High paid jobs and cheap reliable energy go together: what the U.S., U.K., and Canada need to do now

U.K. finance minister George Osborne just admitted Britain is back in recession, and U.S. fed chairman Ben Bernanke wondered out loud if the Fed might buy more U.S. government bonds to make sure interest rates stay low while the government tries to coax unemployment to fall below 8 percent.

Meanwhile, the U.K. prime minister continues to talk up the imaginary benefits of “renewable” energy and reassure everyone that he at least remains committed to it. Apparently, his finance minister Osborne disagrees with him. Will the double dip recession shock Britain into dropping its subsidies for useless wind turbines?

And will Britain’s double dip shock America into doing the same? While the U.S. government has bent over backwards to sponsor solar energy, only to see company after company go bankrupt, it has stonewalled major infrastructure projects that will create real, high paying jobs. Two of these projects are in the large-scale energy realm. These are the Calvert Cliffs nuclear project, and the Keystone XL pipeline. Both would have created tens of thousands of jobs.

So: American unemployment is stuck at eight percent. Shouldn’t the Calvert Cliffs and Keystone jobs start as soon as possible?

Canada, which the U.K. paper The Independent praised as motoring along admirably, should take steps to make sure it keeps motoring along. Start the Darlington new nuclear project, and bring ten thousand jobs to the Golden Horseshoe. It will be the biggest clean energy project in Canada.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Maury Markowitz
8 years ago

“Meanwhile, the U.K. prime minister continues to talk up the imaginary benefits of “renewable” energy and reassure everyone that he at least remains committed to it. Apparently, his finance minister Osborne disagrees with him”

I see no evidence of this. Every public statement I can find (and I have serious Google-fu) includes statements like:

“Chancellor George Osborne has announced an extra £103m of funding for renewable energy in Scotland”
“He described Britain’s energy sectors, including renewables, as ‘world-leading’ and said renewables would play “a crucial part in Britain’s energy mix”
“Renewable energy will play a crucial part in Britain’s energy mix – but I will always be alert to the costs we are asking families and businesses to bear”

It seems that Mr. Osborne is standing very strongly behind renewables, according to his public statements, but is simply being careful about costing it. That seems prudent, no?

Steve Aplin
8 years ago

Maury, here’s some evidence:

“Energy secretary takes a swipe at George Osborne over green economy”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/25/ed-davey-george-osborne-green-economy

“In some quarters, the green agenda is painted as an unbearable burden,” [Ed Davey, the energy secretary] said, apparently referring to the frequent public statements by the chancellor of the exchequer of the “burden” to businesses of environmental regulation. Osborne has been credited with a leading role in recent cabinet rows over green policies, as deep divisions have opened up within the Tory party between those who want to scale back green initiatives and those still committed to the agenda.