Customer Reviews

Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America

5 star:		(151)
4 star:		(57)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(35)

 

 

Friedman writes on world population, the increase of the global middle class, and the growing energy crisis. All of this has contributed to a world that is in desperate need of an energy solution. The thing I like about Friedman's approach is he's optimistic and he's practical. His major points are...

-- The battle over green (energy) will define the first part of the 21st century, just like the battle over red (communism) defined the last half of the 20th century.
-- Everyone needs to accept that oil will never again be cheap...
-- Off-shore drilling may be a temporary fix, but it's not the long-term solution.
-- The fossil-fuel age will end only when we invent our way out of it...
-- The last big innovation in energy production was nuclear power half a century ago, which is an important component to solving our energy problem, but we need additional solutions...
-- In order to further real innovation we need people "throwing crazy dollars at every idea, in every garage, that we have 100,000 people trying 100,000 things, five of which might work, and two might be the next green Google."
-- Friedman emphasizes the practical side of green - "It's the incredible sense of opportunity here. It's not just about saving the polar bears. It's not just about saving three generations from climate change. It's also about rising to the greatest economic opportunity that's come along in a long, long, time."

In the end, he is asking for collaboration and innovation. Of course that begs the question - where does the money come from for all of this? It's always easy to point at the government, but when we look at where real economic solutions have come from it's most often private industry. I wish Friedman would have written on how governments can create environments were private industry is incentivized to create, invent, and discover. Even so, Friedman's book is a needed wake-up call.

Overall it's a good thing that Tom Friedman has taken up the cause of renewable energy. This book is a useful contribution to the national debate over energy policy.

The cause of renewable energy should not be a "political" issue. It's an issue that liberals and conservatives should work together on. Many conservatives concerned about our country's national security are already becoming strong supporters of renewable energy here in America. I don't agree with some of Tom Friedman's past views on economics but this book quite frankly is truly inspiring (particularly the last chapter) and sets a positive tone for people to work together.

A key part of the book is the last part, specifically the last two chapters. Here's where he gets to the heart of the problem, political leadership and government policy. On page 375 he states that the needed energy revolution "will never go to the scale we need as long as our energy policy remains so ad hoc, uncoordinated". On page 407 he again emphasizes the need for a major concentration of federal government power to meet the challenge.

In his interviews with top business executives such as the CEO of General Electric Friedman makes it very clear that America is not going to be able to unlock the power of private industry in an adequate manner unless there are major changes in U.S. government energy policies.

Some say this is "tampering with the free market" but people should be aware that in energy as in all too many aspects of global environmental policy, there really is no purely "free" market. There are already huge subsidies for various industries.

It's very encouraging that the cause of American energy independence is becoming a mainstream political goal. People might also be interested in the fact that legendary oil man, Boone Pickens, is now investing huge amounts of money in renewable energy and is running ads on TV on U.S. energy policy. He has set up a web site too. Part of his energy vision can be read in his new book The First Billion Is the Hardest: Reflections on a Life of Comebacks and America's Energy Future.

I don't share a lot of Friedman's economic views but he is an intelligent journalist who previously wrote some excellent books on the Middle East. Friedman understands the disastrous geopolitical aspects of America's current addiction to foreign oil. He deserves credit for seeing that major government action is needed to reverse this.

Along with this book I would recommend Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition. I have other relevant books in the lists on my profile.

Friedman's high visibility makes this book relevant even if you don't agree with him. He has access to many important people, and their comments are in the book. Thus, the book is also a way to see what certain leadership elements think about the subjects at hand.

I would recommend buying this book.

If you're not yet convinced that climate change is real or needs urgent and radical attention, this vision of a flat world -- with America on top -- may be able to change your mind. Maybe, thanks to huge sales, this book will able to open a lot of minds that needed opening; and that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it won't open them quite far enough. While faulting others for not confronting the tough issues around climate change, Thomas Friedman (TF) avoids many of them himself.

Other reviews summarize some of the book's main themes. This long review will deal with some of TF's more striking arguments, good and bad, that most others have not yet commented on.

A. GOOD POINTS

Some points I especially liked: It's great that TF is so explicit about his exasperation at magazine articles and books offering glib solutions like "205 easy ways to go green." He'd prefer our leaders "propose the one or two hard ways that could actually make a difference" (@ 400). His proposal for how a Presidential candidate might defend the idea of a carbon tax (@265f) is what we ought to be hearing now, instead of "Drill, baby, drill!" His description of why the US military is enthusiastic about going green (@ 317-322) is fascinating. And he bravely makes strong arguments that government regulation can be a good thing in appropriate circumstances.

B. THE POINT OF GOING GREEN IS ... REGIME CHANGE?

One curious feature of TF's argument is its emphasis on America's going green as a means of promoting change in other countries. TF's "Laws of Petropolitics" (Ch. 4) purport to show how "freedom" (or sometimes "the pace of freedom" (@96)) in certain oil-producing countries waxes and wanes inversely with the price of oil. (I won't dwell on the speciousness of the graphs, which use undefined units and misleadingly truncated axes for "freedom," which is sometimes political and sometimes economic.) America should reduce its demand for oil because of our "need to drive reform in the Arab-Muslim world" (@108; I suppose that means we think non-Arab Iran is OK as is).

Moreover, new American technologies will reduce "energy poverty" in poor countries and enable the next Thomas Edison or Sally Ride who may be living there (Ch. 7 & @164). And the Chinese leadership will give its people freedom of speech because of our threats to "outgreen" that country (Ch. 16, esp. @ 367). Aside from these notes of noblesse oblige, TF's vision of other countries is only as competitors to America, not people with whom we should be cooperating (e.g., "America wins! America wins! America wins!" @ 242).

What does America get out of this? The first chapter promises to show how going green will lead to "nation-building in America" (@9). But TF never returns to that topic; the impacts on America that he describes all seem to be economic. He also promises we'll get "more and more knowledge-intensive green-collar technology jobs - which are more difficult to outsource" (@23). What do these turn out to be? Construction jobs installing solar panels and retrofitting buildings (@338).

C. GREEN'S IMPACT ON INCOME INEQUALITY

TF seems blind about the issue of income inequality, especially within nations. Only four pages of the book (< 1% of the text) even come close to talking about income inequality in America; these take the form of an interview with a community activist from Oakland, CA (@335-339). Those construction jobs are the punch line, presented as a boon to the urban poor. How about the rest of the book?

(1) TF regales us with a long utopian fantasy about the snazzy technology and perfectly working markets (unlike any in real life) of the "Energy Internet" (@224-236). He imagines "you" as having a real estate development job that you can telecommute to most days of the week. Too bad for folks who have manufacturing or minimum wage jobs, like the folks who flip your burgers; I guess he expects they won't read the book. Moreover, TF is excited by the idea that someday we'll all lease our household appliances instead of owning them (@71). A society of a few who own and the many who rent, even at the most basic levels of daily life? Sounds less like science fiction and more like a Charles Dickens novel.

(2) TF enthuses about imposing a $5-$10 per gallon tax on gasoline, and using that money to offset payroll taxes (@262). Let's check the math. When I lived in Silicon Valley, I went through about 20 gallons of gas per week - and I had a home office. TF's gas tax would have cost me $5K-$10K per year (to say nothing of higher pre-tax prices per gallon). Plenty of folks commute more than 1 hour per day, because their jobs don't pay them enough to afford to live in the communities where they work; but let's assume they use only as much gas as I did. According to the 2008 US tax tables, a head of household earning even $43K won't have $10K of tax to offset. Even a married couple filing jointly with income over $60K won't have that much payroll tax - but they might have to pay the gas tax for two cars.

(3) How about the day-trading class? According to TF, stock bubbles "have actually been a key driver of America's remarkable record of economic growth and innovation" (@259). The "overinvestment of billions of dollars in fiber-optic cable" left the infrastructure for low-cost Internet services after the bubble's 'pop'(@258). BTW, as I recall, that pop also resulted in a huge wave of job loss. It also wiped out the small investors who didn't have privileged access to IPOs, or the inside information to lead them to bail out ahead of the game. I suppose TF likes neutron bombs, too. And despite this, Americans' Internet access speeds are still way slower than those enjoyed in Japan and Korea.

(4) To be fair, TF is almost as blind about the poor in foreign countries. His fantasy beneficiary of green technology in the developing world is "Senhor Verde" (a Brazilian 'Mr. Green'), who has a 1,000 acre farm, with high-tech tractors and sprinkler system. But the mean size of a farm in Brazil is < 150 acres; and as a mean, that number is inflated upwards by some megafarms. Roughly 40% of Brazilian farms are under 10 (ten) acres. In Africa and many Asian countries, that percentage is closer to 80%-90%. See, e.g., the paper "Farm size" by Eastwood & al. of University of Sussex (2004), available in draft online. Bottom line: when TF talks about Mr. Green, he's talking about a rich dude.

TF's vision for the foreign poor is data centers set up by outsourcing companies, such as one he saw in a village in India (@166-169). One of his interviewees tells him, "[I]n the village, no one gives up these jobs." I'll bet. But keeping their jobs isn't necessarily up to them. Outsourcing work is especially vulnerable to being moved around the globe, according to the whims of the market forces that TF extols. See, e.g., Andrew Ross's outstanding "Fast Boat to China: Corporate Flight and the Consequences of Free Trade" (2006).

D. UNASKED QUESTIONS AND UNPURSUED CONCLUSIONS

The deepest problem is that TF doesn't question his key assumptions or pursue his arguments to their logical conclusions. Especially, he doesn't question whether American-style market capitalism might be part of the problem, beyond the fact that it relies on heat-based energy sources.

(1) GROWTH & GDP: "I start from the bedrock principle that we as a global society need more and more growth, because without growth there is no human development and those in poverty will never escape it" (@186). Growth in what? "Economic growth" usually means growth in GDP, and TF never indicates he means something else (see also his discussion of China @ 345f). The usual assumption (not stated by TF) is that higher GDP per capita (GDP/C) is associated with higher "welfare" or "well-being".

TF says "Too many environmentalists oppose *any* growth, a position that locks the poor into poverty" (@194). This is painting with a broad brush. First of all, GDP/C numbers don't tell you anything about how wealth is distributed. As Warren Buffett gets richer, our mean GDP/C goes up, but that doesn't mean your income goes up. In fact, check Wikipedia on "Median household income": although US GDP/C grew 67% since 1980, median real household income went up by only about 15%. Real median income is lower now than in 1999 - i.e., at least half of us are worse off since then, despite growth. Second, TF's blind eye overlooks that income inequality has been growing within nations, including the US. Based on US Census Bureau's computed Gini Index for 2007 (46.3), we're by far the most unequal of all developed countries. So it's not obvious exactly what growing GDP or GDP/C does for the poor.

Moreover, TF doesn't mention that GDP/C can grow because of bad stuff, such as the costs of treating disease and cleaning up pollution - not really well-being at all. Or that the supposed relationship between GDP/C and happiness as measured in surveys is at most a correlation -- not a causation, as TF's comment suggests. (Or that whether such a correlation exists at all is highly contested among researchers, and that even the papers arguing most strongly for it ignore other obvious factors, such the relationship between happiness and recovery from a devastating war.) Or that despite growth, income inequality can lead to unhappiness because of perceived relative differences, even if everyone's income is improving in an absolute sense.

Since so much of the book's attention is on America, not a "global society," you'd think that TF might specifically address the question of how growth benefits Americans. But aside from mentioning that to turn off growth would be "political suicide" for politicians (@64), he's mum on the issue. Bottom line from TF: growth is good for poor people somewhere, and for politicians in the US (or maybe everywhere).

(2) GROWTH & CONSUMPTION: TF is a fan of consumption. He argues, through the mouths of interviewees, that consumption is necessary to grow the economy (@194), that we can "consume more and conserve more at the same time" (id.), and that with the right carpet design, "not only would you be able to change your carpet as often as you wanted without guilt, but you'd be producing massive amounts of jobs in America" (@71). As for energy, he wants to see "huge demand - *crazy, wild, off-the-charts demand*" for clean power technologies (@244; emphasis in original). His Energy Internet technotopia is a paradise for consumers who love to choose service plans.

An interesting irony is that TF sees the main obstacles to changing America's energy mindset as lobbyists and failed political leadership (Ch. 17). Some American scholars of politics have observed that the same market forces that maximize our opportunities as consumers have sapped our power to effect political change as citizens, especially in the past 40 years or so. See, e.g., R. Dahl's "On Political Inequality" (2006) and "On Democracy" (1998), and R. Reich's "Supercpitalism" (2007). TF never questions whether the ultra-consumerism for which he cheerleads could be contributing to the political problem he complains about.

But considering that TF's theme is energy, it's also ironic that he ignores economists like Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly, who have pointed out that unbounded growth and consumption run afoul of the laws of thermodynamics. Economic processes aren't different from any other kind of activity, in that they all produce physical waste, in the form of heat or stuff. Just as you can't have a perpetual motion machine, you can't recyle all of that heat or stuff. The more stuff you consume (or produce), the more waste that results. (Note that Communism, which emphasizes unlimited production, is no less dumb than gonzo capitalism in this regard.)

Yet while TF often stresses the urgency of addressing our energy problems -- e.g., quoting Dana Meadows, "We have exactly enough time, starting now" (@170) -- he doesn't want us to "opt for the drastic" by make any "radical changes in lifestyle" just yet (@194). Though he mocks others for their "easy" ways of going green, his prefers to stick his head in the sand rather than to ask whether our lifestyle has any physical limits.

(3) ARE WE REALLY GROWING ANYWAY?: I was very happy to see TF criticize economists' use of the word "externalities" to describe pollution, waste and CO2 emissions (@260). That terminology disguises such problems as trivial annoyances. Farther down the page TF says "We have been fooling ourselves with fraudulent accounting by not pricing those externalities. ... We rack up stunning profits and GDP numbers every year, and they look great on paper `because we've been hiding some of the costs off the books'. Mother Nature has not been fooled" (@260). Right on.

But now, as the Talmud says, let your ears hear what your mouth is saying. If our growth figures are "fraudulent" because we don't consider the true costs of pollution, biodiversity loss, etc., who's to say our economy is truly growing anyway? Or that the American versions of market capitalism and consumer lifestyle, both of which TF so staunchly defends, are really defensible?

E. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

I won't dwell on the many small quirky things that none of the zillions of people thanked at the end of the book were able to persuade TF to change, such as a mistake about when the current millennium began (@47) or an overly exuberant reference to "10,000 inventors working in 10,000 companies and 10,000 garages and 10,000 laboratories" (@ 244 - each of these people has a garage AND a lab AND a company?). But it's interesting that among those zillions of names the only Europeans seem to be some folks from a Dutch oil company.

Interesting because many of the questions TF doesn't ask are being asked in Europe. And not just from the political left. TF mentions French President Sarkozy as an admirer of America (@ 177). That same rightist politician has asked two US-based Nobel laureate economists to come up with an alternative to GDP, in order to get a better measure of well-being and happiness. Moreover, many European thinkers on issues of energy, economic growth and ecology (among them André Gorz, Dominique Méda, Alain Gras) often start from a deep analysis of the nature of human work, and its spiritual meaning. TF's approach, in contrast, is entirely materialistic and technocratic. [UPDATE 2009/09: Two pertinent reports available online are the March 2009 report "Prosperity without growth?" from the UK Sustainable Development Commission, and the September 14, 2009 final report of the Stiglitz Commission appointed by Pres. Sarkozy. While the Stiglitz Commission focused more on measurement issues than on policy, the UK SDC report questions the policy of growth in great detail.]

The problem of human survival in the face of global climate change seems to call for cooperation, and some reflection about what we really want life to be. TF's proposal instead is for America to overwhelm other countries in international competition, with the help of market forces and smart appliances. Are "out-greening al-Qaeda" and "America wins!" really the best attitudes with which to approach this challenge facing all humanity (and, thanks to us, much of the rest of life on earth)? It's not clear to me that this is even good for Americans. We're humans, too, not just consumers and innovators.

I hope TF will win over some skeptics about climate change. But if we don't think more deeply, critically and globally about the solutions than he has, we could end up in a world that's hot, flat, crowded, hostile and lost.

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth and subsequent buying power, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff.

However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply of nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENERGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Tom Friedman has a great vision of future economic growth driven by energy technology. I enjoy reading his columns and watching his interviews. However, this book is far too long to get his message across clearly. I feel like have the book is him quoting experts to make an obvious point. For example, do we really need a whole chapter on biodiversity loss and his travels around the world to be convinced that there is a biodiversity problem? He takes far too long to get to his original (and valuable) ideas. I can read long books, but by page 150 (out of 400) I felt like I had read a lot but not gotten a lot that was new to anybody paying attention to climate change/environmental news at all. My advice to readers is to save their money and simply take a look at Friedman's past interviews and op-eds (all available online) to get his message.

Thomas Friedman's writing is new to me, and from the glowing reviews of this book I expected a little bit more. [Update to review: Deserves 4 stars.] I'm a climate change professional and one of those "revolutionary bureaucrats" that he praises in his book for doing the real work in protecting human health and the environment (thank you, Mr. Friedman), and I agree with 95 percent of his ideas and solutions - especially placing the true price of dirty fuel back onto the consumer (only then will people choose clean energy over dirty fuels). I originally gave this book three stars mostly because it felt like a review of things I've already read, and it could have been written a little better. However, the book earns five stars if it's one of your first three books on the impacts of global warming.

Although the book puts together important ideas, my primary disappointment with the book is that it reads like one especially long newspaper article, very light and breezy, and almost glib in tone at times. A much better book if you want more on climate change and its impacts upon human societies is "Hell and High Water - Global Warming, the Solution and the Politics - and What We Should Do" by Joseph Romm.

I've also read thousand-page compendiums on climate change, so to me, the science of global warming is incontrovertible. That part of his book didn't require convincing for me. I'm not an economist, so I could not evaluate his economical solutions to the degree I'd like, although I do agree that externalities should be included back into the price of everything, especially chemicals, fuels, or processes that are harmful to the environment. One of my main disagreements I have with Mr. Friedman is that growth in the third world is necessary or good. Even the author admits that the world can't sustain any more Americas.

At least Mr. Friedman is exactly spot on about how the "green revolution" is more of a "green party", where everybody gets to feel good without actually accomplishing anything. If we want to keep the world livable for us humans, I'm certain that big changes, painful changes will have to take place.

I am also fairly certain that voluntary behavior change will not be enough to limit carbon dioxide emissions into the air. Which do you think is easier?
1): Convince the average motorist that high-mileage hybrid vehicles are the best vehicle to buy (even though they cost more upfront); or
2): Mandate higher minimum fuel efficiency standards that all vehicles must meet.

Personally, I know fuel efficiency standards work, because they worked in the 1970s very well. As for voluntary behavior, what is the market penetration of hybrid vehicles? A lot less than 5 percent. I'm an environmentalist, but I will not buy a hybrid until the price of gas becomes very, very, expensive.

Stay tuned, I think climate change is the most important story of our times. In a few years, the economic downturn (in late 2008) will be in the past, gasoline will be at $7 to $8 per gallon, and we will still be trying to keep the planet from turning into a desert - only the later we start to make meaningful change, the more difficult it becomes.

What a timely book! Following an election in which the future of the planet was hotly debated, the market is ripe for this accessible yet information-packed treatise on the perilous state of the environment, how we got here and how we must proceed if we are to avoid catastrophe.

Thomas L. Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs journalist for the New York Times, is known for his ability to synthesize information from diverse sources. He uses the first half of the book to thoroughly convince us that we do indeed have a problem, and a very grave one. In his past books, Friedman has argued that globalization is "flattening" the world, making competition between countries more possible and more fair. China and India's booming economies are giving millions more people opportunities to move up to the middle class. These millions feel they deserve a better life --- better being defined as more comfortable, consuming more resources like their American brothers and sisters.

The problem is that we are quickly running out of the cheap, dirty fuel that allowed the first world countries to develop. But increasing carbon dioxide emissions from dirty fuels like oil and coal are contributing to what Friedman terms "global weirding." Add to this mix burgeoning population growth, and you get a world that is hot, flat and crowded. Friedman provides plenty of scientific support to back up his claims that life as we know it (cheap gas, cheap energy, a human-friendly climate) is endangered, one way or another. As he puts it, "if we don't make the hard choices, nature will make them for us."

The second half of the book is a guided tour through what some of those "hard choices" may be. "Green" must be more than a fad, he argues, and every magazine article that touts "easy" ways to save the planet does a disservice by trivializing what may in fact be deadly serious. Yet Friedman believes we are up to the task and that America must lead the way in both innovation and conservation. He describes a new Energy-Climate era in which information technology meets energy technology. In his vision, our washer, dryer and refrigerator become smart appliances that communicate with a revolutionized energy grid to buy electrons when they are cheapest. No matter whether our cars are plugged in at home or in a parking lot, they can both buy and sell electricity, depending on whether they need it or have it.

But to get to this sustainable utopia, our government and culture need to make investments now. We have to engineer our economy so that alternative energy innovations are made because industry knows they will be competitive. If that means keeping gasoline prices above $4/gallon in order to do so, so be it. If we doubt that will work, we need only look to Europe, where gas prices are astronomical and small, energy-efficient cars are the norm.

America must lead, Friedman argues, or we'll be forced to play catch-up with China and India. He introduces us to some American companies and universities already innovating toward a clean, sustainable future and examines what other countries are doing as well. We need a course correction, and with HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED, Friedman has provided a manifesto for our times.

--- Reviewed by Eileen Zimmerman Nicol

Thomas L. Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need A Green Revolution-and How It Can Renew America is the right book, by the right author, at the right time. Just when it is becoming apparent that the days of petroleum are ending we get a book that can serve as a platform for future discussion on the energy situation and may even form an outline for future action. This is a positive book and is also a realistic one. Readers will appreciate the proof he includes as he makes his points. For example, don't think that the flattening of the population is causing shortages in a variety of materials? How about scrap iron? Manhole covers (p. 65) have been disappearing all over the world. Initially in the Asia, the stealing has reached Chicago and will continue to spread. Copper is the latest in scarce materials that is being stolen.

Whether Friedman is discussing fuels from hell or fuels from heaven, his approach is intelligent, positive and, in my opinion, dead on target. There is opportunity in this crisis for however many people want to and invent our way out of it. Friedman's first law of petropolitics states that "as the price of oil goes up, the pace of freedom goes down". Certainly this isn't going to be a topic of debate among the readers of this book. Can anyone doubt that we have fewer freedoms today than say thirty years ago and that much of that is related to the price we pay for petroleum based products?

Among the many points that Friedman makes is our half-hearted attempts that have been made on behalf of the environment. Certainly "going green" is a popular phrase in the United States today. I know, I saw a bumper sticker on the back of a large Ford SUV a few weeks back announcing "Earth Day." Up to now being environmentally aware didn't require a lot of sacrifice. That, I think Friedman would agree with, is about to change.

As a solar energy advocate for more than 30 years I've often been frustrated by our inability to wean ourselves from not just petroleum, but from all fossil fuels. The federal government has been reluctant for any number of reasons to provide the leadership on this effort, and the private sector, while seemingly the one sector that should see the huge economic pay off of using solar energy where possible has been slow to lead the way. I guess that as long as cheap oil was available many felt that the investment in alternative energy sources just wasn't worth the effort....NO PROFITS. That is going to change.

Thomas L. Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded isn't a book that tries to point the finger at any individual or group. In fact, the book is remarkably problem and solution oriented giving it a certain amount of legitimacy. While it does point up our short falls in the past, it also offers hope for the future.

I highly recommend.

Peace always

The central argument in this book is that the market does not efficiently allocate investment to cleaner alternative fuels because of externalities associated with use of "dirty" fossil fuels. Externalities, in this context, are costs that are not paid by fuel consumers but rather by society as a whole (pollution) or even by future generations (climate change caused by CO2 emissions). Market participants don't factor these costs into their decisions because they don't have to pay them. This market failure creates an opportunity for the government to increase efficiency by raising the price of carbon-based fuels so that the price paid by consumers reflects their full cost to society. When alternative fuels are more price competitive, R&D will increase, and advances in technology will bring down the cost of alternative fuels. This is an eminently reasonable argument, and Friedman also does a good job of explaining how high oil prices strengthen authoritarian leaders in oil-rich states.

Much of the rest of his book is not as valuable. Friedman is highly critical of market processes - he sees market failures everywhere - but he seems to lose his critical judgment when he looks at government processes. He wants "revolutionary bureaucrats" to assume a much larger role in shaping investment decisions, but he blithely assumes that regulators are farsighted technocrats rather than self-interested political actors. Elsewhere, Friedman laments the need to obtain the support of citizens for initiatives that they will pay for. An entire chapter is dedicated to a fantasy that a benevolent dictator - whose views are identical to Friedman's - might dramatically increase environmental regulation over fossil fuels while weakening environmental regulation over nuclear power, electricity transmission lines, and the other infrastructure that Friedman needs to achieve his vision for a United States powered by "clean electrons."

Many of his arguments might also be criticized as poorly supported or unbalanced. Friedman is a popularizer and explainer, and the standard of evidence in a popular book need not be as high as in a book aimed at specialists. Still, his standard does not rise much above "I think that ..." or "someone I interviewed thinks that ...." This might not be such a big problem except that Friedman only interviews people that he agrees with. For example, in advocating that the news media should more actively promote the link between human activity and climate change, he cites the views of former Clinton administration official Jospeh Romm, who thinks that the news media underplay the link because they are overly concerned with their role as "honest brokers" of information. Maybe Romm and Friedman believe this, but I would guess that most people take a more skeptical view of our news media. Elsewhere, Friedman asserts that the "worst" fossil fuel companies "know their products are as harmful to society and the planet as cigarette smoking." This is a surprising statement, and it might even be true, but Friedman does not present any evidence for it. As a final example, Friedman calls Hurricane Katrina a "flashing red light" alerting us to global warming. Maybe Friedman is right, but in the absence of any evidence, readers might well conclude that the link he draws between climate change and this specific storm is speculative.

This is an important book, hopefully one that has gotten the attention of the new Obama administration. Having taught about the "Greenhouse Effect" and exponential population growth since 1971, it's good to see a consensus has been reached and writers like Friedman have popularized the story. Friedman writes well, uses metaphor brilliantly, and fills his writing with facts and stories.

I'm using the book in an unusual way. I've assigned it in a graduate level curriculum, instruction and assessment course at my college. The question is "What does Hot Flat and Crowded have to do with Curriculum, instruction and assessment?" So far, my students seem enthused about this unconventional approach. My argument is that if well over a thousand scientists are correct and are environment is in the near term threatened, shouldn't we be doing something different in schools? Could this urgency serve as a design criterion as we transform our schools?

I can imagine this brilliant book being used in dozens of other ways to stimulate discussion - policy groups, reading groups, etc. TF speaks to a wide audience.