Hi Thomas,

First of all, I'd like to say that I just read the question itself, found it interesting and then ... WOOW ! Thomas Friedman ! THE guy from the Times, ah outch ! Well, should better answer the smart way then ...

Ok, let's try : I heard once things like "ecological economy" and "economical ecology", both being tightly bound. These are.

The cost of polluting may be well underestimated, as we are now not spending on the interests of mother nature's capital, we're eating the capital itself.

Best bet here : we're in a pro-cycling movement that can only worsen if we don't find a new paradigm that (oddly enough) allow us to spend less to gain more (or may be as much).

There's a fundamental flaw in our French president famous saying "I want to allow people working more to gain more". That's the stupid easy, non-creative-but-self-copying way. There's no value creation in the process. The smart way is "less for more" and it has the name of "efficiency".

Other big mistake : the myth of scale efficency. Re-read Peter Laurence on the "inverted pyramids". Past a given optimum point, oligopolistic markets do increase production costs. It's a non sense to have water and food distribution so centralised. Under cover of free open market competition, the real life result is looking like a communist centralized system to which no one seems enticed to object : customer are their captive preys, and they are regarded as symbols of success for the size of their empire.

Naked truth is that all empires will eventually collapse under their own weight.

The end of green programs because of the current turnmoil would only precipitate the world wide situation. This said, choices are not that clear : corn-oil may lead to serious WW hunger problems as well ...

Considering that on top of that there may be :
* a global cultural shock (ref to "America alone" by Mark Steyn)
* a serious global shift in powers in presence (ref to Noam Chomsky "What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World)
* a global backward move about nuclear proliferation legitimacy
* more and more deregulated armed forces interventions (cf. Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, by Jeremy Schahill)

Well, who will take the lead of the "green revolution " ? Big current oil companies ? May be, as apparently these spend some means to guess what will happen (example of study with the link here below)

My best bet,
Bruno.

Links:

• http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/our_strategy/shell_...

posted 8 months ago

Oddly the financial crisis mas been the making of my next door neighbour (having a new product): It seems his buyers have started an economy drive to strip costs and his (fairly marginally green) product allows them to do that. Nice to see all the new cars outside but makes mine look a bit shabby.

Here in the UK, I would expect it to be the end of the drive towards subsidized 'here and now' green projects but that capital will now be searching more actively for solutions that are both green and economic.

posted 8 months ago

For those people who see green as a trend, as a way to appeal to a certain segment of the market the economic crisis will put an end to that luxury. But to those folks who take a longer view of green the economic crisis is a gift, I might even say that it is necessary in order to provide the opportunity for green.

The answer to your question lies in how your understand green. This financial crisis is much greater than just finance. It is an economic crisis. It is a spiritual crisis. It is a global crisis. It represents so much. Green is based on the idea that we are part of nature. That pursuing our civilized existence can and must be in harmony with nature with the planet.

The financial crisis and the market crash and the economic crash is an opportunity to usher in a new paradigm. A paradigm where human activity is in harmony with nature. A paradigm that makes ecological footprints irrelevant because minimizing our impact is seen for what it is, flawed and backward thinking. The green paradigm (if we can call it that) wants to maximize our impact because our impact is good for nature, other species, the environment.

Your question can also be reversed and seen that green is what brought on the financial crisis. Green is the awareness that a worldwide economy based on cheap credit and fossil fuels is unsustainable.

posted 8 months ago

One cannot happen without the other. They are inextricably linked. The ultimate resource, pace Julian Simon, is human ingenuity, cognition and ratiocination.

posted 8 months ago

Thanks for your quest to ask these questions.

Green is not going away. Rather, it will become (is becoming) a standard as the shift in global conscience and consciousness we're experiencing will continue its path into mainstream. The financial crisis may slow down this progress but the momentum is unstoppable at this point, the critical mass has been reached. Green will increasingly inform our financial and other decisions, so the solution to the current crisis, whatever shape it takes, will be more triple-bottom line friendly than anyone anticipates.

posted 8 months ago

I'm writing from the so called 51st state - Ireland - where the economic crisis has been compounded by fiscal recklessness on a gargantuan level by our incumbent political establishment. The green question is important as Ireland has long had an emotional attachment to the whole concept of green. Sadly, since the early 1980’s we as a nation have abused the knowledge and opportunity to place our country at the forefront of all things green, food, conservation (of culture and heritage) and environment.
We are most definitely at a cross roads and in Hot, Flat and Crowded you could easily have replaced America with Ireland such is the similarity with which we have followed the urbanization of our once green and beautiful island.
We have no choice but to grab the nettle and plan to change for the sake of our children and their children’s future. If we don’t the prognosis is dire. In my opinion, green will help to ease the pain of the economic crisis and pave the way to a better more equitable and better future.

posted 8 months ago

During recession companies may want to cut cost by going green, but are there any technologies available to go green? Further even if they are deploying "green technologies", there is a good amount of investment in the beginning and the cost savings are seen may be 2-3 years later. Companies may not want to invest at this point of time as they are looking for cutting immediate costs.

Further I think the recession will have impact on research spendings as well. Start-Ups will face difficulties in getting funding for developing green technologies and big companies are already slashing their research costs.

In my view, going green will pick up 1-2 years after the economy comes out of recession..

posted 8 months ago

Mr Friedman,
each and every company should have at least a medium term view. Companies with short term view are the ones that suffer more from bad market cicles. To develop a medium term view, companies should also plan ethical and sustainable investments, because they respond to precise market and reputational risks.
Ethical and sustainable investments also involve green investments, for their attitude to reduce medium term costs (energy, etc.) and to increase the company's reputation and visibility.

So, green won't let you out this recession, but if you planned green investments in the past, now you will suffer less the recession and you'll be able to beat the competitors.

Regards,
Stefano

posted 8 months ago

“Is the economic crisis going to be the end of green?" - I don't think so. Investment criteria might be tighter, but there is still an urgent need for greener technologies, whether it's to reduce emissions, reduce our reliance on foreign energy, reduce waste, and/or reduce the detrimental effects of practices such as industrial farming (e.g., superbugs, waste, poor quality products, enlarged waistlines).

"Or, could green be the way to end the economic crisis?” - Innovation has always helped us out of an economic crisis and green innovation should play a part. I met a guy in CT who works for a small biz that can cheaply convert gas guzzler's to hybrids. I'm bullish on such innovative companies that can execute in the green space.

posted 8 months ago

Thomas,

The great news is that "green" not only still makes sense in times of a contracting economy, it makes more sense.

As you know well, green / environmentally friendly / sustainable capital expenditures lead to what many refer to as the triple bottom line - because the impact of those capital investments (defined as used to acquire a substantial product or service, one that will generally last for over three years) can be quantified in three areas: economic, employee performance / loyalty / stakeholder (broad environmental impacts).

It is true that many of these green or sustainability investments have a longer pay-back period (the amount of time it takes for the investor / company to get net positive returns on their investment) but 1) that is not always the case and 2) smarter companies will be long-term greedy which means that the long term positive payback will be sufficient justification.

We are seeing a contraction, however, not so much in justifying the larger front-end investment in a piece of equipment that will have lower emissions and operating costs, but in the certification program.

The LEED programs require a fair amount of paperwork and costs that don’t necessarily contribute to the longer-term benefits of lower costs and lower emissions. Companies are achieving the same substantial results by building / refurbishing / investing sustainably and not going to the outside process to get it certified.

In the end, it’s compliance with the concepts more than filigree we seek. If you consider that, hopefully, building codes will adopt LEED, the certification / audit process doesn’t add sufficient value for companies to be concerned about not having it in the first place.

PS: Keep up the great work. We need more thoughtful, long-term, non-partisan discussions on thinking about our future.

posted 8 months ago

Here in Sweden, there is a political interest into looking into how cleantech can get us out of the current mess, with Volvo and Saab letting thousands of employees go. A couple of open workshops have been held and biogas is on the lips of many. The CEO of Volvo Fredrik Arp just recently opened up to the idea of restarting the production of bi-fuel vehicles (petrol/biogas) and a recent report from a government agency (Vinnova+WSP) pointed out biogas investments (production, infrastructure and usage) as the most effective way of combatting climate change. Biogas from manure has been identified as a substantial potential source of waste-based, CO2-negative (sic!) biofuel that can bring additional income to the agricultural community and spur the development of a new sector, something that's even caught the attention of WESTSTART in California, and others.
Under the assumption that the Copenhagen negotiations during next year are somewhat successful and form the foundation for a more viable carbon market, I think that cleantech/biogas may very well play an important role in an economy slowing down.

Links:

• http://www.vinnova.se/
• http://www.businessregiongoteborg.com/download/18.482e5003117e8afe0d0800051...

posted 8 months ago

The turmoil of the financial crisis will result in credit crunch, bank liquidation issues, corporations letting people of their jobs, posting low profit margins, auto sector bankrupcies resulting in job losses. Note that the job losses are not "only" in the technology sector. The first task of any government in the globe is to "clean up" this financial crisis, and get the financial engine running again. Bank of England, and ECB are trying to get ahead of the curve and adopted the "Swedish" financial bail out strategy. If any government spends in green technology now, without paying heed to getting systemic risks down, you will have a global depression or depression in respective economies. So, economically speaking, government should cut spending on all unnecessary stuff, and focus on getting the economy up, by cleaning up financial institutions, and promoting best business environments. So, If there was massive green spending in the next few years, what will happen is detsabilization of the economy, creating imbalances. So, the answer to you question: Green technology will need to get a set back from government spending [partially atleast], and after the financial engine turns again, should be investing more. None the less, private investors and private equity will see this recession as a great opportunity to invest in green technology, where the world is moving in unison for the future. ECB has already agreed not to cut down on the aggressive move on cutting emissions by 20%, but EU's interest rate is still high, and they have already allocated 1.5 Trillion to counter the financial crisis. So, in the short term expect green tech investments [from the government around the globe] to decrease, and then inrease significantly. If you see massive green tech investment in the next 2-3 years, it is very good for the economy in high tech jobs, but will stall the credit markets, which inturn will cause severe depression and inflation.

If you do think my points of risk, economics and investment is informative and to the point, and should you decide to publish it in your book, my humble request, please let me know, so that I can utilize it in my resume or as some form of accomplishment to be attractive to investors for my entrepreneurial venture. Also let me know if you are interested to connect through Linkedin. Regards, Entrepreneur.

posted 8 months ago

Mr. Friedman--

Next to Al Gore, and now Barack Obama, you are now the most influential voice on the green revolution. Please accept this as a high compliment. Recently I've written about you in this capacity on another Linkedin answer, which can be easily referenced.

Beyond Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" there are two key books on the market now that talk about America taking the lead, driving the green revolution into the 21st century. One is Newt Gingrich's book "A Contract With The Earth, and the second book is your title, "Hot, Flat and Crowded". When I see something mentioned twice by people I respect, I see a pattern. When I see it three or more times, it's a developing trend.

I understand the economics of the times, but am puzzled that after all this debate since 2006 over global warming, after the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the EPA in April 2007, and Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize last year (shared with the IPCC), the notion that green would just disappear as a victim of the times, kind of blows my mind.

Yet if by chance, "eco-green" does fade with the times, so be it. But I just don't see it going away that easily. Maybe I am wrong. But I see the topic will keep coming back, even 25 years from now. Besides, with a rising China, and India, seriously, what else (at this moment in time) do we have on the horizon to drive America to maintain a 21st century global lead? I for one am counting on the "green revolution" to help America step up to the plate and be great again. If not just to combat global warming, but pollution, illegal dumping, the food we eat, deforestation, and many other ecological concerns.

In the for what it's worth department, I was a fan of Michael Crichton, and was sorry to see him pass away this week. But as an unlikely environmental devotee, Mr. Crichton became for me, the skeptical voice to keep the climate change discussion balanced. Maybe I read into this more then I should, but on the same day Barack Obama came into power, Michael Crichton, who was arguably the most famous global warming hype skeptic passed away. The moment I heard the news, I didn't think about Jurassic Park, or ER. I thought about pages 625 to 630 of his 2004 bestseller, "State of Fear", where Mr. Crichton states on page (627): "The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is needed."

My point in stating this, is when I think of the oncoming green revolution, these are the words that ring most to me that I want people to consider before we revolutionize our world, for all the wrong reasons. We all know there are many environmental problems, and to what extent is debatable, but if we are going to transform our society and world through a green revolution, my hope is we do it in a competitively good spirit, without the need for some kind of police state forcing people to be eco-minded, or jailing someone if they didn't recycle on time.

Let us remember why we are all here even having this discussion. Since 2006, global warming has been billed as the greatest man-made oncoming disaster in the history of civilization. We're talking about a problem that won't even (if it does) get catastrophic until 2050 to 2100, and this is if ice caps and glaciers melt, resulting in oceans rising, destabilizing over 500 million (estimated) people, thus creating global chaos, etc.

So unless Mr. Obama veers away from his environmental campaign stance, I am expecting the environment to become a big issue in the coming months/years. One only needs to take a look at Obama's Environment Fact Sheet (see link below) to see where his priority lies by driving America as a leader in taking on climate change, with the goal of cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

Thank you for asking this question sir.

Sincerely,

Scott M. Iseman

Links:

• http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf
• http://twitter.com/al_gore

posted 8 months ago

Sustainability and "green" initiatives will be the catalyst for innovation and one of the factors that leads our way out of the financial crisis. We can't wait for further bail outs – we need to innovate our way out of the current situation. It won't happen over weeks or even months, but a slow progression that has already started and will catch fire in the next 2-3 years.

Wonderful that the Wal-Marts of the world are embracing the sustainability ethic, but what about all the thousands of Small and Medium sized businesses (SMEs) that have yet to understand how they can use sustainability to enable efficiencies and innovation? Since SME's make up the largest portion of the economy – employing the most people and generating the most income(1) – this is where the magic happens.

The market will reward those that use a sustainability lens through which to view their business, cutting costs and innovating to create new products and address new markets. Not just “green” products – shoes that have tread made from recycled tires and the like – but others that innovate in ways that bring new products to green customers, and to the Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) customers too. And new ways to package these products. And new ways to build these products that minimize waste. And support their supply chain in new and creative ways.

What about new green “heaven” based energy technologies?? We will see so many innovations on this front that your head will spin. Soon, with President Obama at the helm, you can count on policies that will support these efforts. We will look back on this time period and see that it was analogous to FDR's New Deal rebuilding and infrastructure plans of the 1930's and 1940's.

Really the list is endless. With so such innovation in the next decade, it will make the tech wave of the 1990's look anemic.

(1) Globally SMEs account for 99% of business numbers and 40% to 50% of GDP. Source: Wikipedia, Small and Medium Businesses definition, date accessed 11/6/08

Links:

• http://www.thewiredwoman.com

posted 8 months ago

The green movement is firmly implanted in construction enterprise (codes, certifcation programs, and owner expectations). As energy returns to high cost it will force the hand of this relatively low hanging fruit: conservation.

posted 8 months ago

I believe that if it is looked at in the proper light, 'green' should be the same catalyst for the economy that the internet was in the 90's. I think green is the answer for the end of the crisis.

posted 8 months ago

The decline of oil prices has once again increased the reluctance of people to aggressively pursue alternative energies. That being said, the financial crisis will not end green, but "being green" will not grow at the speed or sense of urgency that it should.
As far as green being the way to end the economic crisis, any true alternative energy will take 10-25 years to fully make mainstream. Basic "green concepts" will aid the social well-being but will not have a dramatic impact on the economy

Thank you for a provocative and interesting questing!

Sincerely,

Jeff Kleiman

posted 8 months ago

Mr. Friedman,

I believe we can't even consider a rational (and green would be rational) answer to the financial crisis while we are giving banks billions of dollars in taxpayer money with which to pay employee bonuses and to acquire yet additional banks. I hope our new government will make big investment in green and in our infrastructure but I am afraid this current government will give away so much to its friends there will be little left for green.

posted 8 months ago

You might want to read the book Hot, Flat and Crowded. Except for silliness about so-called global warming, it's a very good book by an insightful author (even though he writes for the former national newspaper of record). If you take the time to read it, you'll discover that "green" is clearly the future for economic development and wealth generation. More importantly, by being environmentally responsible (really being environmentally responsible, not the nonsense of paying to pollute - buying carbon credits where the bad will negate the efforts of the good) there will truly be a way to bridge (never cancel) the gap between the wealthy, the well-off, and the poor.

posted 8 months ago

Green is the future for our new economy.

posted 8 months ago

the latter, of course!

posted 8 months ago

I strongly believe that investment in alternative energies; solar; wind; thermol, etc will be one of the door leading us out this current economic crisis and contribute to the foundation of a new social order

-Herb
(hisen1@gmail.com)

posted 8 months ago

Tom,

A charming and quanit question sort of like asking who you are you going to marry when you grow up... sleeping beauty or Cinderella?

Millions of people are suffering in the U.S. and millions more are on the brink...

The "green" book will be closed and put on the shelf. Only the elite (novelists and trust fund ivy leaguers) will long for the elegant fantasy of being "green".

Respectfully,

Kermit the Frog

posted 8 months ago

Looking at the "educated" responses below, I would almost say mine is middle class. But considering that everything is about middle class these days, I would say it will have a negative short term impact and a positive long term impact.
In the short term, people will look to save a buck first before anything else. Out goes the energy conscious thoughts and in comes the cheapest solution. From an investment standpoint, the lack of a conducive environment for green products will translate into smaller investments and risks in the field.
In the long term, the economic crisis of 2008 will bode well for a "green revolution". Smart companies with interesting and compelling products will be able to make an impact with their "killer app" products. A Google, a Youtube, a Facebook or a Myspace or going back further a Cisco or an Apple will arrive that blows away every known perception of "green" and make it cool and affordable to "Go Green".
It would thus behoove green enthusiasts to bide their time before their true calling comes- and none too soon.

posted 8 months ago

Green shmeen. People are losing their homes. Other countries can give a hoot about green. Anything that COSTS us money in the short run should be put on the back burner.

posted 8 months ago

The only way we will get through this and come back to the american dream is if we go green, we do what needs to be done and get away from lazy corporate outsourcing as well.

posted 8 months ago

The green movement will be slowed, due to the fact that it will always be widely supported by individuals and groups of people, rather than the government. I know the government will have incentives and some support but, ultimately only the wide acceptance from people, will the green movement produce useful tools of clean energy.

posted 8 months ago

It is the beginning of a new era and obsoletes the past. This drives new investment and compels the replacement of the imbedded base of carbon technologies. Properly managed it will be the savior of this nation - we sell ideas. This gives us a totally new platform.

posted 8 months ago

We can only hope this economic melt down fosters the birth of new technologies that focus on "green". As our politicians suggest yet another economic stimulas package, why aren't they considering how to stimulate corporations like GM and Ford to produce more energy efficient vehicles. Yes, the demand for these types of vehicles will increase, but US manufacturers will not be able to invest in new technology given their financial crisis. Even small business won't find the capital they need to develop new technologies. As much as we don't want government to interfer in business, perhaps they need to rethink how a partnership between the public and private sector could benefit the masses instead of stimulas packages that benefit the few.

posted 8 months ago