Economic Downturn Cannot Be Allowed to Slow Shift to Green Resources

Building the Green Economy, Crisis Policy Forum, Quipu Economic Forum, Renewable Resources ::

25 November 2008 :: by J.E. Robertson

The issue is not, as so many would like to believe, whether carbon-based fuels are affordable to the end-user. They are not. The total costs per gallon of gasoline are estimated at more than $11, covered by government subsidies, public-private research funding, tax incentives, military spending, public health funding, and funds devoted to cleaning up the ill effects of pollution. Capitalist markets need not be dependent on unsustainable excesses in resource use, but we are in the current global economic crunch, because they have been.

We are now reading on a daily basis, and hearing in the coffee shops, train stations and supermarket chats, that a poorer nation, with a poorer government, will now shun heavy investment in green energy technologies and the much-needed “Plan B” economic infrastructure overhaul. The New York Times reports today, for instance: “From Italy to China, the threat to jobs, profits and government tax revenues posed by the financial crisis has cast doubt on commitments to cap emissions or phase out polluting factories.”

Also from The New York Times, however, we have the wisdom of Nobel-laureate economics reporter, Paul Krugman, who suggests we are falling into a vicious spiral of “depression economics”, a toxic mindset which clouds the long-term vision of all players in a market. Specifically, he warns that “When depression economics prevails, the usual rules of economic policy no longer apply: virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly.”

In times like these, where part of the uncertainty comes from the mistrustful mentalities of “depression economics” infiltrating what is not yet so desperate an economic situation —the juxtaposition contributing to the overall level of mistrust and apprehension—, the folly of refusing to do the big infrastructure investments that will actually spur the recovery is doubly foolish. Greening our industrial infrastructure and energy economy will allow us to build long-term sustainability into an economy troubled by constant bouts of resource scarcity, which are mounting over time.

Adding more carbon emissions —even just by allowing normal growth rates to continue to be expressed in emissions rates— will quite literally imperil the climate conditions in which human civilization long ago emerged and has since thrived. We have numerous examples from throughout human history to illustrate how climate destabilization, even on a local or regional scale, can devastate the underpinnings of an entire civilization.

For the US and the EU to neglect to lead a sweeping and rapid shift to clean, renewable energy resources, when China and India are steeped in the early to mid stages of rapid society-wide industrialization, which will be heavily carbon-intensive and massively increase global emissions output —almost without a doubt, barring some as yet nonexistent, and successful, carbon-capping regime—, would be folly on a tragic scale.

This is not just a question of American fiscal policy or how to spend tax dollars when money is tight, it’s about the potential for a catastrophic rise in sea levels from glacial melt in Antarctica and Greenland, and the risk of tens of millions of refugees fleeing the effects of climate destabilization, crossing borders and undermining nation states. It’s about preventing the flare-up of massive new armed conflicts that would not need to exist if we don’t find ourselves pressed by unprecedented environmental risks and resource depletion.

The time is now, the task is urgent, and we have the technology to do it right and do it quickly. The political will may be lacking, and popular opinion may adopt foolish, under-informed and reflexive positions, based on common misperceptions about both the costs of energy and the long-term reasons for going green, but President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to make sure we break the addiction to petroleum, for national security reasons as well as for economic and ecological reasons.

If he has the courage of his convictions, we should expect a struggle to push emissions-reducing legislation through Congress and to allocate funding for a green infrastructure revolution. And we should keep in mind the advice of Paul Krugman, that prudence in this area would be folly, as that green technology boom, however much funding it requires, is a triple benefit to the overall economy: stimulating job-creation and a return to economic expansion, stimulating investment, and restoring environmental sustainability to our economic system.