Thomas Friedman has done it again. He has taken a global situation,
this time it's climate change, and set out to educate the public about
how we got there and what we can do about it. However, in his
explanation, the self-described "somber optimist" inadvertently ends up
salving readers with the expectation that technology will save us and
we can go on with our lives as usual.
Hot, Flat and Crowded focuses on the threats and opportunities of
climate change in this new age that he calls the Energy-Climate Era
(ECE), which begins now.
Friedman is an engaging storyteller who can skillfully elucidate
complex ideas with pithy phrases. For example, in the book's title,
"hot" refers to the earth's rising temperatures due to an overdose of
carbon emissions from large-scale manufacturing, the loss of forests,
urban sprawl, the extraction of resources and the large store of solid
waste from animals and humans.
"Flat" refers to how more of the world's people have entered the middle
class, a decidedly good development in the quest to overcome poverty.
However, he says, middle class lifestyles encourage people to acquire
more consumer goods, which use up more fossil fuels and thus contribute
to more carbon emissions.
"Crowded" refers to the ever-increasing world population. Today, it
stands at 6.7 billion. By mid-century demographers estimate it will be
9 billion with the greatest increases in countries that are least able
to sustain a larger population. It is these countries that have the
potential for violence, civil unrest and extremism.
To mitigate these interconnecting problems, Friedman advocates an
all-out effort to "mobilize the most effective and prolific system for
transformational innovation and commercialization of new products."
Americans, in particular, are well poised to develop and dominate such
a market by creating a demand for clean energy. We could also put our
people to work by encouraging innovators to invent renewable energy
generators and by enlisting blue collar workers to be "green collar
workers" to make and service these products. Unfortunately, the United
States is not doing this, says Friedman, but China is. And unless we
get going, we will miss an opportunity to "out-green" the Chinese and
sell the world our new, green technology.
What prevents America from getting on board the renewable energy train
is our reluctance to invest the necessary funds for research and
development. Friedman says that supplying these funds would be
expensive up front, but the benefits of converting to a modern and
efficient energy infrastructure would save us a lot of money in the
long term.
Another thing stopping us is some political leaders' doubts about
whether climate change is caused by humans or Nature-so they block
R&D funds. The $787 billion stimulus package recently signed by
President Obama was a big victory for change because it did designate
nearly $20 billion for renewable energy and $11 billion to modernize
the U.S. electrical grid. But the nagging question remains: where
will lawmakers find more funds in the future.
Meanwhile, Friedman deftly illustrates how our oil addiction is
encouraging petropolitical dictators and strengthening "the most
intolerant, antimodern, anti-Western, anti-women's rights, and
antipluralistic strain of Islam-the strain propagated by Saudi
Arabia." He reminds readers that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11
hijackers were Saudis for this very reason.
Another complication to our response to climate change is Friedman's
contention that if we want to maintain our present way of life, "we
will have to leverage and exploit our intellectual resources through
innovation and technology." Here he reveals his basic worldview: "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."
While it is nice that Friedman is concerned about the poor, he believes
that "a rising tide lifts all boats," just as President John F. Kennedy
once urged. After nearly 50 years of operating on this assumption, we
have seen the gap between rich and poor widen and the utter and
insidious collapse of our economy.
Friedman's statements about growth show him to be what energy experts
call a "cornucopian." A cornucopian believes that there are few
intractable limits to growth and that the world can provide a
practically limitless abundance of natural resources.
Friedman conducted extensive research to prepare this book, but he
leaves readers with a curious omission about our energy future: "peak
oil."
According to Energy Bulletin (www.energybulletin.net), "peak oil"
refers to the high point in the rate of global oil production. Because
oil is a finite, nonrenewable natural resource, once we use up half of
the world's total reserves, oil production will begin to decline. It
is important to recognize that a peak in production does not mean that
we are running out of oil. It signals that we are running out of cheap
oil. We got a taste of that future last summer when oil reached $147
per barrel and gasoline topped over $4 a gallon.
No one knows when we will hit the "peak" and begin to decline so the
urgency to do something about it depends one's estimate of remaining
oil reserves. The Cambridge Energy Research Associates (www.cera.com),
one of the world's leading energy consulting firms, estimates we have
20 to 30 years before reaching peak. Many peak oil theorists (as seen
in the documentary, "The End of Suburbia," www.endofsuburbia.com)
believe oil could peak as early as 2010.
Perhaps the most disturbing word on peak oil comes from what is
commonly known as the Hirsch Report, sponsored and published in 2005 by
the U.S. Energy Department
(www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf). It
states that "the economic, social, and political costs [of peak oil]
will be unprecedented."
Organizations like the Post Carbon Institute (www.postcarbon.org) and
the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) are working hard to inform
and organize policymakers and the public to "understand and respond to
the challenges of fossil fuel depletion and climate change."
Unfortunately, they are unable to capture much attention from the media
or the policymakers so the public stays largely uninformed about peak
oil.
Well, in the end people will believe what they want to believe and
there are always plenty of data around to substantiate whatever
position makes them feel comfortable-including very smart and
influential people like Thomas Friedman. But readers must ask
themselves: why is America willing to gamble on the possibility that
we have more time rather than less time not only to take care of
climate change but to curb our dependence on oil to fuel our economy?