Hey, all:

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!

Well good, Joseph and David, I am glad you were impressed by yesterday's column.  Be aware, though, that historically, the other David, viz. Roberts, has seemed unwilling to tolerate the writer whom he has christened "The Mustache."

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!

Thanks, KBMakansi, that was well analysed.  Your criticisms of Friedman's suggestions make sense.  It just goes to show that on one level, he is right to urge greenification and sustainability; on another, he is out of his depth.

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!

It's difficult to like Friedman, even when he writes something mostly sensible, because he continually bangs the drum for war, war, and more war.

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.