Ed. note: Robert L. Bradley Jr. was one of 435 economists decrying the Biden Administration’s refusal to engage in deficit reduction through less government spending and borrowing. The letter, organized by Jim Carter, Founder of Concerned Economists and Director, Center for American Prosperity, follows:
…Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Schumer:
We, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to reject the anti-growth tax increases and unsustainable budget deficits put forward by the Biden Administration.
Our economy is still suffering the lingering effects of excessive government spending, massive increases in regulation, and the 40-year high inflation crushing American families. With consumer sentiment languishing and 41% of the American people saying they are worse off economically than they were two years ago, the recent failure of three banks will further shock our economy.
“The supply of coal and oil, [Frank Shuman] opined, would eventually be depleted. ‘One thing I feel sure of,’ he wrote prophetically in a 1914 Scientific American article, ‘is that the human race must finally utilize direct sun power or revert to barbarism.’”
Energy history brings perspective and caution to the real-world prospects of dilute, intermittent energies becoming 21st century mainstays. The wisdom of history also checks the notion that solar (and wind) are infant industries in need of ‘temporary’ government subsidies. [1]
I recently encountered a history piece about an early solar entrepreneur, Frank Shuman, written by Christopher Dougherty nine years ago for a Philadelphia magazine. Excerpts from Frank Shuman: Finding The Future In Tacony, A Century Ago follow.
Nearly a century ago, Philadelphia solar energy pioneer Frank Shuman toiled in obscurity, dreaming–and building–a solar powered device he felt would change the way the world made energy and did work….…
“No-one is claiming that degrowth would be easy or non disruptive or linear.” (Jennifer Wilkins, below)
“Questions for the Degrowth proponent: Who decides what is necessary or not–and for whom and when? Isn’t this the very definition of authoritarianism?” (Bradley, below)
The “Degrowth” movement needs some critical attention. I asked some hard queries after reading this on social media from Jennifer Wilkins, who defined degrowth as follows:
…Ever wondered how degrowth differs from conventional sustainability?
The goal of degrowth is universal wellbeing, to be delivered through global and local provisioning systems that are distributive and regenerative. This demands a reprioritisation of social values and behaviours toward sufficiency and sharing; it is driving development of innovative post-growth business models that focus on meeting needs and respect local biosphere boundaries, both scientific and cultural; it is guiding macroeconomic research on a coherent set of policy interventions that would balance green policies with protection of livelihoods; and it is agitating for reform of governance institutions and an increase in community agency through participative democracy.