If you follow the debate around the energy/climate bills working through Congress you will notice that the drill-baby-drill opponents of this legislation are now making two claims. One is that the globe has been cooling lately, not warming, and the other is that America simply can’t afford any kind of cap-and-trade/carbon tax.
But here is what they also surely believe, but are not saying….
That is the opening of “What They Really Believe,” Tom Friedman’s NYT op-ed today. Here are some more excerpts:
They believe it is much better for America that the world be dependent on oil for energy — a commodity largely controlled by countries that hate us and can only go up in price as demand increases — rather than on clean power technologies that are controlled by us and only go down in price as demand increases. And, finally, they believe that people in the developing world are very happy being poor — just give them a little running water and electricity and they’ll be fine. They’ll never want to live like us.
Yes, the opponents of any tax on carbon to stimulate alternatives to oil must believe all these things because that is the only way their arguments make any sense. Let me explain why by first explaining how I look at this issue.
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.”
Friedman thinks climate change is real, of course but he also offers two trends “you simply can’t deny” that demand action on clean energy:
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.
To learn more about Kramer, go to his website Calcars.org. See also his guest blog posts here: “Everything you could want to know about the plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle announcements at the 2009 Detroit auto show” and “Climate and hydrogen car advocate gets almost everything wrong about plug-in cars.”
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. And we believe that country must be America. If not, our children will never enjoy the standard of living we did….
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.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Joe,
A point of order – This is same Tom friedman who has been advocating continuing and ramping up both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan – even though they will bankrupt the U.S. and prevent us from developing economic (and economical) solutions to the climate crisis now.
Some one needs to call him out on that dichotomy.
“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.”
I wonder if he’s referring specifically to HIS 11,000 square foot American-size home:
http://www.sustainlane.com/ reviews/ what-is-thomas-friedmans-ecological-footprint/ R1RJXD7QHRISP8R1CBYUC8HOISP8
Apparently, it’s okay for him, but not for everyone else.
Oh, David. If you don’t like the message, call out the messenger for being a hypocrite?
Whatever you might think about Frieman’s life style, his warning is one the comes from many others. That is why the dillydallying US Senate is almost criminally culpable in the attempted homicide of millions who do not live in these United States and a few who do. Tie this to the major miscalculation of the Obama administration, to address health care first, and you end up confirming our opponents best argument, the US does not have the money to go do this now.
Wes Rolley
(Former) CoChair, EcoAction Committee, Green Party US.
Last time I will use this signature.)
Simple. Do the math. Do the science.
The business-as-usual A1Fl scenario clearly spells out 6 degrees of temperature rise by 2100 – flat out doom for humans.
http://www.grida.no/ climate/ ipcc_tar/ slides/ large/ 05.24.jpg
This is pure “Living for the Moment while Devaluing the Future”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2592
Turning down the alarm bell is pretty stupid.
Thanks, Joe, for picking up on this great column. Here’s the second part of what I said in exchanges with Tom Friedman, talking about China and India? This is the scenario I’ve NEVER seen analysts or journalists talk about:
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? These countries and their customers will have to scramble to fuel their cars. (China is already working to lock in contracts around the world.)
What if they can’t get enough? India and China will then look to their enormous coal reserves. As Germany and South Africa did when they had no supply, they will go the route of liquefying coal into gasoline. The CO2 impacts will be 2-3x higher than using that coal directly to power EVs. (Let’s not even talk about water….)
That’s why, YES, we’ll better off if starting right now, India and China build new cars that run on electricity. Even if (short-term), that electricity comes form coal, long-term they too will have every reason to get their grids off coal. And then everyone will be glad their vehicles can plug in.
– Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative (CalCars.org)
I typed in a whole great comment and submitted it, but it seems to have disappeared. My point was that they believe the whole thing is just politics, so it’s ok to lie, crazy to think we can affect the climate, enviro = socialist, etc.
George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, CEI, etc. are political orgs, dedicated to small government. Why do we let them get away with pretending to be scientific? They’ve done their job of creating doubt (just create 50 websites with 50 different lies about why AGW isn’t real, throw in a few “socialists”, “eco-extremists”, hockey sticks, “CO2’s natural”, “plants need CO2″…)
They think we’re doing the same as they are, making stuff up to accomplish our goal.
To change people’s minds, they need to understand some simple numbers: An SUV might produce 20 tonnes of CO2 a year, times 500,000,000 vehicles = 10 Gt. From there, you can see how total emissions = 30 Gt/yr. (lots of sources, incl BP’s own numbers)
Total CO2 in the atmosphere is 3,000 Gt, so our CO2 emissions = 1% of total *every year* so how can we not be affecting the composition of the atmosphere?
Mauna Loa (or is it Mauna Kea? I get them confused
) data since 50s show dramatic increase.
We’ve known that CO2 is a GHG, at current ppm levels, for 150 yrs.
Anyway gotta go, I have a couple posts on my blog about this too. Thanks for listening…
I thought it was great that Tom Friedman pointed out the dangers of the course we are on, my only complaint is that I am afraid he is understating those dangers. Most animal populations, when given the opportunity (reduced predation, additional food, etc.), expand exponentially until they exceed the carrying capacity of their environment, at which point, typically 90% die off. We are certainly currently on the exponential side of the equation, and appearances are that we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our environment. We can probably continue for a while but if we continue and actually reach 9 billion? Let’s see, 90% of 9 billion–somewhat more than the 2.5 billion Tom Friedman mentions. Much better to do something now, both on climate change and stabilizing, and eventually reducing (gradually), our population.
This is an awesome column by Friedman, he really hits the deniers between the eyes. This is exactly the type of argument we need to urgently ramp up.
Yes, Friedman has other opinions about foreign affairs etc which could be debatable, but here he is dead on, and this article really nails it.
Tom Friedman is a stopped clock. 23 hours and 58 minutes a day he’s wrong.
Friedman’s flat earth nonsense is a right wing enabling economic fraud. Friedman’s ’suck on this’ reasoning to attack foreign nations was right wing extremism incarnate. And Friedman’s hackneyed bumper-sticker approach to writing obfuscates more than it reveals.
It makes it difficult to listen to him the two minutes a day he’s right.
But on green issues, and especially green-energy issues, Friedman has been a genuinely good leader:
“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.”
We have cooked the books by denying any cost of carbon pollution for far too long. On a personal level, in 2008 our household initiated a true cost fund… charging ourselves $10/gal for fuel and setting the “tax revenue” aside to fund a plug in hybrid conversion kit for our Prius and a PV upgrade. With recent uncapped federal 30% tax credits and plummeting PV pricing… doubling our home’s 3.2kw PV array is well within reach thus rendering our local commutes carbon free. The journey toward carbon neutral living begins with small fundamental steps like these. Kramer, Friedman and Romm planted the seeds for this adventure. I thank them all for their steady, persistant drum beat calling for us to break our fossil fuel addiction. In our household, at least, their work is bearing fruit.
Friedman demonstration is perhaps effective for american right wingers, but for me the global warming problem we are facing is much worse than Friedman thinks.
This problem will not be solved by switching from oil energy towards clean energy. Our american (or european) standard of living is clearly not sustainable. we have to downsize it, and quickly (read a short history of progress by Wright, or Collapse by Diamond).
It is not a technology issue, it is a society issue.
And I agree with Friedman on an important point: to put a price on carbon is the mandatory decision to drive the huge change we have to perform and to give us a chance to prevail.
I think Thomas Friedman is the greatest intellectual this country has produced in recent times. On the days when his columns appear, reading them is the absolute first thing I do after waking up.
Live long and prosper, Tom.