Introduction to Chapter 18

Some of the problems that exist in the United States have been remedied by other countries. Consider Mass Rapid Transit:The solution in the United Staes is to build more moter vehicles. They will need more roads, use large amounts of land and petrolium products. This "Spinning the Wheels" has created a way of life and jobs. Make money this quarter and ignore the long term has resulted in inferior products. Japan produces better motor vehicles because they are focused on the future. That is just one example.

There is no quick solution to the jobs problem. Reducing the manufacturing of motor vehicles and the service they need in exchange for the efficiency of Mass-Rapid Trandit Is an overwhelming problem for the United States. Greed and infighting are making the United States an also-ran in the world order. In en years where will we be ranked, China, India, Brazil...US

First, I wanted to say how much I enjoyed the book. I'm a high-school senior in Montgomery County, MD, and was assigned Hot, Flat, and Crowded as summer reading material (making it one of the few summer assignments I've actually enjoyed).

How America can institute a green revolution has already been discussed in Hot, Flat, and Crowded. If America’s government creates the regulatory structure and incentives to re-shape the free market into a green market, America can become a truly green nation. But reshaping America is not enough. Although the United States is the world’s largest per capita emitter of CO2 and the largest consumer of dirty fuels, in a flat and crowded world, reforming one nation’s economy is not enough. China now emits more carbon dioxide than the United States, and hundreds of millions of people in China and India are on the verge of climbing out of poverty and into the middle class, and consuming more and more dirty fuel.
In short, greening America is not enough. China, India, and indeed the entire developed world, must go green as well. And therein lies the true challenge of beating global warming: as difficult it is for concerned Americans to start a green revolution in America, it is infinitely more difficult for concerned Americans to start a green revolution in China and India. While non-governmental organizations like Conservation International have played an important role, the true burden of greening China and India falls upon the backs of America’s policymakers.
While advancing green revolutions in China and India is a gargantuan task, it is not an impossible one. The United States of America is the number-one trading partner of both China and India, meaning that America holds tremendous economic sway over both nations. We have a symbiotic relationship; we depend on them, and they depend on us. And they will be forced to listen—and, more importantly, to act—if we show that we are serious about going green. If America fundamentally changes its foreign import policy, we can not only strengthen our own economic base, but make a critical step towards reversing global warming.
A double-standard exists in America today. It is no secret that American manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to their foreign counterparts. Any product manufactured in the United States is subject to a complex network of regulations—OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, wage requirements, etc—that, while necessary to protect both the producer and consumer, add definite manufacturing costs. However, anything manufactured overseas—and thusly beyond the jurisdiction of OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, and all other government organizations—escapes the costs added by government regulation. This is why so many manufacturing jobs have migrated overseas, to under-regulated, underdeveloped countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and India. Why make a pair of sneakers for twenty dollars in America when you can make it for five in Lesotho? Not only does this double standard bring up economic and humanitarian concerns, as manufacturing becomes centered in oppressive sweat shops and not in American factories, but it has environmental implications as well. When companies move factories from Michigan to Manchuria, they not only begin paying as little as they want, but polluting as much as they want.
It doesn’t matter if it’s an American company that’s moved its factories to China or a Chinese company that’s selling the products of its factories in America, when America enforces tighter restrictions on its own products than its imports—in essence, favoring foreign products over American ones—it hurts the environment just as much as it does the American economy. By favoring under-regulated imports, America is favoring products made from dirty, CO2-spewing foreign factories over (relatively) clean American factories, and doing just as much to hurt the environment as we are by driving gas-guzzling SUVs and propping up petrodictators. America needs to change its import policies, or whatever domestic greening America undergoes will be meaningless.
What I propose is a gradual raising of standards on foreign imports so that within ten to fifteen years all products produced overseas will be held to the same environmental standards as all products made here in America. In a world that is flat and getting hotter and more crowded every day, it is not enough for America alone to go green. The developed world, in addition to going green itself, much ensure that developing nations—China and India in particular—also go green. China and India cannot continue to grow, and cannot continue to lift millions of the citizens out of poverty, without continuing to export billions and billions of dollars worth of goods to America. If America asks more of them, and provides them with a reasonable amount of time to adapt, they will have no choice but to comply. If America says it will not buy dirty products, China and India will be forced to start producing clean products. The United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and even the Chinese government have been unable to force a green revolution on the Chinese economy. Just like the U.S. must put the right kind of targeted pressure on its own economy to adapt or die, and become green, the U.S. must similarly put pressure on China and India to adapt or die and make their markets green markets.
Before America can fix the world, we must fix ourselves. But it is imperative that as soon as we have had our own green revolution, we must spread the revolution worldwide. China and India, who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, will by 2050 have a combined population of 3.2 billion—approximately one-third of the total world population—cannot stay dirty. A world with a green America but a dirty China and a dirty India will still be a dirty world. America must lead, but America cannot merely hope that China and India will come along; America must act with caution, but must be decisive when action is called for. America needs to put the necessary pressure on the developing nations of the world to ensure that they develop in a clean, sustainable manner, for their benefit and for ours. Because in a world that is hot, flat, and crowded, the actions of one nation are not enough, and calamity will not be prevented without the concerted effort of all.

Dear Mr. Friedman:

First of all, I am so glad I read your book. It truly opened my eyes the growing issue of climate change. I knew it was a huge problem, but I had no idea that change is occurring so quickly, and that the consequences are going to become severe much more quickly than anticipated. I hope more people continue to read this book, as I think our country really needs a wake-up call.

I do, in fact, have a suggestion for Chapter 18. I believe the food industry should be discussed, as current food industry issues correspond with issues presented in Hot, Flat, and Crowded. The energy and resources required to process, package, and transport food across the globe is the “umbrella” problem, but others such as unsanitary processing practices, loss of biodiversity, and health consequences for consumers must also be addressed.

Americans often take for granted the fact that almost all varieties of produce are available year-round. They forget that a large quantity of the produce we eat has traveled thousands of miles before reaching the grocery store. Not only does food transportation consume enormous amounts of energy; widespread, repeated handling of food during processing and packaging increases the chances of food-borne illness.

While it would be nice to completely trust the individuals who package and process our food, the harsh reality is that the USDA and FDA can only do so much in ensuring food safety. According to William Hubbard, “In the 1970s, the FDA would conduct roughly 35,000 food inspections, visiting the 70,000 processing facilities in this country every other year” (Arnold 24). However, today, “the FDA can inspect only 7,000 facilities each year, yet the number of plants as increased to 120,000” (Arnold 24). Clearly, this is a problem of funding and regulation—two issues you emphasized in Hot, Flat, and Crowded. If more funding was directed to the USDA and FDA, more regulation would occur, and our food would be safer.

Now, I’m going to open another can of worms: livestock production. According to Jane Black, “livestock production generates nearly one-fifth of greenhouse-gas emissions” (28). No federal regulations currently exist to protect the lives of farm animals, even though, on some industrial livestock facilities, workers “routinely debeak the chickens or dock the tails of cows and hogs” without anesthetics, to ensure that animals do not bite or swat each other while living in close quarters (Black 29). The more animals are crowded into a small living space, the greater the chances of food contamination.

Additionally, these animals are fed regular doses of antibiotics and hormones which enable them to grow faster and thus meet the demands of the market. Much of these antibiotics and hormones transfer to the animals’ waste, which is then sprayed onto farm fields as fertilizer, potentially ending up in drinking wells and groundwater. “Constant, low-level exposure to antibiotics can lead to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, as well as drug-resistant infections in humans,” which cause thousands of deaths each year (Black 30). As you stated in Hot, Flat, and Crowded, regulation is seriously lacking in energy production. Undoubtedly, unless more food industry regulation is implemented, food contamination will only become more prevalent.

Finally, I come to the issue of the loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity loss was a huge issue you addressed in Hot, Flat and Crowded. In addition to the loss of biodiversity in wild animal and plant species, biodiversity has also been lost in the food we eat. Overall, “reduced crop and animal diversity (about 90 percent of food energy now comes from just 15 plant and eight animal species) in favor of streamlined efficiency has destroyed distinctive flavors and increased the risk of widespread disease” (Black 29). In addition to these consequences, biodiversity loss presents other issues. Genetically engineered crops, whose DNA are altered to produce increased amounts of food and withstand certain pesticides, for instance, can sometimes require the use of even more chemicals because they are resistant to frequent spraying.

While the above issues are large-scale domestic problems, I do have a few solutions for Americans. I know, this may seem like a “205 Easy Ways to Save the Earth” kind of blog posting, but just hear me out.

The local food movement is increasing in popularity in the United States. Individuals across America are joining CSA (community supported agriculture) programs. For a fee, these programs provide weekly shares of eggs, produce, and sometimes homemade breads and meat from a local farm. Why not just by these at the grocery store, you ask? By purchasing food—especially meat, produce, and eggs—from a local farm, the risk of food contamination and subsequent illness is drastically decreased, as it travels directly from the farm to the regional pickup location without processing. Also, the “carbon footprint” made from the food transportation is not nearly as significant, as the food did not have to travel from across the globe—probably just across a county line. Finally, the quality of the produce is much better! Many CSAs are even using organic or other “clean food practices,” which include pesticide- and hormone-free growing.

If consumers stick to local produce, from either CSAs or farm markets, they will also learn the benefits of eating seasonally. Americans often forget that, based on the region in which you live (with the exception of California), all produce does not grow year-round. For example, in Montgomery County, MD, the fall crop usually consists of salad greens, herbs, squashes, pumpkins, potatoes, and apples, and the summer crop nearly always consists of peppers, tomatoes, corn, beans, some potatoes, asparagus (briefly), mushrooms, carrots, and squash. My family joined a CSA last fall, and we bought an additional share this summer and we plan to do the same this fall. We know that, if we continue to eat local produce year-round, we will not, for example, be able to eat local corn (among other vegetables) during the winter. So, we take half of the produce from our CSA box each week, blanch it, and freeze it in vacuum-seal bags. As a result, we will have delicious, high-quality, ready-to-eat produce throughout the winter!

Eating locally may have even further benefits. For instance, in Hot, Flat, and Crowded, you mention what “living the American dream” in contemporary society truly implies—living a life of excess. Maybe, if Americans adjusted their eating habits and focused on eating locally, with the exception of items such as olive oil, salt, pepper, vinegar, and some herbs and seasonings, they would become more inclined to live in moderation instead of simply living the “on demand” lifestyle of buying whatever food they want whenever they want it.

If more people make the choice to join CSA organizations, they will be able to support smaller farms and agricultural businesses, many of whom are struggling because of the economic crisis, instead of supporting the enormous agribusinesses that often have unethical and unsanitary practices.

Speaking of the economic crisis, I realize that it is difficult for lower-income populations to buy produce—organic or not—very often. So, why not grow your own vegetables and herbs? You save money, and you know exactly where your food is coming from, and can ensure that it is not contaminated. And, if you freeze or can part of what you grow, you can enjoy delicious, home-grown produce off-season. You also mentioned in Hot, Flat, and Crowded that individuals are often skeptical about purchasing newer, more energy-efficient appliances for their homes, as they cost a lot initially, but provide greater savings in the long run. However, countless individuals and families are fighting (or have fought) to keep their homes due to threats of foreclosure. Right now, it will be difficult to persuade a large number of people to make these investments. So, I suggest they start small, and support the local food movement.

I realize that, with respect to the food industry situation, change needs to be made on a large scale (government regulation) as well as a small scale (the American people). Regulation is probably the most important and could possibly be the most influential; however, the healthcare system and the economic crisis are currently consuming the federal agenda, and it is important that, in the meantime, Americans do as much as they can on their own to demonstrate their support for the local food movement and, consequently, our planet.

Works Cited

Arnold, Katie. "Eat Smart." Body and Soul Sept. 2009: 23-25. Print.

Black, Jane. “America’s Farms & You.” Body and Soul Sept. 2009: 28-31. Print.

In reading the section on utility companies and how they need to keep some generators at standby to be able to react to peek power demands I would make a suggestion. The utilities should build simple hydrogen generators to convert water to Oxygen and hydrogen and store the hydrogen. This can then be used later to generate electrical and thus reduce the peaks and valleys. At the same time we would begin to build up the infastructure for hydrogen for the future.

In response to "The World is Flat" I found myself wondering how it is possible for America to find its pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit again. I eventually came upon an idea that could possibly help America to become educationally competitive with the likes of China and India once again; in this idea I think it implies increased prolificness of green-oriented innovation.

Problem: America is beginning to lag behind other nations in academic performance and training of top-notch graduates for the top creative and 'green' jobs of the near future. I would argue part of this performance gap is due to a general national 'attitude' that has developed which encourages mediocrity (mostly in an implicit fashion) as opposed to excellence.

Suggestion: It seems that we as a nation have spent a lot of money to provide programs to individuals who need to be supported (welfare, social security, etc.). This is not an assault against these programs-- on the contrary I agree that we need to provide support for individuals in need; however, there is one thing that I think is fairly certain: these programs don't provide much in the way of return on investment.

What I would suggest would be an variation on the tax break incentive one receives with increased dependents. If we take for granted that the areas in which we need to improve very quickly are science and math, why not provide increased tax exemption for 1) people who earn degrees in federally designated 'critical areas' (e.g. engineering, mathmatics, etc.) and 2) people who earn advanced degrees.

These factors could also multiply to some factor upon one another, for example:

Person A: earns a BA in English receives 1.5x standard deduction

Person B: earns a BS in Chemical Engineering receives 2.0x standard deduction

Person C: earns a PhD in Communications receives 2.5x standard deduction

Person D: earns a PhD in Electrical Engineering receives 3.5x standard deduction.

...and so forth. Obviously the numbers are not exact but you get the idea. The idea is that a great way to get ourselves going as a nation would be to create incentive for excellence rather than just making it a moral buzz word.

Also, I would suggest that the increased rate of deduction be applied to the deduction received as one increases their dependents. Therefore, there is also incentive for these motivated individuals to produce more individuals who will (hopefully) seek to out-do their parents' achievement. I admit this last suggestion is highly debatable since 1) it poses the prospect of producing another potential 'baby boom' and would create a potential financial mess in the future, 2) it would contribute to further crowding the world with more high-energy consumers, and 3) some might argue it smacks of social engineering to some degree; however, if the need right now is to produce as many high-quality brains as possible to work on the toughest challenges of our time the good may outweigh the bad.

Dear Mr. Friedman,

I have just finished The World Is Flat and am enjoying its hangover and, despite intense search, I could not get your email address to convey views. So I had no option but to send my views on The World Is Flat in this space. I hope you wont mind - after all world is not that flat that i could find your email address. make it little flatter for me. The World is Flat is really one of the most piercing and visionary piece of work on the subject that I have ever come across. This book is simply fascinating and outstanding. Indubitably, you have treated the subject with such incisive style that no one else has been able to do in recent times. However, though you briefly broached the subject of CNN and CNBC in the context of the USA, I still feel that you have missed one of the FLATTENERS while discussing the subject. This eleventh flattener may be mixed up with the ninth & tenth flatteners. This eleventh flattener is the advent of cable TV and satellite TV channels. I live in Pakistan (next to India) and I have witnessed the tremendous effects these cable TV channels (or satellites channels) have on flattening this part of the world. And I am sure the similar kind of flattening effects of cable TV are being experienced in almost all parts of the world - particularly in the developing countries. You can't imagine the huge impact this cable TV phenomenon has made on transforming and converging the cultures in general. Before the advent of cable TV, the viewership of mostly state-owned TV channels was limited to very few households in the developing countries as well as Indian, China and the former Soviet states. Only 5-7 % of the population in these countries had exposure to state-owned TV channels that were beaming the pro-government, socialist, communist or religious views of the ruling elite. The TV channels at that time (and still today the state-owned channels) were working as the propagandist of the ruling class of the country (it could be military, bureaucracy or feudals depending upon the country's political power structure). These TV channels, with their narrow and limited vision, kept their equally "limited audience" in a close world where they were only exposed to the "good deeds" of the ruling elite and "sweet dreams" of the future. These state-owned TV channels were nothing more than big propaganda organ of their respective governments with no conscious efforts on the cultural or mental development of the people. However, with the arrival of the cable TV, the societies in these developing countries found a new kind of exposure to the outer world that was unimaginable just a few years ago. The cable TV phenomenon has affected the global culture in four different ways. One, it has enabled the viewers to have a direct exposure to different cultures that was not possible in the old era of state-owned TV channels. Two, unlike the small size of the state-owned TV channel audience, the cable TV has a very deep penetration even to remote areas of under-developed countries and even the non-affording classes of these countries are having access to it because of extremely low monthly charges to maintain a cable TV connection . Now almost over 80% households in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Laos and Sri Lanka etc has access to cable TV with numerous local, regional and western channel options. Three, the specialization of channels (ESPN, CNN, BBC, National Geographic & HBO etc) in both English and local languages has further given the opportunity to these people to be more open, modern and democratic in their approach. The growing voices for democracy in the developing countries have a lot to do with the cable TV.
This part of the world that has a major flattener in the form of cable TV that has enable to change the global culture. Now Western trousers among Pakistani girls are no more a taboo. Just five years ago you could not imagine that Pakistani women would be using jeans and T-shirts so freely. This is a direct influence of cable TV that even the strict religious society of country like Pakistan has increasingly adopted the Western dresses among the female folk. The effect is not limited to dresses only. Now the pizzas and burgers have enormously replaced the local food item in these developing countries which were very rigid for the past few decades in accepting the western food and culture.

Mr. Friedman, I just wanted to bring this aspect into your notice and this topic (if you agree with me) can be expanded further as the eleventh flattener or a part of ninth or tenth flattener. I am sure you will give your input on this aspect as well.

July 6th, 2009

Mr. Friedman,
I’m a (retired) proud to be Union Millwright based out of the 1121 Local in Boston. My 22+ years in the field had me going to power plant shutdowns in a variety of facilities; oil, gas, coal, trash burning, hydro, and nuclear. Ten of my last 12 years before my disability retirement were at VY, aka Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, Vt. My duties were as mundane as valve oil changes and filter replacement to the technically detailed disassembly/reassembly of the turbine and the procedure intensive disassembly/reassembly of the reactor. I got to work along side a wide variety of engineers involved in a wide array of activities relating to nuclear power; folks from big Corporations like GE and Framatome to small Co. that specialize in underwater robotics to do radiologically dangerous work. It made me proud that I was involved in work that supplied our society with their ever increasing demand for electricity, today something akin to the air we breathe. My first job there gave me great angst, as everywhere I walked within the plant there were yellow/magenta signs warning of radiological conditions. I constantly did self checks on my dosimetry. Eventually, my angst was converted to an understanding of the situation and an appreciation for the professionalism of everyone involved. At the end of those ten years I was a proud member of that team. But Sept. 11th occurred and with it a large infusion of security enhancements. That event made me concerned again for the obvious reasons. Though professional in every way, the production of electricity at VY created a waste that is deadly for 10’s of thousands of years. I was laid off in early 2003, a year or so after Entergy of La. bought them from the previous group of owners.
Flash forward to the spring of 2008. My wife and I were emerging from a winter season that was fairly typical; quite a lot of snow, a few winter rain storms, and 3 or 4 below zero mornings. (Just a decade earlier though, that below zero figure would have been 10-15 mornings.) We burned about 1200 gals. of propane at $2.75. Our fuel company sent us a pre-buy memo in May saying the upcoming seasonal price would be $3.75. That is when we decided to take the green plunge and decided on geothermal. I hired Atlantic Geothermal out of Florence, Ma. and the project began. In the end, it cost us $25,000 less a $2,000 credit for a 3 Ton heating (and cooling) system. We figure we cut our heating cost in half compared to what we would have spent burning propane. We are so happy that I’ve removed the old furnace and its hot water base boards. I was so enthusiastic for this system that I got Atlantic 2 more jobs in my area. David Reynolds, the President of Atlantic, enjoyed my zeal for his work and told me of his concept for a geothermal power plant. Because of that exciting prospect, I now work for Atlantic Geothermal LLC.
On Wednesday, June 24th in your own NY Times there was a front page story about a Swiss geothermal project in 2006 that was shut down after it was determined it had triggered an earthquake. The article segued to a geothermal project soon to start in Northern Ca. involving AltaRock Energy Inc. In the article, AltaRock says they have learned from the Swiss project, but one glaring fact remains; both projects are open loop systems. Open loop geothermal power production requires supply wells that feed steam generated from the hot rocks deep below, and return wells that inject “cold” water back into the ground for it to get back to the hot rocks below. These return wells depend on natural and hydro fractured fissures (both unknowns) in the earth to get that water to its destination. Open Loop systems operate at an optimal depletion rate, which over its expected 20-30 year life, depletes the energy asset below quicker than the heat can recover, economically forcing it to decommission.
Atlantic Geothermal LLC has a different idea. We call our system is a Closed Loop Energy Mine (CLEM). It requires drilling a 16’ diameter hole to a depth of 30,000’. Then a 5,000’ tunnel is bored the same diameter. At 50’ intervals along both sides of this tunnel a series of 6” holes are bored to a length of 1,500’, and they are connected at their ends employing directional drilling. This manufactured underground infrastructure resembles a tree leaf lying on a table with its stem turned upwards. The projected temperature at that depth is between 300- 350 degrees F and there are 1,000 atmospheres of pressure at that depth, preventing the water that fills the system from boiling. That water is pumped to the surface where the decreasing pressure allows it to convert to steam and turn a series of low pressure turbines. It later condenses back to water and is pumped back below. This well defined, manufactured underground infrastructure allows for an optimal recharge rate, giving the plant owner an asset that can produce reliable, baseline electricity for centuries instead of 2 or 3 decades. Yes, our up front cost will be significantly more, but that cost can be paid for easily by the extended life of the plant that will generate very long term profits.
Our prototype is for a 160 MW plant to be built on a 10 acre plot sitting atop of the underground infrastructure. The estimated cost would be $800M. This prototype could be expanded to produce 1400MW at a cost of $5.4B. This is about 1/3 the cost of a new nuclear plant that Republicans are pushing as one of their solutions to our energy needs, and ours produces zero pollution of any kind!
Mr. Friedman, you often stress education and innovation in your op/ed pieces and I could not agree more. Our project will be transformational in method; it will require developing new methods for underwater mechanical work, akin to the ongoing Mars mission using robots. Deep earth boring and tunneling technology will advance because of the needs of this project. Innovative processes and patents will likely emerge. Engineering students would leap at the opportunity to join in this endeavor. We could call them “The Gen Transformers”. As you said in your piece on July 1st, young Americans must take hold of their own future, their destiny, if America is to succeed at this very important challenge. We at Atlantic Geothermal believe it can happen and want to be a part of the exciting reinvention of America with what you call the ET revolution, a commitment to step forward and be a part of the restart of the American dream.
Should this letter pique your interest, Sir, we have a detailed concept paper that we could send to you. We’ve applied for grant money from the Energy Dept. ARPA-E program. Would it be possible for your “Science Times” editor to review our concept paper for possible publication?
Thank-you, Mr. Friedman, and please feel free to contact me or David Reynolds at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kevin P. Downey David Reynolds
kevin.downey1@yahoo .com dave@atlanticgeothermal.com
802-464-7202 413-587-0021

the existence of(Brera-BrambrillaCary-Yale-Tarocchi)

There is a common misconception that the world needs to stop emitting carbon dioxide in order to solve the global warming problem. Not true! The correct statement of the problem is that we must stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning FOSSIL FUELS. Carbon dioxide from burning biomass can be global warming neutral.

Three precepts should guide our actions. 1) This is a world problem. An expensive solution that works for the United States, but not for China, is not a solution. 2) Ordinary people should not have to change how they live their lives. The solution should still allow cars and planes. 3) Use existing investment when at all possible. Find a new source of hydrocarbons so existing oil refineries and coal-fired electricity plants can continue to operate.

1) Venture capitalists like expensive solutions. They make their money up-front by keeping a percentage of the capital they raise. Many of the solutions they propose simply don't scale well enough to solve the world's problem. Academics don't understand or appreciate capital investment. Industry fixates on it. A good model for how to accomplish this is the world effort, 20 years ago, to replace chlorofluorocarbons with ozone friendly replacements.

2) This is easy for electricity. When a consumer flips a switch to turn on a gadget, it doesn't matter whether the electrons were generated by burning coal or biomass, nuclear fission, falling water, photovoltaics, or the wind. Electricity doesn't care how it is generated. Not so for transportation fuels. Switching from liquid hydrocarbon based vehicles to electric ones or even cars burning ethanol requires consumers to change how they interact with their vehicles. Many pundits think drastic changes in consumer behavior are necessary to solve the global warming problem. Some even called for the abolition of the airline industry. They can conceive of battery powered cars, but not battery powered airplane. Burning aviation fuel produced from biomass would not contribute to global warming.

3) Today, cars in the United States can't burn pure ethanol. Refineries can't make it. To switch to an ethanol-based transportation system would require the country to scrap its existing oil refineries and build new fermentation plants. Very expensive! The existing pipeline and tanker fleet can't move corrosive ethanol to your corner filling station. The underground tanks in your filling station and all the hoses and piping there can't withstand ethanol either. Nor can the fuel lines in your car. It is completely unreasonable to expect Detroit to be able to design new cars capable of running on ethanol fuel. If Iowa didn't hold a presidential beauty contest every four years, ethanol would not even be on the political agenda. Most of the world uses hydrocarbons to power their transportation industry. In the future, this should not change.

Nuclear-power, while carbon free, is not the right solution to the problem. This industry has the ethics of Enron or the tobacco industry. They plant distortions and lies in otherwise reliable publications. If this industry had to compete fairly, it would be out of business. The insurance industry refuses to write them liability policies because they cannot calculate the risk involved. Astute lobbying has dumped the liability on the government, that's you and me, the taxpayers. No other energy source requires such a subsidy. There are better ways to solve the global warming problem than nuclear fission.

Let's make gasoline, aviation fuel, and diesel from biomass. I emphasize diesel, not biodiesel. They are not the same chemically. Biodiesel requires all new investment to produce it from fats. Although the chemistry is simple, it is slow and therefore requires large equipment which is not cheap. All this would be new investment.

What we need is a photosynthetic plant that makes a hydrocarbon that existing refineries can process into the same mix of gasoline and diesel as they do now from petroleum. Coal-fired electrical generating facilities should be able to burn this material to produce electricity.

Such a plant actually exists. It is a pelagic algae, Botryococcus braunii, that grows in the Indian Ocean. It produces a mix of isoprene oligomers averaging n=6. For some strains, these hydrocarbons comprise up to 70% of the dry weight of the plant. Scaling up production of this algae will no doubt be difficult, but so are all the other proposed solutions to the global warming problem. This proposal makes maximum use of existing investment and does not require the consumer to change anything. Since the algae grows in the ocean, it does not compete with food production, nor does it involve land-use changes. Algae grow in the water, and if properly contained would not be visible from land. The existing oil tanker fleet along with converted fishing boats could collect the algae, squeeze out the oil, and transport it to existing refineries. Bioengineering is an infant science. This proposal is amenable to continuous improvement. Imagine what a green revolution could do when applied to this problem.
For more information see:

http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/...

Let's get started.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and believe it contains a wealth of important ideas that truly must take hold in today's world.

From the perhaps pedantic viewpoint of a physicist, I would ask that in future editions, you would consider the wholesale replacement of the word "electrons" throughout most of the book with the far more correct terms "electricity" or, in some cases, "electrical energy". We do not generate, create or make electrons. They are always present. We only move them around and it is pushing them around that takes energy. There are no "clean electrons"; there are only clean ways to make them go from point A to point B. Electrons are not valuable and are never scarce. Only the ability to move them around matters.

I think it is important that a book that seeks to convey important technical information to the general public gets the basics correct.

Dear Mr. Friedman,

Thank you for writing Hot, Flat and Crowded. You did a great job (1) describing the problems of the world becoming hot, flat and crowded and (2) describing a variety of solutions, especially in the energy arena.

However, I hope that in Chapter 18 you will describe in some detail how much we need to rein in population growth and how it can be accomplished. You did a great job describing a vitally needed energy internet. The same kind of analysis needs to be brought to bear upon population growth. This is nothing new; many people realize the seriousness of the population problem. However, it was a glaring omission from your book.

Today, there is almost no politician willing to stick his or her neck out about the need to control population growth. You never read about this on the front page of the newspapers. You do read about water problems, about the price of energy going up, about immigration, about food scarcity in Africa, wars and genocide, poverty and terrorism spreading like a plague. But few people want to talk openly and publicly about how all of these things might be caused, at least in part, by too many people competing for scarce resources. People are reluctant to talk about reducing population. Why? Because people are afraid. They are afraid of all the things that might go wrong if we try to tackle this. Population control is fraught with huge moral, social, religious and political issues. But you are not afraid. You have the desire, the energy and the courage to tackle difficult problems and address them. And the population problem is one problem that is crying out for you to address.

You can help make it politically correct to talk about the need to reduce our population. Because so many people read what you write, I hope you will make population control and how we can achieve it a main topic of Chapter 18. You could start, for example, with the 1972 the Rockefeller Commission Report on Population and the American Future commissioned by then-president Nixon, which stated that “in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population”. We need to praise China for their one-child policy, which by all measures makes tremendous sense, and is as urgently needed as the energy internet you have described in great detail.

So, in summary, I hope you will make population control – the how as much as the why – a key part of Chapter 18.

Sincerely,

Jim Gaw
P.O. Box 1001
Carbondale, CO 81623

Although you illuminated the global scale of the problem, I think there is one area in which your argument can be improved. I think it’s realistic and helpful that you deal with the problem on the global scale by looking at the role of world leaders, but I think that all world leaders play a role now and will play one in the future. I accept that President Obama has a lot more to do with the future than I do, but I think that leaders in the developing world should be included in your argument. Although China or the U.S. will lead, the leadership of developing countries represents billions of people and vital resources for the world’s population. After reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded, I still have no idea how you think most of the developing world fits into your big picture of the impending energy climate era’s future and where they are left in the resulting global economic, political, and social situation. Including the roles these governments will play will not only make your argument more complete; it will help your readers gain confidence in the alternatives you propose for the future. Our lifestyle affects and is closely connected to the lifestyles of people around the world, and I think more and more Americans are realizing this. Offering where these developing nations’ governments, and their citizens, fit in will give your American readers a better perspective of the world. After all, isn’t the issue of finding a solution to global warming an enormous task of global scale that connects each and every person on the planet? Our fates are all bound together on this issue because as we continue to destroy the planet, we all suffer. I think it would only strengthen your book to include all of the world’s leadership. By including them you include all of the world’s people and thus provide a more complete argument.
Thank you,
Molly

Mr. Friedman
Before the dawn of the industrial revolution in Europe, European countries were behind the rest of the world technologically, industrially, and inspirationally. But Europe soon discovered what it had that China, India, and Arabia did not (or at least did not know of at the time): coal. At its discovery it could not possibly have been known that it would prove to be one of the poorest investments ever made by mankind. The harnessing of carbon is a gift and a curse. To the industrial world for the majority of the past two centuries it allowed for technological advancements like the steam engine and the locomotive, but we are now paying the price for the luxury the world allowed us.
But it is not too late. Time is of the essence. Simply put there is not enough time for America to fix its problems and watch developing countries make the same mistakes the Western World did building societies based on carbon. We need a system of congruent evolution. Policy makers, alongside a strong minority of educated men and women, need to push for institutional change at the local and federal level. At the same time we should be hiring a young work force from AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, the Green Corps, and any other institution that values life on Earth united under one goal: to educate the people of America and set up workshops in developing nations around the world to teach the value of developing intellect and not industry.. Knowledge of what is right, sustainable, and supportive of a healthy future floods classrooms at present, but the dam needs to break. It needs to be taken to the streets and to the small villages of the world now! Policy in the United States must be enacted and we must practice what we preach. The eyes of the world are on the United States, why not project the image of a sustainable ways of life.
The clock is ticking, and the youth of this nation hear it and are ready to vote yes, vote green, and live by those decisions.

Mr. Friedman,

The aim of the book is spot-on: humans have dug themselves into a hole so far as planet and societal management is concerned, and it is high time to change if we are serious about becoming a more sustainable world community. America is indeed in an excellent place to step up and make changes within itself to lead by better example despite our sordid past industrialization and pollution. However, there is one major problem implicit with America motivaving all of its citizens and governments – local, regional, state, national – to lead the way: what is the rest of the world to do?
I’m sure that the petrodictatorships gaining millions of dollars every moment are not going to be happy about the sudden withdrawal of American funds as they begin moving towards clean energy development, or even in reduced use of fossil fuels. How will these countries deal with losing their largest-earning exports and loss of income thereafter, and how will their governments react? In no way does this imply that America should stay cheap and dirty for the benefit of other countries’ feelings and exports, but leaving this major player out in the dark without a plan (and known bad feelings towards America in the past) is a definite problem not addressed in this book. Is solar energy in desert climates feasible? Could thermocline energy be harvested from hot desert days and cold desert nights? Is wind energy an option in narrow mountain passes? Could any of these new energy options be exported or traded for profit?
Also, developing nations must feel an entitlement to develop just as America did with a carbon-rich advantage. While they are entitled to this opinion and indeed are growing each minute via heavily fossil-fueled means, how is this development to be regulated? To say that they can only grow by clean means (especially while America is still churning out smoke and carbon) is hypocritical and dictatorial from one of the world’s leaders. Not only should we lead, but we should encourage these countries to provide leadership and then lead our own country by example. America should provide leadership in the development of treaties, laws, and standards at various social levels (federal, state, and local) to infuse the impact of environmental change into people’s everyday lives in a constructive and meaningful way.

Leading by example on an international scale not only includes supporting change and acting on it at that scale, but it requires much-needed change at home concurrently. While the technologies and structures necessary for these national changes may not exist yet, it is said that necessity is the mother of invention. To spur environmentally-focused inventions of products, formulation of social constructs and processes to promote environmental change, and group together sponsoring foundations and organizations, a national registry and promoter of these initiatives could be created in the form of an overarching organization. In addition to inventing new products, other sponsored projects could include outreaches into local high schools and communities to promote environmental awareness and action in the form of voter support and awareness that drives those targeted to think environmentally beyond just green consumerism or turning off the lights when leaving a room. In leading the world, America must lead and organize itself first with a definite plan.

I really enjoyed the book and I'm looking forward to your future work!

Dear Mr. Friedman,

America and China need to change their habits as they are two major countries that have the ability to change the path of climate change. Yet I feel that by only speaking of America and China, you place too little emphasis on developing nations to change as a response of the limited energy supply. From deforestation in Indonesia to industrialization in Africa, there are poor choices being made throughout the world with regards to our limited energy supply. Should we be focusing on repairing America and China, while leaving these other countries out of the picture until Americans can redeem themselves? If developing countries begin to industrialize quickly or in an environmentally detrimental way, as some already are and others will in the near future, then they too will be faced with drastic policy changes, unless they act now. By providing the necessary knowledge and skills in sustainability and efficiency with energy programs within developing countries that are in need of attention, we can help to direct where their development towards sustainability while trying to repair America’s. By providing direction for developing nations in Chapter 18, you will better accentuate the crucial role they will play in changing sustainability standards.

Loved your first book and look forward to the second!

Erika