I should probably start off by saying I’m not exactly a charter member of author Thomas Friedman’s fan club. Reading his books (and newspaper columns) are something like following a globetrotting, name-dropping, smarter-than-thou parade.
Hot, Flat, and Crowded makes the case that the exponential growth curves on climate change, economic development, and human population will combine forces to create a world nobody wants to live in within the next 50-75 years. Friedman argues that free-market forces alone have done little to price social and environmental costs (“externalities”) into the price of goods and services. For example, that ream of paper may only cost $2, but probably doesn’t include the “costs” of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and carbon emissions transporting the lumber, turning it into paper, and transporting the paper. Those additional costs are more long-term, and are borne not by the logging company, the paper company, or even the consumer. Instead, they are borne by future generations — who will have to live with less trees, less plant and insect life, and more pollution in the air.
Friedman goes into great detail about the dangers of his “killer-trifecta” reaching unsustainable levels, to the point that the first half of Hot, Flat, and Crowded is a scary and depressing read. Drought, famine, conflict over resources, violence, terrorism, etc. Economists (and pretty much myself until reading this book) largely rely on the centuries-old idea of the “invisible hand” of free-market capitalism to guide progress. This notion was invented long before the concern of humans having an irreversible impact on the planet became reality. Because we make economic (and political) decisions based on the short-term results, the long-term costs are an afterthought for most people — which is why the “invisible hand” has become outdated. As a long-time believer in free-market systems this came as a wake-up call. If there is an Adam Smith counter-argument out there, I’d love to read it.
Friedman argues for a Green Revolution. Basically he’d like to see government create the incentives to spur innovation in renewable energy and sustainable development, and then let the market do it’s thing.
But I’m afraid the book will be nothing more than an “I told you so.”
The actions required to make a real impact would be so costly and so unpopular in the near-term, no politician would dare endorse them. For example, enacting a $10/gallon gas tax would definitely get Detroit and Silicon Valley humming in a hurry to design better powerplants for cars, which would be in our long-term best interest, but it would be terribly painful politically and economically in the near-term. Which means it won’t get done.
On an individual level, the short-term costs of going green still outweigh the short-term benefits. It takes a very long-term view for someone to install solar panels on their roof — it will take years to recoup the initial cost. And the pessimists will say the challenges of climate change are far too great for individuals to make an impact.
You biked to work today? That’s great; China put 14,000 new cars on the road.
You brought your re-useable bag to the grocery store? That’s great; Indonesia cut down 300 acres of forest last hour.
In short, we need a benevolent dictator who doesn’t have to worry about reelection or military coup to steer us (and by us I mean Earth, not just the US) in the right direction. Are you there, God?
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: green
[...] to limit carbon emissions, it’s not in anyone’s personal best-interest. Al Gore and Thomas Friedman are fighting an uphill battle that these economists are pretty sure they’re going to lose. [...]
[...] — doing his best to debunk each one. It’s a sharp contrast to the alarmist calls of Thomas Friedman or Al Gore, and the sunshine-and-roses outlook is backed up by facts. If not, it wouldn’t [...]