TED Conversations

Joe Nyangon

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why has "green consumption" of sustainable products (e.g. Whole Foods, Toyota Prius) not permeated electricity consumption?

While many consumers have embraced sustainable products (eg. Whole Foods, Toyota Prius), that ethos has not yet permeated electricity consumption. Why do you think this is the case? Will it always be like this? Will renewable energy consumption be driven only by government mandates? Why? Or do you think this will change? If the marketplace were fair and rational, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates for the renewables and a proper carbon tax would suffice—as is starting to happen in Europe through cap-and-trade system. What will drive the change to clean energy consumption?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 6 2012: I'll submit a controversial reason... No government, wants its people to be able to provide their own power. Individualism, and sustainability, are in stark contrast to government power. As long as human beings need energy to accomplish tasks, and as long as the government can control and change the prices of energy, they can ensure that no human being will ever be able to live their life, without contributing to government and corporate power.

    Solar energy takes us off their tit... So they hate it. They don't want us to live a healthy, happy, and productive life, because healthy, happy, and productive people don't shut up and do what they're told.
    • Apr 8 2012: I agree with David. Why is so much energy and attention being applied to solar"farms"? It's because people will still be forced to buy the power from the farm and will still be at the mercy of the "farm owners". Why hasn't all that power been distributed amongst people's homes. It actually makes better sense to have it distributed. During a catastrophe interconnection with the farm may be broken and the powers that be might just decide they have more "important" uses for that power and leave you hanging! Distributed power would allow neighbors to share power among a group of homes with some simple switching so that even a modest system could keep refrigeration and lighting on.
      The other thing they don't want you to have is a simple shelter. Right now, you are NOT ALLOWED to live in a tiny, simple shelter. The largest part of the average persons energy and money go to paying for some tuna boat of a "shelter". The powers that be want it that way. Just think how much extra time and money yould have if you lived in a tent. Of course, a lot of people don't want to live in a tent (or a bus, or a shipping container) but the point is that you CAN'T whether you want to or not! The result is that you have no choice BUT to keep that dreary job, or stay in the same place, or be hounded by the authorities.
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2012: In some ways though, I'm also saying... The money is in the treatment, not the disease. It's not a monolith of conspiracy against green technology, or anything... There's just very little incentive to research a cure, when you make so much money from the treatment.

        It's the same problem in the public private health care debate... The government isn't made up of doctors or engineers, so they waste money, when investing in such things. They buy from snake oil salesman... but, in energy, as well as healthcare, no salesman is going to work on a cure.

        You need university, private charity, and possibly public, pure research money, if you want to solve these problems in real sustainable, individual ways, not because corporations are evil, but because they don't care, there's no real money in curing aids, there is a boat load in treating it. Why would an energy company want to design a device that makes you an energy provider?
        • Apr 9 2012: I agree with you. I used to be a big believer in conspiracies but not anymore. Sure, wealthy grouPs of people wash each others hands and use insider knowledge to get. An advantage, but theyre going to follow the bottom line. Their not going to lose money just to prove a point. I like that "theyre selling the treatment."where to go from here? There are so many competing ideas tho and the peoPle with the money are the ones who get heard. Here is a poem i wrote yrs ago.
          I hereby propose a prize
          To he who finds an ad sans lies
          A million dollars, a billion even
          I gaauurraanntee it!
          Maybe the problem arises when business meets politcs. When money gets politicians to form policy in their favor. Hating the homeless is mainly just bogeyman creation and social control. Make it so horrible and "other" so people will keep nose to grindstone

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.