If anything, the U.K. economy is facing severe headwinds... putting it optimistically. The main weakness in the U.S. is that one of its fastest growing sectors, petroleum extraction, has been cut in half due to low prices.
Yes, you're right about the UK, which took a turn for the worse as a result of Brexit.
That main weakness in the US means that energy prices are lower and therefore not so much a drag on the economy. So, we continue to employ fossil-fuels because they are cheaper and therefore supposedly that consequence is "goodness". But,
is that really true?
There are always two ways to look at the economy: "Supply & Demand" - Business is fixated on Supply, and consumers on Demand. But both must be considered in
equal measures as regards their impact when a change of cost incurs. The supply-cost of fossil fuels is nowadays, yes, less than in the past - but by what measure is that goodness if they are more highly air-pollutant (and therefore deleterious to human life) than most other energy sources?
Energy in a developed economy is always a major constant in terms of necessity - and when the US stupidly diminished investments in atomic energy* (as a consequence of
Three Mile Island nuclear accident), it retreated into a major energy commitment to
highly polluting fossil-fuel sources. The addition of less expensive fracking did not help in the least to change America towards a less polluting future -
after all, the pollution is in the air you breath.
Given the Air Pollution Index by city (
here), one is worse off in Lima, Peru than Los Angeles - but is that "goodness" if LA is in the higher level of polluted-air cities ... ?
(Yes, that answer depends upon whether you live there!)
*No other source of non air-polluting energy (even solar or wind-mills) can meet peak-energy Demand in most large cities.
__________________________