Friedman opens his last chapter of Hot, Flat, and Crowded with an excerpt of a speech presented at the 1992 Earth Summit by a twelve-year-old girl. The young girl compares the actions of world leaders with those of kindergarteners. Friedman uses this speech to illustrate the point that we need to change our behavior in order to make a difference in the Energy-Climate Era. While individual efforts are important, Friedman says “it is much more important to change your leaders than your lightbulbs” (p. 397). He points to the Civil Rights movement saying “it was the laws that ultimately changed the behavior and consciousness of tens of millions of people” (p. 398).
I think the speech by the twelve-year-old was great, especially the part about kindergarten behavior. She was right in saying that our leaders are ignoring the basic courtesies they were taught in kindergarten. While I agree with Friedman when he says we need to change our behavior, I do not agree that changing leadership is more important than improving individual behavior. I believe he incorrectly uses the Civil Rights movement when he makes his point. The laws would have never made it to the Congressional floor if not for the social unrest at the time. The Civil Rights movement started with individuals. People began to see the inequality in America, and they decided to do something about it. Soon, individual people turned into a massive group that held a lot of political sway. The social unrest of the American citizens pushed lawmakers into action.
Friedman acknowledges my point with a quote from Senator Kerry on page 399: “Real change comes only when people form a movement so large that Washington has no choice but to listen…It’s the only way to change the nation.” It seems like Friedman is contradicting his first argument here. I think I can save Friedman’s argument by interpreting it this way: social unrest can push Washington, but we need a strong leader who can get the reluctant citizens on board. We need leaders who aren’t afraid to face a little dissent in order to make a difference.
So, we need social unrest about climate change and a fearless leader. Friedman gives an example of a time when American people pulled together to succeed: World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He also recognizes the problem with getting a movement going on climate change. Pearl Harbor represented a tangible threat. There was no doubt it was real and would affect Americans living during that time. Global warming does not have that kind of arsenal. People are not feeling its effects now, and the real problems associated with it might not surface for decades. I think advertising would help us pull more people together in a climate change movement. After all, lobbyists heavily rely on advertising to sway the minds of citizens. Why can’t green advocacy groups do the same?
