« Quick, Help Needed! | Main | Timmy Elsewhere. »

January 20, 2006

Thomas Friedman: The New 'Sputnik' Challenges: They All Run on Oil

At last. Airmiles Friidman has a decent idea.

Raise the Federal gasoline tax.

Tag

I came to Detroit looking for the hottest new American cars. Instead, I found Sputnik.
 
You remember Sputnik - the little satellite the Soviets launched in 1957. The Eisenhower administration was so stunned it put the U.S. into a crash program to train more scientists and engineers so America could catch up with the Russians in the space race.
 
Well, for anyone paying attention, our generation's Sputnik showed up at the annual Detroit auto show this week. It's not a satellite. It's a car. It's called the Geely 7151 CK sedan. It seats a family of five, gets good mileage and will cost around $10,000 when it goes on sale in 2008.
 
It's made in China.
 
That doesn't get your attention? Well, there's another Sputnik that just went up: Iran. It's going to make a nuclear bomb, no matter what the U.N. or U.S. says, because at $60-a-barrel oil, Tehran's mullahs are rich enough to buy off or tell off the rest of the world. That doesn't worry you? Well, there's a quieter Sputnik orbiting Earth. It's called climate change - a k a Katrina and melting glaciers.
 
What am I saying here? I am saying that our era doesn't have a single Sputnik to grab our attention and crystallize the threat to our security and way of life in one little steel ball - the way our parents' era did. But that doesn't mean such threats don't exist. They do, and they have a single common denominator: the way we use and consume energy today, particularly oil.
 
Friends, we are in the midst of an energy crisis - but this is not your grandfather's energy crisis. No, this is something so much bigger, for four reasons.
 
First, we are in a war against a radical, violent stream of Islam that is fueled and funded by our own energy purchases. We are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: the U.S. Army with our tax dollars, and Islamist charities, madrasas and terrorist organizations through our oil purchases.
 
Second, the world has gotten flat, and three billion new players from India, China and the former Soviet Union just walked onto the field with their version of the American dream: a house, a car, a toaster and a refrigerator. If we don't quickly move to renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, we will warm up, smoke up and choke up this planet far faster than at any time in the history of the world. Katrina will look like a day at the beach.
 
Third, because of the above, green energy-saving technologies and designs - for cars, planes, homes, appliances or office buildings - will be one of the biggest industries of the 21st century. Tell your kids. China is already rushing down this path because it can't breathe and can't grow if it doesn't reduce its energy consumption. Will we dominate the green industry, or will we all be driving cars from China, Japan and Europe?
 
Finally, if we continue to depend on oil, we are going to undermine the whole democratic trend that was unleashed by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Because oil will remain at $60 a barrel and will fuel the worst regimes in the world - like Iran - to do the worst things for the world. Indeed, this $60-a-barrel boom in the hands of criminal regimes, and just plain criminals, will, if sustained, pose a bigger threat to democracies than communism or Islamism. It will be a black tide that turns back the democratic wave everywhere, including in Iraq.
 
The one thing we can do now to cope with all four of these trends is to create a tax that fixes the pump price at $3.50 to $4 a gallon - no matter where the OPEC price goes. Because if consumers know that the price of oil is never coming down, they will change their behavior. And when consumers change their behavior in a big way, G.M., Ford and DaimlerChrysler will change their cars in a big way, and it is cars and trucks that consume a vast majority of the world's oil.
 
The more Detroit goes green, the faster it will be propelled down the innovation curve, making it more likely that Detroit - and not Toyota or Honda or the Chinese - will dominate the green technologies of the 21st century. A permanent gasoline tax will also make solar, wind and biofuels so competitive with oil that it will drive their innovations as well.
 
George Bush may think he is preserving the American way of life by rejecting a gasoline tax. But if he does not act now - starting with his State of the Union speech - he will be seen as the man who presided over the decline of our way of life. He will be the American president who ignored the Sputniks of our day.

January 20, 2006 in Climate Change | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834a2d82f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thomas Friedman: The New 'Sputnik' Challenges: They All Run on Oil:

Comments

I like tradition, and it is my tradition to append to all of Airmiles' little exhortations to George W Bush to slap a tax on gasoline, that they pump quite a lot of oil in Texas.

Posted by: dsquared | Jan 20, 2006 12:23:59 PM

Can we have a huge tax on NYT comment?

Posted by: Rob Read | Jan 20, 2006 12:49:13 PM

Try this for ideas: http://wanabehuman.blogspot.com

Posted by: Wanabehuman | Jan 20, 2006 1:51:45 PM

instead of a huge fed tax,gas shold be bought at market prices for the first 1000 gallon per year.
after that you pay the market price and 3 bucks more per gallon..

each year the amount you could buy would go down by 10 percent.. no one would be surprised and could get rid of the gas burners and buy the "new improved" models and the price of gas would fall at the same time as usage was cut..
volunteer rationing without ration cards

Posted by: embutler | Jan 20, 2006 2:25:41 PM

If climate change enhanced by carbon dioxide emmissions is a problem, and it is, then he is correct that a tax would be a good and simple way to try and internalise this externality. Increase the savings from fuel efficiency and you increase the motivation for it.

Posted by: chris | Jan 20, 2006 2:53:12 PM

[volunteer rationing without ration cards]

how would you check whether or not someone had had their 1000 gallons without something like a ration card?

Posted by: dsquared | Jan 20, 2006 3:08:50 PM

The problem with fixing the price is that it means the price mechanism no longer plays a role (once the one-time reduction from the higher price occurs).

I like tradition too, so as I said last time, I think the government will bail-out Ford/GM with a large environmental/energy-independence chasing fuel-cell programme.

Tim adds: Well, they’d actually be bailing out Ballard Systems but yes, I know what you mean. Or they could always go for themore advanced version, solid oxide fuel cells, and make me rich.

Posted by: Matthew | Jan 20, 2006 3:35:20 PM

how would you check whether or not someone had had their 1000 gallons without something like a ration card?>>

the gov would issue a smart card to every citizen above 17...driver or not...if they dont use their allotment they can sell all or part and the others caught short can buy it or pay the extra 3 bucks

Posted by: embutler | Jan 20, 2006 9:41:30 PM

How would this remove ANY CO2 from the atmosphere?

It's a stupid idea that will make people poorer.

Posted by: Rob Read | Jan 21, 2006 1:30:53 PM

How would this remove ANY CO2 from the atmosphere?>>

It wouldn't remove any .... it would lessen the amount that would be put in and cut back on gasoline usage,something that has to be done anyway.... it would cut back on arab profits and converve fossil fuels, and everyone would know it was coming (future cuts)and be able to plan for it by buying better gas mileage cars ..with no panic..this would only be a first step, because even if you subtract the US's co2 contribution entirely ,the co2 conetent will still go up...we only put in 1/4 the increse each year...so we are not the solution ..

Posted by: embutler | Jan 21, 2006 2:27:45 PM

s a stupid idea that will make people poorer.>>


of course it will make people poorer..unrestricted fossil fuel rich makes us richer and more efficient than the rest of the world wants us to be..

that's the whole point behind kyoto

Posted by: embutler | Jan 21, 2006 2:31:41 PM

the gov would issue a smart card to every citizen above 17...driver or not.

Sounds like a ration card, with a trading mechanism.

Posted by: chris | Jan 21, 2006 5:08:56 PM

embutler, how egoistic can one be? Do you just refuse do to anything against global warming and the pollution of OUR environment? If nothing is ever done, mankind will not last on this earth for another 100 years. We all suffer from the stupidity of people that think as close-minded as you do.

Posted by: Andre | Mar 28, 2007 2:33:14 PM

ohhhh...
excuse me! I meant Rob Read´s idea, of course!

Posted by: Andre | Mar 28, 2007 2:34:57 PM

Hey,
I just wrote a classtest on this text today, and I was just wondering if any of you guys could me give his opinion on what are the most important structural and stylistic devices. This could help me to get an idea of what my test is going to be like in the end. I come from Germany and today was the first time ever that there were central tests in the Abitur (Abitur should be corresponding to your A-Levels). This means that i won't get my testpaper back but just the number of points i've reached and I'm pretty nervous about it. I would be very pleased to receive some responses. Thanks, David
p.s.: what the hell is wrong of embutler?? I can't even believe that there are people who are so ignorant...

Tim adds: Say this again? A Thomas Freidman column was used as an exam question in Germany? And the exam question was about style and structure? Couldn't they have chosen a writer who actually uses style and structure in English?

Posted by: david | Mar 28, 2007 3:23:46 PM

Zentralabiklausur Eng Lk 07 jawohl

Posted by: peter | Mar 28, 2007 3:28:46 PM

Also ich hab heute auch die klausur geschrieben... meiner Meinung nach waren da viele stylistic devices drin, und der Text war ja auch relativ einfach... schöne bildhafte Einleitung, für jeden Ami was dabei, grad weil sie die Russen ja so gerne mögen ;-) Der benutzt oft if-clauses und viel akkumulation und anapher.. hab ich zumindest gesagt. Und er führt seine Argumente natürlich sehr schön aus. das sollte es im groben ja auch schon sein
Ich frag mich eher was die bei Aufgabe 3.1 so hören wollten ;-)

Posted by: cap | Mar 28, 2007 3:56:39 PM

Yeah, it was part of a german exam, I wrote it, too. And I really do not want to know anything what anyone else wrote, bad conscience, you know? It was weird, somehow.

If clauses hab ich nicht erwähnt, und ich hab keine ahnung, was akkumulation überhaupt ist.
würd aber gern wissen was die bei der 3.2 erwarten =)

Posted by: Mari | Mar 28, 2007 8:15:17 PM

Genauso gab es auch viele
Alliterationen,hendiadyoin...aber sowas wird nicht im zentralabi verlangt...die if-clauses kann ich mir da besser vorstellen, dass die vllt verlangt werden...,mal schaun!
aber durch das schöne auflisten auf rhetorischen mitteln+Bedeutung gibts dann die zusätzlichen gummipunkte :) auch gut!!

Posted by: V | Mar 28, 2007 11:24:36 PM

hendiwas?

Ne ich denke die wollten die If-clauses und dann sowas wie seine struktur die man ja nicht NOCH GENAUER aufzwingen kann

First,
Second,
Third,...

3.1 war dafür scheisse... ich glaub da hab ich zu viel globalisierung ausgepackt :D

Posted by: cap | Mar 29, 2007 12:50:00 PM

hmm ... hatte den text im zentralabi, wie ihr anscheint auch.

ich habe hauptsächlich seine argumente analysiert und erläutert.

Z.B.: Sputnik - Cold War Crisis
Islam, Terror etc - 11 September WTC
General Motors Ford - Amercian Car Traditions, ohne Oil, kein Auto fahren etc. = keine tradition mehr ;)

Als Hypothese nahm ich an, dass er dafür ist, dass Amerika mehr auf erneuerbare Energie setzen soll. Sonst sind die wieder geschockt wie bei Sputnik, wenn alles zu spät ist.

Posted by: mct | Mar 29, 2007 3:11:20 PM

Ja die Frage war ja wie er versucht den Leser zu überzeugen.. und da ist schon richtig das er auf "current events" einerseits (Terror, Islam etc.) und zu Geschichte andererseits (Cold war) anspielt.. as we all know: Americans don't like Russians ;-) Ja und dann halt diesen American dream und Made in America spirit...

All in all --> Für jeden Ami was dabei :-)

Posted by: cap | Mar 29, 2007 3:50:03 PM

achja: Ich hoffe du hast nicht vergessen das zu einem überzeugenden Artikel nicht nur überzeugende Argumente sondern auch eine überzeugende Struktur und so gehört ;-) Und stylistic devices zählen da eben so dazu :-)

Posted by: cap | Mar 29, 2007 3:52:35 PM

Hi,
ihr habt in der Analysefrage euch also sowohl auf die strukturellen und stylistischen als auch auf die inhaltlichen Aspekte seiner Argumentation bezogen?
Habe das nämlich auch gemacht. Allerdings nur weil ich vorher in der Probeklausur gesehen hatte, dass die bei der 2 immer massig Punkte für eine Inhaltsanalyse vergeben. Viele aus meinem Kurs haben, wie wir es immer kannten, sich nur auf die rhetorischen und stilistischen Mittel bezogen...

Ich hoffe ich liege da ganz richtig...

Posted by: Tim | Mar 29, 2007 4:35:47 PM

also stylistic devices habe ich nicht viele analysiert. nur ab und zu eine rhetorische frage.

wollte erst die argumente, dann die stylistic devices analysieren. ich hatte einfach keine zeit mehr. mir war es dann wichtiger das ich die 3. aufgabe vernünftig mache (die brachte ja 20 Punkte) und dann nochmal meinen text durchlese, wo ich auch nur bis zur 4. von 11 spalte kam

Posted by: mct | Mar 29, 2007 5:02:56 PM

Post a comment