Charlie Rose

jeff_crowded  12/31/2009 12:36 PM Report

To those interested: more on "crowded"...here's the math, a short treatis on the matter - I wrote it up separately a while ago, so apologies if some thoughts are redundant to those made in my comments below of 12/28/09.

The following equation represents a rough/first approx of human population multiplication factor, N; that is, N is the approx multiplication factor of the human population after approx G generations, each having approx x surviving babies on average per generation:

N = 2^(G(x/4 - .5))

x = no of babies per generation

G = no of generations

That is, if humans had but 2 babies, there would be zero growth, N = 1;

If x = 2.5 and G = 8, then N = 2; that is, under these circumstances, the population approximately doubles after approx 8 generations given each generations bearing on average approx 2.5 surviving babies per generation.

The average is about 2.5 babies per couple world-wide; this means at this continued rate, the population doubles every 8 or so generations.

250 generations @ 2.5 surviving babies per generation, yields approx 6-7 billion people, i.e. the population today.

{It’s interesting to me that I worked this out over a couple hours on a recent Sunday morning…I’m not a rocket scientist…as such, it begs the question as to why someone has not put forth a similar analysis/projection a 50-100 hundred years ago or so (the simple math above is/would-have-been the same) when corrective measures would have been perhaps “easier”, but then no one wants to erect a stop-sign or traffic light until someone dies – we are a reactionary society, so even if one or some did run the predictions, nobody would have paid any attention or would have done anything about it…a hundred years ago or so the population was “only” a few billion…”nothing to worry about”…}

The equation predicts that human population must therefore have been small & more-or-less “flat” (little growth) at about 250 generations ago and before, or approx 5000 yrs ago - the historical data and analyses support this (ref: Wikipedia human growth data). This is reasonable since major civilization & agriculture started about 10K - 5K years ago.

This also means that in only about 8 more generations (100 - 160 yrs assuming approx 20yrs per generation on average world-wide), the population would be expected to double again, to about 14B +/-; contemporary thought has it that the world as we know it can only support/feed about 20-25B, under the best of current circumstances, and this is based solely on current resources and their availability; remember, that there are only certain latitudes (30 - 50 deg) that are "inhabitable" and "farmable" for livelihood and proteins (wheat/grains, other produce, as well as animal products), and those lands in those latitudes are already pretty much full/occupied.

Now this situation is bad enough, but now add the effects of climate change/global warming of the world/s massive and increasing population and all the energy and survival demands attendant thereto (CO2 and other hydro-carbons emissions into the atmosphere as a result of current and projected world energy consumption (1st, 2nd, and up-and-coming 3rd worlds), and the deforestation activities due to burgeoning local peoples and the economic/survival forces on them as well as land development forces – more and more people again) - that is, as Ted Turner well-pointed-out, the global warming effect is a direct result of more people - more people means more energy consumption, which means more burning of carbon-based resources (fuel and forests), not only for us, the 1B people in the "first world", but also the 2B in the "second world" that are "up-and-coming", and that of the 3B in the "third world" that want (and we obviously want them) to go to the first and second worlds…and then what about the 3B "in-the-oven"?

It is therefore a double-whammy due to the burning of carbon of a growing population approaching the limits of their environment’s capacity; a snow-ball effect. I highly doubt that we have 8 or so generations left before catastrophe/calamity set in (climate change, drought, famine, disease, disasters, commensurate wars (over resources: historically the primary rational for war)) - we are already now seeing the initial effects (effects will appear most gradual at first, as at present), but the current global changes (extinctions, plant/animal growth/population abnormalities, ice-melts, etc.) will disrupt food-chain and plant/animal populations, and as an ultimate result, disrupt our food supply, as minute as they may now appear, the current species and food-chain disruptions are only the beginning of what is to come in the end.

Such is the contemporary thought of the demise of the great Mayan civilization (the most advanced, philosophically and scientifically, of their time): overexploitation of their environment/resources and the commensurate wars.

We must control our population, energy consumption, and live within the means of our resources should we want to endure - we have in our (inherent) power to do so...shall we? Or shall we be the cause of own demise, like that of a parasite which kills its host?

The time has come (in fact, past) to change course and speed; a great many of us, and those yet to come, are already facing unprecedented calamity and suffering.

It’s ironic that climate change and geography, changed us into who we are (the homo-sapiens species, about 50,000 yrs ago, reference recent PBS series “Becoming Human” in particular Part 3 or 3), and yet now we are inflicting our own change on our own selves and our planet, its climate, its environment, and thus back onto ourselves….

jeff_crowded  12/28/2009 02:54 PM Report

The interview reflects the book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded" sure enough, but I am disappointed in each as to the missing treatment of 1/3 its namesake: "Crowded". Ted Turner said it best on this very program, not long ago: paraphrasing: 'the root cause/source of global warming/climate change is too many people..."

Until the collective world deals with that most unpleasant and most controversial problem (which I predict to be impossible in the time-frame needed), everything else (such as Friedman suggests in the other 2/3 of his book and this interview), although a help, is/will be a drop in the bucket, and as such the world as we know it is on a collision-course to catastrophe.

Contemporary thought has it that the world as we know it can sustain approx 20-25B people. The world at present is at approx 7B. The population at present doubles approx every 8 generations; assuming approximately 20yrs per generation world-wide, that's a population doubling approx every 160yrs. Thus, in about 250yrs or so from now, at the current world-uncontrolled human population growth rate, the earth will be at its maximum sustainable population - but that's all in consideration of the climate and resources of today remaining flat, which given Friedman's thesis, which I believe to be true, will not be flat, but will decline drastically, due to that same population's consumptions. So its a double-whammy effect. We can therefore expect, at best, that 250yr sustainment point to be more like 1/2 that: approx 100yrs from now.

The current world-wide human population growth and its present and projected carbon-based energy consumption, without drastic cut-back measures to both (not likely) are like a freight-train traveling 100mph, 100ft from a concrete impasse, and accelerating! Stopping the train at this point would require a miracle - not going to happen.

In the blink of time, it will happen at once, but in our lifetimes, changes might appear "gradual", but these "gradual" changes over our and our children's lifetime will be catastrophic. There will be drought, famine and disease on an unprecedented scale. It means a massive collapse of the food chain as we know it and all the consequences attendant thereto. Billions of people will necessarily have to die before nature, after a millennia or so, is able to correct; only then, if still in existence, the homo sapiens might get the bright idea to control its population within the available sustainable resources of the planet.

We are now starting to see the beginning effects (ice melts, unprecedented species extinctions and inhalations, jelly fish over-abundance in the Sea of Japan, ocean acidity,…it goes on-and-on right now, and will continue…).

Mainstream thought has that the same was the demise of the Maya: over exploitation of their resources relative to their population growth (due to agricultural ignorance at the time combined with unplanned, unsustainable population growth). Yet, as a parody, this was the most advanced civilization of its time...

In the very good recent PBS miniseries "Becoming Human", in particular, part 3 of 3, it is explained that the homo sapiens, only approx 200K yrs in existence while habitable conditions have existed for approx 1000X longer - 200M years, has been, and is, not only the most, but highly exploitive of the environment, of all species past and present.

Too many people is a big problem.

Dan  10/27/2008 09:23 AM Report

Hi USA although your Mr. Friedman is right about this topic. But I have to say you are so behind the curve the US just lost his way with retarded leaders like Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice & Co. And all your stupid MM and even public television, cheerleading your stupid policies, foreign and economic. Just watch Charlie Roses biased interview with Warren E Buffett on 10/01/08 regarding the bailout plan. The USA will go down the tube big time. Mark my words!

TracyAnna  10/24/2008 05:10 AM Report

Brilliant and right on! How the critical issues and problems facing humanity and Earth, can be addressed by developing alternative sources of clean energy. Our country needs to act now to lead in the "ET Revolution"... There is no time to loose in implementing a strategy to build an "ecosystem for innovation". The public must stand up in critical mass and demand this of our elected officials... to "invent, baby, invent"! Thank you Thomas Friedman and Charlie Rose for your genius and intelligent conversation.

Lance Mallia  10/12/2008 11:09 PM Report

We need all he states and more.

We need to build orbiting space colonies whose primary industry is build power satelites. Satelites that beam microwave energy converted from sunlight to fields of rectennas that convert it back into electrical energy for pennies on the dollar. Plus think of spin off technologies, zero g crystals for electronics, new pharmecuticals etc.

Mike B  10/12/2008 10:48 PM Report

http://tinyurl.com/6p4hm7

This is for Constance McKnight. Above link is for ordering a transcript of this show. FYI.

TABS  10/12/2008 03:49 PM Report

Geeez Mr K I didn't know that Intel, Microsoft and Apple among others were subsidiaries of the US government.

Jeff in Dallas  09/29/2008 01:28 AM Report

This guy has it right. He's really plugged in to the new evolution before it has begun. I love listening to his commentary and can;t help but think his vision is right on the mark. Where are the politicians laying out the right policy for the US?

Hope Scott  09/16/2008 01:19 AM Report

Charlie Rose: You helped us waste 7 years and a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war by letting Republicans of all stripes dominate your show for years, especially before the war. You claim to be so devoted to science, but supported a presidency that helped us head back toward the dark ages. I hope when you are enjoying all the luxuries you sold out for in NYC and Paris that you realize you used your vast influence to help set this country back so far it may never catch up. You used to be a hero of mine, but I wrote you off and only listen when someone like Tom is on.

Joost  09/15/2008 10:29 AM Report

Great Interview. I guess that we (Europeans) are a couple of steps further. Going green is multiplying in our Country. The investments made for green technology is multiplied 4 times over the last year alone. We get 20 years of financing form the government. For each 1000kWh off electricity, we receive 450 euro's. That is about 640 dollars, and this goes on for 20 years.

Is the USA losing the ball?

Why can't cars be made fuel-efficient? Our car runs on 4,5 liters of diesel for every 100km, that is 1,9 gallons per 100 miles!

We Europeans must do something correct?

It's the same deal with our home. For less then 1000 dollars/ year we heat our home, use electricity and have running water. I don't think many people in the States can say that. And no, we're not living like a caveman. With 5 laptops and a 50inch TV we live quiet comfortable.

You can read more about it on our site, but I'm afraid you'll have to stick to looking at pictures. The site is written in Dutch! There is a translation to English (from Google), but it is far from perfect to be honest. Problem is that it takes to much time to translate everything manually. Hopefully we can find a good translator (software or person) soon.

www.groenhuis.org (meaning Green home)

Constance McKnight  09/14/2008 12:17 AM Report

I'd love a transcript of the Thomas Friedman interview, but when I follow the link I get "The website may no longer exist, or may have moved." When I follow the link to Amazon to purchase a DVD,it isn't there - only the Republican Convention.

Mike Seiler  09/13/2008 09:58 PM Report

Great Interview. Solar can be the solution but the broken political system need to change so it can get done-

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807181

craig  09/13/2008 01:10 PM Report

TF is good at taking other people's ideas and putting them out there. Progressives have been saying this very thing since the 1970s. With his prestige and influence he would do better to turn his sights on the republican party and holding them to task.

Jon  09/13/2008 04:27 AM Report

Thank you Charlie for bringing such thoughtful, honest, and astute people on your program. I will admit that I am a big TF fan and this new book and the ideas in it, reinforce my respect for Mr. Friedman. But people lets get over whether or not TF credits his sources of information enough or whether he is repeating what has allready been mentioned before, lets get over all this minutia. Part of the reason he has written this book and according to one of the comments "repeated whats been allready said before" is because WE AS AMERICANS HAVE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOTTEN THE POINT. And so until we get the point, which is that we CANNOT survive as human beings unless we change the way we live and we as Americans have a tremendous opportunity to kick start the economy by investing in green technological innovation, I hope someone continues to pound the billy pulpit and keep repeating whats allready been said. Part of the problem with America is that there are those on the far right who accuse prople like TF of being TOO LIBERAL or being TOO OPTIMISTIC or as Barack Obama would say of being a HOPEMONGORER, and then these same people end up distorting the minds of average Americans by proclaiming such optimistic things as drilling for more oil is a viable long term solution. And the sad part is that John McCain, who I once greatly reapected has fallen prey to these carnivores of stupidity. My only hope is that somebody, it doesn't matter whether he or she is a liberal, conservative, or independent, will stand up to such rubbish and clean these people's clocks.

Now moving on to address some of the issues brought up by some of the preceding comments. LET ME START BY SAYING THAT I AM NO EXPERT, NOR DO I CLAIM TO BE ONE; SO MY OPINION IS AS GOOD AS YOURS. BUT WHEN I SPOT OBVIOUS FALLACIES IN PEOPLES ARGUMENTS, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SIMPLY IGNORE THEM. Lets start with this notion that energy technology can only be developed by large corporations and that government has no role to play in it. One of the examples brought up in support of this was that computers and internet technology came as a result of corporate investment. What people fail to recognize is that before Microsoft was able to put a PC on every desk, and before Google revolutionized the Internet, it was Good old Uncle Sam who made the necessary investments in the silicon chip and ARPNET, and it was Good old Uncle Sam who provided the money and subsidies to the Bell Labs and the Xeroxes of the world, and it was Good old Uncle Sam who made gave universities such as Stanford and MIT the research grants, so that they and their corporate partners could kick start the type of basic research and innovation that would later lead to breakthroughs like the PC and the Internet. Without Good old Uncle Sam, there would be NO Good old PC or Internet. And im sorry to burst your bubble people, but the market would not have step in to provide the necessary funding in place of the Govt. Because if there is one thing that is obvious about the way the market and investors work, it is that markets and investors will only back technology that has at least some form of support from the government (ex: railroads, electricity, aircrafts, etc). So when people say that markets can essentially replace governments, all I ask of them is to explain to me the role of free and unregulated markets in the current housing crisis.

Finally let me end by saying that it doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, a Baby Boomer, a Gen-X-er, or someone born to Gen Y, the bottom line is that unless we start to acknowledge our problems, and put aside our differences to reach common sense, rational solutions, we are going to ruin this great country our forefathers built!!!

--- OH *GREAT*! JUST WHO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM : THE EVER-SELF-AGGRANDIZING THOMAS FRIEDMAN ---   09/13/2008 04:00 AM Report

AND TO *THINK*!: I COULD HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED BY AL-QAEDA INSTEAD!!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

NO MATTER HOW *WRONG* HE ORIGINALLY WAS BEFORE..., HE ALWAYS LEAVES ENOUGH VERBAL SLEIGHT-OF-HAND AND OBFUSCATORY WIGGLE ROOM, AND HIS 'WHAT I HAD REALLY SAID BEFORE WAS's...' --- NOT TO MENTION HIS WOULDA-COULDA-SHOULDAS EX POST FACTO AMERICAN FLAG-WAIVING "NOBLE CAUSE" BACK-PEDDLING QUALIFICATIONS (Charlie *loves* that) --- SO HE CAN *LATER* COME BACK AND USE THAT VERBAL SLEIGHT-OF-HAND AND ALWAYS SELF-SATISFYINGLY SMARMILY SAY, "YOU SEEE...!?: I WAS *RIGHT* ALL ALONG!"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

(Friedman is the kind of verbally squiggly smarmy punky guy you'd just want to give a quick sharp *back-hand* beyotch-slap to [TSCHHH...!\ and say, "SHHHEEEAAAADDUP, Tommy...!" ____ To tell the truth, I don't even listen to him anymore -- not even just for anti-intellectual entertainment anymore: I'd rather listen to Sarah Palin for even that, because at least she doesn't pretend she's some big learned scholar! I saw a few seconds of Friedman's smarmy face, saw his smarmy lips moving, heard just a phrase of his smarmy tone, and switched the channel right back, alternately, to Jay Leno and David Letterman. Anyone who takes Friedman, or his smarmy Christian alter ego the supremely pedantic George Will, seriously is as *anti-intellectual* and as *shallow* as he is, and as America has generally become, or perhaps always usually really was, with his head as far up, too, as where the sun don't shine.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

BUT THEN AGAIN, POLITICAL JOURNALISM AND PUNDITRY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES -- AND BEING ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT PRACTICED, STUDIED LOOK OF CONCENTRATION (go check out his Wikipedia photograph for laughs!) -- MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY -- IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA -- "I'M SORRY: I WAS WRONG BEFORE."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

(Business TV shows, like PBS's Nightly Business Report, are the only place where I've ever regularly seen a host point out to a guest, and the audience, when the guest was wrong before on the show.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

Or, as was said of one river ferry boat operator across the Mason-Dixon line during the American Civil War (in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales)..., FRIEDMAN HAS LEARNED TO [rhetorically\ WHISTLE OR SING EITHER "THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC" OR "DIXIE" -- *WITH EQUAL ENTHUSIASM* -- DEPENDING UPON THE THEN OR CURRENT TIME AND WHO'S THE CURRENT COMPANY / AUDIENCE.

Matt K  09/13/2008 03:01 AM Report

Tom Friedman seems to leech the ideas of other people and take credit for this. Yes, many times he credits these ideas to his friends and colleagues, but often times it seems that he fails to do so. I'm not all that impressed, to be honest.

K  09/12/2008 09:27 PM Report

TABS:

That "corporation" you're talking about is the US government, who funds all this R&D and transfers the technology to other corporations to make huge stock profits and outsource the labor to dictatorships.

Friedman is trying out for the job of "post-economic-collapse PR chairman"

Mike Logan  09/12/2008 06:07 PM Report

Is Mr. Friedman a Methodist?

JAY  09/12/2008 11:48 AM Report

Great show ,but one 8000lb gorillo that all media , republicans and some democrats are afread to adress. OIL MONOLIPY(CARTAIL) INSIDE AND OUTSIDE U. S. When one or a groupe of countries or compies can close one plant and can sift our retail prices 3% or grater it is A CONTROLED MARKET NOT A FREE MARKET.This is NATIONAL DEFENSE ISSUE AS IT WAS IN THE 70',80'S. We lost that battle. Now her we are again. Mr McCain seems to be supporting the monolipies in DRILL BABY DRILL. Not invent baby invent. A way to look at this is to follow the MONEY.

Who makes money when there is monolipy. MR. McCain and CO.

Robert  09/12/2008 09:58 AM Report

Tom's interview was very interesting. I don't agree with his central planning tendencies. Every politician today claims to "fight special interests", well, Tom's plan will create a new "IE Special Interest". When Tom said let's be China for a day and also we should have a clear path from the top down made me very concerned, again, Central Planning concerns me and unfortunately both parties subscribe to those policies.

smokey888x2  09/12/2008 01:57 AM Report

T.F. is a great guy, has written some very good material but I think he's both a little late and not exactly correct on this. Also, his slight liberal side is showing more, which is to bad. He's wrong that we will solve this by throwing money everywhere, we need a very central group to be working on energy, like they did for the atomic bomb. We tried throwing money at this a few years back when we had the lines of traffic waiting to fuel up, it didn't work then and won't now - we need a central group to be working on this.

And even though Bush isn't the greates, you all have to admit he's had to fight two wars if not three. Iraq, Afganistan and the likes of Tokyo-Pelosi. All of America didn't stay behind him. If left to Obama, we would have lost Iraq to Al-Q months ago -- so Bush has been a bit busy with the war here. Even Osoma said, American's don't have the will to fight.

SarahWillimson  09/12/2008 12:00 AM Report

Tom Friedman is borrowing lot from what Bill Clinton said on your show couple of months ago. He's so much of a professional talker. You don't get the feeling he's done much. He's done very little with his own hands. He's been a "Taking Head" for too long. I don't think his ideas are his or they are new and fresh...We want to hear new voices and new faces that reflect the new demographis of our country. I think Tom Friendman's time has come and gone...

bengal  09/11/2008 10:59 PM Report

great show tonight

Donangelo  09/11/2008 06:34 PM Report

Much as I appreciate most of what Tom Friedman said, I disagree with his comment that our choice is between being a democratic China and being a banana republic. I wish it were this positive. I see our choice as between dramatically overhauling every aspect of society to learn to live in harmony with Mother Earth or self destructing. We are racing our SUV's as fast as we can toward the precipice of ecological collapse.

ella  09/11/2008 04:55 PM Report

Loved hearing Tom Friendman's ideas and will read the book because I agree with his world view and our place in it now and where I would like to see it go. And frankly I don't understand why everyone seems to think that any one person will come up with the answers and lead us there. Most of us have just (in the last four years) woken up to the challanges facing us. We are racing to come up to speed on a lot of issues that ultimately affect us. That is extremely difficult when you are holding down two jobs and trying to raise a family.

I believe, as Friedman seems to, that a climate (culturally), needs to be created in order for real solutions to be advanced. That race for the moon, that energy that was focused on the Cold War, transformed for this new generation to feel there is a way forward. That I think comes from the top (probably the only time-trickle down really works, cuz it sure don't work economically) There has been a dearth of soul, of spirtuality, of leadership from the Right, from the President and this administration. And maybe that won't change overnight if we throw the bums out... but I think it would change if we implement some of the community service trade-offs Obama's been suggesting. Young people need to know they are not only part of the solution, they are the innovators, and they have the energy that is so desperately needed.

ella  09/11/2008 04:55 PM Report

Loved hearing Tom Friendman's ideas and will read the book because I agree with his world view and our place in it now and where I would like to see it go. And frankly I don't understand why everyone seems to think that any one person will come up with the answers and lead us there. Most of us have just (in the last four years) woken up to the challanges facing us. We are racing to come up to speed on a lot of issues that ultimately affect us. That is extremely difficult when you are holding down two jobs and trying to raise a family.

I believe, as Friedman seems to, that a climate (culturally), needs to be created in order for real solutions to be advanced. That race for the moon, that energy that was focused on the Cold War, transformed for this new generation to feel there is a way forward. That I think comes from the top (probably the only time-trickle down really works, cuz it sure don't work economically) There has been a dearth of soul, of spirtuality, of leadership from the Right, from the President and this administration. And maybe that won't change overnight if we throw the bums out... but I think it would change if we implement some of the community service trade-offs Obama's been suggesting. Young people need to know they are not only part of the solution, they are the innovators, and they have the energy that is so desperately needed.

Christopher  09/11/2008 04:49 PM Report

I am sorry for all the TF fans, but he presents no new info. He is about 6 years late. I don't know who reads his stuff because there is about 1000 books written about this. I do not get all the praise in the comments. And his solutions are weak...The market will fix itself. Europe is 15 years ahead and it was govt lead. It is amazing that he does not credit corporate America with the weakness of the Green Economy. Energy run ny private sector sucks.

Christopher  09/11/2008 04:49 PM Report

I am sorry for all the TF fans, but he presents no new info. He is about 6 years late. I don't know who reads his stuff because there is about 1000 books written about this. I do not get all the praise in the comments. And his solutions are weak...The market will fix itself. Europe is 15 years ahead and it was govt lead. It is amazing that he does not credit corporate America with the weakness of the Green Economy. Energy run ny private sector sucks.

paolo balduzzi  09/11/2008 04:20 PM Report

Barak. I hope you are watching this.

Florence, Italy

Jon McGill  09/11/2008 12:43 PM Report

I know he mentioned his friend Nate Lewis, but Friedman has copied Nate's lecture on energy without giving him due credit. The quote about the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones... was directly from Nate Lewis.

However, Friedman fails to mention the most important part of Nate Lewis energy lecture... i.e. the discussion of scalability of the various energy technologies.

Nate Lewis always starts out explaining the scale of power, i.e. Watts. By 2050, we will need about 14 Terawatts extra of power (compared to today) of carbon neutral energy sources. Currently the only energy source that scales that high is nuclear.

Friedman doesn't like people being dumb, but this discussion is a very dumbed down version of Nate Lewis' energy lecture. Check it out:

http://nsl.caltech.edu/natelewis.html

And on JPL:

http://realserver1.jpl.nasa.gov:8080/ramgen/vod/av/2008/vk-lect/080228-vkl-WhereintheWorldWillOurEner gyComeFrom-AVC-2008-038c.rv

Thomas Friedman is not using his book to make people smarter. Nate Lewis' lectures do.

TunedIn  09/11/2008 01:01 AM Report

TF makes it all so obvious. It's a shame most of America is fed a daily dose of misinformation and lousy programming when there is actually programming like this that actually adds value to one's life.

John G  09/10/2008 11:20 PM Report

George Flach, it is you, not Friedman who is missing the point. Listen again to TF's cell phone analogy. Computers WERE the innovation, so no government inventive was needed. The added value of having a computer was benefit enough.

___________________________________________________________________________

Energy innovation is different. People already have energy. So what is the economic incentive to pay more for green energy when you already have petro-energy?

___________________________________________________________________________

That's why government incentives would help. They would propel VCs and businesses to invest in the technology. Over time the price would come down, and we would be free of preo-dictatorships. Perhaps even creating a new industry in the US along the way.___________________________________________________________________________

No different than the fed adjusting the interest rate. Or offering tax credits to married couples. Its just incenting desired behavior.

Armstrong  09/10/2008 11:17 PM Report

This might be the second most important interview you've offered lately,(and most of your content is essential to the global conversation) -- next to Amory Lovins, who is obviously the first.

Several hundred years ago, we were dumping our sewage into our streets and waterways and wondering why we were plagued.

Anyone with half a brain and knowledge of history, knows that entrenched interests already have the law on their side. This may be in the interest of the interest, but not in the public's interest.

With All in the executive branch originating from the oil culture, and big oil, with record profits, given even more money from the taxpayers, this should be proof, for starters.

Also anyone with half a brain knows that we are, unnecessarily, funding terrorist towel heads with our addiction to the oil culture. And as we are witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth in history, due to this addiction, this is a matter of national security. It may be time to demand change from our reps or vote them out.

(clue: Palin is an oil puppet- fast tracked from ANWAR country for the Hil vote and with only less than 2 years experience. Ultimately, McCain at his age, has put party before country, with this irresponsible choice.)

If something happens to him, how grateful will you be that she is sitting in the oval office?

So the question is:

Are you status quo joe- saying 'drill baby drill?

Or are you an American Innovator?

Thank You, Charlie.

Monad  09/10/2008 10:55 PM Report

Like many on TV recently, Tom Friedman doesn't really

have any meaningful solutions, because solutions like 'competing with China' are not the answer.

It's not competition but cooperation that is needed. It's not about taking care of ourselves but taking care of others, the poor nations in particular. Want to win over other countries? If you observe: you will see when we help others we create trust and appreciation. Wars can no longer be won. The answer is SHARE and SAVE the world.

The current system is collapsing because the structures in place are old, crystallized and do not serve the needs of humanity. Charlie implied there are no leaders with vision and fairness, but there is one, a world leader. For a new vision, fairness and hope for the future of energy check out Maitreya, the World Teacher, click on archives, scroll down to Science and Technology then read: Science, medicine and technology in the Age of Light, An introduction to the concepts involved in the coming technology of light.

charleschaplin  09/10/2008 09:45 PM Report

I wish Tom Friedman talked more about the dire educational levels of America.

Well, first things first! Before we can lead to lead the world into a green revolution, we have to lead ourselves out of trouble right here at home. We live in country where majority of people can’t even point out USA in a world map! Louis Mumford said "Civilization is a race between education and destruction!" In America people are not interest in education or learning. Parents don't make children ready to function successfully in a group situation like in a school. Parents don't make their children ready to learn either. They expect teachers to do everything. Americans have become lazy, indulgent, sloppy, and fat. Our educational system which is the world’s largest organization that is predominantly run by women in the entire world is on the brink of collapse. We have abandoned real learning, replaced it with all sorts of political, social and cultural justifications that has nothing to do with education and learning. Thus our education and school are in a dire situation. Once the chronic problems inherent to inner-city schools are spreading through the country; as we widen democracy, our standards have seriously deteriorated. Our educational standards have suffered immeasurably. Our country, one the leader in the world is now in decline. In infant mortality we are 43rd in the world and life expectancy we are 47th! We are addicted to processed food, and legal and illegal drugs and TV. We've poisoned our environment; even our water we drink is full of drug residue! The general environment in America is full of destructive influences for children. Today teachers' spend 90 percent of time managing children in the classroom, 10 percent teaching. In countries like China and India who were very poor and destitute only two decades ago now are doing the opposite. The reason those countries have kept politics and all other social and cultural justification out of classrooms and retained science and math. Our school curriculums have become like “Playing tennis without a net” so we can “include” everyone. We are already on becoming third world. Our secondary schools are rated only a notch above Mexico. But our media people and Hollywood keep exploiting us. But the media people keep telling the same lie that we live in the best country in the world. Remember the Soviet Union imploded? It had a huge army and big space program! Our TV people and Hollywood movie makers have no regard to children or families. All they try to do is glorify perversions and try to convince everybody that it is normal to be a pervert! Our book agents from New York publish nothing but trash. No wonder if you fly back to New York from Singapore or Shanghai, or from the Gulf or even from Berlin, we know American is crumbling and on the decline. This is all because I think for a large extent that our schools are failing. Our children seduced by the media and Hollywood crap don’t want to learn. Schools are for learning; and nothing else. During the election time we here about all the "hope" and "promise" of America, in the American media. But the reality our situation has increasingly become very precarious...But the politicians and the media people are caught up in a fantasy; they keep on “hoping” and “dreaming!” Unless we are truly resolved to overcome our situation, make a national effort improve the conditions of our country, we are in the process of becoming a third world country. I don’t see Barack Obama or John McCain has a plan to remedy America’s worsening conditions or plan to lead America into the future.

DZ  09/10/2008 09:28 PM Report

A wonderfull program and a huge EYE OPENER for Americans to wake up!

Tom covered in a wondeful way the real challenges facing Amrica in terms of environment, energy, education, fact that we go way to hung up on 9/11 as a "defing date" moving fwd (which plays to the terrorist hands), etc etc. The "drill baby drill" fooling message by GOP that may lead naive folks to believe, teh return is immediate so we can all go back to bad habits of huge cars and more pollution ... Than you Charlie & Tom.

MotherLodeBeth  09/10/2008 09:03 PM Report

Wish it had been two hours rather than a one hour program.

The book is good. I want to see fewer political science, journalism and law majors in college and 80% more students as engineering students, since the country and her future depends on engineers in the fields of energy.

All fields of energy not just green energy.

jason  09/10/2008 06:49 PM Report

A full hour of discussion, not a single word on Nuclear Energy which can provide immediate relief to our energy needs. China is going big time into Nuclear Energy yet Friedman and Rose, not a word on it. Does it sound like "Freedom of the Press" under communist rule?

Jay-In-PA  09/10/2008 06:34 PM Report

A GREEN ENERGY INITIATIVE by our government would address a lot of issues facing our nation. I would encourage my Senators and Congressman to support such an undertaking. Excellent, excellent interview Mr. Rose.

Ron Fanyak  09/10/2008 05:14 PM Report

I think this is the most important interview I have seen on your show.It deserves a followup on the specific issues he discussed, as the need for congress to act now in a bipartisan manner, rather than to make it a political issue in the presidential election.

Gas prices are a wake up call to America....Don't let us hit the snooze alarm, hoping to wake up later to find the problem is gone.Use your platform to splash water on our faces to get us up.

BVA  09/10/2008 05:12 PM Report

Invent baby, Invent!

M. Loeffler  09/10/2008 04:34 PM Report

Another excellent show. I am proud of Thomas Friedman's positions while being equally grateful for his fervent pursuit against atavistic policies. I cannot wait for his book to arrive in my mail.

Janet Unitan  09/10/2008 04:32 PM Report

Absolutely refreshing conversation! I loved it and look forward to getting his book.

Pam Mathis  09/10/2008 02:51 PM Report

I'd really like to watch it because it came highly recomended but the site said it wasn't available. Where can I go to see it?

Preston  09/10/2008 01:55 PM Report

Still hasn't answered my question... What exactly IS Boone Pickins?. Why does he "pick" that over everything else? And where does he plan to put them?

____

Other than that, a great conversation.

George Flach  09/10/2008 01:15 PM Report

Mr. Friedman forgets that computers weren't always widely available, either, and certainly weren't cheap. Not in the beginning. Not to mention that they were massive!! The demand for them was created not by government, but by industry and invention. As prices came down, machines got smaller, and performance got better, and then came demand. It should be the same for his "ET".

I knew people would come along who hated to see the price of oil go down because they wanted that incentive to "go green". Typical of believers in big government that he would want taxes at the pump to keep the price up, and then huge spending programs to push green technology.

Forward thinking innovators, in the private sector, will take care of all that. What government needs to do is make sure they're not in the way of that technology, and they need to be proactive in the use of the bully pulpit to jawbone acceptance of the need to get away from foreign oil. But propping up shaky industry practically guarantees that industry will remain shaky...and costly. That's the history of government involvement.

Alan Hopkins  09/10/2008 01:10 PM Report

GREAT conversation - interestingly IMO, Friedman sets up the truth with facts perfectly, then draws the exact wrong conclusion(s) as a result.

Based on my observation, this is due to his devotion to a political party - the Democrat party. One might assume I believe that therefore a devotion to the Republican party would (at least) be better then.

Wrong.

His root point is that "market shaping" would move us in the correct direction in curing our ills. His market shaping theory then is to raise taxes on commercial avenues that cause our problems.

What he DOESN'T say then is what is truly the correct market shaping solution. Tax breaks to those who commercialize inventions and make them available to consumers. He asserts we must "invent" our way out of trouble. True enough. But how then does punishing the old school effectively introduce a new school?

If I go to the dealership and I see a $5,000 tax rebate if I buy I car that gets 70 miles per gallon, I WANT that car. Even if gas/oil prices get cut in half, I STILL want that car.

Without the tax break... if oil/gas prices get cut in half (after we "drill baby drill") I will still be buying the cheapest car and guess what? It's not going to be on getting 70MPG. Because there was no "market shaped".

If you raise taxes on oil and gas it will negatively effect ALL aspects of our economy and only modestly force invention and innovation.

If you shape a market for the innovation with real, hard tax breaks for consumers, you get the innovation without the huge burden to the rest of the economy.

So the guest gives lip service to this concept (code word "credits"). Call it what it is "tax breaks" and understand that no Democrat nor Republican has the stomach to do ANYTHING to threaten the tax base power they control and people like Friedman are useful idiots in the process.

As close as Friedman is to the solution, he's equally far away. This is frustrating to me.

He blames Ronald Regan for this scenario when in fact, Regan was all about what I'm talking about here. Unfortunately, and ignored by those in denial, like Friedman) it's all those smooth politicians on the right and left that are in the way.

Until we rise aobut our sad devotion to orators in empty suits (Obaman - McCain adn those like Friedman who love them) we're going nowhere.

The answer is simple - heck, even I know what the answer is. Sheesh! And I'm nowhere near as caring as Obama, or heroic as McCain, or intellegent as Friedman.

Wink.

I see: THOMAS FRIEDMAN (like CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS) IS RE-INVENTING HIMSELF! ...It's the American way!  09/10/2008 10:42 AM Report

THOMAS FRIEDMAN is on his "green energy" crusade TO TRY TO REHABILITATE HIS REPUTATION WITH THE *LIBERALS* -- for his prior championing of the war in Iraq for OIL and ISRAEL, his saying that a great secular, ethnic, religious and gender egalitarian unified-nation democracy would be formed by the Iraqis throwing flowers at our soldiers' feet! ____ Just like CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS has been on his anti-religious crusade (primarily against Islam and Christianity, but, note!: NOT against *Jewish* religion/fundamentalism!) TO TRY TO REHABILITATE HIS REPUTATION WITH THE *LEFTISTS* -- for his prior championing of the war in Iraq for OIL (remember Hitchens then blatantly shouted: "YES! WHY *NOT* BLOOD FOR OIL!!") and ISRAEL, his saying that a great secular, ethnic, religious and gender egalitarian unified-nation democracy would be formed by the Iraqis throwing flowers at our soldiers' feet.

em   09/10/2008 10:02 AM Report

Great interview.

What America needs is politicians who will create incentives for green technology and new energy technology. As Mr Friedman points out, the current Congress won't even extend the credits which currently exist. We have to create incentives for energy technology, and stop rewarding people for bad behavior such as giving huge tax breaks for people who buy huge personal vehicles that weigh over 6000lbs. The heavy vehicles not only burn more fuel, they emit more carbon and create more wear and tear on the highways.

TABS  09/10/2008 09:57 AM Report

Here is the thing that the Barry Obamas of the world fail to realize. That it takes LARGE corporations to provide the Capital to do the R&D to come up with those wonderful products that we all enjoy..like this PC. And it takes a large corporation to provide the capital to provide an economy of scale which can produce enough of those products to bring the price down so that the average Joe can afford them. These corporations also provide the jobs so that the people can earn the money to afford those products. The attending down side to large scale industrialization is that there is going to be a certain amount of environmental degradation and depersonalization due to the size of the institution. So there is a delicate balance between large corporations and human needs and values. But to think that one can infinitely burden a corporation is like the consequences of killing the golden goose, NO MORE GOLDEN EGGS.