Thomas Friedman

SOTU: The Mustache responds

Today Thomas Friedman does what he excels at: points out the obvious.

So here's my bottom line: I'm glad the president is changing his rhetoric on energy and says he is changing his funding priorities. It makes for a great headline. But he has to go much further if he wants to make a great difference. There's no pain-free solution.

But here's the best part:

And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I'll be the first to rip him for it. In the meantime, I prefer to give him a new reputation to live up to. You never know. ... And by the way, pal, you got a better horse to ride right now?

I leave you with the image of Friedman ripping and riding Bush. You can thank me later.

Why Tom Friedman makes a dubious green.

My man David Roberts has been quite impressed by the recent writings of NYT uber-pundit Thomas Friedman.

Friedman is a crude but effective writer, and I'm glad to see he's enlisting his thunderous arsenal of platitudes in service of conservation, etc. Undeniably, he makes some good points.

But I fear that the world's problems are a bit more complex than can be dreamt of in Friedman's neoliberal philosophy. The hyper-globalized system of trade that he breathlessly champions may itself be too energy intensive to be sustained -- even by "green" energy. Why should the global south gear its productive capacity to producing for the northern countries? Why should the U.S. essentially outsource its working class thousands of miles away to China?

I don't reject global trade. But I think wise public policy minimizes it, not subsidizes it at every level. I'd like to see a national-level pundit who champions local culture, who calls on governments and NGOs to bolster it where it flourishes. Among the many benefits of gearing local economies to produce mainly for themselves would be much less energy-intensivity.

And by no means would such pronouncements have to be couched in the dour, anti-hedonist terms that tend to characterize enviromentalism. If production were geared to be local, people would generally eat and drink much, much better.

An interview with New York Times columnist and “geo-green” advocate Thomas Friedman

Thomas Friedman.Photo: Greg MartinAs the green movement fends off accusations of impotence, Thomas Friedman has hatched an idea that could make a man out of environmentalism. In January, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The New York Times debuted his “geo-green” strategy, a powerful proposal for reframing America’s quest for energy independence to appeal to […]

Feebates, not fuel taxes, are key

Thomas Friedman's usually pitch-perfect commentary on energy and security hit some high notes Sunday, but it also went off key twice, in disappointing ways.

First, the sweetest passage from his New York Times column:

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....Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis.

Now, the ear splitters:

Just plain “green” for me, thanks

Thomas Friedman is doing a public service by pushing his "geo-green" shtick. Any time someone outside the mainstream environmental community, particularly someone as high-profile as Friedman, pushes sensible energy policy, it becomes harder for its industry and administration opponents to dismiss. Frankly, if Paris Hilton wanted to come out and argue that alternative energy improves your sex life, I would praise her to the rafters. Whatever gets the job done.

It is worth, however, keeping our expectations realistic.