Thomas Friedman

Tom Friedman talks up the need for an ‘energy revolution’ on ‘Meet the Press’

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman was on “Meet the Press” yesterday, discussing the need for an “energy revolution.” The appearance coincided with publication of his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution — and How It Can Renew America. Said Friedman, “What we need today is an […]

Note to media: Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, not an energy expert

If you google “Palin ‘energy expert,'” you’ll find more than 10,000 hits. It’s no surprise that conservative shills like George Pataki and Haley Barbour use that label — heck, a major conservative talking point is that she’s a foreign-policy expert because “Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia,” as Cindy McCain put […]

Spotlight on Thomas Friedman

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times has been rolling in green editorials.

In mid-April he wrote a major piece called "The Power of Green," in which he made the case for his generation to follow the footsteps of the Greatest Generation to become the Greenest Generation. He writes:

We in America talk like we're already "the greenest generation," as the business writer Dan Pink once called it. But here's the really inconvenient truth: We have not even begun to be serious about the costs, the effort and the scale of change that will be required to shift our country, and eventually the world, to a largely emissions-free energy infrastructure over the next 50 years.

More recently, Friedman has weighed in on how to begin to change the environmental decisions our political leaders make -- it starts with the upcoming election. In "Turning the Election Green" Friedman proposes a presidential debate on the environment and energy. According to a poll Friedman cites, done for the Center for American Progress, a substantial percentage of Americans want policies to address global warming and redirect our energy policy.

Yesterday, Friedman had another piece, "Our Green Bubble." He writes:

Friedman in the NYT Magazine

What's red white and blue, and green all over? The cover of this week's New York Times Sunday Magazine. In "The Greening of Geopolitics," Thomas Friedman applies his trademark econo-politico-historical analysis to the state of the global environment, and he is nothing if not comprehensive. From China, Schwarzenegger, and Wal-Mart, to Islamic fundamentalism and oil prices, Friedman traces the connections. Enviros won't learn much about global warming they didn't already know; on the other hand, how greening America could ultimately result in democracy in Saudi Arabia and better schools in Qatar is a point not often made in activist circles. Particularly encouraging are Friedman's call for regulations at the national level to encourage green innovation (free hand of the market won't do this by itself) and his call for a 2008 candidate with a rock-solid plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Oh yeah, and the art is pretty too.

Friedman has his flaws, but he’s a stellar communicator

It's safe to say there are mixed feelings about Thomas Friedman among this blog's contributors.

His advocacy on the Iraq War was and is risible. His cheerleaderly, monochrome enthusiasm for globalization maddens (how come pundits never talk about outsourcing punditry?). And his chipper, un-self conscious cheesiness can occasionally cause even a pacifist like me to want to physically strike him.

But.

Watch this video, where he explains the green thing to Tim Russert:

Addicted to Oil, with Tom Friedman

I poke fun at Thomas Friedman on occasion. His platitudinous, gee-whiz, American-tourist prose, presented with a heaping helping of deep-think pretension, is a target-rich environment. But that gee-whiz persona serves him well when he’s right, and he’s right about energy. His Discovery Channel program Addicted to Oil, which aired Sat. night, is absolutely stellar. Catch […]

A geo-green third party?

Thomas Friedman -- la moustache de la sagesse -- has a column up (NYT $elect; reprinted in full here) suggesting that his "geo-green" shtick would be a good basis for a third party presidential candidacy. God love The Mustache for bringing energy issues to a broad audience, but this column is dopey.

Let's start with this:

What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?

Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.

Putting aside the rather paltry size of the tax and the difficulty of determining "unusual driving needs," this seems sensible enough, though a broad carbon tax would be preferable. But:

The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.

What a bizarre list. Social Security is fine. If it's deficit-killing expenditures you're after, why not start with healthcare? And I'm all for mass transit, but is it more important than getting alternate sources of energy online? If reducing the deficit is so important, why does Friedman -- and virtually every other pundit -- insist that a gas tax be revenue neutral?

This, however, may be the most extravagant claim:

The Mustache and GM, again

A few days ago I noted that GM had responded to Thomas Friedman's attack. Today, Friedman responds to the response, and continues to beat GM around the head and shoulders.

Sadly, all this takes place behind the dread NYT Select wall, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

The Mustache and GM

A while back, Thomas Friedman wrote a column blasting GM for their plan to offer SUV purchasers rebates for gas money. In rather florid language, he compared GM to a crack dealer, said the company is supporting terrorists, and said he looked forward to Toyota taking over.

GM was not happy about it, and in this blog post, Brian Akre of GM's corporate communications dept. recounts his attempts to get the NYT to publish a letter in response. Apparently the NYT was not very accommodating.

Here's the original letter (PDF) GM's VP tried to get in NYT. What do you think?