something else tom friedman is actually in bankruptcy. believe it or not this clown who is always screaming about consumerism married into a family that owned 200 malls. the economic downturn sent them into bankruptcy.
well he said they'd need 10 new power plants in the beginning. But he forgot that half of the people living alone will be living with partners as more people get married. so.. only 5 new plants. Then most families have 2 kids or more. so at most 2.5 new plants. Then all the elderly die. Depends on birth rate VS death rate. But the rate of growth isn't what he's suggesting.
"Meanwhile, it'd be nice to replace coal with nuclear. Very easy and doable. It'd help with carbon emissions immensely."
Variablast, it's true that it would help with C emissions, but it's not an easy process- it's very expensive- nuclear plants take long to build and are costly to operate. (too late to solve the current energy crisis)
On top of that, it would deprive other environmental efforts like conservation, energy efficiency, etc & not to mention the radioactive wastes!
Friedman is a dork, constantly and uncritically promoting globalization. I'm tired of hearing about his stupid world is flat metaphor. If he wants people to spend less energy he could start by going on fewer unnecessary book tours touting his unnecessary books.
I really am interested in your subject matter, altho, your videos keep stopping and starting. I also found a problem with Youtube, when I post a video, because they don't like the subject matter!
coal is more common than nuclear! but hopefully the new tech of super cheap solar panels will spread around fast to accommodate and hopefully replace polluting power plants
Mr. Friedman is talking about these "huge" numbers as if they really meant something. If energy becomes more scarce, it will obviously become more expensive and the market helped by technological innovation will naturally balance things out.
Mr. Friedman, however, explicitly argues that Communism is less dangerous than global warming. Two guesses what he's going to suggest will be necessary to "save" us from ourselves.
Electric cars are right around the corner. Why stampede for socialism now?
creating the amount of power he descibres will not be difficult considering coal is the biggest surce of fossile fuel energy on earth, the prolem the 'sustainability enginner' desricbed was of emmisssions
If by that, you mean using 100% of the oceans, that's not terribly impressive in itself. Still, there are plenty of new ways to produce energy that are clean and effective. Given modest investment in new technologies, environmentalism should not be considered an argument for socialism, despite the current rhetoric.
Hydrogen from ocean water hydrolysis can be used to completely replace gasoline and possibly other fossil fuels.
Distilled water hydrolysis requires more energy than salty ocean water hydrolysis.
However, wind and solar could be the main energy sources within 50 years.
The electric car was invented decades before the gasoline car, but "big oil" has continuously prevented electric cars, and alternative energy sources, from being mass produced.
oohh...i thought you said that the 'process' of 'hydrolysis' can be used as an energy source, whihc would have been absurd. You are talking about hygrogen fuel cells right?? yup tats true, infact there is one standing in my univeristy!!!
i think it's true that people are dreaming of life like americans have, so so many immigrants come to america. But, i think you americans cannot be cocky because america is not second to none in high living standards. other countries are also good in them. also people need to have special cares that they should not emulate mass production, mass consumption, or mass waste.
fakeshani, please don't mistake this cocky egocentric New Yorker as a representative of the rest of America. We don't share his obsession over Manhattan.
However, I'll have to disagree with you. I strongly believe that mass production is essential to our quality of life, because it allows the minds of many to work together to accomplish the incredible.
good. someone said it. he seems a bit thick. either that or ridiculously patronising like an infomercial presenter. 'they grew manhattan'? oh NOW i understand.
truthadvocate. Ok. i understand what you mean. to be precise, i think we have to recognize that the world is scarce in resources, it is not denied that the resources are limited and we have to make the most of them correctly and save them for future generations. Now i say mass production is ok, but those should be recycleable so that people can live in the future.
OPEN, OPEN, OPEN THE FUNDAMENTALS of the ECONOMY are SOUND CLOSE, CLOSE,CLOSE GOOGLE THEREALMCCAINdotCOM OPEN, OPEN, OPEN The FUNDAMENTALS of the ECONOMY are SOUND CLOSE, CLOSE, CLOSE GOOGLE THEREALMCCAINdotCOM SHAME ON NANCY PELOSI SHAME ON NANCY PELOSI SHAME ON THE COMPLICIT BUSH DOG DEMOCRATS SHAME ON THE COMPLICIT BUSH DOG DEMOCRATS Any one care to "Talk Me Down"? Good Journey my friends... HEY YOU get off the god danm grass.-SL
something else tom friedman is actually in bankruptcy. believe it or not this clown who is always screaming about consumerism married into a family that owned 200 malls. the economic downturn sent them into bankruptcy.
tonylee1973 1 year ago
Comment removed
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 2 years ago
well he said they'd need 10 new power plants in the beginning. But he forgot that half of the people living alone will be living with partners as more people get married. so.. only 5 new plants. Then most families have 2 kids or more. so at most 2.5 new plants. Then all the elderly die. Depends on birth rate VS death rate. But the rate of growth isn't what he's suggesting.
newexperiment 2 years ago
"Meanwhile, it'd be nice to replace coal with nuclear. Very easy and doable. It'd help with carbon emissions immensely."
Variablast, it's true that it would help with C emissions, but it's not an easy process- it's very expensive- nuclear plants take long to build and are costly to operate. (too late to solve the current energy crisis)
On top of that, it would deprive other environmental efforts like conservation, energy efficiency, etc & not to mention the radioactive wastes!
SaraCares 3 years ago 2
Friedman is a dork, constantly and uncritically promoting globalization. I'm tired of hearing about his stupid world is flat metaphor. If he wants people to spend less energy he could start by going on fewer unnecessary book tours touting his unnecessary books.
hugozoom 3 years ago
excellent comment
popinjay3000 2 years ago
Rockefeller & Dewey created the US education system by using the philosophy of Hegel & Wundt
The same two men to whom Marx & Trotsky used to create Communism
In their own words, "to create a passive society of people who merely act as cogs in the wheel of society"
Thus, Americans are NOT critical thinkers - They just "go along"
That is why that nation is completely & utterly Bankrupt
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago 5
but the question is would u send your kids to school?
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
I really am interested in your subject matter, altho, your videos keep stopping and starting. I also found a problem with Youtube, when I post a video, because they don't like the subject matter!
RICKPOI 3 years ago
What do you mean their videos keep stopping and starting? At their website? Because I find that they load quickly and go from beginning to ending.
makeyanoticeme 3 years ago
coal is more common than nuclear! but hopefully the new tech of super cheap solar panels will spread around fast to accommodate and hopefully replace polluting power plants
ZankDigiTrash 3 years ago
All of these mean the party is about over soon.
JXjohn 3 years ago
Mr. Friedman is talking about these "huge" numbers as if they really meant something. If energy becomes more scarce, it will obviously become more expensive and the market helped by technological innovation will naturally balance things out.
Mr. Friedman, however, explicitly argues that Communism is less dangerous than global warming. Two guesses what he's going to suggest will be necessary to "save" us from ourselves.
Electric cars are right around the corner. Why stampede for socialism now?
hasatum 3 years ago
creating the amount of power he descibres will not be difficult considering coal is the biggest surce of fossile fuel energy on earth, the prolem the 'sustainability enginner' desricbed was of emmisssions
uch 3 years ago
Yes, that's why I mentioned global warming and electric cars. Please read my post again.
hasatum 3 years ago
sorry didnt get it :)
uch 3 years ago
70% of the earth is covered with salt water.
Hydrolysis can provide enough energy to support a population of 10 billion+.
dstone2004 3 years ago
If by that, you mean using 100% of the oceans, that's not terribly impressive in itself. Still, there are plenty of new ways to produce energy that are clean and effective. Given modest investment in new technologies, environmentalism should not be considered an argument for socialism, despite the current rhetoric.
hasatum 3 years ago
???? how???? hydrolysis requires energy to break water
uch 3 years ago
Hydrogen from ocean water hydrolysis can be used to completely replace gasoline and possibly other fossil fuels.
Distilled water hydrolysis requires more energy than salty ocean water hydrolysis.
However, wind and solar could be the main energy sources within 50 years.
The electric car was invented decades before the gasoline car, but "big oil" has continuously prevented electric cars, and alternative energy sources, from being mass produced.
dstone2004 3 years ago
oohh...i thought you said that the 'process' of 'hydrolysis' can be used as an energy source, whihc would have been absurd. You are talking about hygrogen fuel cells right?? yup tats true, infact there is one standing in my univeristy!!!
uch 3 years ago
i think it's true that people are dreaming of life like americans have, so so many immigrants come to america. But, i think you americans cannot be cocky because america is not second to none in high living standards. other countries are also good in them. also people need to have special cares that they should not emulate mass production, mass consumption, or mass waste.
fakeshani 3 years ago
fakeshani, please don't mistake this cocky egocentric New Yorker as a representative of the rest of America. We don't share his obsession over Manhattan.
However, I'll have to disagree with you. I strongly believe that mass production is essential to our quality of life, because it allows the minds of many to work together to accomplish the incredible.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
Friedman is not the best and brightest.
grrcrl 3 years ago
good. someone said it. he seems a bit thick. either that or ridiculously patronising like an infomercial presenter. 'they grew manhattan'? oh NOW i understand.
franksvenatra 3 years ago
Maybe it's a Freudian thing. People name George are likely to become geologists and people name Friedman are likely to echo for Milton Friedman?
grrcrl 3 years ago
truthadvocate. Ok. i understand what you mean. to be precise, i think we have to recognize that the world is scarce in resources, it is not denied that the resources are limited and we have to make the most of them correctly and save them for future generations. Now i say mass production is ok, but those should be recycleable so that people can live in the future.
fakeshani 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HomoGeneyes 3 years ago