In a recent program for Ecology Radio, David Steinman interviewed Pete Altman, Climate Campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, about the broadly supported Green Jobs report released by the NRDC and the Center for American Progress in late September. If you haven’t listened to the program, I encourage you to do so.
For those who can’t listen at work or simply prefer to read, see the NRDC press release, “Green Investment Will Yield Two Million New Jobs in Two Years:”
This new report shows that investing in clean energy is a win-win solution. Shifting to clean energy will put more people to work, provide consumers relief at the pump, help reduce global warming pollution and revitalize our economy at a time when many Americans are hurting,†said Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC.
Lemonade from lemons. Sounds about right. Fortunately, the notion of seizing opportunities from the jaws of crises seems to be gathering momentum.
NY Times journalist and author, Thomas Friedman, broadens the theme in his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America. Essentially, Friedman sees new energy technologies as the answer to issues of global warming and the geopolitical implications of rapidly increasing energy demand from rising economies such as China and India.
What Friedman envisions is nothing less than the next, great global industry. In a September interview with Fareed Zacharia on CNN, Friedman synthesizes how we got to where we are. From the transcript:
What’s going on in the world — in a sense, what my book is about — is we’re leaving an era, Fareed, of the Industrial Revolution that really grew us to the standard of living we have today, in which the energy we use, fossil fuels, were three things, we thought: inexpensive, inexhaustible and benign.
And the big transition I think we’re in the middle of today is understanding that those fossil fuels, which powered our growth for so long, are expensive, exhaustible and toxic. Toxic in terms of the air we breath, toxic in terms of our climate — and toxic in terms of geopolitics, in terms of the regimes they are now strengthening around the world. So, I think that’s the big transition we’re in.
And so, for me, as someone who is writing about foreign affairs, as you are, I felt that that’s something that’s really setting a frame, now around the whole world. And therefore, I really had to zero in on that nexus of issues, of energy/environment/geopolitics.
Now, I’m no fan of Friedman — he of the “Friedman Unit” so often invoked to predict that the situation in Iraq would improve in the “next six months.” But describing the confluence of world economic and energy-related issues is something I think he does quite well:
I’ll tell you what I say to young Chinese. I was just in China a couple of weeks ago and had this conversation. Young Chinese, whenever I go there, say to me, “Mr. Friedman, you know, you guys got to grow dirty for 150 years. Now it’s our turn.”
To which I say to them, “Absolutely. You’re absolutely right. It’s your turn. Grow as dirty as you want, for as long as you want.
“Because I think in about five years, by then I’ll have invented all the clean power technologies you’re going to need as you choke to death. And then we’re going to clean your clock in the next great global industry — ET, energy technology, clean power.”
If that sounds a bit harsh or nationalistic, read on:
That’s when I see the headsets adjusting. And they understand — do I understand why China and India, in particular, Fareed, think it’s unfair? What did we do? We ate the hors d’oeuvres. We ate the entree. We ate the dessert. We invited them for tea and coffee afterwards and said, let’s split the bill. OK. I understand why they feel late to the party and really, really disadvantaged.
But at the same time what I’m saying to them is, in a world that’s hot, flat and crowded, OK, ET, energy technology has to be the next great global industry.
I mean, you can sit around and complain about how unfair it is. Or you can try to leapfrog it, and own that industry.
And so, I find when I go to China, they’re really wrestling with this. Part of them wants to sit back and say it’s unfair, we’re going to grow as dirty as we want. Part of them says, geez, this is the — and we could be at the lead. And if we just impose the — and so, they’re on the fence, Fareed.
And you know who moves them off the fence? We do.
If we leap ahead on this — because we still define modernity for them in so many ways. If we move — because right now, they’re hiding behind us. Those who don’t want to move, they say, look at the Americans. Why should we move?
If we move, they are going to move. And then we’ll have what I think we need, which is not a space race that we had with the Soviets during the Cold War, but an Earth race with China. The space race was about who could put the first man on the moon. The Earth race will be about who can create the technologies so man and women can still live on Earth.
Nationalism aside, that too sounds about right. The stakes couldn’t be higher, yet opportunities exist. It’s just a matter of who will marshal the resources, foresight, courage to seize them.
To be continued, on this week’s installment of Friday Night at the Movies.
UPDATE: Ed Fitzgerald outlines China’s evolving perspective on the role of the West in tackling climate change in his post, China Climate Change Approach Evolving. It’s an excellent extention of (and at times, counterpoint to)Â Friedman’s thinking on the subject.
UPDATE 2: Due to the length of the Charlie Rose – Thomas Friedman interview we intended to post, we’ve moved it to Ecology TV and apologize for any inconvenience.
