DON'T FORGET TO TURN IN THE EQUIPMENT!!!
What do you feel is the best way to jumpstart the move toward green energy; therefore moving away from fossil fuels?
We know doing this sooner rather than later will be beneficial. How do we push this along and not wait until we must do to a lack of fossil fuels?
Responses are due no later than Monday at 11:59 p.m.
DON'T FORGET TO TURN IN THE EQUIPMENT!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Though much attention recently seems to be on the “simple things” people can do – recycle grocery bags, drive less, recycle bottles—in order to confront the seriousness of the situation, more drastic overall measures must be taken. This largely becomes the role of the government, which is responsible for establishing and enforcing guidelines in the best interest of the people (which is the best interest of the environment).
In order for people to effectively jump on the “green energy” bandwagon, green energy options must be available in a cost-effective and affordable manner. Though few people would say that they’re against the environment, when necessities become an issue, many would (understandably) be in favor of the least expensive energy form, even at the expense of the environment. To gain followers in the green energy movement, the option of switching to green energy forms should be made nearly unavoidable, as to make everyone as aware as possible of the available alternatives, as well as educated on the moral and financial benefits of environmentally-conscious renewable energy sources.
People take little measures everyday by recycling or choosing to ride their bike instead of drive their cars, but the shift from fossil fuels to green energy is one that must be achieved through drastic steps. One of the most effective things that could be done is to put solar panels on all houses--especially the ones in places like Florida or Arizona. However, solar panels would even be beneficial for places like Oregon in the summer and spring. All of these ideas are based off of a perfect world, and obviously the US will still be dependent on foreign nations for oil and other sources of energy, so strict laws should also be put in place dealing with consumption. Just like the idea of give large factories or companies a certain usage amount they can't surpass without having to buy usage from another company, this could be put into play for everyday households. This would lead to a reduction on foreign dependency and potentially lead to a completely independent US as far as energy usage goes. If the US is independent in their acquiring of energy sources, many people would be much more willing to help in the switch. Not only would such a switch help the environment, it could end up being much cheaper in the long run--and who doesn't like a smaller budget?
We have before us a momentous task. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that we are running out of fossil fuels, and must make the switch to green energy. We also have several possible avenues of green energy, that we can exploit. Yet, much must be done for the transition to take place. Of course, we must be careful that in trying to do everything at once, we end up doing nothing. Therefore, we will break down what we must do into three programs of action. They will be – increasing the price of fossil fuels to reflect their negative externalities, encouraging a lifestyle which leaves less of an ecological footprint, and investing in and promoting the use of renewable energy. We will examine the steps necessary to undertake each, and then conclude with a few words on what is ultimately needed.
It is a proven fact that the cost of using fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, or oil, doesn't reflect the whole cost, especially damage done to the environment in extracting them, and due to the various types of pollution, especially CO2 emissions. In economics, a situation like this, when a person utilizing something, doesn't pay the full price for costs imposed on the larger society, is called a negative externality. Economics also teaches that the way to deal with a negative externality is to tax it. Therefore, in this case, there is a rather simply solution. All we need to do is calculate the total CO2 emissions from a variety of activities, and then impose a carbon tax. Understandably, many advocates of curbing CO2 emissions favor a cap-and-trade system, as they see it as actually politically viable. A cap-and-trade system is based upon the idea that there is a certain amount of permits allotted to all companies and individuals, which allow them to emit a certain amount of CO2. If they emit less than this amount, then they can sell the excess permits to others. If they exceed their limit, they must buy more permits from others. Such a system may well be easier to implement politically, but the technical side of implementation is a nightmare. Much like with fishing permits, you need expert advice from scientists, to ensure that you don't give out too many permits, and drive down the price to where they system is meaningless. There is a precedent for such a system, and that is the EU ETS (European Union Emission Trading System). However, a close look at that system reveals that analysis by independent groups found that the EU ETS gave out far more permits than it should have, and in effect, did nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. That was in the EU, which is far more dedicated to conserving the environment than the US. Now, if we were to try to imagine implementing such a system in the US, then we can clearly see that it would be nigh impossible. Therefore, we should implement a carbon tax. Now, the carbon tax would have far-ranging effects, beyond those of just curbing CO2 emissions.
It would also help to encourage a lifestyle where we have a smaller ecological footprint. Once people realize that it costs them more to emit CO2, then they will try to emit as little CO2 as possible. This means that they will live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars and drive less, and be more frugal. Yet, there must be other efforts to encourage such a shift. Among these, we should strive to change our cultural values, so that it is fashionable to live on a smaller, rather than a larger scale. Yet, we must also use laws and regulations to help drive the process along. Increasing the CAFE fuel efficiency standards is one such movement, especially if that increase also removed SUVs from the truck designation. In addition, removing tax incentives for larger houses, and for corporations to outsource, would also help the process along. Yet, there are also other policies that can help to do this, by promoting clean energy.
As we stand right now, green energy exists in a nebulous state. On the one hand, we promote it, when it suits us to do so. On the other hand, large scale tax incentives for green energy, tend to be determined on a yearly basis, depending on the whims of the party that is control of Congress. Such a situation is not conducive to long-term growth or development of a business model. Furthermore, those tax incentives that do exist are very narrow, and are minuscule, especially when compared with those provided to corporations that destroy the environment in order to extract fossil fuels. Therefore, we should seek to increase these tax incentives, and broaden them to include biomass, geothermal, and tides, while potential reducing hydroelectric, and eliminate entirely those which promote the use of fossil fuels. In addition, it is important that we promote research and development of such technologies, since as of right now, they are far too expensive for the general public. With more research, the price of these could fall to levels where they would be quite affordable. Thus, we could achieve a future, where we don't need to rely on fossil fuels at all. Such a dream is possible, and we can achieve it. It is that vision, which lends us a thought to conclude upon.
In conclusion, many would say that the task before is a daunting one, and one which we have no hope of achieving. While it is true that the task is daunting one, it is quite possible to achieve. It is not a task which will require a revolution in our technology in our technology. Rather, if any revolution is needed, then it is a cultural revolution, which is quite possible. Look at how far humanity has come since Hammurabi set down his codex. We can go further still, if we have faith in what we can do, and strive to be the best that we can be. That is our vision, and if we follow it, we will reach great heights. Until we meet again, let us strive to do thus, and may the vision guide us in all things.
Sources:
European Union Emission Trading Scheme. (2009, March 3). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:17, March 7, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme&oldid=274782110
I think that we should encourage the use of solar panels on as many of the buildings that we can. Especially on taller buildings and in places that can actually afford to build them. I think that it will be easier for those places to get energy for themselves which will help cut down on the use of fossil fuels. I also think that we should build more wind turbines so that people will be able to get their energy from the wind. I also think that we should start off slow with the places that are able to afford the installation of these power sources. I think it would be easier for people to get their energy this way because the power is readily available and extremely easy to obtain if they simply install solar panels and wind turbines.
In the first decade of the 21st Century, we as a global population are at a crossroads; either we exploit all available fossil fuels resources, or we change our ways and become more eco-friendly in our energy consumption. For yesrs, alternative energy sources have been hot topics; we have heard of how great solar energy is, or what a wind turbine farm can do. However, what is really important is how we use our energy and if our use is sustainable in any way. That in itself is the most important part of the equation, and must be answered if we are to change our energy-using habits.
First, people must cut their electricity usage. Although it is a low-cost item, electricity causes power plants to use massive amounts of fossil fuel resources to provide the electrical energy that we consume. In order to start changing our power supplies, we must first tackle the problem of overconsumption of electricity and the effects of the fossil fuels on our planet. Alternative-energy electricity cannot sustain our current level of usage, so a change in our habits is necessary if a green revolution is to succeed.
Next, there needs to be an agreement by the populations of the world that alternative energy sources need to be researched. For instance, nuclear energy was once a hot-ticket item; however, now it is seen as very dangerous and now only creates a small percentage of the United States' total energy usage. If money could go directly to researching and developing a place to store nuclear waste, then radioactive material will not be as much of an issue as it is today. Other sources, such as solar energy, need to be captured as much as possible, especially in drier areas that see a lot of sun and could run off of solar electricity if usage is at the right level.
Another thing that we need to do to be "Green" is to careful with our convenience habits. In order to be eco-friendly, we as a nation must learn that convenience must be given up to make sustainability possible. To do this, we can use recyclable materials that can be recycled after use, keeping things out of the landfills. Companies also need to make more recyclable products that are made from biodegradable material in order to encourage recycling as a main way to be sustainable.
In conclusion, there are ways to be sustainable; we just need to see that if we are to be truly eco-friendly, that we need to give up our convenience and do what is right for the Earth and its resources. Reserves of fossil fuels are finite, so alternative energy sources need to be utilized if we are to get away from an oil dependancy that has bound us many times throughout the years. If sustainability is possible, why don't people change? This issue needs to be dealt with if the United States and the rest of the world are goign to be truly eco-friendly.
I believe that in order to convince people to move more towards green energy and further from fossil fuels there needs to be an increased awareness as to what would happen if we do not move away from fossil fuels. I think that we need to get the message out, showing what will happen if we run out. People need to actually see what would happen and realize how big of a problem we could have. Or, people need to physically see the effects that the use of this source of energy is having on our planet. Also, people are trying as much as they can to avoid spending money. If the government were to reward people who used less fossil fuels with tax cuts or money rewards people would be more willing to convert. People do not want to switch to green energy for their homes because it costs too much, but if more people were to buy into it the cost will decrease. It's a basic economic rule.
Basically, I think that in order to move further away from using fossil fuels there needs to be more negative publicity (like what the future will LOOK like, people need to see things) as well as money incentives.
There are many options to move towards green energy. However it will be expensive no matter what choice we use. It should start with our attitude towards the whole picture. Things like turning off your computer should be second nature. As people work towards attitude adjustments, power grids need to be reformed. We waste too much electricity that way. As power grids develop, the next step would be to replace the power generators; nuclear is a cheap solution, but it's waste is dangerous. As we develop methods such as solar, wind, geothermal, and cold fusion their price will decrease and we'll be able to replace our old coal uses. Transportation is the next step; there are many options. Public Transportation works in countries like Japan, where everything is connected by speed trains. Hydrogen Fuel cells are the eventual future engine, and now that platinum can be made thinner than a human hair, the engines are becoming relatively cheap. Hydrogen however is not. Methods have yet to develop for cheap production of the gas, but it is all around us, and with electricity can be taken out of the air. The only bi-product is water. This slow increase in green would work, but the order in which completion of these projects is crucial.
I think that in order for there to be a permanent move away from fossils fuels something drastic and completely life changing needs to be done in order to stop using something that affects the lives of billions of people. In my opinion, I feel that ending all coal production and petroleum drilling first and later end the production of natural gas would do it.
Taking away these things would force people to depend on other sources of energy, those being; hydro electric, nuclear, and all of the other little energy sources.
To ensure the permanence of this change I would suggest enacting tax incentives for households that do something extra such as installing solar panels or wind turbines on their home, recycling grey water, or completely living off the grid.
However, in order for all of this to work all of those extra items would need to available to people of all levels of wealth. So I would suggest setting a maximum price for all items to ensure that no one is unable to be energy efficient and get the tax incentive.
Finally, lets not forget about those little things that do help even though it might not seem like it. Those things include turning off your computer, unplugging your phone charger when you're done using it, and turning off all the lights when you leave a room or the house, etc. All of those little things add up and really do end up making a change in how much energy you use. So, from the big things to the little things, a permanent switch from fossil fuels is possible, the entire world just has to work together to make it possible.
Obviously the recent outlook on conservation lately is "green is the new black", but how "green" are we really? Of course the little things like recycling plastics, using mass transit and reusing resources can help the situation, but it doesn't eliminate the problem, only slows the problem. So therefore, in order to completely move away from fossil fuels (one of our major issues keeping us from sustainability) I think the best way to get the ball rolling is to completely cut us off. For instance, if laws were passed to enforce lessening the use of fossil fuels, then we would be forced to use clean energy sources instead. There would be no need to try to convert people to the "trend" of clean energy, becuase it would be the only option. Of course it may cause some issues of convience at first, but it would definitely jumpstart the move towards green energy and never look back at the diminishing fossil fuels again.
I saw watchmen this weekend and the idea in that movie is pretty valid. Get a mysterious super hero to destroy the worlds major cities and then everyone will want peace and love electric cars will be on the streets there will be no war no crime the population will be dramatically reduced so we wouldn't have a population problem then we solve world hunger and the energy crisis and everything will be hunky dory.
As sad as it is, American society today is based off of trends, people do things because it's "in" right now or because everyone else is doing them. That's the approach we need to take to move toward a green society. Sure it's becoming more trendy in Portland to make environmetnally friendly choices, but one city isn't going to change jack in the big picture. Big name people need to start making it popular to use solar pannels, or to recylce. We also need to spread information about the exact position we're in and where we're heading. It's almost as though we need to scare Americans into thinking environmentaly. Clearly there aren't enough people aware of our current state of being or else more people would be doing something about it. We need to educate the masses, get big-name people on board, and start a 'revolution' if you will. A couple cities making changes won't fix things, but if we can get all of America in, we can actually start to change the path we're going down.
As a society the human race is a stubborn one. When the time comes for a big change in the way we do something, we dig our heels in and become resistant to whatever idea is being expressed just because it's a stretch for them. So because of this we need to work towards this in a way that is sensitive, but forceful enough to actually get something done.
As has been pointed out already, we are already beginning to be "green" because we are recycling and making smarter choices with what we eat. We won't get very far unless we take some drastic measures. There need to be higher standards on cars and higher environmental protections when it comes to the use of fossil fuels. The government needs to lead this charge for change. They need to grant subsidies to companies that are looking to pursue new energy sources, they need to impose stricter laws against pollution, and they need to work with the fuel suppliers to have them look for fuel alternatives. These companies can be the leaders in the green energy movement, and if the fuel companies won't then the government should invest in companies which are willing to make the change, for everyone. By doing this they will make old fuels, in the case of coal, natural gas, and oil, disappear and make green energy (solar, wind and biomass) more affordable to the middle/lower class groups of people. Even a safer and better use of nuclear power could be called "green". This newer, cleaner, energy, when made more affordable by government aid, is the energy of the future.
My personal favorite is wind energy. It is one of the most efficient clean sources that and does not effect the surrounding environment. They don't have to take up much room, they can be in the ocean, the only problems would be possible problems with birds or being a pain in the butt to repair. Green has been a booming new fad, and it's pushed off pretty well, but now it needs to start really making way. I think the best bet in getting it ahead of fossil fuels is starting in the government (I know it sucks to say). Now that our highest government is democratic I feel (or at least hope) that greener energy will grow. First by passing laws, bills, whatever and second ACTUALLY enforcing them.
The Green Movement is already in motion. Green is certainly becoming the new black. And while its currently a slow process, I believe popular encouragement is the way to go. Government should give people tax levies when they buy hybrid or electrical vehicles. And the companies which provide fossil fuel should be given a sum to convert their gas stations into "charging" stations. If they can figure out how to screw over an entire nation, they can figure out how to charge cars faster...
The only way to jump start a move toward anything is to make it profitable. While there are some people in this country who will make the switch because they want to save the earth and try to make themselves feel better about screwing up other parts of the environment, the majority don’t give a rip. To take green energy to the top, subsidies for fossil fuels need to be removed and put on green energy, technology needs to be allowed to be pushed to it’s full capacity, and foreign technologies need to be allowed to compete against American markets.
One of the largest set backs to the push for green energy is the amount of subsidies the US government hands out to fossil fuel based companies. Despite record profits for oil companies in the last couple of years, taxpayer money is given to them in the billions every year. Coal and natural gas based businesses are given billions more. If these subsidies could be removed, these businesses would not see the same profits. The money could be sent to subsidize energy sources that are renewable and clean. Those green technologies could then develop even further. Ideas in this country are only limited by money. If we could give half of the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies to green energy research and businesses, huge amounts of progress would be made. Especially if we could foster competition between these groups. Have country wide prizes for the cheapest and most effective green energy source. Get colleges competing to be the first to have the most energy efficient solar panel. Things like that are what push technology to the max.
The green technology in this country is severely limited by high prices due to limited funding. In some cases, it has even been banned. Looking a foreign electric cars is a good example. Although incredibly effective in terms of gas mileage, they are not allowed into the US for a few reasons, one of which being that US car makers don’t want to have to deal with that competition. The lack of that competition causes these companies to remain gas guzzles and generally making inefficient cars. The same thing applies to other markets. The United States should start looking into the green technology of other countries. This will push our local companies to work harder to make sure they have the most efficient models to attract the American consumer.
By allowing the funding to come to green research, energy saving technology will know no bounds. By giving money to this industry, more people will come to it because there are profits to be made. In our current economic condition, the US should be doing everything it can to create sustainable jobs that will help make this country a better place to live. We have the technology to do amazing things, but are being hindered by people who are stuck in the dark ages.
Well, in what would probably be considered a radical set of events, what I would consider ideal, we need to put all research and development toward the most efficient and effective processes to create green, sustainable, energy. This would include a de-emphasis on nuclear power due to the radioactive wastes produced, and the short shelf life of the nuclear reactors. Now, all of these changes would of course only be made sure to happen in the U.S., but I feel as a large superpower we would take part in the beginning of a green revolution. The transformation and implementation of a fully renewable energy nation would take a few years, if we were really serious about it. There would be gradual increases in the amount of green energy used, as they become widely known and efficient, and we become structured for green energy. Eventually energy would be generated locally, a generator for every city, if not more local, complimented with a lot of conservation (highly promoted). There would be a huge emphasis on living "off the grid", if not only for the fiscal concerns of citizens. There would no longer be any transfering of energy any further than 20 miles, making energy efficiency even better.
Since the foundation of our society rests on the rapid consumption of fossil fuels, we are, as a society, set up for failure. We souldn't wait until we are basically at do or die (fail) time. This would just add a layer of stupidity to our overly frosted dumb ass cake. This is why we should pick it up a bit and begin making a larger effort towards the green revolution that must be inevitable. Enough with the baby steps, I want us to start running! Sustainably that is. To bad all of us don't have such an 'eco'centric view of the world, that would make this plan so much easier to carry out.
Most everyone in the U.S. at this point is aware that there are difficulties concerning our use of energy. The problem is, not everyone cares and definitely not everyone can come to an agreement. To jumpstart the usage of green energy, we as a nation have to find a way to incorporate several different ideas and come to terms on how to solve our problems, as it is inevitable that we will not all feel the same way and it's useless to push our opinions down others throats.
These different ideas could include reducing the number of coal power plants and in turn increasing the number of nuclear power plants. Although increasing nuclear energy still would be controversial for many people, most can agree that it would be beneficial to reduce the number of coal power plants.
Meanwhile, a larger number of government spending should go towards green energy and the technologies behind it. This will make green energy more widely available, and at some point in the future more advanced and less expensive, so more can be used or even instead of wasteful energies.
The only things that I think are stopping us from increasing green energy are agreeing with eachother and money. Altough honestly, I think the latter is easier to obtain.
I would venture to say that the greatest obstacle in "going green" is money. The reason people refuse to do the little things--switch to using green energy from PGE, buy the more expensive toaster, shop at Trader Joe's--is because it costs more. And people have this tendency to look at short-term benefits over long-term benefits. The way to get over that? Make it cheaper to buy eco/environmentally-friendly products. This could happen by giving tax credits to consumers who buy these products, or by eliminating corporate business income taxes so the businesses will pass the savings on. That way, not only is it trendy, but it's smart, financially.
We also need to find a way to make green energy profitable--wind power, solar power, even nuclear power, but not coal-burning or oil consumption. This could occur, at least in part, by eliminating government-funded subsidies for plants that burn fossil fuels. It's important that energy companies are rewarded when their activities harm the environment as little as is pragmatic.
All people have a natural tendency to procrastinate. On a small scale, this might result in less sleep but has few more drastic consequences. Switching the global community off of fossil fuels and on to cleaner energy sources is not small scale. Enough people in leadership positions are swayed by the industry surrounding fossil fuels that the necessary switchover is pushed further and further back. The natural tendency with procrastination is to wait till the crisis point and then spring into action, but a crisis point in the energy field could mean war, natural disaster, or complete economical collapse. What the world needs is leadership that isn't afraid to make a sudden and complete change. When governmental resources are put to work effectively, a lot can get done in a short while. The world is past the research stage of clean fuel sources - what we need now is implementation, and for that to happen we need governments worldwide to drop their partnership with fossil fuel corporations and put the money and energy into making clean fuel sources the best and most obvious choice.
Obviously, "going green" will not happen by revolutionary changes, but rather by evolutionary changes. I do not agree with this in any way, but there is also reality, which keeps the thought of a revolution from occurring. Therefore, small and progressively larger steps must be taken to ensure a supported and "safe" transition. Here is how we make this happen:
Although I may foster radical ideas for energy changes, a more pragmatic attitude seems practical. It is unfortunate that we have reached this point where people don't come to their senses about global hunger, poverty, overpopulation. In this regard, simple and evolutionary changes must be set in motion. I do not agree with tax breaks, because they have a upper-class bias, but in this case we have to utilize them. We have to give people of all classes a reason to pay closer attention to their impact, and realize the power they have as consumers (since they clearly can't do it on their own.) Give tax credits to those who put solar panels on top of their house, give x amount of dollars back for every y watts of electricity saved, and most controversial...raise gas prices. This change begins in the government, who will have to do some investing in this type of energy so that people will get the wake-up call, and hopefully this will undercut oil, gas, and coal (fossil fuels) and start a new generation of energy sources. And who knows, maybe companies will begin to explore new options in hopes of discovering new sustainable energy forms, which could be highly profitable, should they succeed.
I believe the key to jumpstarting the green energy movement lies in a program similar to that of the US's policies to put a man on the moon. During the 1960s the US made it a priority to develop technology and supply any amount of funds to reach the goal of space travel by a certain pre-determined date. If we can form another program similar to this one, making the development of green energy a priority, I believe green energy development will quickly happen. We MUST make it a priority and say we're going to make it happen by a certain date. We have all the resources to change the way in which we consume energy and we must bagin to make changes ASAP!
Post a Comment