|
I recently caught a speech by New York Times
Foreign Affairs Columnist Thomas Friedman. He was speaking to the
National Association of Governors. Seems that those guys and gals are
beginning to think of other stuff other than just having their
university have the best football team or what highway they'll build
next.
Friedman spoke to them about his latest economic crusade: the
need for a new green technology, which was later documented on the
Discovery Channel called "Green: The New
Red, White and Blue."
Now I have had problems with Friedman on a
number of his stances in recent years. I disagreed with him about the
necessity of invading Iraq, and I disagreed with him on the wonders he
espoused in his "The World is Flat."
And
I'm not entirely in agreement with him on this one either, the rainbow
of ideas he has on green technology fitting right into a capitalistic
renaissance.
What I dislike most about his rationalization is
that we can't do it all with conservation, efficiency and renewable
alternative energy. He thinks that nuclear and clean coal have to be in
the mix as we turn the corner into green technology.
This
rationale doesn't set too well with us environmentalists, who know that
coal is never clean. Look at the devastated mountains in Appalachia,
the displaced homeowners, the polluted streams, the risks of holding
ponds flooding communities with black sludge. Some environmentalists
are willing to look the other way if underground mining continues, but
no way for mountaintop removal.
The other source of energy that
scares us environmentalists is an increased reliance on nuclear power.
For one thing, the mining of uranium is also devastating to our planet;
it is in limited supplies; it takes a good 10 years to build one; it's
need for cooling waters uses water necessary to growing and thirsty
populations; and lastly, no one wants to deal with the wastes, let
alone having a nuclear power plant anywhere near them.
The
reliance on these two energy sources is just another example of how
even well-meaning columnists who are patriotic and want our country to
grow, are on the wrong track. In order to save this planet, the only
way is to downscale our economy.....all of us moving to less work, to
simplifying our lives, using our own feet to get where we're going,
living closer to where we work, doing with less, wanting less, and
staying out of other countries' business.
If we as a country
were to do all of the above and more, I truly believe we could meet our
energy demands without having to tear up mountains or site nuclear
power plants in too many folks' back yards.
One other way we
need to go: Let's get more of us off the grid, period. If people are
able, they should create their own energy with solar, wind, animal and
vegetable fat, and geo. When one is making his or her own energy,
conservation becomes much more central in one's mind.
Nevertheless,
even with all of the complaints about Friedman's ideas above, I am
quite impressed with his basis premise. Green has gone Main Street, and
now it needs to get further down the street.
Here are some of the things he told the governors in his speech:
- "I want to put my money on Green."
- "I want capitalists to get rich doing the right thing; not the wrong thing."
- "Don food companies do more R & D than energy companies."
- "What
country has the strictest regulatory standards? Japan. What country has
the highest gas prices? Japan. And what is the best selling car these
days? Toyota, made in Japan."
Other points Friedman has made in his column dealing with green taking over the red, white and blue are something like this.
- He wants a Green New Deal.
- What
changed America that makes Green the way to go? 9/11, Katrina and the
flattening of the world. (Of course, 9/11 deals with our addiction to
foreign oil and related terrorism; Katrina reminds us of global
warming; and the flattening of the world means that the demand for
consumer goods is increasing throughout the world, putting a bigger
drain on energy sources and causing more pollution.)
- It's all about job, terrorism and temperature.
- Green is geo-strategic, geo-economic, capitalistic and patriotic.
- We need not 50 red and blue states, but 50 green states.
- California
has some of the strictest regulations of any state regarding energy
efficiency. And while other states' energy use has gone up some 50
percent in recent years, California's energy use has remained flat.
Another point that Friedman made in his speech to the governors went something like this:
Some
folks still don't believe that global warming is a reality. That's
fine. But look at green technology as a type of an insurance policy.
You would probably buy fire insurance for your home, but the chances of
your house catching on fire are small. Chances that global warming is
real are high, so let's do what we can to concentrate on green
technology. Even if global warming is a hoax, it means less pollution,
better efficiency, new and more jobs, more species saved from
extinction, a boon for the economy. You can't go wrong.
Remember
folks, if my country (the USA) doesn't lead the way, another country
will. And they will reap the profits and patents. We will play
catch-up, and who wants to do that?
Let's do the right thing at
last. Take People Power Granny's and Tom Friedman's advice. Go green!
God will be happy that you have finally taken some responsibility. And
your children and grandchildren will be grateful, too.
 Quote this article on your site | Views: 3488
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4 |
Commentary 
Technorati Profile
