TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed.

Why are the alternate power sources not being implemented on a world-wide scale? There is a tipping point and we must be close by now!!!

Solar panels
Wind Turbines

We all see the signs of the world changing. Ice caps disappearing, mega storms, tempature rise, ect.
Yet we are more concerned with royal babies, wars, and profits.
We will have none of that if this planet stops supporting life as we know it.
This is a back burner issue always used for politics but never solved by politics.
Turn the heat up on this, the Earth is!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 5 2013: I have to say this whole "we dont have the capital/money to do this" is BS. A company that makes solar panels could steal a page from the banks playbook and lease/loan the solar panels and get monthly payments on them. Pollution will decrease. Natural resources could be used for other things that renewable energy can't be used for. Yeah solar panels are expensive and yeah they want to make a bunch of money. Well understand this, if you're dead you can't make any money. We say we're smart but it seems greed is overriding all that.
    • Sep 5 2013: Its not about "we don't have the money". Its about "we have better use for that money".

      Its not that we can't find funding. If we slash enough budgets for other things, and take enough loans, we can start making a transition to 100% green energy tomorrow, and probably be done in a few years.
      It would crash the economy and lead to all sorts of different damages though.

      Saving money isn't about greed, its about resource allocation.
      What money we're saving on energy by using cheaper fossil fuels we can spend on things like healthcare, infrastructure, defense or education.
      I don't care what country you live in, I'm sure some of the above are in need of improvement. Sometimes even desperate need.

      Take into account the cost of energy affecting anything and everything, and cheaper energy directly translates into a higher standard of living for the lot of the populace.
      In that regard, the expensive solution of going green would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Its really bad for the economy, and whats bad for the economy is bad for the people, not just the top 1%.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2013: To tell you the truth, I don't think it would be bad for the economy. For one we would have more money to spend throughout our economy instead of making a few select people rich beyond belief. For the resource allocation I'd have to say this isn't checkers, it's chess. We could spend money now on American-made (seeing as I'm American) Renewable Energy. The workers are American so they spend money in America, not to mention people would buy houses, cars, ect. There's most of the cost right back into our economy. I know this is optimistic but shouldn't we be? This is all without mentioning our Defense budget.


        From The Washington Post
        "All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.
        (Note that this figure does not, however, include benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as “defense spending,” then the number goes up significantly.)
        U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in."

        That is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money and to consider the veterans and their families that end up receiving benefits, not that they shouldn't. Less soldiers and weapons means less spent on benefits and less violence, all while we invest in renewable energy to lower our need for fossil fuels. As I said before it's very optimistic but it is not impossible.

        Thanks for the reply Nadav. The input is most certainly appreciated!
        • Sep 9 2013: I very much doubt that going green would redistribute the wealth.
          Instead of oil tycoons, you get wind farm tycoons. Wealth disparity isn't a result of the fossil fuel industry, its a result of capitalism. The current system is built to encourage that sort of thing, with a list of advantages, and a list of disadvantages.
          A renewable switch makes the cost of living go up, and everyone poorer, rich and poor alike (though the poor, as always, feel it more).

          This is also true for countries as a whole. Developing nations are hurt much more by a renewable switch than developed ones.

          I'm also not sure just how much it'll help the local economies. Parts are usually made where its cheapest to make them--the moment that's foreign, they start importing them. You could insist to keep them domestic, but that further pushes costs. The workers usually have to be local, but the workers at coal and gas plants are also perfectly local.
          While stimulating the local economy through government spending on rebuilding the energy grid has its benefits, it also further alleviates the problem of government debts (already bad enough in the US).

          Finally, your arguments for slashing the US defense budgets, while sound, have nothing to do with renewable energy.
          It has to do with over spending. Related in a way, but not inherently connected.
    • Sep 5 2013: They already do that. In our State you can get the power company to install your solar panels on the roof, no charge. Then you pay a monthly fee for the installation and also get the credit for the electricity generated. In many or even most cases the result is your electric bill decreases.

      The electric company gets several benefits. They get electricity at peak hours. This is critical because their grid has to be designed to handle peak loads.

      Second, they don't have to build additional transmission lines to handle this extra capacity. That is a very significant savings.

      Third, they don't have the issue of public hearings and all the other hassle in getting extra power generating capacity built.

      Fourth, laws restrict and penalize pollution from coal plants. The greater the percent of power generation from clean energy the better the power company does with health and environmental regulations.

      Fifth, there are tax benefits, City, State and Federal, because they understand the savings in health related issues, the jobs that are created locally, and the tax benefits of having real improvements made to real estate.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.