In an apparent attempt at cuteness, the NYT’s Thomas Friedman wrote a column today written as if it were an “Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America” to Ahmadinejad from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence<\/p>\n
It included this bizarre assertion<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Therefore, it is “very likely” that Iran’s current level of high oil revenues will last for decades and insulate our regime from any decisive pressures from abroad or from our own people. […]<\/p>\n U.S. politicians seem determined to appeal either to the most nativist extremes in their respective parties \u2014 or to tell voters that something Americans call “the tooth fairy” will make their energy, budget, educational and Social Security deficits painlessly disappear.<\/p>\n Therefore, we conclude with “high confidence” that there is little likelihood that post-9\/11 America will, as they say, “get its groove back” anytime soon. Who needs nukes when you have this kind of America?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Friedman was trying to be creative writing his opinion into Iranian-memo form, but in this case, his argument is half-right, half-embarrassingly-wrong. Noting Hillary Clinton’s recent announcement in support of a cap-and-trade system, Brad Plumer noted<\/a>, “[A] few years back, an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases and 100 percent auction of pollution permits was considered a fringe position on energy policy. Now all<\/i> of the leading Democratic presidential candidates are advocating just that. It’s a seismic shift by any measure.”<\/p>\n
\n
\nHe’s right that none of the leading Republican<\/i> presidential candidates have offered an energy policy premised on carbon taxes, but Friedman completely overlooks the party with the most credible candidates: they’re called Democrats.<\/p>\n