Block’s Indicator of Sustainable Growth

by Ray Block

Extreme views all too often dominate discussion on climate change policies. The Post Carbon Institute (January 13 2008) in the US, a green group released a political pamphlet calling for an immediate end to a fossil fuel dependent economy, with a series  of “bold measures to  electrify the transportation system, rebuild the electricity grid, relocalise the food system, and retrofit the nation’s building stock for both energy efficiency and energy production.”

All worthy aims, but totally impractical in terms of the current economic and financial malaise, which sums up the struggling US economy. Over a period of time, a number of major reforms can be achieved, but certainly not all at once, when the economy is bleeding 500,000 job losses a month.  America has been able to get by, with a lot of band aids for a long time, but no longer can it afford to continue that way.

There is no attempt to cost the Post Carbon Institute’s program. But it would run into tens of trillions if not more, and the US, the world’s largest debtor nation cannot fund such huge outlays at this time.

The other extreme is posed by another US study group called the Institute for Energy Research. IER is totally opposed to any attempt to limit carbon emissions, or atmospheric pollution. Having finally parted with the environment sceptics in the Bush camp, there is no way a return to such attitudes will be accepted. Their two part plan would be opposed by the Obama Administration. The program consists of the following:

Ø      Vow to defend jobs and investments against expensive, job-killing climate regulations.

Ø      Halt the attempt to regulate carbon dioxide using the Clean Air Act.

Ø      Renounce plans to bankrupt coal companies.

Ø      Denounce billions for projects that depend on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling of power costs.

Ø      Abandon all efforts to implement Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Ø      End subsidies for all forms of energy.

Ø      Support exploration and energy production in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Ø      Allow the exploration necessary to produce affordable energy from America’s oil shale resources amounting to an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil equivalent in oil shale in the western states.

Ø      Remove regulatory barriers to building the next generation of nuclear power.

As you can see, extreme views such as those from the Post Carbon Institute, or the carbon friendly Institute for Energy Research.are designed to confuse policy makers, not encourage the practical reforms needed. The IER would muzzle the growth of the jobs creating  renewable energy industries.

What do you think? Do you support either of the two policy extremes and why? I  would be glad to receive your replies.