Rhetoric and Reality in Friedman’s "Hot, Flat and Crowded"

By Adam Solomon Zemel

The biggest new book of the fall is Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution, and How It Can Renew America. Here he is in a nutshell:

America is always at its most powerful and most influential when it is combining innovation and inspiration, wealth-building and dignity-building, the quest for big profits and the tackling of big problems. When we do just one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, we are greater than the sum of our parts--much greater.

I applaud Friedman's grand, inspiring rhetoric, but am disturbed that he has fallen back on the failed policy agenda of green groups.

His assertions that a "Green Revolution" could renew America, provide us with the resolve and the faith to step up and lead the globe along a new path for the 21st century, and restore our status as the "last, best hope on Earth," are all true and inspiring.

But grand rhetoric aside, the policy agenda Friedman proposes in Hot, Flat and Crowded will not take us there. Friedman has embraced a narrative of restoring national greatness and blazing new paths -- but he holds fast to the orthodoxy of pricing carbon, a political non-starter in an environment where voters want lower, not higher, gasoline and electricity prices.

Friedman challenges our nation to be bold and adopt a great new national project and lead the way to a new era. I challenge Friedman to be as realistic in his political analysis and as bold in his policy agenda.

Comments

---

Dan,
You raise some interesting points. I don't believe in the viability of a cap-and-trade system as a means of curbing carbon emissions. I do believe in a modest price on carbon emissions. Here is a good way to think about it: a ton of carbon is 2000 pounds. One gallon of gas creates 20 pounds of carbon, which means you would need to burn 100 gallons of gas to create one ton of carbon emissions. This means that every dollar a ton of carbon costs in any carbon pricing scheme translates to one cent at the pump, because gas companies will pass the cost to consumers.

Carbon pricing is a good way to, in your words, "provide essential revenue for the RD&D support." However, given that every dollar carbon is worth translates to one cent at the pump, it is unimaginable that a price beyond eight or ten dollars per ton is politically feasible given the current concerns of the electorate. We should only price carbon to the extent that the revenue raised is being invested in driving down the cost of clean energy.

It is politically impossible to internalize carbon to the point where clean energy is cost competitive, and attempts to do so only serve to marginalize those advocating this strategy, as we have seen in recent months with the greens.

On the other hand, investment in clean energy is incredibly popular with voters/consumers. It is a political winner that could produce real results. Thanks for reading!

By Adam Zemel on 2008 09 18

---

Adam,
While I agree that we cannot regulate our way out of dependence on carbon-intensive fuels, I feel it is naive to throw out the idea of a cap-and-trade system. Yes, must be a part of a larger approach, but it will provide essential revenue for the RD&D you support. Do you believe that renewable energy (for example, wind and solar) can compete with traditional energy costs when they are not generated at peak demand times? And if you want to fund a national HVDC energy grid to help with this problem, can't we internalize some of carbon's costs to provide revenue and make prices competitive much sooner?

By Dan on 2008 09 13