Friedman: west should unite around going green
Share your Thoughts
Posted on October 27, 2006
Filed Under Global warming/Climate change, Deep ecology, Greenhouse gas emissions, Ecological overshoot, Ecological hope, Consumer culture, Fossil fuel dependency, Environmental disasters, Earth spirituality, Renewable fuels
Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:
Thomas Friedman really gets it now. In his column today, he calls for the Western allies to unite around the energy and climate change crisis the way it once did around the “Red Scare.” I personally prefer the analogy of the US commitment to go to the moon back in the 60s — a little less warlike, if you know what I mean.
Friedman rightly points out how far behind the US is in appreciating that these multiple crises — global warming/climate change, the end of the fossil fuel era, the dependence of the West on oil from the Middle East, mass extinctions, pollution, along with the terror threat that will be with us for a long, long time — combine to form the real ’security’ threat to our world. The lack of US leadership in this regard only prolongs the time it will take to get more governments on the same page, cooperating to change the energy base of industrialization, to become carbon neutral so the planet can begin the long term process of restabilizing its atmosphere, to change the growth logic and consumer logic of the global economy (Friedman would not agree with me about that).
Once again, if you don’t buy the NY Times, and you don’t have a paid subscription, you have to pay to read Friedman. So, once again, with apologies to the Times, I have pasted today’s column below. I do pay for it.
This blog believes, of course, that it is precisely our way of life that needs changing. We don’t believe that humans evolved over millions of years so that we could become the consumers of goods made by corporations for the purpose of making some very few people in our world very wealthy. We believe that there is a greater purpose to the human journey and that this crisis we face, created in just 200 years of industrialization, may provide the most important moment ever for all of us to reassess the reason why we are here on this beautiful Earth.
I have another big disagreement with Friedman. He is a big booster of corn, soy, and sugar-based ethanol, as readers of this blog already know. But these products, if produced in huge amounts, have very serious environmental problems that would only add to the crises.
Friedman also writes that the way to get to mass production of biodiesel is to get over our opposition to genetically-modified organisms, which these fuels require.
So here is some more information on GMOs, reason enough for our concern. This link will take you to the site of the Organic Consumers Association, with a lot of very scary, very disturbing information on genetically modified, or engineered, organisms and the threat they pose to other organisms. From this page on their site, this text:
The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops unnecessarily risks the health of the population and the environment.
Present knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits.
We urge you to stop feeding the products of this infant science to our population and ban the release of these crops into the environment where they can never be recalled.
from an Open Letter by the Independent Scientists’,
to be read at the
Joint International GMO Opposition Day, April 8, 2006
Friedman’s column:
October 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Allies Dressed in Green
Heidelberg, Germany
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Western allies have been asking: What will replace the threat of communism as the cement that holds together the Atlantic alliance? Some have argued terrorism, but I don’t think so. I think my German friends have the best idea: the issue that will and should unite the West is energy and all its challenges.
After all, nothing is a bigger threat today to the Western way of life and quality of life than the combination of climate change, pollution, species loss, and Islamist radicalism and petro-authoritarianism — all fueled by our energy addictions. And no solution is possible to these problems without concerted government actions to reduce emissions, to inspire green innovation and to shift from oil to renewable power.
Therefore, green is not just the new red, white and blue — the next great American national security project — it should also be the color, focus and cement of the Atlantic alliance in the 21st century. As a German official remarked to me, “The whole issue has the potential of becoming a big trans-Atlantic project at a time when we have no other good big project that [embodies] a vision.”
The intertwined environmental and energy challenges we face today are so acute that they can no longer be addressed by “virtuous individuals hopping on a bus instead of taking the car,” argued Jonathan Freedland, a columnist for the British newspaper The Guardian. “This is a job for government.”
Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, recently gave a major address on how “energy security will strongly influence the global security agenda in the 21st century.” And Britain’s foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, just delivered a speech declaring that climate change “is not just an environmental problem. It is a defense problem. It is a problem for those who deal with economics and development, conflict prevention, agriculture, finance, housing, transport, innovation, trade and health.”
The fact that the foreign ministers are making this their agendas suggests that energy will soon move to the heart of the alliance’s agenda. As Mr. Freedland put it, “If climate change is a foreign policy problem, foreign policy can surely be part of the climate change solution.”
However, for what I call “geo-greenism” — thinking about green in strategic terms — to become the new core of the alliance, European greens will have to become more “geo” and the U.S. government more “green.”
European Green parties have tended to wrap their environmentalism in a very high-minded tone that was always more moralizing than strategic. For instance, Europe’s Greens led the global campaign against genetically modified crops, which will be critically important if we want to grow more of our fuel — à la corn ethanol or soy biodiesel. The Greens in Germany also forced the previous government to agree to phase out Germany’s nuclear power plants by 2021. That would mean uninstalling 30 percent of Germany’s energy capacity. It would be great if it were all replaced by wind or solar power, but it will most likely be replaced by coal.
Jürgen Hogrefe, who was spokesman for the Green Party in Lower Saxony, Germany, in the 1980s, is today a senior executive with EnBW, a German energy company with nuclear plants.
“The Green Party has been extremely important for German society,” he said, helping to transform the post-Nazi society into a more liberal domain. But an antinuclear stance has been at the core of the party, and now that the German mainstream has embraced a green agenda, the Greens need to rethink nuclear energy. “The Green Party should redefine itself,” added Mr. Hogrefe. “In some fields they are very modern party. … But concerning nuclear energy and ecology they are stubborn, not open enough to see what is happening around the globe.”
One reason President Bush has failed to become the leader of the West is because he has failed to lead on green, which has become so important to all our allies. I doubt that he’ll redefine U.S. policy in his last two years, but the issues around climate change and energy conservation are now rising so fast it’s impossible to imagine that his successor won’t — whoever it is. And once that happens, it is impossible to imagine that living green, instead of fighting reds, won’t become the new glue of the Atlantic alliance.
Or as Hermann Ott, head of the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, remarked to me, “We don’t need aliens to unite our world, we have a problem right at the center” now — and the solution is green.
Comments
Leave a Reply
