Energy Independent Nation? Only if all the oil is depleted!

Men's ultimate freedom would be to have wings and since the automobile provided part of such freedom, we will need an energy source which provides this mobility and preferable would not cause any air pollution.

With our present technology, hydrogen would fill such requirements, except that, since it is an explosive gas, its handling and transport is troublesome and since only limited fuel can be carried by cars, trip lengths will be limited. This then would require a large infrastructure with many fuel stations. Hydrogen can be directly used in car engines and in stead of burning air will yield water or can be used in fuel cells and generate electricity to drive a car.

It is true that it requires energy to generate hydrogen, but there are many `free' green (wind , wave, sun and different temperatures) sources already available and others will be developed, provided the country is committed to replace fossil fuels with hydrogen, which indeed will require a massive federal program.

And that, I am afraid, is not going to happen as we have a government controlled by oil men.  It would mean giving up their power and their huge profits they now and in the future will have.  

Since oil contracts still are based on US dollars, foreign producers lost as the result of the devaluating dollar, so they raised their prices. The US only imports 65% of the oil, so those who produced 35% locally benefited from these price increases, while they could blame the foreigners.

We probably only will see Washington move towards an independent energy policy, when the American oil establishment has milked our economy dry and have moved to The Bahamas.

The false notion that the car is personal freedom is an entirely advertisement created one and one of the main reasons that nothing can be done.  Taking cars away is perceived as taking freedom.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Personal freedom really exists in your ideas and personality not in a hunk of steel.

Hydrogen is not the answer. Why use electricty to make hydrogen to fill a car. Why not just fill the lithium battery of an advanced AC electric car and bypass the inefficiencies of converting and storing hydrogen.

The article mentions some good things however Americans and Australians etc will have to accept some lifestyle changes to save the Earth.  We will have to power down so that we can power our society with renewable energy.  Even the author has a 'large house'.  It may be heated by geothermal however does this mean that every Chinese and Indian person can also have a large house too or is this only reserved for the rich and priveledged.

Nuclear power is not GREEN.  It is a dirty polluting power source that can continue to pollute for thousands of years.  Both releasing CO2 and Nuclear power are bad and both must be stopped.

For the sake of the Earth and future generation we need to power down and live within our means on perpetual (while the sun shines) renewable energy.  Only this course of action will enable the human race to keep existing.

To continue on our present path will result in unprecedented war and destruction.  You thought the war on Iraq was bad.  Just wait until China, India and the USA are slugging it out for the last few drops of oil.  How many countries will they invade?  What weapons will they use - all are nuclear armed.  Who will win?????

This guy's clearly not an environmentalist.  First, he would drill in ANWR.  Then, he supports more nukes.  (And shame on Grist for not confronting him on mining uranium and burying nuclear waste in Nevada!)  Finally, it's nothing short of delusional to think that without some major convincing, Americans are goint to give up their gluttonous lifestyles and opt for vehicles that get better mpg over those that satisfy their penis envy.

The basic plans of this proposal have a lot in common with the plans of the Apollo Alliance.  The differences seem to be in how they are pitched.  This one is pitched as a way to influence the rest of the world, while the Apollo Alliance pitch is to create many "clean" jobs.

As with many things, my reaction is based on the stated goals almost as much as the likely effects.  This one doesn't taste so good to me.  This one also places a lot of emphasis on having a few politicians whose very lives and fortunes are tangled with oil, suddenly proclaim that we should go against existing plans just so the future MIGHT think better of them.

I'll keep checking in on the Apollo Alliance.

One important driver of change that Mr Friedman left out is image.  Americans need to change what makes us cool...what makes us individuals...what makes us American.  And the cost of this is free.  Cars are not what we need to be free, or need to be able to get outdoors, like so many SUV commercials.  A leather coat doesn't make you cool - a sustainable material speaks far more volumes.  Once we are able to steer the American dream into a green-conscious reality, then (and only then) will we be abel to shape and form next steps which may include higher gas taxes, etc.

Change who we are before what we pay and who we bully...

Scott

The man has some great points. The gas tax is a particularly good one; this is how Japan made their initial shifts from oil dependency in the '70s: collect gas taxes and pay for social improvements. We can do the same and better, because we ARE the tail that wags the resource dog on this little planet.

That Friedman isn't a card-carrying Green or Earth Firster is absolutely irrelevant to the utility and wisdom of his method and goal: change how Americans live in the world.

Friedman gets interviewed by Grist... why am I not surprised. .. The same right wing ideologue who a few short years ago ridiculed environmentalists as being wrapped up in a flat-earth mindset,  suddenly "gets religion" (after ridiculing European progressives and environmentalists in a recent program aired on PBS a month back) and is courting the "green vote" to once again cozy up cheek and jowl with the Bushistas once again.
Friedman is a racist, a big supporter of globalization, in a letter dated March 31, 1999, former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay recommended a Friedman article on globalization to his friend George Bush as "an excellent account of most of the basic issues."  he doesn't blush about profitting from poverty (then again, I'm sure the trustifarians who make up a portion of Grist's readership don't either.. ) Do you people ever research before making a value judgement?
The fact that some among you are buying it isn't so much a surprise... 2000 documented that no matter which extreme.. right or leftist, when it comes right down to it, there really isn't that much difference. Both dogmatic extremes share an overwhelmingly inflated sense of entitlement, a lack of commitment to the ethics they tend to wave around like banners, more than a tendency to border on the fascistic, a firm belief that the poorest among us should be sacrificed for political and economic profit.
So fall for Friedman's snare.. be grist for Bush's mill. Sell out the environment and progressiveism because you're so easily deluded and stroked.

try decaf.

Dave, try remembering what it felt like to have credibility...