Thomas Friedman of The New York Times has been rolling in green editorials.
In mid-April he wrote a major piece called "The Power of Green," in which he made the case for his generation to follow the footsteps of the Greatest Generation to become the Greenest Generation. He writes:
We in America talk like we're already "the greenest generation," as the business writer Dan Pink once called it. But here's the really inconvenient truth: We have not even begun to be serious about the costs, the effort and the scale of change that will be required to shift our country, and eventually the world, to a largely emissions-free energy infrastructure over the next 50 years.
More recently, Friedman has weighed in on how to begin to change the environmental decisions our political leaders make -- it starts with the upcoming election. In "Turning the Election Green" Friedman proposes a presidential debate on the environment and energy. According to a poll Friedman cites, done for the Center for American Progress, a substantial percentage of Americans want policies to address global warming and redirect our energy policy.
Yesterday, Friedman had another piece, "Our Green Bubble." He writes:
Here are the facts: Our worst enemies, like Iran, have been emboldened by all their petrodollars. The vast majority of scientists tell us that global warming caused by our burning of fossil fuels is a real danger. And with three billion new consumers from India, Russia and China joining the world economy, it is inevitable that manufacturing clean, green power systems, appliances, homes and cars will be the next great global industry. It has to be, or we will not survive as a species.
And yet ... and yet our president and our Congress still won't give us an energy bill that would create the legal and economic framework to address these issues at the speed and scale required.
I might give the new Congress a few more months to show their stuff, but the central point is unassailable: It's about time clean energy and climate change took center stage.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Slideshow: Our favorite green mustaches
Tom Friedman chats with Grist about the green challenge and globalization
Comments
View as Flat
SustainableGreen Posted 3:24 am
04 Jun 2007
Excellent topic, Joseph. Although I was appalled at his support of the Iraq War and the neo-cons, his stand on sustainability started even before the 2004 election, when he wrote an editorial for the NYT (sorry, since it is a subscription I no longer have the link). He wrote that the new President could be the Sustainability President, and history would be thoroughly changed for the better.
He is certainly a well-known, respected, visible advocate, so this will be worthwhile supporting. Tying all this together with global politics and economics also makes it more immediate and comprehensible to people, far better than the abstract "20% by 2020", etc.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:20 am
04 Jun 2007
The excerpt given here illustrates clearly enough that Friedman has latterly started "rolling in green editorials" (I remember the one that you mention, David, calling on W. to become the "Sustainability President," but Friedman had only recently figured out that position) through his earlier interests in global politics (especially in the Middle East) and economics (e.g. the rise of India). If you think that that approach will appeal to many Americans, then good, let's go for it.
But we should of course be aware of the dangers in using "Energy Independence!" as a battle-cry. It justifies resorting to liquid coal and biofuels. That is not the position of Friedman, I believe, but obviously many politicians have been heading in that direction -- as Friedman mentions in this same op-ed.
On non-neo-cons, especially liberals, supporting the invasion of Iraq: I cannot blame them too fiercely. They seemed to feel real disgust at finding themselves in bed, so to speak, with Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney & Co., and always emphasized the intolerability of Saddam's tyranny. So, they were naive and foolish, perhaps, but their heart was in the right place. And once the brutal reality of the occupation set in, most seem to have admitted forthrightly how mistaken they were.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 7:27 am
04 Jun 2007
"The journalist Thomas Friedman deserves a tremendous amount of credit for raising awareness of energy and environmental issues within a global framework. His piece in the The New York Times Magazine, April 16, 2007, highlights many of the issues we face as a nation in the "greening" of Main Street. However, even an advocate for a green America like Friedman fails to recognize perhaps two of the greatest illusions under which we're all living."
Read more at http://pearlstreetpower.blogspot.com/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:58 am
04 Jun 2007
As for "Think: Less": Very cute. To make it even more Delphic, we could add just two more words: "Think more; think: Less."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:07 am
04 Jun 2007
Calling Iran one of our "worst enemies" is a nice bit of propagandist spew, the deft slipping in of a totally ridiculous meme that could explode later.
Our worst enemies are Bush, Cheney, and the who BushCo junta who are determined even to this day to establish an American colony in the oil patch, no matter how many other peoples' kids are slaughtered to bring home the cheap gas. You have nothing to fear from Iran that is even 1/1000th as bad as what BushCo is already trying to give you: permanent war over oil, no realism on global heating, and a complete rejection of science and reason as a method for analyzing policy questions.
Even now Friedman can't bring himself to admit that the Iraq invasion was wrong from the start, even as he guns the motor for demonizing Iran, another poor middle east country with the misfortune to have a lot of energy (more natural gas than oil in their case).
So even where he is correct---that we need to radically reorient our relationship to energy and how we use it---he weakens his case by making it about the survival of our empire ("we need energy independence so we can crush the dirty arabs and persians who dare oppose the US Empire") rather than about the survival of the planet.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink