When I read Pieface's article, one thing quickly came to me: this guy is a motherfucking badass.

One lady on another blog wrote "Friedman for President" as her only commentary. Honestly, I was thinking it for a second, too.

It was very nice of you to compile all this.

What would plugin-hybrids have to do with this thread, GreyFlcn?

Please show your math.

Thomas L. Friedman writes:

[H]ere is how we're going to break our addiction: We're going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil.

So, creating a massive bureaucracy to monitor and administor adherence to a floor price -- ensuring that huge amounts of money are transfered to the oil industry (and to biofuel producers, if their costs manage to come down) should the world price of oil drop below $100 per barrel -- is preferable to simply raising the federal excise taxes on transport fuels to something closer to what we have here in Europe?

Please explain, Mr. Friedman.

These are only my personal opinions.

my fave part comes when Friedman taps his inner-Millennial while calling out Bush:

[A real president] certainly wouldn't be using his last days in office to threaten Congressional Democrats that if they don't approve offshore drilling by the Fourth of July recess, they will be blamed for $4-a-gallon gas. That is so lame. That is an energy policy so unworthy of our Independence Day.

Investment in renewables that will power plug-in hybrids = real independence.

The Tom Friedman article says that all oil use in the United States can be economically replaced "tommorrow" with "wind and solar power [...] on your roof."

NucBuddy:
What would plugin-hybrids have to do with this thread, GreyFlcn?

I guess it's not an exact parallel.  However if we wanted to.  Would could displace a hell of a lot of oil with electricity with plugin-hybrid-retofits.

And it's certainly not "tommorow".  However relatively quickly.

And while thats not "all" oil, it does account for almost all of it.

um, excuse me, but y'all can fawn over Friedman all you want... But some of us might do well to remember that he was a cheerleader for the War on Iraq and a proponant of corporate globalization (so called free trade in the form of NAFTA and the WTO).

so his little shifting with the political winds act is kinda cute, but he really is a corporate lapdog who is given too much credit and influence by people who ought to know better.

thanks and have a nice day.

He sed we shud build a lot more nukular power, which I like.  Everything else he sed is garbage.  Nukular energy is good.

Also, he didn't address abortion, which is mah number one issue.  I think the Prezudent should git them Sawdies to give us more oil because once gas gits above $4 a gallon and the economy dumps, abortion rates will go up, which I em against.  The ansur to this prawblem is more nukular, more cole, and more gas.  Them Sawdis prey on the same Gawd that we do so they shud be happy to help us keep abortion rates low by bringing down the price of gas.

I mainley distrust solar power because didn't them pagan Egyptians worship some sun gawd or sumthin?

Shu pas a vende.

John The Tree Hugger,

You're not alone. All of my lefty friends cant get over his hawk positions.  I don't pay them attention.  His past 4 years of national television specials and columns, and now a book, about the US not being in touch with reality around energy and the environment, make him a needed tool in our utility belt.  People of a different persuasion than you or I listen to him -- that's important.

The more religious, hawk, conservative commentators chiming in supportively on the Great Green Energy Transition, the better!

Did you really think that a societal movement this large wont include people you disagree with?  Really?

-Christopher S. Johnson

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Victory in Pattani

I am also strongly opposed to Thomas Friedman's positions on war and trade.  But that doesn't mean we can't ally ourselves on energy policy IF HE TAKES GOOD POSITIONS.  We should be willing to make alliances with those with whom we normally disagree where those alliances would benefit our causes.

WOW!  MAD MAC, Wolverine, and Christophersj just agreed on the same thing!  That should be a Grist-blog post in and of itself!

Now who is it that said the WE campaign sucked?

:-)

I tell you now, it may not look exactly like any of the three of us would want it to be in a perfect world, but I am thoroughly convinced that by somewhere in the 2040's we can get society's energy needs into a relatively sustainable position.  Imperfect, but sustainable.

-Christophersj

I endorse that statement.

He never says it can economically be replaced, tomorrow. Is that what you read?

Solar has everything to do with oil in the sense that they are competing forms of energy. If there's more financial incentive to install solar, of course it would compete better with oil.

I don't understand your confusion.

JfM, I'm  a literal redneck right now...I hope I'm not your target audience. Were you roleplaying?

"Also, he didn't address abortion, which is mah number one issue.  I think the Prezudent should git them Sawdies to give us more oil because once gas gits above $4 a gallon and the economy dumps, abortion rates will go up, which I em against."