Blowing Green Smoke

April 16, 2007
     Tom Friedman, celebrated New York Times columnist and author of The World is Flat, riffed on (or around) the issues of climate change and energy in that newspaper's Sunday Magazine this week ("The Power of Green"), and managed, in the process, to misunderstand just about every implication these conjoined problems present. Friedman's specious thinking is symptomatic of exactly what is wrong with our public discussion of these matters generally, and their presentation in mainstream media in particular.

      I'm fond of saying that if America could harness the power it wastes blowing smoke up its own ass, we could magically escape our energy-and-climate-change predicament. I say this repeatedly to counter the increasing volume of lies we tell ourselves in order to maintain the illusion that we can continue living the way we do. Like so many other commentators suffering from cranial-rectosis, Friedman believes that we can keep on running our Happy Motoring utopia if we just switch fuels.

     Friedman gives no indication that he understands the fundamentals of the global oil situation. He writes:

     People change when they have to -- not when we tell them -- and falling oil prices make them have to. That is why if we are looking for a Plan B for Iraq -- a way of pressing for political reform in the Middle East without going to war again -- there is no better tool than bringing down the price of oil.

    This is a fascinating statement. It's predicated on the idea that the US can achieve "energy independence," which is itself predicated on the further idea that we can accomplish this by switching out gasoline for ethanol. This is such an elementary error in thinking that it would be funny if it wasn't the lead story in the flagship of the mainstream media. As a Pennsylvania farmer put it to me in February: "It looks like we're going to burn up the last remaining six inches of Midwest topsoil in our gas-tanks." Friedman's statement also ignores the facts that running cars on ethanol would make no material difference in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, or that ethanol is 20 percent less efficient than gasoline, meaning we would have to produce and use that much more of the stuff just to stay where we are.

     Where climate change is concerned, this is a variation of the "Red Queen syndrome" (from Alice in Wonderland) in which one has to run faster and faster to stay in place. It also fails to take into account the tragic ramifications of setting up competition between food for humans and crops for motor fuels just at the point when a growing scarcity of oil-and-gas-based soil "inputs" (as well increasing climate problems in the grain belt) will drastically lower American crop yields. The symptoms of this unintended consequence have already begun to present themselves -- for instance, January's food riots in Mexico, which resulted from Mexican corn being sold to American ethanol distillers rather than Mexican cornmeal millers, who couldn't match their bids.

     Friedman goes on to tout Wal-Mart's mendacious campaign to "green" up its operations by, among other things, improving the mileage of its truck fleet from 6-mpg to 12-mpg. He writes:

     Take Wal-Mart. The world's biggest retailer woke up several years ago, its CEO Lee Scott told me, and realized with regard to the environment its customers "had higher expectations for us than we had for ourselves." So Scott hired a sustainability expert, Jib Ellison, to tutor his company. The first lesson Ellison preached was that going green was a whole new way for Wal-Mart to cut costs and drive its profits.

      The smoke Mr. Scott blew up Friedman's ass is leaking out of the columnist's pie-hole here. I've been to dozens of permitting battles over Wal-Mart in the planning boards of America, writing on suburban sprawl, and I can assure you that the the pro Wal-Mart factions in these fights uniformly couldn't give a fuck about anything except saving five bucks on a plastic salad shooter ("we want bargain shopping!!!"). Not to put too fine a point on it, but these are precisely the members of the American public who sold their own local economies down the river, who led their towns into destitution, and who believe with all their hearts that it is possible to get something for nothing (which is why this large cohort of citizens spends so much of its meager income on lottery tickets, trips to Las Vegas, and gets suckered into ruinous "miracle" mortgages).

     Friedman's invocation of Wal-Mart here offers another layer of misunderstanding from the work he is best-known for, his best-selling book, The World is Flat, which asserts that globalism is now a permanent feature of the human condition. I demur from this view. I think we will discover (probably painfully) that globalism was a set of transient economic relations made possible by a half century of cheap oil and relative peace between the great powers, and that enterprises that rely on these transient mechanisms -- such Wal-Mart, with its 12,000-mile merchandise supply chain to China, and its "warehouse on wheels" of tractor-trailor trucks circulating incessantly on America's interstate highways -- will be on their knees in a few years as we enter the export crisis phase of post-peak terminal oil depletion and the great powers of the world act with increasing desperation to compete over the remaining supplies.

     For someone operating at the top of journalism's food chain, Friedman is astoundingly ignorant. He asserts at another point in this article that climate change will require us to "[r]eplace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants." Earth to Tom: America's natural gas supply is arguably more tenuous and problematic than its oil supply. To put it bluntly, over the next five years, we will fall off a cliff with natural gas. Apparently Friedman hasn't heard. Nor are we going to make up for this loss by importing liquid natural gas from distant lands. Nor would it make any sense to burn expensive imported methane gas to run power generation turbines. So, you see, there is no chance whatsoever that we will do what Friedman suggests. In fact, the 17 percent of all electric power that we currently get from gas will be lost to us in the near future, which could leave us with Third World style electric service. (Incidentally, the terminal decline of our natural gas supply also means we will lose control of the crucial resource used for making nitrogenous fertilizers, with self-evident further implications for our crop yields and our ability to feed ourselves or manufacture alternative motor fuels.)

     Friedman's equations regarding continued industrial expansion in China and India are based on the assumption that they somehow will be immune to the global energy crisis and to the ecological catastrophes entailed by climate change. More likely: both nations will be overwhelmed by these things and the only question will be how desperate their political convulsions will be in response (or how rapidly they devolve back to twelfth century living standards).

      At the heart of Friedman's thesis is his notion that the current incarnation of "the American Dream" is a good thing and can continue. By American Dream he apparently means membership in the Happy Motoring Utopia, with all its accessories, furnishings, and usufructs -- the system broadly known as suburban sprawl. Here's the truth, Tom: suburban sprawl is a living arrangement with no future. It was a tragic mistake to squander the post World War Two wealth of our society to build it. It will come to represent an immense liability for this country's future, as it loses both monetary and practical value. And we will have to make comprehensive arrangements for living differently, if we want to continue this project of American civilization.

      A telling omission in this article, by the way, is any mention of public transit. It's especially significant because the one thing we really could do right away to reduce our oil consumption would be to get passenger rail going again in this country. But this blind spot in Friedman's vision is only the flip side to his stupid belief that we can just keep all the cars running by other means.

     Tom Friedman has no idea what the implications are of all these things. His fatuous advice to the nation -- served up by a confused and cowardly Times editorial staff -- will only spur more delusional thinking, which is, of course, the last thing we need. The showcasing of Friedman's article may represent an inflection point in the fate of the mainstream media -- the moment when it demonstrates most clearly its failure to make current events comprehensible, the moment when its lost legitimacy is finally recognized. That legitimacy has been passing to the Internet, where commentators have no advertisers to pander to and no need to defend any status quo.
    

Comments

[The Interloafer]

At least Kunstler and Friedman can agree on one thing:

"People change when they have to -- not when we tell them"

[ryan costa]

Thomas Friedman writes, "People change when they have to -- not when we tell them -- and falling oil prices make them have to. That is why if we are looking for a Plan B for Iraq -- a way of pressing for political reform in the Middle East without going to war again -- there is no better tool than bringing down the price of oil."

Thomas Friedman is the biggest proof of this. America abandoned its strong tradition of Protectionism, Anti-Monopolism, and moderate Isolationism in order to keep pace with tv-commercial appetites and expectations of the world and of class. We changed to pursue an illusion. We bankrupted ourselves to pursue instant gratification. We scuttled our cities and towns to build spacious tv-viewing booths to stop at between trips to the McJob or the Dilbert-cubicle and the shopping center.

But many modern conveniences are worth keeping. We will have to change to keep many of the better ones at the greatest abundance. In the future nearly all shipping to retail will be done by Isuzu Elf series sized trucks, or smaller. This means retail will largely shrink. The old Mega-stores will be converted into warehouses or distribution areas or refugee shelters.

[Farmgeek]

Another great post Jim - great to see the BS meter is in fine form.

I couldn't agree more that the MSM have totally failed to inform the public. Down here in NZ, supposedly the clean, green eco-aware centre of the universe our situation is much the same.

Our media echo the postures of our politicians about carbon neutrality, climate change et al but the moment a solution suggests curtailing business or the holy economy in some way, it gets shelved as unrealistic.

They even have the temerity to label solutions that don't allow business as usual to continue as "unsustainable"...

Keep slugging them, and perhaps the message will get through.

[Joey Ramone]

friedman understands more than he lets people on to. Right before Friedman's rise to prominence, he married into one of the richest families in America. He is a total shithead.

[Mike Bendzela]

Utterly fabulous diatribe.

I've always hate that fucker Friedman. Too bad he's adored by the fatuous media.

Too bad for everyone.

[ryan costa]

Friedman is useful to any wealthiest family. He's a shill for their patterns of obtaining greater wealth. He's a spiritual leader of the masses: When people read the newspaper editorials to be reassured that everything is alright, or progress is happening in the right direction, or everything is the liberals fault or the conservatives fault, they can rely on Thomas Friedman to warm them up for reading the waxy-paper advertisements for Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc.

[Kickaha]

Friedman is a weasel. He's a freaking billionaire and wants to stay that way.

Try typing in "Friedman" as a search term at Daily Kos. The various stories and diaries make a nice history of his specious mewlings.

[halfnelsonchoke]

As 33 year old with a high IQ and no future, I just want to thank the baby boomers for totally and completely fucking over what could have been the greatest country ever. The whole time I was growing up no one ever said anything about oil. No one ever said anything about foreign manufacturing. No one ever said anything about non-linear population growth. No one ever said anything about Topsoil. No one ever said anything about illegal aliens. No one ever said anything about preparation for anything that might come our way. No, the sad truth is that the boomers grew up in unprecedented wealth and security and blissfully burned more oil, energy, topsoil and whatever else you can regretfully burn than any generation since the beginning of known history. These are the assholes who told us to "get good grades" and everything will be awesome. Guess what dad, no amount of straight A's are going to help when the shit hits the fan. You just enjoy your retirement in the million dollar piece of shit house you own. And when the illegal aliens and poor white trash are tearing this country a new one in the next civil war, you just pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you were a great parent.

[American]

I think you mean "mpg," not "mph."

Good article.

[bulldozer]

halfnelsonchoke,

Don't worry too much. Change means new opportunities. If your I.Q. is so high you can be at the forefront of that. We'll need new ways of managing things, of getting things done. People with strong intuitive mechanical or management ability(real management, not reacting to abstract measurements) will be relied upon.

[Frabato]

Halfnelsonchoke...the boomers had no clue. Ask yourself, rather, why they were mislead and manipulated. Could it be that articles such as Friedman's deceived them?

Do you suppose anyone will enjoy a retirement? From whence will the money come? You speak of million-dollar houses; but it is only worth that to a willing buyer. Who will have the means to make such a purchase?

The next 13 years, until 2020, are likely to be challenging. It will then get worse. Ask yourself how to position yourself to survive that reality.

[Bob Poulton]

Yep, yessiree, the "management types" with the high IQ's will be put in charge of tending the fire. Not many "get it". What is headed this way will in no way, NO WAY, resemble what we now know as western civilization. Grow a garden, kill a deer, get dirty and get bloody.

[American]

Halfnelsonchoke, could be worse. You could be 23, 13, or 3.

[American]

Tom Friedman deserves this derision.

But the stupid Friedman with the truly damaging ideas was named Milton.

[LizM]

Thank you for this excellent take down. Friedman has been trading on nonsense for years; I can't believe he still has a job. He so often points out the road to progress with the back of his neck that I think we should nickname his "Wrong way".

[Laura Louzader]

This is one of the most well-written AND really comprehensive posts JHK ever put up here, which is saying plenty.

However, don't blame us 'boomers'. We aren't the people who invented suburbanization and we are the people who, briefly, tried to reverse it. Very briefly, I will admit.

Blame the whole "American Dream" thing, that started in the 1850s. I asked my mother, what IS the "American Dream", anyway. I hear this fantasy evoked when speaking of starting your own business, of owning your own home, whatever. What it seems to be is this notion of NO LIMITS on what you can do or how much resources or space you can control and consume if you have Pluck and Perserverence and a Work Ethic and are willing to Take Risk.

A few people could see the limits of it just after WW2, just before i was born. I think of all the great writers of California- Didion, Steinbeck, James M. Cain, whose work is full of people for whom the dream was not only a cheat but the path to it the path to hell. Something about California that they, and we, are frantically in denial about but that hits you when you look at the Pacific Ocean, that this is the limit, this is where the dream ends. And it was nothing but a cockamamie fantasy cooked up by people who were tragically unable to fit into their native environments.

But people of my parents' generation, having suffered the deprivations and loss of hope of the depression, and the terror of the war, were only too happy to delude themselves, and their delusions even made some sense. It was cheaper to move to the hinterlands, even though you were stranded there in the daytime when your husband was at work, because the bus ran twice a day out there. The cities were sad and decrepit from the depression and war-no building or renewal took place.

And our government planners, with the best intention, really felt that the best thing they could do for us is disperse the population to the suburbs and help everyone buy a house and a car.

So speak not to me of my generation. We felt we were superior. too, and blamed our WW2-generation parents for fucking the world up so much. Strange, I don't see 20-and 30-somethings jumping to give up their SUVs or suburban houses or other Oil Age entitlement.

Many people are getting obscenely rich off of deluding our population that this 'dream' of unlimited growth and unlimited riches and boundless 'freedom' can continue forever. Friedman doesn't have a thing to gain from talking about public transit, he has everything to gain from things the way they are. He is 'talking his position'.

[David]

I wouldn't blame the baby boomers for the mess we're in. I'd point the finger at the baby boomers' parents and grandparents. By the early 1960s all the pieces of the destructive puzzle were in place. (The highway system, automobile industry, mass consumerism). The baby boomers were still in high school at that point.

[Jerry Johnson]

Lots of people are to blame. Take a look at this piece.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece

Bet there is something to this one.

[boro]

Moving this one from the previous thread since i am interested in the answer (did not mean it rhetorically):

Let's examine for a minute the following question.

If you thought that the only chance to avoid humanitarian disaster in the US is through abolishing democracy - would you PERSONALLY support abolishing the current system of government? Would you vote to grant someone emergency powers so they could marshal resources?

It is an issue which is very likely to come to the fore. Give it some thought, though - examine it critically - don't fall back on what you were taught in grade-school.

[boro]

Interesting hypothesis about the cell towers and the bees. If true, it will require a pretty profound shift in attitude towards technology.

Can you imagine banning cell phones? Sounds pretty absurd - like a highly theoretical conundrum - survival or democracy.

Starve or communicate?

[roebuck]

"The whole time I was growing up no one ever said anything about oil. No one ever said anything about foreign manufacturing. No one ever said anything about non-linear population growth. No one ever said anything about Topsoil."

Well, someone did, and did, and did, and did. In fact, many people did. And if you chose to tune it out, that's not the fault of those of us who have been trying like hell to get this message out for the last fucking 40 years.

Now if you want to say the main stream media of the past 40 years dropped the ball, fine.

But I am so FUCKING sick and tired of hearing about "nobody ever told us". This is utter, abject, BULLSHIT.

Thank you, I feel better.

[Jerry Johnson]

After a point, in a very narrow timeframe, the final answer would be starvation. In short order there would be few humans in vast areas of the world. Where the towers are not ubiquitous the problem does not exist.

[Jerry Johnson]

Me too Roebuck, thanks!

[David Mathews]

Hello Everyone,

Here's some big news: Bill Clinton is aware of the Peak Oil, Resource Depletion and Overpopulation problem and says so explicitly in the following lecture:

Bill Clinton: "A Call to Action"

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3307841341277710300

He mentions Matt Simmons and states that even the most optimistic scenarios place Peak Oil at 2030, which is only a small fraction of time compared with the history of humankind.

I am going to guess that this really does mean that Peak Oil has occurred. Gasoline is approaching $3 a gallon locally and the people I talk to about this subject seem to recognize the problem more quickly under these circumstances.

I just wonder ... how much will gasoline cost if a major hurricane gets into the Gulf of Mexico this year?

[boro]

One problem which we will face when we are forced to re-establish manufacturing is the loss of highly skilled labor. Do you know how long it takes to become a master machinist?

High precision machining is very different from cutting hair or putting toppings on pizza.

A lot of highly skilled manufacturing professions are not easily replaceable simply because demand ramped up. Once the current generation retires (or is dumped) and leaves no apprentices to continue the trade, it will take 20 years to reestablish the workforce.