The End of Green?

Another idea to promote: using the US consumer-based economy to forge global change through a potentially elegant public policy to create a "carbon filter" system. Carbon filtering, at its structural roots would impose a tariff on any imported good based on its carbon intensity. A Federal-level department would be established to review and assign estimated carbon intensities across classes of goods and services. Domestically, producers can either be taxed (the more optimal policy, economically) or forced to buy carbon permits in cap and trade scheme of some sort. The carbon filter effectively levels the playing field for domestic manufacturers (and removes the incentive to outsource manufacturing to locales with less restrictive carbon regimes). Let's use the strength of the American consumer to show some real global leadership.

Below are excerpts from an advocacy paper expanding on the idea. I wrote this for a business school class in Business and Government Strategy in the Fall of 2007:

INTRODUCTION
Climate change, whether believed to be deleterious to Earth’s inhabitants or not, has become inexorably ensconced in public policy debate. The push to reduce carbon emissions is generally regarded as a virtuous goal, but remains stubbornly intractable on a global scale due to the economic and societal consequences of action. While climate change policy is traditionally viewed as a multi-lateral, global issue, this paper will advocate that, given a carefully-crafted policy, the United States is uniquely positioned to make environmentally-beneficial worldwide changes in carbon-based behavior while protecting domestic economic interests through unilateral action. This paper will, for debate’s sake, assume that some form of carbon-reducing policy will be adopted in the United States in the near future.

STAKEHOLDERS
Climate change policy has many stakeholders, ranging from government entities to private businesses and from national to international concerns. The most relevant stakeholders on which to focus for this analysis will be United States-based, as the policy prescription is fundamentally unilateral. Certainly, a full analysis of the issue would include foreign entities to comprehensively predict what reaction the suggested policy would cause. The United States Government at the Federal level would be the first stakeholder of concentration, as it alone holds the pervasive power to enact provisions necessary to enforce a national taxation scheme.
 
CARBON CONTROL BACKGROUND
In traditional carbon control regimes, a nation, or group of nations collectively decides to reduce carbon emissions using a limiting construct, such as a cap-and-trade system. Effectively placing a ceiling on the total carbon emitted from the group, a cap-and-trade system requires market participants to obtain carbon credits from a specialized market trading in carbon derivative instruments. Another carbon control regime is a carbon tax, where companies are taxed based on the amount of carbon emitted. Modulating the tax rate has the effect of reducing or increasing the amount of carbon the group emits, analogous to the monetary policy tool of increasing or decreasing the money supply (and its effect on interest rates). Producers operating at the marginal rate will discontinue emitting when the tax rate increases (either by innovation to reduce carbon output, simply by electing to exit the business or to increase prices). Although both systems have merit, we advocate a carbon tax control regime as a base upon which we will suggest significant modifications.
 
THE CASE FOR THE UNITED STATES
The United States, with roughly 15.5% of the world’s share of imports , possesses an incredibly unique opportunity for global climate leadership. The adoption of a universal carbon tax regime could induce substantial behavioral change across the world. The universal carbon tax establishes a tax rate for the carbon footprint of each good and service, and levies taxes proportional to carbon intensity. This applies uniformly to imports, exports, and domestically-directed production. Under a traditional carbon control regime, the manufacturers under the regime are penalized relative to other world producers located in permissive carbon control regions. For the durable goods business, we would face competitors with a much lower tax cost structure, and would be immediately placed at a disadvantage. The company could continue to locate operations in the United States, under the more stringent carbon control, and compete with higher costs, or relocate operations to a country with relaxed emissions standards. These choices are desirable choices to give to American companies, already struggling valiantly to compete globally. Instead, a comprehensive system of carbon footprint enumeration is called for, identifying to some degree of precision the amount of carbon emissions required to produce and deliver any good or service. Based on the system estimation of the total carbon footprint of the good, a tariff will be imposed. Similar to an import tax for international companies importing into the United States, the system will generate parity across multiple national borders. With the market share of imports the United States maintains, the majority of companies cannot simply elect to abandon the United States market, but rather will be compelled to comply with the United States carbon import tax. Because the tax is the same (in US dollar terms) across countries for identical products, no country is treated unfairly as a result of the new regime. This fixes the longstanding quandary wherein countries have an incentive to defect from global climate change treaties due to self-interest. This unilateral action by the United States could change the course of climate change as the world understands it.

Revisiting the case for unilateral action in context of the durable goods manufacturers in the United States, we can project that the manufacturers would remain at parity with their international and domestic rivals using identical processes and inputs. Carbon emission intensity would likely vary across participants, however, giving incentives to those low emission manufacturers in the form of lower taxes. This incentive would presumably induce the use of more green processes to produce goods as the reduced tax exposure benefit outweighs the cost of implementation. The question remains, “who bears the cost of this taxation?” Upon cursory analysis, the manufacturers are identified as the group who bears the cost. This is incomplete, as the customers buying the goods will almost certainly see a partial effect reflected in higher prices. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil. Fortunately, it affects manufacturers fairly, both domestically and internationally. For those companies that operate solely in domestic markets (e.g., an electric utility), the tax will be applied evenly based on carbon output, again adhering to the doctrine of fairness.

THE CASE FOR THE WORLD
The world has generally faced persistent resistance to a global standard for emissions, including opposition from the United States. The potential redistribution of wealth and standard of living has significant consequences for a diverse world. Those in fortunate circumstances (the United States being one such country) have a vested interest in protecting their citizens from higher costs due to the country’s current carbon complexion. Global summits, such as Kyoto and Bali, continue to stimulate debate but fall short of the goals promulgated by their constituents. Because of the United States’ size and economic power in the world, the elegant solution of a universal carbon tax regime manifests. No other nation can stimulate such change on a unilateral basis, effectively bypassing global policy debates. The simplicity of the system is simultaneously its strength.

DRAWBACKS
Drawbacks to such a regime do exist. Unquestionably, the administrative overhead required to quantify the carbon inputs to all imported goods, catalog the carbon results, and collect taxes correspondingly is heavy. The identification process would require a working knowledge of foreign-based manufacturing operations (the ability to verify the filing of a foreign country’s firm regarding carbon intensity). Double taxation issues also arise if another country were to adopt a similar system.

TAX REVENUE
As with cap-and-trade and national carbon tax programs, the universal carbon tax regime generates significant tax revenue. This revenue could be used in several ways: a) as an offset to the individual income tax (a revenue neutral proposal), b) to fund research and development in the field of energy efficiency and climate control technology, c) to erase shortfalls in other budget programs. I advocate for a mixture of options (a) and (b). The country is desperately in need of funding for climate control technology, and the offset blunts higher prices faced by consumers due to the higher tax structure.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
No larger opportunity for real environmental change exists. The United States can take a policy lead that others must follow, yet respect. The system’s conceptual adoption by the world hinges on its explicit fairness. Treat all as equals in the eyes of carbon – no special treatment, domestic or international, importer or exporter. The amount of goods imported by the United States effectively allows it to act as a filter of carbon, placing such an incentive on manufacturers to reduce carbon output that real change is achieved. The simplicity of the system lies in its predominantly unilateral nature. No multi-lateral climate treaty, containing every incentive for participants to defect, is required, and no major competitive disadvantage to American business is created. The time to lead is now.

Dear Mr. Friedman,

In reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded I was struck by the omission of two subjects that would appear to reinforce and extend your excellent book. The first is the work of William McDonough, a pioneering designer of green buildings, and the author, along with Michael Braungart, a German chemist, of Cradle to Cradle. McDonough and Braungart make the case that industrial designers must look to nature, where there is no waste--everything is recycled--and make the eventual reuse/recycling of their products an integral part of the products’ design. To quote from their WEB site:

Cradle to Cradle maps the lineaments of McDonough and Braungart’s new design paradigm, offering practical steps on how to innovate within todays economic environment. Part social history, part green business primer, part design manual, the book makes plain that the re-invention of human industry is not only within our grasp, it is our best hope for a future of sustaining prosperity.

Second, there is no mention of the nascent movement in economics the goes under the name “steady state economy”. This is an attempt to supplant the current economic model, which assumes and depends on constant, continuous, open-ended growth, and which has been possible because energy has been cheap and abundant and because natural resources have been exploited as if they had no end, with a new model that recognizes the impossibility endless growth and makes the sustainability of economic activity primary. See the web site of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

I am looking forward to reading the new chapter!

Tom,

I'm sure my view is controversial; hopefully provocative...

I consider an aggressive program of global birth control to be the single most important step toward solving our energy, climate and environmental sustainability challenges. I consider the planet simply can't sustain 6+ billion humans. Until we have better numbers, I believe we should set a global population target of 1.9Bn, roughly the global population in 1900. I fear any ET strategy that fails to reduce global population a fools errand.

just my $0.02,

When news first broke that an economic crisis was occuring requiring a huge "bailout'' I slept a few hours less. That night, I actually left my bed, sat at the kitchen table and wrote out a "plan". The writing was given the next day to my local Obama headquarter. Much to my amazement, the following day, Thomas Freidman was on morning TV, espousing outlines of similar ideas. Since the need was there to shore up the economy with billions of dollars, why not use this opportunity to launch a "green industry".
As a real estate attorney, I understand very well how an owner will soon stop paying on a mortgage if the final result will mean he has paid far more money for a home than it is worth in the market. On the other hand, if the government offers to retrofit the home with green technology that will reduce his electric bill from say $200 to $100 or less, and if in the process, the retrofitted house increases in value by say $50,000 because of the retrofit, the owner will be much more inclined to stay and pay. To this could be refinements such as government induced principal reduction, as required,and sharing of any future equity profits. The bottom line however, would be a way of introducing a viable "greening" industry which would aleviate dependence on carbon energy, help greatly with climate change and dig us out of an economic hole with long lasting beneficial impacts for the global population. Thanks Mr. Freidman. You have made me think that all of us are thinkers...if we try.

In 1993, I listened to a discussion forum with Lester M. Salomon and read articles in the paper about unemployment. I wrote many letters to public policy officials, the Secretary of Labor and elected representatives about the idea I had.
Our tax policy should reward people who invest in human capital. Every taxpayer should be able to deduct a percentage of education expenses that they have paid to an accredited educational institution, with the amount of the deduction based on the proportion of one's taxable income which is invested in education. We would then give the tax cuts to those who make the greatest investment of their resources in America's future competitive standing in the global marketplace.
It would be an easy tax break to administer. Cumbersome education vouchers and other programs would not be needed and no new bureaucracy would be required. In fact, some bureaucracy could be reduced, saving tax dollars which could fund the tax break.
It could be flexible and adjusted year to year. Just as we do when filing itemized deductions for medical expenses, we would calculate our eligibility based on percentage of out taxable income. Greater incentives would lower the percentage, giving a tax break to more taxpayers. I'm not familiar with corporate tax law, but I'm sure something similar could be implemented for companies which invest in training and education of their employees.
It could appeal to both political parties because it would be a reward to those individuals who have made an investment in future earnings potential, not just a hand-out based on need. It would provide an incentive for individuals to continue learning, retraining, and growing throughout their lives.
It could help strengthen our society's appreciation that life-long learning is the only answer to the challenges of structural unemployment.
Our tax policy could reflect and support our GOALS as a nation - recognizing the investments families and individuals make in the future and it could send a clear message of support and encouragement to every family that investing in education is an investment in our nation's future. By allowing all education expenses to be eligible for the deduction, not just those in the field in which one is employed, or not just those leading towards a degree, we could promote a goal of cross-training, exploring creative fields which may lead to more creative innovation in one's field or leading to new opportunities for diversifying one's employability.
Perhaps now someone will give this idea a chance. If America had adopted this type of tax policy 15 years ago...imagine where we might be today.

Last Call:
Get on Board the Train of Hope, Vote for Barack Obama!
By Emalafe Zeleke

For people of African decent, recent immigrants as well as those who have lived in the United States for decades, the election presents a unique opportunity to play a role in a truly rare moment in history. Tomorrow we can join the chorus for change and restore a sense of hope for a better world, for a policy of cooperation, mutual respect, diplomacy, civility and progress. Central to the sense of optimism that fueled millions of people in the United States as well as the rest of the world is the break from the past Barack Obama’s candidacy represents. Not only does Senator Obama offers a new vision in domestic and foreign policies, but his election would also usher in a presidency unlike any other in the history of the United States.

Having said all that one can ask what does Senator Obama’s candidacy mean for Ethiopian Americans? Why vote for Barack? What do an Obama victory and the subsequent policies of indeed entail for citizens? I am sure many of us ask such questions. Here are my reasons for writing this piece at 11:55 before the final verdict is made by the electorate after the most decisive voting hours of Nov 24, 2008: (1) the world is getting increasingly intertwined and requires a transformative leader such as Senator Obama to tackle regional and global issues, (2) A Barak Obama Presidency would promote global cooperation and set progressive global priorities, (3) A Barak Obama Presidency would promote democracy and the protection of human rights in Africa.

In his most recent interview with a national media where he endorsed Barack Obama, General Colin Powel, the former US Secretary of State, aptly used the phrase “a transformative figure” when describing Senator Barack Obama. In this age of globalization, when the “flat world” is becoming even more flatter, the world ever getting crowded, and the global climate getting warmer, by the day, it is not only America that needs a transformative leader, but also the world. Geopolitical and geo strategy scholars and pundits alike--starting with Paul Kennedy’s book on The Rise and Decline of Great Powers -- have been talking about the relative decline of the USA as the most powerful country in the world. A decline that has a simultaneous geopolitical dynamic with the emergence of new regional powers vying to be global powers, thus the increasing trends of the geo political chess board towards a polycentric world of multiple power centers. Among the contending countries is included formerly regional powers such as China, who is flexing its economic muscle along with an authoritarian political system that still remain among the few relics of a bygone era still hanging stubbornly.

Although faced with many troubles on several fronts, including the ongoing financial crisis and economic recession that tops it all, the United States of America remains the most powerful country, with the vastest natural resources, with the most vibrant, and innovative entrepreneurial spirit of its citizenry. And it remains to be the most technologically advanced country among the nations of the world. Despite the often times ugly sides of US foreign policy that deserves much by way of negative reaction and even condemnation, the best of America’s promise to the world, yet remain its ideals of liberty, democracy, and justice. Ideals that move, shake, and inspire much of humanity in sharp contradistinction to models offered by the Chinese and other authoritarian and atavistic political systems where human beings lack their inalienable rights to enjoy liberty, that unique value towards which the human spirit, universally, aspires and struggles towards attainment and consummation. These are the American virtues and ideals that need fulfillment not only for Americans, but for all of humanity.

As the old saying has it when America sneezes , it brings tears to the rest of the world is as true and even more relevant today in this increasingly Globalized and interconnected world, as it was decades ago. Asserting that America is in an economic recession would be commenting on the obviously common knowledge. The world is also suffering from yet a some what forgotten recession. What Larry Diamond, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover institute, argues as the specter of “Democratic recession” that has been plaguing countries around the world. The world needs a rescue package not only for the economic recession but also for the regression of democracy and its role back to many strands of Authoritarian regimes around the Globe, as Mr. Diamond argued in the April/March issue of Foreign Affairs.

Barack Obama has made it clear that good governance, democracy, and human rights will be the cornerstones of his foreign policy. During successive US administrations, especially with the Bush administration, the USA has forfeited that unique position global leadership it often enjoyed --not due to its position as global power-- due to the loftiest of human ideals America cherishes –the ideals of liberty and democracy all human beings aspire to attain. Few years ago, the current President George W. Bush pledged and made it known that America would be on the side of people under the yoke of tyranny and fighting for freedom while in practice it pursued an expedient foreign policy fraught with double standards and hypocrisy of cuddling and rewarding dictatorial regimes that are deemed friendly and under the single minded fixation and criteria of them being “allies of the war on terror”. The list of these friendly dictatorial regimes includes gross human rights violators and those who muzzle the free press like Meles Zenwai of Ethiopia, Musharaf of Pakistan and others.

By contrast, from the outset, in speeches, debates, and interviews on foreign policy matters, Senator Barack Obama has indicated that he will part with the longstanding policy of successive US administrations –both Republicans and democrats--. i.e. that of patting the so-called friendly dictators on their shoulders and looking the other way when these brutal regimes, often times also corrupt, commit massive violation of human rights against their citizens. This glimpse of a new trend in Barack Obama’s foreign policy-- if pursued with vigor and without succumbing to the narrow-minded and expedient single agenda of “fighting the war on terror” and other justifications in the name of national interest --will surely help in reviving the depressed conditions of democracy and lack of basic liberties around the world. Such a policy would help in bringing back those nations suffering from lack of democracy, human rights and good governance towards the right track. Such a reconfiguration in US foreign policy would help those in “democratic recession” even a depression, counties like Ethiopia back on track towards genuine democracy and constitutional liberalism, i.e., where substantive norms and rules of democracy--as opposed to superficial forms such as holding periodic elections-- are the norms, where the rule of law is not replaced overnight by the rule, whim and wish of those holding the levers on state power, where elections are not held under an atmosphere that lack the elementary rules of the game, under conditions that lack the basic criteria for free and fair elections, where there is an absence of a meaningful and truly independent and free press, and where the respect and guarantee for the basic civil and political liberties of each and every citizen and political opposition alike are utterly absent.

Few skeptics have lately expressed a concern with regard to aspects of Obama’s foreign policy when it comes to dealing with such undemocratic regimes. To support their claim they point our to some bad apples that have somehow made it into his foreign policy team, individuals with track record of abetting and aiding dictatorial regimes and patting them on their shoulders. As seen, for instance, during the May 2005 national election in Ethiopia, where the regime security forces who were under the direct command of the prime minister gunned down more than 190 unarmed protesters in its bid to steal the election after committing massive fraud, and at the end getting away with it. In part, with the help and outright justification of those brutal actions by these bad apples. Although such a concern as expressed by these commentators is warranted, one should also be cognizant of the presence of decent and principled foreign policy experts and professionals in that team, who seem to be as committed to democracy, human rights, and good governance in the developing world as Obama has said to uphold. Foreign policy experts, advisors, and professionals who are as eager to restore the broken image USA has suffered around the world as a result of the debacle of the policies of the Bush administration, This should give us comfort that the bad apples would not hold the commanding heights in his foreign policy team to pursue their sinister and un-American agenda of dilly dallying and abetting dictatorial regimes.
There is another indicator as to the persona of Barack Obama. We find the clue as to why one should be optimistic about US foreign policy under an Obama presidency from yet another source. In the The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama wrote: “…All of which raises the question: what are the core values that we, as Americans, hold in common? One core value, individual freedom, is so deeply ingrained in us that we tend to take it for granted. I remember the first time I took Michelle to Kenya, shortly before we were married. As an African-American, she was bursting with excitement about the idea of visiting the continent of her ancestors, and we had a wonderful time, visiting my grandmother upcountry, wandering through the streets of Nairobi, camping in the Serengeti, fishing off the island of Lamu. But during our travels Michelle also heard – as I had heard during my first trip to Africa – the terrible sense on the part of most Kenyans that their fates were not their own. My cousins told her how difficult it was to find a job or start their own businesses without paying bribes. Activists told us about being jailed for expressing their opposition to government policies. ….” The above quoted paragraph from his autobiography tells much by way of Obama’s’ sympathy and empathy with people who find themselves in miserable conditions and lack the basic and deeply cherished American values—Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The quoted paragraphs also tell say much about his deeper understanding of the very sad conditions found among many countries and the peoples living in these countries, it says much about the character of Obama, his core values. The deeply held principles of a very decent man.
Let us not forget the very man who was an outstanding law school student at Harvard and President of Harvard Law Review, opted to accept much lower pay as community organizer, turning down six digit salary job offers from the corporate world. This too is indicative of Obama’s core values and character, that of siding with the average person, and his commitment to change the lot of the under dogs of society, as opposed to aligning with the politically powerful and the wealthy. Farid Zakaria, the former editor of Foreign Affairs, and now with Newsweek magazine, in his most recent article, observes that “ …Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton were always careful not to stay too far from the country’s comfort zone. Obama is pushing to change the parameter of that zone. That's leadership.” It is this tendency to push to change the parameters of the zone, about which Mr. Zakaria talks about that should make us comfortable about the kind of foreign policy that Senator Obama will pursue. It is the kind of leadership qualities Obama embodies that give hope and optimism about his “Transformative” potential not only to reconfigure the political edifice and policies here in the USA, but also on the Global scale.
Viewed from the broad challenges facing humanity, our planet is in great peril, and continues heading towards a catastrophe of epochal proportion. Global warming , climate change, and an ever depleting of natural resources – the depletion of the world’s rangelands, forests, fishers, biodiversity etc—in unprecedented scale and beyond their natural capacity to regenerate themselves as a result of voracious quest of nations of the world for economic progress in an unsustainable and ecologically disastrous path. We have come to a point of no return. Thus, greatly threatening the very survival of human civilization and the continuity of future generations. In much of the developing world such as Ethiopia and much of the countries of Africa, we still face monumental challenges of hunger, abject poverty, the specter of AIDs, and corrupt and tyrannical regimes that exacerbate and compound the misery of hundreds of millions who under abject poverty and ever pushed on the farthest edges of society to engage in actions that degrade the environment on massive scale for sheer survival. These challenges desperately need Leaders with fresh ideas, bold visions, principles and the will for decisive action.
The leading scientists of many countries including the USA, the most prominent climatologists around the Globe, and Inter governmental agencies studying climate change and many other internationally recognized authoritative bodies and personalities such as Jeff Sachs of The Earth Institute at Colombia University and Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute have come to a similar consensus with regard to this central problem of our era. They have ringed the alarm bell about the state of our planet. The single and most pervasive conclusion that has emerged from these massive findings from varied sources is that the human impact on the natural environment has reached a complexity and magnitude unprecedented in history, which may well endanger the survival of human civilizations and human life on this planet.

Barack Obama’s’ energy policy and his avowedly strong commitment to gear the backbone of the most powerful industrial civilization, the American energy system towards alternative, clean and green energy sources promises to put a brake to the current trend towards what has been termed as “ecocide" of Global proportion, stemming from dependency, in large part, on the dirty fuels such as oil and coal. With a majority democratic congress, many hope that America would be able to tackle more seriously and even lead international conventions and the agenda for action to meet the challenges of Global climate change and the Global environmental crises. Obama’s energy policy would create millions of green jobs, minimize USA’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and in the process would bring the US towards an energy system that depends on clean and environmentally non-polluting economy, a model economy of the 21st century.

This in turn would surely help in diffusing innovation in solar, wind and other renewable technologies to the rest of the world. Thus , eventually leading towards the phasing out of the reliance on “Petro dictators”, as argued with massive data and persuasive new vision by Thomas Freidman , the New York Times Foreign Affairs correspondent and bestselling author of several books including his most recent: Hot, Flat , Crowded: Why We need a Green Revolution and How it can Renew America . Mr. Freidman proposes a similar action when he asks Americans “what kind of America would you like to see—an America where there is not big national goal, or a green America, where inventing sources so abundant, clean, reliable, and cheap electrons, which could enable the whole planet to grow in a way that does not destroy its remaining natural habitat, becomes the goal of this generation…” Barak Obama’s energy policy promises to usher a new era for America, America that is not fettered by “petro dictators” due to addictions to oil.

In so far as America remains a leader of the world, if America rises to be the best of her potential, she can change the course of history, not only for America’s sake, but also for the sake of the rest of the world, the survival of humanity at large. There are many reasons that indicate that Barack Obama is such a leader, bringing USA to rise to the best of herself. Indeed to these monumental and epochal challenges with the support of the tens of millions of his supporters, including tens of millions of white Americans who have transcended racial divide and outdated thinking of a bygone era. In deed seeing in him and as Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed some forty years ago--, judging him by the content of his character , not based on the color of his skin. A man has come on the world stage; a unique leader has emerged to lead the most powerful country on the planet.

If elected as a President, not only America but the world would need the qualities and visions of Barack Obama. He may not be the alpha and omega, but he certainly can put America on the right track and with America’s leading by example, the rest of the world would follow. Let us rise up to the occasion. Let us seize the moment. Let us vote for hope, vote for change; vote a better and stronger America. Vote for a cleaner and greener America, and consequently a cleaner and greener world. Let us vote not only for ourselves but also for the continuity and survival of humanity on planet earth. Vote for Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

We have laws on the books at the federal and state levels that make it difficult or even impossible for individuals to sell excess electrons generated by their home or farm renewable energy systems back to the utilities. In other words, they are not permitted to be a “net generator.” All they can do is make their meter run backward. They are compensated at the retail rate for what they produce up to the amount they take from the grid. Once they reach the net zero point, excess power goes into the grid for free.

We need to change the laws to allow these farmers, ranchers, and homeowners to sell excess power at the utilities avoided cost. This will provide a greater incentive for homeowners to install solar, and farmers and ranchers to produce electricity from their waste as well as install solar. It would also allow utilities here in California to avoid buying coal-fired power from out of state, and may begin to displace oil-fired electricity.

Until we get that legislation, people who produce more renewable electricity than they use should find ways to displace other forms of energy around the house or farm. Maybe using your excess electricity to preheat water going into a gas water heater would work. You would save on the gas bill and lower the amount of CO2 from that source.

The bottom line once again is that we need to make it easier to do the right thing than it is to do the harmful thing.

Thank you, Tom, for this amazingly eye-opening book.
I'm wondering why you didn't talk about the fact that electric plug-in vehicles were already produced and leased in CA and then were taken off the market, most likely due to oil company pressure. The documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" was mind-reeling!! The technology is already here, but it was destroyed. Please....... include this in your final chapter. We need those electric cars!!!
Thank you,
Amy Martin

There is no way the financial crisis will be the end of an ecologically sound economic infrastructure. Unless, that is, the same parochial interests that got us into this financial crisis use it as an excuse to engorge themselves, yet again, at the expense of the national interest. That process is underway, but will fail.

Here's why. Green industry will outcompete old-tech that can't or won't capitalize on the energy-efficient and resource-efficient strategies that reduce expenses and capture profits more effectively. No matter how hard the old industrial model clings to its benighted turf, investment in competing companies will only accelerate. Witness the precarious position of hte Big Three automakers: we're witnessing the endgame here, not the beginning of the process.

What's more, demand-management strategies are nothing new. Amory Lovins has been around since the 1970s. We (local level thinkers/doers) had the answers then, we knew it, and were not heard on the federal level or int he media.

If Tom Friedman had listened to the WTO protestors he so witlessly mocked in the 1990s, we would not be in this intertwined economic and ecological crisis today. We--the market--wanted fuel-efficient vehicles, and got giant pickup trucks and SUVs. We asked for a controlled opening to globalozed trade---and got the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving America. We wanted an investment in American infrastructure, instead we got corporations fleeing the USA for cheap labor---and $120 sneakers. The flood of commodity grains such as corn into latin america spelled the end of the ejidos even cheaper overseas labor. Both of which accelerated the ecological crisis south and north of the border, and further eviscerated the American economy.

Tom Friedman was wrong---incorrect---to champion 'free trade' by mocking those WTO protesters. (I was not one of them.) It's cost us everything. He should at least have the decency to acknowledge that they had the expertise to instruct him on global economic systems, and on systems thinking, such that the current economic catastrophe could've been avoided. Those folks' expertise was and is unparalleled. It was perfectly possible to open up trade while taking classic American values into account.

Had Friedman listened, his derision and cheerleading---a service appreciated in some circles---would've been dampened or self-excised. An altered national debate might well have helped the nation find a more responsible and less ideological path forward on globalizing trade.

It is a fallacy to assert that America can 'take the lead' or a leadership role on renewable energy, green industry, or sustainabilty. We have much to offer---but we're playing catchup. We're way, way behind, and the goal should be competing effectively and conserving our own resources---not indulging in the pretense of the exceptionalist dogma that American dominance will show anybody else the way. There is exchange and flux, obviously, but we're going abroad to find the answers to apply here at home.

Listening has never been Mr. Friedman's strong suit---as the gentlemen in the IA/MO town hall meeting discovered when he was steamrolled and interrupted by Friedman's cheerleading of a 'preemtive' adn unprovoked invasion of Iraq. That guy was proven right, yet could not be heard---was not afforded a chance to speak in a real dialog, and was not listened to---even though we were about to engage in a pattern of behavior discredited as wholly unjustifiable by german military tactics in wwi and wwii. Without an actual declaration of war, I might add. That refusal to listen to other voices has also never been acknowledged. It'll be a real contribution only when Mr. Friedman can face up and correct a pattern that excludes folks who've got better information, and better judgment. Those folks live in every state in this country---and have been hot on the trail of productive solutions in economic, ecological and international fields/disicplines---for decades.

Mr. Friedman,

I just finished reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Great Book. I wish I were getting a kickback for every time I recommend it.

Essentially, you wrote about the intersections of each of those elements, correctly stating that we need to slow down and eventually reverse Hot and steer Flat in the right direction. But you didn't really address Crowded - at least you didn't explore possibilities of reducing it.

Of course, Flat will probably help Crowded to some extent, since birth rates will probably tend to fall as standards of living rise. But we can help it along by raising the level of education in the world as we improve our own. We know that as women are better educated, birth rates come down to more manageable levels. It wouldn't hurt us any to have better primary and secondary education, either.

Scale isn't the only consideration. We should think about economies of scope, as well. An inventor here in California has improved the combustion of hygrogen and oxygen to produce steam to drive a turbine. This would make a great energy storage device, once we consider that it would also produce pure water, which is in high demand in the high-tech manufacturing sector.

We need to make it easier to grow the right way, and harder to grow the wrong way. We can start by streamlining the environmental qualification process. You wrote about this in your book. The federal and state governments should write their environmental laws so that if certain parameters are met for certain types of projects (no jobs/housing imbalance, renewable energy-powered transportation projects, infill rather than green field development, adequate R-value insulation for buildings, etc.), a Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact (NegDec/FONSI here in California) would automatically follow. This would allow communities to follow suit with their zoning ordinances. We should also create an enforcement system that provides for a single agency enforcing the most stringent of federal, state, and local laws in their jurisdictions.

We need to think about priorities. We're voting on a high-speed rail bond in California next Tuesday. Great idea, but it would have been better to build it in a way that provided a fast alternative to existing long commutes. Unfortunately, the state law that created it stipulated that the first trains must run between L.A. and San Francisco. That can't happen until 2035, and the system will soak up so much capital that regional rail systems that would have taken far more cars off the roads sooner probably won't be built.

I guess Amory Lovins' advice is best: Pay attention. Think about what you (we) are doing. This past 9/11, while most people were contemplating threats and grievances, I was thinking about the opportunities we have before us. It's frustrating that we can't get together as a people long enough to sieze them. We're Americans.

We can fix this.

A Sustainable Lifestyle
We need a new ethic, a new way to live. In 1985 my wife, Judy, and I built a solar house in the foothills above Denver. It was a contemporary house in an expensive neighborhood, but it was a passive solar home with an active solar and wood stove backup heat source; no fossil fuels. Features included a water wall in the living room built of 50 gallon oil drums filled with water, a thermosyphon solar system serving a hot tub, and a 500 gallon solar storage tank to carry us through 2 or 3 days of cold cloudy weather. It worked pretty well, but given our 7,000 feet elevation and periods of cold cloudy weather; there were mornings we woke up to a 50°F house. Yes it was cold, but we got used to it. Put on a pair of fleece sweat pants, a sweater, and warm slippers; we were comfortable, maybe build a fire in the wood stove and snuggle next to it. The kid’s never complained, they got used to it before they could walk. On sunny days the hot tub got hot and it was a treat; on cloudy days it didn’t and we couldn’t get in it; such is life, sometimes the sun shines and sometimes it doesn’t.

Now we live in Belmar, a sustainable walkable community near Denver. We can walk to about 20 restaurants, 2 supermarkets, our bank, our Kaiser clinic, Home Depot, the library, Staples, a movie theater, and all kinds of various stores. We live in a condo on top of a Gap store and we have a very efficient water source heat pump for heating and cooling. But we keep the heat set at 50°F and the cooling at 85°F and it’s almost November and we still have the windows open in the bedroom. Sometimes when we get up it’s near 50°F in the bedroom and we put on a pair of fleece pants, a sweater, and warm slippers; we were comfortable. Of course mornings are cold, it’s Colorado, but it feels good to be alive. Our condo has a roof terrace facing south; the balcony above provides summer shade and winter solar heat gain through our windows. We still have a hot tub, but it doesn’t have a heater; super insulation and heat reclaim from the pump and motor keeps it hot.

Walking to everything takes a little more time, but it helps keep us healthy. And we know which phase the moon is in. Sometimes is cold and you dress warmer and when it’s hot you put on shorts. We use little energy, and that feels like a good thing, but more than that we experience the environment and the season we live in. A sustainable lifestyle.

Making clean, renewable energy domestically is simple. Replacing 13 million barrels-a-day of petro' immediately and continuously will be tough, tough. Because demand drives our economy, both public and private institutions must implement myriad mandates to stimulate sustainable markets for everything from Renewables Fuels to renewable lube oils. If Royal Dutch Shell is serious about resource conservation (they say they are), why don't they require re-refining of the waste oil collected at Jiffy Lubes (a Shell subsidiary) across the country. Their franchisees must follow a host of corporate guidelines set by Shell. Offering Re-refined lube oil would result in savings of billions of gallons each year. Used oil doesn't wear out, it just gets dirty. Like the mice' idea of hanging a bell on the cat's neck; great concept, who's gonna implement it?

Ironically the melting financial markets are causing more consternation than the melting ice caps. But unlike Wall Street, Mother Nature can’t be bailed out. The financial panic we’re seeing now is nothing compared to what we’ll see if the world reaches the tipping point, and the climate goes really haywire.

Some would like to believe that lower gas and oil prices mean that we can forgo the green revolution, concentrate on our stock portfolios and skip reading “Hot, Flat, and Crowded.” (Perish the thought!)

But I believe going green is more urgent than ever. It is the best way to help the economy recover — and preserve a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. Personally, I’ve found that going green puts money in my pocket. We’ve saved thousands by going car-free and by insulating our house (and others have been employed as a result. e.g. insulation manufacturers, window manufacturers, Energy Auditors, etc.).

You offer a plan that could revitalize America. I found your book so fascinating my copy is already dog-eared and decorated with margin notes. See what I learned from Hot, Flat and Crowded:
http://www.frankejames.com/debate/?p=113

With developments in alternative energy moving so fast, and so many proposals on the table regarding changes in agriculture, transportation, housing and business, it's time to ask two questions. One is: How do the ecosystems (land, water, weather, transportation, etc.) of the areas make an impact on the solutions? The other is: How did people solve these problems in the past?
At present, the problem solvers are proposing solutions as if all locations on the planet are identical. Or as if all locations will contribute to and be nourished by one big grid.
In truth, however, every place has its own unique advantages and disadvantages. In the past, societies saw that and culture adapted to it. We need to find those points again in our quest for recovery.

October 25, 2008
Mr. Friedman,
Thank you for clearly describing the condition in which we find ourselves in these days: Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
One issue you make very clear is the extent to which the fossil fuel industries in the US control the legislative and executive branches of our government along with many opinions held by the US public to the serious detriment of our future way of life. This is a serious matter and will require much more effort on the part of “The Media” to convey the real situation to the American public as we continue down a road we should not and cannot be taking.
The insidious nature of the fossil fuel industry’s influence can be seen in the attitude you express towards fuel ethanol from corn. It seems that you have forgotten that the original intent for the use of corn to produce ethanol as a fuel additive for gasoline in place of tetra- ethyl lead to increase the octane and reduce the production of carbon monoxide and nitrogen compounds that lead to air pollution. In the early 1980’s ethanol was shown to be an effective “oxygenate” to help improve the burn of gasoline, and thereby reduce particulates in the air. Its use was recognized as being especially effective in improving the air quality of the air in areas such as the Los Angeles basin and in Arizona during the winter when inversions allowed the collection and stagnation of automobile and other fossil fuel exhaust gasses.
The petroleum industry, never particularly fond of ethyl alcohol produced from renewable sources, created Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) to serve as an oxygenate that they could produce themselves. And similarly to the tobacco industry, they steadfastly maintained that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, MTBE was not a carcinogen. When it began showing up in ground waters and other unfortunate places, they even went to the US congress to seek protection from health law suits that would have occurred had they continued to use MTBE as their preferred oxygenate. Miracle of miracles, the legislative branch refused to give them the protection they needed, thus the use of fuel ethanol to replace MTBE as a gasoline oxygenate became nation wide. This was possible because the technology for producing fuel ethanol from corn was well known, and relatively easy to ramp up to the volume required to replace the inherently health dangers posed by the use of MTBE.
Many studies have indicated that the fuel from corn industry has not had the effects on food prices that the petroleum industry likes to claim and you seem to have bought into. But, as you rightly point out about other possible fossil fuel substitutes, fuel ethanol from corn has served an important bridge to show the world that fuels from renewable resources is not only feasible but it can be localized. The corn based fuel for ethanol has not only brought many jobs to rural America, but it is serving as a basis for a much more feasible industry: cellulosic based ethanol and fuels from other sources of biomass such as land fills, industrial wastes, and other sources or energy that have been overlooked for years before the first gallon of ethanol was used as an improvement for dirty gasoline.
Without the popularity of fuel ethanol from corn, the enzyme industry, along with other research into cellulosic ethanol would still be decades away from developing a suitable substitute for gasoline from renewable but non food resources. And the American public would still be distrustful of the use of anything but dirty gasoline in their cars, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from the millions of cars operating on fuel ethanol in Brazil.
Another outgrowth of the use of fuel ethanol as a very minor substitute for petroleum based fuels are the vivid illustrations of the lengths that “Big Oil” will go in their attempt to stomp out ANY potential incursion to their “their” market, no matter how small. This is an ominous sign that has and will continue to stymie any serious effort to the “greening” of America or the world.
To summarize, our war should be with the fossil fuel industries and their supporters in Congress, not with those who are trying to travel the path you lay out so well to get away from insidious use of fossil fuels.
Thank you,
Robert Lawler