Wednesday, March 19, 2014

While there is still (limited) time: turning the pig's ear (climate chaos) into a silk purse … by gimleteye

Give Tom Friedman, New York Times OPED columnist, credit for trying to find the positive in mountains of bad news. Moreover Friedman -- who knows that his columns must also appeal to skeptics and haters -- does his level best to spin the bad news so that it is palatable even when the topic is climate chaos.

Friedman does it again in today's editorial ("From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise"); laying out a path how fixing America's energy policy can also disable Vladimir Putin, the Russia leader who seems determined to force the issues and return to a Soviet, totalitarian state.

One way or another, Friedman believes that climate chaos is at the root of the world's turmoil and polarization. Going backwards is the meme of the day. While Putin returns to the Soviet era, Fox News deniers, the US Chamber of Commerce and Marco Rubio's of America are like front line soldiers laying down machine gun fire so the real work can proceed behind: big GOP campaign funders like the Koch Brothers "consolidating" as much wealth as possible in the human equivalent of squirrels hoarding acorns before the coming of winter.

Retreat from climate chaos isn't going to work very well.

There will be an "aha" moment, sooner than most think, when corporate interests driving these consolidations realize every single person on earth is at risk from the impacts of climate chaos. In other words, you might be safe in your armed camps but the zombies will find a way through every fence. Or you will just starve.

It will take some sober thinking to sort things out. The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences just came out with a statement on the reality of climate change threats, only a few days after a new report that climate chaos threatens civilization.

The answers, according to Friedman, are to bring big business along in a grand climate change compact including the approval of the Keystone pipeline project. The great trade-off is for Congressional passage of a revenue neutral carbon tax; itself an idea advanced by (retired) Republican leaders, while incentivizing sustainable energy sources.

What the GOP needs to understand -- if that is at all possible with the fear mongering that savaged the landscape for thinking Republicans -- there is a limited time for grand bargains. The future does not belong with the Mitch McConnell's of the GOP.

It could be the fire next time, but a different fire from the one James Baldwin wrote fifty years ago.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gimleteye, I give it to you, ever so hopeful that reason might prevail.

Michael Goldstein said...

Thomas Friedman, who has written extensively on the far-reaching and complicated implications of climate chaos for years, has long emphasized both the close relationship between renewable energy and our national economic interest and the short, straight line between dependence on conventional fuels and our risk of exposure to geopolitical insecurity. A critical sampling of just some of his many, many pieces where he explores and develops these themes:

From Mr. Friedman's, June 23, 2009, column, entitled, "The Green Revolution":

" I believe in 'The First Law of Petro-Politics,' which stipulates that the price of oil and the pace of freedom in petrolist states — states totally dependent on oil exports to run their economies — operate in an inverse correlation. As the price of oil goes down, the pace of freedom goes up because leaders have to educate and unleash their people to innovate and trade. As the price of oil goes up, the pace of freedom goes down because leaders just have to stick a pipe in the ground to stay in power. Exhibit A: the Soviet Union. High oil prices in the 1970s suckered the Kremlin into propping up inefficient industries, overextending subsidies, postponing real economic reforms and invading Afghanistan. When oil prices collapsed to $15 a barrel in the late 1980s, the overextended, petrified Soviet Empire went bust. In a 2006 speech entitled 'The Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia,' Yegor Gaidar, a deputy prime minister of Russia in the early 1990s, noted that 'the timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to Sept. 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically.' The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. 'During the next six months,' added Gaidar, 'oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms. As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.' If we could bring down the price of oil, the Islamic Republic — which has been buying off its people with subsidies and jobs for years — would face the same pressures. The ayatollahs would either have to start taking subsidies away from Iranians, which would only make the turbaned shahs more unpopular, or empower Iran’s human talent — men and women — and give them free access to the learning, science, trade and collaboration with the rest of the world that would enable this once great Persian civilization to thrive without oil."

Michael Goldstein said...

Thomas Friedman, who has written extensively on the far-reaching and complicated implications of climate chaos for years, has long emphasized both the close relationship between renewable energy and our national economic interest and the short, straight line between dependence on conventional fuels and our risk of exposure to geopolitical insecurity. A critical sampling of just some of his many, many pieces where he explores and develops these themes:


From Mr. Friedman's, March 27, 2005, column, entitled, "Geo-Greening by Example ":

"By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro's Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don't kid yourself: China's foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil. Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing. Wired magazine did an excellent piece in its April issue about hybrid cars, which get 40 to 50 miles to the gallon with very low emissions. One paragraph jumped out at me: 'Right now, there are about 800 million cars in active use. By 2050, as cars become ubiquitous in China and India, it'll be 3.25 billion. That increase represents ... an almost unimaginable threat to our environment. Quadruple the cars means quadruple the carbon dioxide emissions - unless cleaner, less gas-hungry vehicles become the norm.'"

Michael Goldstein said...

Thomas Friedman, who has written extensively on the far-reaching and complicated implications of climate chaos for years, has long emphasized both the close relationship between renewable energy and our national economic interest and the short, straight line between dependence on conventional fuels and our risk of exposure to geopolitical insecurity. A critical sampling of just some of his many, many pieces where he explores and develops these themes:

From Mr. Friedman's, July 10, 2008, column, "Green the Bailout":

We don’t have a 'gasoline price problem.' We have an addiction problem. We are addicted to dirty fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving a whole set of toxic trends that are harming our nation and world in many different ways. It is intensifying global warming, creating runaway global demand for oil and gas, weakening our currency by shifting huge amounts of dollars abroad to pay for oil imports, widening 'energy poverty' across Africa, destroying plants and animals at record rates and fostering ever-stronger petro-dictatorships in Iran, Russia and Venezuela. When a person is addicted to crack cocaine, his problem is not that the price of crack is going up. His problem is what that crack addiction is doing to his whole body. The cure is not cheaper crack, which would only perpetuate the addiction and all the problems it is creating. The cure is to break the addiction. Ditto for us. Our cure is not cheaper gasoline, but a clean energy system. And the key to building that is to keep the price of gasoline and coal — our crack — higher, not lower, so consumers are moved to break their addiction to these dirty fuels and inventors are moved to create clean alternatives."

From Mr. Friedman's, September 26, 2009, column, "The New Sputnik":

"Well, folks. Sputnik just went up again: China’s going clean-tech. The view of China in the U.S. Congress — that China is going to try to leapfrog us by out-polluting us — is out of date. It’s going to try to out-green us. Right now, China is focused on low-cost manufacturing of solar, wind and batteries and building the world’s biggest market for these products. It still badly lags U.S. innovation. But research will follow the market. America’s premier solar equipment maker, Applied Materials, is about to open the world’s largest privately funded solar research facility — in Xian, China. Unfortunately, we’re still not racing. It’s like Sputnik went up and we think it’s just a shooting star. Instead of a strategic response, too many of our politicians are still trapped in their own dumb-as-we-wanna-be bubble, where we’re always No. 1, and where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, having sold its soul to the old coal and oil industries, uses its influence to prevent Congress from passing legislation to really spur renewables. China’s leaders, mostly engineers, wasted little time debating global warming. They know the Tibetan glaciers that feed their major rivers are melting. But they also know that even if climate change were a hoax, the demand for clean, renewable power is going to soar as we add an estimated 2.5 billion people to the planet by 2050, many of whom will want to live high-energy lifestyles. In that world, E.T. — or energy technology — will be as big as I.T., and China intends to be a big E.T. player. 'For the last three years, the U.S. has led the world in new wind generation,' said the ecologist Lester Brown, author of 'Plan B 4.0.' 'By the end of this year, China will bypass us on new wind generation so fast we won’t even see it go by.'"

Michael Goldstein said...

Thomas Friedman, who has written extensively on the far-reaching and complicated implications of climate chaos for years, has long emphasized both the close relationship between renewable energy and our national economic interest and the short, straight line between dependence on conventional fuels and our risk of exposure to geopolitical insecurity. A critical sampling of just some of his many, many pieces where he explores and develops these themes:

From Mr. Friedman's, December 19, 2009, column, entitled, "Off to the Races":

"Still, I am an Earth Race guy. I believe that averting catastrophic climate change is a huge scale issue. The only engine big enough to impact Mother Nature is Father Greed: the Market. Only a market, shaped by regulations and incentives to stimulate massive innovation in clean, emission-free power sources can make a dent in global warming. And no market can do that better than America’s. Therefore, the goal of Earth Racers is to focus on getting the U.S. Senate to pass an energy bill, with a long-term price on carbon that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech. If we lead by example, more people will follow us by emulation than by compulsion of some U.N. treaty. Maybe the best thing President Obama could have done here in Copenhagen was to make clear that America intends to win that race. All he needed to do in his speech was to look China’s prime minister in the eye and say: 'I am going to get our Senate to pass an energy bill with a price on carbon so we can clean your clock in clean-tech. This is my moon shot. Game on.' Because once we get America racing China, China racing Europe, Europe racing Japan, Japan racing Brazil, we can quickly move down the innovation-manufacturing curve and shrink the cost of electric cars, batteries, solar and wind so these are no longer luxury products for the wealthy nations but commodity items the third world can use and even produce. If you start the conversation with 'climate' you might get half of America to sign up for action. If you start the conversation with giving birth to a 'whole new industry' - one that will make us more energy independent, prosperous, secure, innovative, respected and able to out-green China in the next great global industry - you get the country. For good reason: Even if the world never warms another degree, population is projected to rise from 6.7 billion to 9 billion between now and 2050, and more and more of those people will want to live like Americans. In this world, demand for clean power and energy efficient cars and buildings will go through the roof. An Earth Race led by America - built on markets, economic competition, national self-interest and strategic advantage - is a much more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of voluntary, nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference. Let the Earth Race begin."

Michael Goldstein said...

Thomas Friedman, who has written extensively on the far-reaching and complicated implications of climate chaos for years, has long emphasized both the close relationship between renewable energy and our national economic interest and the short, straight line between dependence on conventional fuels and our risk of exposure to geopolitical insecurity. A critical sampling of just some of his many, many pieces where he explores and develops these themes:

From Mr. Friedman's, December 19, 2009, column, entitled, "Off to the Races":

"Still, I am an Earth Race guy. I believe that averting catastrophic climate change is a huge scale issue. The only engine big enough to impact Mother Nature is Father Greed: the Market. Only a market, shaped by regulations and incentives to stimulate massive innovation in clean, emission-free power sources can make a dent in global warming. And no market can do that better than America’s. Therefore, the goal of Earth Racers is to focus on getting the U.S. Senate to pass an energy bill, with a long-term price on carbon that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech. If we lead by example, more people will follow us by emulation than by compulsion of some U.N. treaty. Maybe the best thing President Obama could have done here in Copenhagen was to make clear that America intends to win that race. All he needed to do in his speech was to look China’s prime minister in the eye and say: 'I am going to get our Senate to pass an energy bill with a price on carbon so we can clean your clock in clean-tech. This is my moon shot. Game on.' Because once we get America racing China, China racing Europe, Europe racing Japan, Japan racing Brazil, we can quickly move down the innovation-manufacturing curve and shrink the cost of electric cars, batteries, solar and wind so these are no longer luxury products for the wealthy nations but commodity items the third world can use and even produce. If you start the conversation with 'climate' you might get half of America to sign up for action. If you start the conversation with giving birth to a 'whole new industry' - one that will make us more energy independent, prosperous, secure, innovative, respected and able to out-green China in the next great global industry - you get the country. For good reason: Even if the world never warms another degree, population is projected to rise from 6.7 billion to 9 billion between now and 2050, and more and more of those people will want to live like Americans. In this world, demand for clean power and energy efficient cars and buildings will go through the roof. An Earth Race led by America - built on markets, economic competition, national self-interest and strategic advantage - is a much more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of voluntary, nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference. Let the Earth Race begin."

Michael Goldstein said...

Apologies for repeating the last column. A penultimate selection, from Mr. Friedman's, November 18, 2009, column, entitled, "What They Really Believe":

"I am a clean-energy hawk. Green for me is not just about recycling garbage but about renewing America. That is why I have been saying 'green is the new red, white and blue.' My argument is simple: I think climate change is real. You don’t? That’s your business. But there are two other huge trends barreling down on us with energy implications that you simply can’t deny. And the way to renew America is for us to take the lead and invent the technologies to address these problems. The first is that the world is getting crowded. According to the 2006 U.N. population report, 'The world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion ... passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050. This increase is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950, and it will be absorbed mostly by the less developed regions, whose population is projected to rise from 5.4 billion in 2007 to 7.9 billion in 2050.' The energy, climate, water and pollution implications of adding another 2.5 billion mouths to feed, clothe, house and transport will be staggering. And this is coming, unless, as the deniers apparently believe, a global pandemic or a mass outbreak of abstinence will freeze world population — forever. Now, add one more thing. The world keeps getting flatter — more and more people can now see how we live, aspire to our lifestyle and even take our jobs so they can live how we live. So not only are we adding 2.5 billion people by 2050, but many more will live like 'Americans' — with American-size homes, American-size cars, eating American-size Big Macs. 'What happens when developing nations with soaring vehicle populations get tens of millions of petroleum-powered cars at the same time as the global economy recovers and there’s no large global oil supply overhang?' asks Felix Kramer, the electric car expert who advocates electrifying the U.S. auto fleet and increasingly powering it with renewable energy sources. What happens, of course, is that the price of oil goes through the roof — unless we develop alternatives. The petro-dictators in Iran, Venezuela and Russia hope we don’t. They would only get richer. So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency. Green hawks believe otherwise. We believe that in a world getting warmer and more crowded with more 'Americans,' the next great global industry is going to be E.T., or energy technology based on clean power and energy efficiency. It has to be. And we believe that the country that invents and deploys the most E.T. will enjoy the most economic security, energy security, national security, innovative companies and global respect.” . . . . So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don’t believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you’re hurting America’s future to boot."

Michael Goldstein said...

And one final piece by Mr. Friedman - a truly epic and gimlet-eyed meditation on the nexus between stubborn reliance on carbon fuels, accelerating climate chaos, and increasing geopolitical instability - that was published in the NYT Sunday Times Magazine on April 15, 2007, entitled "The Power of Green":

"Sometime after 9/11 — an unprovoked mass murder perpetrated by 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis — green went geostrategic, as Americans started to realize we were financing both sides in the war on terrorism. We were financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars; and we were financing a transformation of Islam, in favor of its most intolerant strand, with our gasoline purchases. How stupid is that? . . . . In the world of ideas, to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. One thing that always struck me about the term 'green' was the degree to which, for so many years, it was defined by its opponents — by the people who wanted to disparage it. And they defined it as 'liberal,' 'tree-hugging,' . . . . Well, I want to rename 'green.' I want to rename it geostrategic, geoeconomic, capitalistic and patriotic. I want to do that because I think that living, working, designing, manufacturing and projecting America in a green way can be the basis of a new unifying political movement for the 21st century. A redefined, broader and more muscular green ideology is not meant to trump the traditional Republican and Democratic agendas but rather to bridge them when it comes to addressing the three major issues facing every American today: jobs, temperature and terrorism. How do our kids compete in a flatter world? How do they thrive in a warmer world? How do they survive in a more dangerous world? Those are, in a nutshell, the big questions facing America at the dawn of the 21st century. But these problems are so large in scale that they can only be effectively addressed by an America with 50 green states — not an America divided between red and blue states. Because a new green ideology, properly defined, has the power to mobilize liberals and conservatives, evangelicals and atheists, big business and environmentalists around an agenda that can both pull us together and propel us forward. That’s why I say: We don’t just need the first black president. We need the first green president. We don’t just need the first woman president. We need the first environmental president. We don’t just need a president who has been toughened by years as a prisoner of war but a president who is tough enough to level with the American people about the profound economic, geopolitical and climate threats posed by our addiction to oil — and to offer a real plan to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels."

Malagodi said...

It's too bad you even dignified Friedman's column with a response.

What, he doesn't get enough exposure of his predictable blather at the NYT?

Then we get this troll posting, I mean pasting, 8 comments of more Friedman.

Yuk.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1286001/-Sorry-Tom-Friedman-Protecting-the-Planet-is-Non-Negotiable#