Tom Friedman may not be right on everything (personally, I could do without much of his breathless cheerleading for globalization as the path to nirvana), but he sure knows what he's talking about with regard to energy and the environment. Today, he's got another kickass column in the New York Times. It's behind a "firewall," so I'll give you the highlights:1) Global warming is real, there's no doubt about it, and everyone realizes it except perhaps for the White House (although "Al Hubbard, the president's economic adviser, says Mr. Bush will soon unveil an energy independence strategy that will produce 'headlines above the fold that will knock your socks off.'").
2) The public and business community are "miles ahead" of the politicians on this, and - listen up, Clinton/Obama/Edwards/McCain/Giuliani/Romney - "The presidential candidate who finally figures that out, though - and comes up with a compelling energy/environment agenda - is going to have a real leg up in 2008."
3) The answer is not necessarily a "Manhattan Project," but what Friedman calls a "Green New Deal" - "a broad range of programs and industrial projects to revitalize America." That means "more of everything: solar, wind, hydro, ethanol, biodiesel, clean coal and nuclear power - and conservation." Not to be pedantic, but I would amend the word "conservation" with "energy efficiency" and "reduced energy intensity." Those are different concepts; basically, "conservation" says you use less energy but you get less heat/cooling/whatever, while "energy efficiency" says you use less energy to get the SAME amount of heating/cooling/whatever. Reduced energy intensity means that you produce a unit of GDP using less energy. This can come about due to energy efficiency measures, shifts in economic structure (e.g., away from energy intensive industries towards high-value-added industries that consume relatively low levels of energy.
4) To accomplish these goals, Friedman argues (correctly) that we need two things, "government regulations and prices." On the former, Friedman writes, "High standards force innovation, and innovation leads to conservation at scale." On the latter, Friedman makes a fine point: "I don't care whether it is a federal gasoline tax, carbon tax, B.T.U. tax or cap-and-trade system, power utilities, factories and car owners have to be required to pay the real and full cost to society of the carbon they put into the atmosphere." Absolutely. And any tax can be made revenue neutral, by the way. Raise carbon taxes, lower sales taxes on food or whatever. The goal here is NOT to raise revenues, it's to reduce oil dependency and carbon emissions.
Anyway, I await President Bush's "headlines above the fold" announcement in his SOTU address next week. I sure hope it's a good one, that he plans to follow through aggressively, and that he doesn't screw this up like he's screwed everything else up the past 6 years!