"Green: The New Red, White and Blue," a documentary featuring Thomas L. Friedman¹s reporting on green technology, premiers on the Discovery Channel on Saturday, April 21 at 9 p.m.

_

Also here's another article he did recently in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green.t.html ...

_

Most people probably know him for his global economics Book
"The world is flat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_is_Flat

"Green" makes economic sense.

Increased effeciency
Increased productivity
Reduced (Externality) costs
Reliable Energy Costs
Innovation
Growth in Technology

A kneejerk "SACRIFICE!" or a kneejerk "OMG I DON"T WANT TO SACRIFICE!" isn't neccisary.

Do More with Less!

Theres no way in hell India, China, or Brazil will engaging in carbon sequestration.

The only reason they are going to go the green path is if we can show them that it's simply better.

Is if we can created green technology which can outcompete "the dirtest coal".

And the only way that is going to happen is with political leadership.

_

This guy f*cking gets it!

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation ...

Which makes no sense if you can make a car which produces no (well almost no) harmful emmisions.

_

But I will admit, I hadn't read through the article. (Just the video so far)

But I saw stuff about ethanol, and replacing coal fired plants with natural gas plants....

Good critisisms there.

Ethanol is a joke.
And natural gas supply is extremely volitile.

When will he change his mind about fuel farming?  The NYT is "conventional wisdom".  And that's about it.  This "special" will be a fount of disinformation on renewable energy revolution as usual.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

 "Replace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants; increase the fuel economy of two billion cars from 30 to 60 miles per gallon; add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal; drive two billion cars on ethanol, using one-sixth of the world's cropland; increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal; cut electricity use in homes, offices and stores by 25 percent; install carbon capture and sequestration capacity at 800 large coal-fired plants."

This is what is passed off as intellectual leadership?  Mass delusional media.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Those lines you quoted above are taken directly from Socolow and Pacala's stabilization wedges.

And in fact, I would consider that leadership. Doing any one of these will mean a significant turn away from business as usual. All 7? Well, that's where the leadership piece really matters. Friedman is using these to illustrate the enormity of the issue ahead of us. While he may not mention plug-in hybrids, he also doesn't rule out anything, which, considering the scale of this problem, is appropriate.

Because of those services rendered, I do not start foaming at the mouth, like I used to whenever he would deliver his homilies on how wonderful corporate criminals are.

Kunstler, on the other hand is brilliant, but maddening like so many of his fellow doomsters are. I think his Geography of Nowhere will be a classic, if it is not already. But really, folks, flower beds must wilt when this guy walks past them. Birds quit singing. The sun disappears. And he is definetly of the misanthrope tradition of environmentalism. A modern day Malthus - who was a legendary sour puss of his day.

With Friedman you want to entertain hope. With Kunstler, you want to go home, and suck on a gun barrel. Which do you think is going to influence the future?

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

Seems like we've been around this block before...

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Some of his views are "curious", to put it mildly.  When asked about wind power, he said, "I think that mostly what we will see is these things being used on a household basis, or the extremely local basis, if at all."  And on cars, "I think driving is going to be an enormous problem for us and it will take on tragic overtones for the younger generation."

My post is here.

http://www.atlasgeo.net/fotw/flags/us_eco.html

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

I have met the House of Saud and their Wahhabis antagonists, big American vendors of fossil carbon, political green flag wavers, venture capitalists, journalists, scientists, engineers, authors, and thousands of ordinary people interested in energy security.  Friedman's currency is relevant,

Unfortunately, today's presidential hopefuls are largely full of hot air on the climate-energy issue. Not one of them is proposing anything hard, like a carbon or gasoline tax, and if you think we can deal with these huge problems without asking the American people to do anything hard, you're a fool or a fraud.
...
Equally important, presidential candidates need to help Americans understand that green is not about cutting back. It's about creating a new cornucopia of abundance for the next generation by inventing a whole new industry. It's about getting our best brains out of hedge funds and into innovations that will not only give us the clean-power industrial assets to preserve our American dream but also give us the technologies that billions of others need to realize their own dreams without destroying the planet.

I think the public is in front of politicians and journalists on support for carbon taxes transferred from payroll taxes and on nonsupport for ethanol and biofuels.  I have found that asking questions saves much time and energy on advocacy.  Journalists and politicians should ask questions and listen to what ordinary people already know.  Leadership 101.