I urge you to read this analysis of the Friedman article by Prof. Jim Kunstler:
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/

That ought to kickstart the real debate.

In your bullet points above, you failed to point out Friedman's coverage of "The China Price" and China's looming impact on the world economy in general.

Perhaps I shouldn't be a school marm here, but if we don't pay attention to the big picture and evolve toward a true understanding of "Greening" as a global cultural potential set of solutions to broad questions and problems we ain't gonna get where we need to go. Friedman's piece helps by pointing in multiple directions all at once. Linking climate change, energy as a security issue, and China's economic growth is worth the purple prose and lusty New Patriotism.

How about that? New Green are the New Patriots!

It's not a difficult read. You should read it. It's not just about America but the necessity of a Geo-Green movement. It says what I have been saying to friends in the media for the last year: we can put a man on the moon, why the hell can't we turn the economic ship of state around and change ourselves into the can-do creators of a new alternative energy economy, leading the way for the world then dominating that market to make the changes and transition worthwhile for all.

Friedman doesn't just reach politicians - his opinions and writing are the tipping point for a lot of people. I have not read the article, but it is on my short list of 'things to read right now!' Has Friedman said anything about carbon emission offset efforts/companies like Terrapass? Having Friedman on your side would be golden.

The debate between Friedman and Kunstler serves to demonstrate how desperately this country needs political leadership committed to protecting the environment and working to reverse global warming. Our elected leaders have utterly failed to provide leadership on the issue. I was actually very encouraged to see Edwards take a strong position on the issue so visibly and so early in the campaign. I hope that it will put pressure on the other candidates to stake out similar positions.

Skip the piece. It's crap, really. Kunstler's dissection is short, sweet, and right on. Friedman's voice has somehow infiltrated the 'green' movement but it serves only to undermine our efforts.

I believe that any dialogue that concerns green policy is good, no matter who (or what) is saying it. As someone once said: there is no such thing as bad advertising. The Green Movement is in its childhood, a relative newcomer that is slowly but surely finding a place in the framework of main stream American culture. Before all of us learn how to wrap our minds around this expansive, all-encompassing issue we need to be patient with those who weigh in on the issue. Sure, it will be (and has been) used as a political football (in both directions to be sure) and is sure to be used this way for years to come. However, as more of us become educated about the nuts and bolts of truly going green this will eventually sift out the politically motivated rhetoric. In the meantime let's try and stay positive and withhold the negative, knee-jerk reactions that seem to be a hard wired component of the human experience.

A debate? That's what Kunstler is offering? I think not. Derision, invective and unsubstantiated FUD. Take, for instance, the little bomb (about declining US agricultural yields) he casually drops and then runs on without substantiation. Related to that, how about the way he treats rising corn prices. While demand from ethanol is clearly a factor, it is not the only factor. For instance, China is in the process of becoming a net importer of grains again as they and much of the developing world shifts more of their growing wealth into eating more protein. And, then there is also the huge influx of non-commercial (speculative Wall Street) money into commodity markets. But for Kunstler, acknowledgment of the complicated nature of these problems only gets in the way of his oddly personal slam on Friedman.

His ridiculing of Wal-Mart's efforts to improve the efficiency of their truck fleet is similarly superficial, or intentionally ignorant. Do the math. 7,000 trucks driving 80,000 miles/year at 12mpg rather than 6mpg...that's over 46 million gallons of fuel saved. That would be equal to 145,000 cars increasing their efficiency from 18 to 35 mpg (12,000 miles/year). I am not a Wal-Mart fan but, that's good work they're doing if they deliver.

If we're going to have a debate, make it a serious one.

There's a documentary on Discover this Saturday at 9 PM on "Green: The New Red, White, and Blue" (not sure if that's the exact title, and not sure if it is closely tied to Freidman, but sounds like it). And likely to reach more folks than a NYT article, too...

Unfortunately I will not get around to reading it either, but I am very grateful for the reminder of the hilarity of my home sake paper "The Onion".
Thank you Adam, I needed to laugh today. (Click on Super Monkey Collider.)

I have to respectfully disagree that "all green talk is good talk" as Anonymous suggests. We, as a species, simply haven't the time to bark up the wrong trees, pursue the wrong paths, fiddle with broken plans. Friedman's ethanol adherence, for example, will only do great harm to the greater cause of reducing emissions. The time for open-ended debates is long gone. We need direct and immediate action - without any missteps.

Concerning 12. Tod Brilliant

I see your point and keenly understand the concern. However, I do believe that any dialogue that brings to light the concept of green is a ultimately a good thing. Most people who are not tuned in to the green movement (yet) will not understand the the nuts and bolts of the thing (ex. ethanol vs. electric, etc.). What they will hear is green dialogue, which will hopefully bring them into the fold.

OKay, Jim. I can agree with you here. . . but it makes me nervous is about all I can say. What makes me nervous? How long the process takes. I'm impatient, as are millions of others (I hope it's millions!) and this impatience bubbles over within me regularly. Understand, too, that I'm currently in the middle of Monbiot's "Heat" and this does little to quell my fire.

Ain't no question we require leadership to get wherever we're going. It seems to me the "green" discussion has never been very open until the past several years. It was often a pseudo-political face-off between those who felt that the status quo was harming the environment (and not working very well) and those who felt that adhering to environmental logic threatened profit taking and a "rational" market economy. This has been poppycock from the beginning, but now most sane people agree that this duality doesn't make sense.

In the Friedman piece, what I think is so interesting (and many good journalists are writing about this these days) is the context he puts these problems in and how he points to their massive scale. For those of you who say you "won't find the time" to read it, I think you're really doing yourself a disservice. At the risk of being provocative, I would also say that the question of people taking the time to inform themselves is one of the biggest problems we have to overcome. These are massive and dangerous issues that require thoughtful, intelligent, insightful responses. I am a big fan of Howard Kunstler's but his response on this one is exactly the issue at hand. He makes some good points, but I think he has misread much of the Friedman piece. I didn't get the impression that Friedman was advocating much of anything so much as attempting to argue for the idea of actually taking on the challenge of change and the fear of letting go of our old ways. The door is open for a a real leader who understands all of this and who is informed enough to create a vision and broker change at aevery level of the global community. The question is whether that person even exists...

Don't waste your time on Friedman's article. For that matter, spend less time reading mainstream news and instead seek out real understanding of the issues via the Internet while it's still free.

Friedman is spewing the same old rhetoric that essentially pins our energy woes on extremist Muslims as if it's all their fault. If we can get over how stupid that argument really is, then maybe we can finally get down to business with serious, effective conservation measures.

David,

Does this person actually exist? Good question. Obama seems to fit the bill extremely well at the moment. He is worldly, pragmatic, and comes from where most of us do, the middle class (a reason to like him for myself at least). He seems to have a firm understanding of the big picture and the idea of cause and effect. Anyway...time will tell.

I read an article on TerraPass and thought I'd look it up. I went through the exercise and calculated my 'carbon footprint' on a few of my activities. I noted that offsetting a ton of carbon dioxide cost, depending on the activity, about $4-$5 per ton. I then thought "how much carbon dioxide do we create in the US?" According to the Energy Information Administration (US Government estimates) 6,000 million tons (6 billion tons) of carbon dioxide were released in 2005, representing 84% of the emissions of greenhouse gasses. So, at about $4.50 per ton, TerraPass should be able to completely offset all greenhouse gasses for a mere $32 billion bollars or so. Do you really believe that anyone can truly completely offset the total greenhouse gas emissions for $32 billion? If you do, I have some ocean front property for sale in Yuma AZ really cheap...