Even More On "The Power of Green"

I do agree with Friedman that the USA government needs to level the playing fields for clean energy, as compared to fossil fuels. Again, to reference my Sierra Magazine, there was recently an excerpt of a conference on the topic of global warming. The article is called “Climate Exchange,” and hosted 8 politicians, activists, and entrepreneurs. Their answer to the problem seemed to be a combination of carbon tax and cap-and-trade, pollution tax (replacing income tax), Kyoto protocol, biofuels, carbon sequestration (and sinks), lowered-risk investment in clean technology and leveled-energy subsidies, energy efficiency (and subsidies for low-income efficiency improvements). However, Friedman seems to be a big supporter of nuclear, and I have to disagree. While I believe it will be necessary to continue to have nuclear, I would support allowing only what already exists. Friedman admits nuclear will only succeed with massive government subsidies. I argue that the risks are too great. Any nuclear meltdown is disastrous and disposing of nuclear waste is an endeavor that requires vigilance to near infinity.

From the same Sierra article, one of the suggestions was to create “a variable subsidy that is countercyclical with oil. If the price of oil goes down, the biofuel subsidy goes up.” This is a really great idea, and shed light on the reason many investments fail is because if oil prices drop, interest in alternatives does too. Tax breaks and subsidies for green need staying power. The Saudis and other Middle Eastern oil producing countries understand that when the USA starts reducing its oil consumption, all they have to do is drop the price a bit and we will be back to our old habits. The USA needs to understand that as well, as this policy does.