In an NYTimes piece that's not freely available on-line (but summarized by WattHead), Thomas Friedman shows that he's gotten with the program. Some excerpts of excerpts:
Sorry, but being green, focusing the nation on greater energy efficiency and conservation, is not some girlie-man issue. It is actually the most tough-minded, geostrategic, pro-growth and patriotic thing we can do.
Living green is ... a national security imperative.
... there's a huge difference between what these bad regimes can do with $20-a-barrel oil compared to $60-a-barrel oil....
We need a persident and a Congress with the guts not just to invade Iraq, but to impose a gasoline tax and inspire conservation at home. That takes a real energy policy with longterm incentives for renewable energies - wind, solar, biofuels - rather than the welfare-for-oil-companies-and-special-interests that masqueraded last year as an energy bill.
Large chunks of this could have come out of Petroleum independence as a growth engine. I doubt that Mr. Friedman read it, or has even heard of this blog, but it shows how far these ideas are starting to penetrate.
I would be thrilled if he'd paid any attention to me, but it doesn't matter. There's a positive vision opposed to the oil interests represented by Bush and Cheney. People who read nothing more technical than the NYTimes editorial page are learning that we can do more than just pay money to terrorists for the privilege of driving. We might do something about our deteriorating balance of payments and take power away from corrupt elements world-wide. Damn, that feels good!
Visits since 2006/05/11: