TED Conversations

Anonymous Nutrient

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

Debate: Green Energy vs Fossil Fuels

As we all well know, the world is addicted to petroleum for things such as energy, transportation, and other uses. However, the burning of fossil fuels (most likely) diminishes the quality of the air we fill our fragile lungs with. Sure, petroleum has proven it's undeniable worth for transportation, but this resource may have the potential to lead our ecosystem's demise.

Do we need to start considering the integration of Green Energy into our civilizations? In doing so, would that possibly grant our delicate habitats more time of life and existence? Or should we just stick with fossil fuel, simply because it already gets the job done. Or should we invest in Green Energy (potentially creating thousands if not millions of jobs), and save whats left of our burdened world?

Related Talks:
Topics: Clean energy ecosystem energy fossil fuels future green energy petroleum transportation
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Henry Woeltjen 10+

    • +1
    Oct 20 2012: Let me put it this way.

    The only companies with enough equity to establish effective green-energy programs...are still sucking money from the oil industry.

    I also don't see many investors throwing their money into green-energy companies. That usually doesn't happen when you are talking about research. An investor wants a real return promise...not "well we hope green-energy works soon".

    Green-energy is being used as a term to increase political standing. Green-energy, in most cases, is seen as a "charity" and investors are forced to go elsewhere.

    We cannot have a market that facilitates growth based on investing....and then sit around wondering why our research programs don't attract investors....well...with 0% return on research programs...who wants to invest?

    The U.S. still subsidizes the three largest oil companies that make over 80 billion a year combined.

    Green-energy will be taken serious...when its not a tool to make more money.

    • John Smith 30+

      • 0
      Oct 20 2012: You are right that fossil fuels are still being subsidized, I would like to add that the cost of environmental damage is not fully included in the price of fossil fuels, even in countries that have eco taxes fossil fuels. The biuggest point, I believe, is that it's just so difficult getting the start-up capital for major investments in green energy (this touches on you sentence about large companies sucking money from the oil industry). This is true on all levels: in many countries buying solar panels is already a sensible investment, but you need to own a house with a roof and have $10k-20k in starting capital, many households just don't meet those requirements, while many governments already have such high national debt that they can't invest much in green energy either, even though they're guaranteed to get their money back eventually. Only large corporations can invest but they have vested interests in fossil fuels.
    • thumb

      Anonymous Nutrient

      • 0
      Oct 21 2012: "Green-energy will be taken serious...when its not a tool to make more money."

      You're completly right my friend, when the time comes that we'll be facing life (through clean energy) or ecosystem collapse, the choice is clear. The next question is when will we face ecosystem collapse?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.