Green pays off

Why strategies to deal with climate change will strengthen the economy

By Steve Mirsky

There are politicians and officials who fear that taking steps to deal with global warming will impoverish the United States economy and impair its competitiveness. But the green and clean way is the best way to remain economically powerful, claims Thomas L. Friedman in his new book "Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Lead to the Renewal of America" ​​(published by Ferrer, Strauss and Giro, 2008) . We asked Friedman, the personal columnist in the New York Times, to explain his view.

What does "hot, flat and dense" mean?

The intention is the simultaneous occurrence of three processes from two worlds. The first is global warming. The second is what I call the flattening of the world: the rise, all over the world, of a middle class whose consumption patterns, its use of energy, its demands and aspirations are increasingly similar to those of the Americans. And the title dense comes from the increase in the world's population. These processes are like three flames that coalesced into one big fire which brings many problems closer to the boiling point.

You say that adopting a green policy is a necessity of national security and that the color green is the color of the new US flag. can you explain

Clean energy will be a source of power, in the world in general, no less than the power provided by the tanks, airplanes and nuclear missiles during the Cold War. The country that leads in clean energy production and clean technology will be the leading economic and strategic power of the 21st century. If we take first place in this industry, we will make breakthroughs in innovation, competitiveness, respect and security that will help the entire world. In this way we will become more respectable, safer, more enterprising, richer and more competitive.

You advocate a general overhaul of our energy system. Why is such a drastic step necessary?

If things are not done systematically, it turns out that they produce ethanol from corn in Iowa and think that the problem is solved. But in practice, you only increased food prices and encouraged more entrepreneurs to plant oil palms, for example, in the Amazon basin. We currently have a system in place. It's the polluting fuel system. It is assumed that within a kilometer or two of your house there is at least one gas station...

As a matter of fact, there is one in the block of buildings next door.

exactly. If so, this system works great. It transports this dirty fuel from the oil well to the tanker, to the refinery, to your neighborhood and to your car. Obviously, today we know that this destroys the environment, strengthens the dictatorship of the oil owners, depletes biodiversity, etc. We have to replace this system with a clean fuel system.

So what do we need to start changing the system?

Breakthrough inventions that have not yet been invented. What is missing today in the field of energy is a real market that will encourage a hundred thousand projects like the "Manhattan Project" based on a hundred thousand ideas, in a hundred thousand workshops.

How will a market that encourages innovation be created?

There are two ways to route the market to this. One is proper pricing. A long-term, permanent and durable carbon tax should be imposed. So even if OPEC lowers oil prices following the breakthroughs of those hundred thousand inventors, they will not be left out of the race. The second way is to amend the laws concerning electricity supply and other infrastructures, as they started to do in California and Idaho. And in particular, you must pay not according to electricity consumption but according to electricity savings.

But how can a politician running in the elections sell the public a new tax on fuel?

Let's say I'm running an election campaign. Let us describe this discussion about the tax. The candidate running in front of me says: "Look at my opponent Mr. Friedman, another liberal who advocates a policy of taxation and spending. Now he is in favor of a tax on energy. All taxes are good in his eyes, and now he wants to increase the tax on gasoline." I would reply like this: "I would like to clarify one thing. Both my opponent and I are in favor of taxation, except that I prefer that the revenue from the tax go to the treasury of the United States, while he does not care if it goes straight to the pockets of Saudi Arabia, Russia or Venezuela. Let's not delude ourselves that we are not paying a heavy tax [using the current energy system]." If you do not emerge victorious from this confrontation, you have nothing to look for in politics.

If so, what can every ordinary citizen do against the problems brought by the hot, flat and crowded world?

My slogan is "change the leaders, not the light bulbs," because it is the leaders who set the rules. The rules shape the market. And the markets bring innovations quickly, in the necessary scope and range.

hot and crowded:

From an economic point of view, the best way to deal with the problems of population explosion and the increase in the standard of living in a warming world is the development of green energy technologies.

The full interview with Friedman can be heard In English at this link