Thomas Friedman had another global warming piece in the NY Times that  Joseph Romm calls  “terrific”. Romm says Friedman is

the only major national columnist or reporter consistently warning the public of what science now tells us is the likely result of continuing on our current greenhouse gas emissions path — unmitigated unconscionable catastrophe.

Romm adds:

And he is the only one laying out the solution in detail.

Romm may think it’s terrific, but I see it as bargaining. Friedman and Romm both see the world through green-tinted glasses. They preach that, with a few “green” tweaks, Earth can be saved and the consumer society can march triumphant into a future similar to the recent past, one of ever-growing “prosperity.”

Promising to be green will prove to be futile. If global warming weren’t bad enough, every aspect of our lives will be overturned because of peak oil.

Friedman starts by recognizing that the climate situation is grim: the pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, so we’re looking at a future climate that’s beyond anything we’ve considered seriously in climate model simulations. For the U.S. mainstream media, this is powerful stuff indeed. But that’s not saying much. The British media does a much better job of covering global warming. For example, the U.K. Independent has really good environmental coverage, every day – and not just in the opinion section, but in the news sections.

Then Friedman asks, what to do? He concedes you can’t bargain with Mother Nature – she’s just chemistry, biology and physics.

Here’s his solution: we need a climate bailout along with our economic bailout. He offers five “proven” policies.

First, building codes. California is cited as the example.

California’s energy-efficient building and appliance codes now save Californians $6 billion per year.”

As a native Californian, I can say that citing California as an example of anything sustainable is a moronic joke. Anybody who has ever stepped foot in the state can see instantly that it’s become an “air-conditioned nightmare” totally dependent on cheap oil, and when that party is over the state is toast. What exactly does California’s experience prove? California, with about 0.55% of the world’s population, produces roughly 1.4% of the world’s greenhouse gases; and with about 12% of the U.S. population, produces about 6.2% of the total U.S., greenhouse gases. While that looks pretty good compared to the rest of the U.S., it’s pretty bad compared to the rest of the globe. And consider, Californai has a mild climate. 22% of California’s emissions result from powering commercial and residential buildings. The electricity sector accounts for 25% (about half of this goes to powering buildings). 38% of emissions are from the transportation sector. California’s policies have succeeded only in keeping per capita electricity demand flat over the last 30 years the reports do not reveal impacts on per capita consumption of natural gas). California’s experience shows more stringent building and appliance codes can keep per capita usage and resultant emissions from growing. But building and appliance codes have done nothing to prevent subdivisions from erupting across the hillsides, deserts, and valleys in an energy-guzzling pattern of development, subdivisions of 2,500-square foot monsters to be filled with crap manufactured in coal-powered factories in China and shipped halfway around the world.

Please can I keep the ‘burb and McMansion game going? If I promise to make the building envelopes really, really tight, install energy-star appliances, and use nothing but compact florescent bulbs?

Second, better vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. Europe provides the example.

The European Union’s fuel-efficiency fleet average for new cars now stands at 41 miles per gallon, and is rising steadily.

Please can we keep smoking?  We promise to cut back from two packs to one pack a day.

Third, a national renewable portfolio standard

we need a national renewable portfolio standard, mandating that power utilities produce 15 or 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020. Right now, only about half our states have these.

Don’t make me give up my big-screen TV! And I’ll need to plug in my hybrid! I promise, 10% green. 15%? 20%? Don’t be so unreasonable!

The fourth is decoupling.

[Decoupling is] the program begun in California that turns the utility business on its head. Under decoupling, power utilities make money by helping homeowners save energy rather than by encouraging them to consume it.

Let me do my part – just don’t make me give up my toys!

Finally, we need a price on carbon.

Polluting the atmosphere can’t be free.

Look, I know it’s bad and I should stop. But it’s just too hard to quit cold-turkey. How about making it just a little painful, and maybe i’ll ease off bit by bit?

The last paragraph reveals all:

These are the pillars of a climate bailout. Yes, some have upfront costs. But all of them would pay long-term dividends, because they would foster massive U.S. innovation in new clean technologies that would stimulate the real Dow and much lower emissions that would stimulate the Climate Dow.

Massive innovation! New clean technologies! Stimulate the real Dow! Appease the Climate Dow!

We’re not ready for real change – not yet.