Award-winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been on sabbatical for the last half-year or so, and he has been sorely missed. After spending years talking about how The World is Flat, Friedman began writing about a new powerful force in the global economy...the environment and clean energy. This has lead some (us, actually) to surmise that his next book might be quite ecogeeky.
Now he's back, and immediately taking on the idiocy of suspending the gas tax for the summer months:
The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”
And then he gets to the real meat of the issue. It's not that we don't have an energy policy in America, it's that we have the exact opposite of the policy we should have. We continue to subsidize oil and gas, and are letting subsidies for wind and solar lapse.
The neglect of these renewable energy tax credits has been discussed over and over again here at EcoGeek. Friedman's audience (being somewhat larger than our own) will hopefully finally hear this message loud and clear. I sure am glad he's back.
Hits: 11872
Comments (12)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by mike, April 30, 2008
It's very disheartening that this far into a presidential election we have almost no focus on energy policy or anything else of substance. And while I'm not surprised that McCain would pursue the 'gas tax holiday and nothing else meaningful' and downright ashamed of Hillary. and the best thing you can say about Barack so far is that he hasn't capitulated to 'stupid non-policy' remarks... yet.
-
- +0
-
-
written by gmoke, April 30, 2008
If you think Friedman is an ally, you will be sadly mistaken. He's finally jumped on the solar bandwagon a few years after he and his billionaire wife built their own McMansion in Maryland - without any consideration to solar (and I would bet energy efficiency).
He's gonna bigfoot this issue with little knowledge or understanding.
He's gonna bigfoot this issue with little knowledge or understanding.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hank, April 30, 2008
I have to say that I'm not overly concerned with the way Thomas Friedman lives his life. He could fart mercury and I'd still be singing his praises.
Championing renewable energy on a national level among the people who have the power to change both the laws and the economy is much more important than anything this guy could do in his own house. I think he knows what he's talking about, and when he doesn't, I think he'll ask the right people. That seems to be a pretty strong trend in his work.
Championing renewable energy on a national level among the people who have the power to change both the laws and the economy is much more important than anything this guy could do in his own house. I think he knows what he's talking about, and when he doesn't, I think he'll ask the right people. That seems to be a pretty strong trend in his work.
-
- +0
-
-
written by AndyM, April 30, 2008
Yeah, gmoke. Jeez, what's a little hypocrisy between friends, just so long as Friedman is pushing my, er, I mean, the right agenda?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dude, May 01, 2008
While the small gas sales tax won't have a very profound effect, I don't believe that encouraging investment in solar energy is a viable alternative.
Friedman makes a reference to Germany's solar success, in fact this plan has been a disaster. Most of Germany is situated in a part of the world where climate is simply not conducive to solar energy production. Germany's program works by creating a lawful transfer payment from citizens who use normal electricity to those who have ugly solar panels installed all over their roofs. Last year I believe the payment amounted to around 5-6bn Euros. Solar effectively raised the cost of electricity for the nation. Germany, realizing the fallacy of this plan has been lowering the transfer payments required under its plan because it is exacerbating an already increasing electricity bill.
The simple fact is that solar is not economically viable because when compared to every type of electricity production it is the most inefficient. Even if it is run in death valley during the summer it is still by many estimates I've read several times more expensive than coal produced energy even after coal prices have increased dramatically.
The US has vast, vast deposits of coal. Want to create some jobs in Ohio and Pennslyvania? Just open some more coal mines and build some new coal power plants. Instead of encouraging solar electricity investment we should be encouraging investment in technologies to make coal power production cleaner. Clean coal would not only reduce carbon emmissions but decrease consumer's electric bills.
Ultimately, the only way to control carbon emmissions for the long term is to cap and trade them internationally. This will encourage investment naturally because it will hit power producers where it hurts most, in the pocketbook.
Friedman makes a reference to Germany's solar success, in fact this plan has been a disaster. Most of Germany is situated in a part of the world where climate is simply not conducive to solar energy production. Germany's program works by creating a lawful transfer payment from citizens who use normal electricity to those who have ugly solar panels installed all over their roofs. Last year I believe the payment amounted to around 5-6bn Euros. Solar effectively raised the cost of electricity for the nation. Germany, realizing the fallacy of this plan has been lowering the transfer payments required under its plan because it is exacerbating an already increasing electricity bill.
The simple fact is that solar is not economically viable because when compared to every type of electricity production it is the most inefficient. Even if it is run in death valley during the summer it is still by many estimates I've read several times more expensive than coal produced energy even after coal prices have increased dramatically.
The US has vast, vast deposits of coal. Want to create some jobs in Ohio and Pennslyvania? Just open some more coal mines and build some new coal power plants. Instead of encouraging solar electricity investment we should be encouraging investment in technologies to make coal power production cleaner. Clean coal would not only reduce carbon emmissions but decrease consumer's electric bills.
Ultimately, the only way to control carbon emmissions for the long term is to cap and trade them internationally. This will encourage investment naturally because it will hit power producers where it hurts most, in the pocketbook.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Samantha Jacoby, May 01, 2008
Last year, Thomas Friedman keynoted at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum-Wall Street http://www.reffwallstreet.com and was an inspiration to CFOs, CEOs and Managing Directors in renewable energy investing. He is exactly the type of advocate RE tech needs.
-
- +0
-
-
written by coaltrain, May 01, 2008
dude,
X, who stole my cheese?
X < H
X = nuclear,oil,coal,gas
H = human element,sun
coaltrain
X, who stole my cheese?
X < H
X = nuclear,oil,coal,gas
H = human element,sun
coaltrain
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brett, May 01, 2008
Don't we all have a little hypocrisy in us? The US has huge resources for Solar, wind and biomass. Germany made some mistakes and we will learn from them. There is no "perfect" solution and who would want one. It limits innovation, creative energies and really ultimately freedom.
A little history:
Whale oil then coal (subsidized to be competitive with Whale oil), then oil (subsidized to become competitive with coal) and so on.
A little history:
Whale oil then coal (subsidized to be competitive with Whale oil), then oil (subsidized to become competitive with coal) and so on.
-
- +0
-
-
written by AndyM, May 01, 2008
Exactly right, Brett. Besides, compared to Al Gore's lifestyle, this Friedman guy is a rank amateur. Let's give the guy a break.
-
- +0
-
-
written by maptex, May 02, 2008
The Way is for a 'New Deal'. Bring all aspects of American society towards renewable energies. Our next president should have a policy that focuses on solar power as a future. Starting with us. All of us. What we need is a firm commitment from our highest representatives to activate a plan for solar panels on every structure built anew. Subsidies for existing buildings to be renovated and buybacks of energy put back into the system. Imagine the jobs that could be created. Not to mention the impact that American ingenuity could have against our national debt. The Middle East has enough cash to last them till the next century, we are lacking if we can't create sustainable income for us and ours. Do we want to owned by China? Thanks Thomas, for coming back.
-
- +0
-
-
written by GreenT, May 03, 2008
Dude,
You talk about investing in "clean coal" technologies and the inefficiencies of solar pv systems. First of all, the term "clean coal" is an oxymoron. Not only is it polluting for the environment, it's terrible for the health and safety of the miners who make it available to us. By investing in truly clean energy technologies, like solar, we can still provide job creation and economic growth, but through more socially and environmentally responsible means.
Second, it is true that solar pv systems are inefficient in their conversion of solar energy to usable AC electricity. Improved efficiencies would mean smaller sized systems could produce as much or more electricity and would hopefully bring costs down. But since the fuel source for solar energy systems (the sun) is both free and nonpolluting, we can argue that efficiency makes no difference. Also, solar pv systems can last 25 years or more with minimal maintenance requirements. You can't say that about a coal power plant.
Lastly, you call rooftop solar energy systems "ugly". I guess I just don't see something so technology advanced that it can produce clean energy from a daily source of free power as "ugly". Personally, I find an enormous polluting coal power plant far uglier. Perhaps you just don't have to live or work near one.
Change is hard. But change is necessary to move our country into the future without the diplomatic hurdles of remaining "friendly" with countries that do not share our values, but have the very valuable commodity of oil or natural gas.
You talk about investing in "clean coal" technologies and the inefficiencies of solar pv systems. First of all, the term "clean coal" is an oxymoron. Not only is it polluting for the environment, it's terrible for the health and safety of the miners who make it available to us. By investing in truly clean energy technologies, like solar, we can still provide job creation and economic growth, but through more socially and environmentally responsible means.
Second, it is true that solar pv systems are inefficient in their conversion of solar energy to usable AC electricity. Improved efficiencies would mean smaller sized systems could produce as much or more electricity and would hopefully bring costs down. But since the fuel source for solar energy systems (the sun) is both free and nonpolluting, we can argue that efficiency makes no difference. Also, solar pv systems can last 25 years or more with minimal maintenance requirements. You can't say that about a coal power plant.
Lastly, you call rooftop solar energy systems "ugly". I guess I just don't see something so technology advanced that it can produce clean energy from a daily source of free power as "ugly". Personally, I find an enormous polluting coal power plant far uglier. Perhaps you just don't have to live or work near one.
Change is hard. But change is necessary to move our country into the future without the diplomatic hurdles of remaining "friendly" with countries that do not share our values, but have the very valuable commodity of oil or natural gas.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
APR 30
"tak a look a EMCORE. similar. EMCR. nasdaq..."
View all Comments