When Inaccuracy Hurts

Kevin Drum points out that for a guy who's super-concerned about global warming, Tom Friedman doesn't seem to follow the issue at all, writing the following in a fake memo representing Iran's take on the United States:

True, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. Congress decided to increase the miles per gallon required of U.S. car fleets by the year 2020 — which took us by surprise — but we nevertheless "strongly believe" this will not lead to any definitive breaking of America's oil addiction, since none of the leading presidential candidates has offered an energy policy that would include a tax on oil or carbon that could trigger a truly transformational shift in America away from fossil fuels.

Sure, sure, none of the leading presidential candidates have done that. Except that Friedman might have wanted to note that John Edwards came out with a proposal to fully-auction carbon permits in the context of a cap-and-trade scheme aimed at aggressive emissions reductions, which is the same thing. For that matter, Barack Obama came out with the same proposal. And, um, Hillary Clinton. So rather than "none" of the leading presidential candidates favoring such measures all of the Democrats have proposals that would do this.

To me, this kind of pundit fuck-up -- declining to give credit to people who deserve it -- is probably the most damaging kind. For better or for worse, Friedman's become one of the leading voices on climate change and energy issues. And he's a very influential columnist. People probably read him hoping to see which politicians, if any, someone who finds his columns convincing should be supporting. In this case, they should be strongly favoring whoever wins the Democratic nomination. But Friedman won't say so. Instead, in order to reach a pox on both houses conclusion he finds himself ignoring the very strong similarity between auctioned permit plans and carbon tax plans. But if this is the treatment candidates stake out bold eco-friendly positions are going to get from prominent advocates, then who's going to bother. You can be sure the fossil fuel industry knows which politicians are their friends and which aren't. The ones who aren't need people to have their backs, not to just get slandered coming and going.

Comments

Friedman is suffering withdrawal symptoms from his past obsession to bring democracy to Arabs.

It seems like global warming is his new fix.

Posted by tg | December 6, 2007 9:19 AM

Perhaps the Democratic candidates should strategically fund cab drivers in 3rd world nations where little Tommy Friedman is likely to travel so that the big F.U. might hear some facts once in a while. They could even spice up the Friedman-destined campaign info with exciting analogies about Western consumer goods making it to exotic locations.

Posted by El Cid | December 6, 2007 9:21 AM

If we outsourced Friedman's column to Indian Taxi drivers and Chinese CEOs (assistants) we would not only prevent lots of Carbon emmissions (Friedman wouldn't have to jetset all over the world), but the outsourced column writers might actually feel the need to do some research to do a column. In other words, they wouldn't be pampered columnists who get to write any old thing in their head. They might take the responsibilty seriously. It's is worth a try.

Posted by d | December 6, 2007 9:26 AM

Friedman is a disgrace. Remember this beauty from 2002? Don't trust the polls on support for Iraq--trust my anecdotal evidence based on my encounters with an unrepresentative sample of people.

Posted by miles | December 6, 2007 9:26 AM

Here's the links since the embedded one doesn't seem to be working.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E1DE1530F93BA2575AC0A9649C8B63

Posted by miles | December 6, 2007 9:28 AM

Is it in fact true that Friedman is "very influential"? I know that the NY Times surely hopes he is, and he probably thinks he is, but is it actually true? I don't move in political circles or business circles or the like so maybe they take him seriously. Among academics, though, he's considered a joke and fool, and has been even before the Iraq nonsense. The reason for this is that he's really quite dumb, as his writings show each week. Why would he influence anyone? I'm really curious here.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 6, 2007 9:34 AM

For what it's worth, I think he reaches a wide audience via Imus--I believe he was a guest on Imus' first new show this week.

Posted by miles | December 6, 2007 9:41 AM

"Is it in fact true that Friedman is "very influential"? I know that the NY Times surely hopes he is, and he probably thinks he is, but is it actually true?"

Clinton called him the best foreign policy columnist in the US (mentioned in a Rolling Stone interview circa 1999/2000 when some people still pretended he was some type of liberal intellectual), so he does seem to have the ear of some important people.

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 9:42 AM

Lordy--I figured when Little Tommy pivoted from Democratizing*Shazzam!* Iraq to the wide-open green fields of ecoactivism, he was making a shrewd move for a pundit. But he's even fucking that up. He and Joke Line need to seriously piss off to Broder-sleepyland...and get seriously ignored. Teh stoopid!

Posted by elle loco | December 6, 2007 9:43 AM

Matt (not the famous one):

It's true that Friedman is ridiculed in the academic world. Although I think academics like that he is around because he is a real live strawman against whom one can argue. But among businessmen and generally in DC people he is influential. He is paid enormous sums to speak banalities to corporate types.

Posted by d | December 6, 2007 9:44 AM

"Why would he influence anyone? I'm really curious here."

The things that annoy both you and I Matt are attractive to others. Imagine you are someone who doesn't know anything about democratic peace theory, political economy, or globalization, well, he says some stuff that you haven't heard before. You understand it and he has all sort of *amusing* anecdotes to make the thing go down well. You have interesting things to say to your friends (did you know that we are competing with China for jobs? We have entered Globalization 3.0 where the Golden Straitjacket needs new software. We need more education if we are going to compete in the global economy. If we just spread capitalism and democracy we will have less war.) I think that is enough for a lot of people.

Now, as for businessmen, well, he agrees with their worldview and a lot of them aren't really that sophisticated analysts of political economy. They like anecdotes too.

Those are some reasons I think he is influential. But believe me, he is. Why else do you think his books on globalization have been on the top-ten bestseller list forever?

Posted by d | December 6, 2007 9:52 AM

This post is correct.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 6, 2007 9:54 AM

"For better or for worse, Friedman's become one of the leading voices on climate change and energy issues."

A good summary of why we're doomed.

Posted by Tim | December 6, 2007 9:56 AM

"Why would he influence anyone? I'm really curious here." PartII

Think of it like self-help or how americans like to learn, but not do any work. There are lots of Americans who like to watch the History channel and feel like they are learning, but don't bother to read the academic literature on the subject. Too much work. Same with Friedman, he offers people what they think of as useful knowledge on the economy and world politics, but reading it is fun and not much work (though I find it really really annoying and can barely stand to read the garbage). You don't have to concentrate too much and get all sorts of stories and anecdotes from the view of someone with a really exotic lifestyle. Plus, all of this travel and the fact that he has all of these anecdotes *prove* how much he knows.

Posted by d | December 6, 2007 10:00 AM

John Edwards came out with a proposal to fully-auction carbon permits in the context of a cap-and-trade scheme

Maybe you didn't read Friedman's column closely enough, Matthew. Freidman is writing about a "definitive breaking of America's oil addiction" - a policy that "could trigger a truly transformational shift in America away from fossil fuels".

Edwards's policy would in no way do this. Is there any reason to believe that Edwards's cap-and-trade will anything more that Europe's cap-and-trade? I don't think so. And Europe's cap-and-trade has been a complete failure - Europe hasn't moved away from fossil fuels - it can't even meet the completely insignficant Kyoto targets.

Closer reading of the text being analyzed, please.

Posted by Al | December 6, 2007 10:07 AM

The NYT op-ed page wouldn't get to have the liberal slant it does if all its columnists admitted clearly that they are partisan Ds. Hence you get this thinly-veiled charade of partisan evenhandedness.

Posted by Chris | December 6, 2007 10:07 AM

First, I think Friedman's error was a lack of proper emphasis: he meant to say that none of the proposals has a sufficiently high tax to induce a transformational change in our use of fossil fuels. Second, as far as I can tell, cap and trade systems will mostly influence polluting companies, whose pollution primarily comes from coal burning (use of electricity). I presume that the oil companies aren't going to have to buy carbon credits or whatnot because they are selling resources that will produce CO_2 later, nor will individual consumers have to buy such credits.

Posted by kv | December 6, 2007 10:08 AM

I presume that the oil companies aren't going to have to buy carbon credits or whatnot because they are selling resources that will produce CO_2 later, nor will individual consumers have to buy such credits.

Obviously there are important questions of implementation here. But MY is right that taxes and tradable permits are exactly equivalent on this dimension. If you'd have to pay the tax, you have to buy a credit.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 6, 2007 10:13 AM

"Think of it like self-help or how americans like to learn, but not do any work. There are lots of Americans who like to watch the History channel and feel like they are learning, but don't bother to read the academic literature on the subject. Too much work. Same with Friedman, he offers people what they think of as useful knowledge on the economy and world politics, but reading it is fun and not much work (though I find it really really annoying and can barely stand to read the garbage). You don't have to concentrate too much and get all sorts of stories and anecdotes from the view of someone with a really exotic lifestyle. Plus, all of this travel and the fact that he has all of these anecdotes *prove* how much he knows.

Posted by d | December 6, 2007 10:00 AM"

And he has a mustache. That means he's smart and quirky and therefore cab drivers tell him the meaning of life, unlike what they tell other people about their hemorrhoid medication.

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 10:34 AM

Yes, I think it is true that Friedman should give some credit to the Democratic candidates, whose plans are much more aggressive than he lets on, and worlds beyond anything the Republicans have. But a few points in his defense:

It's tendentious simply to assert that a carbon tax and a cap-and-auction system are "the same thing". Some economists and environmentalists think they are broadly equivalent in their effects; some don't. I'm not enough of an economist to have a very informed opinion here, but I do worry about whether the volatility in the permit-trading market that other cap-and-trade plans have experienced, together with clever and manipulative trading schemes in the new market for permits, will result in an outcome where the overall national caps are routinely exceeded, but it is very hard to determine whether individual firms are in violation or not given the way permits have changed hands. The regulatory and compliance challenges might be very great. It seems that it will be very important how the rules of the permit market are set up, how the permits are written, etc. And there are then abundant opportunities for lobbyists to insert little items into the fine print of the legislation and the regulatory rules that end up having huge effects. A tax just seems a lot easier to administer and regulate, although it has the drawback of not being associated with a fixed cap.

As a few others have said, the crucial phrase in Friedman's article is whether any of the proposals on the table "could trigger a truly transformational shift in America away from fossil fuels." This depends in part on whether the proposed caps are stringent enough, and phased in rapidly enough, and whether the auction revenue generated is substantial enough to cover the other parts of the plan. It also depends on whether the candidates are able to enact the plans they have proposed.

Politics being what it is, there is reason to worry that once the legislation goes through the congressional meat grinder, and every lobbyist gets his turn at it, the tax will be set too low; or the caps too high, or delayed for too long; or the trading rules too lax; or the permits too ambiguous or exception-ridden. There is also scientific disagreement about exactly what levels of carbon emissions cuts are needed to prevent various calamities, and these divisions will be eagerly exploited by lobbyists. So in the end we get a few feel-good changes, but the Greenland ice sheet melts anyway.

But these are enactment and enforcement challenges, which are always there with every political issue. It's not like the candidates have not come forward with some very serious plans.

By the way, I thought Obama's plan was for 100% auctioning of the permits, while in Edwards' plan some of the permits would be given away? Did Edwards change his plan?

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 6, 2007 11:12 AM

Kervick-

Formally, permits and taxes are equivalent. Both set a price for carbon emissions. For any tax rate, there is a quantity of permits that will create the exact same incentives for producers.

Now in practice, there are some differences. All the revenues from a tax system go to government, whereas some form a permit system go to speculators/intermediaries, and also some to current polluters if the permits are not auctioned off. And a permit system means greater uncertainty for producers, since they have to worry not only about changes in government policy but also about changes in the state of the permit market. So in practice, a tax system is generally preferable.

These are important distinctions to make when you get into the specifics of a proposal. but obviously they're not what Friedman is talking about. On the broad-brush scale he's working at, the Dems are proposing a tax, just as Matt says.

To those who say that the current Dem proposals wouldn't lead to a fundamental shift away from fossil fuels: Well, no. But if we can't make the politics of even incremental steps in the right direction work, we're certainly not going to manage an epochal shift.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 6, 2007 12:09 PM

It seems like (and maybe I'm wrong; I can't bear to read his entire column) Friedman's starting from the assumption that the US is heavily involved in the Middle East simply because it wants the oil that fuels its economy, its citizens' SUVs, etc. In other words, our sin is gluttony. If we control or eliminate our appetite, we don't have to worry about the Middle East anymore.

But even if we don't need oil anymore other countries might. And I think we'd stick around and try to control the oil supply simply because it provides us with a means of pressuring/controlling the countries still reliant on oil. If, for example, we didn't need oil but China did, I have a hard time imagining that we'd pass up the opportunity to have our hands around the throat of the Chinese economy. If we didn't need oil but Japan or Europe did, we'd stick around to prevent the Russians or the Chinese from being able to pressure our allies.

And, of course, as long as much of the world needs oil there will be tremendous money to be made in the Middle East. The American companies involved in the oil business won't just go away if America stops using oil. Presumably they'd be even more aggressive about finding foreign sources of income. And where American money goes the American military follows.

And I don't think Israel will stop being an important issue in American foreign policy simply because the US stops needing/wanting oil.

I think the idea that energy independence would precipitate a US withdrawal from the Middle East is far-fetched. And I have a sneaking suspicion that if/when we do achieve energy independence Tom Friedman will be telling us that, with our newfound ability to operate without concern for the opinions of Gulf Arabs, we now have a golden opportunity to fuck around in the Middle East and try some more extraordinarily wrong-headed, prideful and destructive social engineering.

He'd probably phrase the last part a bit differently. Presumably he'd dream up an amusing capitalized catch-phrase.

Posted by JB | December 6, 2007 12:28 PM

CAFE requirements were the response the U.S. made to the 1973-4 Arab oil embargo, proving that American thinking on energy matters has made zero progress in more than 30 years.

Posted by kafka | December 6, 2007 12:33 PM

Is there any reason to believe that Edwards's cap-and-trade will anything more that Europe's cap-and-trade?

Yes. Europe's cap-and-trade has been a totally different system, one where companies received permits for free based on past pollution figures. Easy to game. The Democratic candidates' plans all implement a full-action system where none of the permits are free and all must be purchased at auction in advance.

Please try to keep up.

Posted by Andrew Levine | December 6, 2007 2:01 PM