Tom Friedman on Climate: The Obama Administration “Fundamentally Failed to Speak Out in Favor of the Science”
"Tom Friedman on Climate: The Obama Administration “Fundamentally Failed to Speak Out in Favor of the Science”"
Share:
In Greenbuild speech, NY Times columnist slams White House: “There are endangered species I’ve seen more of in the last two years than that climate team speaking out in defense of climate science and scientists.”
The last three years have been the most politically and economically turbulent that Americans have ever seen. And that has helped pushed environmental issues — particularly climate change — onto the back burner.
Author and New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman had a fantastic speech this week at the Greenbuild Conference in Toronto, in which he briefly summarized the recent history of our rising and falling hopes on U.S. climate action. He also made clear the Obama White House shares some of the culpability for climate change being put on a back burner.
We’ve edited the 30-minute speech down to an 8-minute segment featuring all his best quotes. It’s worth listening to the whole thing:
Here are some of the most quotable quotes, including his discussion of the powerful impact of the “totally bogus” Climategate affair:
On the financial crisis of 2008:
“This underlies the faulty accounting that we have been exhibiting in both the market and mother nature. But a more fundamental crisis looms ahead. An ecological credit crunch caused by undervaluing the environmental assets that are the basis of all life and prosperity.”
On our response to the wake-up call in 2008:
“If 2008 was our warning heart attack, how did we respond in 2009? Did we go on a diet? Start exercising? Basically we kept on smoking and gaining weight and started to actively ignore the doctor’s advice.”
On the hacked emails from East Anglia University:
“That whole email thing, which was totally bogus….
“Because the message it gave out — that somehow there was some crazy global conspiracy between climate science to hype the whole notion of climate change and global warming. that message was spread far and wide and it came at a time of economic distress when it fell on way too many sympathetic ears. And it came at a time of weakness, at least in America, at the Obama Administration, which fundamentally failed to speak out in favor of the science. The president’s climate team, I’m sorry to say, there are endangered species I’ve seen more of in the last two years than that climate team speaking out in defense of climate science and scientists.”
On the political and economic hangover into 2010-2011:
“And as a result, is that there will be no energy legislation — let alone clean energy legislation — at the earliest until 2013. We who believe in energy efficiency and protecting the environment, and trying to move the economy to a clean power system, we’ve had a couple of bad years here. And it seems to me we need to sit back and realize this environment — political, economic environment — is not going to change overnight. And therefore, every one of us here has to think about how we bring more imagination to every thing we do around this industry to work within these constraints.”
And moving into 2012 and beyond, Friedman ended on a positive note — one that I thought wrapped up the speech well:
“Frankly, I’m amazed that you’re all here. You just didn’t get the word. God bless you. You just didn’t get the word that we’re not going to have a price signal, that the politics is all paralyzed. That we’re fighting with each other from one end of Washington…to the other. You just didn’t get the word. You are like a marine we interviewed for our new book, That Used to Be Us, when we asked him why he surged in Anbar province, he said ‘we were too dumb to quit.’ Thank you all for being too dumb to quit. Do not get the word.”
“Please don’t get the word. Because if you get the word, the word’s kind of grim right now. I wish I could tell you that some quick solution from the national level is coming. It’s not. We are where we are, we’ve got what we’ve got. It’s on you. It’s on me. It’s on us. They’re not going to solve it for us. So promise you will keep on going and you will never get the word.”
Related Post:
- Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme? Yes, homo “sapiens” sapiens have constructed the grandest of Ponzi schemes, whereby current generations have figured out how to live off the wealth of future generations. Yes, we are all in essence Madoffs (many wittingly, most not) or at least his most credulous clients. I had been planning to write something on this for a while when NYT columnist Tom Friedman interviewed me for “The Inflection Is Near?” which appears in today’s New York Times:
“We created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on to our children,” said Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org. We have been getting rich by depleting all our natural stocks — water, hydrocarbons, forests, rivers, fish and arable land — and not by generating renewable flows.
“You can get this burst of wealth that we have created from this rapacious behavior,” added Romm. “But it has to collapse, unless adults stand up and say, ‘This is a Ponzi scheme. We have not generated real wealth, and we are destroying a livable climate …’ Real wealth is something you can pass on in a way that others can enjoy.”
FRONT
I read one statement back in 2008/2009 from Obama to leave Scientist alone, so that they can do their important work.
Friedman’s opinions are a highly mixed bag of smart and stupid, but since he’s generally considered a “serious” person it’s good to have him on the right side of this one. As for Obama, what a whuss.
Friedman? I don’t understand how he is the go to guy for sustainability issues? He spent a big chunk of his career advocating economic policies of global infinite growth consumer GDP economies. The globalization’free market’ philosophy whose after effects are kicking the hell out of the environment.
After espousing such, how in the world do I keep reading about him authoritatively talking up sustainability issues? Did he admit how wrong he was before? Did I miss that?
Indeed — the current Administration (and Democratic party as a whole) has failed to step up to the plate and defend the climate-science community.
That has left scientists like Michael Mann to fend for themselves, and as it turns out, Dr. Mann has been landing some solid punches of his own lately.
For those who haven’t seen it already, a very strongly-worded piece authored by Dr. Mann recently appeared in the Vail Daily. It is a response to an earlier op/ed piece written by a wingnut denier.
You can view it here: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20111001/EDITS/110939988/1021&ParentProfile=1065
If you haven’t already done so, click on the “recommend” link at the top of the page. The Vail Daily has a list of op/ed pieces ranked by “recommend” votes. With your assistance, Dr. Mann’s piece will remain at the top of the list.
I don’t usually pay much attention to Friedman, given his record of being wrong on so many different issues over the years. That said, he deserves kudos here.
The indicator here, even early on, was Energy Secretary Chu, a careerist who refuses to upset the oil companies- and touts drilling, nuclear, and something like Andy Revkin’s “Energy Quest”, whatever the hell that means. He is perfectly aware of the dangers of climate change, making his cowardice worse- and staining his UC Berkeley provenance.
Energy secretary Chu declares “Sputnik” moment on green race against China http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/30/what-energy-secretary-chu-says-on-solyndra-the-decline-in-green-investing/
The problem is you need a war minister and bipartisan support to deal with the growing threat of climate change.
The US administration so far is on the right path but is missing urgency and unity. It will be a classic end probably, everything sinking into chaos – very slowly ofc. The US will collapse from within.
This, unless real action is taken. That begins with hiring the right people and form a public unity with all branches of government. You also need the brightest minds and people with analytic skills which follow the process and understand implications, the science of climate.
Gotta disagree here. If the US was on the right path, we would not have stalled ozone regs, allowed Arctic drilling, increased drilling in the Gulf, etc etc. Chu and the other bright guys in the Obama Administration signed off on it. They are scared of the oil companies, and the banks and wealthy individuals who invest in them.
So well put MIke. Although obviously the administration will pivot for the election and start taking a verbal stand when it thinks its in its interest.
As to the list of things the admin wouldn’t have done if it was on the right track let’s add the administration (not congress) signing off on the first large scale tar sands pipeline (Keystone 1) to the midwest in June of 2009 (months into office) now pumping bitumen based tar oil to midwest refineries.
Not just Chu. Where has John Holdren, Obama’s cabinet level “science advisor” been? I can’t believe he’s been such an invisible man. Shameful.
True.
The White House Blog
The Link Between American Energy and Prosperity
Posted by Heather Zichal on October 7, 2011 at 2:18 PM EDT
October is Energy Action Month — a national effort to focus on the critical link between American energy and prosperity, highlight the tremendous potential of clean energy technologies to create new American jobs and industries, and underscore the importance of investing in American innovation to lead the 21st century global clean energy economy.
As a country, we face a fundamental choice about our energy future. We can continue with the status quo, or we can chart a new course forward – one that prioritizes investments in cleaner sources of energy to reduce our dependence on oil, strengthen American competitiveness, and protect public health and the environment.
READ THE REST
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/link-between-american-energy-and-prosperity
Hate to Say It, But …
My goodness, if people such as Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, Andy Revkin, and (periodically) the folks who write editorials at The New York Times care so deeply about climate change, and understand it to be the vitally important and urgent issue that it is, why in Hell (the point calls for this bluntness; sorry) is the actual coverage of climate change in The New York Times so dismal, insufficient, and not nearly up to the task? I mean, why? I really mean it: WHY??
As much as I deeply respect Krugman, and perhaps Friedman to a lesser degree, and Revkin to a still-lesser degree, nevertheless, it seems that they’re willing to write about climate change and do just about anything EXCEPT for the one thing that could have the greatest impact by far, if they did it: insist (to Times leadership) that the Times take its coverage of climate change to an entirely new level of focus, gravity, clarity, vigor, energy, coherence, courage, excellence, frequency, and so forth. But this is the one thing that Krugman, Friedman, Revkin, and the others don’t seem to be doing or want to do. And indeed it’s the one thing that would take real courage, that would actually put something on the line.
I know of a Harvard B-School professor who is a long-standing member of ExxonMobil’s Board of Directors. He’s also the author of books such as ‘True North’, about leadership and integrity in business. Oh my gosh, already that seems to demonstrate great inconsistency, at least if you ask me. In any case, long ago I corresponded with him once or twice. I don’t know his latest thinking, but I recently heard from a co-author of his that he probably believes that it’s better to be ON the Board, in order to influence it positively (presumably? who knows?), than to resign because of ExxonMobil’s irresponsibility with respect to climate change, and then make that resignation a signal that could actually have some influence on matters. But “I can’t rock the boat too much; it’s better to belong” — is the idea. (not a quote or even a paraphrase, but representative of the idea that many people seem to adopt)
What’s my point? It seems to me that everyone wants to (or claims to want to) write about, or act up about, climate change in ways that suit their professions, fulfill their jobs, make money, and appeal to their constituents. That’s EASY. Everyone wants the other guy or the other guy’s company to change. Most likely Friedman and Krugman think that ExxonMobil should change. But do they think that The New York Times should change? Do they think that The Times’ coverage of climate change could and should be light-years better than it is? Well if they do, it’s not showing.
At this point, I’m just about more fed-up with the soft cheerleaders of the climate change cause, whose own institutions are actually part of the problem or enabling it, than I am with the usual suspects who are at least “obvious” in their irresponsibility. It’s true: Rex Tillerson never promised me, or us, that he’d be anything other than Rex Tillerson, Chairman of ExxonMobil. But President Obama did make promises to me, and to us, and he’s not fulfilling them. That makes me deeply frustrated. And it doesn’t help much that Tom Friedman says this or that but that he (apparently) hasn’t done much to actually get The Times itself to provide the coverage of climate change that they ought to provide. (Nor does his long-ago bumbling of the science, on TV — wasn’t that Friedman? — give me much faith that he actually knows what he’s talking about before he writes about it. But that was long ago. I’ll give him some leeway if he can get The Times to get its act together.)
Anyhow, that’s my two cents worth for today.
Be Well,
Jeff
Friedman has nothing to do with NYT news/science reporting. Nor does Krugman.
Since neither of them have nothing to do with the NYT news/science reporting, can’t they still raise Mr. Huggins point in print, editorials, or television-radio-internet-interviews,let alone speak directly with those dpts. about this? Can’t they use their prestige to vector a spotlight on this particular aspect of climate change politics and or journalism? I Think Mr.Huggins is hitting on a really deep and serious problem that’s actually within the climate change ‘believer’ crowd. Personally I think this deserves it’s own article and thank you Mr.Huggins for bringing it up.
It would be nice to have some high-level executive in the energy industry do what Wendell Potter did in the health care industry, that is expose some of their egregious practices and stand up for science. Couldn’t the green movement actively attempt to recruit a conscience-stricken executive (perhaps near retirement) from within the oil or coal industry to renounce business as usual? Don’t any of these people have kids or grandkids?
National Disease: Sociopaths in High Places. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×5857327