complicated and cumbersome, while a carbon tax would not. Either path could work towards the goal of reducing carbon emissions but I would rather have a simple, upfront, easy to understand, transparent strategy. In my opinion, the longer and more complex a bill is, the more loop holes it will have and the more policing will be required for it to function. A cap and trade system would be complex, complicated and inefficient. I am for a big wamping carbon tax. I look forward to the day when fosil fuels are gone because they are too expensive to compete with clean, renewable energy. Our family has already shrunk back our carbon footprint to half the US average and could do more if renewable engergy systems were scaled up and less expensive.Regarding the timing of his column, I think now is the perfect time to fully vet both proposed paths to lowering carbon emissions. I don't believe in insult as a form of argument. David Robert's framing of Thomas Friedman's column was verging on insulting and did a poor job of proving the merits of cap and trade over a carbon tax.
  Permalink
2. David Roberts Posted 9:23 pm
  09 Apr 2009
  "They will be much more open to the idea of a direct tax - if it is presented directly for what it is."I honestly am running out of ways of responding to this. It flies in the face of all available evidence, all available polling. It is a hyper-educated wonk fantasy, projected out on the great mass of Americans. Why people feel they can just breezily assert it over and over again is deeply mysterious to me. In addition, the sudden and bizarre requirement that federal policy dealing with an enormously complex problem has to be simple enough to write on a napkin ... where the hell did that come from? It's just something people made up and started repeating to one another. But why? What other major federal policy is held to this strange standard?And this notion that because a C&T involves a tradable commodity -- like any of dozens of tradable commodities currently being traded willy nilly by advanced economies -- it is analogous in some way to the complex derivatives that grew out of the mortgage market ... that too is just random. Do we oppose all markets now? Is that supposed to be the green position?It's just astonishing to me how quickly this weird mythology has grown up around carbon policy, out of thin air. And sorry, Bart, but we don't have time to noodle around forever, and we're unlikely to get a more favorable political climate than this for a long time.
  Permalink
  1. RUserious Posted 10:09 pm
    09 Apr 2009
    Until I read Hot, Flat and Crowded, I did not know there was an alternative route than the cap "n" trade one for tackling the problem of carbon emissions. We have been hearing about cap "n" trade for a long time but I am sure most Americans are like me - not familiar with the alternative carbon tax route.Another tax idea I like is the one by proposed by the Rocky Mountain Institute, which is to tax all consumers who purchase cars and trucks with poor fuel economy and give a rebate to all consumers who purchase cars or trucks with higher than average fuel economy. The level of the tax or rebate would increase as you go towards most efficient or least efficient. The system would be revenue neutral and require little bureaucracy, but its effect could be immediate and wide spread. Companies who choose to be the most green would grow. This could easily be done with household appliances as well.To me, this is SIMPLY smart. This is DIFFERENT than saying it is smart because it is simple.I don't favor the carbon tax over the cap "n" trade route because it is simpler, but because I think it would be effective more quickly.Regarding all the talk of politics and timing, I also think many Americans are tired of the rushed approach to passing bills. I think this is a good trend.
    Permalink
  2. Bart Anderson Posted 8:38 pm
    12 Apr 2009
    Well, David, you have done your part. You and Grist have presented your case, and I read your work the way that I don't read other sources of environmental information.The problem for me is this. Let's say I try to sell this idea to grassroots, green or peakoil people, what do I have to work with? The arguments are:Trust us (Democratic politicians, mainstram environmentalists and consultants, neo-classical economists, big business) We're running out of time. There is no choice.We know better than you.Not very persuasive.The level of distrust is pretty high. Obama's a great guy, and I don't think anyone from my neck of the woods is going to fight the proposals. But enthusiasm? Trust? Here is an approach that I think has possibilities.'Admit the validity of at least some of the criticism (e.g. concern about lack of oversight, and people gaming the system)Show a reasonable response to these objections.Show that even though this is an imperfect first step, it will lead to something better.Show us that if we support these measures, we will get something in return. Better policy for small farms, for example. Paul Krugman as part of the administration. An ongoing engagement with greenies.
    Grist is a step in the right direction because it provides a place for mainstream environmentalists and greenies to meet. But I think it is the exception. In general, I think that greenies are better served by working on their own projects than by getting sucked into the great Democratic maw.
    Permalink
ruweez Posted 1:33 pm
09 Apr 2009
"... be forewarned that if you write something offensive, profane, or otherwise inappropriate, we’ll delete it. And if you keep it up, we might ban you altogether. Yeah, we’re fierce like that." You don't advance your arguments by including any of the above-- from grist comments posting rules-- in your posts. Unprofessional, unnecessary, unconvincing.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:43 pm
09 Apr 2009
Tell us how you really feel Dave; I think you're still holding back.

So what you propose is that we ask the American people to support some increase in their energy prices to be determined by the machinations of insider trading. Plus a bunch of paper-mache green jobs stuff that won't actually amount to a tenth of the economic impact of cap and trade but add weight to paper printout of the bill itself. It sounds like Enron-style energy trading with some sprinkles added to get Congress to swallow it. There's just no way you can tell me there is any public support for a cap and trade bill because nobody but a few insiders pretends to understand it. It's free ponies for Wall Street and manure shovels for the rest of us and we know it.

Since it's well established by now that solar PV, concentrated solar thermal, wind power and ground source heat pumps can break even financially while providing lots of jobs why don't we just fund massive installation of those systems and toss the rest of the bill. We could even tag on a big hybrid-electric vehicle subsidy so we can pretend we're doing something to save the auto industry. A full build out of those items would eliminate far more GHG emissions than the current bill would.

People LOVE the idea of green jobs. Even hard core Republicans can understand that a solar panel produces electricity and somebody local has to get paid to install it. Wind power is more popular in Texas than silly hats. George Bush himself had a ground-source heat pump on the Crawford house. They'll buy green jobs programs. Ask them to agree to another black box trading scheme involving Wall Street and the energy giants and they're going to balk.

The mustache has you beat on this one.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 5:22 pm
09 Apr 2009
Right, while David has some good points about not messing up a real possible thing here, I think Freedman is channeling the guy in Oklahoma at the backyard BBQ and what he will swallow. Its about the middle American perception and their representatives in DC.That sentence: "Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?"...means that honesty and simplicity have an "acceptance vaule" to middle Americans. The perception of "Sneaky Liberals" and "insider hijinks" can kill the cap and trade bill if it gets traction.
Permalink
NotEdMeese Posted 5:54 pm
09 Apr 2009
Got that? Opponents of the carbon cap think they can kill this bill by calling it a tax. So the obvious political strategy for the bill’s
supporters is to… make it a tax! Because Tom Friedman said so!Yeah, I always thought that a carbon tax would fail to get support because it was called a "tax." What I don't get is why Cap 'n' Trade wasn't sold as a "market based" solution (which it is), so that you could sell it to the representatives and constituents who like the sound of a market, with the green team already on board (for the most part). Oh, and auctioning the permits would be another example of a market at work.Both schemes have their relative advantages (C&T is in theory more efficient; a Tax is simpler and may be easier to regulate), but we need something stat. Get something going with an understanding that we'll go to Plan B once one is made ready. Oh, and and another point for C&T is that Friedman endorses a carbon tax. Guy's a schmuck and has consistently been behind the curve.
Permalink
dahawk Posted 6:34 pm
09 Apr 2009
I regard Tom Friedman as a friend and he has certainly earned the mantle of a serious and effective visionary for where we need to move on energy, the economy and climate protection. But Dave nailed it. On this one Tom is not tuned in to the audience that matters--the 534 (one more in the oven) members of Congress. To paraphrase Rumsfeld (not a habit of mine), we have to pass climate protection legislation with the Congress we have, not the one we'd like to have. To protect the climate we need a law voted for by the men and women who hold office today. We do not have the time to change who is in Congress; we need to change the attitudes of the members who are there today. Most members of Congress are home on their "district work period." Go ask them whether they think their constituents want them to vote for a carbon tax. Got a "don't think so" answer? Some argue with a massive campaign to explain this tax to the public we can change the minds of those 534. Where's the evidence for this? Where is the strategy to achieve it? Where are the resources to implement the strategy? Basing a strategy on a wish is a gamble we cannot afford.Dave is right when he says the "ball" is not about prices. The ball is about cutting carbon pollution. The core of a bill that puts a limit (a cap) on pollution that gets tighter over time is less pollution! A limit on total pollution tells power producers there is a market for electricity from cleaner sources, tells car companies there is a much more powerful market for vehicles that need less fuel to go a mile, tells fuel providers there is a market for products that need less fossil carbon to make a gallon, tells appliance manufacturers and builders there are markets for products and buildings that give us the shelter and convenience we want with a lot less energy required to run them. A tax approach to protecting the climate gets everything upside down. It would push the supporters of lower pollution levels to argue for higher taxes in order to provide some assurance we would actually get the emission reductions we need. That dynamic will make enacting anything that much harder because we will see nothing but ads that calculate the tax burden per household and play on the justified scepticism of the average voter to mistrust a promise that there will be a government rebate check in the mail. There is no way around the fact that a tax approach specifies a price to be paid and tries to get buy-in with a much less believable promise that "we'll pay you back."A program that limits total pollution doesn't need a particular price to cut pollution. Cutting the pollution is the law! The track record is very good that when told to conduct its business and make its products with less pollution, American industry steps up and gets the job done and gets it done with a lot lower cost than the industry lobbyists claim when the law is being debated. In contrast to a tax, a program to cap and reduce pollution does not need to be expensive to be successful. If someone asks you, what is the average American more likely to believe--that a new government tax will be fully refunded or that industry lobbyists are exaggerating the costs of protecting the environment and delivering a cleaner, more secure energy future, what would you answer?
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 12:53 am
10 Apr 2009
David said "The price is unknowable in advance, since no one knows what it will end up costing to achieve the cap targets." Does that mean Congress is willing to pay $1000/ton? Or are they only playing a game of make-believe, pretending that they are capping emissions?Larson's tax bill isn't any more credible. Does anyone really believe that we're going to commit to annual tax hikes without limit? Why not just cut to the chase and set the tax rate at whatever we're able and willing to pay? Then if emission goals are being exceeded, the tax can be automatically decreased.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:57 am
10 Apr 2009
If the whole purpose is to drive long~medium term investment decissions to favor low-carbon infrastructure.And "carbon dis-incentive" law is going to be entirely weak
Or if it's going to be very risky (piled up like a house of cards, ready to collapse at any moment)Then what's the point?
_Also to be frank. I prefer any carbon disincentive that doesn't include offsets.
Since fake offsets, that are equivalent to fake permits, invalidate the permit market.

If we can get cap & trade without offsets? Then cool beans.
However if we can't. Then perhaps a tax is the better option._ That said, I still question if a broad weak disincentive is more effective than a narrow strong incentive.
Permalink
1. David Roberts Posted 10:20 am
  10 Apr 2009
  But Grey, any carbon price provision is going to be broad and weak, especially in the early years. That's why the vast bulk of the Waxman/Markey bill is taken up with other provisions outside the carbon part -- the RES, the EERS, the grid investments, the standards, etc. All that stuff is what's supposed to drive short-term capital reallocation to R&E. The carbon provision is just a backstop.
  Permalink
  1. GreyFlcn Posted 11:42 am
    10 Apr 2009
    The problem there though being the "Well you already got your carbon law. Now you say you want more?"
    _Also if we're focused on preventing some of the worst behavior, a "carbon-disincentive" might proclude instead using the regulatory approach. For instance beefing up the Clean Air Act of 2005 would have far more potential to deal with coal fired power plants than a carbon disincentive.
    
    Or perhaps a national "low carbon fuel standard" would be far more effective in dealing with Tar Sands.
    Permalink
  2. David Roberts Posted 11:49 am
    10 Apr 2009
    Grey, there's a low-carbon fuel standard in the bill! That's why they put everything in One Big Bill -- to avoid the reaction you're talking about. It's not THEM who's unduly focused on and obsessed with the carbon portion. It's everyone else. That's why they are, to put it mildly, frustrated with their own allies' reaction to the bill.
    Permalink
  3. GreyFlcn Posted 12:23 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    "One big bill"
    So basically the same strategy used in the last energy bill?Gobs of pork, with a RES&PTC, minus the RES&PTC
    Permalink
  4. GreyFlcn Posted 12:27 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    "One big bill"
    So basically the same strategy used in the last energy bill?Gobs of pork, with a RES&PTC, minus the RES&PTC
    Permalink
  5. David Roberts Posted 12:32 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    What could possibly please you, Grey? What perfect pony strategy would persuade you, and all the other kvetching progressives on this site and elsewhere, to actually quit critiquing and go out and support an effort to do the things you keep saying Congress should do? Is there anything? If Markey hands you a pen and lets you write the bills, then will you support them? And incidentally, if you were allowed to write them, do you think they could pass?Is it any wonder that it's impossible to pass decent legislation? Conservatives won't support it, and neither will progressives. Conservatives are unified in their opposition and progressives are forever waiting for their pony.
    Permalink
  6. GreyFlcn Posted 1:25 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    Well then I guess that is the real argument here.
    The strategy is to try everything, and see what sticks.
    Because the process is basically the same as haggling.
    And the first principle of haggling is to ask for more than what the minimum you will settle for.
    Fair point.Still though, shouldn't the real argument there though be that it really doesn't matter what the bill is.
    And what matters is the prospect of attaching all these other provisions as riders to a main bill that will pass.
    Permalink
  7. GreyFlcn Posted 1:28 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    .
    Permalink
  8. hapa Posted 3:44 am
    12 Apr 2009
    DR: Is it any wonder that it's impossible to pass decent legislation? Conservatives won't support it, and neither will progressives. Conservatives are unified in their opposition and progressives are forever waiting for their pony. their pony being science-based public policy? or maybe law-abiding? maybe if progressives had clapped hard enough, there would be a few more iraqis alive today. maybe health care costs wouldn't be eating a hole in the american economy, or what's left of it after the progressives FAILED to stop the bankers from writing their own regulations and hiring themselves to check their books. maybe if progressives had really pulled their weight, the CIA wouldn't "rendition" people for torture. maybe if progressives cared enough to try, "new urbanism" would have squashed speculative real estate sprawl. who do you think you're kidding.
    Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:26 am
10 Apr 2009
30 billion in old energy economy suibsidies, that's the "tax" Obama takes in his budget. An untax. that can then be diverted to green job creation.

Some sort of cap & trade or dividend,could actually give some market and investor relief. A final plan that can be largely avoided will set investors and traders at ease. Just as with reregulation of market trading, a toothless, feelgood plan will replace fear of givernment regulation, with food old raw GREEED! How so? Investors and traders will be greedy enough to send markets on a tear. Afraid of missing a raging bull market.
Permalink
tjlodge Posted 10:48 am
10 Apr 2009
How can you seriously call Tom Friedman a "progressive?" He's an opportunistic pop writer. He supported the Iraq War until it become obviously disastrous, at which point he joined the ranks of critics urging a "better occupation." This time last year, Friedman was boisterously (and I should add, imperialistically and racistically) calling for the bombing of Iran. He's impulsive, irrational, and anything but an environmentalist or a sane observer. Joe Romm is so thrilled that Friedman once recognized his work, he has a quote up on his blog. I respect Joe more than he respects himself. Friedman lives in a giant McMansion and is certainly not a functioning environmentalist. Look for Friedman to do more insipid, ignorant criticizing of energy and environmental legislation and policy. For him, it's all about the money - and about being married to an heiress to the (happily) nearly-bankrupt largest mall developer in North America. Please STOP calling Tom Friedman a "progressive." It gives those of us who are the brightest kidz in the room a bad name.
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 11:24 am
10 Apr 2009
Friedman was neo-con when it came to lacing the environments of Iraq and Afghanistan with depleted uranium (not to mention the destruction of a culture and the loss of life). He is no progressive.On the more important question, a carbon tax or cap-n-trade is really one in the same. Neither will be effective at seriously reducing carbon emissions. Either one is really an attempt to pass to the market the issue of managing emissions without any meaningful regulation or actual impetus to reduce emissions (in bith cases costs are passed on to consumers). As well, both programs, and especially cap-n-trade, will require additional bureacratic bodies to oversee, manage, and regulate. Taxpayers will get hit coming and going.If the US is going to insist on maintaining the failed free market system - and it is, then the solution becomes blindingly obvious: The Obama administration must dictate that all emissions from economic activity must be reduced 80-90% by 2050 with no exceptions and that solutions must not produce or contribute to other harmful impacts (i.e. biofuels on loss of habitat, human food production, or chemical pollution contributing to deadzones). And then leave it to the market, governments, and individuals to determine the best ways to implement that directive.The federal government could invest dollars that would otherwise be lost on bureaucracies no longer needed. Additiional dollars could be made available by ending subsidies to oil and gas, agri-biz, bio-ag, and other corporate lobbies and groups that contribute to their bottom lines by promoting unsustainable and ultimately destructive industrial and lifestyle practices.Every day wasted on frittering at the edges with plans such as carbon taxes or cap-n-trade, which are really efforts at delaying serious action, is a day lost forever to real change.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 11:24 am
10 Apr 2009
TJLODGE, This line of argument is getting really, really old now.Friedman's value is three fold: 1.) At least since 2006 he has been largely responsible for creating a palatable language for the great energy transition to renewables, built around a patriotism and security gestalt that has really caught on. He also introduced the idea that the oil companies and conservatives were cleaning our clocks by owning the WORDS and LANGUAGE around fossil fuels and CO2, and how to get out from under that without looking like a scary Earth-Firster.2.) He has an audience you don't. Its that simple. A column by Tom gets read by people (who vote!) who wouldn't give you the time of day.3.) He brought global warming and CO2 concerns into the living rooms across middle America through his Discovery Channel specials and had a much larger influence than any of us will ever have. So please, take your purity and go to a hate-fest somewhere else. An ally is an ally is an ally. We should be so lucky as to have a voice like Tom's, even if its not always right, or as David put it, wrongly timed.
Permalink
1. cyberfarer Posted 2:17 pm
  10 Apr 2009
  "An ally is an ally is an ally."So the enemy of my enemy is my friend? How enlightened. It is true Friedman has a large audience. So does wrestling and Britney Spears. What is important is the message. And Friedman from one side of his mouth is the voice of imperialism and the violence and ecological destruction inherent with that sort of ideological underpinnings, and, from the other side of his mouth, he wants to argue we can have it all, including a globalized consumer society, and still be sustainable.In my opinion, that is as destructive an argument as any put forward by climate deniers and/or Exxon and Exxon's corporate and political allies.A sustainable Earth means less. Less energy, less consumption, less waste. And Earth Firsters may be scary to you, but to my knowledge (and I admit it is limited) they have never advocate bombing anyone or acted as cheerleader for mass killings in the name of politics or ideology.
  Permalink
  1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 2:48 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    I think you might be conflating a number of things:1.) To disagree with a person on one issue and agree with them on another, is kind of normal. In what universe is the great energy transition away from fossil fuels made without alliances with folk you wouldn't normally work with? Please show me this reality so I can go there. My bags are packed right now.Speed and efficacy are more important than purity in this case. The ends definitely justify the means -- in this case.2.) I'M not scared of an Earth Firster, the middle American voter is. Do you understand politics and language and appearances? Do you ever attend Oklahoma backyard BBQ's?Of course your moral concerns are right, but we gotta get this thing going -- now.
    Permalink
  2. cyberfarer Posted 3:55 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    But what you might fail to recognize is that to adopt Friedman as an ally is to be co-opted. Friedman and his ilk would like nothing more than to co-opt the green movement. But Friedman is not a friend. He is, however, a friend of capital, so unlike anyone at a BBQ in Montanna, or an Earth Firster, Friedman dines in Davos - where he defends GMOs (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/opinion/02FRIE.html) as "harmless".If there are BBQers in Montanna who are afraid of Earth Firsters, it isn't because they are well informed. If the strategy for sustainability to is to remain on the good side of the uninformed, then we might as well pack it in now.Look, I have just two points:1) Friedman is not a friend just because he pays lip service to the right things some of the time in the interests of economic growth. A true friend believes in sustainability because it is the right thing morally and consciously and sustainability requires a holistic approach rather than a financial investor approach.2) If the goal is simply to "get started", then whether we start with a carbon tax or cap-n-trade really doesn't matter. Our energy should instead be focused on how we move beyond merely getting started. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity for meaningful change, for the type of change Thomas Friedman would most likely reject, is closing rapidly.
    Permalink
Peter Dorman Posted 11:24 am
10 Apr 2009
With all due respect, all sides are missing something here. (1) Capping carbon is the right idea -- the "ball". In the political sphere, we want to talk about carbon caps first and foremost, not taxes. What matters is getting the cap right, not bickering over prices. (2) The cap is a tax. It will raise everyone's costs of carbon-using goods and services. That's the point. Enviros have evaded this truth for too long, hoping that somehow folks won't notice. They will. (3) Because it's a tax, and a regressive sales tax at that, and because there is no environmental or other purpose to be served by draining the bank accounts of the public, the logical thing to do is to give the money back -- and say so upfront. Auction the carbon permits and rebate the proceeds back to households on an equitable (per capita) basis. How complex is that? "We're raising the price of stuff that's killing the planet because we need to change how our economy operates, but we're collecting that money and giving it all back. It's a tax and rebate, all rolled into one."For what it's worth, I think there are two reasons green groups, with a few honorable exceptions, have been unable to speak honestly about carbon caps. First, they still hope against hope that they can conceal the effect that a carbon cap, by itself (with a rebate), will have on households. Maybe they won't see it's a tax, and we can avoid all that political hassle. Second, their favorite projects have been starved for funds for so many years that they don't want to let the carbon revenues slip through their fingers. They have visions of hundreds of billions going to renewables, transit, etc. This second motive is both a profound political misjudgment (that they will be the ones to allocate the new revenue stream, unlike all the previous revenue streams) and a failure to recognize that the green investment agenda is not about a massive increase in spending (which would require massive new taxes), but a redirection of the billions that now go to subsidizing unsustainable practices. Even if we wanted to dip into the taxpayers in a big way, a sales tax (i.e. an unreimbursed carbon cap) is the worst option around.This is about economics, but also politics. To succeed politically, enviros have to be honest and clear, and they have to recognize that protecting the finances of American (and other) families can't just be an afterthought.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:48 am
10 Apr 2009
Right on, Pangolin. I'm still not sure what all the sturmunddrang (sp?) about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax is all about -- neither of them will solve the problem. The transportation infrastructure has to be rebuilt (trains? remember trains?), and if I remember correctly, Dave even scolded someone for not understanding that building trains requires something beyond cap-and-trade. Putting up wind farms, in a planned, rational way so that they are distributed around the country in order to provide baseload (pace mark jacobson at stanford), will require direct government intervention, a carbon price won't solve it. If I understand this debate (and I probably don't), the offsets might actually be doing some good by protecting forests, but apparently offsets are no-no -- but in any case, it would be much easier to simply buy the forests with government money and give indigenous peoples rights to the forests (as rainforest action network advocates).
So, does this mean I'm being mr.pure, I don't like anything that isn't perfect? I'm not saying cap-and-trade is necessarily bad (although experience shows that Kyoto has plenty of problems), or a carbon tax is necessarily bad, they are completely insufficient. So pass it, but then I hope the environmental movement gets on with actually trying to prevent global warming.
Permalink
1. David Roberts Posted 12:22 pm
  10 Apr 2009
  Jon, as I keep on saying, again and again, to anyone that will listen, the bill the Democrats are sending to the floor as we speak has way more than a carbon cap in it. It's got energy stuff, efficiency stuff, grid stuff. The Dems on the Energy Cmte. know that a carbon price is not enough. They're not the ones focusing obsessively on it! They wish other people would stop focusing obsessively on it! Especially their purported allies!
  Permalink
  1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:45 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    Great reminder, David. Keep repeating it.
    Permalink
  2. Jon Rynn Posted 1:34 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    Dave, I've been rooting around grist for about half an hour, and I can't find a good post from you or Kate on the other provisions (non cap-and-trade). this from Kate, over a week ago, mentions some large-scale goals, but no details. it seems to be that there are RPS's -- a good link on those might help -- efficiency standards, and a national grid -- any actual money for that? For me, a lot of policy is "show me the money", but at any rate, have I missed some good links on the other parts? And if they really are most of the bill, then we shouldn't even be worrying too much about cap-and-trade, no?
    Permalink
Joseph Aaron Posted 12:19 pm
10 Apr 2009
Cap and trade is simple. Americans are seeing more severe and destructive weather--floods, drought, huricanes, wildfires, etc.--and for the sake of our children, we all recognise that congress needs to take action by putting a limit on how much pollution we dump into the atmosphere.Or, in the words of someone far more eloquent than myself;Look, the biggest energy tax Americans pay every day of our lives is
the cost of oil and coal. Every time you flip on the light switch or
fill up your gas tank, you're paying the equivalent of a huge tax--not
to government, but to Big Oil and Big Coal. Your hard-earned dollars
are going straight to Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Coal, and the Saudi royal
family.As global demand for energy continues to skyrocket in
the coming years, and supply remains stable or shrinks, oil and coal
costs will only go up, up, and up some more. The $4 a gallon gas we
paid after Katrina was just a hint of what's coming.Big Oil and
Big Coal want you to believe that it's cheaper to stay totally
dependent on them and their product. How convenient for them. Don't buy
it. The sun and wind are free. Oil and coal are not. It's just common
sense that free is cheaper than not free.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 4:32 pm
10 Apr 2009
CYBERFARER, the ability to reply to you further was removed from the above conversation so I'll continue here:You said:"But what you might fail to recognize is that to adopt Friedman as an ally is to be co-opted."I couldn't disagree more. I'm a big boy, I know the difference between the helpful and the unhelpful, and I'll be just fine. So will the movement to get rid of CO2 emissions. We don't need a mother telling us to look both ways before we cross the street.And I while Friedman is helping the general public understand the dangers of fossil fuels for the past 3 years (very effectively I might add), I'm happy to not belabor something he wrote SIX years ago about GMOs (something he has no sway over today).I think you have exactly one half of the truth, the kind a 20-year-old has, and I appreciate it for what it is.
Permalink
1. cyberfarer Posted 5:13 pm
  10 Apr 2009
  As Carly Simon might tell you, it isn't always about you. And you're certainly not the green movement.Has Friedman changed his tune on GMOs? What about clean coal? Isn't Friedman an advocate of clean coal? Do you support his advocacy on that matter?And if you are going to attempt to align the "movement to get rid of CO2 emissions" (is that separate and apart from the green movement?) with the likes of Friedman, then I would suggest you do need someone to tell you to look both ways because your movement is about to get crushed under the wheels of a mammoth bus.If Friedman has been so helpful, and I suggest he hasn't been, then why are those Montanna BBQers still so afraid of Earth Firsters? Why is the debate still centred on frittering at the margins rather than meaningful change?I think having half the truth, if I even have that much, is 100 per cent more than Freidman has and a great deal more than you can purchase with any amount of condescending arrogance. And that was both condescending and arrogant. There are many 20-year-olds who "get it" far more than you, Friedman, or I. It is, after all, their future that is going down the tubes while we place the all consuming consumer economy over ecology every single time.
  Permalink
  1. Christopher S. Johnson Posted 5:58 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    Oh I see where the difference is now, Cyberfarer. You and I actually hold the same basic environmental beliefs, but you're looking at the larger human evolution of understanding as being a prerequisite to convincing others that stopping emisssions of CO2 is a good idea.That's an awfully nice thought. I wish that could happen too. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years that would be nice for the majority in our society to have such altruistic reasoning at the front and center of their consciousness.Let's you and I work on that. A noble thing. It's a lifetime of work. But its a classic youthful mistake to bring a litmus test of progressive environmental purity to the practical work on the table before us now. If fricken Wal-Mart is reducing more tons of CO2 emissions per year than Whole Foods, then Wal-Mart is my partner in this. In the meantime? Before THIS December. Lets do the mechanical things that MUST be done to pull this off in time, OK? Maturity let's us hold two open palms up, not one fist. One palm is for the long term evolution of humanity and the other is for pragmatism to get important things done on time.The arrogance was in the need for you to feel you need to police a group of smart adults who already know they will drop Friedman like a hot potato the moment he isn't helping anymore. And it became about me when you called me a sell-out.You and I are a team, Cyberfarer. I'll meet you on the trail in the Sierra and share your values, but right now we need you and your government representative to support fricken CO2 reductions, OK?
    Permalink
  2. cyberfarer Posted 6:57 pm
    10 Apr 2009
    Sarcasm is nice too.Look, we both have better things to do and there will be plenty of topics for us to meet and possibly agree upon (or not) in the future. So I will have my last comment on this topic here and now.Here is the deal: We are out of time for playing games. The time to act is now or suffer the consequences (if not you and I neccessarily, certainly our children).Technology is not energy. It is important to understand that. It is also important to understand that there is no such thing as a sustainable consumer capitalist economy. We cannot eat our way to resource freedom. The challenges we face go well beyond climate change. They are the three Es: Energy, Economy, and Ecology. They are like legs on a stool. Pull one out, and the stool tumbles. They are interdependent.We are approaching a perfect storm of energy depletion, resource scarcity (especially water), and ecological collapse on a global level (fisheries, forests, biodiversity, species, atmosphere, climate, ecosystems, oceans, hydrological cycles, etc, etc ...), and a much smaller economy (globalism is dead no matter what they tell you).When you say, "if fricken Wal-Mart is reducing more tons of CO2 emissions per year than Whole Foods, then Wal-Mart is my partner in this," I say you don't really get it. The limited number of emission savings Wal-Mart can offer - which buys prodigious amounts of greenwash - can't possibly erase the overall destruction (not only ecological, but cultural and social as well) brought about by the business model, the industrial extraction model that feeds it, the philiosophy of cheap, and the promotion of consumption for consumption's sake.Yes, we do need to have a much larger debate on the type of society we want to have and what is meant and what is possible when we speak about sustainability, A sustainable human species requires a paradigm shift in our thinking and our behaviour. And if it is your argument that we, as a nation, as a people, as a species, are not yet at the point where we can have that discussion, then I say it shall never take place because the time to have it is now or never.We can choose to steer our way through the storm or we can be victims of it. Debating half-measures such as carbon taxes and cap-n-trade condems us to being victims.
    Permalink
ids Posted 7:08 pm
10 Apr 2009
Are U effin kidding me?! Comprehensive, as in maintain the dirty power paradigm? "Don't divide support" is reminiscent of the the neo-con calling the peace "movement" unAmerican, as if any climate bill by "we need 60 votes" in the old man millionaire Senate is anything more than greenwash. I'd bet on Kennedy-Byrd against any two Repub's in a battle to break a filibuster, hands down. Friedman v Roberts is like two elitist snobs dogs at the scrap heap of give-me-attention.If Chu can't name 60 coal plants to close in 15 years with a plan to do it, he's as worthless as gristwash acting like there's a cap in play that's worthy of us
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 7:39 pm
10 Apr 2009
It wasn't really sarcasm, dear. I edit environmental documentaries for a living. I really believe in the long term turn around and advancement of consciousness in the areas you discussed. Um, but with responsible entrepreneurs and heavily regulated markets to go with it instead of just hammers and sickles.The irresponsibility of Wal-Mart will be fazed out by regulations to come (taking legal powers away from corporations, for example). That's the doctor part.Using the sheer size and power of Wal-Mart, and Friedman, to get CFLs into millions of homes in a short amount of time is the emergency room part. Wal-Mart is a 100 story-high tool kit that is ingrained in the culture -- right now.Its the reality on the ground. I don't want to marry them. Ha! I want to use them for their body and leave them in the morning before they wake up!And if this two handed approach isn't used (one for the long term changes and one for the short term emergencies) then the selfish, the dimwitted, and the conservatives are gonna fear you and clean your clock in every election. I've watched it happen for too long.No, I totally "get it", and I say, "yes, and even so..."Besides, what was your plan to make this panacea happen by December's Copenhagen anyway? Buy an AK-47? Then what?
Permalink
1. cyberfarer Posted 8:03 pm
  10 Apr 2009
  Edited to maintain the intellectual and moral high ground. I don't need to respond to red baiting and juvenile sexist crap. The cold war is over and some people must inisist on living in the past. It bodes ill for the future.So long Grist, it's been a short slice.
  Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 8:50 pm
10 Apr 2009
Cyberfarber said, "there is no such thing as a sustainable consumer capitalist economy." Well, if I'm proposing ideas that are more European in style, with a mix of Socialism and properly regulated markets, then what did I miss about your suggestion that I'm a sell-out for that? What's really funny is that the current right wing calls ME a red. Ha!Besides, I'm being lively and cheeky, not an A-hole, because you're so scrappy and judgmental, and because the world isn't meant to be boring. I would never be an actual A-hole to my ally. Really. We're on the same team. I'm just enthusiasticly meeting you at your energy level.I was trying (unsuccessfully) to demonstrate a reality-point about progressive politics and emergency situations like ocean acidification and climate change. And that there is 8 months to come up with a practical plan that actually displaces CO2. Making EVERYTHING right is on another thread.You didn't really think you were going to bust into this thread, call everyone on here who is trying to gather a diverse team under a climate legislation tent, a "sell-out", and then waltz right back out the door without commentary, did you?
Permalink
1. cyberfarer Posted 6:13 am
  11 Apr 2009
  "Sell out" is your words. If the shoe fits. I suggest you wear it. As well, once more, you suffer delusions of grandeur. You are not "every one" on this thread or elsewhere.You are not being "cheeky". You are being deliberatley rude, and insulting. Red baiting is intended to silence debate not to further it so please don't insult my intelligence with your bull. You are unsuccesful because one does not, in any discipline or any field, address emegencies by frittering about debating the type of bandage or the necessity for anti-septic cream while the victim is bleeding to death.Your thinking, lke your hero Friedman, is two-dimensional and out moded and is symptomatic of why any efforts to address the serious crises the planet faces will be too little, too late. European economics remains a system founded and premised upon permanent growth through the infinite consumption of the resources of a finite planet. Try the math.Any chance of success requires we move past your 1970s mindset into a new century where economics are centred not on the destructive growth model but on a sustainability model and that will not happen, can't happen, until we have the public debate.The emphasis on policies that have failed elsewhere is just lost time. The issue is not CO2 in and of itself. The issue is the reasons why CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. Friedman, for example, believes we can continue plundering the earth and living beyond our ecological means by addressing CO2 with the fiction of clean coal when the issue is and remains the plundering of the earth to live beyond our ecological means.Only when we are ready to move past silver bullets and magic pills to seriously address issues of sustainability and new economic models, free of the political correctness enforced through red baiting and other efforts to "shut up" thoughts not our own, will there be progress.
  Permalink
  1. Jon Rynn Posted 8:31 am
    11 Apr 2009
    cyberfarer, I'll try this with you because, well, what the heck -- I continually see a pattern on grist where important voices like yours -- let's call them "radical" -- sort of flare and burn out, and then get lost. In other words, it's important to hear your point of view, most of which I share, but unfortunately many (most?) of the folks who seem to share this worldview get so pissed off at anybody to the "right' that they either alienate/leave. I know it's very frustrating and mind-blowingly difficult to deal with, but it would probably help if the "radical" point of view had some more advocates that were even, god forbid, a little humorous about it (used to be part of the grist page "gloom and doom with a bit of humor" or some such). Anyway, just thought I'd say it.
    Permalink
David Roberts Posted 11:26 pm
12 Apr 2009
Chris and CyberFarer: take it offline. Further entries in this tiresome and off-subject debate will be deleted.
Permalink
wearewhatweeat Posted 7:17 pm
15 Apr 2009
Carbon trading and offset schemes are touted as beneficial. This is not the case. I recommend Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power by Larry Lohmann. The book concludes that the carbon trading approach
is both ineffective and unjust. In addition, the Climate Justice Now!
The Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading in 2004 calls for solidarity against it. The bulk of fossil fuels must be left
in the ground if climate chaos is to be avoided.
Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

Commented

Somebody hide Tom Friedman’s ball 46

Posted 11:29 AM on 9 Apr 2009
by David Roberts

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Somebody hide Tom Friedman’s ball 46

Posted 11:29 AM on 9 Apr 2009 by David Roberts

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Flat

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Posted 11:29 AM on 9 Apr 2009
by David Roberts