Like all the extremely comfortable establishment types, Tom is scared to death of real change and actually empowering ordinary citizens at the expense of people like him and the rest of the 1%. Either he has drunk the kool-aid and seriously believes the fairy tale that people vote on the issues, or he is being deliberately disingenuous, and like most of the Democratic, 1% establishment , would rather lose an election that lose their influence and control of the DNC and the Democratic Party.
Yes indeed, climate change is the the greatest threat to the US and the whole planet. Yes indeed , attacking the problem now is not only wise, it is economically the smartest thing to do to stay in the international economic game and create new good paying jobs.
And - yes indeed, it is a loser as a lead issue at election time, at least in the current state of public opinion. Yes, kids are right fully stirred up, but they don't vote, and neither do millennials. This may be the issue of the future, but medicare for all, wealth tax, fair taxation, eliminating the corruption of big money and the like are the gut issues that will get people to vote today.
5
I would propose that any candidate who has the opportunity to debate Donald Trump or any news reporter who has the opportunity to question him take the following actions.
Offer Trump water that has been taken downstream from a coal mine where the tailings from the mine have been dumped into it and tell him the pollutants that are in the water. If he refuses to drink it, ask why any else should have to do so.
Similarly, ask Trump to breathe compressed air from a tank taken downwind from a coal burning power plant, telling him of the pollutants such as mercury and cadmium that are in the air. If he refuses to breathe it, ask why anyone else should have to do so.
One can fully expect Trump to avoid drinking the polluted water and avoid breathing the polluted air, thereby exposing the magnitude of his hypocritical nature and contempt for the ordinary residents of our country.
3
Yes, those Trump-hating Californians will miss their cleaner, more efficient vehicles. He hears them and has responded: Let them drive Hummers.
1
Tom if you are not around because of a lack of proper health care then it doesn't matter what the climate is. Yes our planet needs healing and proper care, so do our citizens. You speak like a man with a platinum health care plan.
5
Ain’t it the truth. Ain’t it the truth!
1
Private sector and industry initiatives
Road to zero environment footprint by SOny:
https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr/eco/RoadToZero/gm_en.html
Austrailian mining billionaire is tackling ocean plastic pollution with manufacturers' donation dollars based on recylcability of the resins produced from oil.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2017/may/22/billionaire-andrew-forrest-gives-400m-for-science-and-education-video
Trump helps poorly run corporations poison America's air, water, and land. Americans are brain-dead if they support this Manchurian candidate who helps Russia and other dictator-run countries so they will let him eventually make money there.
4
Tom, we need you in politics to convert this message into actions.
2
Great idea!
1
Thank you for laying out this winning campaign message. Readers, please tell your representative to support HR763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, a bipartisan bill that proposes to reduce CO2 emissions by 40% over the next 12 years. It has 65 co-sponsors in the house and you can help keep that number growing to get the bill passed NOW! This is urgent. See: citizensclimatelobby.org
1
You got my vote Mr. Friedman!!!
It’s really overpopulation stupid. It is the root of all the other problems and makes them worse.
3
I simply want to tell a story. In early 1968 I flew to Danang RVN as a 2nd Lt. with orders to report to the 1st Tank Battalion 1st Marine Division.
On landing in Danang I went to Division HQ to begin the process of assignment to my first command. There was an infantry lieutenant who had just come out of the battle for Hue City. I could see in his eyes and the look on his face he was not interested in any long or short conversations.
Within days I found myself on Hill 55 the then it was off to Hill 10 and the 1st Platoon of B Company. On arrival I called together my men to say something. I introduced myself and then said, “my sole purpose is to make sure each of you [expletive deleted] gets home alive”.
For the next six months our Platoon would operate in the 1st Marine’s TAOR which included Thuong Duc and An Hoa.
The above is only for information. I have struggled to understand how 35% of the voting population voted for him and may well vote for him again. I decided to call about 8 of the enlisted men who served with me in Vietnam. The responses I received were from the extreme left to the hard right. I wasn’t interested in arguing. I merely said I “respected” each of them and thanked them.
This morning I read Thomas Friedman's article. For our children and grandchildren and for the world population, we owe them a world where they can at least have a chance to live and prosper.
Thank you very much.
2
Nice message.
Why don’t you run Thomas? I’ll support you.
2
Trump acts like a moron because he thinks it appeals to the non college educated white men he counts on for support. This includes making fun of those who prioritize the environment. That he got elected and continues his policies of limited vision and poor application says more bad about us then him
5
No, it’s healthcare, stupid. Look at the wonderful article the Wall Street Journal did on the subject and read the comments.
1
Believing that bloated, energy-guzzling Democrats can fight a nearby star for climate dominance is stupid, stupid.
Riddle: How do you spot a room full of Deniers?
A: Go to your nearest airport.
1
Each man kills the things he loves
Given to man from God above
Mother Earth in all her splendor
Bowing to profits praise the big spender
Each day thousands die from pollution
U S stops a United Nations solution
Millions migrate from the patched land
Building walls an American plan
Hurricanes and drought across the globe
We make bombs with laser strobes
Death from the greed that capitalism breeds
Causing Mother Earth to bleed
2
Very good opinion piece and plenty of strong points too. Reduction of global warming must be the top priority for all political parties and even individuals.
Every individual can contribute in his or her own way. I am following no vehicle policy strictly for more than 15 years. I refuse to take plastic bags to the extent possible. I carry my own cloth bags. I don’t use yellow filament lamps at all. I use Air conditioner only when extremely necessary. These are the minor changes I have made in my life. If I can, so do others globally.
American government must go in for public transportation in a big way wherever it’s possible. Too many cars contribute hell lot of pollution in addition to never ending traffic jams.
Plenty of homes in America keep their lights on outside car garage 24 x 7, which is not only huge wastage of electricity but also increases monthly energy bill and further reduces the life of bulbs in addition to contributing to global warming.
Air conditioners must be used only when necessary. It will help in the reduction of global warming. Small steps like these go in a long way in the reduction of global warming.
Whatever steps the Republican Party has taken in this regard is only worsening people’s lives. Any wise person can easily notice. Unfortunately Republican Party appears to belong to some Utopian land in this regard.
If we don’t take necessary steps to better our lives, the fate of next generation very much hangs in balance.
2
And, clearly it IS the Environment. With Trump's pusillanimous
sucking up to Putin with every chance he gets, I am reminded that the HUGE landmass that *is Russia sits on top of *massive
oil reserves.
Ironically, with Global Warming, the melting of the Russian permafrost in Siberia and other places will *finally make
it economically viable to extract that Russian oil *out of the previously frozen Tundra.
Trump "pulling for" coal and oil is really out of Trump's wheelhouse of Real Estate cons, so one might fairly wonder *who, besides U.S. Oil Oligarchs, is Trump helping out ?
Australia recently went "all in" for Coal. Suddenly the Aussie P.M. seems to immediately become Trump's buddy !
If we *can't stop all of this ..... fine.
If we *won't even attempt to stop all this, we are already dead, and just walking around the Planet on the "installment plan" waiting for our turn in the coffin.
2
If the topic is approached correctly and not over exaggerated by the leftists drama-queens more alternatives will avail themselves. But by showcasing kids who by no fault of themselves are being used and appear to be unstable it is hard to take serious Hopefully China improves their policies because they have screwed up their population centers far worse then the western societies
1
As often happens, you have expressed what has been in my mind for some time much better than I could.
I am especially drawn to what was just a single line, namely that government should impose"steadily rising standards for clean power, transportation and energy efficiency — and let the market determine the most effective solutions." Tell industry what it has to do, not how to do it. That works.
3
It's not a choose healthcare vs addressing climate change.
Both deserve immediate action. Healthcare for all is a meat and potatoes issues for a vast majority of Americans. Compromise allowing those with private health care to keep it is fine but all Americans must be allowed to choose gov. healthcare if they so desire. Climate change is obviously a serious problem now that must be solved as soon as possible.
2
The problem with elections in the age of social media, is that it is not what you say, but the way that you do it. Australian Labor just lost an "unloseable" election to climate denialists on the right, because a billionaire entrant was able to steal part of the blue-collar vote from Labor, and basically throw it away. Not that workers are really going to get a seat in the lifeboat from the right. If you want to win on environment then you have to break the nexus between billionaire libertarians, jobs and hard-earned taxes and have a solution for the cognitive dissonance created. The people need a place in this, not just middle-class theorists. As Obama said, you gotta turn out and vote. The USA needs White people voting for their grandchildren. The KPI for climate change action needs to include jobs that ordinary people can do.
2
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!
2
I wish that candidate with the guts to make the environment a key issue had not dropped out. A big plus is that he can actually speak clearly. Something Biden has a bit of a problem with.
Who was that guy who so eloquently and forcefully endeavored to raise climate change as our number one issue? Oh, yes. Al Gore.
And that is why the fall-in-line Republicans are climate change deniers.
Even if you're a person who cares more about money/capitalism/productivity than the environment, you should be very concerned about China being ahead of the U.S. when it comes to green energy. But if human extinction bothers you, that's fine too.
1
Tom: China used its enormous state power to intervene in the market, turning public and private infrastructure green over night. We should be more like China.
Tom, two paragraphs later: we shouldn't use state power to combat climate change. let's tweak a few regulations and see what the market does
Classic Friedman. Surprised there is no cherry picked quote from a bellhop or taxi driver.
1
This is terrible political advice. Greens already vote for the Dems. Talking about the Federal Code of Regulations and the permissible parts per million of X chemical will just make everyone's eyes glaze over.
Besides, if Friedman is right that windmills and electric cars are taking over on their own economic merit anyway, then capitalism is already solving the problem and we don't need some dubious government program. This is a program for pundits, not politicians.
1
As usual, Friedman proposes an effective position that the majority of Americans can enthusiastically rally behind (assuming there was an effective leader who can lead the charge). He’s correct in asserting that Medicare for All (and eliminating private health insurance) may not be a winning issue across the broad electorate (even moderate Democrats have issues with this approach). Friedman clearly prescribes how the Earth Race issue can be laid out, positively impacting not only the environment/health (which IS CRITICAL), but also addresses US competitiveness and economic benefits. Finding the ideal messenger for such a position among the top Democratic candidates at this point may be difficult. If the election were to come down to Trump vs. Warren, right now I hope Bloomberg might save the day and run as an independent? He has a clear understanding of all the key issues, can work across the aisle, is pragmatic, and appeals to moderates from both parties. Where have you gone Michael Bloomberg, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you?
2
If Darwinian theory is to be believed, at some point survival is going to poll well. It's just a question of when. The real question is: when that fateful moment arrives, will we be capable of making rational choices? What crazy impulses will be unleashed if we come to realize that merely making a few painless tweaks in the global capitalist system will not suffice?
According to the formula, after denial the next stage is anger. The urge to engage in rampant scapegoating will need to be resisted. It will greatly help if we can understand that the entire industrial age culture underlies the current crisis, and all of us have participated in it. As the philosopher Pogo sagely observed a few years back, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
5
Prepare to juggle! Friedman, you are incorrect! Healthcare is the issue! But the plan people want is a public option with choice to keep the plans they have. Trump's character is an issue. The environment/climate/sustainability is an issue. Gun reform is an issue. Immigration reform is an issue. Prescription drug prices negotiated for Medicare is an issue.
1
There’s already corporate pushback on Trump’s deregulation efforts, but it’s still a tough sell in some parts of the country. What is easy to sell is the protection and preservation of public lands. Millions of middle class, middle of the road, voters love our national parks and our vast wilderness areas. They love the wildlife, the solitude, the beauty. These areas are under attack. The Democrats need to defend public lands at the federal, state, and coal levels.
3
"He can’t pivot away from what he’s doing. He owns it, and it’s villainous. This time is different."
Mr. Friedman, I love your writing, but you're missing something on this one. I agree with the idea that Dems are terrible at messaging. However, you seem to forget that Trump lies incessantly and his supporters believe him automatically, in a cult-like ritual. Just recently, Trump came out touting his environmental record WHILE ROLLING BACK more protections.
As you point out, he's suing Cali for not POLLUTING ENOUGH, but you fail to mention that he's ALSO suing them for having too much pollution. He will just claim he never waged war on the environment, and he'll continue to claim that the air and water are cleaner than ever before, and any contrary reporting will be declared fake news.
And then there's this: Some Repubs will see through it, but they're willing to drink dirty water as long as the libs have to as well. It's what the historian Timothy Snyder has dubbed "sado-populism."
1
All true enough. But Trump will just say it is fake news by the biased media, and his sheep will believe it despite their being sick and unemployed. A certain number — perhaps a sufficient number — of voters will choose to believe Trump rather than the truth. Again.
Particularly if he has help from foreign governments. Again.
Except many people know better. No doubt Trump's willfully ignorant cult will agree with him. That doesn't mean those with an understanding of the issue and a concern for the future won't be moved to vote against his and the rest of the GOP's inaction. Whether rural farmers, suburban moms, or urban young people, the effects of climate change threaten everyone. I think it could be the issue that can sway some voters. It can also motivate idealists who stomp their feet and don't vote if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination.
Two of the most deadly words in the English language are "burdensome regulation".
Every polluter knows the phrase.
Every polluter uses the phrase.
3
Nothing’s funny here, of course. Trump is monstrously PHONY. “Well, THAT’S phony, because....”
Tom Friedman’s great column should be thought in terms of appealing to swing voters, who likely have difficulty taking Earth-scale considerations to heart, but DO easily feel the personal harms that Friedman highlights.
A dramatic reality which the Trump voter should recognize is that they have been betrayed by daily fakery—The Fake Presidency of a cynical real estate salesman who just wanted to fluff his brand.
The Trump voter wants friendly paternalism of the strong leader—but that's to be a strongman who is reliable. Trump is a vastly cynical phony. He proves day after day that he suckers people.
YES to the Earth Race means collaborative global leadership that causes the likes of China and India to actually do far, far more than the U.S. needs to do. But Trump thumbs his nose at keeping America great in Earth Race affairs. He's a blowhard who doesn't understand what making America great involves.
McAfee’s _More From Less_ is about technological leadership within America, but what’s needed in American leadership in the world.
The old environmental movement adage “Think globally, act locally” should mean for Trumpists and swing voters: Think locally for the good of acting globally.
China has just surpassed the US in greenhouse destroying emissons. That means they are just over 1/4 as filthy as we are, they have four times the population. Too many people in this country are worried about plastic straws and light bulbs to worry about saving the planet. When WWII broke out, the US quickly mobilized, of course that involved a great deal of profit, but it shows it is possible to make significant changes quickly. But, it will involve some sacrifice, and based on commercials, we deserve more, MORE, not less. Sad, but true.
1
That candidate's name was Jay Inslee. He didn't make it far.
Friedman forgets that the Democrats took the House basically running on one issue - health care.
1
From your mouth to the ears of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Friedman- though the logic of the tactics and messages you’re suggesting is so painfully obvious that I fear the DNC has not only a hearing problem but is intellectually challenged to boot. In other words, they should have started pushing these messages months ago.
Reading NYT can give you tunnel vision and that is precisely what many NYT readers have. I am no climate skeptic but sometimes go to the "dark" side to see what Trumpsters are thinking and it breaks my heart! Gretta is seen as a misguided child of propaganda Liberal parents who are then blamed for her mis-adventures. Climate change is scoffed at repeatedly. A whole major party denies it to the core. This is no laughing matter but it is on the other side. I have my doubts if the slogan, "it's the environment stupid", is going to get GOPers to change sides.
What we do need is more Dems taking climate change seriously and voting like their lives depend on it, because it does. This include a humble plea to my fellow brethren of color and race who may have stayed at home in 2016. No time to waste here the world is spinning towards Armageddon.
2
Very true. Democrats be specific when calling out trump because the anti-environment things he does get lost in the his everyday corruption, scandles and dangerous executive orders
Is this the latest plan, somehow put the environment and health insurance as a human right as somehow in conflict? The "mexico will pay for it" dig can just as easily be applied to any environmental scheme- (and is ridiculous as a critique: they are both expensive endeavors and also both worthwhile).
Mr Friedman, which taxi driver told you this one?
1
I will vote for Thomas L Friedman for President of the United States in 2020
1
Thank you, Mr. Friedman! “Medicare for all” is a losing issue, for many reasons. I am a Democrat and not in favor of this. Strengthen ACA, have a public option, yes. Remove healthcare through employers? No, that is a losing issue. And we, as a nation, cannot afford to lose in 2020.
2
Didn’t Jay Inslee make climate the overwhelming issue of his run for Democratic nomination? How did that work out?
1
@APM from PDX
Jay Inslee is terrific. However, as you see, the candidates had little time to make their mark. They either needed to have great name recognition or simply be able to make an enormous impression on stage in a short amount of time. That is not a good way to do things for such an important office.
That does not mean the issue of climate change is not a primary one. I donated to Inslee, hoping he would make the debate stage once again, especially for the Climate town hall, but the polling simply was not there for him. The field was too crowded and that early on, I don't think the debate format is the way to go.
I thought the climate town hall format (though 7 hours long) was the appropriate format. If we had done this for every issue, we would have a far better feel for the candidates - then and only then - should polling be used to cull the field. We have to get to know them first.
I think candidates for the office of President deserve to make their case, even if it takes awhile, so we can choose the best and think in more depth about the issues. We don't need to spend loads of time on silly food fights in debates, on day one.
1
Letting markets determine the most effective solutions, in our current political context, means letting them fight to produce government standards of effectiveness that benefit them rather than their competitors. Big Sugar got Uncle Sam and the health community to pay attention to fats rather than sugar in dealing with our obesity problem. Autos and airlines work to keep passenger rail underfunded. Ethanol may or may not be energy efficient all things considered, but it sure increases the market for corn, and that is why it was adopted and persists.
As long as market forces can get away with prevailing by tilting the playing field and tweaking the rules to their advantage, our environmental efforts will be too expensive and not effective enough. The Earth Race must also include a race to make the rule changers, referees, and umpires of the economic game independent so they can base decisions on what they think will be good for the game rather than what will be good for their continuing allocation of favors in return for support by powerful players.
The Earth Race will be rejected by many as just another attempt by certain runners to rig the race in their favor. People may agree that we are in big trouble from global warming, but still think that the Earth Race is bound to fail because governments are incapable of resisting the forces that rig them, and the only solution is the individual one of getting enough money to buy a place in a still-livable area.
We
I believe there is a real disconnect between aspirations and reality. People say they believe in climate change and are for green energy- and will vote as such. They believe we can convert to green energy by finding new technology, rolling up our sleeves, creating jobs in the process, and living happily ever after.
The reality is much harsher. This green energy is only part of the problem- and you need fossil fuel to create green energy systems- try mining and smelting with solar power. We have aquifers drying up, our oceans are filling up with micro-plastics, insects and birds are dying off from pesticides and habitat destruction, forests are being destroyed to grow more soybeans and pistachios for billions of people in Asia.
Would those enlightened people voting for green candidates also vote for: preventing development of private land in flood zones or deserts, banning SUV's, doubling the price of food to farm organically, penalties for more than two children and limiting immigration, prohibiting international vacation travel,limiting meat consumption, and debunking the premises of perpetual economic growth and consumerism?
I don't think many enlightened people would vote for candidates who would publicly favor such policies necessary to truly avoid collapse.
3
Well, much of this is of one piece - the environment, concern for adequate healthcare, employment and housing for everyone, &c. But, as Ms. Thunberg pointed out so forcefully yesterday at the UN, the mindless, undifferentiated focus on `growth' as well as the undiscriminating view that 'free markets' always allocate resources in the best possible way are two tenets of the ideology, theology really since it's based largely on faith and dogma, which have caused us so much grief. I suspect if we culled through Mr. Friedman's opinion columns over the last several years, we'd find him worshipping those false gods with the best and rest of them.
"If a candidate can’t make headway with that message, either America is doomed or he or she doesn’t belong in politics."
I fear it's the former Mr. Friedman.
America is divided and nothing will change since we've condoned the monetization of information for way too long.
Each side only hears what they want to hear because the FCC is non existent and "news" is now flavored entertainment.
People pick their prefered version of news and that's all they consume. Their facts are fine, their science is fine and they don't believe what they don't want to believe. And now politicians can pick their voters with gerrymandering so compromise won't be happening anytime soon.
Whoever wins inherits a new world where our credibility is diminished and the "word" of America no longer has any meaning. Our alleys know it, our rivals know it and our enemies are doing all they can to make it happen.
Our social media society encourages outrage, fear, anger and hate and now there are news outlets and elected officials that support your view regardless of what that view is.
If a Democrat is elected they are facing a divided country with a former president on Fox News nightly criticizing them, lying and making things worse.
America as we love it I fear may indeed be doomed.
1
This is the one issue where Trump is trying hard to make me a Democrat. Alaska will see more change in the next four years than it has in the last 40 if Trump's policies come to fruition. He's pushing hard to open ANWR to oil development, permit the Pebble mine, build the Ambler Road, log in the Tongass, open the Donlin mine plus a 300-mile transportation corridor to serve it--and who knows what else. Some development makes sense. Antipathy towards the environment, or those who value it, does not.
2
Climate is a winner among young people, but many middle aged people are finding they can't pay for health care even with their insurance. Others, like me, who are onMedicare, want everybody to have what they have, only better.
You offer no support for your position. It is judgment, based on unfounded opinion. You are in the top ten percent and don't worry about health care.
Nobody likes their insurance. Where did I read that?
What is important is that more explaining be done about how a public option is not feasible, because taxes can't be set retroactively depending on how many sign up. And it may not be free. Medicare for All will be free and paid for by taxes, especially on the wealthy. That money your company pays for your insurance? It will be yours, especially in such a competitive job market. Sen. Sanders explained this last point briefly in the last debate.
2
@dr. c.c.
What a lot of people do not realize is that Warren, is polling close to the margin for error in swing states against Trump, and she has not even brought up the issue of taxes.
In addition, we are not talking about adding 30 billion or a few hundred billion per year to our outlays with Warren and Sander's proposals, the estimates have been 32 trillion over 10 years. This is 5 times the total projected defense budget over that time. It is half our projected outlays over that period and since we are already projected to rack up 12 trillion in deficits, this means we would have to double our entire yearly tax revenues just to break even.
Double tax revenues.
Now, I think the estimates are high, but this is what Politifact presented.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/13/cost-medicare-all-sticker-shock-or-bill-relief/
Sander's plan gets us half way there with increases to payroll taxes and a tax increase on those making over 250,000 a year. He gets us to 16 trillion. Warren won't even really address the issue when confronted and simply says overall the middle class will save. This may be true, but when you look at the unprecedented price tag how do you convince voters in swing states?
When the more moderate plan of a buy-in to medicare will also work, and costs far less, why waste political capital on Medicare-for-all when we will need large amounts of revenue to address climate change
We can't do anything, if we don't win
1
“How do you convince voters in swing states” - like other voters. Just because they live in swing states doesn’t make them special (except in the power they wield). A good start would be to stop promulgating falsehoods like the implicit claim that healthcare is currently free.
Thank you Tom; I would send this to Greta Thunburg if I knew her email address.
I think this could work. You might even be able to bring along some evangelicals by selling them on the idea that God placed us here as stewards of the planet.
1
Terrific. With the lamebrain NYTs efforts to arm Ukraine, Friedman actually puts something in the NYTs that shows a major effort must be done to remove Trump.
Yes! Thank you!
Thomas Friedman for President!
2
send this to E Warren & Sanders... heck all of them! Excellent and Thank You.
2
Let’s start calling 45 for what he truly is, “Polluter in Chief”
We live in a horrible country.
We're not acting normally. We're acting stupidly.
That girl from Sweden owns my heart. She said it all.
1
Save the Planet, VOTE for Democrats.
Catchy.
1
Bravo!
Amen!!
This is my favorite Thomas Friedman column of all time. Mr. Friedman, please take a sabbatical and work for the Democratic PR committee.
3
EarthCare for ALL !
Americans need to stop waiting for some political leader to save them.
It’s time to declare war on the fossil fuel industry. The next time you fill up your gas tank look up at the logo on the big sign and remember that Exxon Mobil or Shell or whoever doesn’t care about you.
They don’t care about your children.
They don’t care about your grandchildren.
What they care about is raking in billions as fast as possible before the whole Ponzi scheme finally collapses.
Each of us needs to start taking action.
Drive as little as possible.
Refuse to drive certain days if the week.
Walk. Ride a bike.
Or just stay home.
1
"If a candidate can’t make headway with that message, either America is doomed or he or she doesn’t belong in politics."
One candidate, Jay Inslee, tried this precisely. he ran on a single platform of according supremacy to climate change issue. He did not find much traction and had to drop out of the race. Call it lack of sex appeal, but this issue does not resonate much with the electorate. And yes, that means we are doomed.
This is the issue that will end all talk of politics..
Excellent suggestion, tho It is probable that President Pence will employ some also
great suggestions in his pitching for Electoral College votes, so thus we won’t know until voting day, or
day after, Wednesday, Nov 4th.
recall that President Nixon needed the next day
because Hubert Humphrey came so d close.
DJT shall be impeached/removed, or wisely resign.
The young people will elect the Democrat by nagging their parents.
That sixteen year old Swede has an impact, thank
deity for her stage presence.
The only appropriate response to this opinion is "Thank You." A great argument that short and succinct.
Our children are now being taught science of pollution. When trolls are frightened by democrats running for president I cite the pollution that Governor Schwarzenegger said was actually killing people. How many people are drinking bad water? How many will die before we care about our collective rationalism equal to, and not distinct from common good?
“People people people.”
People are the problem, not the victims.
1
Fox News anchors recently did a bit “owning the libs” by slurping a hamburger decorated with incandescent bulbs thru a plastic straw.
Emphasizing environmental pain and green industry opportunity in the Fox News base needs to be a priority.
Great article. I also agree that AOC said it first. Love her.
1
Let's see. This column is about Democratic messaging. The title?
It's the Environment, Stupid".
Just who are you referencing as "stupid", Mr. Friedman? Democratic pols? Democratic voters? Americans?
There is validity to your concept within the column.
Politics is the art of persuasion, and your argument is that "Medicare for All" will not have enough buy-in from enough voters for Democrats to be successful at the polls.
Throwing the word "stupid" in the title of a column like this is pretty poor salesmanship.
I know. It was paraphrasing James Carville's line "It's the economy Stupid". But this isn't 1992 and you aren't James Carville with his Cajun accent. You just turned off those who need to consider your point. They could take it that you think those you are addressing are stupid. That's not a way to build credibility and change people's minds.
1
Trump's failure to believe humans have an acceleratingly negative impact on climate was perfectly by his snarky comment of Greta Thunburg at the U.N..
1
Just what are Conservatives conserving anyway? Maybe we should start calling them “Despoilatives”?
2
Take heed please, Democratic presidential candidates. Elizabeth Warren, do you take advice?
"The greenest thing you can do is this: Choose the right leaders. It is so much more important to change your leaders than change your light bulbs."
-- Thomas Friedman, Oct. 21, 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/opinion/21friedman.html
1
As usual, Friedman makes his case brilliantly!
1
1 vote for TF speech writer. Sounds better than any speech I've heard from the candidates. Regarding young people, should you care to hear how/if your message is received on the Trump-supporting side, read the following from which I quote "kids have nothing interesting to say to us":
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-activist-united-nations/?commentId=98144fa7-5a4f-4274-9e88-8d4b595c2198
Running on environment is not only a great way to win, but it builds the political capital to take action.
Project drawdown has ranked ways we can reverse CO2 build up by effectiveness here
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
Amen.
“It’s the Environment, Stupid” is brilliant!
This is one issue where Thomas Friedman's columns frustrate me -- and even frighten me.
The usually very perceptive Friedman consistently refuses to recognize that for millions of American voters, environmentalism is a cultural -- not a scientific or economic -- issue.
To them, global warming is unproven (or an outright hoax) and green technologies (solar energy, electric cars, intercity mass transit,
urban bicycling programs, etc.) are just extraneous doo-dads and expensive hobbies that only liberals like -- but want to force on the rest of us.
Progressive candidates need to proactively address these misconceptions right from the start (just as they need to vigorously confront the widespread fear that improved social programs will simply be socialist giveaways to lazy people).
More than touting an "Earth Race," progressives need to campaign that "Green is Red, White and Blue" and that "Green Puts Green in Your Pocket."
7
I thought he covered that cultural perspective quite well by the constant comparisons to China’s embracing of the new clean paradigms.
“China can’t wait to export its fuel efficient cars to compete with American gas guzzlers.”
@Austin W Yes, agreed, a good start.
But I still insist that Mr. Friedman -- and those of us who certainly agree with him -- have to start right from a place where we recognize that "green energy" and "climate remediation" are knee jerk-rejected by millions of Americans as being frivolous liberal hobbies that will cost them money.
Only then will we change minds and win votes.
1
While I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point here, didn't one of the Democratic candidates make climate change the central theme of his campaign? How's he doing in the race?
2
Jay Inslee was too new a face, as well as too old a demographic. It’s more believable that climate urgency comes from someone like Warren. Friedman appeared to imply this using the pronoun “she” at the end of the column.
We dont need an Earth Race, we already have the Most telling outcome of the Moon Race was the most famous photo of history :
'Earthrise from the Moon'
showing our blue planet, lonely fragile floating in cold, dark Space.
- Nixon signed the Clean Air and Water Acts, formed the EPA.
This column makes too much sense for any politician to grasp.
Democrats seem to want to make life complicated. All they have to do is improve Obama Care for those that need it Work on getting drug costs under control.
Realize that the majority of voters realize that climate change has to be addressed and come up with affordable workable ways do it. Not go off the deep end like the Green Deal.
Work with the states to rebuild our infra structure.
And let our allies know that they are our allies as well as we are their allies.
2
The president doesn't make health care policy--the congress does, and "Medicare for All" if a perfectly good starting point that Democrats should not run away from. I would prefer universal coverage with a public option, but either way, health care should stay front and center. Throwing in the Earth Race can't hurt, but as another comment points out, we already have the green "Green New Deal" so why do we need an "Earth Race?"
I thought in the last election and now in the upcoming one, the Democrats' slogan should be, " Don't they have grandchildren, too?
3
Trump the con man: he's coming for you.
Easy to sell, and the great market share of FoxNews, FB Twitter, and the bots and influencers go to work with 'the working man's billionaire. Millionaire Fredman shouldn't concern himself with the working people either, the workingman's op ed is out of touch.
You're absolutely correct, Mr. Friedman. I liken this pervasive ignorance of climate change to watching someone tied down on the tracks, as a train approaches. It's 100 yards away, moving at 1 mph. What do we do? Remove a piece of track? Free the helpless person? Both? Just do nothing and watch that person die?
The train WILL NOT STOP.
We don't seem able to grasp slow moving, INEVITABLE danger.
And we have an ignorant, rich/spoiled fool in the WH.
The environment IS the gravest threat we ALL face. It SHOULD be the #1 issue at the heart of the presidential discussion. We'll see.
3
Thank God for that Swedish girl.
That's reality.
3
A majority of young conservatives now agree that climate change is THE issue in the U.S. Since most people don't read anything but two line Facebook news now, a good solid phrase like "It's the environment, stupid!" could be the easiest way to wake up those who have been silently ignoring the circus in Washington while barely clinging to the GOP. I think Friedman is right on. "Medicare for All" is definitely NOT the way to get people to change their minds--unless they are over 50.
79
Democrats! Are you listening?
Mr. Friedman, Would you PLEASE run for President???
Thomas Friedman for President.
Right on!
It’s called The Green New Deal... where have you been?
27
@RVB
While an indication of some concern, the Green New Deal is completely inadequate and we are on track (at current rates increasing) for 1.5 by 2021, 2C by 2025 and 3Cby 2030. That's it. By 5C all life of Earth as we know it dies. Come on, we need radical change. Plant based diet, air travel for urgent trips only, and stop driving cars, all cars. This is not something the government can get us out of. It's US, our eating habits and our travel, basically, and the fossil fuel industry (while corrupt and horrible) is basically supplying OUR habits, OUR lifestyles. Even if we spent all the energy to transform to alternatives, which takes resources, it will make NO difference if we don't change our diet completely away from meat/animal and drastically curb our travel. We are pointing the finger and not acting ourselves, and there is no time. Really.
4
US of A Tom has his!
Thomas Friedman should run for President.
And that idiot of Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil is wrong: "Amazonia does belong to humanity", not to the Brazilian capitalist that burn it to grow soybeans and cattle for export.
We need a worldwide alliance to protect Amazonia from the Brazilian hungry capitalists.
Few politicians truly grasp the magnitude of the threat posed by global warming, and fewer have the courage to support the large scale changes needed to mitigate the worst impacts. As TF says, a candidate who both understands and is bold enough to propose sweeping changes like those he discusses can gain broad support. That's why he should support Elizabeth Warren!
1
The SS Trump has hit a Thunberg..make America Greta again..
1
This is a brilliant analysis. It's always stunned me that people living in places with tainted water and dirty, choking air vote for people who don't care about either. Michigan went for Trump, yet Flint is still experiencing problems from bad water. Alaska went for Trump, and he is promoting drilling in the most pristine parts of the state. Could keep listing states--Montana, the Dakotas, etc. Friedman is absolutely correct the environment is a winning issue. Run on it.
This is why Jay Inslee was my first choice. : /
1
Bravo! This is the issue for our day, and it's not just about us. It's about ALL the species (you know who they are).
Mr. Friedman - I think you should run for president. You have the recognition and intellect necessary to be a real contender. The environment should be the first and foremost issue to address. How can you address healthcare and immigration reform when your house is on fire. One thing at a time - put out the fire!
Thank you, Mr. Friedman. PLEASE!!! Candidates! This is the best instruction you could get. The one who runs with these ideas will win.
Like your comment about mileage standards.
In 1970-73 the Japanese were making the Subaru , Honda and Nissan among many others. People called them junk. It was big American cars and trucks that most had. Guzzlers all...
But that was the beginning of Japan and Europe catching up and overtaking us with smaller well built high mpg cars.....
With that happening we adapted too.
Trumps idea[s] could do great harm to the auto industry....
Of course this is from someone who refuses to look at history.
Tom Friedman is clearly a living genius.
He understands the complex interplay of Mother Nature , politics, psychology and the bottom line :
Poisoning the environment has deadly consequences for all living things- therefore all Trumps ideas about the environment ( as well as other areas)- are untenable on its face.
One doesn’t even need to be very smart or informed.
Looking around everywhere tell the story.
Would mayor Pete pick Friedman’s brilliant message and run with it ?!
Yes! Thanks Friedman. It's a good start. I would love to see this conversation in a debate with Trumpster. It would be a rather one-sided conversation, as he'd only be stammering "maga...maga...maga..." but it would be entertaining to watch him squirm.
It’s so infuriating and beyond absurd that the people who support Trump and support his policies of destroying the planet are making this decision for everyone in the world. We all share this planet! As Greta says, how dare they! If Trump supporters could stop watching Fox News and get the actual real news they’d wake up from their long foggy dream of MAGA. What a sad joke that slogan is.
1
Great article Tom, I’m on board. And my vote is too.
Good luck with winning the elections in USA on the ground of environment. Of course, that is not difficult on the pages of NYT. And, when at it, tell us how exactly will the economy of today cope with a sharp switch of environmental standards and how will it affect our everyday life. If you can keep it real, that would be nice, however impossible.
1
After several debates and plans issued, the Democratic candidates would be seen as flip-floppers if they change positions based on columnists' opinions' of the moment.
They're unlikely to present Friedman's views better than Friedman himself. Should he throw his hat into the ring, Friedman could induce voters to take a new look at the campaign. Many would like this "Earth Race," with Tom Friedman easily winning a million votes!
As a smaller, cheaper alternative to the progressive Green New Deal, "Earth Race" means enjoying hamburgers. Yay!
2
It's all of it, Stupid. Climate action, universal healthcare and equality go hand in hand. These are not separate issues. It's all part of a whole system or what Elizabeth Warren calls "Big Structural Change". The American for profit healthcare system is failing the 99% of us. No one really loves their private insurance. It's gotten way to expensive and but we are desperate to have anything at all. People stay in jobs they hate or while they are fight cancer, afraid of loosing their insurance and doctors. At corporations and in gov't the top tier HPE's get the best platinum plans while the rest of us get PPO plans with high copays and deductibles or HMO's which limit choice of care providers. We understand the older generations don't really have the same urgency but Gen X, Y and Z are sick and tired of the greed which we have seen only becoming worse from the 80's to now with full on outright criminal corruption working in collusion in the highest offices all over the world for all of us to see. Climate action is urgently needed right now but every American knows of a healthcare horror story among their family and friends. Americans feel the failing healthcare system directly.
That's so reasonable that you'll get nowhere with it. That was Jay Inslee's message, and he got 1% among the Democratic Party members.
How can a person who fails to value Earth value humanity?
Do enough Americans care about the environment to make it a winning message? I'm not so sure.
Americans continue to elect Republicans, who represent the single biggest threat to the US environment; a party that would (and does) happily destroy the environment for short term economic growth.
1
Here is the latest EIA headline: "EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050, led by growth in Asia." The majority of that growth is industrial. The global increase in renewable energy as a percent of total is projected at 28% in 2015 vs. 15% today. 69% is fossil fuel based. Technology may significantly change these projections, but the reality is that developing economies (especially China and India with their huge populations - millions of whom live without power in their homes) continue to increase their use of fossil fuels.
3
Wasn’t this Jay Inslee’s whole campaign message? I agree environmental protection and the economic potential of green technology should be a winning message. Apparently, the voting public is not yet convinced.
3
We need to focus on both the environment and healthcare. Trump is vulnerable on his pro-pollution, anti-regulation initiatives, which only a hardcore FOX addict could support. We need an issue which will motivate the young to actually show up at the polls, and the environment could do it. On the other hand, when you're 50-something or 60-something, being bankrupted by a medical crisis is a more immediate concern. Healthcare is the issue that is most crucial to the middle-aged voters who show up reliably at the polls. To me, the issue that should be pushed aside is free college. Only 40% of U.S. adults have a Bachelor's degree, which means the majority don't go to college or don't finish a degree. Make it possible to refi student loans at lower interest rates, or discharge in bankruptcy. Resume Obama's initiative to shut down predatory for-profit "universities" that saddle their students with huge loans for worthless degrees. Put the tax money toward healthcare and green initiatives.
3
Nice essay, Tom, but it fails to take into consideration the views of voters in key states for 2020, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where Trump won, albeit by a narrow margin in 2016. These states are heavily industrialized, and even though green industry is a compelling proposition, I have heard neighbors in my family home in Michigan say, "Coal is here to stay and won't go away anytime soon." It will take an economic proposition tied to climate arguments to sway these voters. My own father, an auto worker, used to say about industrialized coal power plants near our home, "Better to get cancer in 20 years than starve to death today." In other words, the economy is the key message for swing voters...
2
Well said, and a brilliant campaign strategy. I hope some of the high polling candidates for president read this, because there's some great arguments to be found in here. However, I do wonder why Jay Inslee's campaign never caught more momentum when he was doing just what you said.
1
@Ethan B Because Inslee has a terrible record on protecting animals. He will not breach the dams, causing the orcas to starve for not having fish to eat. He allows wolves and bears to be hunted for rancher interests.
Fantastic essay....I sure hope Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete and Cory Booker read this (my favs). Thomas is exactly right, this is the core issue. Without a healthy planet, what are we left with? And green-friendly industries have to be potentially vastly profitable, so the economic upside is real and significant if given some time to develop inertia.
So many of our core issues seem inter-related, but it seems obvious to me that we have to start with the challenge of getting the planet healthy again. Once we do that, the strategies to deal most other dire issues will become apparent as well.
1
This is a no brainer for those who work in the life sciences or have had the fortune of receiving a broad education in ecology and biological diversity. Everyday we see the unsustainability of the flawed world’s economic and population models and have voiced concern to deaf ears for decades. Now, finally it is becoming more evident to more people and now is the time to choose where we go from here.
2
Let's be clear that Mr. Friedman is not diminishing the urgency of universal healthcare. He's saying that if we don't quickly make changes to mitigate climate change, we won't be worrying about healthcare because the survival of our species will be at risk from catastrophic changes in sea levels and in air and water quality.
He's absolutely right! We now have a president who has removed safeguards for Americans that protect them from foul air and polluted water, and he encourages further expansion of coal mines and petroleum extraction. What he should be doing is encouraging the growth of solar and wind power--which would create thousands of jobs.
1
If governments can't get the job done, what about a non-profit green bank that is dedicated to low interest long term loans on environmental projects and lending to individuals for those solar panels, point of use water heaters, and electric cars, etc?
Honestly I'd prefer by credit card points as well as interest go towards helping others save money and fund these projects We can also use our purchasing power by demanding companies we buy from to show how they are helping to alleviate climate change. Perhaps they too can put a percentage of profits into the green bank for projects. As people pay back these loans new projects are again funded and so on.
When I saw poor Greta, I kept thinking that so may want what she wants and would love to help her, but that she was simply, perhaps, asking the wrong people by focusing solely on the worlds political leaders. There are other ways to pool funds and resources - banks for one.
1
"All 18,000 public buses in Shenzhen, China, a city of 12 million people, went electric by the end of 2017. ‘Taxis soon followed suit,’ "
Electric vehicles are not the answer - if the source of the electricity is carbon-based - most of those cars are running on coal-fed power - shifting the emissions elsewhere - making the air in Shenzhen better, and someplace else worse. Plus making the batteries are extremely harsh on the environment and the carbon expended to make and transport materials is high.
3
I absolutely agree that Medicare for All is a losing issue. I disagree with it on principle -- the US is not a country that nationalizes industries -- and I don't think it practical, either. That said, it isn't just about the environment. Democrats would do well to focus on everybody being able to earn a living wage for a good day's work. Not just a $15 minimum wage (which isn't a living wage in San Francisco or Manhattan, but on the idea that one full-time job should be enough to get by, and that everybody should have at least the opportunity to get ahead.
1
The environment is the most important issue, but it's not the one that will win the election. The country already is divided over environmental policy in a way that won't change until after Donald Trump is president and the political temperature can go down a little.
1
I like that Friedman gives the environmental challenges we face a concise phrase "the Earth Race." While it may not be ideal, the issue has to generate political traction on a grand scale. Also, given the GOP and evangelical blindness to all things climate or environmental, Democrats do need to win it seems. So, without a political win we are probably doomed. Virtuous arguments will be meaningless in that case.
1
It’s overpopulation stupid.
Crickets
4
I would like to hear more about the assertion that 'total resource use in America is declining".
Does that account for the fact that a huge portion of our manufacturing has moved overseas?
If a Chinese factory burns a ton of coal for electricity and dumps its waste in the ocean, can we say that America is cleaner?
I see another angle here. We need to apply our environmental laws to embodied resources in products we buy, not just the sites in our country where real things are made.
For instance, if a company chooses to close a factory and move production overseas rather than comply with air-quality standards in the U.S., what good has the law done?
I see no reason why Democrats should not join Trump in making a target of Mr. Friedman's beloved Free Trade. Rather than dumbed down, non-sensical Twitter rants however, Dems can say this: We'll compete with the world, sure - but if you're sending goods here, they'll have to be produced under our human-rights and environmental standards, or face a steep tariff.
That to me is really the only solution to the jobs vs. environment dilemma that has bedeviled Democrats and allowed Americans to consume like there's no tomorrow. Its either outsource pollution, or enforce our regulations on goods coming in.
2
There needs to be not one idea like the Earth Race, but hundreds if not thousands of ideas. Ideas that get put into action. The situation we're in is beyond dire. But it is not hopeless. We need to pull out all stops and get a critical mass of people, not only here but from around the world, to do something, no matter how small to start to slow down, and eventually reverse greenhouse gas emissions. ClimateDonor.org has initiated a project to organize student hackers to develop apps for climate change and species extinction. Those apps will be freely distribute to the general public because what is often missing is a way for the general public to do something easily. Thank you Tom Friedman to keeping the public informed on what we can all do.
1
It is too bad none of the Democratic candidates for President have used Tom Friedman as their political consultant and speech writer. This is the best campaign speech written this year. It addresses THE point in this campaign and explains its importance in language anyone can understand.
3
As Jonas Salk said: Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.
The time is now for a Green New Deal. Join those of us who envision a better world or step aside.
1
Hear, hear. But of course so much of political discourse is now being influenced by giant corporations who LOVE Trump and what he has done to gut the EPA and mock climate change at every turn. Chief among them, the oil and gas industry. Can we really believe that these people will remain neutral when their entire business model is at risk of becoming sidelined?
Spend some time on social media and witness the vicious and relentless attacks on the public faces of the climate change movement like Greta Thunberg and Al Gore (still, after all these years). These seem to come from some deep and dark place and are frankly disturbing. I think its naive to think that Trump is acting purely out of some noble (to him) impulse that in order to create more jobs you have to destroy all environmental checks and balances. There is a much more sinister force at play here and they do NOT play fair.
2
@Mark Crozier people are afraid. Fear leads to denial. Trump uses the fear to his end.
Education is needed.
We're soon to lose it. We can't fix it.
We should view fossile fuels as a gift from God to start our industrial revolution, but we need to be smart to prevent the climate horror that could follow.
2
Great article. Loved it. However, to avoid the worst-case scenario of climate change, the transition to clean energy must happen even more quickly than what Mr. Friedman, I believe, has in mind. Perhaps a more gradual, market-based transition to clean energy (as I believe Mr. Friedman is talking about) would have worked ten or twenty years ago, but conditions have changed as carbon levels are much higher than they were then. With carbon levels this high, we will enter a new, devastating phase of life-threatening conditions if emissions are not cut to zero - or close to it - within the next five to ten years, according to all the latest scientific reports. To cut emissions that drastically will involve not only market-oriented solutions, but also direct, massive government intervention. This massive action is what the protesters (mostly children) are fighting for. They are fighting for their very lives.
1
Earth is our home; the only planet we have to live on. Today, more than ever before, we continue trashing it. Just weeks ago, scientists warned very publicly, that the wild bird populations of North America are plummeting. Our natural heritage is endangered as never before.
2
"Oh, Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountain side..."
You're not going to coach the younger generations out of Medicare-for-All with human survival as the trade off. You can support both. The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Preserving life is at the heart of climate change.
The offer is dishonest anyway though as Joe Biden is still the Democratic front runner. Is he better than Trump? Sure. He's still a hand-holder for people not truly committed to change of any sort. Presenting climate change as a political calculation misses the point entirely.
I thought Greta Thunberg made that point clear. Climate change is non-negotiable. Making "headway" isn't good enough. You've already lost my vote if you couch your positions in deliberately manipulative ways.
I was at the climate march last Friday in Denver. I saw a very clever sign that read "If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money."
This climate crisis is bigger than D Day and getting a man on the moon combined. Be part of the solution, or step aside.
3
I am getting a bit tired of reading and hearing conservatives lecture democrats on how to campaign this season.
There has been so much damage, not only from t rump but from republican politicians of all stripes, that an all out call for inspiration to get things done, on all fronts seems to be what is needed.
JFK inspired US to go to the moon, to do the hard things. He also helped finish the interstate highway system and began to work for racial and economic healing.
We did, and can do, more than one thing at a time.
1
Democrats must energize young voters to win in 2020 and beyond and prepare the US for a healthy and wealthy future. It starts with a candidate who not only puts young people's priorities at the top of the program and is not two generations removed from thirty-somethings.
Tom, it's about time. Capitalism's mantra of more growth and more profits has brought about this problem. OK for the first 200 years we might not have known what we were doing but now we know and we must reprioritize. A Green New Deal should create more jobs related to cleaning up the environment and private enterprise should get on that bandwagon.
Friedman is right to make a call for "Green Race..." not to the moon but to ecological sanity.
Oddly, he counsels against the Green New Deal as being too much to take on.
He should look into the efficacy of a simple Carbon Tax (fee) that remits the proceeds to the public as an economic stimulant. (conservatives like this approach, generally).
Markets (business men) hate taxes and will naturally avoid them and seek sustainable practices; solar and electric vehicles would become even more competitive with fossil fuel power production.
And maybe it is time for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to look into the reasons we are so far down the path of ecological disaster and haven't yet done much about it.
Fossil fuel companies have denied the science while taking profits and benefiting from doing nothing. They owe the public for their negligence.
I don't understand why this hasn't been the message all along. Climate change is an unproven science, expansive and largely misunderstood. Most people who have ignored it or argue that we have no impact likely have no scientific background, received their knowledge from an article they read somewhere and are convinced in their convictions, a typical American voter. And largely those who claim to want to fight climate change are not willing to change their habits. What's worse, beyond fallible connections to weather events, we have little hard evidence of climate change in the short term.
What we know much more about is the impact of standards on our local environment. While relaxing standards may benefit businesses and free up economic expansion, in this case it has a direct, provable and litigated connection to health issues. Acid rain, pesticides, pollution, all directly linked to deaths and maladies. Politicians need to focus on this, press this, because there is a case. Trump dominated in the non-college educated voters, many of whom will be on the negative receiving end of his policies.
Dems have to be careful not to over promise, and act like they can regulate out harm from the environment. And some will still not listen. But there is a far more viable argument to be made when it comes to the EPA and it's direct effect on our environment, than trying to convince non-believers of a pie in the sky about climate change.
I agree with much of what you say, Mr. Friedman, but I believe there is a serious flaw in your analysis. We can no longer rely on the amoral forces of the market and technological innovation to rescue us from the evils that have been unleashed upon us by those very same forces. Miss Thunberg had it right when she called the allure of eternal economic growth a "fairy tale." An explosion of innovation, as you call it, that will create thousands of new products is not the answer. We need a new model of sustainability, one that will acknowledge the sacrifices that are required and the need to embark on a new path that will restore the health of our planet and our society. In the 17th century, John Milton wrote a beautiful and prescient verse in Paradise Lost (Book I, lines 678 - 93) which portrayed men, under the influence of the fallen spirit called Mammon, as having "ransacked the center, and with impious hands rifled the bowels of their mother earth for treasures better hid." I keep going back to Milton's verse and commend it to others. The language may be archaic, but the beauty and wisdom of his words is timeless. Mammon cannot save us.
This sounds too much like "The American Exceptionalism" approach that Sirvent and Haiphong are warning us about. The metaphor "race" is too reminiscent of Cold War division. I think that Jeremy Rifkin's work is the future in "Empathic Civilization." It is going to take a cooperative of nations using green energy and renewables - and not a competitive "race." And for this vision we need new leadership - and must shed our white nationalism - in all its vestiges - including this one.
theirs is a movement in search of courageous political leaders......
I call it “the Earth Race.”
Interesting that Mr. Friedman wishes to rename the Progressive Democrats ‘Green New Deal’ and dismisses it as trying to do everything at once. A valid concern but Mr.Friedman, misses the point.
The New Deal was designed to counteract the worst excesses of Laissez Faire Capitalism. The major driver of the Environmental Crisis is precisely Laissez Faire Capitalism with its grotesque enrichment of a bloated few; that is an essential change to protect Human Society and the Environment.
A ‘Green’ New Deal speaks for itself.
Mr. Friedman’s wishful thinking; based essentially on cleverality, is no match for a wellfounded critique that will appeal to the Young.
The mass movement of young people who want to save their future might say to Mr. Friedman’s cleverality – “How Dare You”!
1
Friedman:”I am not saying that the Earth Race is the only issue to run on.”
I am!
-What will it matter if we adopt immigration reform in the next four years if Climate Change makes portions of the planet unlivable?
-What will it matter if we get Medicare/Obamacare/Corp Care If crop yields fall.
-Will Black lives matter if islander lives don’t?
-Will students care about a free education once it is clear that the most educated humans in all of history abetted the melting of the ice caps?
-will a mass shooting have as much impact as the halving or quartering of the human population (maybe overstated, your number is as good as mine either way the argument is made)?
111
Environmentalism may not win the election by itself, but there is a place for it in the campaigns. There may still be naive Americans who, like Ayn Rand, think we all ought to thank the biggest, dirtiest smokestack we can find for all of our blessings, but even they understand that a Clown in Chief who allows industry to needlessly pollute its citizen's homes and air is neither keeping its promises nor meeting its obligations.
Besides, this leads into the larger issues of proper government spending. If we force a polluter to spend an extra dollar keeping our water clean, thereby saving ten on public health costs, that's real savings that the Chump Administration does not understand, because the savings helps us all, without directly enriching the One Percent.
I think Democrats can walk, and chew gum, at the same time. Climate Change AND Medicare for ALL. What plans do Republicans offer? Uh, none.
1
Dear Thomas,
If you were a floor washer in a supermarket chain maybe you would feel that Medicare for All (or any health insurance) is an issue on par with the environment.
Jay Diamond
The message here should be broadcast everywhere, frequently.
Talking about the environment, Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil, like his counterpart, Trump, is burning the Amazons and declares that "Amazonia does not belong to the world", and that "it is not the lungs of the world"; so they can go ahead and burn it all for profit.
The world has to do something: an alliance to take it away of this criminal.
Why is it that the party of the religious right has so little concern about the Earth and about the fate of all of god's creations upon it? Why is it that their actions are so misaligned with their convictions? It's so typical and so sad.
I think there is no question that Democrats have failed to make an issue out of what Trump has done to the environment--both those that affect people (clean air & water) but also the attacks on public lands & oceans through drilling-mining-welfare ranching. Indeed, TV media have mostly ignored these issues despite coverage by NYT & Washington Post. I closely cover the Dept of Interior & its actions have been despicable but public is unaware of what they have been doing. They have put energy industry lackeys in ALL top positions in the dept--those who oppose public lands & End Species Act are now in charge of protecting them! For 454 documented examples of harmful action see https://www.wildlifepolitics.org/blog
1
The term "Medicare for All" is wrong, Stupid!
I cannot know how much research lies behind each Democratic Party presidential candidate's thoughts on transforming public health in America but I do have a basis for suggesting what would have been best.
Best for me would be the candidate who tells me:
Here is how Universal Health Care (UHC) actually works in 3 countries where the public health results are better than those for the USA, cost less, and where private insurance is available should someone want it.
And here is how that UHC works for counterparts of groups that in the USA have the absolutely worst overall health statistics.
I know first hand US Medicare and SE UHC. SE UHC has as first point of patient-health care contact the neighborhood clinic. SE UHC results in statistics for identifiable groups, for example "Seen as black in America" but here seen as "born in country x or y" that apparently are impossible in the US. I have in mind pre, peri, and post natal health care as a fine example. SE UHC allows for private insurance and private physicians.
I wish Elizabeth Warren had been able to follow my "this is the best way" plan.
My other area of special and professional interest is environmental change. I cannot accept Friedman's arguments.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
Friedman is so right on. Well articulated and is a winning strategy for a democratic candidate and party and America. We need to rid the planet of resident Donald Chernobyl, the worst disaster in the world. He is a criminal and an international mobster paid for by Russian oligarchs. Money laundering, follow the money. Republicans, get out of the way. You have work to do after you stop working for your 3 branches of government, Oil, Banking, and Pharmaceutical.
1
Seriously addressing climate change as if it were a second rate stump speech to attract a gaggle of voters is less than serious. Confronting climate change will transform our economy and our politics in unimagined ways. How can it be otherwise? Have you watched Fox News lately, or after Climate Strike last week? Have you paid the least bit of attention to the California wildfires and the actions taken by PG&E to cover their behind and boost their stock price? Please. It will take profound sacrifice, the kind of sacrifice essential to mobilizing the country for WWII. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fool and a charlatan.
52
This has been obvious for a long time. Since I turned 18 in February of 1974 I have considered environmental stewardship and healthcare for all as my primary concerns for our lives, oh yeah peace on earth but that's part of the big picture. Needless to say there aren't many Republicans I could vote for. Trump is the worst ever but that's been obvious for a much longer time than his short fling as a dictator. Vote Blue!
1
China isn't the answer. It's the most polluted country in the world by a large margin. Followed by India, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. These children, they don't want to give up their iPhones by any chance? That's what I thought. Save your USA bad rhetoric.
What a great message. One or more of the leading candidates should retain Friedman as their speech writer.
Thomas, you completely miss something much more visceral and obvious. As Bruce Springsteen said, paraphrasing: “I don’t think Democrats will win in 2020 because they don’t have a candidate who speaks Trump’s language.” About 5 people who voted for Trump in ‘16 will swing Democrat next year because of messaging (wise, mind you) like you advocate in your column. The rest are too brainwashed, ignorant and/or incurious to listen beyond the second sentence of your supposed winning campaign rhetoric.
Most people vote based on emotion, not reason. Who they identify with, for whatever reasons. This applies especially so to the most uneducated & ignorant voters - which includes a vast swath of the Trump base. They vote Trump because of language like “Lock Her Up, Build the Wall, Send Them Back!” and a certain culture and worldview they identify with most (patriotic, Christian, pro gun, pro life).
For someone as savvy as you, it’s astonishing how detached you are from the basic realities of the Trump electorate or for that matter any electorate.
This is exactly what Jay Inslee kept saying. How about a word of appreciation from Mr. Friedman? By the way, an excellent approach.
Inslee?
Right on! and Right on!
Earth Race, environmental stewardship, care for our common home is THE CORE imperative of our era. We have been sold a bill of goods for over a century promoting the idea that more stuff, bigger gas guzzling cars, bigger houses, a wasteful mindset and throw-away culture are the measures of happiness, success and fulfillment. Our actual values that drive us as Americans have been pounded into us by the likes of corporate advertisers telling us that to be a real man you need to drive a Ram 250, monster SUV, that women need to buy their kids sugar water (Coke, Pepsi) and McDonalds burgers to be a good mom. This is insane. Trump is simply the worst of them all, lying daily to please his political donors (Kochs, Exxon, etc).
Bill Clinton used to exclaim... "it's the economy, stupid." Maybe in the 1990s. Time for the truth now.... "it's the SYSTEM, stupid." The SYSTEM is so corrupted as to actually be the equivalent of a mass suicide pact for America and humanity.
Health care is clearly important and no reason (other than corruption) for Americans to pay double per person for our health care than any nation on earth and we're ranked 37th in quality of care by the World Health Org. If we continue destroying Earth's health and life, there will be no need for doctors, nurses, pills and hospitals. We have a planetary health emergency, and earth's fever is destroying all life and we humans, especially Americans, are the cause. Like it or not, it's the uncomfortable truth.
Right. Frankly the Green New Deal was exactly the platform the Dems needed: bold, imaginative, sculpted by our minority women reps, something to strive for, VISIONARY! Nancy just muttered about costs, disrespected the young'uns -why?-and opened the door for Trump's scurrilous attacks on them. Now that she's seeing reason in punishing treason, recognizing that leadership involves standing up to an attacker or truth for that matter. Get young, Nancy. Live your best life. Go party with the squad. Dance like no one's watching. Admit you were wrong and forget costs, those lame GOP talking points. Elizabeth Warren is right. And Dems standing tall in Red States will win voters. The people who never vote Democrat respect stand-up and be counted leadership. Some may still abhor lying and self-dealing. Nancy, you're heading in the right direction now. Let's heal the wounds and focus on the real opponent.
Way to go. Put this message out there everywhere. It makes overwhelming sense in a crazy upside down presidency.
Along with my concern about the environment, I find myself fretting about the culture in which my granddaughters are growing up. A few decades back some member of Bill Clinton's crew, Carville I think, came up with the deathless witticism, "It's the economy, stupid." Since that time many a prose stylist seems to have found this construction (fill in the blank preceding the comma) irresistible. As a reader I find it utterly resistible. As I limp into my eighth decade, I wish that all the would-be H.L. Menckens, G.B. Shaws, and Yogi Berras would retire the phrase, which wasn't even noteworthy the first time other than as an indicator of the poverty of of our political discourse.
Okay, Tom, I’m sure many of your readers see the wisdom in this column. Now it’s time to go from macro to micro. Please tell your readers what they can do in their daily lives to reduce their individual carbon footprints.
Tom... the far right is, shall we say, far ahead of you. The right has been working feverishly to establish the undeniable (inconvenient?) 'truth' that environmentalism is a heinous socialist plot. Medicare For All and The New Green Deal are both losers... if we believe that all information comes only from Fox News or inane right wing internet blather.
I am personally more concerned about the environment than health care... however, I am fairly certain that I am in a pretty darn small minority in that respect. Anything the Democrats come up with will be subjected to Trump's standard low-brow ridicule, taunts, bullying, lies, and blowhard-ism. They may as well go after what's most important to the American people.
O please let the democrats read this article. And act. Would be good not only for the US, but for the entire world...
1
This column reminds me I wish Democrats would hire a communications consultant.
What a dumb opening paragraph. Sorry to be so blunt, but it really is a very stupid comment. Medicare for all polls very well, with a majority of Americans supporting it and healthcare being one of the strongest issues Democrats can beat Republicans on, easily. Transitioning our healthcare system to a single-payer system would SAVE $2 trillion over ten years. That's not some hippy dippy progressive's calculation, that's the calculation of a Koch brother's funded study by a conservative think tank. And we wouldn't even be talking about climate change if progressive hadn't consistently been bringing it up, thank you Mr. Friedman. Good grief, the policy amnesia establishment Democrats have is stunning. Next, they will be telling us it's the economy stupid and we need a living wage for workers. Duh, do you think? Progressive have been touting all these popular policies for years trying to get the head-up-their-establishment Democrats to push for these popular and constructive policies instead of actually fighting them. "Medicare for all will never come to pass!" screeched Hillary on the campaign trail, yet we are all talking about it and it polls well with 70% of Americans supporting it and even 52% of Republicans in favor. The same with climate change. We all remember Nancy Pelosi derisively sneering at the "Green new whatever they are calling it these days." Well, we're talking about it aren't we, Mr. Friedman? Thanks to progressives. Welcome to the resistance sir.
1
Stupid me, I guess, but if CO2 emissions are our number one problem, why does Mr. Friedman make no mention of the only reliable and proven alternative to fossil fuels, other than geographically limited hydro, namely nuclear?
Nukes have their own environmental downsides, namely risk of meltdown, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation. However, proponents of thorium-based Molten Salt Reactors claim that they are safe from meltdowns due to a gravity-powered mechanism that does not require backup generators, produce only 1 or 2% as much waste as U-based reactors, and cannot be used to produce plutonium for bombs.
Wind and solar farms are environmentally destructive in their own ways -- even aside from the space they take and their unsightliness, the materials that go into them must be extracted from the earth, and then long transmission lines are required to get the power to markets.
2
Have you considered running for Prez??? Everything you write makes incredible sense. Thank you for such cogent, well thought out opinions...always look forward to what you have to say.
@KRC
I agree. Thomas Friedman please consider running for President! Finally someone has mentioned it. I have been scrolling through all the responses looking to see if there was a like-minded comment about Mr. Friedman running for president. So many times after reading Mr. Friedman's column I have wished that he would run, we really could use someone intelligent like you!
Dear Mr Friedman,
It certainly makes good sense, why isn’t the Democrats using it ? I could only guess the reason Dems aren;t using it ,is because it has nothing to do with Socialism, which the Democrats are pushing with Medicare for all. You can bet the Republicans will use Medicare for all and Socialism against the Democrats, which will give Trump another 4 years.
Lets not forget impeachment,whose purpose is to energize the Democrats & increase revenue from the rank & file. What you thought it was to get rid of Trump, which is vertitually impossible, as long as the Senate is Republican.A typical money grab by Socialists.
Too bad, the rest of the Times readers will never read my comment.
1
Hoorah! Yes! Eloquent and timely.
I liked Jay Inslee for just this reason, but his message didn't gain any so-called traction. Maybe he wasn't the best messenger, although he had plenty of pertinent experience.
But the candidate who will espouse this "platform" will get my enthusiastic support. It's so hard to believe that the current administration is allowed to gut the science labs and agencies of Agriculture and Interior, as well as EPA, and roll back all the protections we fought so hard to get for water, air, land, and other species. We allow the Siberian Candidate to roll back the Endangered Species Act the SAME WEEK that we discover the US has lost 3 billion birds! That's BILLION with a "b"! How is this even possible? My heart despairs.
1
Let's not make the environment an issue for political gain. It is a matter of survival of our future. The welfare of either party is petty by comparison.
38
@Todd Hart
Might as well also say it should not be an issue of national gain, such as leading the world in sustainable growth as in the opinion piece.
2
@AF Environmentalism has become so politicized that we can't make any real gains due to the gridlock. This is what happens when we make serious issues into partisan issues.
@Todd Hart
The only way I can parse this is that you are saying politics should never address issues of consequence. I think you may be mixing up the functions of government with those of entertainment. That's what gave us our current administration, no thank you.
9
Thomas Friedman invokes John F. Kennedy's call for the Space Race as precedent for his "earth race." Disappointingly, Mr. Friedman drafts a stump speech that is little more than a critique and recap of Trump's execrable record.
Am I the only reader to find this less than compelling?
Perhaps it is worth reproducing part of JFK's famous Sept. 1962 Rice University speech:
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."
Let me paraphrase and update Kennedy for the current era:
"We choose to decarbonize our economy in the next ten years to save our environment, our children's health, and ensure our perpetuation as a species, not because it is easy, nor because it is hard, but because it is _necessary._ Because these goals will serve to organize and measure the best of our intellect, energies, and skills. Because these challenges are ones we cannot evade and can no longer postpone. Because meeting these challenges will elevate our nation, indeed all nations, and unite us in common purpose for social, economic, and scientific advancement. Because our failure will bring shame to us in the eyes of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."
Uplift and inspiration wins elections.
399
@A. Reader
Too many Americans aren't even aware of or keeping up with 'Trump's execrable record."
Nor do they have the facts so a recap of this record is the necessary first step toward making the environment a key campaign issue to bring all Dems together rather than Medicare for All which divides them.
Moreover, most Americans have no idea that -
"There are 42 Chinese companies actively manufacturing and selling electric cars in China right now — and they can’t wait to ship them here once Trump forces our manufacturers to make more polluting gas guzzlers."
"All 18,000 public buses in Shenzhen, China, a city of 12 million people, went electric by the end of 2017. ‘Taxis soon followed suit,’ TechCrunch reported in January. In Shenzhen today, 99 percent of the more than 21,000 cabs run on electric batteries."
Make America Great Again? Not with Trump.
28
@A. Reader As I recall in the space race putting a man on the moon was the very clearly understood goal. The earth race? Also, the truth is the space race wasn't all that difficult. There were absolutely no collective sacrifices involved and all we did was throw money and technology at it. Climate change? Nope, going to be really really hard and take more than slogans and ideas from the past
4
@A. Reader Very well said, thank you
3
Carbon tax.
1
Yes. And the progressive candidates do know this. Warren and Sanders both support the GND. They should talk more about Trump’s flagrant, nihilistic destruction of the planet.
2
Trump has no real agenda.
His agenda is to over throw everything Obama did.
Obama can live without Trump.
Trump cannot live without Obama.
1
I wish you were running for President. Ever give it a thought?
1
Thomas - well said -now use the "boiled frog" syndrome to illustrate howwe will wait until it's too late to decide to save ourselves unless we make a major paradigm shifts - the physics of the earth - fluid and thermodynamics - governs everything we and all living things have done, become and ever will aspire to do.
1
Brilliant point! Yes THE EARTH RACE will help the Dems win in 2020. But are they smart enough to listen and change? ?
1
No, Mr. Friedman. It IS Medicare For All.
Try to keep up.
Definitely the best political pitch ever. Democrat candidates please make it !
2
Best article ever! Soooo true!
2
Friedman is delusional. I doubt that in a country where it seems almost everybody drives a ridiculous sized pickup truck or SUV that the environment is a winner. I can say that a very large % of Americans, including those with health plans, are one healthcare event away from bankruptcy.
Exactly right; under 'normal' circunstances, a troglodyte 'brutus ignoramus' who, in spite of the evidence, chooses to deny man-made climate change...and the urgency to do something about it, deserves to be obliterated politically...to cut down Earth's losses in time better spent helping the environment. To my knowledge, there is no democratic candidate unaware of Trump's weakness, and stupidity, to forgo moving things to their advantage.
Trump's regressive environmental approach is so 1960's that it is almost laughable. Laughable if it were not such a devastatingly serious issue. He not only imperils the US but also the rest of the world. Our planet is very sick simply because fools like Trump ignore the obvious in favor of profits.
The only solace here is that Trump, his family and his cohorts are not immune to the devastating effects of what is here in the now for all to clearly see.
Procrastination is no longer an option. It is here it is real and it is having an immediate and rapidly escalating impact. Listen to your children they know more than procrastinators because they listen learn and are not yet tainted by partisan ideology.
3
It's the Environment, Stupid because what happens to "The Environment" happens to each and every one of us. It's kind of like those who are tone-deaf to globalism also don't get it that we are all on this ride around the sun together. We ARE the environment, stupid!
And there's no better recipe for ensuring national health than ensuring that the scorching heat, severe draught, deep freezes, torrential rains, floods, fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes (not to mention toxic air and lung disease) and other climate and greenhouse gas-related disasters we're experiencing don't get any worse. If they do, our universal Medicare wouldn't be much more than a band aid on an open wound.
And the economy? There isn't enough wealth in this world to compensate for the economic losses currently being caused and which will continue to be caused, at an exponentially greater rate than we've seen this last fifty years, if climate change continues to accelerate.
I have to ask myself what planet the climate-change skeptics are on whenever I hear them give their analyses about how we need to "balance" the effects of greenhouse gas emissions against economic growth. Literally, what planet do they live on?
2
Friedman thinks we can't walk and chew gum. It's not progressives you need to convince Tom, it's the "Centrists", the Flat-Earthers... lol.
If we stop subsidizing the oil companies cash will be freed up to develop new modes of transportation like high speed electric trains.
2
Insane that it is even a question.
1
"The Earth Race doesn’t need a giant Green New Deal that tries to change everything at once, as noble as that goal is. "
This is wrong! Winning slowly is the same as losing when it comes to climate change. As a writer for the nytimes, you might want to look into the science of climate change.
This is rediculous. I want affordable healthcare desperately. This is a life or death issue for people. And I participated in the climate strike. Why the heck are these issues mutually exclusive?
1
False divisive dichotomies indeed!!!!
Finally someone who gets it. Thank you Mr. Friedman.
2
It is sad that in order to galvanize Americans only childish slogans such as the Space Race or the Earth Race will do. Crude emotional slogans.
The Democrats cannot support unfettered immigration and saving our planet. The two do not go hand in hand.
1
China will press ahead with climate change solutions to benefit the Chinese people. Americans will benefit collaterally. But China will reap the economic windfall exporting their technologies. America will be left behind.
Working to combat climate change doesn't just help to save the planet. It's the only rational economic path to the future.
Most people get that. Trump clearly does not. Hopefully, he will be impeached and will lose the election next year and we will be rid of him. Sane American leadership will then embrace robust action on climate change and environmental protections. Then we can all get on with the business of life.
291
@Blue Moon
Absolutely correct.
China owns one of the next great revolutions: the green revolution.
China apparently owns another one of the next great revolutions: quantum communication and computing.
Most Americans can't tell the difference between quantum and cumquat.
23
@Blue Moon. If China is so green, why are they building coal fired power plants domestically and other countries? Also, just because they are building wind turbines doesn’t mean they are getting generation from it. The have double the wind turbines of the US, but only slightly more generation from wind power than the US. I’m all for green initiatives, but let’s put it in perspective.
8
@Tyler C
Last I checked the cleanest American coal plant was dirtier than the dirtiest Chinese plant.
Yes, burning coal does generate more CO2 than burning natural gas for the same amount of electricity. However, removing CO2 from the waste stream is pretty effective -- and China leads here.
On wind turbines, the later you start, the larger the turbines you will use (because there is more wind up higher off the ground where the larger turbines run) as the technology improves. The US has been a comparative late starter to the Chinese. (yes the US has had turbines earlier, but then took a 3 decade break.) Lots of older turbines mean more turbines for the same power. China builds more new power turbines than the US and exports them (like solar) around the world.
Yes, indeed, perspective. China still has dirtier air because of our 50 year head start on cleaning our air and water. But they have taken the challenge, done the design (or licensed it), and scaled the fabrication to meet their own demand--and that of much of the rest of the world.
14
If there were an issue which should be bipartisan, it is the environment. The earth is our shared responsibility and its fate will be ours, too.
Trump, beyond inexplicably claiming be a leader in environmentalism earlier this year, has more than washed his hands of any stewardship. He pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, mocks science, is targeting CA for their own regulations, and was flippant at Monday’s UN Climate Summit. Most Republicans are no better; they treat environmental protections as a hindrance to business and governmental overreach.
So yes, Democrats should take this as a major campaign theme. We need a counterpoint to the GOP’s glib attitudes. We need sustainable treatment of our planet for all life forms. Science and morality are on the right side, but time is not on our side without immediate action.
428
@NM
I agree 100%.
Yes, people want assurance that Dems will ensure their health insurance coverage is not destroyed as the GOP intends to do, but that doesn't mean Medicare for All is the solution that satisfies them.
But the environment - not the Green New Deal or any other "plans" that have come out of the candidates - is what needs to be elevated to the top of the campaign issues for whoever is the Dem candidate.
Start with the outrageous reversals of nearly all agency (EPA, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, HHS, FDA, etc.) regulations that work toward clean air, clean water, safe food, safe medical products, and on and on and publicize them for the American people.
Among all the egregious things Trump has done in three plus years, this is the most serious to me.
20
@NM
Mr. Friedman's brilliantly effective piece should also inspire another voting bloc: true Conservatives, who understand that their values entail conserving our land, our air, our water, our forests, our coasts, our country's natural heritage.
Please mail or tweet this brilliant piece to every Conservative you know. And tell them they're welcome to join the side of sanity.
22
@NM I wholeheartedly agree! People from across the political spectrum want clean air and water. Conservatives and liberals alike enjoy outdoor recreation - hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, swimming. Nobody wants their kids to get sick from air pollution or pesticides. Nobody wants trash washing up on the beach where they take their family. There will be differences in how to achieve these goals, for sure. But at least there is agreement on the ultimate vision - unlike government run healthcare.
6
Thank you, Thomas Friedman, for stating what is obvious to many, but not enough in the media.
As I stated in a reply below, environmental concerns will impinge on the lifespan of humanity, unless addressed immediately and emphatically. It is appropriate to compare it to Kennedy's space race in that we need all hands on deck, educators, scientists, engineers, and policymakers. Curbing climate change is the ultimate health care policy.
1
Dear god help me, I think Friedman is actually kind of right.
While I think guaranteed healthcare for everyone would poll much better if the polls were conducted with more integrity, I do also think the word "villain" is the best descriptor that could be applied to anyone Trump allows anywhere near climate or energy policy. These people are so clearly and so unapologetically putting the interests of rich connected people above those of the roughly 7.5 billion of us who don't hold millions of dollars in stock or executive positions with extractive industries. He's literally appointing oil industry lobbyists to positions that should be held by scientists.
Of course, this is partly due to the fact that Dems might talk a good game, but are actually also pretty weak on climate. In this particular area, I'm kind of sympathetic to the idea that 4 years of someone as awful as Trump might actually help us get closer to targets than 4 more years of Obamaish "win/win solutions" fiddling around the edges and cooked up with industry at the table.
But, yeah. It pains me to write it, but Friedman is right. Dems should run on climate, and try to control the narrative for once by centering Trump's active hostility to breathable air, drinkable water, and a livable planet for our descendants.
This is a rather selective historical reading on the impetus behind the Space Race. Would it have happened without American concerns about keeping an eye on and weaponizing the skies against a Soviet enemy?
I just read Friedman's 2009 book (better late than never) Hot, Flat, and Crowded. The most compelling part of the book is the third part, "How We Move Forward," in which Friedman explains in detail why government intervention, legislation, and policy are essential to the addressing the climate crisis in order to create market conditions in which clean energy is feasible at a large scale. Many European nations are already implementing these kinds of changes, why not the United States? The 2020 election is critical to our planet.
Agree fully!
Also bear in mind this is at its heart an international issue, calling for US participation and leadership (if the rest of the world will still have us).
Please make sure a copy of this opinion piece is sent to each democratic candidate. Also to the moderators of the next debate. It’s time to focus on areas other than healthcare during these debates. I don’t want to just see the candidates poke at each other, I want them to show their passion and plans on saving the planet for future generations or healthcare will be a moot point.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about the irony of modern living. At no time in history have we been more aware of the environmental impact of our actions, yet waste is likely at an all time high as well.
Things that can help the environment, with no tax whatsoever:
1) Reuse, recycle--obviously
2) Reduce consumerism. (Think how many gadgets end up in the trash, how cheaply clothing is made because people want to change wardrobes frequently, how parents and schools alike buy cheap toys or party favors as incentives or gifts that just end up in the trash after two minutes of fun).
3) Encourage companies to make quality, serviceable products, rather than throwaway items--including computers and phones that are readily upgradable.
4) Encourage companies to reduce waste on packaging. (Remember, toys weren't always tied tightly with multiple zip ties to custom-formed plastic trays, boxed, security tagged and triple-taped.)
5) Allow, by default, off-grid living to reduce dependence on energy companies. At one time, this was the norm!
6) Consider keeping automobiles out of densely populated neighborhoods (with a few exceptions) and expand bike routes.
7) Encourage buying locally grown food.
I fear that if Democrats focus on an environmental plan with a price tag in excess of $1 trillion without addressing the sources of waste, the pushback will be too great and people will not feel empowered to change.
Many good points. The States and the companies should take the initiatives and us. Whats stopping the young and everyone else to buy electric cars today. All that enthusiasm should show up in the market place.
But isn't it interesting that when Macron raised the fuel taxes to penalize fossil fuel usage the yellow jackets did not want to pay for it and protested. So PARIS accord was signed in Paris but Parisians did not want to pay for it.
Because it will effect the poor people the most if Govt tries to push it. So let the markets do it.
But your statement about Trump not being business friendly does not cut it. He unleashed the animal spirits which is why people want to invest their hard earned money for potential returns which has led to this economic boom. Not part time retail jobs of the last decade. As business is a very risky proposition where u can lose all your investment.
Yes. The greatest threat to mankind's future and to the well-being of our nation comes from Trump's environmental policies which ignore science and throw us back decades at a time when urgent action is needed. Building an economy on renewables will create many more jobs and will make America prosper more than anything Republican have suggested in the past 50 years.
Yes. Medicare for all does not sound like a good message. Let Americans chose between a public option and private insurance that by law should obey well defined standards (e.g., not discriminate against preconditions). Elizabeth Warren would be well advised to be less dogmatic here.
As is already pointed out in this comment thread, climate change is an existential threat. The Earth has been this warm and much warmer in the past, but not with people on it. Were we to stop the pollution we create today there would still be the droughts, floods, rising sea level, hurricanes and typhoons, and climate migrations that we already have. The damage is not finished but it is enough for even the slowest thinker to connect the dots. Reversing this unfortunate trend will take the rest of the century and beyond so brace yourselves for an unpleasant future that may become more unpleasant every year. Population will be reduced the hard way and with it the need for better healthcare, inasmuch as the facilities that provide will be overcome. One should prepare for reduced life spans and the poverty that brings it.
If we don't act now on preserving our planet, generations of human beings will suffer great consequences. Young people understand it's already their future. I understand that some people have immediate problems in their lives, which supercede them big picture. We must convince them that the high cost of paying for fires, floods, hurricanes, lack of clean water and air will mean less money to address other human needs. Thank you, Mr. Friedman.
1
You have to do much more than this to run for President on climate change and environmental issues. Fear mongering can prevent action but it doesn't inspire action. You have to frame the issue in real, understandable terms: what we have lost and what we stand to loose as global warming continues to accelerate. Money is the acid of compromise. Remember big tobacco denying for decades the health effects of smoking and then, in the end, that they knew anything about it? All lies.
Many excellent points in this article. The Democrats should use them in 2020. Wonder iif they will?
Love this environmental message. It's the only message for this pivotal moment in time. Make sure every presidential candidate reads this column.
Seems to me that if young people are so motivated to march for environmental issues and gun violence issues, they will probably be more motivated to vote.
Personally, I think the Democrats should run on some version of "Let's finally end this nightmare!"
1
It’s a good idea to campaign on something that can unite us on many levels. We all are concerned about our health and well being; it’s time to get the message out loud and clear. Protecting the quality of life on this planet has never been more important or more in danger with over seven billion of us living here.
Trump’s roll backs on environmental protection and his mockery of the truth of climate change is dangerous and abhorrent. I also think in addition, it’s important to move away from identity politics as that divides and polarizes us. Time to unite against the destructive force that has taken over our government.
1
Never mind that good employer insurance is hard to come by--when people do manage to find such a job that provides it, they may find themselves keeping a job for the insurance benefits above all else--consider this scenario:
Twenty-five years ago, my parents were paying over $16,000 per year for insurance for the two of them for a self-employed HMO plan for nearly a decade. My mom sought treatment for a lung ailment, but it wasn't until two years after that that she was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. She frequently had to travel up to two hours each way in severe pain for diagnostic testing, treatments and so forth even though there were ample facilities within a 5 mile radius.
One year after her diagnosis, my dad, too, became severely ill, and now, with no household income, he lost his insurance rather promptly, so us children had to pick and choose what medications we could pay for out of pocket (otherwise would have been thousands a month). Attempts to get benefits for them failed miserably.
My dad was approved POSTHUMOUSLY for Medicaid, ensuring at the very least, the hospital got some of the nearly $200,000 they billed for. The insurance company he paid into for so long, didn't cover a dime.
Additionally, my parents paid tens of thousands of dollars for medical care for my brother, who was uninsurable as a youth due to a car accident. Once he turned 18, he qualified for Medicaid, which provided outstanding coverage for his conditions, and still does.
4
The race should really be about saving humanity. Since we are mostly a human-centric society, the emphasis should be on human health, which in turn would protect the Earth as humans need it to survive. To many humans, environmental issues remain an issue only the affluent and elitist liberals care about.
Good article.
Although unrelated, I'd add that in addition to the Earth Race, Democrats need to transition away from all identity politics which is what gave us Trump. The 10's of millions who voted for Trump prove that the "conservative" vote is less about policy and more about identity.
I know and encounter a surprising amount of Hispanics who support Trump because at the end of the day we long for a government that doesn't pander to our color but character. And while Trump is a poor example in many regards he does appeal to those who couldn't care less about issues of race and culture as presented to us by the PC crowd and practitioners of identity politics.
However misguided many Trump voters are, at their core they just want to be free to speak about their life's experience without being dismissed.
Identity politics is a cancer upon all people because it divides us; Trump/GOP winning elections is the predictable backlash. You simply can't tell the majority of a country, especially the women, that your sons, fathers and husbands, most of whom are good people struggling just like everyone else, are the cause of all our problems when in reality they are also "victims" of the same oligarchs, right wing misinformation, as non-whites.
If you break the law, murder, steal, rape etc you're going to jail regardless of race. The majority doesn't want to loosen those laws or imply that some angle of identity is the reason that one individual decided to hurt another individual.
3
Enough with the focus on the president. Anybody who hasn't made up their mind one way or the other isn't going to vote anyways.
It's important that this message be extended to all Republicans. The president is just a Republican mouthpiece.
Look to the youth for ideas. It is not progressive to save the planet, but realistic. But will the media, the main source of propaganda in our coming election, be moral enough to tell the truth, to counter the propaganda from the King of Mar a Largo and his "Republicans for the Rapture"? Can we wait until rising seas laps at the steps of his Kingdom in Palm Beach?
Well written.
It seems Trump is an omen in our soul like.
Taking away Clean water and air acts , exactly who does that?
Trump is bad omen , bring out old times discredited, disgraced ideas one last time to day light.
Is up to us we shall bury these things one last time their final grave.
1
You should be on the ballot somewhere.
I am stunned by the number of people who just look away from all the carnage trump has unleashed on America.
Keep thinking....and writing. America needs your voice.
2
Totally agree. Things have changed. I don't hear people who used to say Climate Change was a fake, doing much talking these days. I do hear people talking about how things have changed. I hear people changing their mind about getting a house on the beach (or starting to think about selling their house on the beach). Things have changed.
2
Absolutely brilliant! This is the message that will resound with ordinary citizens across this nation. Americans are at our best when we come together over a positive vision for the future that improves our quality of life and offers new economic opportunities. The Earth Race is urgent and it is positive and it can unite us.
3
The main economic engine behind MAGA is "trash the Earth." Corporations salivating over every regulation Trump guts and every asset he orders exploited are complicit.
Once more Friedman misses the point. Starting with health care. To start a piece about climate with the line about stripping insurance fro people is as bad a the ghost of T Bone Pickens could have hoped for. How about, you won't require a phone call to an insurance company before you go to the doctor? You won't have your insurance because you won't need insurance... When you start an opinion piece with the purposeful deception, you lose me...
3
Offering free healthcare without restriction, no premiums, no costs etc. is a "political loser"? In a country where, according to CNBC, medical bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcy.
Because people love their private health insurance? I'm just not buying it, no matter how many times people on CNN, MSNBC and Mr. Friedman tell me.
74
@PP Apparently you have not tried to obtain medical services recently, or you're one of the wealthy few who can afford expensive private clinics. There is a critical shortage of health care professionals and facilities in the United States. One recent estimate predicts a shortfall of 40,000 primary care physicians by 2050. Instead of increasing the effective demand for health care by making it a free to all, we need to focus on greatly increasing the supply of health care services available. If free, quality health care is an objective, an immediate infusion of public funding is needed to make medical schools tuition-free (in exchange for a commitment to perform in primary care roles in underserved communities for a corresponding number of years), and a dramatic increase in the number of those schools and other medical facilities throughout the country. Maybe then we can think about making health care free to all, instead of the free-for-all it will become when that sector is blind-sided by "Medicare for all."
5
@PP
It’s not the case that there will be no costs. Taxes will pay for the system. We don’t know how much taxes would have to be raised to pay the bills.
“Without restriction” seems unlikely. How would the system function without gatekeepers and some sort of rationing? Who will the gatekeepers be? What criteria will they use?
Then there’s the question of timing and sequence. If you repair the ACA and offer a public option then the answers to many of these questions can be determined over time in light of experience if more and more people choose the public option over time.
If you want to go to an all public system more or less all at once then tell us now, at the beginning, how much it will all cost, how much taxes will be raised to pay the costs, how questions of access will be decided and by whom, how things will work as we switch from one system to another, etc.
4
I've thought for years that our way of looking at offering national healthcare--that it's the right thing to do, that it will alleviate suffering, etc.--won't bring it about. The most important fact politically is that it will make us a stronger people; "people" as in "One Nation under God." That's why countries with a strong sense of national identity opted for national health insurance decades ago and are glad they did. And that's why immigration policy and national healthcare are closely linked (as proof, look at the current tensions regarding both in some Scandinavian countries). Medicare isn't free and supplemental Medicare insurance certainly isn't free. Could we transpose our current system to everyone who wants it? Not without severely impacting those who couldn't afford supplemental insurance (a situation similar to what is happening in Germany). We need to disassociate the idea of Medicare for All from "Free Healthcare." Medicare is not free, but it makes us a healthier, stronger country.
1
Thank you for weaving in how important climate change and the environment are, Mr. Friedman.
We have a planet in crisis; it will be fine in 5 million years. Our species, if we continue to live the way we are, will simply become one more extinction in the already arrived age of mass extinctions.
Our air will be unbreathable, the temperatures unbearable, water undrinkable, violence delivered to innocent citizens across the planet by leaders racing back in time to be cavemen.
Or; we can our lives differently, consciously leaving a future for the 7th generation.
From this angle, Trump is a low level irritant, who brings nothing to the table, except his empty bluster and bellowing bullying - a pathetic look during this time of global crisis.
2
This is good stuff because it not only deals in policy but also the reality that Trump is unfit for the presidency. Usually Mr. Friedman simply deals in policy but the elephant in the room is left alone.
It's sad when we can't tell the difference between the analysis of someone with almost 40 years behind the keyboard, and one from a doe-eyed high school kid who has been brainwashed.
But, do soldier on, because I don't buy into progresive left worldview and they now control the Democratic party. And if they make the climate their platform centerpoint, they'll be defeated soundly, which works well for me.
To Republicans everywhere, I would add....in the next few years a whole generation of voters will become eligible to vote. Assuming these young voters will be distracted by other aspects of their lives and not go to the polls is likely how guys like Trump and McConnell will think. But like those rust belt voters who felt no one was hearing them, these voters will be energized and they will vote. Lots of them. And Republicans will regret ignoring them just like Democrats did after 2016. Remember the 60's when the youth of America were seen as sex crazed, pot smoking hippies? Their elders refused to listen to them. The kids were voting for McGovern while Mom and Dad voted for Nixon. And what about those radical kids today? Think Mom and Dad will listen to the pleas of their offspring to vote for a Green New Deal candidate? And see the value in saving the planet? Or will Mom and Dad look at their kids and shake their heads and vote for Trump? And look to save the fossil fuel industry instead?
2
But you fail to recognize, or at least address, the refusal of Trump supporters to accept undeniable scientific facts. His voters accept his nonsensical comments about climate including the shutting down of electrical grids when the sun isn't shining or his claims that a cool summer day proves the planet is not warming. Trump's core will accept his preposterous climate claims because he is the sole candidate to openly take racist, sexist, homophobic and religious positions. His core will sacrifice their health, children and ultimately the planet to preserve their positions on social issues. They also have no concern for any portion of the world that is not America, and in many instances no concern for portions of America they detest. Republicans have embedded science denial in the DNA of voters. The millions who protested recently would not have been voting for Trump in any case. You have far too much faith in the American voter.
3
Couldn't agree more. Great column!
When I saw that Swedish girl speak, I wanted to cry.
When she stood down Trump, I was proud.
This is what we face, together, as a human species.
1
I am heartily sick of this WAY of thinking, and as a pundit Thomas Friedman spreads it: a blithe, routine Machiavellianism, this “use” of “environmental issues” to “win” an “election.” This shouldn’t pass any longer for adult conversation, not after listening to Greta Thunberg at the UN this week. Hear the rage? That’s passion, passion that knows in its bones that our Earth isn’t just another problem we can label an “issue” and so safely hide it away from the need for action. Until we start putting honest belief and passion instead of pseudo sophisticated polling at the heart of our politics, we are doomed.
63
@Kryztoffer
To be honest, the Dems are part of the problem in this respect. Because Republicans are so uniformly awful on climate, virtually any Dem gets to check the box that says "stronger on this issue" and move on to discussing other things. In a sane world, "I accept the science and think it would be great if the world didn't drown and/or burn but don't want to do anything to make oil executives angry" wouldn't cut it.
4
@Kryztoffer Passion among the people is how you leverage it for political gain towards the solutions you purport to want. Trump won't do it, so if you want it, then you must win the election. Is that so confusing?
Passion like that expressed by a leader would be disconcerting, showing a lack of control and thought. Forceful and direct leadership, yes; passion and fear-mongering, no.
1
If most Americans really do cherish their private health insurance, it can only be because they are attached to the devil-they-know and have been propagandized to fear an alternate.
5
Yes it is the environment but you can't cure stupid, in this case you cannot cure a major political party that ignores climate science for political gain. And stop beating up on Medicare for All, Mr. Friedman, because it is simply the start of a conversation about curing a sick and collapsing health care system that favors the rich and kills the poor. Not long ago an elderly couple was found dead in their home in a small Washington coastal community 12 miles from where I live. The man had killed his wife and then himself because, as he explained in a note left for police, they could no longer afford her medical expenses. Any country that tolerates such happenings does not belong in the First World.
4
Democratic success in 2020 greatly depends upon young people voting in large numbers. Given that is the case, the issue most likely to drive that demographic is climate change. Although young people care about health care, they are the least likely demographic to need services at this point in their lives.
2
Broadly agree with the "earth race" however, whomever this presidential candidate is, they must enlist top echelon from the private sector.. energy and mining to "drill" into a new mindset, set of deliverables to conquer the continued carbon growth (e.g. MORE carbon emitted in '18 over '17 with both U.S. and China) unless the private sector demonstrates transparency with actionable output/metrics...forget it...politics are too weak ….big industry must be in on this....like China's big industry...good or bad...from industrial agr. to coal mines still being built, and fracking that leaches methane into the air....BIG industry must dovetail the perceived Earth Race...or Earth is the slow turtle...that won't cross the finish line...while China continues with its auto sector...its taking more mining/energy/concrete manuf. control of SA and Africa.....not in the media that much....
The voiding of California's auto regulations committed to cleaner air, while fining them for not having in place programs to remediate the problem are mind blowing.
As are his claims for being for a cleaner environment.
If you are to lie, go big or go home.
1
@Lawrence
Not fining but withholding funding.
Re winning campaign for 2020, Democrats must focus on climate change and not health-care. If climate warming isn't addressed by our entire government, then health care for any humans on earth won't mean diddly.
2
Nonsense. You can only make that argument on a liberal bubble. "Saving the planet" will be received with derision by many people and as far as I know, one wins elections with votes. Do you forget that they voted for Trump fully knowing that he was a con man?
1
The Earth Race should be called the Government Race.
Big, Big, Big Government - guaranteed to gobble up every single ounce of freedom and every breath of life - in order to save the planet.
Big.
We had such a green candidate. His name was Jay Inslee. He sank without a trace.
2
Earth Race!! It's the environment, yes!! Earth Race also embodies work with allies, democracy, fairness, and human dignity. Earth needs America to step up and lead again.
47
@lfc We need, as much as I disdain the "leader principle", a person to put a face on the force (it MUST be more than a "movement") to fight for the environment, for humanity, for this planet.
Sadly, Greta Thunberg is not running for office
3
This is brilliant. Thank you, Mr Friedman, for leading the way. Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren is reading this.
2
I have one question for Thomas Friedman: has he ever been without health insurance in his life? Has he ever not had $50,000 in savings, in case he was billed for being taken to an out-of-network emergency room, or even an in network emergency room where an out-of-netwrok doctor worked on him, sticking him with a fat bill?
Of course the climate is our first concern, but it is our first concern because we everyone to have access to life and health. Without a stable climate or access to healthcare, they cannot have those things. This problem goes beyond Trump: Obama also did not guarantee clean water to people in Flint, or a habitable earth to all of us, or healthcare to everyone. Brooks submits to a liberal fallacy that we can save the earth for his enjoyment without empowering the poor.
2
Very winning to say: “Sorry folks you’ll have to pay those 100k to the out-of-network Doctor - the environment comes first. We are Democrats so we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Or not. If anyone figures out why the centrists are so desperate to protect the worst organised and most expensive medical care system in the developed world, please let me know. It baffles me.
2
The entirety of Flint, Michigan would vote for Mr. Friedman’s candidate. That’s a good start!
The Trump supporters I know - people with children, mind you - say we shouldn't do anything about the environment because China isn't taking steps. It'd be nice to believe they care about the environment.
1
Amen, Friedman. I am a solid Elizabeth Warren supporter, and wish that she can somehow modify her stance on Medicare for All to avoid the negative reaction to it.
I was in college when JFK energized the nation with the space program and the Peace Corps. Now 80, I hope for that same sense of urgency and enthusiasm with regard to global warming.
What Mr. Trump and his administration have done to negate the progress toward environmental and economic improvement is nothing short of disgusting.
4
Climate change and healthcare are related. I have cancer. It is environmentally caused. And it needs to be the cost of the society and governments which allow this ravage of our food supply, water and air and habitable spaces.
1
Peeps just loooove the idea of taking action to address catastrophic climate change - as long as they don't have to change their own Fossil Fueled, over-consumptive lifestyles.
2
Great article Tom! The person who gets the Democratic nomination should memorize this column you've written on campaign strategy and where the political thrust should be. In fact s/he should hire you on as their campaign manager. If Biden is smart he should offer you the job now.
2
Trump is viewed as a walking Antique. He sees himself as not needing the Environment, but the young people know that the future depends on managing as well as reversing Climate Change which means that Trump must go ASAP. Trump won the Presidency by cheating everyone. His time is up.
1
Not so sure "The Earth Race" is a winner. It sure didn't work for Jay Inslee.
The ACA can and should be improved to make it more appealing to more people. Offering a buy-in to medicare is one option. Private insurance should not be eliminated. Friedman's "Earth Race" should have wide bipartisan by politicians and citizens. Coal is passe, highly polluting and no longer competitive. Trying to make it cheaper and more competitive is not a smart option. A loser on all counts, fewer power users and highly polluting for its few users. Lowering fuel standards also benefits no one. The present and the future is "green". To avoid this conclusion will be detrimental to our economy and health.
2
The message is the correct one and the most universal message that can be. There has been a consistent decades old error in the demand to save the natural world instead of insisting that we save humankind. Friedman has it right. We have to save our children and our grandchildren from a man who is poisoning us all. That we can also create a new and stronger economy for all at the same time is hugely important as part of that message, for several reasons.
Candidates begin with a laundry list and keep selling it, including the wonderful Ms. Warren--people, especially candidates, still afraid to speak of the real horror and increasing speed of climate change. Making this our mission, ignoring the naysayers and going all the way, takes a person of courage. Who will it be?
Denial can be discussed. The darkness of it all is part of our national nightmare and the ongoing trauma of a having as President, a crypto-fascist who is an incompetent maniac. It is repressed in the national consciousness. No matter how often we speak about it, the true horror is denied. For example: it's the real reason for the supposed silliness about the media's engagement with Trump the Incompetent Weatherman; the horror and its dark comic aspect were just too much to face.
To speak with insistence and power and truth is always difficult, particularly when we are busily rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
3
Great ideas, all. If, however, FOX and SINCLAIR do not allow the Democrats to present any of these ideas in prime time (and they won't) or if Trump goes to war with Iran just before the election, it won't matter about the earth, as the people who should care will never hear that message.
A "last minute" war with Iran that he can "win" in 6 months allowing him to lie about it will carry him in as a hero. FOX and SINCLAIR will talk about how bravely he saved American "interests".
The Democrats MUST MUST MUST find a way to counter the 24/7 propaganda of the TV networks that flatter DJT, that brag about how good he is doing and how fantastic he is. They MUST understand that many millions of people do not have any other source of information. They believe that any info outside of those networks is "the enemy" -- the biased press. How do you convince people that the lies are lies and that the truth is true when they refuse to believe it? The "consultant" who tells the candidates what to say and how to say it has never understood working class people. The Dems need to create a working class council to guide them: truck driver, waitress, store clerk, janitor, bartender, housekeeper, dog walker, school teacher, etc. They need to find out what they believe, where and how they decided to believe it and what it would take to change their minds. Will they do that? No. No more than implement the suggestions you gave here. Too bad.
1
Not only does a green campaign not poll well, the U.S., despite its massive power and massive pollution output, is totally powerless to do anything meaningful for climate change on a unilateral basis. Without the buy-in of China and India, which we will never get, fighting climate change is a losing battle. Why sacrifice our own productivity and GDP to attempt a Sisyphean task? Climate change is here, it's happening, and we need to start concentrating on responding to it (incentivizing people to move away from coastal areas, for example) rather than trying to stop it.
10
@Big Cow
"we need to start concentrating on responding to it (incentivizing people to move away from coastal areas, for example) rather than trying to stop it."
Do both. Please.
18
@Big Cow: China is eating our lunch and dinner in developing green technology and as a country we are still the second largest polluter on earth, which means that per capita we are the most wasteful people on earth. Responding to climate change means mitigating it, on a personal, community, state and country level. Passively letting it happen is not an option.
59
@Big Cow "the U.S., despite its massive power and massive pollution output, is totally powerless to do anything meaningful for climate change on a unilateral basis" Extremely wrong. American emissions are still worse than China's per capita, and much worse in a cumulative historical sense - both more important metrics than current national emissions which implies that one size fits all standards should be applied to all countries regardless of their size. This makes no sense. Monaco and the Vatican are not the world leaders on climate change. The US has the opportunity to lead, but it will take courage and vision far beyond what you are offering.
14
Excuse me, but in the space race putting a man on the moon was I think a very clearly understood goal. The earth race? Also, the truth is the space race wasn't all that difficult. There were no collective sacrifices involved and all we did was throw money and technology at it. Climate change? Nope, going to be really hard and take more than slogans and ideas from the past.
22
@jgury
It's a start.
I'm not a fan of Friedman, but this issue is much more of a political one than anything else right now. A lot of people are pretty persuadable, and if Dems frontlined the issue and spent a ton of airtime talking about Trump poisoning air and water instead of things that frankly don't penetrate for most regular people, I don't think it would be hard at all to get the public on their side. And as a bonus, it would likely get more people to identify the Republicans as what they are: cynical grifters who don't care who gets hurt as long as they've got money and power.
2
@jgury Perhaps some sacrifice, but the best solutions that free markets will produce will not. Only central planning tyrants use deprivation to achieve a goal. No, the goal is found by allowing a profit motive, by allowing for pride and achievement, by making the world better and more powerful and more convenient.
@David But at some point central authority is going to have to be exercised to avoid any number of catastrophic outcomes. E.g how they controlled population in China. Or how victory in WWII was achieved. Of course the bigger problem is that authority has to operate on a global basis and things like carbon taxation are pretty weak and even they have not been agreed on at this point. My mini suggestion, that I think would have pretty good impact, is globalized action on slash and burn using something like UN forces or whatever facsimile of that there is. Clearly this is a very serious and recurrent issue that has gone out of control for way too long. How controversial would that be? Very in some places like Brazil I guess, but who knows they can be very progressive at the same time. Africa and Indonesia, who knows. I'm not sure what if any history central environmental authority has. Like they have no problem when they intervene in wars but would go ballistic about monitoring mining or logging.
1
This is a fight that countless people, both well known and not well known, have been fighting for many decades. People who are my heroes, like David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, Leester Brown, Bill McKibben, Wnagari Maathai, and many who are now deceased. Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” more than 50 years ago. It's about time that more people are finally waking up to the planetary crisis that we have created. Many from my generation didn't hesitate to point to the human overpopulation problem. What ever happened to that? Although I am elated to see people protesting in the streets, I see a lot of them as generally uninformed about the underlying, interconnecting issues and the gravity of the climate issues. I barely hear most people even talk about species excinction, and people mindlessly just keep using pesticides and herbicides without even knowing what glyphosate and neonicotinoids are doing to insects and other species that depend on them, including us. I applaud people like Greta Thunberg, Xiye Bastida, Artemesia Xacriab, and so many other youth activists, and I wish them success and courage. We are all now looking to them for answers as political leaders continue to fail us and ignore the planetary crisis.
3
Absolutely, climate changed worked well for Al Gore, or at least made him more wealthy.
This November, a continuing budget resolution will likely run out without a congressional agreement to continue funding the government, resulting in a shutdown. Trump willl twitter nonstop about Congressional Democrats pursing their Witch Hunt against him while refusing to pass appropriations bills with vital national security funding (i.e. the great Wall).
Mr. Friedman, I think this column redeems your writings on the War in Iraq. It is brilliant.
Saving ourselves from ourselves is the best of all worlds.
1
Excellent advice. The Democrats seem clueless on effective messaging. Here's another example of what they should do. Biden recently said he would beat Trump like a drum. Seize on that and amplify it as a slogan. Soon he could shorten it to yelling at rallies, "Like a drum!" And have some big drums with Trump's face on them, with someone beating on them. But that will never happen.
"...saving the environment never poll(s) well..."
This is sadly true. The NYT created a graphic showing the shifting importance of various issues to the US electorate over the last century and the environment never rose above about 2% as the biggest issue.
This may change as the southeast US coast is pounded by one storm after another with massive flooding, fires plague much of the West, scary insect borne diseases creep north into new populations without immunity and mass migrations create political disruption worldwide.
Climate change is issue #1 but Americans will be predictably reluctant to act on a timely basis.
1
The Green New Deal is the epitome of climate change politics led by youthful lemmings with little or no experience in life, public policy, science, business, law, religion, etc. There is no comprehensive user manual for nature, human beings, or mother earth. A little warming and a little more carbon may be just what the planet needs over the long run but minds open to alternative narratives are not allowed in partisan politics or public schools. Intellectual and scientific humility should be in the forefront but it is almost absent from the media narrative makers.
16-year old Karl Stefanovic displayed her tears and fears about climate change in her passionate UN speech yesterday. It was a great TV moment and a new low in public policy discourse from a brainwashed child actor lacking the intellectual skills for independent analysis of this complex subject.
Thomas Friedman is no better than the climate lemmings and child exploiters when he writes, “Trump’s efforts to roll back more than 80 rules and standards protecting clean air, water, climate, parks and wilderness” is “villainous”.
Some of us think:
- California should not have different manufacturing standards
- too much protected wilderness keeps people in cities
- forests can be cut and replanted
- bad international agreements should be voided
- all energy sources should compete
- carbon taxes hurt the poor, etc.
For the love of the planet and all its people, I beg you not to politicize climate policy decisions.
1
I am all for much stricter environmental regulations, however; I believe Jay Inslee would beg to differ Mr. Friedman. He led with the environment and was effective, affable and thoughtful spokesperson for tougher green policies yet he barely made a blip in the polls and was knocked out of the race early.
Key findings of a November 2018 report signed by 13 US federal agencies warning of climate change impacts:
• Human health and safety, our quality of life, and the rate of economic growth in communities across the U.S. are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
• The cascading impacts of climate change threaten the natural, built and social systems we rely on, both within and beyond the nation’s borders.
• Societal efforts to respond to climate change have expanded in the last five years, but not at the scale needed to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.
• Without substantial and sustained global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and regional initiatives to prepare for anticipated changes, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-federal-climate-assessment-for-us-released
Why don't climate change action advocates ever make use of this powerful information clearly indicating Trump and the GOP endanger our health, safety, food supply, transportation, infrastructure, commerce and economic well-being?
3
While personally, I find this a very attractive platform, I don't think it's going to be easy to reduce to a sound byte that penetrates the thick noggins of the electorate.
And out here in the middle of the country where I've planted my flag it just isn't a thing that people think about much. UNLESS it directly affects them.
I'd love this to be the number one issue of whomever is elected because let's face it, all of the healthcare in the world isn't gonna help if the planet is trying to kill you.
The Dems need to wake up and start talking bread and butter issues. They need to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and they need to talk to what concerns them (and the rest of the people in the middle by the way).
I in for Pete Buttigieg right now. Out here, he speaks words people understand.
I've lived in NYC, SF and LA and I can tell you it really is different out here. Take note, candidates.
1
Medicare first. Otherwise, who are we saving the planet for?
1
Interesting thought, but I would change the message to: "Trump and the Republicans are poisoning your kids and their kids."
It's about the future. It's about the world and the legacy we are leaving to our children and theirs. Do we want to be the generation that literally destroyed the planet?
I was just thinking this very thing. Climate is really the only issue that matters. Buildings should be built with climate in mind, roads, bridges public transit ..etc. all should be built with the elevation of excess waste and carbon neutrality.
We have technology that will strip carbon from the air, we need to invest heavily into those technologies to get them up and running now not later.
We've done damage for sure, that will take a long time to recover from. But, we need to still mitigate our effect on the environment. Just simple awareness is a great first step, because being aware leads to action.
Trump's hatred of nature and science (e.g. encouraging methane venting, coal burning, auto exhaust, water poisoning, etc - all embodiments of his own toxicity), is echoed by GOP voters and unnoticed by too many other voters. Good luck.
Do those 169 million people really like their insurance- they are faced with restrictions, decision reversal, copays and HMO vs PPO! I expect they would be happy to escape!
1
Nice piece. Thanks for writing. What you do is what a lot of Democratic candidates this year appear not to be able to clearly state and stay on a more simple message, that voting for Trump is not in their or the countries interest.
4
Right on, Mr Friedman! And add to impeachment the president’s failure to act to protect lives and property of the country he has sworn to protect, but, instead, acted to harm us.
6
Medicare for all is frightening because the insurance industry has trained us to feel like our insurance can be stripped at any moment. We’re a nation of battered spouses conditioned to fear what will happen to us without our abusive partner. I have a great health insurance plan, but I still hate it. Going to the doctor without any idea of how much it is going to cost, then waiting weeks after your visit to finally get a bill in the mail is an insane system.
Here's a slogan for the Democrats. Vote Democrat, not Death Panel. The Republicans are literally trying to kill you by stripping your healthcare, poisoning your environment, taking away food stamps and passing the savings on to companies that produce food that turns your insides to mush, and ensuring insuring every madman in the country has total access to high-powered military weapons.
5
Although the case can be made that the Earth's ecosystems and climate have already destabilized to "biblical" proportions, most people have not gotten the message but they will. The devastation is underway, it's just a question of when humans really begin bending the downward spiraling environmental curve.
Long after Trump and his apocalyptic base are part of our dark history, future generations will be struggling to restore what we destroyed, except of course for the thousands of species that went extinct.
3
If Trump continues to destroy the environment, we will need Medicare for all!
However, while I agree that Climate Change is the most pressing issue we face for the reasons Mr. Friedman states, we must think about those who are suffering from not enough money to put food on their tables. We must think about those facing bankruptcies from not having health care. To these folks, climate change seems remote.
I say we reach out with the immediate problems pressing those in need. Please, Dems, stop with the Medicare for all. We need to improve on what Obama put in place. Period. We need to pass the minimum wage bill that has passed in the House, the same bill that McConnell is sitting on and the one Trump has threatened to veto. We need to pass meaningful gun legislation. I believe for most Americans, these are the issues they care about.
6
I agree with Friedman's ideas. I think Inslee just didn't know how to communicate the message properly. Healthcare and the economy are equally important, but if we don't take care of the environment, both our healthcare and our economy are going to take a hit. A more polluted and hot planet is going to reek havoc with both our health and the economy.
4
I watched thousands of young people march in NYC, a march replicated around the world. The environment and climate may not have been a critical issue in the past, but it is now. Tom Friedman is right. In these days of massive hurricanes, floods, rising sea water, disappearing species... the preservation of our planet is a major issue.
5
Wrong, Thomas - No one in this nation really loves their private health insurance plan. The problem, however, is that you can't tear it down from one day to another without creating chaos, because so many jobs depend on it - it is 17% of the economy. That is the irony: because our present health insurance system is so bloated, it supports an artificially high number of jobs but is at the same time also the World's most expensive. Therefore, the Democratic candidates who support Medicare for all need to come up with a detailed, viable, and credible plan of how to *gradually* phase out the present mess and introduce a lean, cost-efficient single payer system that is comparable to what many other industrialized nations have. As an American-Dane who grew up in Scandinavia, observing how health insurance is done in the US is like watching someone trying to eat with their foot. Consider what it would mean for American companies' competitiveness, if they didn't have to administrate and pay for their employees' health insurances anymore. The whole annual open-enrollment circus is just one bureaucratic farce ..
7
I feel like someone who goes into medical debt or struggles to feed their family is going to have a hard time caring about the environment. Lots of people aren’t in a position to think even a day in advance and if they get a job in the fossil fuel industry their going to take it to make ends meat.
I don’t think you can separate the economy and the environment. Nor do I think you can expect people to be motivated about cleaning the environment before you can assure them that they’ll be able to eat the next day. And that seems pretty close to the concerns raised by trumps supporters.
1
I agree completely with Friedman’s premise and passion, but two words come to mind, Jay Inslee. He couldn’t get more than 1% of Dems to follow on. So why does he, or anyone else, think this will resonate to a general election audience?
2
This argument has the great benefits of simplicity and immediacy and universality -- and is absolutely worth the attention of the Democratic front runners' strategists. But it cannot and must not totally eclipse the other seismic issues tearing at America -- from gun control to health care to immigration reform.
5
We had such a candidate. Gov Jay Inslee from Washington State entered the race with the declaration that climate change was the single most urgent issue of our time. He barely made a blip in a news cycle. Apparently environmental catastrophe is boring.
3
Mr. Friedman is right to frame the argument in these terms. Kennedy promoted an idea and a goal. He did not detail how he would do it which might have put everyone to sleep or worse opened it up to never ending discussion, pro and con. The goal of reducing climate change should be something that most of us could get on board with now. How to do it becomes the JOB. Promulgating detailed solutions, though they may ultimately be needed, can scare those who are not ready for them and we need their votes to achieve the big picture.
Elizabeth Warren could take a lesson from Mr. Friedman's opinion piece and start talking about universal healthcare as a goal to be achieved over time, not tomorrow.
9
I think both the environment AND universal health care are important!
Friedman's flippant comment about "and Mexico will pay for [medicare for all]" shows he either hasn't been paying attention to plans Warren and others have developed, or he's being paid by insurance companies.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mexico was never going to pay for a wall they didn't want.
Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that national health care will cost less in the long run than for profit health care. Instead of a sizeable portion of the costs going to investors in the illness industry, that money can go back to employers and employees. It works well for non-profit government run insurance plans already, like USAA.
But Friedman isn't a rocket scientist--he seems more a free market capitalist at heart,interested in preserving a huge profit industry in our country over protecting Americans from preventable illness and financial ruin due to unexpected medical costs.
6
@Nathan -- Exactly. He frames it as either/or because he wants to prevent health care reform. It can be both, and should be. We can do two things at once, when both are important. In WW2, we fought both Germany and Japan, despite either/or talk all the way along.
Yes! finally a rational argument to fight climate change. It doesn't mix up climate change with social welfare programs and other environmental concerns such as localized hazardous waste. and it doesn't make the mistake of advocating an all or nothing approach. it's about incremental changes or we will never get consensus until it is too late.
3
Thank you for bringing more awareness to the only enlightened thing we can do in order to continue to live on the planet. My gratitude to you Mr. Friedman.
3
If your political strategy doesn't go any further than repudiating Trump rollbacks, it isn't enough.
3
My initial response was "That will never work, People don't care they just care about the money". but then I read the rest of the argument Mr Friedman makes and have to say "That might just work" This is the best argument for an environmental policy I have seen.
6
This is a powerful message and very well articulated. I agree with all of it. It is simple and straightforward and doable. And something I think the majority of Americans support. And everyone of us can come up with at least one simple thing we can change in our daily lives to support the Earth race!
4
I have never agreed more with Thomas Friedman than in this article. The promises I hear Democratic candidates make are not personally inspiring but more like pie in the sky. ("Ask NOW what your country can do for you.") Saving the earth for the future is more virtuous as well as more fundamental.
9
@designprose hear hear!
This article should be directed to the moderators of the next Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate. In the past debates the moderators have started out with endless questions about health care and specifically about Medicare for all ideas. This took up the initial energy and left less time for important questions about the environment, immigration, the economy, foreign affairs, etc.
In the next debate, please urge your colleagues to start with a subject other than health care. Maybe another subject won't create the arguments between the candidates that health care does, but the other subjects are much more important.
12
Tom nails it and now needs to take it to the next level. Please write a column urging Warren to "lead by listening" and change her position on Medicare for All back to the healthcare for all through options position she held earlier. Include in the column an easy way for all of us to endorse the call and deliver them to her in bulk. She's in the lead, she can win...but not with Bernie's plan. She can still fight for sorely needed structural change and claim the gradual approach to Healthcare as a human right for all.
7
Mr Friedman correctly identifies a winning issue that Trump has had zero interest in addressing. Why not make it two for two and include major gun control as well. At that point the argument is that he has no interest in protecting either children living today or future generations across the board, and a vote against him is a vote for public safety.
10
We had a candidate with that message. It was Governor Inslee who articulated how clean air and water were the single most important issue that encompassed all the other issues.
3
@M.R.
I was glad to hear Governor Inslee's declaration of his candidacy and his articulation of the most important issue of the campaign. But it takes more to become the nominee and he didn't get traction in the debates. Partly the fault of the moderators who were clueless as to how to frame questions. For that we would have been much better off with Tom Friedman.
3
If a candidate can’t make headway with that message, either America is doomed or he or she doesn’t belong in politics
Sadly I agree with every word in this sentence but I am nearly certain it is that America is doomed, there are way too many people who would gladly use an incandescent bulb or drive a 12 MPG SUV just to stick it in the "elite's" faces even if it cost them more than they can actually afford.
4
The US can do this and must do this for the planet. You can do this because you do not, unlike us here in Europe, need to worry about deficits. If the US takes this direction, Europe and, I daresay the world, will have to follow.
So, do what you used to do best: take the lead.
6
@Jeremy
France, at least, leads the way with nuclear power...
I do wish we'd hear more of the optimistic, can-do approach that Mr. Friedman advocates here. If we were aggressively pursuing these clean energy opportunities the way China is, we'd do great thanks to our now built-in and demonstrated advantages. The only way we lose is to not play, which is unfortunately our current trajectory.
10
Friedman is absolutely right. Here's the thing about Greta Thunberg: Notwithstanding her shoot-the-messenger detractors, her appearance before the UN appears to have kindled an international buy-in to her message, however mild the commitments may be. The Democratic nominee needs to up the focus on the planet sustainability issue. Even some Trump supporters may come around to the realization that it is the future health and welfare of their children and grandchildren that is at stake and it is their legacy that will be evaluated.
The message needs to be that "You may not be able to vote for the Democratic nominee, but for the sake of future generations, you can at least stay home on election day."
6
Year after year, we hear that despite earlier signs, the young people did not turn up to vote on election day. I think as long as politicians get into the weeds over healthcare, this will continue to be the case. The truth is young people, just don't believe that they, personally, are going to get sick. (That only happens to old folk.) But they do seem to have grasped an acute understanding of climate change, the curse of plastic and the environment. This is an area that can motivate them and that they can feel passionate about. Mr. Friedman is quite right!
7
Yes - that is a FAR superior slogan for any of us who pay for their own healthcare without subsidies.
Healthcare reform was not exactly a resounding success - skyrocketing premiums and deductables. It was so poorly done that it has the potential to actively drive folks to trump.
1
@The Ed
actually most people in the US supported it
and still do.
@The Ed
The ACA was an excellent beginning from nothing. What we do not have is access and affordability of healthcare for too many Americans. What we do have is big business feeding at the trough of healthcare dollars by Health Insurance Companies, Hospitals, Physicians, Pharmaceutics and Medical Devices.
You seem truly naive to believe that either trump or the Republicans wish to alter the self-enrichment of American “healthcare”.
I hope the Democrat presidential candidates read Tom's column. Medicare for all is not a winner. Many European countries which have universal health care also allow private insurance and self-pay as a supplement, or alternative. Trump rushes to destroy the health of Americans and endangers the planet. Australia is adding to the harm with its push towards giant coal mines to feed India's coal fired energy plants, while Indians are already choking.
6
"and let the market determine the most effective solutions "
That's the part Democrats seem to lose sight of.
For so many Republicans like me, it's not that we don't believe climate change is real, it's that we don't believe the hyperbole of the Green New Deal and that the way to deal with climate change necessarily involves also fixing world hunder, the immigration crisis, income inequality, unemployment, and world peace, and that all of those things need to be fixed within the next 5-10 years, regardless of cost, or the world will end.
3
@G
Translation:
Republicans like me don't really believe in facts. But when we watch Fox and read Breitbart (or unwittingly by into their memes) we pretend to.
Anything for a dollar republicans. What is more insidious about the current administration actions is how they are changing the cost benefit analysis. Deciding that clean air and clean water (and human health) is less valuable than previously appraised while deciding that economic benefits from economic activity is more valuable.
7
Great piece. Let’s make sure it gets read by those who need this perspective most.
10
I can't agree with you more about everything..millenials and gen-z now represent the biggest voter block and will show up at the polls for whomever pushes this issue. However, I think the Green New Deal is a necessity. Some people will lose their jobs with the switch to renewables...many are members of a Certain Someone's base. We need to make sure there's a safety net in place for displaced workers. Something the Green New Deal accounts for.
8
Winning the presidency in 2020 is not enough. You have to be able to govern. And when nearly half the country is mesmerized by the propaganda channel (Fox), and believes that ANYTHING Democrats say is part of an evil plot to eat their children, they would sooner take up arms (the ones they've been stockpiling since Obama took office) than cooperate on anything constructive.
Color me a pessimist, but I think the evidence bears me out.
8
@Steve
Steve. Read Nate Cohn's piece on political engagement and its absence. Fox adherents would come to about 12% of the populace. The 75% who are apathetic might become engaged if a pol makes politics real to them. Progressives are on to something, but it's critical to KEEP it real if they want to make headway. And people will stop listening if you shout.
Yes! It is about the environment. All else we can fix later. THe environment is now or never!
8
@a
People who are struggling to make ends meets rarely have the energy to worry about the future, they're too busy worrying about making the rent and putting food on the table.
1
@a
if you are a coal miner, and you are being told your livelihood is going away with few other opportunities, you tend not to think it's about the environment, now or never.
3
@G
The candidate who espouses Friedman's views needs also to assure the victims of globalization that they are owed and will get adequate unemployment compensation, no questions asked, for as long as the unemployment persists.
Some good talking points here except for this one - Andrew Mccaffee's argument that America is using less resources with a still expanding economy is highly misleading. That's because so much manufacturing has been outsourced to China. If you factor in that resource use, then the idea that you can reduce resource use at the same time as you grow the economy is revealed as a pipe-dream. Think Globally Mr Friedman!
6
As Elizabeth Warren said, I do not know anyone that loves their health care plan.
Those that in fact may love their healthcare plan can easily lose that plan if they lose or change their job.
That is not good enough, Mr Friedman.
Yes, the environment is the number one priority, but for an aging population health care is right up there.
So many people are being brainwashed to believe that we would be paying more for a Universal Healthcare single payer system.
Look at what we pay now in either out of pocket costs, high deductibles, subsidies to our employers to pay for our plan, and most importantly, sub par coverage.
People that may love their health plan won't love it so much in the event of an emergency medical issue when they find they are not covered in full for that event.
So, let's make the environment priority one, but if we save the house from burning down, what good is it if we don't take care of the people that live in it?
8
@East/West Medicare for all who want it gives EVERYONE the opportunity to choose the health insurance plan they want, without the inevitable upheavals, glitches and the immense bureaucratic challenges that we saw with the less challenging ACA. Warren's position is a political loser now, and that isn't going to change between now and 2020. Let the people decide what they want.
The really effective narrative for the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential election would be that leading the world in environmental protection technology will pay handsome dividends in the future and put the USA ahead of China. Being a world leader in a business that is poised to become one of the most lucrative money makers in capitalist history is smart. So ... 'The Environment Pays'... might be a better idea.
11
Why not do both.
Why not also make it clear that Medicare For All would be an option - not a requirement. People will always have the right to take care of their own health insurance by buying a private health insurance policy. That is exactly what now happens with Medicare. Seniors have Medicare as a right - but if they want to pay privately - its their option. Not many people do pay the private top ups, because Medicare is pretty good.
17
@MrC
Most of the Dem candidates have in fact been proposing Only Medicare for All, i.e. abolishing private top-ups. And, as Mr. Friedman aptly puts it, "Mexico will pay for it."
Two notable exceptions were John Delaney and Steve Bullock, but now they are out of the debates and therefore pretty much out of the running.
1
@MrC
Seniors paid for it by working for 40 or 50 years and chipping in to the pot. It isn't a right, it's a prepaid entitlement.
Well said. It's hard to tell whether any of the Democratic candidates will really hear the call. Yet, there is even more that can be said about, e.g., changing weather patterns which bring more & more devastating storms and more frequent wild fires. Trump's policies and denials may not be the proximate cause of such disasters, but they certainly show a lack of concern for the people here and abroad whose lives are being destroyed by such "natural" disasters.
2
New jobs must be the focus of environmental political strategy. "Trump is denying you a better life for his own benefit." The general health aspect will sound good, but not equate to better lives.
7
Trump's emphasis on lowering pollution standards cannot simply be a policy of his administration. This destructive attitude towards the environment is too inclusive of all facets of pollution. It is more like open warfare against all things clean, healthy and necessary for human well being. His disdain and ridicule of environment improvements such as light bulbs, displays a corrupted mentality.
His mind boggling fight to end auto pollution and mileage standards--a change even auto producing companies do not want--reflects Trump's determination to destroy environmental standards which took years to establish. His actions defies all logical and rational thoughts.
12
Why not stress both climate change and medicare for all? You've made the case against Trump trashing the environment. And I would say Bernie has done the same for single payer healthcare by explaining the profits and paperwork to be removed and the safety net to be gained.
We can do more than one thing at a time, witness the impeachment inquiry.
7
@betty durso, Tom Friedman thinks environment alone will fix our health problems. Tell that war veteran who is reeling with health bills that fixing his air water soil will take away all his debt. Seriously?
Tom writes books after books on complicated topics of globalization borderless hi tech but he can’t understand a simple issue as to the struggles of ordinary Americans and the awful health care system that piles on debt upon debt. He does not understand issues of student debt and the burden our youth face today and their future.
You got to be more wholistic in your approach Tom, not piece meal.
1
I agree the environment is THE major threat to the world, national security, and everything else.
However, most of the nation does not support this opinion.
It is the nature of the human to be rather selfish, to live in the moment and not worry about something in the future.
Many of the people that are old enough to vote will also more than likely be dead by the time the seriousness of global warming has become an undeniable reality.
For me it is serious and should be addressed NOW. However, I have no grandchildren and both my children and I will be dead by 2050.
And all trump has to do is ask people if they want to give up their boats, their airplanes, their cars, their beef, and limit the number of children they have. And see how climate change influences the election.
2
Bravo. Never mind the folks who seemed have have missed the point of the piece -- defeating Trump with an environmentally responsible platform -- with their personal takes on the environmental crisis.
3
@K. Norris
Ya, they look for who to blame for their loss last go around, and, well, they need to look no further than to themselves. It just slays me, not a single solitary soul endorsed good old Bernie last time, yet they run on his platform this time. I’ll be standing for Bernie.
1
Yes, the Democratic candidates need to emphasize that our government needs to support the move to green energy ASAP. Not just because it will win the election but because we are all gonna fry if we don't.
They also need to understand that many conservatives are turned off by the way Democrats are combining environmental concerns with social issues. After speaking with my sister, who is a conservative, I realized that she is afraid the Democrats are promoting communism - something Fox news tells her. Democrats need to back off on the left wing stuff and instead talk about the jobs that will be created (not necessarily a guaranteed job for everyone but that many people will be employed) and, of course, the critical need to help humanity reduce carbon pollution.
3
It is ironic that you are trying to sell an environmental platform to a population that uses nearly double the energy per capita of any other nation on the planet. Equally entertaining is talking to an "environmentally concerned" Generation X, Y, Z member who has traveled 12 hours by commercial airliner to get a single set of Instagram photos. Every American seems to be environmentally conscious until it impinges on their individual lifestyle choices.
7
@James
Enough of the naysayers. No one is saying it will be easy to affect radical change. But think of our children and grandchildren. It is time to individually and collectively take the pledge to save their future (forget about yours and mine) Unless of course you have a Plan "B" for saving the planet.
6
A friend who is a labor lawyer negotiated a new health insurance contract where union members would have to pay a 20 dollar copay for each medical visit but would save $5,000 in annual premiums. Not used to paying up front copays, they became enraged and voted out the new benefit to return to the more expensive old one.
Up until 2013, I worked in an organization with 1,000 employees with a colossal physical plant. Whenever I spoke of energy savings through the use of non-fossil fuel alternatives, I was met with frowns, derisive smirks or yawns. Whenever I uttered the phrase "global warming", ditto the above but throw in grimace and laughter, even after a tornado (unheard of in these parts) whipped through the area destroying several staff homes.
I asked some if they would continue to believe in global warming even if a pelican was seen in Boston Harbor. They scoffed, saying it was a silly question. The next year- a pelican in the harbor. They said it was a one time fluke.
I never found one person there that gave a flying flamingo about global warming. From what I hear, nothing has changed.
4
As a friend of mine from the Northern Highlands in Scotland remarked in 2009, when the E.U. outlawed incandescent light bulbs overnight: “ How an I going to heat my house?”
But anecdote aside, without extremely courageous politicians and a broader population that is willing to change the way we live, we will not be able to save the planet as we know it. Incremental change, “painless” transition is a pipe dream. Maybe it is needed as a message to get more people on board. But unless we change the way we live, eat, travel, reprioritize what we value and spend money on, we will not get this done. My children force to to look these issues in the eye. I am grateful for that, and humbled by the collective hubris and ignorance that got us and our planet into this mess.
7
The environment is not just another campaign issue the Democrats would be smart to take up in order to win an election. It's a foundational universal challenge. Allowing it to become yet another partisan issue assures us only that it will never be adequately addressed.Greta Thunburg's words at the UN apply equally to Republicans and Democrats: "Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth." Out of the mouths of babes.
12
The democrats will navigate back to the center on medical care, which would be one plank in a platform with three planks: corruption, medical care, and infrastructure. Climate change would be inserted into the infrastructure/jobs plank---I agree that climate is gaining steam, but, for 2020 not the number one issue.
1
Imagine the destruction and deaths caused by Climate change was the result of a War or terrorist attack. The response would be quick and vigorous. The population would be required to make sacrifices. The enemy would be vanquished thoroughly and rebuilding would begin. This is a Climate War that must be won. It has been building for years and scientists have been giving the warning. Now it is fully here. The victims are us, enemy is us and it will take all of us to win.
15
@ubcome
The population would be requiRed to make sacrifices. Do you see Americans of either party doing this? I don't. My progressive neighbors drive a SUV or their truck. They fly to exotic vacation spots. They want free everything, and anyone they perceive to be "richer" than they are has to pay for it. No, I don't see sacrifice happening. Confiscating other people's fortunes or income, perhaps.
1
When starting a new business, you need different, not better. The same is true in politics. Mr. Friedman is pointing the way to what would be different in politics and he is spot on that this is a winner. Medicare for all and the Green New Deal are simply better, but hard to explain, and a new version of the same old party politics. Not only would a healthier planet create healthier people and lower our medical costs, but it is also a goal that already boasts a very strong base and to which Trump has no good answer. Let's hope someone heeds Mr. Friedman on the environment!
8
As much as I applaud its sentiments, there are three major problems with this commentary. First, it continues to couch action on climate change in competitive terms -the US, according to Friedman, must do all these things in order to maintain its domination of the world. However, the US has proven itself to be a very untrustworthy and irresponsible global hegemonic power. Containing the US and reducing its influence in the world, in every area, is actually better for the planet and for long-term political stability. A US that remains the world's dominant power is just too dangerous. Second, the world needs greater cooperation, not competition. Suggesting that the race for environmentally friendly growth is a competition with China undermines the cooperative behavior needed to address this problem. Finally, Friedman still refuses to acknowledge the fact that capitalism is responsible for much of the despoiling of the world. We need a new economic system and a new way of thinking about the creation and distribution of wealth. None of that will be possible unless we realize the paramount role the current approach to economic organization and development has played in destroying the planet.
6
A total no-brainer. Can we please, please get to the start line? And, rather than one generation leading, surely this weaves us all together, whether 9 or 99.
"Democrats need to run against Trump on the Earth Race: to make America the leader in all policies and technologies that help men and women everywhere live sustainably."
Just for a moment, forget party. We have a crisis in the room and its larger, much larger, than a single elephant. Thanks Thomas Friedman for the focus.
11
The American people want a better environment and better health care. They are linked and easily accommodated in an election platform. Saving money and providing better health care will enable the transfer to clean energy and a better environment. So, I do not at all agree that the Democratic nominee has to abandon health care, child care, labor laws, income inequality or foreign policy to solely focus on the environment.
2
A total no-brainer. Can we please, please get to the start line? And, rather than one generation leading, surely this weaves us all together, whether 9 or 99.
"Democrats need to run against Trump on the Earth Race: to make America the leader in all policies and technologies that help men and women everywhere live sustainably."
Just for a moment, forget party. We have a crisis in the room and its larger, much larger, than a single elephant. Thanks Thomas Friedman for the focus.
1
Count me as a voter that is only voting for a President that thinks climate change is an urgent problem and has solid solutions. Solutions and inventions are out there. We just need a politician that would listen and back them fast.
Permiculture has solutions but we all must change our ways. I see no encouragement to change our ways from people on top.
3
@Therese Stellato
People will not change their ways. They aren't willingly to pay an extra 2 cents for gas, or give up plastic bags. The left denies any realistic solutions, the right denies the problem exists. Be the change, live it or shut up. Bernie owns 3 houses. That's 3 domiciles using heat and electric . No, our talking heads only expect others to sacrifice.
After reading Mr. Friedman's article and some of the comments on it, I can only say this: Yes, we have many issues that need to be attended to, many things that need change and modification. But, if we don't try our hardest to repair the environment, all the other problems will be as nothing, since the issue of continued human life on the planet will overshadow them all.
9
How about running on democracy. Trump has showed us what a mess that is too.
3
Hopefully Biden will win. He is one of the few free market Democrats in the race. The US has already been reducing emissions and a little push from the government could get the ball rolling faster by incentivizing clean energy instead of fossil fuels.
Gen Z, those born after 1995, represent ~30% of the world's population, as well as a big chunk of people in this country.
Climate and the environment is one of the most motivating issues to them and fully a quarter of them can vote.
Given the activism we've seen from young people around climate and gun control, this seems like the largest and most cost-effective cohort of potential voters to go after.
This message will definitely resonate with them and could get them to the polls with the right focus and consistent effort.
3
The fossil fuel industry, Fox News, and the Republican (Trump) Party have made it so asking Republicans to do things to protect the environment is a threat to their very identity, their sense of who they are, and their place in the world. Now, it is asking them to vote Democratic. What could be more threatening than that? Certainly not the approaching destruction of the climate that supports human life on earth.
2
We need clean air and water urgently.
We also need a healthcare system that won’t bankrupt our people, while enriching a corporate middle man that provides little or no actual coverage for it’s policy holders. Most of the industrialized world uses systems set up to provide care and pay for it, while we insure only the wealth of private insurance companies.
Paying for single payer health care through just, progressive taxes is not pie in the sky. I can’t understand why Mr. Friedman would like to smugly misinform our people about what is absolutely possible and absolutely beneficial to them.
2
This would have been a good editorial if Mr. Friedman had left out the first paragraph. The rising tide of Climate Change will cost trillions of dollars and one of the least painful ways to pay for it is to play catch up with Canada and Western Europe and opt for a more efficient health care system. We spend twice as much money per capita on health care than other prosperous countries and rank thirty-first in life expectancy, behind dozens of countries with a much lower per capita income than ours. African-Americans live longer In impoverished Cuba than they do here. Although the profit motive works well in the invention of higher quality manufactured products, the privatized insurance industry encourages wasteful procedures and redistributes money with a feudalistic cut to numerous privatized bureaucracies. If we established a single-payer health care system, the consumer would pay more in taxes, but save twice as much money in current payments to private businesses. Bankrupcies would plument. The cost of misleading advertising would be replaced by more accurate information. Health workers would spend less time navigating competing privatized bureaucracies. And the government would spend roughly half of what it currently pays out in our uniquely ineffcient system.
3
Here's what I think.
Consider; do you remember the days of pay phones on almost all corners in urban environments? Do you recall calling cards and wire-line phones in your homes as the main ways to communicate distantly with others? Do you recall fax machines and the like? Do you recall the world of the late 1990's?
If we can go from such an era, not much more than a decade ago, where owning and using a cell phone (much less a smart one) was considered the extremes of privilege and luxury, to where it is now ubiquitous and at least ten times smarter than the computers that put a man on the moon, and cheap to boot.
If we can do this and have it in the hands of billions of average human beings as the commonplace tool so routinely used that it feels like an extension of your arm; and we can do all of this within a decades span of time, then we can do this thing.
And we should. It's for the greater good.
John~
American Net'Zen
2
Environment will certainly be a key issue in 2020 as it should be. A green peace party candidate or an independent candidate will have a candidate will have a good chance. For the past 100 years our 2 major parties have failed to prevent climate change due to the pollution in just that period alone. Whatever happened to Howard Schultz?
2
After this argument, it is clear Trump wins by a huge majority in 2020.
2
Will somebody please send this article to the Democratic candidates for president? The evidence is in. Trump wants to go back to a time that we thought was behind us; when our engines of economic success were an equal part of our environmental destruction. Who does this? I'll tell you. A person who is only interested in one thing. Themselves.
Furthermore, the evidence for a way out of our current mess has begun to coalesce into a doable formula. An example of this can be found in the Climate Leadership Council's carbon fee plan. Why isn't our leadership talking about this? Because they are thinking only of themselves.
Lastly, we're at a point where our children, and rightfully so, are telling us it's way past time to start fixing things. That fact alone ought to be enough to inform us of what's wrong with this picture. Our leadership can't even admit to the horrendous mistakes we've been making.
10
Because single payer medical coverage is the best policy for all the people of the United States. Especially for the working poor and middle class who have suffered under a capitalist, insurance lobby-dominated health insurance system for decades.
4
@Barry Were it actually capitalist! Its actually CRONY capitalism. Many countries have state and private mixes and do well - none have the kind of insurance industry rigged system we have.
Outstanding. Simply stated and to the point. Just hope Biden reads this, processes it, memorizes the op ed and makes these points. Warren clearly will have no trouble articulating this beautifully and I hope we get to see her take dumbo Donnie apart on the debate stage. Or whomever the republicans run because he may be gone.
Finally shame on the debate moderators for not focusing on climate change and the environment. I personally am tired of the health care discussion. All we need to know is the Democratic Party will take steps to fix and improve Obama care, expanding access. Create a public option. Medicare for all and the elimination of private health insurance in not going to happen overnight but perhaps slowly as more people start buying into or signing up for the public option. So let’s stop being hysterical over this. The main point is the Republicans will do nothing to protect or expand access to affordable health insurance. That is the point Democrats need to drive home.
16
The only reason "Climate" is an issue is that it hurts the bottom line of the Koch bros. et al. The only reason it is a Political issue is that it has been seen by the liberal Dems as a significant problem that can stimulate votes and that has made it an "Anti-Liberal" issue for Republicans which gets votes. The issue may not be as dramatic as Greta Thunberg exclaims but it is a legitimately urgent concern that should be examined scientifically more seriously than labeling it an "Obama" issue and therefore erased. I don't know if it could be used as an issue with the same impact as Immigration or MAGA. For those who vote as the Anti-Liberal Tribe will reject it as "liberal" instead of considering the merits of the science. If we continue to use politics instead of science to make technical decisions, we delay the best answer. Perhaps de-politicizing it is the answer. Don't cut the baby in half.
1
@William Trainor. It has been studied scientifically. The results are in and Greta has it right. If that isn't dramatic enough nothing is.
3
@Bridey
Science is not drama. Galileo, was punished by the church for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun. He was right but the skeptics hounded him. If he said that the earth was falling into the Sun it would not have made the case better, perhaps worse. If we don't trust science, emotional arguments won't affect the argument. First we have to build a trust in science.
What evidence is there that the average Trump supporter takes climate change seriously? Then there are those who claim the cost of fighting climate change is too high. How many many republicans say the green deal is not worth the cost? It is the youth who are marching for a change in attitude not the avid Trump voter or the republican leadership. We will have to wait until they can vote.
6
I agree Universal Medicare is a not starter. I think Democrats should focus on Student debt, jobs, enhance Obamacare, abortion rights, EPA and gun control.
1
@SridharC, you can’t do much when people are eyebrow high in medical bills debts. Especially war veterans elderly infirm vulnerable folks.
1
Well spoken. Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to be open to looking at who else might be around to put some energy into such a sensible and palatable agenda. Is the draft still alive? There are some obvious candidates who might be able to present this in a way that could be unifying . Our current front runners are too caught up in confrontation and divisiveness.
1
I wish boomers would stop trying to tell us what's important and worthy causes to fight for, as if we need to pick one injustice and let the others go for another 50 years like they did.
4
@Jon Q, let's see. We fought racism, developed vaccines, cured the world of several diseases, went to the moon (where did you go?). That's just for openers.
@Jon Q. A lot of boomers agree with you. Don't be devisive, it doesn't help.
While majoring in geography at university in the 60s, we discussed the climate and the carbon we were putting into the atmosphere. And in the 70s I studied passive solar construction in New Mexico. Now finally, people are getting wise and seeing the disaster in front of them. An all-out, global effort is now needed. We have very little time and we may already be too late. But having an administration that denies the evidence is death looking in our face. Time is up, action now or lose this beautiful planet we call home.
8
Friedman should recognize that healthcare, the environment, and the economy are essentially sides of the same issue. What is good for the environment is also good for healthcare--and is also good for the economy. So, politically, it's not necessary to choose one issue over the other, as he suggests here.
Trump's rollback of environmental policies will cause illness, further destruction of nature, and lost jobs to China. Healthcare costs will continue to rise as people breath dirty air, drink chemical-laced water, and become more sedentary when they are forced to live inside.
For many decades the environment has been falsely pitted against the economy as a political issue. Let's not make the same mistake by pitting the environment against healthcare. All three issues--environment, healthcare, and the economy--are sides of the same problem. They should be addressed together, not at the expense of each other.
9
thank you
it seems so obvious that climate is the greatest existential issue we face.
Greta is right
how dare we disregard the future of all living things
how dare we have the hubris to believe that our immediate gratification is the most important thing there is
the biggest obstacle-poverty. think of your household budget when you were young. sure, saving for retirement is good. but second to a pizza after a day of work
we have to bring the issue of our earth's health forward. Perhaps it will help unite us all
6
Tom,
This Op-Ed is excellent.
My sincere hope is that all leading democratic candidates for the presidency take heed of your sage advice and make all of the points you've made part of their cornerstone, bedrock base platform for their candidacies.
9
The ultimate issue is climate justice -- the admixture of environmentalism and its impact on especially those people with fewer economic resources more immediately harmed when the environment is degraded.
Focusing solely on Medicare for All -- or any single issue, even the "environment" -- can blind us to the complexity of our problems. Let's not forget that the interlocking of "human ecology" as it works itself out on the planet has ethical, political, and physical implications we are still discovering.
1
So why did Jay Inslee never poll above 2%? He would have been the ideal candidate for President. But no support by anyone from the mainstream media at the time he was running. How to explain that? I still cannot comprehend that.
8
Drinkable water, breathable air, and affordable healthcare (pain and death avoidance) should drive the campaign. Calling fresh water and air "environment" is too abstract, not emotional and basic enough. Want the elder vote? Keep Social Security and Medicare because the GOP will go after those if Trump wins a second term.
10
@poslug, No you're wrong. Trump protected Social Security and Medicare when the Republican came for them. Right Paul?
While I agree with the message, it’s too wordy. Make a political ad with images of Los Angeles under smog, Love Canal on fire, the lines of people waiting for bottles of clean drinking water in Flint, the devastation at the Bahamas due to monster storm Dorian. (Come to think of it: Trump may have confused Alabama with the Bahamas). Title: “Making America Great Again?”
And do the same about gun control. That is also an issue that young Americans will rally behind.
Go Elizabeth Warren! And I’ll gladly take Medicare for all. I never understood why Americans prefer to pay more for less when it comes to their health insurance.
17
@Anna, But LA has clean air now. Love Canal was fixed. You're ideas are from the '70s.
3
@Ryan Bingham it appears you’ve missed Anna’s point - e.g., LA has clean(er) air, and the Love Canal was “fixed” as a result of environmental regulations the current administration is currently dismantling.
5
@Ryan Bingham: Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The smog and polluted rivers & unsafe drinking water is what Trump wants to go back to with his "MAGA" and repealing previous administrations' and California's environmental regulations. And we'll see more devastation like what the Bahama's are suffering due to storms getting stronger because of climate change.
In the last 2 years in Europe, when all were focused on the rise of the right wing parties, the much larger green wave seen in Europeans election across the continent was missed and surprised all pundits. When 10,000 yellow jackets were causing havoc in Paris, ten times those numbers were peacefully demonstrating for the environment on the same exact day, barely noticed by the media. We always look the the new shiny crazy populist thing and miss the overall societal changes. Luckily, Trump is missing it entirely too. Dems should focus on the environment and healthcare for 2020. And only that.
10
Amazing to me that our clown of a president wants to claim he is "those chosen one" on any number of issues. Too bad he never saw the forest for the trees. If he had championed Climate Change instead of lying to the Republican base about keeping their jobs, he could have easily left a lasting legacy. Instead, he makes fun of our youth who are closest to the fire, quite literally. I have two married children and my daughter recently spoke to me about the possibility of not having a child in world's political/social and especially environmental mess. I totally understand her line of thinking. No grandchildren may be the price I have to pay for Americans not paying attention to science.
38
A requirement for ling term life on this earth is to obey the laws which govern long term existence. Do no lasting harm to the earth 's air, water, or land. Do no lasting harm to the earth s support systems for life. Otherwise the earth's damage will eliminate life, including the polluter. We live in a closed system. It has to be in balance.
The earth is the only home we will ever have, in spite of dreams to the contrary. There is no room for constant pollution of any kind. If we cannot comply with this law, we are a dead species, and we will kill off many other species as well.
There is no other option. We are also rapidly running out of time.
This is where we are. The future depends on us, because we are the dominate polluters. Do we care about the future, or are we fixed on tomorrow? That is the question.
8
No one likes to say this, but frankly, stop having large families. My mother died this year at age 89. In her lifetime the global population almost quadrupled from 2 billion in 1930 to 7.7 right now.
No amount of solar or wind energy or anything else is going to be enough as long as the population keeps growing. There is no future where space colonies will take the excess. We've built a ponzi scheme of economic growth based on an ever increasing population.
Fortunately, there are some good solutions out there. Promote education for young girls. In many areas of the developing world young girls are not given the access boys are. When women have access to opportunity and are empowered, birth rates drop. And in the developed world, celebrate being childless. Celebrate folks who contribute to the community in other ways.
Despite what a lot of reactionaries (often men) will say, the human race will not die out due to a slowing of the birth rate. If you truly believe the human race should survive and thrive, then we all need to make some sacrifices.
123
Remember, the ecological impact of a child born in a third world country is exponentially less than a child born in America. Population control is a fraught subject in environmentalism. If we (as humans, but ESPECIALLY first world countries) fundamentally change our lifestyle, that will give us the greatest chance to avoid climate disaster.
9
I'll say it Bill. The exploding human population is an often under-reported aspect of climate change. The economic model of endless "growth" made possible by the burning of fossil fuels over the past 200 or so years has made this explosion inevitable. The planet cannot sustain this level of population growth.
In the coming era of scarcity brought on by a rapidly changing climate, it will be critical to adjust our thinking about the role of human population. "Be fruitful and multiply" as an expression of human hubris will need to be replaced by "less is more'.
18
@Kacy M
Demographers project the population of Africa could rise to 4 billion people! Why on earth would anyone think following this trajectory could possibly come out favorably for the people, for the environment, for biodiversity, for the earth's climate? This will be an unmitigated disaster. Yet, why do we feel our destiny must follow such insane, self-fulfilling projections? To avoid charges of racism by informing others they are on a catastrophic path?
3
Well done, Mr. Friedman. Unfortunately, with the long overdue announcement that the House would pursue impeachment, your excellent summary of the case against the president is likely to get overlooked.
Keep up the good work. The stakes are enormous, and we need to get to work fast.
24
As important as climate change is to our world’s future, we *did* have a candidate who did what Mr Friedman suggests, put climate change and the Trump administration’s failures to address it front and center; his name was Jay Inslee. The fact that he didn’t gain traction before the first vote was cast isn’t the fault of the DNC or Democratic strategists. That rests with the broader American public, which always prefers focusing on the present over the future (although that future reckoning is getting closer and closer each day).
21
The fossil fuel industry has always made it difficult for presidential candidates to gain any traction on environmental issues with the electorate by fighting a rearguard action against the truth.
First the coal-oil-gas extractors and refiners deny that there is any global warming, then they argue that observed changes are natural long-term cycles or the result of phenomena like volcanic eruptions, all of which are independent of anything humans have done or failed to do.
Next, industry tells the public that belching smoke stacks and vehicle exhaust fumes in America are insignificant in comparison to dung fires cooking rice pots in China or flatulent camels in the Sahara, so there is no use disrupting our way of life.
Energy companies now tell us emission regulation will cause massive job loss for Americans, whether it’s the loss for workers in the mines and oilfields or in the stores of the nearby towns and cities.
The fossil fuel people find kindred spirits and support in the chemical industry, whose factories need to keep pumping unfiltered waste directly into rivers and streams.
The donations flow to presidential contenders who go easy on polluters. The G.O.P. stresses that loss of a job is an immediate crisis for a family, not some vague weather-related argument about the future by a touchy-feely Democrat.
It seems to many of us that a Democrat can beat Donald Trump talking about the environment, but she or he can also win speaking about better health insurance.
9
Thank you! Finally someone who gets it. The environment IS the economy. It’s not only a question of political expediency, it’s also a moral imperative and necessary to save civilization.
59
I agree.
Medicare-for-all, that abolishes private insurance, is not a winning position to take, in this election. It will require a candidate to be upfront at some point about very large tax increases. We have so many important issues to address, like climate change, and student loan debt, that when taken together, all of this can seem overwhelming to voters.
When the more moderate approach of a buy-in to medicare is already polling as a winning approach that will work, with 75% approval according to Kaiser, and when we have so many important issues to tackle like climate change, why go there with healthcare. We desperately need to win, our children and the future of our planet, depend on it.
We will need to make a huge commitment with our efforts on climate change that will likely be on par with a mission to the moon as Mr Friedman points out. That does not mean that it should be the only thing candidates run on, since as he also point out, it does not always poll well for all voters, but we can offer people hope with a package of proposals to improve the lives of Americans that includes healthcare, addressing climate change, alienating student loan debt, and the like.
However, I think the "Earth Race" should be our ultimate and number one priority and the vision for our future.
7
The cost of solar has not dropped 85%. You still have to buy or lease the land. You still have to build and install the structures and infrastructure to operate it. You still have to maintain it.
A solar panel is cheaper. An operating solar plant isn't much cheaper.
4
Climate changes will affect EVERYTHING. We must get brave and understand that we face huge crises (national security, immigration, jobs, etc) if we don’t get on board with making our economy reflect the new reality. I agree that Democrats need to lead and inspire on environmental issues. I think Buttigieg is an especially good leader. Calm and reassuring, yet strategic and tough. But whoever ends up with the nomination needs to have the ability to unify us on this issue.
6
I always like reading your column, Tom. I agree with many of your thoughts.
As to health care, a simple concept like Medicare for those who don't have private insurance would be much more appealing. And, if Medicare is far more efficient, as it should be, we should see people choosing it over their expensive private insurance. Problem solved in a decade or two.
As for the environment, I agree that this should be issue number one. The name and how it is framed is important, and I have to say that the Green New Deal sounds like channeling Roosevelt, an old deal. I can't think of a catchy name either, so Save Our Planet will have to do. The financial cost of climate change will be what finally motivates people to change their minds and vote for those who say they will tackle it. I'm not sure if the bite in the pocket book has been extreme enough yet, but things will get worse....
I certainly hope that the Democrats can wrest power away from the minority party of the Republicans. We are being held hostage by an antiquated political system that is indeed undemocratic. Not only do we need to have a Democratic President, but a House and Senate. Only then will we see real solutions for saving our planet. I'm not optimistic that we're going to get that for another decade. But... when sea water laps at the base of Trump Tower and Mar Lago, perhaps our broken hearted country will come limping in to join the rest of the world. For now, let it be.
4
Spot on. I hope Dems in leadership read this.
6
I was concerned about my children's generation, I was worried about the future of my grandchildren, and I am afraid that I may not have greatgrandchidren. My wife says I "worry" too much. I hope that I am right.
1
@Philip Sedlak
It would be nice to think that someday, our grandchildren will not have to worry anymore about this issue for their own children.
2
Tom
Write another book. Explain how wind and solar power is going to produce the vast amounts of energy that the resource -consuming world population is demanding.
When you get down in the weeds, you will find that low power density technologies cannot hack it. You will find that land mass requirements and development costs will strangle wind and solar; that the myth about renewal energy being cheaper does not account for land purchase, transmission line costs, standby power, and environmental disruption; that subsidies (remember the other "hidden tax" ) will always be required, that power density improvements will be blocked by the laws of physics.
The only way out of the climate change mess is nuclear power which is currently not economical because it has been regulated to death and demonized by the uninformed.
Unless nuclear is unshackled, we are doomed to slowly cook on a fracked gas fired stove.
Do us a service: Get into the details and write the book. You are good at this.
6
@Jack Ludwig As Tom explained, wind and solar continue to plummet in price, and have now largely outcompete coal and gas. We’re reaching an economic tipping point. It’s time to break from fossil fuel completely, and it can be done.
7
Don't forget tidal and river flow power. They are very consistant sources. We don't have any other real choice except to fry with the heat of our own making, and be eliminated by the storms of our own making. Fossil fuel is dead. Nuclear may be just another ticking time bomb.We can't just keep storing the waste. We have to figure out clean energy for the future to be viable. We have to use any and all ways to make it work. There is no other way to have a livable future for life on this planet. It has to be done, It will take a concentration of ideas and innovations, a sea change. A commitment is required and the end of an era of polluting energy. The future otherwise is unthinkable and very short and violent. We need to be clear headed about this. Otherwise the earth will cut us down to size in short order. Everything in nature is based on recycling. The future will be for the non polluters. Join them now.
4
@B
I totally agree we should break from fossil fuel. My point is that it can't be done with solar, wind, tidal power, etc. I wish it could. If you really attempt to develop renewal energy power, you will come against some unmentioned problems. Just for starters, it is, well, a blatant lie by special interests that renewable energy is anywhere near cost competitive with any source other than nuclear. The numbers they quote are basically only for the equipment - they don't include land purchase or lease, required standby (back up) power, transmission line costs, public opposition, end of life removal, etc. The developers building renewable power projects do not do it as a public service - they do it to make money. If renewable energy doesn't work, they will happily build fossil fuel.
1
Only someone who has secure access to health care could be so flip in dismissing Medicare for All. While 160 million have some form of health insurance, most face the yearly ritual of employer cost shifting with rising employee premiums, deductibles and copays. Medical emergencies turn into financial emergencies far too often for far too many families. Medical costs are a leading source of economic insecurity and personal bankruptcy. Making universal health insurance akin to Trump' s border wall with the "Mexico will pay for it" reference is insulting to the tens of millions of Americans who have no access to affordable health care. Health care cost ranks at the top of voter concern. The Democrats are wise to put it the top of their agenda. Environmental issues including action on climate change should not be put in competition with health care, both are essential for the well being of Americans.
25
@Greg. Also, folks over age 55 bother to VOTE, while those 18-25 seem to whine and text but don’t show up at the polls — or mail in their ballots, either. Older people are concerned about our lousy health care policies...and they VOTE.
4
@PeteNorCal.
Yup. I spoke with a nice young man in his early 20s working for a solar power outfit locally. He was proud he did not vote. That attitude is alive and well out there. It seems "clean" to them? Not getting involved in "that stuff".
3
@Greg It can be really difficult and unpleasant to read Friedman's columns because of his wrongheaded and smart alecky comments, even if his overall point is a good one. I don't disagree that climate change should be a strong component of the Democrats' campaigns. But so should healthcare - one doesn't have to choose either or. And the snide remark about Mexico paying for it just shows his ignorance about the ideas that some of the candiates have.
Climate change is an existential threat. Trump should be vulnerable on that count, as should Jamie Dimon, and corporate heads across the board. Very little has ever been done to slow pollution, because money is God to conservatives, or whatever they call themselves when they are serving Mammon.
However, I and many millions like me will not be around long if what's left of Obamacare is dismantled by the Republicans in office or in agencies, in our states and in the federal government. Imperfect as it is, it saved my life. So healthcare is extremely important.
The Democrats have raised the issue in a big way -- heard of the Green New Deal? MSNBC carried a special climate change debate just days ago, by the way, and only Bill Weld from the Republicans participated.
The emphasis on Medicare for All has chiefly been by the media -- the big presidential debate questions and follow-ups are controlled by the "network" airing the contest, and bickering between candidates about angels and pinheads makes for more interesting television than a real examination of the issue.
Medicare For All allows the charge of socialism to be leveled at anyone who advocates it. Well, I grew up drinking socialist water, riding my bike on socialist streets and roads, all the while watching the corporate socialists pay lower taxes, be exempted from employment and environmental regulation. We can't change the environment until we change that, and ensure that people are alive to vote.
11
Many fear Medicare for All because it could work. It could cut off the gravy train for the medical industry to get vastly over-paid.
Establishment types tremble at this threat to the a gravy train far bigger than the defense budget. They'll do anything to change the subject.
67
@Mark Thomason: all true, and yet...
We could die on the “Medicare for All” hill, fighting the good fight against determined opposition. Or we could offer a public option and let economics run its course.
But we could win on environmental issues. They cut across party lines; liberal city-dwellers might notice that they’re spending more for air-conditioning, while conservative farmers are forced to adjust their planting schedules as growing seasons and rainfall change.
Both issues are opposed by industries with enormous resources. But health care is foremost a concern for people who are sick, while the environment impacts everybody. The latter is a better bet.
11
@joshbarnes. Disagree...healthcare affects everyone (or someone they know and love). Environmental issues are important, but don’t affect most folks concretely today (e.g., insane ER bill or insurance deductible).
Also: too many 18-30 year olds don’t bother to actually VOTE, while mature adults dealing with healthcare issues DO take time to VOTE.
5
Like Friedman, I hope that Dems will not make the mistake of making Medicare for All their first priority. This would be to make the same mistake that Obama did, when he had the opportunity and public support (inncluding among many Republicans) to address financial crimes and economic inequality, but insteaad gave us Obamacare. Yes he helped many Americans to finally gain insurance, but the public was more concerned about the mortgage crisis and Great Recession. Republicans were antagonized, the Tea Party was hatched, and Obama got nothing more done. If he had started with something both parties could support, Obama might have been more successful.
Likewise, our next President Elizabeth Warren would do well to start with accomplishments that make all Americans feel good, and protecting the environment would be perfect.
8
@Unconventional Liberal Given McConnell's opposition to Obama, I think anything Obama did would've been demonised. The TP wasn't some grassroots movement. Read into it.
President Obama gave the best speeches I've ever heard about the importance of acting to stop climate change. But he also presided over the doubling of US production and consumption of fossil fuels. He joined the Paris accord, which is entirely voluntary, and did nothing, while Trump says he's withdrawing from the Paris accord as soon as possible.
"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue," an homage Obama paid, while Trump does not. But US fossil fuel production is increasing at a slower pace under Trump (in spite of his efforts) than it did under Obama (in spite of his speeches).
I can't see any answer. Every president is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. All but one pretended they were fighting climate change, while the current one brags that he thinks climate change is a hoax.
But words don't really matter, only actions will stop anthropomorphic global warming, and the US seems quite incapable of electing a president who will not strongly support the fossil fuel industry (and who might lie or brag about it, but support it he or she will).
3
@Michael
Please fact check. EIA shows no doubling of U.S.consumption or production of fossil fuel order Obama. You are making that statistic up, as far as I can tell.
6
@Michael: If Obama did nothing, then why is Trump repealing all of Obama's environmental regulations?
Obama strongly supported wind and solar and under his administrationion they grew to be force that they are today. Obama and Trump are opposite ends of the spectrum, opposite poles, opposite in every way.
1
Kennedy actually won the 1960 election with a claim about a missle gap, not the space race.
And the missile gap really was "fake news."
That said, environmental issues are certainly important but not obviously swing issues swaying undecided American voters.
4
A 2015 US Department of Defense report warns of climate change threats to national security:
"DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S.interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015,is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water.
These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time."
https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf
Why don't climate change action advocates ever make use of this powerful information clearly indicating Trump and the GOP endanger our national security?
17
@gw:
The 14-page (single-spaced) report you cite cost $22,000 in DoD labor to produce.
Footnote #4 refers to an earlier National Intelligence Council report from January 2010, which would have been prepared during Obama's first year in office.
I don't have the specific DoD report handy, but I've read one referring to the effects of climate change from 2003 or so (it would have been prepared early during GWBush's first term). If memory serves, among its other warnings were those concerning the eventual need to relocate naval bases and shipbuilding infrastructure as the US coastline recedes.
Pentagon planners tend to think in terms of decades, and they tend to contemplate high-impact (even if low-probability) risks. They've been taking global warming more seriously than generally recognized for a long, long time.
I agree that _all_ our politicians need to change their modes of thinking. How can they consider policy impacts on the time-scale of decades when, from the day they are sworn-in to office, they must meet re-election campaign fundraising targets on the time-scale of calendar quarters?
All our _people_ need to change their modes of thinking too. But how can we contemplate public policy on the time-scale of decades in an era of 24/7 news cycles increasingly driven by the spectacle of scandal-du-jour, when most of us can't see our family finances past the end of the next _month_?
4
@A. Reader - Dept. of Defense evaluations of climate change threats to our national security and the November 2018 report signed by 13 US federal agencies warning of climate change threats to our health, safety, food supply, infrastructure and economic well-being would be powerful evidence that could effectively influence public opinion and help the Dem election platform.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-federal-climate-assessment-for-us-released
The public needs to understand there are more losses to their family finances and well-being by NOT doing anything about climate change than there are by addressing it.
Ignoring these reports goes beyond being unhelpful to the climate change cause, it is dereliction of duty by both Congress and the White House.
2
When India opened up about three decades back, it wasn't part of a planned strategy; the silent hand of adversity was all the help it required.
Mother earth, with all her infinite wisdom, is now, waking up gently, contemplating if her children know where to go, or will require her help. Her help, of course, doesn't come easy. She knows that a parent must let a child explore her own solutions before guiding her. Her hand, will surely guide us, in form of adversity, as with all such matters in millenia of human history.
Mr. Friedman, you have acted as harbinger in past with your timely books. Maybe, it's time to take us where we will go once it has been decided that there is no place left here. I am talking about the world that is not where we are headed, but the one where we will live once we have moved and settled.
Medicare for all is a better bet,
because it is achievable. It works out in other countries. America is just the last industrial nation to implement it.
The environment is the bigger threat, and people are right to worry about it. But how to you sell something that has no benefit within an electoral term, but demands many sacrifices ? Fighting global warming is a benchmark for a honesty and farsightedness, and it should be addressed in the election campaign. But it is promise of austerity and constraint. It will be a display of dash for the politician, who can rally crowds with that.
7
@Mathias Weitz
NO other country has Medicare - open ended payments for any procedure proposed. New hip for a late stage Alzheimer patient - check. Now a basic minimum of effective care, guaranteed for all, that's both economical and right but Medicare for all? That pitch is dishonest pandering. If we want universal, effective care, we need to be honest.
Why are Americans afraid of national health care?
Lyndon Johnson was going to propose a MediCare for all but backed off when he saw congressional resistance.
Even Richard Nixon was supposedly favorable toward national health care.
These presidents were aware of the developed worlds national health care plans and were predisposed to offer the same umbrella health care for every American from birth.
There is an ingrained stubborn resistance in America against anything that whiffs of socialism and is not capitalistic. This mindset is a result of generations of brainwashing of young people that the American dream is of personal wealth and not of caring for your fellow citizens.
50
@Michael Kittle
I'm a liberal. All my friends in the tech and IT industry are liberal. I can tell you, a candidate who proposes phasing out employee sponsored medical insurance is running a big risk. Most well employed people I know do not want to change their medical insurance. I would still vote Democratic, in spite of the downside, but I'm sure some would not. A government-sponsored alternative, non-mandatory - no problem. But a requirement to get on the government plan - much more problematic for many people. I'd hate to see the Democrats loose because of this, but it could happen.
12
@earlyman: That "employee sponsored medical insurance" comes out of your own pocket, in terms of the higher salary you would have gotten without it and the tax breaks to your employer (resulting in higher taxes for you) for offering it. It's also dependent on your continued employment (but of course you will never be laid off, harassed out of your job, get bored with ot, or unable to do it anymore until you retire...), and what the employer negotiates with health insurers, which can change from year to year and never gets cheaper...
5
@earlyman....I would not phase out employer health plans.
I would propose a combination private and public separate coverage. One plan administered by the government and one top off plan from the private sector.
This is the coverage we American expats have in France along with all French citizens.
Americans are largely ignorant of other country’s health plans and incorrectly think countries like France are fully socialistic.
They are not!
2
I sincerely hope every Democratic presidential candidate adopts this wonderful idea. Well said.
10
Friedman is correct. Trump is fighting the lost cause.
6
Hi Tom - can you make another visit to Australia? We appear to be sliding backwards on this most important of debates, and not slowly. The Australian population want action but the message continues to be muddied by a Government beholden to vested interests, the IPA and Murdoch media. The messages contained in this article should be the rallying cry for opposition parties, moderates and the general public and there has been some success in ousting the likes of Abbot. But linking the fear of climate change to a optimistic economic vision of the future is what badly needed down under. Jerry
6
@Jerry Actually, Australia has one of the greatest advocates for environmental responsibility in the brilliant Tim Flannery. He is chief advocate for Climate Council Australia, author of many excellent books, including the influential 'The Weather Makers.' and for at least two decades a leading climate activist.
1
I am so very tired of reading and hearing comments that Americans won't prioritize climate change because it is "tomorrow's problem." Please explain that to my neighbors who are still re-building from Harvey, my Beaumont TX friend who just experienced Imelda "worse than Harvey," my co-worker who was trapped at the office last week during Imelda and re-lived Harvey flooding PTSD and fretted she should have purchased all-metal furniture during remodel, or most importantly, all the families who lost loved ones and are dealing with financial hardship due to increasing hurricanes, flooding (Midwest, OK...), fires, drought, agricultural failures, etc. Honestly, folks, climate change is here, happening for decades, but just getting into full acceleration. We "ain't seen nothing yet."
Climate change is the "mother of all issues" and should be treated as such. Thank you, mr Friedman for helping to illuminate those interdependencies.
I was disappointed to see Inslee drop out of primary, but I will support the candidate who can articulate the immediacy and a detailed plan for action on day one.
148
@Bh
If only people did vote on climate. The recent federal election in Australia was considered by most pollsters to be the "climate change election"
The party that won is now lead by a man who brought a lump of coal to parliament to show us all how good it is, and who has recently stated the youth protesters should be less anxious and "be more positive".
5
Well, Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington state was pushing for all that you suggest. Unfortunately, democratic voters didn't seem excited with his ideas. Great is right. We lack maturity.
22
Thomas Friedman is right. A serious commitment to CO2 level reductions consistent with UN policies will be rendered impossible if it is accompanied by efforts to remake American society fin the many ways identified by various candidates.
However, Friedman and others are wrong that this will result in a stronger economy at no cost to the country. The costs will be high, both for the transfer to new power sources but also for the infrastructure that will be required to bring that new power to market. In addition, they ignore the need to have an underlying power system which will provide the continuity that is not available from solar and wind systems. Nuclear or hydroelectric would work but ......!
And wait - what about the rest of the world. Notwithstanding Mr Friedman's reliance on isolated events in China or anywhere else to prove his point, there is not the slightest chance that the developing world - particularly China and other countries in eastern Asia, India, Brazil and Africa, will join the parade unless we pay for it. Even Germany is having trouble making any progress in that area.
So, Mr. Friedman is wrong. Maybe we should treat the people like intelligent adults, let them know that what ever the US might do, it will not eliminate, on its own, the threats associated with climate change. Maybe we should prepare for it.
9
“I don’t know who sold progressive Democrats on the idea that the way to beat Donald Trump is to abolish the private health insurance of 160 million Americans and offer instead “Medicare for all” ..., but it’s a political loser.”
As best I can tell there’s this line that has a left, right, and center; many people have gotten the idea that you can map American politics onto that line; and strong partisans have gotten the idea that the center of that line is problematic. For progressives, that apparently means rejecting ideas like “fix the ACA and add a public option” in favor of something they think could work and is sufficiently far to the left side of that line.
I think that if you try to map American politics onto that line you’ll miss a lot of what people think and feel when they consider whether something is practical, decent, necessary, fair, best done collectively, or best left to individual initiative.
People can think all that through for themselves.
But I also think that left-right line now guides the political reflexes of many strong partisans - they stop judging ideas on the merits but according to where people say ideas fall on that line. So they’ve become prisoners of their own heuristic device.
Given Beto’s senate campaign I agree with you that the Ds should offer young people energizing issues like sanity on climate change.
1
President Trump has been dramatically ineffective at nudging Allies or Adversaries into actions that are beneficial. So saying the US will be Pre-eminent in “the earth race” but will also provoke progress by Brazil, Indonesia, Australia, India, China, Mexico, because of the caliber of Democratic President’s strategic thinking and disciplined execution could be strongly attractive to the 29% of voters who are alarmed by biodiversity loss, soil and fisheries degradation, and greenhouse gas concentrations and resulting storms and attractive enough to the next 25% who want to be proud of the US nation, not just our athletes, musicians, actors, and military members, and have been unsatisfied for a dozen years.
3
The principal issues should be 1) global incineration/environment; 2) income/wealth inequality and taxes; 3) health care including public and private options; and 4) sensible immigration policies.
Clearly there are other critical issues, but these are important to voters and Trump has failed on each.
10
I agree with what Friedman said about making environment a top issue, but he also needs to add health care and specifically, single-payer Medicare for All to the list.
He said, "But if I were running for president against Trump, I’d be leading with the Earth Race as an economic opportunity, a national security necessity, a health emergency, an environmental urgency and a moral obligation. No other issue can combine those five." That all applies to health care with the exception of environmental urgency.
Our current multi-payer corporate-run health care system wastes money, reduces economic opportunity, and literally causes people to suffer and die, and people go broke paying for health care. People are cutting back on vacations, food, and other necessities to pay medical costs and insurance premiums. These costs reduce economic opportunity and entrepreneurship.
If Friedman wants to unleash America's creativity, then Medicare for All is also essential.
14
Thanks for this column, Mr. Friedman. Prior to the last presidential election, the DNC sent me a survey, asking me to rank my top policy concerns. I had to write in the environment, because it wasn’t even a choice on the survey. I’m glad that the youth of the world seems to finally be breaking through where older generations have failed so miserably. Hopefully it’s not too late. A comprehensive approach to clean energy simultaneously addresses climate change, national security, and economic growth.
12
Mr. Friedman's analysis is surprisingly wrong - politically. No one thinks an environmental catastrophe that might happen tomorrow is more scary than the lump you haven't had checked out because (1) you couldn't afford your insurance or (2) your deductible is so high that the doctor visit, with tests, could run you $1,000 or more.
And I'm a Greta fan who drives a Nissan Leaf & has solar on my roof. But - seriously. People need healthcare first (including dental, vision & mental - that's all HEALTH CARE).
30
Go for it Tom Friedman et al. Make the environment a marquee issue of the 2020 presidential election. Trump will mop the floor with any Democratic nominee running on 'climate change'.
The environment, climate change and the cost/benefit of what all the proposed life restrictions climate fanatics are demanding of everyday Americans is 2nd only to taking away private insurance as a loser platform plank - a very close 2nd. Especially when people know that any sacrifices by the US are going to be totally cancelled out by the rest of the world's all talk and no action on the paper exercise known as the Paris Agreement.
(And, by the way, as to the electric revolution going on in China, what Friedman fails to report is the a massive percentage of China's grid that is powering all those electric vehicles is coming from burning coal. An excellent model for the rest of the world!)
3
@Common Sense
So, do it all without burning coal. It’s there, lots of sun, lots of wind. Yes, we can!
3
Thank you Mr. Friedman. I agree. While some people can’t “relate” to the environmental “issue” when they are worried about rent or healthcare, those latter will be moot without an environment that supports life, and health.
35
Greta Thunberg has captured the hearts and minds of people around the world. Go Greta !
Now we need a US Presidential candidate who can speak fluently and passionately about policies that will save Mother Earth.
The candidate who understands and supports Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries (VRFB), and recognizes the critically important role they play with renewable energy gets my vote.
Today, the economics of solar are compelling but the missing piece of the renewable puzzle is grid level energy storage.
Unlike lithium ion batteries which can burst into flames, VRFB can't and won't.
Unlike lithium ion batteries which degrade over time, VRFB don't degrade and in fact last for over 20 years. (it's a simple chemical process)
The US needs to wake up to the urgent need for Grid Level Storage batteries and shut down dirty coal and natural gas fired plants.
34
@Joy
Vanadium redox flow batteries are low-energy-density, and therefore best suited for stationary applications. They require highly acid working fluids, e.g., sulfuric acid, like old-style lead-acid. Vanadium metal and its ions are highly toxic.
And of particular relevance from a geopolitical standpoint, China accounts for 54% of global vanadium production, Russia accounts for 18%, and South Africa accounts for 21%. The rest is from Brazil, a source that only recently came online. The US accounts for _zero_ (figures from US Geological Survey, for calendar 2015, as reported in January 2017).
So vanadium is another strategic mineral that the US would be dependent upon nations hostile to our interests. It's no panacea.
Again referring to USGS data, lithium production is overwhelmingly from Chile, Australia and more-recently Argentina. China accounts for 6%, and Russia doesn't rate a mention. Interestingly, US domestic lithium production is "withheld as company proprietary data" and, in global summaries is treated as a zero. (I would guess that US domestic lithium production has been concealed, at least as far back as 1998, because lithium hydride is a component of hydrogen bombs.)
2
@Joy
Thank you for mentioning VRFB Batteries. A very interesting technology.
Friedman's "the Earth Race" would appeal to me but I live in bluer than blue New York so it doesn't matter. Does it appeal to those working class swing voters in Wisconsin and Michigan? That is what Democrats should be asking. Are these Midwest swing voters Sierra Club type people or do they care more about jobs and personal economic situation then the environment? I have a feeling not too many trace their political views back to John Muir.
8
There is still a market for anti-environmentalism in red states.
Here in Ohio, in response to heavy lobbying from First Energy, the state recently passed a law adding a fee to utility bills to keep First Energy's two nuclear plants running. While not a bad idea for the environment to keep a non-carbon power source running, the Republicans running the state also then did away with renewable energy goals and added a subsidy for two coal fired power plants, one of which is located in Indiana.
7
The important goal is that Trump not be reelected. Why am I feeling the same nausea in the pit of my stomach that I felt when i had to walk into the voting booth, and vote for the horribly flawed nominee, Hillary. With Warren, Democrats are setting Trump up for another four years.
U.S. global emissions of CO2 had been going down for three years prior to Trump's election. There had been some progress. We will go back to a climate-friendly model if Biden is nominated!! Warren followers need to remember Joe was a co-steward of the ACA, which never really given a chance to grow. Many states tried to suffocate it in the cradle. It survived because it is a popular program.
I sense total disaster coming, with the growth in popularity in these sentimental populist candidates. America wants stability after 4 years of Trump. Not a revolution.
4
@Borat Smithyes yes yes yes and please no military weapons in non military hands, enough children have died. Has nothing to do with second amendment.
Mitch McConnell has been sent to the senate 6 times by a state ravaged and abandoned by the coal industry. They and their fellow basket case Tennessee, rank near the bottom in every measure of social welfare, yet they keep reelecting the same GOP politicians who have nothing for them but bottomless contempt. If the growls of their stomachs still cannot sway these people, logical arguments surely won't.
Whenever I read a Thomas Friedman piece, my first question is what CEO has he just had lunch with, because those are the only people with whom he associates. I'm all for a Green New Deal, but lets not kid ourselves, corporate America is going to spend most of its efforts hunting for tax breaks and subsidies to do what they would have done anyway, while siphoning off most of it at the top. Put the regulatory framework in, so that our policies are set in stone, and then tell the corporations they're on their own. Be as innovative as you pretend to be.
10
It’s called The Green New Deal, Thomas, and it’s not an easy sell in this era of misinformation. Welcome to the party.
10
Friedman is right that healthcare is not the biggest problem facing us and the stances taken by Warren and Bernie don’t make sense, but the answer is in fact a Green New Deal that creates the jobs necessary to transition our energy and bring our country together on a common project to get us back on track. Otherwise, the changes will not occur fast enough to fight climate change and that is the number one problem.
7
Chile, Bolivia and Argentina are components of the Lithium Triangle.
Wall Street's quarter to quarter mentality and power over the Republican Party and Trump by default, impose their will and intercede on the myriad attempts to move our economy further into the 21st century.
Electric cars, buses, etc. can be our future, a clean and profitable one at that.
China has made the first moves and is closing in on the Lithium Triangle. Trump and crowd our still stuck on Coal, Oil and the Persian Gulf.
23
@Texan
If we stop the US subsidies that we give to the oil, gas, and coal industries, we would have enough money to support clean energy.
Coal : received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies
Gas: US oil industry benefited from subsidies of about $4.6 billion per year.
Total worldwide subsidies to fossil fuels: $5.2 trillion in 2017.
We just have to have a president and congress that says no more subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. That would pay for anything that would be good for We the People.
Trump's base does not care about the effects of climate change in the future.
They want their lost good paying jobs restored today.
Trump won because he promised to restore these jobs.
HRC lost because she told the displaced workers.
Too bad you are deplorables and you will never regain lost economic status.
Trump made a promise he can not keep.
Building a wall or deporting every illegal immigrant will not do it.
But there are programs we could adopt [that do not require reviving coal or destroying the environment] which would help restore lost economic status.
Expanded use of the EITC and FDR type programs CCC / WPA/ PWA etc.
Unfortunately HRC did not propose them because either she doesn't understand or doesn't care.
Trump has convinced his base that restoring their economic status can only come from destroying the environment and allowing climate change to continue.
What programs does Mr. Friedman suggest to help restore lost economic status to displaced workers.
@david
"... Trump's base does not care about the effects of climate change in the future.
They want their lost good paying jobs restored today. …"
How ironic: climate change VS good jobs.
How about killing 2 birds with 1 stone - climate change and good paying jobs, right now today:
Hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs generated by the installation of solar panels, and the myriad of other green hardware.
The US needs to redirect the money it blows subsidizing the fossil fuel industry over to something required for the survival of this 'sentient' species.
14
I support your suggestions.
However what wages were laid off miners being paid.
What wages were laid off GM workers in Lordstown being paid.
What wage will be paid to installers of solar panels.
Your suggestions will not completely restore lost income.
Whether we should adopt programs to restore that lost income is a separate discussion.
If we do not they will continue to elect demagogues like Trump and re elect Trump in 2020.
2
@david
Actually Hillary did propose to train and create new jobs for coal miners and others.
And Hillary didn't tell people they would never regain economic status.
It's all lies on your part about her.
Hillary tried to tell the truth, that high paying jobs were not going to come back in areas like coal mining. Trump lied to them about bringing jobs back.
4
Thanks for doing the zdemocrats the favor of pointing this out. The Republicans don't even have a way to fill the space they have left empty on this issue, and Trump's blatant attack on every environmental standard becomes their default position. And let's not dismiss the moral weight of this. Trump has openly declared war on the planet and all Americans. It is that simple.
This election is truly about survival and Republicans have declared themselves the enemy.
6
"I don’t know who sold progressive Democrats on the idea that the way to beat Donald Trump is to abolish the private health insurance of 160 million Americans and offer instead “Medicare for all” (and Mexico will pay for it), but it’s a political loser and an easy target for Trump to feast on".
Sorry Mr. Friedman, I know the main purpose of your article is to alert everyone of the very real danger confronting our planet.
But your statement is so light on truth that I must try to correct it. First, those Democrats supporting "Medicare for all", such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not doing so because they think it is an issue that can help defeat Trump. They back it because it is the best and cheapest way to provide healthcare for all.
Perhaps you could spend some more time reviewing the advantages of a single payer health plan and the problems that many Americans have today affording health care when confronted with a life threatening illness that is too expensive for them to fight effectively.
And after a more thorough review of the subject, you could even publish a column on it's merits.
53
Sanders and Warren don’t accept the fact that pushing for elimination of private health insurance will increase Trump’s chances of winning. Also legislation eliminating private health insurance will not be passed by the Senate
3
There is no evidence that it is the best and cheapest. It is easy to say it but it doesn’t make it so. There is no evidence that it will pass. There is considerable evidence that such a policy will give fodder to the Republican Party for a generation. Ask Clinton and Obama. If you get it through it certainly can’t work and there is no reason for the American people to believe it would.
1
@Wayne. Well said
Mr.Friedman, I agree with you but I also realize that I have the luxury of worrying about the environment because I have Medicare and do not need to worry about health care and paying for it.If I had high health costs and was worrying whether or not I could afford medication I might not be so sanguine about solar power and electric cars. Medicare for all would be prohibitively expensive but health care solutions could be developed which would add on to and improve the ACA.People need health care and we must all be committed to improving the environment-it is not either or-we need both!
19
Living in the Midwest, I see every day that we are rapidly converting the best farmland on Earth to housing units for a skyrocketing population. I hear California has a housing crisis and their freeways are clogged to a standstill. In the 1970s, lefties like me preached "zero population growth." Now, it is growth-growth-growth from both right and left. We will have growth and humanity will survive, but the conditions of human life will continue to deteriorate and non-human life on earth will be squeezed to extinction. On this path, the left and right now agree.
72
@Elliot
ZPG
It isn't only the younger generation that wants to see action. At age 74, with my first grandchild, I am very concerned about climate change. And as a retired petroleum industry environmental scientist, specializing in air quality, I have watched how the industry has changed, and not for the better. They say they are planning, but it is myopic, and reductions will not be achieved until we have an Administration and Congress that will pass a carbon tax. And that might not happen for a while. The investment community which holds significant amount of oil and gas stock still is in the "show us how you will be viable in the future", rather than dropping recommendations to buy. I have and in the process of selling any oil and gas stock in my IRA and hope more do so. There are plenty of good investments in new technology addressing energy.
This Administration, and many of its supporters always point at China which is the largest GHG emitter, but having traveled to China 6 times in the last 9 years, I have seen significant progress in reducing their emissions, watching the growth of solar and wind, the push for electric vehicles, and the acknowledgement of the major problems if winter moisture is water rather than snow, thus reducing water when it is needed in the planting season.
Health care is a huge issue, but with a warmer climate, we will more climate related health problems.
And this will be a national security disaster as well
75
We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can have Medicare for all AND a clean environment. Who's going to pay for them? Those who haven't been paying their fair share in the last 40 years.
47
@sapere aude
"... Who's going to pay for them …"
Healthcare:
US: 17% of GDP
Every EU country: 10-12%
The 5% of GDP the US saves upon transitioning to universal single payer will cover it all nicely with a mountain of gold left over for discretionary spending.
10
You are assuming the US can do it as efficiently as other countries. Also, much of the savings will come from cutting out the powerful wealthy insurance industry. They will not go quietly or inexpensively or maybe ever
3
@Doug
"... do it as efficiently […] powerful wealthy insurance industry..."
Even at half the efficiency, that is still 2.5% of GDP (1/2 trillion).
I take your point regarding the powerful and wealthy. This provides the justification to vacate Citizens United. We are hosed until this is achieved.
6
The Global Climate Crisis has never been about the economy versus the environment, but about the ability to care about and foresee a future imperiling both. Americans may not be visionaries, but they do care, they just don't know it yet...
The upcoming 2020's may very well come down to the ability of everyone to clearly see the consequences of fossil-fuel dependency. Ultimately, the choice will come down to electing leaders, or misleaders...
6
Expanding and improving the health care of all Americans at an affordable cost with true lifetime security is the winning ticket for 2020.
The best way forward to achieve that goal is to start by expanding and improving the Affordable Care Act and providing more public options throughout the health care system.
The "Earth Race" is a ticket to defeat. It's so out of touch it isn't even Hillary-like.
Climate adaptation and mitigation needs to be sold as an important jobs-producing infrastructure plan in the first instance necessary for America to meet the challenges and opportunities of a changing climate.
Hasn't it been the plan all along? To get the Green Party folks to vote Democrat. Just how many elections did it cost them? Gore and who else.
With Trump being impeached who could replace him during an election cycle? Ted Cruz? Brilliant strategy but Bernie "the 16 Trillion Dollar Man" and Warren should both be on the Green party ticket. I can't help myself, Jill Stein the Green Party presidential choice in '16 wanted to take guns away from cops. Brilliant.
Remember when the Republicans let in the tea party into their party? Yes, sir ban fossil fuels by 2030 and save the world.
Friedman is always the reliable center-right voice of the neoliberals and Wall St. The environment AND Medicare for All should be, and will be, both keys to Warren's progressive victory over both Trump and the Democratic Party Friedman and Wall St. have shaped for decades.
20
@Fred White: Friedman is of the opinion that taking away employer paid healthcare from 160 million people is bad politics. He wasn't passing on the merits of a Medicare for All plan. I am likewise concerned that Warren has boxed herself into a position that will come back to haunt her. If I were on her team, I'd morph her over to Mayor Pete's position for the general election: Medicare for All Who Want it. My guess is that Friedman wouldn't have a big problem with that.
3
Don't have a beef with a Medicare for All Option (expansion of existing program to those voluntarily choosing), but
This 1000%. Play the "negligence" card cause the public is catching on real fast to the threat.
Jay Inslee ran nearly a carbon copy of this approach and did not do well. I realize there were other issues involved, but Jay’s result does cast some doubts on the editorial’s premise.
14
I think it can be wrapped in the fact that everything he does is to reverse other presidents’ policies that work merely because it didn’t belong to him. What’s conservative about that.
1
YES! The trump effect is pushing us back to the bad old days of filthy air, polluted water, it’s worsening our dysfunctional transportation system; all while enhancing subsidized fossil fuel dependence. Those issues affect everybody. He is an easy target with his record. I hope to see his opponents skewer him on this, because I haven’t seen that yet. Somebody (a young person?) needs to get him on video asking him why he wants the air they breathe to be more poisonous. And will he consider America is great again when the next major river or lake catches on fire?
9
Thanks, Tom. If this really is the issue of our time, then, act like it. Do you think Churchill or Roosevelt in WW2 would have been campaigning for big non war related programs? No way. They were focused on the big problem. If the environment is the problem that is an enormous threat to our country and children, then, campaign on it and deal with it. Let the other issues go for now.
4
Life is not a zero sum game. We can have healthcare reform AND a race to clean energy. We can also walk and chew gum at the same time.
253
@Hector
The point is not whether of not we can have "healthcare reform" - it's whether campaigning on "Medicare for All" makes sense because half of America objects to it.
Friedman also doesn't think campaigning on the "Green New Deal" is a good idea.
2
@Hector
But unless we oust the GOP, we will have neither. I think this is part of Mr. Friedman's argument.
4
@Hector Spot on!
Such a well thought out spin of adding the environment to the conversation for Democratic candidates. Yes, many people want health care, but not at the expense of private insurance.
The environment is gaining traction (FINALLY), and it is an argument that works remarkably well against Trump's policies.
4
Sorry Tom, you've been wrong about so many things and you're wrong once again.
To me, there's nothing more important than the environment, and my allegiance is to biology/evolution first than to individual members of a species but yet I think this idea won't fly since humans are too selfish as they are presently. It would take a huge shift in consciousness to go with your views about the environment and we're not even close to being there yet. It would require a culling of a billion people IMO for the remaining to start seeing the light and there'll always be some entrenched forces who won't.
So I think medicare for all will be better - it can be spun better. Private insurance won't go away - it just won't be necessary for most.
19
While our looming environmental catastrophe is indeed the biggest issue of our time, it's very hard to get people to focus on it if they can't afford to get the medical care they and their loved ones need to survive.
9
Tom, there's another reason more important than just winning: SURVIVAL OF OUR HUMAN CIVILIZATION AND SPECIES.
7
There are a few things which you misconstrue. When JFK announced the moon shot the US was fortunate to have LBJ as VP. In 1958, as Senate majority leader, he introduced the bill which created NASA. Fortunately, despite JFK's assassination, the civil rights unrest in the US, the Vietnam war bequeathed to him by Ike and JFK, he pursued the moon. That is why mission control in Houston has been the Johnson Space Center for more than 40 years.
In addition, if the US reduces its carbon emissions to zero next year it will not make a dent in the climate change problem if China, India, Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia continue to drag their feet. We need a new moon shot; one directed at chemically or biologically converting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to harmless or beneficial chemicals or physically ejecting carbon dioxide into outer space. It does nobody any good to pretend the US can solve the climate change problem.
2
@James Ricciardi
That second part of your comment - chemically/biologically capturing or processing CO2 - is another topic that can be packaged as part of an "Environmental Candidacy Message". The US has a massive research engine - hundreds of professors, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers across its universities. Perhaps I'm biased (currently a grad student in Chemistry), but we ought to appreciate the research apparatuses of the nation a bit more than we do.
The Space Race was a Golden Age of Science for the US - particularly for Physicists. It's about time we reopened the funding floodgates for the Chemists and Biologists of the country in pursuit of these goal- carbon capture and functionalization, pollution remediation, etc. One of the current holy grails of my field of polymer chemistry would be to polymerize CO2 out of the air to be used in functional materials and chemical feedstocks. Difficult? Yes - that's the point of research. But research requires funding. And a lot of the technological know-how and research impetus in these areas of "Green Chemistry" is leaving the US under the current administration.
5
@James Ricciardi
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little" - Edmund Burke
Besides the US as the 2nd highest emitter can do a lot more than a little. And as easily the highest emitter historically it is called upon to set the best example to smaller current emitters. The view that as no country on its own can "solve the climate change problem", none should do anything to reduce their emissions, is reprehensible. All efforts to lower emissions contribute to making the global warming we will experience less than it will otherwise be. Your imagined technological fixes of the problem are the stuff of fairy-tales.
5
@GRW I have not made my point clear enough. I do not think the US should do nothing. It should lead the fight. My point is different. This is a problem unlike any the US has faced before. We need to admit the US cannot solve it alone, unlike WWll for example, where the entry of the US into the war resolved it. We need to fight on two fronts at once. We cannot put all our eggs in one basket. We need a second moon shot approach. That is my point.
1
With over 1 million individual donors Bernie Sanders has more individuals contributing to his campaign than the Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden combined. He also has the boldest climate policy and has backed the Green New Deal, building upon his work in Burlington and throughout VT to promote environmental as well as economic justice. He has 100 percent eschewed corporate money, leaving him free to advocate for people and planet over profits. This is among the many reasons I am still feeling the Bern and am working on his campaign.
40
Among the responsibility of government is to provide funding for pay-it-forward investments. It is unrealistic to expect private industry to make investments where the payoff is decades into the future and consists of many intangibles.
At the local level, pay-it-forward investments include education, infrastructure, nutrition and other forms of preventative medicine.
At the national level we have sovereign wealth investments such as the interstate highway system and the moon mission.
It is high time that we made a sovereign wealth investment in renewable energy and drive down greenhouse gas net emissions rapidly. The world wins when the US leads.
7
Why is Mr. Freidman so averse to public healthcare? As a Canadian, I adore our state-run system – I'd be certainly dead without it. When I had my heart transplant 20 years ago (yes, 20 years ago!), I was told by the surgeon that private American health insurance would never have covered my operation, given the rare auto-immune condition that triggered my heart failure. I should also mention that for the last to decades, I have received my anti-rejection drugs for free – zero deductible – given that they are life-saving. We are not without private insurance in Canada: I use Blue Cross to cover my dental and drugs other than the anti-rejection drugs. I have never met any Canadians who would trade our Medicare system for a private one that you poor souls have in the USA...
332
@Matt M The way the current Democratic candidates talk about healthcare and immigration, you'd think they are doing their very best to hand the election to Trump. The U.S. healthcare system badly needs reform, but the proposals from top contenders are non-starters for most voters. The same with immigration. I really am worried that the Democratic Party is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
32
@Matt M
Sorry. Can't compare Canada and US. Lots of Americans like their private health plans and don't want anyone to take them away. That is Friedman's point. Woe be to Elizabeth Warren if she tries. Yet, an option for those who want a public plan like Medicare, should be more widely available.
16
@Matt M You provided just the thing that I would offer up to Mr. Friedman, which is to simply look at Canada. Medicare for All is not a pie in the sky concept, a la let Mexico pay for it. It is a proven system, a la let Canada (show us how WE will) pay for it.
Yep, it would raise taxes a bit but people's healthcare costs and worries would simultaneously be slashed. Corporations would get out of the yearly cost and headache of providing insurance. Oodles of health provider paperwork and coverage-related treatment angst would be eliminated. Overall, healthcare costs would be significantly less. Swearzies! Private insurance would evolve and remain available. Go ask Canada.
Americans have the option of sending their children to a public school. They can also pay to send them to private school. Or, they can also send them to a public school and pay to have them tutored. An important thing here is that the money they spend on the private school, or the tutoring, is over and above what they pay for the public school (through their taxes). That is their choice, which is fine.
Health Care should be similar. If one desires something perceived to be better than the public Medicare offering, one could replace or supplement the public option, on their own dime. That's fine. Private insurance options would evolve to serve those needs.
That all being said, I will say that I did like all of Tom's non-medicare thoughts 🙌. Just sayin'...
25
I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago and took its warning that government can be taken over to stifle innovation and maintain fortunes to heart. However, I always found the idea of the government adopting ever more, anti-capitalist regulations as the means unrealistic. Trump has shown where Ayn Rand got it right and wrong. We should be worried, but we should be worried about the removal of regulations that protect us while spurring innovation of cleaner and more energy efficient solutions.
2
Even the United Kingdom has a robust private health insurance market.
The far left with destroy us by throwing us to the far right wolves.
The irony.
4
@Will. You've got to be kidding. It's a small niche market. You can have Medicare For All Who Want It combined with private insurance sold directly to individuals for those who want that. Insurance provided through employers is a really stupid idea. Health care costs in your country are double those in mine.
1
YES! Thank you for this. I don’t understand why democratic candidates and leaders are so willing to embrace amnesty for illegals and Medicare for all but seem afraid to get behind a clean energy revolution. It embodies what America does best: developing innovative solutions to crucial problems and providing global technological leadership. It almost seems that many have blindly accepted the line that fighting climate change will hurt the economy. Let’s reframe this revolution as the true economic opportunity that it is. Please, the stakes are too high to cede a climate leadership role to anyone else.
105
Thank you , Mr. Friedman. We should all remember that it's in everyone's interest to keep the environment as apolitical as possible. It's the top issue, no matter what.
113
Excellent article for the Vernal Equinox.
3
@Evan Durst Kreeger FYI, the vernal equinox is in the spring. Monday, Sept 23, was the autumnal equinox.
@Billadonna
"FYI, the vernal equinox is in the spring. Monday, Sept 23, was the autumnal equinox."
It's switched if you live in the southern hemisphere.
And the night sky is incredible there. The Milky Way is awesome, Orion is upside down, and you can see constellations you can never see north of the equator. The Magellanic Clouds are a sight to behold.
1