Hot Flat And Crowded [Hardcover]

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

If you oppose conservation and clean energy, I wonder why you would. Typical concerns relate to when conservation and clean energy reduce economic growth or reduce profits for some special interest in the near term. Longer term, most people would agree that conservation and clean energy make sense.

Journalist and social activist Thomas L. Friedman could have written a much shorter book if he had simply started with the premise that it's a good idea to have conservation and clean energy. He spends most of the book providing arguments in favor of those approaches.

Those arguments are related to these propositions:

1. Rising carbon dioxide levels are either causing global warming and more violent weather . . . or will at some point fairly soon.
2. Rapid population growth and concentration into urban areas are making pollution a greater problem.
3. Fast economic growth in the developing world is accelerating pollution.
4. Natural environments are disappearing at a rapid rate, taking with them weather-dampening resources and species which might have value that we don't yet appreciate.
5. Free markets encourage polluting rather than nonpolluting solutions.
6. Extractive energy sources encourage dictatorships, terrorism, and harm to women.

Most of these points are exemplified by an anecdote from when Mr. Friedman talked to someone while on a speaking tour, was traveling from country to country, or was helicoptering around to see some sight that interested him. Much of this book has a travelogue aspect, even though it is a book about social change.

When Mr. Friedman gets into his arguments in favor of laws, regulations, and tax incentives, his thesis is sometimes contradictory. He argues that it is more profitable to use conservation and clean energy, yet cites lots of business leaders who seem to say that they won't employ those methods unless forced to by laws, regulations, and tax incentives. That argument didn't make sense to me. It also seems like many countries are already using laws, regulations, and tax incentives to encourage conservation and clean energy use. If those approaches are a good idea, there should be all kinds of incentives to change.

The crux of Mr. Friedman's argument in favor of these governmental changes is that it is critical that the United States do more in these areas than anyone else for the following reasons:

1. It will be a competitive disadvantage to lag in these areas.
2. Economic growth in the United States depends on creating a large clean energy and conservation industry.
3. Safety from the Muslim world depends on these activities, as well.
4. Other countries will do more in these areas if the U.S. goes first.
5. People in other countries will support more change if U.S. consumers are making these changes.

The major flaw in this thesis is that the United States government can make such a large change and sustain it for several decades. Since the 1960s, there has been little consensus in the United States on any changes other than ones that favor growth of individual incomes and wealth in the short term.

The current economic crisis will put a heavy burden on economic growth for many years to come. The pending retirement of the baby boom generation will be an even heavier weight to carry.

I suspect that there will be little appetite for government to lead such changes.

Ultimately, I suspect that a more likely path to success in making these changes would be for state, city, and county governments to boycott suppliers who don't use clean energy and employ good conservation practices. Action at those levels of government often works, doesn't take a long time, and is already being successful in areas like California.

I praise Mr. Friedman for wanting to encourage conservation and use of clean energy, but I fear that he needs to spend more time thinking about how to do that . . . and less time on arguing for national changes in U.S. laws, regulations, and tax incentives. With our political system, I think he is whistling in the dark.

What do you think?

The "used" book was in very good condition. The shipping took a bit longer than expected (3 weeks). I am satisfied with this seller.