Tuesday, November 29, 2011
AS.100.369: Fossil Fuels and Imperial Futures
Take a stand: Who do you find most convincing? Steinberg or Friedman? Or neither? Thoughts on the future of America's empire over the planet's natural resources--is the answer in green liberalism and green capitalism? Other thoughts for our final discussion (perhaps some other big issues that we haven't considered and you would like to address)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found Friedman’s most convincing. His chapter on “Outgreening al-Qaeda” was especially interesting. However, I feel like the motives and reasons are completely wrong. Steinberg says that “in the coming years, people are going to discover that they can ‘outgreen’ their competition in the marketplace, on the battlefield, in the design studio, and even in the struggle against poverty” (373). To me, it feels like we are using the environment to gain the upper hand, to gain that edge on the competition. It is clear that Steinberg believes that outgreening could be a military strategy. He gives excellent reasons why outgreening would benefit the army and I certainly agree with him. But it feels like the motives are purely politics and not because we actually care about the environment. It’s not about being environmentally friendly, taking care of the earth, but rather, outgreening makes us more efficient and gives us a military advantage. Dan Nolan hits the nail on the head: “Energy independence is not an economic issue. It’s not a resource issue. It’s a national security issue. It’s the right business for us to be in” (375). It also seems to me that Friedman and other Americans are using ideologies again to rationalize our desires. Friedman emphasizes that Iraq is a very difficult place to wage a war, especially in terms of energy. Maintaining a military base requires so much energy – for instance, 95% of the generators’ power are used to air-condition tents (376). With that being said, it seems like we are using the ideology of “going green” to reduce dependency on oil and gain an military advantage. However, regardless, I do think this could end up being a benefit to our country. For instance, Friedman says that if the military really takes the initiative to go green, then soldiers will come back home and want the same thing: “the army can be the laboratory that shows people how to go green together” (378). And if all of the countries try to outgreen each other, we will still all be better off and the earth will certainly benefit from it - it's a win-win situation. I do fear though, that we or other countries may take measures such as destroying windmills, solar panels, etc. Nations have and still do similar measures – such as destroying infrastructure, cutting off pipelines, imposing embargoes, etc – in order to cut off supplies, debilitate the state, and in the end, get the better advantage. Steinberg also does point out that Friedman does not discuss whether corporations will actually “relinquish the idea that plants, soil, water, forests, and other natural resources are anything but a form of capital” because corporations want to operate in the best financial interests, which is a very good point. Corporations (and individuals) will always want to gain profit and sometimes outgreening may not be in their best interests. There is always the possibility of reverting back to old practices - we should find ways to prevent that from happening because our world’s resources are finite.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find Friedman's argument more convincing than Steinberg. For one reason, I do find Steinberg's argument less convincing in the fact that he refutes Friedman's claims in the last three paragraphs of his article. Perhaps if he had devoted more time to fleshing out his refutes, I would feel differently about his point of view. However, one interesting point that Steinberg raises is the growth of individualism over bureaucracy concerning environmentalism and environmental practices. I do believe that Steinberg is at least practical in his argument that more needs to be done than only relying on what he calls a "natural capitalism." Structural problems do exist and need to be addressed, yet Steinberg does not offer viable, action-oriented solutions that citizens can address within their government and legislation.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes Friedman's argument strong is in the applicability of green liberalism. I may be a bit cynical, but I think for the most part, environmental initiatives within government structures tend to be politically driven and bureaucratically controlled. While this method may seem realistic, the general population feel that they have no control over the situation. I think Friedman is realistic in the way he approaches environmentalism. The way to appeal to businesses to go green is through incentives, not moral reckonings. Businesses may go green to help the environment, but they will certainly go green if they can decrease expenses and increase profit. Furthermore, blue collar workers aren't going to be inclined to make their homes more energy efficient because polar bears are in danger. This is the least of struggling families' worries. I like the idea of businesses employing and nurturing the unemployed to increase energy efficiency while greening communities as well.
Finding, I think I find myself in the middle of Steinberg and Friedman. Without community support and initiative, green projects will simply not be completed. However, without government infrastructure supporting these projects, I don't think these programs will be sustainable nationwide. I see the government taking a page from individual communities and modeling successful green initiatives to a broader scale to support a nationwide movement.
I agree with Friedman's argument. Like Catherine noted, a company's main reason for becoming more environmentally conscious most likely is not related to a moral urge to protect the environment. As a capitalist society, businesses will want to gain advantage. The method of outgreening has emerged out of necessity; with energy resources dwindling and prices soaring, free energy sources become more relevant despite the burden of initial installation costs. The main argument in the reading that struck me was "uncertainty costs money." It is no longer in a business's best interest to gamble on an unsustainable energy source.
ReplyDeleteGreen liberalism is defined as “the idea that market forces combined with individuals all doing their part can save the planet.” In the Steinberg reading, he notes that environmentalism grew out of the rise of affluence in the 1960s. He furthers this idea, stating, “no longer concerned with feeding or sheltering themselves, [people] had the luxury to worry about environmental amenities.” This was the point in the article where I became skeptical of Steinberg’s reasoning. The very definition of the term says that individuals all need to do their part. Then Steinberg notes that affluence is a main part of this movement. Considering both statements, it seems impossible to create a joint effort capable of change in a capitalist society. While more affluent individuals have the time and luxury to engage in this movement, many Americans still struggle to provide food and shelter for their families. Additionally, any appreciable change will only emerge if a majority decides to change their behavior. Many people cannot afford to, and even affluent individuals who can change may not care enough morally to adapt to this green movement. If someone is not invested in a cause, it is doubtful that they will change unless an external force influences them. Policy changes may take longer, but will ultimately incentivize people to change even if for economic reasons rather than genuine care for the Earth’s future. The reason for change does not matter as long as the end result benefits the environment.
I also am inclined to support Friedman's arguments. The idea that businesses can be more profitable by making greener choices is certainly compelling when we recognize that capitalism is a driving force in our country. The example Friedman puts forward about the computer server company (I think that's what it was, I'm not very savvy when it comes to this type of technology), and how they were able to profit by saving energy, really showcases the idea that his solution is ideal. Nevertheless, I don't think I can blindly accept his arguments without taking into account his opposition. Steinberg writes, "it is impossible to see how, for example, corporations — which are legally obligated to operate in the financial best interests of their shareholders — would relinquish the idea that plants, soil, water, forests, and other natural resources are anything but a form of capital." I think there is a certain amount of validity here. To a big corporation that's main goal is to acquire profits in the greatest quantity possible, making green choices cannot be as appealing as Friedman will have us believe. The kinds of changes a company would have to make to green its operations are not only costly, but also have the potentially to initially limit production (at least until alternative and more green/renewable resources could be implemented). Despite the fact that, according to Friedman's argument, these companies would make more money in the long run, most businesses do not operate in the long run. They see green innovation as a huge cost, and one they do not have the capacity to embrace. What is relevant to them is the money they are making right now, and how to make more of it, not the money they could make in ten years if they spend. From a purely economic perspective, it is not too difficult to see why this logic exists. So I do think the capitalist system is flawed to a certain degree. If business could be more willing to embrace Friedman's ideology, by spending more now and saving more later, I do believe it would prove to be sound. I think the element Steinberg's argument that is worth taking note of is that our capitalist system is flawed because it does not have a strong enough focus on long run effects.
ReplyDeleteI think Friedman’s argument is more convincing. And like Allyssa I found the chapter “Outgreening Al-Qaeda” to be very interesting. Like Allyssa I feel that the motives are wrong, however I believe that this is an incredibly effective way to “pitch” the idea to Americans. It is clear that the military is going green in order to gain the upper hand against the guerilla style tactics they are up against. Surely, while it is okay to pitch the idea of going green to the military as a way to provide them with distinct tactical advantages over the enemy (and as a way to win the hearts and minds of the civilians they are living with by using tent designs that provide the locals with energy as well) it should be pitched to the American public as something different?(p. 377) Well this is what I found ingenious about Friedman’s argument! Nolan stated, “If I tell a tactical commander, ‘I am going to give you solar mirrors and windmills.’ His reaction will not be positive. But if I tell him that I have a system for supplementing his conventional power with renewable that will give him more tactical flexibility, he will be more comfortable with that idea” (p. 376) Friedman essentially did the same thing, spinning his pitch into something more suitable for the American public. If Americans were truly, deeply concerned about the environment, there would be no need for this, they would be willing to do what is needed to conserve energy, yet this is not the truth. About 1/3 of Americans drive gas guzzling SUVs, and while many Americans preach change, they don’t want to sacrifice convenience. Friedman here puts a spin on it saying that it will help give American military a tactical advantage and help save lives. This is something everybody in the US can agree upon, and hopefully this military technology/ideology will transfer over to civilian life, much like the GPS, Oakley sunglasses and the Hummer did. And touching on what Catherine said, this may push businesses to go green once they see that the military is decreasing expenses and increasing profit. It is all about incentives, and I think Friedman does a fine job illustrating them in regards to going green, which makes for a much more persuasive article.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Steinberg’s criticism of Friedman’s notion of green liberalism. Friedman’s vision of environmentalism is married to the capitalist status quo. He argues that change will come by providing incentives for businesses and individuals to switch to green technologies. This argument is somewhat schizophrenic. Friedman acknowledges that we live on a planet that is limited in abundance of natural resources, but does not see this as inherently contradictory of capitalism as it has been practiced over the past 150 years. We live in a growth economy, one that is dependent on extracting resources to fuel the constant 2-3% growth in GNP we expect (at minimum) each year. That’s not to say that measures Friedman advocates for, like changing from gasoline-powered to hybrid vehicles, are bad; it’s just that they aren’t enough. Hybrid technology depends on rare earth materials that are a limited resource too. Steinberg sums up, “But using more soil, water, and forest in a carbon-free manner will not solve other ecological problems such as species extinction. In the end, capitalism does not address the fundamental structural problems at the core of the capitalist economic order.” (19)
ReplyDeleteFriedman’s argument is also problematic in that he still operates within a competitive state system. The very term “outgreening” means that nation-states are competing against one another; if one wins, another loses. States that are increasingly interdependent might benefit more from collaborating on environmental issues. In addition, Friedman’s analysis of petropolitics doesn’t necessarily lead to good environmental policy. A solution to the problem of authoritarian states held up by oil revenues could be the huge reserves of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York (sometimes called the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas”), but will not stop rising carbon dioxide emissions.
I agree more so with the arguments made by Friedman. His opening explanation of how the military is trying to “outgreen” its enemies is fascinating. This seems something of which we should take note because as we have learned in class, the military is often ahead of the curve and sometimes acts as a testing ground for movements or developments that often become domestic. Military members may come home and expect for their houses to be just as energy efficient as those when they were serving. Friedman also notes how that businesses will eventually have to “outgreen” each other and that those businesses which make the move to sustainable energy will be ahead of the game in the long run. American businesses and the nation itself need to see that investing in renewable energy sources will ultimately help all of us stay ahead of domestic or international competition. The younger generation also realizes that sustainable technologies are more attractive and so these young people will more likely work for businesses that have the same beliefs. More fortunately, green jobs will “help fight poverty and pollution at the same time” because these occupations “are jobs that can’t be outsourced. Friedman’s arguments are a bit more concise and focused while Steinberg talks about a lot of different examples and sources and this actually takes away from his argument in my opinion. Friedman knows what he wants to say and he does so in a manner that is quite compelling. We are a capitalistic nation and so it needs to be economically clear to businesses why it is becoming better to be green.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe primary issues facing the United States at this point in time are they War in Iraq, the economy, and climate change. In Friedman's article, he illustrates the United States' Army's practice of essentially "killing two birds with one stone" when it comes to energy. He makes the point that for the army, going green is a choice that preserves the lives of soldiers because they can avoid the transport of diesel fuel across enemy territory, and also lessens the United States' dependence on oil (primarily a product of the Middle East) as well as lessening the environmental impact of war. Friedman writes, "In Nolan's case you save lives by getting convoys off the road, save money by lowering fuel costs, and maybe have some power left over to give to the local mosque's imam so his community might even toss a flower at you one day, rather than a grenade" (378).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Catherine's point that a lot of times when the government takes an environmental initiative there are other covert political and economic agendas that are also being served. In Friedman's article, however, he is forthcoming about the multifaceted purposes of "out-greening" Al-Qaeda. I think at this point, in terms of where the United States stands both domestically and internationally, policies and actions that can serve more than one purpose will probably be the most effective.
Friedman says that "out-greening requires a wholly different mindset. It is not just about talking, making, or mining more. Instead of digging or drilling deeper into the ground, you have to dig and drill deeper into yourself, your company and your community" (380). This idea is one that perpetuates nationalism and a vested interest in the progress of your own nation, and the United States in particular, but also one that allows for productivity and progress while advancing the agenda of the nation, especially during wartime.
Friedman's argument for out-greening makes a lot of sense and could prove to be effective not only while the United States continues to be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the years following the war, especially in a time where the issues of climate change and energy efficiency are ongoing and unsolved.
I am more convinced by Friedman's arguments, though this might be because he puts a more positive spin on today's environmental issues. He makes it sound like it is possible for huge industries such as the military to become more sustainable. I've always thought of large companies being run by people who only want to make money and who do not care about their impact on the environment. Friedman's argument did a very good job about convincing me that we have the ability to convince companies that "going green" will actually benefit them. He does this through concrete examples, such as the military and the taxi companies in New York City. Both of these organizations had been set in their ways for years. The military was used to using whatever resources were necessary to survive and the taxi cab industry even had a law about the types of taxis it had to use. Friedman showed that they were able to change for the better and even save money. Steinberg did not discuss Friedman that much, but when he did, he said that he thought companies would never get over only thinking about money. This pessimistic view will not help our country become more environmentally friendly. Instead, we need to think more creatively about how both companies and individuals can reduce their carbon footprint and also boost the economy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I respect the optimism that Friedman’s article expresses in regards to climate change, I am inclined to believe that private corporations not will actively change their policies towards the environment on their own. Though “going green” is a popular idea at the moment, in reality many of these newer items and approaches are simply a re-branding of consumerism. Steinberg cites the superficial changes made by Walmart, noting, “How likely is it that a company like Wal-Mart will internalize the true environ- mental and labor costs of its operations when its entire business plan is predicated on externalizing those costs?” (Steinberg 20). When the ideal goal is profit and the government continues to subsidize the true costs of oil and gas, for example not taxing the pollution emitted by individual companies, there is no incentive to change energy use. Instead the current system forces the entire population to either accept the associated problems or to increase their own taxes, externalizing the costs of pollution away from private corporations.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the New York city taxis that Rachel brings up, the article does not discuss the energy needed to manufacture entirely new Prius’, nor does it in any way advocate the use of one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation available in the city, the subway. Because Friedman suggestions largely maintain the status quo, companies producing the highest profit and private individuals continuing unchecked rates of consumption, I believe his technique will not be enough to affect the United States usage of fossil fuels.
I agree more with Friedman, although this may be because I found his writing very accessible and, like Rachel mentioned, more positive than many of the readings we have read this semester. Steinberg’s argument is too brief for me to really take a strong stance, although I don’t find his arguments extremely convincing. Steinberg criticizes Friedman for neglecting to address the pro-growth ideology of capitalism. He argues “What Friedman means by fundamental change is, at most, ‘changes in our lifestyle’, not in the prevailing mode of production.” (20) However, I would think that if Americans began to make conscious decisions to transition to a more sustainable lifestyle, they would eventually begin to expect those same changes to occur on a larger scale; specifically, in the way corporations manage their businesses and in the way government officials treat environmental policy.
ReplyDeleteI also found Friedberg’s discussion of the US military’s incorporation of environmental innovation to be very promising. Many of the conveniences we enjoy today, from the Internet to pizza, can be attributed to our US military. Thus it would seem natural that the environmental innovation being used in Iraq could come to be universally applied at home.
However, like Alyssa, I have my own reservations about the nature of the idea of “out-greening.” Friedberg quotes Dan Nolan, who spoke about being green, stating, “It has tremendous tactical relevance to us.” (378) While this is certainly a valid reason for going green, military tactics cannot be the only incentive to employ greener strategies. Furthermore, as Alyssa has also mentioned, out-greening may not always be in the best interest of profit when it comes to large corporations. However, I think that the idea of “out-greening” the competition (whether military or corporate) could be a great way to mobilize those Americans who perhaps aren’t so concerned with the environmental impact of their actions, but instead are looking to save money and support their country. When framing environmental issues in a nationalistic and competitive context, environmentalists can perhaps appeal to and mobilize the more conservative members of American society to make more environmentally conscious decisions. Hopefully, over time, American society as a whole will make greener decisions not just for personal gain, but also for the sake of environmental preservation. (…but that might just be the optimist in me speaking ☺)
I personally find Friedman more convincing than Steinberg because of the methods he uses to explain how to create a green society. I agree with his statement that, “green is not simply a strategy for producing cleaner power, energy efficiency, and conservation, as important as those things are. It’s also a strategy for winning in many different contexts”. By “out-greening” competition, a country, business, school, etc. becomes more desirable, this desirability will then spur more people on to be greener, causing a cycle of “out-greening” to occur. This is what Friedman alludes to, and I believe he is correct.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Friedman that government intervention is necessary for environmental change. Bloomberg is quoted in Friedman’s, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” as saying, “when it comes to health and safety and environmental issues, government should be setting standards…what you need are leaders who are willing to push for standards that are in society’s long term interest.” I believe that this government involvement is necessary in order for there to be changes in practices regarding natural resources. Friedman also mentions the idea of creating “green-collar” jobs. I believe this is another necessity in “outgreening” because of a few reasons he mentions, firstly, these green collar jobs can help lift people out of poverty by providing jobs for people that are currently unemployed. I also feel that these green-collar jobs will add to the idea of investing into a community and a company, because, as Friedman states, “instead of digging or drilling deeper into the ground, you have to dig and drill deeper into yourself, your company, or your community. Instead of mining the environment you have to create a different kind of environment—a collaborative environment in which you, your company, and your community are constantly thinking about how to generate more growth, more mobility, more housing, more comfort, more security, more enjoyment, and more packaging from the most innovative use of the cleanest electrons and fewest resources”. This leads to “all kinds of good things start[ing] to happen”, including investment in communities, jobs, and people as well as lowering energy bills, creating innovation, and having cleaner air and water. In addition to this government involvement and investment in its people, I also agree with Friedman when he sates that someone with “a bird’s eye view of all of the costs and benefits of energy decisions, money and resources were [get] continually wasted.” I agree with this statement because if everyone is looking at individual steps, people might miss the bottom line or miss an opportunity to make something greener, cheaper, or sustainable. Companies need to begin to look for a “chief energy officer—someone who is thinking holistically about all the costs and benefits—will be able to outgreen the competition” with “chief energy officers”, government intervention, and investment in American society outgreening will become a reality.
I came across this today and thought it was pretty cool and gives you an idea of where oil production comes from: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/maps-tough-oil. You can see the trends pretty clearly.
ReplyDeleteFriedman makes a very convincing argument in the section of his book entitled Out-greening Al Queda. He brings up many points that are important to consider for why we should create a greener society, including ending our dependence on oil. He realizes the dangers of our proceeding in the same direction that we have been going for years, and knows that something must be done about it. That said, what I truly liked about Friedman is his approach to change. He acknowledges that, while there will always be very eco-smart people within the population, the majority of people will only start becoming green when they see the benefits. Gas may be cheaper now than solar or wind power, but it is a recurring cost with an uncertain future. Companies also are beginning to see that going green will not only save costs, like the $600,000 saved when Sun published their annual report online instead of printing it, but they will greatly increase public opinion of them. People need to be shown why going green is important, and in today's capitalist society, the answer lies with money.
ReplyDeleteSteinberg alludes to the fact that environmentalism was born out of the leisure time of the wealthy, that once they no longer had to worry about day to day necessities, they could then start to focus on the big picture problems. While this may be true, it is hard to believe that only those affluent enough are environmentalists. While I do agree with Steinberg on some of his criticisms of Friedman, I do not condone all of his remarks. For one, Steinberg criticizes Friedman's meaning of "fundamental changes" implying that he does not really mean fundamental changes, but as one who read Friedman, I believe and support Friedman's approach to out-greening the competition.
I found Friedman's argument that America can "outgreen" its enemy as a military strategy to be particularly convincing and have to disagree with those that considered his motives to be misguided. Friedman mentions that companies need to see climate change not as a threat but as an opportunity and invest in creating more sustainable versions of themselves. Just as climate change serves as an opportunity for companies, so to does wartime measures. It shouldn't matter when or why companies are compelled to be innovative, so long as they seek to create and promote new, more efficient technologies. If wartime is what provides the necessary boost to this morale, so be it. Not only will troops overseas be safer and more comfortable, but we can take these advances, expand on them and implement them throughout U.S. society, just as Friedman suggests soldiers will do when the return home.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I agree with Catherine in that the way to encourage people to "go green" is through concrete incentives. Steinberg's argument for green liberalism was politically and bureaucratically driven and did not provide business with direct benefits. Friedman's argument, however, recognizes that in the long term businesses can decrease their expenses and increase their profits if they utilize solar and wind power.
The way that Steinberg describes green liberalism - the idea that market forces combined with individuals all doing their part to save the plant - seems a bit utopian to me. While the environmental movement has gained much credibility over the past 30 years, as of now people are still too disconnected and distancing is too large a phenomenon for every citizen to do their party and recycle. Cristi and I live together and we don't recycle not because we don't wish we could but because our building doesn't have a recycling area and we don't find it absolutely necessary to out of our way to recycle all of the plastic bottles we use.
I believe that the economy is the best arena for addressing the issues around oil dependency and national security and promoting the advance of green energy and technology. Since oil production is entirely run by profit-seeking companies and is a significant portion of the economies of all countries, the solution to lessening oil dependency lies in market forces. Since the market drives oil dependency, it is the most effective and efficient way to reduce oil dependency. Such a improvement requires two components:
ReplyDelete1) Strategic use of the free market system to discover new comparative advantages in green technology:
a) Engineers and scientists must develop and promote efficient green technologies that can be easily implemented.
b) Companies must run cost-benefit analyses of these technologies to recognize the long-term cost advantage of green technologies.
2) Individual recognition of the advantages of implementing green efficiency standards and technologies.
a) A competitive market for renewable energies can be developed with government supports, but it is ultimately driven by consumer demand.
b) The government should offer economic supports that drive competition within the renewable energy sectors, but do not influence the incentives of producers and consumers the free market.
Green liberalism encompasses two similar main tenets: economic freedom and pragmatic individual action. The issue of using a free market to implement green energies is troublesome for me. The economist in me supports a free market, as government interference limits the efficiency of the market. However, the environmentalist in me supports government programs to incentivize green technology producers and researchers to develop more efficient and effective renewable energy production sites. If we wait for renewable energy sources to become cost-competitive with fossil fuel sources, we will most likely not a shift in society’s energy infrastructure until after the world experiences more frequent and more intense adverse effects of the continued and increased use of fossil fuel sources.
I personally identify more with Friedman and his argument on the importance of green liberalism. I agree that the US oil addiction is essentially funding both sides of the war on terror and that without American and European oil money, most Gulf States would not be able to invest in arms procurement or sponsor terrorist organizations. His argument on how oil wealth impedes democratization is convincing and I agree that focusing on a green agenda is a viable way to re-build and re-energize America. Out-greening Al-Qaeda may be a bit optimistic, but it can be realized with the current measures that the military is taking to increase energy efficiency and limit petroleum convoys. History shows that products that the military develops or discovers abroad come back to the average American consumers (even the Hummer) and I believe that renewable energy technologies are no exception.
It is ultimately in the hands of the market and the individual to steer the US in the direction of renewable energy sources and a better future.
I found that the Friedman’s article was much more compelling than the Steinberg article. Although both articles bring up multiple well established points, I have found myself siding more with Friedman in his ideas of basically outgreening the competitions. While his motivation for viewing the Green movement this way may not be because he wants to protect the environment, it is the a more efficient way for attacking the cause. Steinberg uses recycling as an example of individual responsibilities that Americans have for protecting the environment. But I think we can all name a time where we should of recycled and had not, therefore this is still an inefficient system. Even though Steinberg discusses that there is now new opportunities for Americans in the market to pursue these green technologies, there needs to be a better incentive to pursue this. Friedman addresses how outgreening becomes the best economic incentive. Industries that are the cleanest, will thrive the longest.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two articles, I am more convinced by the argument presented by Friedman. Ultimately, the United States has found itself in somewhat of a predicament when it comes to dependence on foreign sources for oil. Steingberg's work makes the United States seem like a very green-focused nation but at the same time might not be very realistic. Yes there are green initiatives being taken all over the country, but in the grand scheme of things they seem very minor compared to what other nations are undergoing. The majority of France's energy comes from nuclear sources and has found ways to avoid reliance on fossil fuels. Although this may prove to a be high risk high reward transition, there is definitely the possibility for more nuclear alternatives. In light of the Middle East, I was wondering about the future of international relations regarding natural resources and conflict. WIll there ever be a war fought over a resource such as oil or water? I personally do not think so because of various reasons. First, the interests of producers and consumers are aligned. Both sides want to keep prices low, demand high, and an extremely high supply. Second, itis much more expensive and environmentally dangerous to fight over resources rather than to organize and peacefully settle resource disputes. The destruction seen from war would impact the environment significantly less than if things progressed normally. Overall, the struggle for adequate natural resources and its impact on the environment will remain a large issue on the international agenda for quite some time. How we handle the problem has yet to be determined
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates, I also found Friedman's argument to be more convincing. Although it might seem that the motives behind "Outgreening Al-Qaeda" are wrong, in the capitalistic nation that we live in, many political decisions are made according to our economic needs as a country. As prominent a topic as oil is in the current day, I wasn't aware of what many of our incentives were to going into the middle east besides to protect ourselves from WMD, and this article really opened me up to the politics of oil and religion. I'm in an Islamic literature class this semester, and we focused mostly on Sufi Islam, and I have discovered that Islam may be one of the most tolerant religions in the world, considering all prophets of all different religions to be legitimate, and considering itself to have strong ties to other religions of the book, including Christianity and Judaism. It also is a religion that has a lot of respect for women. My knowledge of Sufi Islam is probably a big reason behind why I was so shocked with how the Islamic Fundamentalists perverted Islam, and how people in political and financial power in Saudi Arabia, among other nations, used these beliefs to abuse their citizens. There are good and bad people in all religions, and the real problem is when power hungry people gain access to billions of dollars. I don't think the Islamic Fundamentalist leaders of these terrorist organizations want anything except power and control. As Friedman said, when a country is making so much money that they don't need to tax their citizens, the rule becomes "No taxation, so no representation, either." Oil money has allowed people in political power to not care what their citizens have to say—and to gain control over them so that no one would fight back. I found Friedman's diagrams on the rates of prices of oil and the rates of freedom to be very compelling. It seems that oil corrupts absolutely, not only in the middle east, but in our own nation and in Europe. We have dug ourselves into a deep hole where we are supporting people who hate us, and China is supporting a government that pays for the genocide of its own people. It is really unsettling to me. If environmentalism, such as developing clean power alternatives, will help stop the horrors of petropolitics, as Friedman asserts, then I don't care what the motive is behind environmentalism. Yes, my classmates and I have an obvious interest in environmentalism, but I feel we also must accept that a good majority of the world may not. There needs to be strong economic and political motives to create a big change.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not necessarily agree with all of Thomas Friedman's positions, I found his "outgreeining" Al Queda argument particularly compelling. It appears that Al Queda's grassroots guerilla tactics allow them to invest less and gain more in their war against the U.S. military, while our troops are vulnerable because of their dependence on limited and highly-disputed natural resources. I took specific interest in Friedmans' claim that we must strive towards a "carbon advantage" in order to not only become victorious militarily, but also from an industrial-economic standpoint. Essentially, Friedman maintains that in order to have a carbon advantage, companies must be efficient and innovative, which in my opinion, should be fundamental strategies for businesses and government alike, regardless of environmental consequences. The environmental benefits of this new carbon competition are just a "Going green" seems to be the new frontier for world industry and specifically, American interests.
ReplyDeleteSteinburg focuses on this relationship between the green movement and market economics. However, I do not think his claim that "green liberalism is all the rage today" is entirely accurate. There still exists a backlash to the green movement, even if it has become less prominent since the post-9/11 "Hummer-ism." Throughout Steinburg's article, I couldn't help but notice his negative depictions of the green movement, which lead me to question the reliability of his article as a source. Has the green movement really become so flawed that its negative effects overshadow even partially reaching its original goals of increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on resources that harm the environment? Steinburg seems to think so.
Similar to the rest of my peers, I find Friedman’s optimistic article to be more convincing than Steinberg’s cynical counterpart. Friedman uses more examples to back up his points. Quite honestly, however, I feel like Steinberg makes his points more clear-cut. The only problem is that he lacks the sufficient evidence, and the positive attitude, that makes Friedman’s article shine. For this reason, I’m glad I read Steinberg’s article first, since it seems to provide the necessary background information to fully grasp the relationship between markets and environmentalism that Friedman eloquently backs up. However, while Steinberg’s article appears pessimistic, maybe this is the reality. Friedman’s points might be more uplifting and properly verified, but do his words speak the truth? Will companies really be persuaded by his arguments so easily? How long will this take?
ReplyDeleteI hadn’t heard the term “green liberalism” before, but now that I understand its definition, I’m reminded of all the ways in which I participate in this movement myself. By simply making the choice to buy organic food at the supermarket, or to recycle all of the bottles of caffeine-induced substances I plow through each day, I am a green liberalist. Who knew? The word “liberalist” seems so striking to me, especially when associated with things (like those listed above) that I do so automatically. Our generation is constantly bombarded with “go green” options. Next to every trashcan, there’s a recycling receptacle. Entire aisles of our commercial grocery stores are filled with organic food options. It wasn’t this way back in the mid-20th century, when green liberalism was in its very beginnings. Nowadays, environmentalism hardly seems so liberal. In fact, it’s pretty commonplace.
Right now, we are still on the “green liberalist” path, with individuals doing their part to make the planet healthier. However, large-scale U.S. companies, both domestically and abroad, are more reluctant than individuals to make the “green” transition. They’re afraid of losing capital. Individuals and corporations need to make a collaborative effort to improve their environment. Friedman believes, as do I, that we are making progress in this arena. It’s just a matter of how fast this progress can be made, and how many companies will decide to share in Friedman’s confident outlook.
I also found Friedman's article more persuasive. He has human nature on his side. People will reduce reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels if they understand what's in it for them. Feeling virtuous is not enough. As an acquaintance of Friedman's put it, a green economy must deliver work, wealth and health to communities that have too little of these today. When people understand that the greening of America will directly benefit them economically, they will support environmental programs. Friedman's example of the US Army in Iraq embracing energy reduction and novel solutions to avoid transporting oil across the desert in easy to target caravans, to be especially compelling. The message was clear that if the incentive is great enough and the danger of not changing old ways is clearly understood, ingenuity can produce energy (and life) saving solutions. While Friedman sounds somewhat jingoistic at the end of the piece, I do believe that the U.S. should strive to be a leader in "conceptualizing, designing, manufacturing, deploying and inspiring clean power solutions." That innovation is not likely to come from a governmental bureaucracy, but from private enterprise, which, driven by a profit motive, is typically more nimble, inventive and entrepreneurial.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I also agree with Catherine's view that both writers are correct to some extent. Green capitalism will not, by itself, "save the planet." Obviously governmental infrastructure in the form of incentives and disincentives must be brought to bear to insure that green initiatives are encouraged and continued by corporate America. Nonetheless, I found Steinberg's article unconstructive. I don't think it is realistic to expect that corporations will "relinquish the idea that plants, soil, water, forests, and other natural resources are anything but a form of capital," or that they make a profit from greening efforts. It is easy to criticize "neo-liberal" environmental initiatives, and I thought the absence of constructive ideas, other than suggesting bottle bills, in Steinberg's article was striking.