Thomas L. Friedman's Immense Popularity
Here’s Tom Friedman’s op-ed in yesterday’s NY Times. As always, I agreed with most of it. But I point out two things:
1) He has a keen mind — one with which he has done quite well — but his popularity is largely based on tuning his writing towards optimism. I’m sorry to sound suspicious of others’ motives, but I often wonder about his sincerity; I find it hard to believe that, in the pit of his stomach, that he’s not as frightened as you and I as to humankind’s future. Friedman routinely comes up with deus ex machina concepts that he posits as the forces that will restore the U.S. to her former greatness and provide Americans with the ever-improving quality of life that we enjoyed through most of the 20th Century. I’m reminded of his conclusion to “The World Is Flat” in which he writes (I paraphrase): Yes, things are bleak, but American’s are crafty. Look at what we did with Google, Amazon, and Ebay a decade ago. There are bound to be many more future breakthroughs like these in the decade to come by way of Yankee ingenuity. This whole thing seems a bit facile to me; from listening to him speak, I believe he’s too smart to believe in fairy tale endings.
2) In this article he writes: “Our newfound natural gas bounty can give us long-term access to cheap, cleaner energy and … bring blue-collar manufacturing back to America.” How someone of this stature as a business author could write about the energy picture and not mention renewables is astonishing; at a minimum, it shows a remarkable lack of insight.
Having said this, again, I respect and admire him, and commend him on another good piece overall.
Same position as regards my respect for his acumen.
People who are in the political media business sometimes fall into the camp of considerable wariness in the experimenter effect. If one tracks a pundit over sufficient time, it can be ascertained whether or not they worry on the outcomes of events being modified by their opinions or predictions. They will sometimes attempt a bit of mass psychological manipulation in subject areas that can arguably go either way.
That said, a much simpler phenomenon I see in some people I personally know, is an enthusiasm built on affirmation. Be positive, say it often enough, and you can shape outcomes. If you’re a pundit, maybe you can create “mass affirmation”. Hmmm…
Arlene,
“Mass affirmation” as you express it sounds exactly like what Fox puts out as talking points and all of the Republican politicians and their stalwarts then parrot.
As a writer, I find it endlessly frustrating that there are always more readers for my positive messages. Happy-talk gets page views, and I think Friedman is just one of many examples of the public getting what it wants (to society’s detriment) when it comes to news and editorial coverage.
Dear Craig,
I am a huge follower of Tom Friedman. I think he is genuinely optimistic.
We have a number of challenges on the renewables front. Our newfound natural gas is an important game changer.
Please see:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0
Cheers!
Ramesh Hariharan
Natural gas is most certainly important, but ignoring renewables is a mistake. Good article, btw; I have a lot of respect for Smil too, though I’m a bit more optimistic on the case for renewable energy.
natural gas????global warming is real- natural gas may be a lesser evil but still is a problem.
Natural gas under the Rockies is best left there as alternative technology produces more energy without drilling $4,000,000 wells. Invest instead in solar electric production and make Hydrogen by dissolution of water, use the Hydrogen for filling the gas pipelines and make more profits for the next 30 years than a well would. (That leaves the carbon in the natural gas sequestered under the surface where it is now.) The cost of storage tanks and pipelines is low compared to batteries. and most cities have a secondary energy delivery system in the gas utility network and metering so why not use it but with a cleaner gas at the input. Most gas operated equipment works perfectly on hydrogen without the Methane mixed in. (Natural gas id mostly methane and hydrogen gas mixed together.)
Dennis,
You correctly surmise that hydrogen is not a genuine energy source – a fuel, per se – but is instead a good potential carrier.
I’m intruiged by your CSP/Hydrogen strategy, but I’m also curious to know your thinking on how the numbers add up. I’d like to see a thorough and holistic approach to the accounting that factors in, on both sides, all the impacts on the health of the biosphere (including humans) and on the array of environmental services that the natural world now has increasing challenges providing under our present system.
Best case; we may see the N Gas findings as a wanted temporary reprieve to heal our national denial in adopting solar and other RE venus. I can only emphasize “temporary” and of unknown duration at that. That the gas reserves could so suddenly enlarge so greatly can only be seen with suspicion of some spin or vested interest. We best take advantage of it by continuance of lowering our CO2 production AFAP!!
Overall, I see this as a “fluff piece.” He is praising people for doing what they already did and then throwing a little rah rah and patriotism on top of it. I don’t think that in this article he really gives a rip about renewables or anything else, he is polishing his crystal ball and hoping someone notices. I think you are putting way too much emphasis into his mention of Natural Gas without considering that all this article is worried about is the mid-west pipeline-and the jobs it brings-that President Obama already green-lit. He may have energy in the back of his mind and other articles he’s written may have more depth, but this isn’t one of them. There is more depth and thought put into the comments on this page than I see in that particular article.