The Great Disruption
This column got a lot of feedback from New York Times readers. I am thinking of calling Chapter 18 "The Great Disruption." I am coming to the conclusion that the market and Mother Nature both hit the wall here in 2008/2009. We need growth, we need ways to raise people's standards of living, but what will be the new ways we should focus on—post-The Great Disruption—that will allow us to grow people's living standards in a more sustainable and regenerative way?
Recent Topics
- March 11th 2009
- January 28th 2009
- December 23rd 2008
- December 3rd 2008
- November 11th 2008
- October 13th 2008
- September 23rd 2008
- September 16th 2008
- September 9th 2008
- September 7th 2008
Latest Ideas
- John Foy wrote "Dear Mr. Friedman: Before we..." in Introduction to Chapter 18 Sunday, 02:04 pm
- Lyn Kriegler Elliott wrote "I left Washington DC in 1974..." in The Great Disruption Sunday, 04:27 pm
- PWortmann wrote "In "Going Green: Talk or..." in Introduction to Chapter 18 Monday, 12:26 pm
- David Stern wrote "With all due respect to..." in The Great Disruption Sunday, 11:41 am
- Bill Clinton wrote "Man, ah sure wish ah had..." in The Great Disruption Thursday, 07:46 am
- Frank Monachello wrote "Big Fan, Tom. Your two most..." in The Great Disruption Tuesday, 09:06 pm
Share this Discussion
With the #1 bestseller The World Is Flat, he helped millions of readers see and understand globalization in a new way. Now Thomas L. Friedman explains how America can lead the green revolution in the 21st century.
Join the Mailing List:
To be notified about news, events and upcoming announcements regarding Hot, Flat and Crowded, please join our mailing list.
Copyright © 2010 Picador • Privacy Notice • Terms of Use
Ideas:
"Standard of living" should be explicitly defined as not related to unsustainably high consumption rates. Does not a more meanful job, or healthier relationship increase your standard of living? How about a better understanding of how the world works? These are not captured by today's standard of living definition, but somehow a flatter, bigger TV screen is?
Our society must remove the "more stuff leads to better lives" psychology from capitalism, and we need today's leaders to live it as our example.
July 4th 2009, 7:14 am
Bridget and Tom,
The both of you should read Rob Hopkins's
The Transition Handbook.
Bridget should read it to confirm the fact that grassroot is the way foreward. And Tom should read it because it sobers him from the thought that technology can get us anywhere we would need to be, fast enough (we are talking 130% reduction in 2050 and not 80%) and let Rob do the explaining but it works along the way of you brilliant 4 USA example.
Greetings, Ed
July 1st 2009, 5:03 am
Tom,
Growth is the problem. Wether it is sustainable or not. Sustainable growth is adagium of the cancer cell, just before its host dies. We should seek ways to stop being dependend on growth in order to keep our economies alive. .
Recepies are:
1) Create products that can be repaired instead of product that loose their value so fast repairing them is senseless.
Example: 1960 Nikon F, value then about 200 dollars total repair bill since then 0 dollars., value dropped to 200 dollars (in todays currency of course).
Example: 2006 Nikon D200, value then 2000 dollars, repair bill since then 200 dollars, value dropped to 450 dollars due to new D300 and D5000 hitting the market.
Why is this happening? F was created in Japan, by people with a compairable living standard. D200 was created in Thailand by people at a substantially lower living standard then me, who bought it. But repair has to be done by people who are at my living standard. This makes repair expensive over buying new. A Nikon F was replaced by the F2 in 1971/1972 so shelf life was 12 years. The D2 was replaced by the D3 in 3 years which itselve was replaced in 2 years by the D3X.
Now this is just an example (all industry does the same, for instance Philips is now trying to make us buy even wider TV screens) to keep us consuming away and keep us in a permanent state of disatisfaction with the products we own. This is progress without satisfaction, this is creating demand not fullfilling demand, and as a result western countries are creating far more GHG emissions as those that can be addressed by cap and trade (direct consumption). A Norwegian site spills the beans and its conclusions are breathtaking.
http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/r...
So we should ask for repairable upgradeble products instead of throw away toys and other crap we do not need.
2) Stop credit traps and stop fractional reserve systems. This drives the economy forward into unsustainabilit in a unsustainable way. Banks should return to what they are good at and that should be saveguarding the wealth of their customers and not gambling it into destruction.
We have all lived way over our means and this has created enormous problems.
Example: A house in Holland (semi detached 140 m2) kost my father 30.000 dollars to buy back in 1967. The same house now sell for around 300.000 dollars. That is a 10 fold increase. Wages have gone up as well, but not 10 fold which means that an average first time buyer spend about 30% of his net income on a house in 1967 and spends 50% of their net income on a house now. As a result less of their income can be used for buying food and other ammenities. But these prices have dropped in order to reflect this. A TV in 1967 was roughly two average mothly incomes. A TV today is mass produced in China for about 1/3 average monthly net income, and we spend less and less on food as well (due to mechanisation in agriculture and a growing bioindustry of poorly maintained animals producing low quality meat).
The whole rise of housing bubble (Holland has a bubble which equals the American in size by the way), is due to easy credit, which put more money into peoples hands, and if more people can afford more prices start to rise and everybody's happy untill the bubble bursts.
3) Since climate change and peakoil are the two main issues of the 21 century we should ellect politicians in power who make these two issues the cornerstone of their policy. It cannot be so that a Dutch prime minister is talking the talk in Kopenhagen while walking the walk on 200 miles of newly constructed or upgraded "autobahn's", and no less then 4 coal burning power stations under development.
This creates "cognitive disonance" on a mrassive scale. The environmental minister tells me I should save and drive sensible cars sensibly while the industry keeps cherning out S.U.V's (hybrid even) and her own government keeps giving them more and more space to evoke their magic on the environment. And then they wonder that no-one invests in green technology except a few wealthy do-goder who by themselve are not going to save this planet no matter how good or bad the example they set (sorry Leonardo and Al).
4) Learn to think integrated. For instance Obama's 1.000.000 hybrid Toyota plan. A car consumes half of its life cycle energy during its production. So replacing a ordinary car (like my A3 2.0 TDI DSG which is for sale) with a Toyota and thus reducing the shelf live of the last generation of ordinary cars by half, we would throw away half the energy invested in that generation and replace it with a generation of cars which would consume half the energy during its opperation. Do the math yourselves but I believe we would have gained nothing!
A better approach is to reduce by reducing the use and the dependancies. I sell my car because I do not believe in Balkenende's (Dutch Harry Potter clone elected prime minister with a lot less magic then the original who spend the best part of 6 years sucking up to George W.) road expansion plan and I do believe in public transport.
So paraphrasing JFK.
"It is not about what do in order the combat climate change, it is about what you stop doing"
Instead of driving in a hybrid S.U.V. (189 gram CO2/km) stop driving an S.U.V. alltogether, in stead of driving a Prius (or an Insign) (92 gram CO2/km), stop driving alltogether, instead of riding the train to work each day (41 gram CO2/km), start living near your work (and cycle) 0 gram CO2/km.
Hope this is inspirational to you Thomas,
Greetings,
Ed Kuipers MSc
July 1st 2009, 2:59 am
Unfortunately, there are still far too many Americans who do not see the need to change behaviors - they are still driving Hummers, still using plastic bags, bagging their grass clippings, and on and on... The everyday consumption cycle of the average American has not changed despite the price of gas - we still drive everywhere even a few blocks to the convenience store.
I think we need something that will make more Americans (and the world) understand that there is no future if we do not change what we do today. I think we need a million person march on the DC mall on Earth Day 2010.
Earth Day 2010!
June 29th 2009, 10:14 am
I'm gratified to see (from the criticism by Bridgit Waterman, June 24th) that the suggestion I submitted is being read. But since the criticism indicates that the suggestion was misunderstood, I'd like to clarify. The criticism was that levying a surcharge on oil and distributing the revenue to U.S. households would not work because people would just use the cash to pay the higher costs. Indeed, Bridgit is right in perceiving that the revenue derived from the oil surcharge will be offset by higher costs, primarily of gasoline. Yes, it is a zero-sum game. But it most certainly WILL work. When gasoline costs $6 per gallon, people will drive less and buy more fuel efficient cars. Businesses will do the same. Auto manufacturers will need no government CAFE directives, and alternative energy research will be performed without government subsidy. Of course, the natural course of supply/demand will do the same thing. The difference being that when OPEC is pocketing the premium for their dwindling oil shipments, we will not have the cash in our pockets to buy the stuff or to change our oil-gluttonous habits. Nor will the government have the dough to bail us out.
June 29th 2009, 12:11 am
Chapter 18 - Interrupt the Ordinary! There are many people like myself who are hungry to make a difference and help become a "Green America". The problem is so many people cant "see" the damage on a daily basis - "so what if I leave everything plugged in, its not really hurting anyone" is what I have heard
So many people are visual and I believe incorporating pictures whether somewhat comical or serious alongside your creative, passionate writing will make a big impact. Give ideas in chapter 18 that are real everyday ways that will "Interrupt the Ordinary" day of life - Unplug, drink from a glass bottle not plastic, save money and trade goods with friends, etc...
So many people won't be bothered with things that dont matter to them but once they really get this matters it will become part of their lifestlye....Lifestyle Makeover for a Green America
Thanks
PS - great book!!!!!!
June 28th 2009, 6:44 pm
An alternative to the 5% mortgage credit for people who choose to live 5 miles or less from work might be to subsidize a Sunday night stay at a nearby hotel. Most people probably visit their prospective suburban dreamhouse on a quiet Sunday afternoon. A Monday morning taste of the daily commute could provide a reality check.
June 28th 2009, 5:39 pm
I think that many people who read books such as 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded' are the ones who are already convinced of the need for a 'Green' economy and energy reform. I think chapter 18 should include a summary of the key arguments of the book, why it is important for all of us to sacrifice in the short term in order to survive and prosper in the long term. This summary should be something that can be freely distributed word for word without copyright infringement to friends of readers who do not yet understand the importance of decisive legislation. Education of the general population is really the main obstacle for reform. It is important to get the message out to as many people as possible.
June 28th 2009, 10:17 am
Dear Mr. Friedman,
I have to say I was only half impressed by the speech you just gave(i.e. June 24th) in the Twin Cities. Your comments about easy solutions being kind of bogus seem very judgemental. I use seven re-usable bags every week when I go to the grocery store - something I've been doing for 2 and half years. That's 910 bags! I also use flouresent light bulbs and wash all my clothes with cold water. That's significant. While these changes have a much lower impact then a big energy resource change would they shouldn't be minimized. You seem to think only protons and electrons are going to save planet earth. Why? Why not have the USA be a leader by encouraging people to lower their consumption of goods? Maybe a federally funded program that would lower your mortgage payments 5% if you live five miles from your work place would help out. Doing this nation-wide could have a great impact, even if it did start out small with only a small proportion of the public participating.
Bridgit Waterman
St. Paul, MN
June 24th 2009, 4:54 pm
1. A stimulus package refund as laid out by George Doddington June 18th isn't going to work as mention. People would just turn around and use the cash to pay their electrical bills that would be higher because of the new tax. You have to explicitly say the refunded cash has to be used for investment in a wise program like an education savings plan, for example, or a gift card to be used at companies large or small that are making great efforts trying to go green themselves. Places like Target Campany that supposedly are going green or companies producing locally made goods like home grown foods might be good examples for this. You could even use it to get a ticket to a free performance while taking a day off work.
Bridgit Waterman
St. Paul, MN
June 24th 2009, 4:27 pm
I have PV panels on my roof, solar thermal panels for my radiant heating system, solar hot water, a Prius and a great bicycle, which I ride as much as possible. My neighbor's utility bill is $800 a month. Mine is $37 in a 2800 square foot house in California. Solar makes economic sense now. I purchased my PV panels with a second mortgage. My mortgage payment is less than half what my utility bill would be. My mortgage will be paid off in a few years and my electricity will then be free. I can't figure out why someone hasn't put together a business making loans to homeowners to finance PV systems that will lower their utility bills by at least the same amount as the loan, yet stabilize utility costs for the next 20 years. I'd do it myself if I had time. Our living standard doesn't have to change a bit and its fun being sustainable, not to mention educational. Change is inevitable. Sustainability is simply the next change. If you don't adapt you'll get run over. Never mind all the other arguments. It's exciting to see so many new technologies and solutions on the horizon. Legalize hemp.
June 20th 2009, 12:14 am
Oil was the "great disruption" that made the United States the greatest nation on earth in the twentieth century. We had an abundance of oil, and we used it to create the world's greatest standard of living. Now, in the twenty-first century, oil will be the "great disruption" that unmakes the United States, because we have tied our lives to the stuff and appear unwilling to adjust our lifestyles to oil's decline.
So you ask "what will be the new ways we should focus on" to raise (maintain) our standard of living? The possibilities are truly unlimited. What is needed is a forcing function. So the real question becomes "how can we stimulate people (and businesses) to anticipate oil's decline and positively adjust their lifestyles?" Basic economics provides an answer to this question: play forward the collision between oil supply and demand by levying a surcharge on all oil consumed in the U.S. and then distributing the revenue derived from this surcharge as cash payments to every U.S. household - an average of $500 per household per month at a $100 per barrel surcharge. This amounts to twice the average expected higher cost of gasoline per household and also twice the average Federal income tax per household.
The major benefits and advantages of such an oil conservation policy would be:
• reduced oil consumption and a lower net cost of oil
• a cash stimulus to allow people to cope with higher oil prices
• broad policy acceptance due to the cash payments
• straightforward and low cost implementation
The alternative to this forward thinking policy is to deal with the higher prices (which will be coming anyway in a very few years), but without the cash stimulus to allow people to cope. www.conserve-oil.com provides more information on this policy. What is needed is a forward-thinking administration to sell and then implement the policy. Soon, before it is too late.
June 18th 2009, 7:53 pm
THE CARBON CYCLE
CARBON...ChInda.....half the worlds population and growing at the fastest rate is heading into the industrial revolution and the only thing that can save the planet is their adoption of green technology....not a carbon sustainable economy but a carbon reducing economy.
Carbon.... the building block of organic life and the potential poison of that same life...how ironic that the carbon cycle may turn mankind into the thick sticky residue we call oil.
Millions of years from now this era may be termed the polluted second in earth time when a tipping point in geologic time was triggered by the most intelligent inhabitants that actually predicted the event and had the knowledge and resources but not the collective will to take the one small step for man and the beginning step to save mankind.
We are in the nanosecond of Earths history where we could make a positive difference...and maybe we are...by not going green maybe the resultant climatic changes will reduce the population dynamics that will allow mankind to survive and inadvertently restore the planet to a stable state of blue green...healthy oceans and a restored Garden of Eden.
Mother Nature will take care of herself and mankind...she will use the carbon cycle to return us to the primordial soup ....maybe that is why we either bury our dead or cremate them and the Egyptians used the carbon tars to mummify their kings because they knew the carbon cycle is the cycle of life.
If we do turn solar will we store or radiate so much solar energy that some unforeseen event will transpire...maybe we will disrupt the water cycle...increase the radiant balance....absorb or reflect to much light or energy...change the lunar orbit and screw up our tidal system.
Maybe the whole global warming cycle is controlled by the activity of collective volcanic activity...is any one studying this ?
Maybe the world cooled when we exterminated the American Indians and the buffalo but harmony was achieved with the invention of the locomotive .
Maybe medical advancements will end mankind ....as we treat the symptoms of disease the very diseases continue to infect the population at higher rates and actually increase the death rates by not eliminating these genes by letting those infected die.
What if disease was a self limiting cog in the wheel of the design of man that is the mechanism to allow mankind to survive without exhausting the worlds resources.
If we extend the life of man are we also shortening the life of mankind or will the carbon cycle take care of these decisions for us.
Maybe man is just part of the garden...maybe we are just nitrogen fixers that return that element back to the soil like other life forms...if so...are our culture handling of our dead is preventing our true contribution to the planet...decomposition..... to sequestrate our individual carbon footprint.
What if the oil we are taking from the deep bedrock is the earths lubrication that keeps the tectonic plates moving in a smooth transition and we will cause the fault lines in the ring of fire to shift prematurely and /or more violently. Or worse, they remain stationary and the pressures builds up and the earth explodes.
Maybe mankind is just an army of carbon ants planted on earth to roam the garden and destroy forests and burn carbon ....warm the earth for the next life form...who knows ....maybe those little green men are just the next seeds for the future or spores from our ecological past.
Are the grays just fungi ?
Insects and fungi will inherit the earth...they live on compost...sequestered carbon !
If mankind does not specialize he will parish....he will be sequestered for those who do.
Mans final frontier...finding his place in the Garden of Eden...not just becoming compost .
Like the carbon cycle ...man is also recycled....energy is neither created nor destroyed...it just changes form
Recycling...good for the environment AND good for mankind !
But maybe we can do both !
A Sustainable Life....energy is neither created nor destroyed...it just changes form.
Maybe the Pharaohs and Star Trek had it partially right...beam me up Scotty !
But you cannot take it with you !
The Green Movement....energy is neither created or destroyed...it just changes form.
Form and Function.....how energy is expressed !
Sustainable Building.....it is how you express yourself !
If a Sustainable building is to be made of biodegradable materials and make no negative environmental impacts then why don`t we call it Disposable building.
Composite materials that must compost.....are not sustainable... unless sustainable means they can be recycled through compost.
Sustainable buildings.....designing buildings that are not sustainable...so the building industry is sustained.
Form and Function...energy is neither created nor destroyed...buildings that are designed to be recycled....Composite materials without the.... I.....compost.materials.
Are recycled...reclaimed composite sustainable ? Only if they are reused and not composted.
Maybe design a structure with compost floors that produce their own heat to provide warmth...hot water...and heat hydrogen to gas to power generators that provide electricity .
Compost floors....where heat and methane are produced from the recycled organic materials from human life....the individual carbon cycle from your own individual carbon footprint ....where energy is neither created nor destroyed but recycled...carbon neutral...sustainable.
Form and Function applied to an energy and carbon neutral biosphere powered by your own individual carbon footprint....one small step for man...one giant step for mankind.
Like insects and fungi we can live on compost...and sequester our carbon footprint with a sustainable life style ....recycling energy through form and function...and creating a carbon neutral life.
Landfills become compost factories that supply compost to a floor panel manufacturer that compresses compost into a universal module that sits under your houses foundation that generates a constant level of heat that drives your energy needs.
Compost...natures solution to the energy crisis.
The Carbon Cycle is a terrible thing to waste !
From the great ecologists from the 70s Earth Day Movement....Shit Happens !
Compost........natures solution to the energy crisis.Biological generated heat pumps
The real carbon cycle...recycle your own carbon foot print
Shit Happens .....could have a whole new meaning
One small step for man....one giant leap for mankind
Everybody will be....... carbon neutral.....no carbon footprints from man.....so there are real footprints left behind by mankind..
If we thought we were entering an ice age would we try to increase the release of carbon to create global warming ?
THAT IS WHY FIRE WAS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR CAVE DWELLING ANCESTORS....OLD HABITS DIE HARD !
CARBON RELEASE...MANS FIRST DISCOVERY,,,IT BROUGHT US OUT OF THE ICE AGE !
June 17th 2009, 10:56 pm
Has anyone here considered the benefits of a resource based economy that addresses all of these environmental issues and offers a plan for accomplishing a sustainable earth?
The proposal, as cited by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com) would embrace all new technologies with a plan to address the inevitable job losses that come with building durable products and implementing renewable energy on a global scale. Fossil fuels and harmful nuclear and hydroelectricity can be a thing of the past if we look beyond the financial cost of implementing clean and renewable technologies such as geothermal, solar, wind and tidal energy (to name a few) and focus instead on the benefits of building this infrastructure for the benefit of all.
June 17th 2009, 3:42 pm
WHERE IS THE ARCTIC PIPELINE...SPACEMAN
Back to the Future
That is correct... the Arctic Pipeline...piping fresh water that is melting in the Arctic to Africa to support life and supply fresh water.
This water is just pouring into the ocean just diluting and wasting away.
A natural resource that sustains life...the primary requirement for life and it is going through the geologic hour glass of biological life.
We need a clean water act and a Save the Water Act....we just need to act !
Where is the common sense instead of the non sense .
Dam each end of the Grand Canyon and fill it up because with global warming the next dust bowl is in sync with the current economic depression...it is 1932 again but we are feeding the world today...maybe it will allow prices to increase and consumption will...fall the population will lose weight and the health care crisis will recede.
Global Drying...the next Inconvenient Truth
I can hear it now....do not worry about all the dust clouds...they are not pollution...they are natural...sustainable...and recyclable...they are not covered by the clean water or air act as long as they are just an act of natural occurring processes...
Good thing we are getting all the oil out of the ground and burning it to protect the ground water !
Glacial Ice and Global Warming ...a natural system to supply the earth with fresh clean water.
Like a think tank....these global solutions just keep bubbling up !
Hot Air...it may be our salvation !
Trade your Carbon Credits for some Water Rights.... we will measure our environmental footprint in the mud.
If not...we will leave no fossils for our ancestors to figure out what happened to us !
The entire biological history of biological earth could be blowing in the wind .
But the gulf stream could generate another ice age and Mother Earth will just decide to adjust to the nano second of mans impact upon himself.
Will we ever be referred to as the Human Cycle....probably not...Cycles always repeat.
Man the youngest species on earth...the one that I am suspicious about !
Man has invented anti-matter so it really does not matter !
How can anything be man made when man is a product of Gods blueprints... evolution ...creative design !
God made man in his own image...and man will make man into his own image...so is man God....believing in himself is to believe in God...is that Faith ?
If you have a belief then do you need faith or a faith to believe in ?
Are we evolving or going extinct ? It is the same thing !
Angels and Demons...Mans polarity....Matter and Anti-Matter
So what is Space...that is the speed that energy is traveling.
Go create some space...otherwise you are a black hole in the time space continuum.... a worm hole...an undiscovered truth in the universe.
Time.... it measures how long we must wait.
A clock just measures the rotation of the earth and a calendar the orbit of our planet
A light year is the distance light travels in a year....what happens in and how far do we travel in the dark ?
Is that a dark year ? What if we just start standing still !
Then we are just space...spacemen !
Global warming...Hot Air or just Fresh Air created by new technology.
If Arctic runoff did not occur would the oceans concentrate salt and kill all life on earth ?
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind and the Inconvenient Truth may be a Convenient Lie.
How did we solve the dust bowls of the 30s ?
Back to the future !
June 17th 2009, 2:07 pm
Dear Mr. Penman,
I couldn’t have said it better myself! Friedman really is a selfish prick, no need to sugarcoat it. I’m glad someone is on the same page as me. To imply that, as you so eloquently put it, “after billions and billions of years, humans came along and are going to destroy the earth” is simply inane! There is no way the totality of human consumption could possibly have affected Earth’s carbon cycle, and, in sequence (via feedbacks), global climate. Any educated environmental theorist knows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the ubiquitous progression of eccentricity, obliquity, and axial rotation (the Molankovitch Cycles) are solely responsible for the natural warming occurring around the world. Never mind the fact that not a single one of these phenomena operates on an intrinsic base cycle of less than 23,000 years. In all likelihood, the unprecedented spikes in CO2 levels and temperatures of the recent past are attributable to some miraculous convergence of these three naturally occurring cyclical processes in the last 150 years. Humans have no place in the warming equation; we are an impotent audience to Mother Nature’s grand scheme. Furthermore, I’m not going to listen to the advocacy of environmental stewardship from an individual who does not even uphold his own ideals. If Friedman is going to preach about striving for a greener tomorrow, he should at least rezone his house to allow for the installment of solar panels in his own back yard so he can become an exemplar of his published environmentalist dogma (oh wait, that might have already happened). He’s just another leftist pushing for our markedly liberal government to stick its fallaciously entitled hand into a matter in which it has no business being involved. Clearly, Friedman’s underhanded motivation behind writing Hot, Flat, and Crowded was to deter the everyman from aspiring to live the same life as him, lest “the population explodes,” total U.S. emissions of CO2 and equivalents grows so unbearably large that it actually becomes environmentally relevant, “crowds him out,” and inhibits Friedman from living the life to which he has become accustomed (in other words, he was obviously not driven to write by a desire to reiterate the need to construct markets geared towards the correction of menacing externalities). It’s a shame that the Pulitzer Prize Board couldn’t see through his scheme, as he has won three of the prestigious awards writing similar liberal babble for the New York Times (it’s even more shameful that he was appointed to serve on this very committee that overlooked his backwards motivations, but that’s a whole new bag of issues). I just wanted to say thanks for the refreshingly enlightened point of view offered in your comment below.
Best,
Youre Anidiot
June 15th 2009, 12:04 pm
While I haven't read your book, I saw enough of a presentation that tells me you are a very selfish person. You have the audacity to live a standard far above the average U.S. citizen and with a carbon footprint many times larger as well. You're afraid that if everyone lives like you do, you won't be able to live that way anymore. You're afraid the population will explode and crowd you out. This earth can support many more billions than it presently does. You would have me believe that after billions and billions of years, humans came along and are going to destroy the earth. You are a selfish liberal hypocrite to put it mildly and your making plenty of money off those gullible enough to believe you. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
June 14th 2009, 10:22 pm
I suggest that "The GeoPolitics of Energy: Acheiving a Just and Sustainable Energy Distribution by 2040" by Judith Wright and Jim Conca, be on the reading lists of all concerned about our energy and environmental future -- particularly educators. See http://www.amazon.com/GeoPolitics-Energy-Achi.... As an energy technology and policy expert, I find this short colorful booklet to be one of the most balanced introductory pieces to inform and call the educated lay person to action. It's reasonably short and nontechnical; written in clear concise language. It paints a broad picture of the issues in a "nonpartisan" manner. An excellent supplimentary text for late High School AP programs or early College level classes to introduce students to one of the most complex and challenging subjects of our time. Should be required reading in class rooms nation wide.
June 12th 2009, 4:38 pm
Mr. Friedman,
In regard to 'green' energy, the electrical transmission grid to wheel power from the Southwest (solar energy) and the high plains (wind energy) to the centers of consumption will be excessively costly, and large swaths of land will be devoured beneath the new transmission lines. In addition, significant power losses occur when power is transmitted over long distances.
This makes a locally produced kilowatt-hour of energy, in particular as produced by residential and local municipal solar and wind generators, of higher intrinsic value than a kilowatt-hour of energy produced far from the centers of consumption. The Federal and State incentives for locally produced residential and municipal 'green' energy should reflect their higher value (due primarily because no new transmission lines are required for their output).
In other words, incentives should include a factor related to most probable distance from energy generation point to energy consumption point(s), in addition to the quantity of kilowatt-hours of energy produced. Current incentives for residential solar PV generation in the eastern Midwest yield paybacks unlikely to result in widespread adoption of residential solar PV installations, in my opinion. Increasing incentives to reflect the true value of the proximity of residential solar PV generation to the consumer (you can't get much closer!) might improve payback sufficiently to unleash a 'cottage industry' of localized green power, while avoiding the costs of new transmission lines.
Regards,
DW
June 12th 2009, 12:54 pm
Mr. Friedman,
Sorry for this but may I ask what is your general worldview?
Do you believe in hegemonic stability theory while at the same time promoting globalization?
Thanks^^
June 10th 2009, 2:59 am
Solving energy poverty will go a long way toward a global solution to Hot, Flat and Crowded's major dilemmae.
If you have 3 minutes, take a quick look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE4IDHX91LM
If you have a little more time, you might want to consider this longer (rather boring version) at 8 minutes length.
(I'm allowed to call it boring, I created it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Bo5cXw6zE
But boring or not, the solution to "energy poverty" is available now that this "closed loop green energy" system can be implemented virtually anywhere for relatively small amounts of money. Our company wants to make clean water and sewage improvement as well as educational opportunities part of each project while giving local residents a share of the operation, and an ongoing stake in the future of these energy project that can provide electricity, liquid fuels and animal feed and depend only on sunlight, sewer water and their own CO2 recycling to provide independent islands of green energy in underdeveloped areas of the world, or even for small towns in North America.
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
p.s. if you agree with these objectives, please tell others about this information.
June 3rd 2009, 2:31 am
Jeremy Rifkin is a good resource in finding our way through the immediate post-Great Interruption phase. He saw this coming a decade ago and wrote about it in his books: Entropy, and The End of Work. He lays out a couple solid paradigms to pursue. There are a lot of good minds working on this transition. I'm hopeful.
Mike from Portland
May 31st 2009, 3:19 pm
Tom and readers,
Creating National Energy Monuments is a solution to our energy issues. This concept is out of the box, so please contemplate with an open mind.
Our current method of encouraging the growth of solar energy consists of tax credits, rebates on state levels, and feed in tariffs at local levels. The trouble with these methods are that most of the people paying for them, do not benefit as much as the actual receiver of the incentive does. Even though many people understand that the programs are to expand solar use and to save our planet, it still creates a feeling of resentment and envy.
We can correct this situation by funding systems that would be owned by all the ratepayers and citizens. By fully funding a large system on federal property, we could create a National Green Energy Park. This could be a place for people to visit to learn about renewable energy and reflect on the beauty of their solar electric system. This solar electric system could be designated as a National Energy Monument to signify the resolute spirit of our citizens. As center piece for the countries renewable commitment, it would also generate clean electricity.
The solar electricity would be sold to the grid at prevailing retail rates. The revenue stream thus created would be used to expand the solar electric system. The continuing funding for growing the project would be provided by the sun. This is possible because there are no stake holders wanting to get their investments back, the technology is robust, and system operational costs are low. As electric rates rise and solar equipment prices fall, the rate of growth would accelerate.
I am suggesting that we build a green power plant that actually grows in the sun! This public monument would continue to grow as long as the sun shines and there is a market for electricity. Let us use some of the Renewable Energy Investment Funds to build a gift for our posterity. Let us provide a growing source of clean electricity for now and the future.
Thank You
May 31st 2009, 8:00 am
Thomas,
Love the book, but let's not get too gloomy here; good old American "can do optimism" will save the day. Read George Friedman's (no relation I assume) "next hundred years" before you finish chapter 18. Spaced-based solar power could be the big idea answer we are all waiting for.
May 29th 2009, 10:15 pm
Tom,
I love your concept of the Great Disruption. I am calling the period 2500 to 3500 AD the Great Interruption, when climate change sends us all, well the survivors at any rate, the breeding pairs in the arctic, to polar cities in extreme north and south regions. Dot Earth has already blogged about polar cities, three times, and The Great Interruption is on my blog now since last January. Take a look. Danny Bloom in Taiwan.
May 27th 2009, 11:06 am
What should be said in Chapter Eighteen? We can also ask, "What's missing from President Obama's energy plan?"
Maybe we should ask, "Why did Americans suddenly lose interest in environmental issues, when the economy went sour in the last months of 2008?" The same phenomenon was observed in previous decades. The public is excited about environmental issues during prosperous times but, when the unemployment figures rise, or when the price of oil increases, the public drops its green agenda.
What's needed in the world?
I suggest a new emphasis on what's called "energy justice" and "environmental justice." Human rights concerns go to the top of the agenda. Special attention should be given to the nations and the groups - including the poor and some of the minorities in the developed nations - that suffer in the existing economy.
The goal of "energy justice" is simple. Try to provide all people, in all places, with adequate sources of energy that are safe, affordable, and sustainable. In some cases - with the homeless, for example - this means providing more energy, not less, so that all people can live their lives with some measure of security and dignity. Without "energy justice," the poor will burn whatever they can get - including rainforests and toxic waste dumps - and the problems of global warming and human misery will increase.
What's the alternative to an "energy justice" strategy? Mainstream environmentalists favor an "earth-centered" strategy with an emphasis on protecting Mother Earth. It's simply "nature for nature's sake." Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has a lot to say about polar bears but the human need for energy is never acknowledged. President Obama talks about "green jobs," but, again, the human need for energy is ignored. (The elderly are the people who are most in need
of fuel assistance. How do they benefit from a "green jobs" program?)
What's the story for Chapter Eighteen?
"Environmental issues are too important to be left to the environmentalists." Groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Audubon Society have given very little attention to human rights issues. At this point, religious organizations - in a variety of places, in a variety of faith traditions - are starting to shape the new "environmental justice" movement.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it was the religious and neighborhood associations that responded to human needs.
The same phenomenon has been observed in other places during times of environmental and economic crisis. It's the religious and community groups, not the environmental
protection clubs, that step forward to help families in need. The poor, especially, often find comfort and active support in the religious organizations.
Religious conflict is "big news." Interfaith cooperation is usually ignored by jounalists. On the Gulf Coast, the various religious groups have been very successful in working with each other. Since the 1980s, a variety of interfaith and multifaith coalitions have developed that focus their attention on environmental
justice concerns. Much of their work takes place at the grassroots level.
If the world's religious groups can work together for environmental justice, there's hope for the future. Problems like global warming can be solved in a social justice context. Cultural and religious diversity can be respected. To paraphrase an old saying, "If you want environmental peace, work for environmental justice."
May 24th 2009, 5:23 am
Tom,
I'm reading your book now, and you're extremely mistaken about nuclear power. On page 189-190, you write that nuclear power "is reliable and clean, but is certainly not cheap or abundant, and there is the problem of storing the nuclear waste, which always has the potential to leak or can be processed into bomb-making material."
That's why Alvin Weinberg, the inventor of the light water reactor, wrote in his memoirs about his astonishment that this type of reactor became dominant around the world. It uses less than 1% of the potential energy of the uranium, requires energy-intensive uranium enrichment, and produces long-lived plutonium in spent fuel. Why did it become dominant? It IS cheap, since France has the cheapest electric rates in Europe.
http://www.cns-snc.ca/history/fifty_years/wei...
But Generation IV integral fast reactors, a mature technology, promise cheap electrons from ALL the energy in the uranium (or thorium!), and since actinides are consumed the waste is short-lived. When vitrified, it cannot 'leak' since it is in a glass form. This type of reactor has an unlimited fuel supply, since it can accept exponentially more abundant low-grade ores in granite or seawater.
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr...
May 22nd 2009, 6:56 am
Units of energy!
I'm in the process of reading "hot, flat and crowded" - an interesting book, even for a european. There are so many good points in the book, but I'm supriced that Friedman doesn't know in what units energy is measured. On page 54 he's talking about "kilowatts of energy". Kilowatts is the unit used for power, not energy. Energy can be measured in kilowatthours, not in kilowatts. On page 154, the annual electrical power (of Netherlands) is measured in gigawatts. Power can be measured in gigawatts, but what is the annual electrical power? I don't think the term makes sence, or at least it is misleading. I hope that units of energy and power will be treated correctly in the new version of the book. It will make it more trustworthy.
May 20th 2009, 4:11 am
Tom,
I just read your March 15 article "the next really cool thing." You Write:
"What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer."
Amazingly, we have had such a technology since 1994! It's called the Integral Fast Reactor, a nuclear fission reactor with a pyrometallurgical fuel cycle that uses 99.5% of the energy in the uranium, compared to less than 1% in today's light water reactors! We could power our nation for centuries using our nuclear waste! So it does better than not produce nuclear waste-- it gets rid of it!
I know what you're thinking, "why haven't I heard of this?" In 1994 anti-nuclear Clinton cancelled the project three years before completion, and ordered scientists not to publicize it (hey, it was the happy-go-lucky `90s). Never the less, work continues in Russia and Japan, with their BN-600 and Monju Fast-Breeders. But our Integral Fast Reactor is walk-away-safe (metal alloy fuel form), cheap (no pressure vessel needed), and proliferations-resistant (mixes materials in such a way that they are dangerous to handle and not suitable for bomb production).
May 20th 2009, 4:02 am
To the extent Friedman has been sold on the myth of CO2 warming, it is simply another case of the media blindly following the "modelers" and their closed, unscientific methods.
Look at the current science on our oceans, icecaps and atmospheric temperatures - look for yourselves. Listen to the scientists, geologists, physicists, sun scientists and climate experts who are using robust science with verifiable data.
As the planet continues to cool, the zealots of CO2 fraud will be exposed.
May 14th 2009, 10:16 pm
Post new comment