Introduction to Chapter 18

I have found many parenting blogs that talk about "Going Green". It is something that should start at home. Try to re-use things and not always throw them out. If you must throw something out try to recycle it so that it does not end up in a landfill.

eyes smiling intoabsolutelykeen.

Mr. Friedman,

You have nailed it, congradulations. Your research, formation of ideas, and mainly the integration of the idea that climate change can have non linear consequences, was brilliant. I am glad to see it is still a work in progress.

A reasonable idea, for which we currently have the technology, is large scale water desalinization. I wonder if by harnessing the power of the Universe (nuclear) and using the energy to desalinate water we could turn currently arid parts of the country into areas which are usable for agriculture. In addition, cellulosic ethanol may change the balance favorably toward biofuel. I believe that we are close to rapidly increasing energy yield from plants by using enzymes or other means to break them down further than what is currently available. The yield from algae is expotentially higher than food stock and uses high levels of Carbon Dioxide.

You will soon see a product called Thermafreeze on the market. It is a reusable coolant that is hydrated and cooled on site and should remarkably improve the carbon footprint of cold chain food shipment. 46 pounds converts to 1600 pounds of reusable refrigerant that gets cold faster and stays cold longer than any known similar substance. It is recyclibe, inexpensive and will be a market shifting technology. (Google it) It is fascinating and no one sees it coming. It is small, I know, but hopeful.

The fact that we can scientifically know the earth is heating is remarkable. My hope is that expotentially rising level of technology will help mitigate some of the impending gloom. Thanks again, Chevies Newman, M.D.

Dear Mr. Friedman,

Earlier in this blog I shared emails I had written to my Senator and to my former CEO.

I communicate with my former CEO about every three months on a range of topics. I had done this even when I was an active employee at DTE Energy, and now as a retired employee.

I wish to share this latest with you, as I believe it may be of interest to you.

The topic is sustainability through individual human change.

From: Gary Carl
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:11 PM
To: 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: My quarterly rant - Sustainability

Mr. Earley,

Dick Cheney is calling from the mountain top that when we learn that the “enhanced interrogation” techniques he condoned saved American lives he will be exonerated.

I believe he actually believes he did a great service to his country with these actions. So let’s fantasize for a moment and say he is correct, though it goes against everything I have learned over the years about psychology, human spirit, and what I witnessed in Viet Nam.

What we must ask ourselves as individuals in the case of torture versus saving lives is what kind of people do we wish to be, and who are we?

If we so intently believe in morals, values, and virtues, as we claim, are we and those we love willing to be in harm’s way or even die to live these inner beliefs?

Or do we justify our evil by saving lives from evil?

Do we have a spirituality that is of compassion, gratitude, faith, hope, and love? Or do we just consciously believe we do, while allowing our subconscious to enact the dark side we all possess but normally contain?

One of the greatest court opinions for mankind, I believe, came out of the Nuremburg trials when the court stated that to follow orders or ideology, even through threat of death, is not reason, but that we must hold ourselves to a higher consciousness.

As human beings in the Utility business we face these same ethical questions.

Do we justify our inaction preventing us from preserving mankind and improve a way of life for billions of people, or do we do what merely appears to be right for the shareholders, stakeholders, and ourselves?

The CEO of Duke Energy has come to the forefront with his admissions of the effects of coal on climate change and the environment. Yet he builds two new coal fire plants when that money could be used towards a strong beginning in distributed green energy in his service area. As you are fully aware, hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent over the coming years to re-engineer existing plants and build new plants; that amount of money could easily provide the change we are headed for in green energy systems and smart transmission systems for the entire nation, not just make a footprint. This is where we must all come together and make these determinations in where and how to spend this money, put the independence of capitalism aside for a moment, put the fear to act away, and become interdependent in order to begin this change.

I commend him on his courage to admit all of our roles, yes - yours and mine also, in the degradation of our planet. Yet I also see him as contradictory as he fears for the shareholder and himself by not continuing that courage and taking charge of what we all know needs to be done.

We need leaders today of equal thought, both left and right brained thinking, linear and abstract.

We are looking for leaders who today, to use a poker euphemism, understand the need to go all in and begin down the path we need, and will, eventually go; today, not tomorrow, not next year, not when the technology improves, not when the government acts, but today we need this. Technology can never improve if the action is not taken to begin the outcome. In this the use of carbon credits will be good. It will force us to look elsewhere, it will force us to conserve, it will force us to be creative, it will force us into what has always been right.

But what a pity it is that any of us need to be persuaded or forced to do what is right, when we already know what needs to be done.

Our higher level of consciousness is not about saving American lives, it is not about Corporate Boards, shareholders or stakeholders, it is not about you nor I, it is about what lives in each of our souls, it is about what is of a greater power than any of these, it is simply to do what we know is right for one another no matter the cost.

In addition to a higher level of consciousness, in my view we need two human elements as individuals to have sustainability in any area, they are will power, and self discipline. This is where we are dysfunctional, as most who lead do not understand that how can any of us have will power if we do not have our will. As a nation, business, and a people we must become functional self disciplinarians. In other words, we must understand and live the four parts to self discipline which if you recall are:
1) delaying gratification; 2) accepting responsibility for self; 3) telling the absolute truth and being dedicated to reality; 4) bracketing ego needs for the sake of spiritual growth.

Sustainability will come through social change which will lead to economic change. And we cannot have social change unless each of us, and here I go again, begin the change to become who we were meant to be as human beings. And as it is estimated 96% of us are dysfunctional to some degree, very few are who they were meant to be. I have written much in the past of what it means to be who we are meant to be, and if you still have the services of Ed Schein he can better describe this.

As always it is good to be able to express myself to you. You can be the leader that is so desperately needed today, I believe this, but you, like I, must first go inward and do the hard work of changing ourselves to allow us to sustain that higher level of consciousness.

Take care.

Gary Carl

In order to allow us to develop living standards in a more sustainable and regenerative way, we should envision a future for ourselves independent of fossil fuels.

It is my contention that if we could reduce building heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems electrical and fossil fuel use by over 90%, we could develop sustainable buildings, communities and cities.

When the temperature rises above 100ºF in the summer, air conditioning systems stretch the electrical grids beyond their limits while cars and trucks choke the air in towns and cities. Hot, humid days are the worst time to have high electricity use and pollution from vehicles, enhancing poor climatic conditions with man-made pollution. Directly connecting air conditioning electrical demand with the electric grid brown-outs and black-outs is no stretch of science, but no one has connected them and presented a comprehensive solution. Politicians and energy companies want to build a “more robust” electrical grid and “safe nuclear” and “clean coal” power plants with the economic stimulus plan, costing trillions of dollars and creating more greenhouse gasses and a worse situation long-term.

Now let us envision a world 20 years in the future when most homes and buildings are electricity generators rather than users, and most public and private transport run on clean electricity. The electrical grid redistributes surplus electricity from sustainable buildings to public transport during the day, and recharges electric cars and trucks at night. Energy intensive buildings, communities and cities are supplemented with energy generated in outlying renewable energy plants.

This vision has buildings using 90% less electricity for heating and cooling, and most buildings producing more electricity than they use during hot weather. Electric utilities use a few efficient generating plants and transportation uses little gasoline. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by over 80%. This vision may seem a fool’s paradise, but such a vision is the kind we need: Better to aim for a 90% reduction and fall short by a few percent than aim for 50% and achieve our goal.

Can we create this sustainable energy future now? The truth is: Yes We Can!

We have the technology to achieve this vision today. We can make efficient electric vehicles. Sustainable buildings could be built except that current air conditioning systems use too much electricity, particularly at high outside temperatures. Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, presented a report in 1988 revealing that newer air conditioning systems performed poorer than older ones, they were less energy-efficient, cost more to install and maintain, and provided poorer comfort. Unfortunately, this trend continues to this day and agencies and institutions are currently recommending some of the worst air conditioning solutions: all-electric solutions such as geothermal heat pumps.

We need air conditioning systems that use little electricity during hot weather and buildings that generate more electricity than they use during hot weather. Sustainable buildings should produce more electricity than they use, repaying the energy used for construction and ongoing maintenance. These concepts should be the primary requirements for defining a sustainable building or community. The overall solution lies in developing an Energy Master Plan for every building, community, town and city. The Energy Master Plan is a comprehensive life cycle plan toward sustainable, high performance end goals: a zero carbon footprint, minimum, easy maintenance, and maximum occupant comfort and productivity. Energy Master Plans integrate Facility Master Plans and Transport Master Plans into a comprehensive Climate Neutral Plan.

New and existing buildings should be developed to be as sustainable as possible, beginning with passive strategies and then integrating passive strategies with active strategies. Three active strategies can help reduce electrical use in air conditioning systems by 90%: utilizing ground source heat exchangers for cooling and warming, eliminating electric refrigeration; using desiccant systems for year round humidity control; and using radiant ceiling systems for both cooling and warming.

First, it should be understood that these strategies work in sympathy with the energy flows of the building and climate rather than against them, unlike most active systems that impose their brute force against the energy flows of both the building and the climate. Radiant ceilings create a most comfortable thermal environment while utilizing water very close to the required room temperature and easiest to be obtained from renewable sources. These systems require only 60°F water for cooling in the hottest regions and 100°F water for heating in the coldest regions. Ground source heat exchange is simply using the average deep ground or well temperature of the area to temper the building, requiring little additional warming in the winter for cold regions and little additional cooling in the summer for hot regions. This will also work with a river or lake exchanging energy. A desiccant system is a salt solution similar to the little bags of silica gel placed in shoes and vitamin bottles that absorb moisture from the air and can be regenerated by heating them, utilizing heat in the summer, something readily available. The desiccant can also provide humidification in the winter by adding water to the solution.

To achieve a zero carbon footprint, buildings should be able to make full use of renewable sources such as ground source, solar thermal, solar PV, wind and water. Cities as large and concentrated as New York can have an Energy Master Plan that will move the entire city toward a sustainable future. Cities such as New York are as able to become as sustainable as suburban communities because they have a more efficient transport system and food and energy distribution system.

It takes vision and commitment from city, state and federal leaders, something that the US, UK and EU and all the world is still waiting for.

We are at the tipping point on many global issues including over population, climate change, pollution and the world economy. Must we wait for a catastrophic meltdown far worse than the financial system meltdown or should we use this economic recession to redirect our ideas to develop a truly sustainable green economy?

We are running out of time to act; it has been estimated that we have only 8 years in which to take positive action toward a sustainable future if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change by the end of this century. We currently have perfect conditions to change the way we do business and commit to a sustainable future, all we need is a change in government action at all levels to enact the change.

It is hope, not despair, which makes successful revolutions.

Mr. Friedman:

I am not quite sure what is in store for the world as we push forward with our goals of a cleaner planet. Alternative energy and more efficient/less polluting industry will undoubtedly improve the quality of life for all, as well as secure a sustainable future. Both America and China are racing to an invisible finish line and we are battling for every inch, but as we push forward my curiosity lies in exactly what will be the result for the developing world. The superpower status of these two countries unquestionably defines the major economic tides of our frail and sensitive global market. I hope America is capable of leading this economic and technological revolution required to survive as the harsh realities of climate instability become more apparent. My question for you, and what I hope you can elaborate upon in Chapter 18, is what do you predict will occur in the developing countries of the world as we define a new age of technology and economic practices? While I understand their impact is not as great as either the United States or China, I believe that their involvement in the world economy is pivotal, and therefore inexorably tied to the success of developed nations such as ours. I believe your insight to how they will transition into this new era as well as continue onward will give readers greater understanding of your arguments throughout the book regarding the need for a “superpower” to take charge and lead our world toward a sustainable future.

Mr Friedman:
In your book, you discuss the difficulties that stem from the lack of political activism of individuals who identify with environmental concerns, but who may not have the academic or political background they feel they need to implement change. You seek millions marching for the environment they way they did for civil rights. You also argue that politicians are less likely to make more stringent policies for fear that their constituents would be unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of the planet. I feel it would be helpful to suggest some direct action for the environmentally-aware public, who are often ignored by academic elites pushing for change from the top down, in order to make their voices heard and create immediate reform of our current energy situation, to meet that top from the bottom.
I propose taking a grassroots approach and creating a movement to place some sort of over-arching environmental referendum put to the public in upcoming elections, (that is a question posed to the public regarding whether to make reform of our energy policy.) This movement must begin on the ground with circulating petitions Once enough signatures have been achieved, a referendum could be placed on the ballots of those states which allow them. If those succeed, the initiative can then be moved into the federal realm.
Beginning at the state level, the petition could simply demand a renewed energy portfolio, one that requires that states diversify their energy providers so that renewable energy sources are in higher demand. That same initiative could move into the federal realm, or a different, carefully worded initiative could demand the removal of all subsidies of energy providers who rely on mining/extraction to the energy sources (including nuclear). (After the success of the state initiatives, legislators could draft any number of proposals for the reform of energy policy.)
The success of any initiative like this would be built, like the initiative itself, from the bottom. Accumulating signatures on petitions in support for energy reform will raise awareness among those signing as well as create pressure on the politicians witnessing the movement. This could be an opportunity for those who agonize over the threats facing the planet and what should be done about it to capitalize on the “green consumerism” washing over the nation. As this initiative grows, the government would have confirmation of the attitude of the general public, who increasingly supports government help in moving towards a cleaner economy. The clarification of the public's standpoint could be the inspiration for forward thinking policymakers who have been holding back their ideas for a green revolution, and spur the beginning of change in the nation's attitude towards sustainability.

Mr. Friedman,

In your book, you address very complex issues that an audience of intellectual elites would understand well, but I am concerned about the accessibility the rest of your readers might have in understanding these multifaceted topics. It seems you are targeting corporate leaders and policy makers as your primary audience, which is one approach to making change. However, I find myself wondering why you mention change through social action such as the civil rights movement, without trying to motivate that very change more within the working class or less educated society. The language you use seems to achieve the top down approach from which those in the position to change policy such as the politicians and decision makers, are given the tools to pressure the industrial powers at play. Wouldn’t influencing voters and consumers make en equally important impact on policy? Maybe this empowerment could be achieved by focusing more on green jobs and other issues understandable to those that might not yet have the critical thinking skills to analyze the complexity of environmental problems. Giving people a reason to believe in sustainability is the only way they will even consider changing their behavior and values. In order to do that, it is critical to consider the perspectives and worldviews of the working class. Doing so would make your book accessible to a broader audience, whether by context or language itself. As a result, awareness among the citizenry will increase, and with more awareness comes more political and industrial pressure for change from conscious citizens and consumers.

Thanks so much for your time, I enjoyed your book, and look forward to seeing the direction you take with this chapter 18 project.

Mr. Friedman,

Your book brought to light something I hadn’t considered before. What can this green revolution movement really do, anyway? Consumers are thinking green, but they aren’t thinking more than that. To most consumers, buying a green product is doing their part. And their part ends there. It’s true that a consumer based movement won’t do much in the long run when it functions like this, but it might be a fantastic starting point. Ask your readers to begin thinking critically about their actions. If these green consumers begin thinking critically about environmental ideas – in short term and long term – I think the green revolution could become invaluable. Your book communicates so many fantastic and well developed ideas. But for any large scale change to occur, people must be thinking critically about the problems, observations and experiences – and know how to absorb and then act on them.

That being said, your book was wonderful and I enjoyed it! I look forward to the new Chapter 18!

To impregnate the conservation idea in American's head, we need positive reinforcement at the point of purchase at retail venues nationwide.
Mandatory use of recycled carrying devices should be the norm. How to get there?
How about public service advertisements nationwide visually showing the ease of storing them in our Rolling Energy Storage Units?
LOL.
This could germinate exponentially.

A few dollars spent at those industries as an incentive would be well spent.

The most important line in the book is in italics on page 243: incremental breakthroughs are all we've had, but exponential is what we desperately need.

Only nuclear power has taken this exponential leap. Most nuclear plants around the world are light water reactors. A key concept of the book is that efficiency doesn't lower consumption, it allows clean growth. So, with maximum efficiency, the world needs at least twice what it uses now:15 terawatts. To provide the world with 30 terawatts would require 15,000 2,000 Mega Watt nuclear plants. If we built this many light water reactors, we would deplete global uranium reserves in 5 to 10 years. The reprocessing techniques now used in France would only double this short interval.

However, if we use Fast Neutron reactors, the fuel supply will last until the sun consumes the earth, billions of years from now. Now that's an exponential leap. Basically, Fast Neutron reactors (like the Superphoenix, built in France in 1984) are 100 times as fuel efficient. Uranium can be extracted from seawater for only 10 times the cost. So using seawater uranium in fast reactors would be 10 times cheaper, since these reactors are 100 times as efficient! Unlimited clean energy!

Hello everyone. Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
I am from Switzerland and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Now, with his trio of pet like wall clocks named."

Thanks for the help :-), Zelia.

Tom

I am reading your book right now, I find it interesting and have been using some of the ideas in my daily work. i help companies automate their processes, and come across some pretty bad examples of energy wastage and unecessary waste creation!
I love your book and ideas, but I think the energy and waste aspect I see every day on production plants is unknown to the common america which consumes no matter what! Through people like yourselves, we can make green manufacturing a consumer choice- the trigger could be that every manufacturer will have to label products with how much energy was used to produce it and how much waste was generated! This could be the new selling point- well and beyond the current efficiency data, ingredients etc that we see on products at the automobile dealers and grocery shelves!

How about the new holistic and consumer driven approach to energy management and waste reduction being the basis of Chapter 18

http://dailyduke.blogspot.com/2009/04/energy-...

The best book I've ever read about sustainable development is "Prescription for the Planet," by Tom Blees. Basically, if you think nuclear power has to wait around for fusion to be truly clean and sustainable, think again. Generation IV Fast reactors have an unlimited fuel supply, employ passive safety mechanisms, can burn up nuclear waste from light water reactors as fuel, would eliminate the need for mining, milling, and enrichment of uranium, and use a proliferations-resistant fuel cycle. All at a reasonable cost, which will become cheaper through mass production.

If you really want a treat about energy, google "Rickover energy speech." The father of the nuclear submarine predicted what we would be facing now over 50 years ago.

I just wrote a 15-page term paper review of your (and my) ideas on green jobs.

The premise is that this field, while booming now, is still missing a lot that will be needed for it to reach its potential as a major factor in the transformation to a green economy.

Please let me know of a way I could send it to you.

Matt Polsky

Well this is not to comment on Ch.18. I lived in the Middle East - in Kuwait,Iran & Iraq for about 35 years. I wanted to thank you for answering the questions I used to ask my Palestinian,Lebanese,Iraqi & Syrian friends about their leaders' perverse habit of declaring defeats as glorius victories.I never did get an answer from them. I too was on the road from Beirut to Jerusalem but as an Indian expatriate worker in Kuwait & Iran who watched the madness of the region with exasperation and sadness and also anger.However in Kuwait we Asians were not supposed to have any opinion - we were just "Rafiqs" meaning "hey boy" or "you niggers" though I am sure you know that in Arabic the word means "friend" or even "comrade".But let one Asian dare call a Kuwaiti or Saudi "Rafiq" and all hell would break loose!!

But there was this thing about Israel - after we went through the invasion in Kuwait, Kuwaitis said to me, "An Israeli soldier would not have done what these Iraqis did here." And having been always an unabashed supporter of Israel ( especially when called a rafiq by some idiot in Kuwait) I did feel that in Gaza, the Israeli Army acted no better than the Germans in Warsaw. It hurts, especially when in Auschwitz I knelt and cried, though I am not Jewish but a Buddhist Indian. Israel has lost its moral bearings. Something I feel Gandhi would have predicted if he had lived long enough.

Thanks again for giving me the privelage to read From Beirut to Jerusalem.
regards
Ravi

Sustainable development should be all nations development mantra.

I needed to write to respond to those who think that China's model of one child per family is a great idea.

It is not, and let me explain why.

Firstly such enforcement does NOT happen in democracies. It is undemocratic. What is needed is education of the people. This will bring down birth rates.

Secondly, we've seen what artificially suppressing birth rates can do, it can bring up a whole new generation who has to support larger numbers of the older generation when they grow up. It is not-sustainable.

We need practical , sensible ideas to reduce poverty, population explosion, illiteracy, disease etc.
We need to see that these go hand in hand with global warming, forest/habitat destruction.

Education should be in the forefront of any such revolution to bring about sustainable development.

Educating poor people about sustainable use of land, forests, water, energy should be our focus. It will also help them dig their way out of poverty.

Mr. Friedman,

I wanted to share a couple emails I sent recently to my Senator and my ex-CEO of DTE Energy that was partially inspired by your book Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

There are three elements to a healthy system. To be fully functional human beings, to be independent, interdependent, then finally it is possible to integrate. We appear at this crossroads now, where we must change as a people both emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically.

What a wonderful age we are upon.

Dear Senator Stabenow,

I want to share a recent email to Tony Earley, CEO of DTE Energy. Being a retiree of DTE I have communicated with Mr. Earley in the past many times.

It was a thought I have been harboring and hope it also ignites alternate thought in Mr. Earley.

I am not against nuclear power plants, however as I witness the plans of the utility industry I wonder if the hundreds of billions of dollars that are anticipated being spent would not be better spent going from the centralized system we currently have to distributed green energy. After all, any nuclear plant is at least 15 years down the road. In that time the green technology will become affordable, more advanced, and practical.

After working in the utility industry for 32 years I learned a great deal. What I see in the immediate future are fleets of power plants that are now over 40 years old on average, becoming even less efficient and producing less electricity. Demand, especially as we progress with electric vehicles, will close the gap substantially on supply. My prediction is a consumer uprising within five years if we remain as we currently are headed.

Also, as we all become more apparent of the environmental consequences that lie ahead in the next few years, the outrage and panic will equal what the auto companies are currently going through. This tremendous cost to re-engineer power plants with the necessary environmental equipment will be staggering.

My point to Mr. Early was it is time to become interdependent. For the cost of nuclear plants, retrofitting old worn power plants, and relieving congestion with new power lines, we could have a tremendous footprint into distributed green energy.

In the last census there were about 80,000,000 residences. A rule of thumb is one third of a utilities revenue comes from residential sales. If solar, wind, and fuel cells were mass produced (a possible saving factor for the auto companies), and the cost of individual source of these power sources were reduced to around 1 to 2 thousand dollars, we could as a nation remove one third of the earth damaging emissions, reduce one third all power outages and congestion, reduce importing foreign energy greatly, and so on for a cost in the neighborhood of 80 – 160 billion dollars.

This act will be done in the future, socially and economically this change will occur. Now is the time to bring the major utilities together, the major manufactures, put capitalism and intellectual capital aside for the moment and develop immediate action to begin this process so all are able to move forward. With the correct interdependent actions among all parties we could be well on our way to this destined change within a few years, and before any upheaval.

The biggest opponent to such a plan is bureaucracy. I suspect the Utilities are waiting on the government to act, and the government is waiting on the Utilities to act. Someone must lead, someone must say we can do it, let’s go.

I once heard “luck” defined as; the soul’s ability to make a subconscious decision come true; in that light, good luck Senator.

Sincerely,

Gary Carl

From: Gary Carl [mailto:gcarl@wowway.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:35 PM
To:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Opportunity not problems

Mr. Earley,

Over the last decade everyone spoke of the need to change. The trouble being was the need to control the change to fit into individual boxes. As I relayed to you many times that was not change but alteration. The alteration by different processes and systems not the change of the human soul and the soul of entities such as businesses.

Well, change has come, it is here as what is needed not what we had planned. Social, economic, and human change that has opportunity written all through it, not problems as many see it as.

I am writing you with a thought for economic and social change.

I cannot understand why you and Rick Wagoner are not sitting together in a press conference announcing a green initiative. We have the energy expertise they have the manufacturing expertise. Turning these vacant auto plants into solar panel, small wind turbine, and natural gas fuel cell manufacturing centers for the world. Utilizing these many wasted assets and creating value in people.

We plan on spending somewhere around 10 billion of today’s dollars for a nuclear plant 15 years down the road. Could we not take that $10 billion and outfit every residence and commercial building in this service area with either solar, individual wind turbines, or natural gas fuel cells over the next 15 years, once we start mass marketing these items? Would we not move away from outdated centralized distribution of energy to distributed energy? Would we not reduce environmental deterioration, line congestion, and reengineer existing coal plants over one third of present conditions?

Would not your Company increase in value over 30% by being the manufacturer, installer, engineering, and most of all the distribution network for millions of energy sources sitting on roof tops? To stay on the same course may have the same affect in a few years as the auto companies are experiencing now as you know what is down the road environmentally, limited generation, and distribution wise in a few years. Sure demand will increase as supply falls, but the uproar will bring the Utility industry to a level of the auto industry.

The growing third world nations such as China and India have tremendous opportunity as enterprise must begin to be moved out of the over crowed urban areas into rural areas. What prohibits this growth and ingenuity of all people is the lack of the flow of electrons. There is one resounding solution, green energy, not more power plants and stringing wire to remote villages, but fuel cells, solar panels, individual wind turbines. This is a challenge for GM and DTE in harmony.

The challenge for you is to wait such as the auto companies did as they were stuck in yesterday and false pride, or begin today?

As I see it you must begin to hold conferences and consortiums with the minds that can initiate this social and economic change. Green experts, manufacturing experts, energy experts; with countries such as Sweden and Denmark who have switched from central to distributed energy, and so on. Develop a plan and begin, not wait for the government, other Companies, or whomever. The time is right, the time is now for that intrinsic change I harped on you for a decade and it begins with people.

Take care,

Gary Carl

Hey Mr. Friedman,

A few months ago (before I had the chance to read your book) I wrote here that Americans should support the UNFPA. Thanks to Obama this funding has become a reality. Obama's leadership is truly inspirational and I wish I could see the same from my federal government in Canada.

For the most part I was very happy with your book. I am more of an environmentalist than an economist so I think I was exposed to some new ideas through Hot, Flat and Crowded. However, I was a bit disappointed that you didn't focus very much on the crowded part of our title. You mentioned a bit about overpopulation in the first 200 pages and you made a comment about how China's one child policy saved the country from a population calamity but there could have been much more discussion about population in the last 200 pages of the book.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for conservation and technological approaches to sustainability but our governments need to start taking more of an active role in discouraging global population growth. Obama increased funding for the UNFPA and that is a wonderful first step. But why stop there? Why not make contraceptives absolutely free for everyone on the planet? Why not offer a large "childless bonus" for anyone over the age of 30 that doesn't have a kid? Or better yet a gigantic moderation bonus for anyone over the age of 50 that has only one biological offspring? Why not offer developing countries rewards and trade incentives for implementing (ethical) policies that would bring down their birth rate?

A lot of people say that any family planning programs implemented now would not be effective quickly enough to slow greenhouse gas emissions any time in the near future. However, the reducition in greenhouse gas emissions is only one benefit to shrinking the population. Another bonus is that with a smaller population we won't be fighting over the dwindling natural resources that will be disappearing because of climate change. In other words, if we shrink the global population in the next few centuries it wont matter as much that fresh water is less abundant and crop yields are plummeting.

Instead of adapting our society's consumption habits and technology to compensate for our population growth we should control our population so that it stays within the boundaries set by our environment's carrying capacity. Instead of depending on technology to make an unsustainable society sustainable we should increase our population only after the creation and implementation of technology has made the carrying capacity of earth larger.

I thoroughly enjoyed your book and lood forward to reading chapter 18.

Tom -- let's get to the point. First, you are simply riding the green bandwagon. You have met me several times but of course don't remember my name. In any case we sat together at the Aspen Starbucks in 1999, and I tried to tell you about how Enron (yes the Enron -- they did some good things too) had purchased Zond, Inc., a wind energy company, and how amazing large scale windpower was. You blew me off and read the Aspen Times, which that day had reprinted your column. green was not your thing until it became cool, much later.

Second, your Hot and Flat book asserts that green energy innovation will come in garages, like the way Apple computers were created. Hell0000 - writing code is different from refining solar cells, which can only be done in sophisticated laboratories, or improving the design of wind turbine blades or controls, which can only be done with major instrumentation etc.

I just finished Hot, Flat and Crowded last week while on vacation. I looked forward to reading it each day when I was relaxing in Florida. US citizens are predominantly unaware of how poorly we use electrons in our society. Half our battle is there. GREEN is not some feel good fashion statement. It will be hard work and require profound innovation. The recent cries of "drill baby drill" were so indicative of the ignorance that exists. They have at least been replaced by a more common sense president on the issues of our national energy policy and our need to severely curtail CO2 emissions.

I work for Herman Miller (known for world class designs in office and residential furnishings). We are devoutly passionate about the environment and have been since the early 1950's. We are also working on our own "smart black box" call Convia.

Here is some more information. I think you might find this of interest:

http://www.convia.com/

The Convia sustainable infrastructure was just installed at the United States Green Building Council (USGBC)in Washington DC. You may find this of interest and possibly some further inspection.

This is just one way that Herman Miller is making headway in "ET".

http://www.convia.com/press/usgbc-installatio...

Keep up the great work. I'll keep recommending Hot, Flat and Crowded.

Rick Reid
rick_reid@hermanmiller.com

Dear Mr. Friedman,

I have really enjoyed reading your book, which has made me think deeply about my own way of life.

I just wanted to make you notice something about lithium you may already know. Lithium is considered to be the best material for batteries because (according to wikipedia) of its high electrochemical potential, light weight, and high current density. So lithium seems to be critical for the development of electric cars.

But some weeks ago I read that the sources of lithium are highly concentrated in specific countries. Bolivia is believed to own half of the world's lithium reserves. And other four countries (Chile, Argentina, China and Brazil) own almost the other half.

Please read the following article by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7707847.s...

Should we free ourselves from petro-dictators for the benefit of the lithium-dictators?

Hello Mr. Friedman:

I have read both of your books, The World is Flat . . .and Hot, Flat and Crowded. . . richly rewarding. I am an Architect and have an idea for redefining Green in the Building Industry.

New Building System for the Construction Industry; Introduction:

It is time to create a new building system which will better serve our needs for the twenty-first century. This system shall include building framing and paneling, be standardized and inclusive to all and provide 100% flexibility for growth and change . . . just like IT protocol.

I propose a whole new method of house construction: mass production of a standardized framing and paneling system including universal interlocking connectors which can be configured to form a building envelope, interior walls, floors and ceilings quickly and efficiently. My idea is not a pre-fabricated home kit of parts with limited options and styles built in the factory and delivered to the site. It shall be instead, an expansive fluid building system with standard parts. The standard panels will support infinite possibilities for material combinations and be available to design by all competing green building manufacturers.

Carbon Glut and Construction Waste:

As I sit typing, this very moment, sounds of hammers pounding, permeate my space. Workers are renovating a house next store and I wonder . . . why not apply Henry Ford's auto assembly line process to house construction? It is a terrible waste of time, energy and materials in building houses one by one. It takes 6-9 months to build or renovate one quality home and demolition damages materials still in their prime. We build houses these days to be permanent, to last a life time then we go about expanding, remodeling and renovating our living environments, often on a whim. On any given day at a construction project, enormous effort is made to frame, plumb, wire, structurally sheathe, apply moisture barriers, window, door, sill and roof flashings; then install the windows, doors, sills and roofs. Exterior finish materials need on site trimming, priming, painting and/or sealing. All of this effort creates only the building envelope.

My Idea:

My idea calls for a factory assembled, standardized framing system (a module determined by structural integrity and ease of transport) which becomes a room size framing cube. The number and location of the cubes shall be determined by the owner's design, budget, site requirements and local building codes. The cubes can grow horizontally or vertically for maximum creativity and flexibility by using a universal, structurally approved interlocking connector system. This connector system will be adaptable for assembly and disassembly. The ground floor cubes will have locking wheels for maneuvering, will be anchored to an engineered foundation unique to each site, but will be capable of relocation. This will cut the costs of extensive and pricey foundation walls which become permanent to the building envelope. Because the cubes have the capacity to be moved, they shall sit lightly on the land, thereby causing less site damage and preserving the natural environment. Each cube shall include a vertical and horizontal mechanical, electrical and plumbing chase complete with factory installed pipes, duct work and wiring. These will be linked up, one to the other, and finally to the main site utility lines offering a uniquely integrated system that can be easily accessed, unhooked, moved, reoriented or replaced in an orderly and flexible fashion without disturbing the adjacent cubes and panels. Each house will have a main "dash" or control panel which displays all house functions (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, lighting, audio, internet and security) all in one place for easy monitoring and maintenance. The building panels with dimensions standardized to match the framing cubes shall be delivered and connected to the cubes with similar universal interlocking connectors (capable of being locked and relocked). Each panel, supporting exterior, interior and insulating materials will become a floor, wall, ceiling or roof component. Ideally, the materials will be local to and assembled in the factory. Interior built-ins for kitchens and baths will be components of specific panels. Material suppliers, fabricators, window and door manufacturers, lighting designers and green building experts shall collaborate as part of the factory team providing constant quality control and future innovation to the assembly line process. Features such as windows, doors, photovoltaics and living roofs shall be panel integrated and ready for delivery. Every panel shall be designed to be removed and returned to the factory for exchange and recycling in order to save valuable building materials and to eliminate waste. Because all materials are mounted to the modular panels, instead of the structurally rigid building frame, they can be removed, stored, exchanged and reused again. Think of the floating floors in Europe where owners, pack them up and take them along to their new environment. An endless variety of panel types can be showcased and ordered through various dealers. This system is inclusive to all manufacturers (green technologies, I hope!) as the materials are installed onto the panels. The panels can continually change as long as standard sizes are maintained. Each panel offers unlimited possibilities for design and competition.

Contribution:

The house construction scenario plays out daily all over the world with profound repercussions to the health of our planet. Millions of workers and tons of building materials are on the move in a fragmented, repetitive and inconsistently controlled process creating enormous expense and piles of waste to every region, community and neighborhood. This process is not going away, but it must evolve into the twenty-first century. By mass producing a standardized framing and paneling system with universal interlocking connectors, we can achieve carbon reduction. These new components will make up the bones of each house. Construction workers can be retrained to position and secure framing cubes, connect chases (wiring, piping and ducts) and to hang panels. A house can be structurally upgraded, renovated and relocated throughout its life without enormous material waste and destruction. Costs can be lowered by increasing construction efficiency, controlling quality and promoting constant innovation and new clean technologies.

Suanne Bassett
www.subasf.com

Mr Friedman,

Thanks for a wonderful book that is reaching the masses.

On page 142 you describe a world without living trees, bees or the smell of a flower. A scary, but unrealistic projection on our current dismal trajectory. Instead what will emerge will be very "flat" ecosystems. Sadly many may not see this already emerging, but go to any vacant lot in the US, or better yet, go to ANY populated tropical island near development, and you will see this phenomenon. Despite the beauty you will see, it will be shallow.

You'll see red hibiscus everywhere, and papaya, a number of decorative palms and perhaps really invasive plants like "Custer"s Curse" and Lantana. These backyard ornamentals, well intended introductions and food crops are becoming the basis of tropical island ecosystems. Very flat, biologically simple and sad. But the reality is, most people see it and think the flowers and palms and fragrant and beautiful, and to the untrained eye, they are. Even most indiginous/native born folks don't know what belongs and what does not. There will be pleasant species providng many services, and alone, they are amazing examples of God's work. They just don't belong everywhere, and are rapidly displacing less robust more valuable native species.

OK, so here's an idea that addresses at least one aspect of this problem. Across the tropics, sugarcane, pineapple and other plantation crops have decimated native ecosystems. Sadly, these and other (here comes palm oil) crops have been subsidized, exploited, and often, abandoned, leaving vast fields of opportunistic and invasive non native species that serve as pools of spreading, aggressive plants that hammer the last of the remaining ecosystems.

Herein, national and international policies should require the use of already introduced, or native species for biofuels or other industrial crops. Large industrial cropping systems have many potential impacts, but we'll probably have to go through a huge shake out of experimentation to see if we can bridge to non-fossil liquid fuels. But the closer here is, sucessful or not, when these miles of fields that will often become abandoned, should be replanted and established with native species. We have to start using species that belong, and plugging giant empty niches with the same or we'll end up with truly "flat ecosystems" that provide a fraction of the services we have come to expect from our native ecosystems. Experimentation with fuel crops will only make matters worse if we don't proceed thoughtfully.

HFC is an important prod to encourage the US to adopt new values. But in another sense it seems to put the responsibility primarily on our government to promote greener policies.
I wanted to enforce Tanya's comments (in Chapter 18) that adopting a vegetarian (or flexatarian) lifestyle is something that everyone can do NOW. Eating meat:
1. Contributes to forest clearing and environmental degradation in order to feed the inefficient (from an energy standpoint) meat producing system.
2. Significantly increases atmospheric methane, a more potent green-house gas than CO2.
3. Is less healthy than a vegetarian diet, straining our health care delivery system.
4. Does more environmental damage than driving a Hummer.
5. Demands Federal subsidies better used to stimulate our economy.
6. Promotes an inhumane exploitation of other sentinant creatures.

While it is unrealistic to expect that everyone will eschew meat, cutting down the volume would help a lot.

In addition, Mr. Friedman gives short shrift to other, simple measures - such as insulating homes, building passive solar homes (without photovoltaic collectors) and a more active (riding bicycles, walking, etc.) lifestyle - that would have immediate, beneficial effects for our economy, health and environment.