ACORE 2008: Thomas Friedman destroys his own argument, calls out GM's greenwashing
Following James Woolsey at today's American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) Phase II Renewable Energy National Policy Forum, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman gave the keynote address. Now, Friedman has some good ideas sometimes (and drops the ball at others), but his presentation today just made it clear that he's not always the smartest guy in the room.
Friedman started by giving us a preview of an upcoming Sunday column (so keep it under your hat) where he's been thinking about Tom Brokaw's book "The Greatest Generation" and how his generation will be seen by those that follow. Will they become bubble generation? Will a kid today write a book about "how my parents saved themselves from their mistakes by charging it to my VISA card"? The world's troubles have been on his mind of late - he did just write Hot, Flat and Crowded after all - and his talk was a retelling of that book's main points.
Friedman is really, really good at rhetoric and public speaking. He knows when to slam the book shut for dramatic effect, when to throw in an "Oh, shit!" to get your attention, when to pause and look at the crowd (like Woolsey's speech, ACORE will be streaming Friedman's talk here and/or here within 48 hours). But, for me, his talk fell apart halfway through. I'll explain why after the jump.
Friedman's first part made a lot of sense to me, and the main gist was that, "there are too many Americans in the world today." He was being slightly facetious, but the rise of the middle class around the world is exactly what's putting such a strain on the environment. "If we, the original Americans, don't redefine what it means to be Americans for all these new Americans," he said, we're going to eat up and heat up the planet much faster than even Al Gore is worried about. There will be another billion people on the planet by 2020, for example, and a lot of them are going to want light bulbs and all that jazz. Friedman then went through his book's main ideas, which are available elsewhere; basically describing the world's problems in simple, attention-getting terms.
Friedman then went on to his rousing finale, and this is where the whole speech just falls apart like a house of cards built on a train going along a bumpy track. His warning was that, if the US does not own the coming ET (energy technology) industry, then the chance that our children will live with the same standards as we have "is zero." He said this like it would be a bad thing - but his whole premise in the first part of his speech was that people living like Americans is what's hurting the world. Huh?
Capitalism proponent that he is, Friedman said we cannot regulate our way to a solution, we can only innovate our way our of this mess. Friedman's not in favor of a Manhattan Project-type solution, but instead in letting the market provide the solution. The role of government should be to make "fossil fuels from hell" more expensive than the renewable energies.
The current green revolution is not a real revolution because in a true revolution, people get hurts. While BP is "beyond petroleum," when GM puts a yellow cap on the flex-fuel Hummer, it's not a revolution. It's a party. No, to really have a revolution, people need to get hurt (he claimed to speaking metaphorically) because that's when change comes. It's only when the word "green" disappears that we'll know the green revolution has been won. When there are no "green cars" or "green buildings," just cars and buildings that were built to the most efficient standards, that's when the world will have truly turned a corner. See, some good ideas and some half-baked ones.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
John Lee 10:02PM (12/04/2008)
If you equate "Same Standards" with "Same Footprint", you are right - he did contradict himself.
The entire purpose of Green ET, is that we will be able to maintain living standards - and hopefully improve them - without harming the environment. Bill McDonough advocates better living standards while improving the environment.
Reducing our living standards - if this means returning to less advanced technologies - may in fact be worse for the environment.
Reply
slk23 2:02AM (12/05/2008)
Absolutely right, IMHO. Friedman is not saying our children should live their lives just like we do, but that we need to take the lead in energy technology so they can enjoy the same quality of life while using less resources.
Chris M 10:03PM (12/04/2008)
Perhaps the problem is not "too many americans" but simply too many people, period. I'm certainly not going to advocate mass slaughter, but encouraging use of birth control and having fewer or no children seems a very sensible course.
Reply
James 10:29PM (12/04/2008)
Perhaps Mr. Friedman didn't make much sense to you, but you've compounded the obfuscation by writing an utterly unreadable post. I love blogs for their timeliness, but I certainly miss editors.
Reply
rob 10:50PM (12/04/2008)
People living like Americans in terms of resource and energy usage IS a problem. People living like Americans in terms of access to hot showers, cold beer, comfortable homes and happy lives is not going to a problem, provided those are acquired in an efficient manner (IOW, not the way we go about getting those now).
For the last 200 years labor has been scarce and resources cheap and plenty, so we've learned how to get 1,000x more benefit from each unit of labor. Now labor is cheap and plentiful but energy and materials are expensive and scarce, and so we need to learn how to get 1,000x more benefit from each unit of those resources.
The master course on this is "Natural Capitalism" from the Rocky Mountain Institute. Friedman has been heavily influenced by RMI's work. (Not a bad thing, but many consider RMI to be "out there" despite their successes. In reality they're just optimistic in some of their timeframes...)
Reply
Diffrunt 10:46AM (12/05/2008)
But for war, crime, disease & natural disasters, we would already be overpopulated.
Reply
TheAutoProphet 1:44PM (12/05/2008)
Uh, no. The developed world has a declining birth rate, because when people get rich they have fewer children.
bh 10:59AM (12/05/2008)
People across the globe living an energy hogging lifestyle as Americans do now is a problem. People of the world living sustainable lifestyles like Americans should be in the future will not be a problem. Friedman is correct that Americans need to be leading the effort to achieve that sustainable lifestyle.
Reply
Diffrunt 2:20PM (12/05/2008)
I was referring to the whole world, not just "our" developed part
Reply
Peter Buchy 3:35PM (12/05/2008)
I think if we push for the same quality of life standards with far fewer resources used, we can do really well.
A look at population history shows that upon reaching certain quality of life standards, population growth slows and even reverses.
If the US takes the lead on this, not only can we create a new economic boom, I think we can also stem the use of resources world-wide, perhaps even reduce them below usage in 1900.
Reply
Kevin Jones 1:53PM (12/13/2008)
I think you have completely missed his point. By 'our children living with the same standards we have' he meant, our children being able to breathe clean air, and live without fear of constant droughts, floods and hurricanes.
This headline seems to rubbish a speech based on 1 misunderstanding, and then you quote several good points of his.
Reply
Terry Dadd 12:40AM (1/11/2009)
It sounds like Sebastian saw a speech but hasn't read the book. I think what Friedman is calling for is a "new" American, sure we will still have all of the latest gadgets, but this time they will be more efficient and more "green". Can anyone argue that "our children" are not having a tougher time in the future, how may households in America still have the 30 year old "kids" living with their parents. (not that a green revolution is going to stop that. but maybe good green manufacturing jobs will let those people earn a living).
The point is simple, the "new" Americans must set an example because we have no business lecturing the world from the front seat of our Hummers.
Sorry Sebastian, while Thomas Friedman may not be the smartest person in the room, he is quite ahead in line than you.
Reply