Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
225 of 262 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Spurring on Energy Creativity, September 8, 2008
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
170 of 201 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A useful book on energy and climate change, September 8, 2008
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
77 of 94 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Top-down vision that avoids some fundamental issues, September 12, 2008
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...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
![The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/410FGAGYGPL._SL500_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-big,TopRight,35,-73_OU01_SS90_.jpg){kind=icon}
by Thomas L. Friedman
by Fay Vincent
by Thomas L. Friedman
by Daniel Esty
![The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/410FGAGYGPL._SL75_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-st,TopRight,8,-14_OU01_SS50_.jpg){kind=icon}
