We've posted links in the past to articles by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times calling for a "geo-green" agenda, making a move away from fossil fuels a national security issue. It's not because we think he's a brilliant writer so much as he's about as mainstream influential as they come; if Friedman is pushing this, it's going to be debated in the halls of power in Washington.
Well, he has a new one this weekend, and it's probably his most rabble-rousing version yet. Unfortunately, it's behind the "Time Select" barrier, so I can't link directly to the essay, but WorldChanging ally Watthead has generously excerpted some of the key pieces in his blog:
Enough of this Bush-Cheney nonsense that conservation, energy efficiency and environmentalism are some hobby we can't afford. I can't think of anything more cowardly or un-American. Real patriots, real advocates of spreading democracy around the world, live green.
Green is the new red, white and blue.
Thanks for the link to my blog. I'm glad to have helped.
It is great to see a mainstream writer like Friedman calling for a sustainable energy agenda, even if the piece could be considered a bit partisan (I personally don't mind but then again I agree with Friedman - it may put others off however).
A dozen years late to the party and folks are praising Friedman for showing up? And behind a paid-subscriber wall, to boot?
Senator Al Gore wrote about this in 1993 in his book, Earth in Balance; "rapid development of environmentally appropriate technologies" was one of the points he promoted as a "Global Marshall Plan" in that text, including sustainable energy. He campaigned on this platform in 2000. If a centrist senator and vice-president isn't mainstream enough to get the attention of the American public, they clearly deserve what they get.
Give the guy some credit, Rayne.
A good fraction of the public is still in deep denial about the problem at hand, and they're aided and abetted by a savage, savvy, and well-funded F.U.D. campaign.
By the standards of main-stream punditry, Friedman's rant is still a remarkable thing.
The reason those so called fud flingers arnt worried is simple.
We have gone beyond the need for a 5 day a week 9 to 5 job. Fuel prices and scarcity are the crowbar to the head that is needed to make everyone find that out.
If you CANT get in 5 days a week then your job cant demand it. If they cant cope then tough noogies they are out of bussiness and replaced by someone who can.
High fuel costs are not wrong unless they are only high for you and not your competetor. As long as world wide prices go up all it does is force everyone to either think or pay.
Its bloody well not the end of the world. Poeple will THINK for a change and paint rooves white hell maybe even make houses designed for hot/cold weather instead of just looks.. GASP!!! Make a car that GASPITY GASP GASP doesnt need oil at all nor needs oil guzzling ag products.
Maybe realize that no you dont need everything overnight and that maybe food should have presevatives in it so it doesnt need be restocked and tossed out every 3-4 days and instead could last for a month or 2.
Gaspity gasp GASP but whatever shall we do if shiping becomes harder to do and not everythong can be shipped to the store!!!!.. Oh I dont know.. maybe stop stuffing your gaping maw with food flown in from zanzibar and instead eat something in season for a change or god forbit some "junk" food that was made from whatever was cheap and close at hand and then preserved to the point the mountains will wear away before it spoils... TWINKIES the green food;/
But dear god that would require people CHANGE!
Heck no, Stefan; Friedman could have, SHOULD HAVE said this same thing at the very least four years ago.
9/11 changed everything, remember? Friedman was preaching, preaching, preaching about the dynamics of the middle east up to and after 9/11, made his money on in. But the most obvious point slipped his notice, in spite of being a so-called expert. Osama bin Laden wanted U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, off holy soil, attacked us for this reason; why the hell were we there but for the oil?
If anything, Friedman should be held to a higher standard of performance because of his claim to expertise on the middle east. Fie on him for only now, well after the launch of another war for holy lands that contain oil, arriving at the conclusion that green is security.
Here's a good article about Friedman,