iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Tom Friedman: We Need "Overwhelming Force" To Green The Economy

Huffington Post   |  Dave Burdick
First Posted: 11-11-08 12:10 PM   |   Updated: 12-12-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Thomas Friedman

New York Times columnist and Hot, Flat and Crowded author Tom Friedman spoke at the CORE: club last Friday night on the energy crisis facing the United States, as well as some more post-election commentary.

Just before his first public appearance after the election, he was kind enough to make time for a conversation with Huffington Post Green editor Dave Burdick.

::GREENING THE ECONOMY

Dave Burdick: You've talked (and written) about greening the bailout. Why aren't green infrastructure projects widespread in the United States?

Tom Friedman: With oil or coal, no one ever said there had to be a payoff you had to pay it back in five years, but with something green, "What's the payback? What's the payback on that Prius?"

Well. What's the payback on your Hummer?

It can't be measured in very narrow terms. Our society at this time has all these needs. Needs for innovation, needs for jobs, needs for green technology, and needs for American companies to take the lead in innovation. So government investing in that, it seems to me, has the potential for multiple payoffs.

DB: I was reading last week's New Yorker profile on you, where they said that you believed that the United States could go through an energy tech revolution, but that "government must first have the good sense to withdraw its regulatory support for fossil fuels and favor alternatives." What are the subsidies that you and they are talking about?

TF: In the book, I actually list all of them. They range from research subsidies to depreciation of mines and wells, basically. I'm not even sure I want to get into that fight right now.

What I've been arguing for, just don't tell me -- this is the Cheney line -- let's let the market work. Just let the market work. As if the market is neutral. We give nothing to renewables. We give very little to renewables. And we have legacy subsidies and tax incentives for dirty fossil fuels. The whole thing is totally skewed. This market has been gamed from the beginning. If we're going to game the market let's at least game it so that clean fuels are on an equal footing with the dirty fuels.

We should be throwing money at this problem. This could give birth to a whole industry. This is not a thing you nickel and dime.

DB: So it's safe to assume you're not all that worried about a deficit?

TF: I am worried about a deficit, but I'm much more worried about another d-word, and that's depression.

I think we need not only a bailout, I think we need, to put it in Colin Powell terms, overwhelming force. There's a crisis of confidence. Dump money from helicopters on this economy.

DB: You said you didn't want to have that fight right now -- to remove the subsidies for fossil fuels. Can you think of anybody who does want to have it now?

TF: A lot of Democrats from oil states are just not going to be with you. No, I don't think so. The problem is it was just a huge fight to get the [wind and solar credits].

::OBAMA'S OPPORTUNITY

DB: One of the things we're all wondering is, who will fill out Obama's cabinet? But, throwing out all of the actual cabinet positions for now, if you could assemble an all-star environmental advisory board for Barack Obama?

TF: I wouldn't want to get into that. I think there are a lot of good people and I wouldn't want to leave anybody out.

I think the big challenge for Obama on this is finding someone to be a CEO -- a Chief Energy Officer. Because what has bedeviled us all this time on energy policy is our energy policy is all over the board. Mileage standards are done by transportation. Air standards are done by the EPA. Energy research is done by DOE. Transmission lines are done by FERC. Utilities are regulated at a state-by-state level.

You've got power atomized all over the place and I think the big challenge -- and I know this is something that John Podesta has been working on -- he's actually, they're considering having, just as we have a National Economic Council and a National Security Council, having a National Energy Council that would combine both the climate side and the power generation side under one White House coordinator.

Right now our energy policy is the sum of all lobbies.

DB: How long do you think an Obama honeymoon can last? How long before environmentalists really start getting on him about some of the -- I mean, he may not have been the greenest candidate. He and Joe Biden apparently support clean coal, and I don't know where you --

TF: I never met clean coal before, but if you meet clean coal, would you please introduce us? There's no such thing as clean coal. There's some coal that generates power in cleaner ways, but coal basically is a fuel that spins off a lot of CO2 almost any way you do it.

DB: And how long before you think people start really pressuring the new president?

TF: You know, I think we're in a bit of a "Black Swan" moment, to quote the title of a popular book now. We have not been here before. We are in the middle of a once-in-a-century economic crisis, and I think no one is going to begrudge the President for making it his priority to A, to prevent systemic risk and, B, to prevent a long-term recession that will really, not just hammer the middle class and the lower middle class and those not fortunate enough to even be that high, but will actually decimate them, set them back ten years.

So Bush is actually handing off two deficits to Obama. One is economic deficit. The other is a huge climate deficit. We basically did nothing for eight years, and in fairness to Bush we didn't do much in the eight years previous, either, to mitigate climate change. The tragedy is that we've got two deficits to overcome. We need people to care about both of those deficits.

DB: You've said we're in a unique moment, so maybe this is a ridiculous question, but is there any kind of historical model we can look to -- any country that dealt with both the economy and the environment in crisis?

TF: The model I give in the book is little Denmark, because in 1973 Denmark was the other country that got hit with the Arab oil embargo. They got hit so hard they stopped sunday driving. You couldn't drive in Denmark on sunday.

They said, "We're never going to be in that situation again." They instituted a gasoline tax. Gas costs $10 a gallon in Denmark today. And they instituted a CO2 tax. You go to your electric bill in Denmark and you actually see "CO2 tax."

They bit the bullet, they designed a program that would both diminish on a steady basis their energy use per unit of GDP and they stimulated a huge green energy industry. There are only 5 million people in Denmark, yet they produce one out of every three wind turbines and they have the top two cellulosic enzyme companies in the world. That should be us. That should be us.

::GREEN AS A FAD

DB: I was just reading the chapter in your book titled "205 Ways To Save The Earth." Do you ever wish that "green" hadn't become stylish?

TF: Yes and no.

When something becomes a fad, it has an upside and a downside. The downside is it can be easily trivialized. The upside is that it starts to really scale beyond the original core group. And when something starts to scale virally like that, you never know where it's going to go, and you never know what innovation it's going to trigger.

And there's just one word you can never use when you're talking about this project, and it's "easy." There is not room for "easy" here. It's so overwhelmingly difficult that if we pull this off it'll be the greatest industrial project since the Tower of Babel. Easy's not in the vocabulary.

DB: What about just the term "green" -- is it thrown around too much?

TF: My actual goal, as I say in the last chapter of the book, is to make the word disappear. That should be the goal of the green movement. It's not to drop the word green.

You'd come to me and say, "Hey, Tom, we're doing an interview with you for the Huffington Post and we've got a green camera" -- no, no. I want it to just be a camera and it's built to the most efficient power specifications, because no alternative would be possible.

New York Times columnist and Hot, Flat and Crowded author Tom Friedman spoke at the CORE: club last Friday night on the energy crisis facing the United States, as well as some more post-election comme...
New York Times columnist and Hot, Flat and Crowded author Tom Friedman spoke at the CORE: club last Friday night on the energy crisis facing the United States, as well as some more post-election comme...
Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 268
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
12:16 PM on 12/04/2008
In case anti-environmentalists haven't noticed, international geological satellite surveys have established that sea-levels ARE rising at a rate of 1 mm per year, and that rate will accelerate.

Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" does not state that the world is flat, and these comments reflect some readers' missing the extensive research that he has done to write the book... I was not a fan of Friedman until his interviews with Charlie Rose & Jon Stewart, and I certainly do not agree with his position on the war in Iraq, but Friedman has a far-reaching understanding of the development and future of Energy technology and of the need to merge the Electricity Grid with the Web and Information Technology, the requirements and benefits of energy efficiency, and incentives and markets for alternative sources of fuels.
Now is the time for the US to regain some of the lost respect of the world by taking the initiative to develop and utilize renewable energy sources. The appointment of an expert in this field as the new Secretary of Energy is critical to the Earth's future.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunzen
12:19 PM on 11/14/2008
Tom Friedman is a charlatan...A charlatan (also called swindler) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretence or deception. The world is not flat! Its circular and all of your bad logic is going to circle back and bite you in the arse...
04:57 PM on 11/14/2008
The World is Spherical.

You live in Flatland.
11:17 AM on 11/14/2008
Tom Friedman is absolutely right!! America can do this! If Obama puts the same money into this as bailing out financial institutions, we will end up with cheap ZERO emissions energy.

We need massive investment in green technology. Every graduate school in the country should be funded to create a department of Energy and Environment Engineering where all the sciences merge in solving this problem. We need to have a carbon emissions tax which gets progressively larger so industry knows the timer is ticking.

I work in the oil and gas industry. There is no incentive to limit CO2 emissions. There are currently viable methodologies to radically limit how much CO2 is going into the atmosphere, but the industry only sees the cost associated with this technology, not the benefit.

Currently, we can mass produce hydrogen from coal. We can then send the "waste coal emissions" into a biological scrubber and recycle these emissions back into the process. However, this ZERO emissions process is more expensive than just letting the CO2 go into the atmosphere. This equation will need to change before real progress is made.
09:20 AM on 11/14/2008
Looking forward to seeing his vision become reality.
10:03 AM on 11/14/2008
Yeah, sure. His last vision, the Iraq war, worked out so well.

Leave the vision making to people with a better track record for being right, and who have less blood on their hands.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunzen
12:19 PM on 11/14/2008
I agree wholeheartedly!
12:13 AM on 11/14/2008
Is Friedman on disconnect?

Green ... did you mean to say money? The last thing I'm concerned about in a tight economy is what nice smelling, eco friendly products I can use.
11:29 AM on 11/14/2008
Giada,

This is about 21st century science solving 19th century created problems. Solving these problems will be massive, but can be obtained within a decade. I believe the solutions to the problem will create industries that currently do not exist and employ millions of people.
photo
Nec V20
Liberal with five knuckles to back it up
09:15 PM on 11/13/2008
Another "Friedman Unit". He is an ambulance chaser now trying to reform and still getting it wrong.
06:54 PM on 11/13/2008
Barack showed in the campaign that he may be able to sell a green economy.
He sold middle-class tax relief in the campaign despite Republic efforts to get middle class voters to vote against their own economic interests, by bringing out charges such as "socialism," etc. Proponents of coal and petroleum will undoubtedly resist the green economy (unless they get a major piece of it), with similar tactics that were used in discussing tax policy in the campaign.

Obama can make his plan for a green economy understandable to the average citizen, then stay on message, at the same time being ready to poke holes in the distortions and fabrications of the anti-green crowd diatribes.
photo
brooklyncitizen
Soror quaerens lucem
06:26 PM on 11/13/2008
Hot Flat and Crowded...is he still going on about Iraq? or is this another battle cry for yet another illegal invasion?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lex10
King O' The Web!
03:17 PM on 11/13/2008
"Hot, Flat & Crowded?" *Insert Paris Hilton punchline here.*
09:29 AM on 11/13/2008
Tom Friedman, still struggling to stay relevant with his corporate blather. Guys like him must live! I mean, he couldn't actually go out and get a real job in the economy he talks about so much now could he?
05:49 PM on 11/13/2008
Perhaps, put another way, he wouldn't want to take a job in the economy of which he's so critical. As for the "corporate blather", I guess it's OK for established corporations to blather - otherwise, your term would have no meaning. Therefore, speak to business in the vocabulary of business, and perhaps a result ensues.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brantl
08:15 AM on 11/13/2008
I wish we had more money for this, where did it all go......? Oh, that's right! It went down the rathole for this stupid war in Iraq that Friedman supports. Or did every body miss that. While right about green initiatives Mr. Friedman has been woefully, egregiously wrong about the "war on terror".
photo
brooklyncitizen
Soror quaerens lucem
06:27 PM on 11/13/2008
No kidding...this is his way of "re-branding" himself: jumping on the "green" bandwagon....after he led the blood for oil charge.
02:30 AM on 11/13/2008
Prolonged deficit or even more prolonged depression. ..hmm.. I vote for temporary discomfort in order to achieve long-term stability. Most Americans would probably agree. Talk of a confidence deficit is premature. The hope Obama instills in so many people makes this exactly the right moment to start greening the economy in a big way. As for oil companies, let's wait and see. If the auto industry is pushed to up fuel standards, the oil companies will have to evolve in order to survive. No need to focus on legacy subsidies just yet.
09:38 PM on 11/12/2008
Tom.
The change we need will knot be forthcoming with oil prices coming waaaaaay down and greed being the operative motivating factor behind all we were programmed to accept as the "American Way". Our downfall will be the developing world (India/China) buying into this mindless consumerism we export like some kind of utopian fantasy world where everyone can (and will) participate in the destruction of the Earth (to emulate US) with cheap cars, burgers, poland spring water, etc...
A stiff energy tax would go a long way towards conservation but I would rather see the tax system geared more towards conservation and renewables. We are in a crisis of confidence that can only be corrected by a serious, no-nonsense approach that brings together the "best and brightest" minds to bear on the five major problems confronting this planet.
1. Financial stability of intl markets in crucial (not bailing out deficient operating models)
2. Clean Energy (not more drilling, wind , solar, geothermal, nuclear)
3. Population control (abortion counseling and condoms vs abstinence)
4. AIDS, Malaria, etc...
5. Global Warming and species decimation
Maybe Obama can harness his internet network into an informal suggestion box where thousands of concerned citiizens (of the world) might have a voice as to how these goals might be achieved. At the very least Google should setup a clearinghouse for the best ideas and deliver a daily compendium of useful (unofficial) proposals for the administrations consideration. So much to do, so many options....
10:06 PM on 11/12/2008
That's why we need a deliberate program to convert to wind and solar even if it's more expensive for awhile. A Carbon tax will probably work pretty well. count the damage.
10:51 PM on 11/12/2008
A carbon tax would not be effective unless we have India and China onboard. We already have the technology to reduce VOC's. It costs too much to be economically feasible. A radically new approach is required to address the systemic nature of this problem. We, as a people, must be willing to acknowledge the problem and then focus our attention on solving it. Only then will we be able to lead the world into a new era of responsible stewardship of this precious, fragile planet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
artistcain
07:23 PM on 11/12/2008
We have every right to be angry about the bail outs; it always seems we are bailing out the wrong people (financials, car companies, insurance companies, etc.etc.) all of whom get us into recessions or depressions. Giving the taxpayer $300.00 in a rebate was peanuts and did nothing to help the consumers. It was peanuts compared to the steak we are giving to the banks and other institutions .Better that we give the American people 1 hundred thousand dollars each over a 5 year period, (total over the 5 years would equal two hundred, Billon) that way housing will recover and spending will improve dramatically. I know the conservatives will hate this idea but there was a saying in a previous election (it’s the economy stupid) I would say now it's the consumer stupid. Give us the money we will do a much better job at getting it into the economy. Call your Senator and congress person and demand this plan
Peace
artistcain
La Quinta, CA.
07:09 PM on 11/12/2008
You mention that Bush has left Obama 2 crises - but I believe he's actually left him three. We have an overwhelming crisis of confidence which is as real as the economic crisis and the energy crisis. We have a confidence deficit - and innovation and new solutions and fundamentally different approaches will require that we, as a nation, have the confidence to let go of old paradigms (even while those who benefit kick and scream) and reach for new ones.

Job one for the new President is to restore confidence - this is a moment of unprecedented change - the pitchline is 1929 meets the industrial revolution meets environmental moment of truth.

More than money - this will take strength and conviction and belief in ourselves. And even still, it will take everything we've got.
06:02 PM on 11/13/2008
I agree 100%. Mass production as we've known it has always been predicated on growth. The offerings of the mass producers have changed over time, but the trick has always been to keep the unit cost within the reach of the mass consumers. When that starts to break down (as in stockpiles of unsold automobiles), it could be a short-term blip or it could be a warning sign that the times are changing. Ignore the trend and try to produce your way out of it, and it just gets worse. Think out of the box and hopefully things will improve.