Thomas L. Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVgiBJYD5MA

In case you don’t know this guy, he is probably the most celebrated opinion journalist in America.

The New York Times loves him because he’s made a career out of apologizing for or explaining in a soluble way that the Americans are basically better, more efficient, more politically correct, etc. etc. than anyone else.

Here is Friedman at his best, and here are some of my critiques of his arguments:

Founding premise: Green is popular now because of a perfect storm of events – 911 showed us that people who thrive on petro-dollars are out to kill us – Katrina showed that continued use of fossil fuels evokes climate disasters – Internet has created a massive new set of consumers and awareness in Green technology. 3 billion people all with the American Dream? (48 seconds) Our interference in some other countries has shown us it ain’t so: Not everyone on this planet thinks that a new toaster or microwave is the end-all of existence.

My problem: 911 cannot be definitively attributed to any one people or region. Katrina, according to climatologists, may be as much the result of natural cyclical changes that the earth has been subject to for millions of years, and some were worse. What made Katrina a disaster was slow, stupid and inefficient Government reaction to it. And the Internet creating a Green consumer? I’d love to see the statistics that have EVER shown that the Internet is yet a viable advertisement vehicle. It has long been a dream, but so far all people have figured out how to consume with the Internet has been how to consume for free.

He then sets 4 different analysis points for why the Green revolution is starting to grow (1.06 minutes). Those producers of supposed “Green” products (like the curly light-bulbs which threaten our planet worse than energy-consumption at the time of their disposal) must be really happy that the New York Times is taking about some form of “revolution” in green product use. (I think what they’re selling most of is the bags myself.)

His four are: Geo-Economic (good to start out at where we want the destination of the discussion to be!)
Geo-Strategic (economics and strategics is not such a wide divide)
Climactic (Green should after all study its effect on the climate)
Economic (how is this distinct from analysis point # 1?)

So then we get Mr. Friedman’s wonderful analysis of China, India, Brazil. They will not buy-into any restrictions on their use of dirty energy. Friedman at least admits that’s a privilege that only the West can have. (1.34) Now then he goes to the conclusion he wants to support (bad idea, starting with a conclusion and choosing facts that support it.)

We need Scaleable/Emissions Free/clean power at the ChinDia price. One would expect that to mean we need to produce Green power at a much lower price, and make that power available to China and India.

Watch the twist here: Friedman then looks to the people who pay him, the Government, to impose taxes on oil to such high standards that any alternative looks cheap. He wants the Governments of consuming countries like India and China to have to pay such large, Government controlled taxes (carbon taxes) that they would have no rational choice but to consume American-made, American controlled “Clean” energy at prices driven up by these tariffs as well. See (2.21) “It has to be priced, today, at a level competitive with the dirtiest coal.”

Now he changes the name he gave to either analysis point 1 or 2 (I’m still uncertain as to the distinction) and he calls it by a better name: Geo-Political!

He states the obvious: “Government’s role is to get the prices right” (3.09). Not the value, which is a comparative term, but the “price”.

This means again taking a dollar value and so manipulating it as to take comparative value out of the equation.

Price=Profit, and it is what American Advertising, Marketing and other fabrications that view the planet as their sandbox, not a fair distribution of available resources. This is what got us into trouble in the first place.

At (3.25) he says the comparative price will be competitive (read increased) and start to “scale” (love that word – Copied out of Management Theory, it usually means downsizing for efficiency. In this case distorted to maximize and legitimate greed.). Where does this carbon tax go? Not to the people, as he is no apologist for the people. It goes into a bigger banking and industrial system which by greed will fail again. He doesn’t say so, so I will.

At (3.25) he says the comparative price will be competitive (read increased) and start to “scale” (love that word – Copied out of Management Theory, it usually means downsizing for efficiency. In this case distorted to maximize and legitimate greed.). Where does this carbon tax go? Not to the people, as he is no apologist for the people. It goes into a bigger banking and industrial system which by greed will fail again. He doesn’t say so, so I will.

(3.46) “And if the rich countries (the ones that burned all the planet’s recuperative ability in the first place) lead the way, set an example (like all the examples they’ve set in prior history) then I believe the developing world not only will follow, but will have then, at the China price, faster.” Just gotta love the condescending tone of phrases like “the developing world” in a context like this. Despite our failures, and at a time when we are most vulnerable, please follow our lead is what he seems to be saying. And the China price thing? Just prior, he set how this would work: All energy prices would go up…

So now we are treated with a roller-coaster ride of an analogy: It’s now called “Geo=Politics.” (4.06) “We in the United States need to bring the price of oil up. So we stimulate the alternatives (carbon credits) and the innovation that will ultimately bring the global price of oil and energy down.”

He lets no period of reflection for that deflection by asking a question immediately: “Why is that important?”. Marketing will tell you to direct the question making it seem that it was a question of the consumer (the listener) while it really is not: It’s a question planted by the presenter.

I love then ending where he compares the statements “No taxation without representation” (a civil war slogan) with “No representation without taxation” (a slogan he invented to attribute to the “Petro-Authoritarians” that he decries (mainly Brazil). One is the converse of the other statement, and to boot this guy is trying to sell an argument that the price of oil must go up in order to bring peace and stability to the planet.

Sure, if the added costs go to the developed countries in the form of excise tax known as Carbon Taxes.

In my view, this is purely charlatanism and sophistry. You judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVgiBJYD5MA