On Sunday, New York Times columnist and centrist Democrat luminary Tom Friedman waxed poetic about all the wonderful energy-related things they do in Europe. Why ever can’t we do that stuff here? He wrote about motion-sensitive lights that turn on and off by themselves and toilets that have two different flush powers! Scandinavia is so energy efficient, isn’t it grand?
Because it was smart taxes and incentives that spurred Danish energy companies to innovate, Ditlev Engel, the president of Vestas — Denmark’s and the world’s biggest wind turbine company — told me that he simply can’t understand how the U.S. Congress could have just failed to extend the production tax credits for wind development in America.
I’m sure the light bulbs are all very nice, but this sort of praise is along the lines of a report by a third grader about energy consumption. Saving energy is good. So sad we aren’t doing more of it. Gold star, Tommy.
But Tom Friedman is an adult and should look at this issue more critically. Friedman’s article addressed few substantive differences between Scandinavia and the U.S. His “Denmark-did-it, why-can’t-we?” take on energy policy is asinine. As if energy independence is just a matter of style and willpower.
There are, in fact, a number of significant structural differences at work between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States of America. One of these differences has to do with land development, about which one might expect Tom Friedman to know a little more.
Friedman, after all, is married to Ann Bucksbaum, the heiress to the $2.7 billion General Growth Properties fortune. Founded by Friedman’s father-in-law in 1954, GGP is America’s second largest real estate investment trust and owns, develops, and operates regional shopping malls in forty-one states.
That’s right, malls. Fat, energy-hogging, climate controlled, sprawl-inducing—many of the most palpable examples of American waste and ecological irresponsibility are owned and managed by Tom Friedman’s family.
This makes all this gee-why-don’t-you-write-your-congressman naiveté a little hard to take. Friedman actually has direct access to a company with some control over the level of waste the United States perpetuates on the world.
But I guess for some people the world really is flat; and the Starbucks is just next to the Nordstrom.
Friedman, by marriage, loses purity as an advocate for energy reform. So that automatically means anything he says is wrong. Interesting twist on argumentum ad hominem. Argumentum ad uxorem (if I'm declining "wife" correctly)
Posted by Dana Sullivan on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 11:03 AM
Well who says he wont try to persuade his wife's family to think green after his voyage of inspiration to Greenland?
Besides, how would we ever achieve any kind of changes in the world if we only listened to people whom we knew for a fact walked their talks?
Posted by Malik M on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 11:55 AM
Could Denmark’s ability to use so much wind energy have anything to do with the fact that they are tied into the much larger European Power grid and have don’t have to worry about bringing spare capacity online when the wind turbines, a non-dispatchable generation source, stops turning? You and Friedman probably didn’t know about all those minor technical details considering that your sourcing for an article on energy stops after a call or two to Earth First, Greenpeace and The Union of Concerned Scientist (instead of someone who know what they are talking about, what a novel concept).
And why are you so down on Friedman for being a hypocrite? After all, Al Gore is perhaps the biggest climate hypocrite on earth (did you guys check out his new million dollar houseboat) and you all treat him like some kind of freaking saint.
Posted by TDC on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 02:20 PM
He's really a Democrat? This laissez-faire, pro-war guy? Well, it is a big tent party. Is there a hole I can make in the tent to kick him out?
Friedman knows less about most things than most people. To really see his *ss handed to him, buy Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans." This guy RIPS TO SHREDS the pathetic, ignorant arguments that Friedman makes in his "I drive by olive trees in my lexus over the flat world" books.
Al Gore, Jr. , actually, lives what he alleges is a carbon neutral existence. He didn't say you had to live in a dirt shack to do it. Thanks for playing! Try again next week!
By the way, the U.S. company with the biggest stake in wind energy in 2001 was... Enron! Enron Wind (I believe that was the name) did survive the collapse of the parent company.
Posted by Josh SN on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 06:27 PM
TDC, I must remember not to respond to the comments of idiots. But you aren't helping!
Posted by Josh SN on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 06:54 PM
Friedman is so emblematic of what's wrong with the NYT and its readers; they are all thoroughly middlebrow. The familial hypocrisy aside, Friedman always strings together the right buzzwords in approximately the right order. It sounds alright on a first reading, but once you scratch the surface, you see that he gets it wrong.
Posted by Gideon Simpson on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 09:15 PM
All the personal attacks aside, Friedman has a valid point: Denmark did the unthinkable-for-Americans: they *increased* the taxes on fuel in response to the energy crisis -- predicting, correctly, that this would wean them off of an energy source that is inherently vulnerable.
If there's any way in which he comes off as naive, it's in his thinking that the U.S. -- sprawling, inhomogeneous, ungovernably large -- could possibly get all of its various special interest groups to agree on such a measure. There's a reason Iceland, Denmark, Japan, France (etc.) are further along in terms of energy independence: they are, literally, much more prone to be of one mind on such issues.
Posted by Christopher on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 11:27 AM
Al Gore, Jr. , actually, lives what he alleges is a carbon neutral existence. He didn't say you had to live in a dirt shack to do it. Thanks for playing! Try again next week!
Any idea how retarded that makes you sound?
Posted by TDC on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 11:49 AM
Attitude and commitment have a lot to do with success. If more people would change their attitudes and commit to change, we would have many more solutions put forth. By the way, what is your proposed solution, Danny boy?
Posted by steve on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 01:33 PM
Luzer is not about solutions here, he's about taking a cheap shot at Friedman .
Posted by TDC on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 02:06 PM
"Could Denmark’s ability to use so much wind energy have anything to do with the fact that they are tied into the much larger European Power grid"
That grid didn't just pop magically into existence. It is the result of decades of investment, cooperation and planning by state-owned utilities.
"After all, Al Gore is perhaps the biggest climate hypocrite on earth (did you guys check out his new million dollar houseboat) and you all treat him like some kind of freaking saint. "
He buys carbon offsets. You might disagree about the very concept of carbon offsets, but at the very least, he's not a hypocrite. Those who call him a hypocrite don't do squat, not even purchase offsets.
Posted by NM on Fri 22 Aug 2008 at 08:52 AM
That grid didn't just pop magically into existence. It is the result of decades of investment, cooperation and planning by state-owned utilities.
You misunderstand. Saying something like “If Denmark can do it” is akin to saying “if Delaware can do it”. Europe has a common unified grid, just like the US has a common unified grid. We could support one small state going all wind, just like Europe can support one small country going wind, but its not scalable.
He buys carbon offsets. You might disagree about the very concept of carbon offsets, but at the very least, he's not a hypocrite. Those who call him a hypocrite don't do squat, not even purchase offsets.
Let them eat cake I suppose.
Posted by TDC on Fri 22 Aug 2008 at 12:55 PM
Yeah, if the whole world lived life according to the Goracle, we'd all be jetting around in private jets, using up $30,000 a year in electricity to power just one of our mansions, and burning up gallon after gallon of fuel puttering around in our houseboats.
But it would be OK because we'd all buy "offsets". That would fix everything.
Luckily, we don't need to worry about it. Obama's gonna wave his hand and banish CO2 from the planet, once he's elected.
Posted by padikiller on Fri 22 Aug 2008 at 05:45 PM
Hypocrite or not, I believe Friedman's message is correct. If we want to create a sustainable future we need to shift our market by taxing waste, not work.
He also says we need to change our leadership, not just our light bulbs.
My question: How many voters does it take to change our dim wits?
Posted by Paul J. on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 05:28 PM
My own research tells me Tom Friedman is largely wrong and his comments about Denmark's energy situation are quite misleading. Denmark produces as much as 120% electricity as they consume. The extra 20% is mostly wind generated electricity that they export at wholesale and below cost prices. It is factual that in some years as little as 5% of the wind generated electricity they produce actually goes into their own grid. And 5% - 10% of the electricity they consume is generated by nuclear power in other countries. It is my understanding that Denmark has the highest electricity rates in Europe, they have not retired a single coal-powered generation plant and they are not close to meeting their Kyoto goals. Please, let us all be truthful about energy. If we get it wrong our children and grandchild will suffer. I recommend EnergyPlanUSA.com for honest research and comment.
Posted by Robert on Sun 11 Jan 2009 at 11:34 AM