Time to put
up another one, not that anybody’s been reading them, but I don’t care, I want
to get this out there.
previous blog I’ve explained what the possibilities are for green energy and
how it can help us, I’ll turn back to the original idea of a green economy. As
said before, it’s basically an economy that has it’s support on green energy.
The economy doesn’t completely support on energy of course.
opinion this, along with a change in thought by everyone could possibly save us
from possible self-destruction. This change in thought is what I want to talk
about in this part.
we need to step away from the idea that making as much money as possible is the
most important thing in the world. Right now, people are taking unreasonable risks
just to make money. Just think of what happened with the international banking
crisis. Banks wanted to make more money, so they loaned people money while they
knew these people probably wouldn’t be able to pay it back. This led to massive
sale of houses, which made the housing market collapse, which in turn made the
banks crash, but that’s a different story.
need to do instead of wanting to make as much profit as possible, is making as
much money as we need. You only need
enough to buy food, pay your bills and put a bit on a savings account for the
hard times. A consequence of this is that we shouldn’t praise people for how
much money they have and how much cars/clothes/… they have. We should make sure
it’s no longer a positive thing to pollute and to show off how much money you
have earned. It should be a positive thing when a CEO, or even just any
employee, goes to work by bike/train/public transport. Now it is looked down
upon as if to say they are doing something ridiculous or even something inappropriate
by saving the planet.
major consequence of the fact people earn as much as they need instead of as
much as possible, is that, I think, economy will be more stable. Now we’re
reaching into hypothetical terrain, I can’t prove anything I’m saying next.
It’s just what I think is one of the possibilities when a green economy
happen is that we get a more stable economy, not pointed to itself and not
fixed on making money by the buckets for a few. We could get an economy that is
pointed outwards, wanting to help people. This would be an economy and a world
where people are more equal and people get what they really deserve, and not
what multi-nationals say what they deserve, which is often far less than they
If the economy
is more stable and people no longer take unreasonable risks to make money,
crises may be rarer, and if they come they could be milder than what we have
experienced these last years and are still experiencing today.
To this I’d
like to add that it’s a very idealistic and utopic idea. People are too
concerned about money, there is no way a change like this will ever take place
without a major event being at the base of it. I had my hopes up when the
banking crisis struck hard, but I’m already seeing we’re heading back to where
we were before the crash, i.e. major bonuses, golden parachutes, pay raises for
the executives,… I guess we have to wait for something even bigger than that.
blog on here, and I’ve decided to tackle a rather big one right away. This is
something I’ve been thinking and reading about for a while. I will talk about
“Green Economy”. I’ve divided it into a couple of parts, so it’s easier to read
than just a huge wall of text.
“Green Economy” you say? Well, as you could guess from the name it’s an economy
that is environmentally friendly and durable. This means one of the foundations
of your economy is the energy sector and relatives. You can create a lot of
jobs (in my country,Belgium, it is estimated at at
least 50,000 jobs) by investing in green energy.
Now, what are
the possibilities for green energy?
One of the
first things to do is invest in alternatives for fossil fuels and nuclear
energy. Alternatives for fossil fuels are already possible and available.
Hydrogen-fuel cell cars and Electric Vehicles are just 2 examples. The most
viable idea is Hydrogen-fuel cars, because you can refuel it in much the same
way as you can now with fossil fuels, which is one of the major problems with
EV. Problem remains that making Hydrogen-fuel takes a lot of energy, which
means there is again pollution, but of course far reduced when compared to
pollution created by production and burning of fossil fuels.
thinking very critically may think: “What about jobs lost in petrochemistry
because of the switch?” Well, the jobs lost in petrochemistry could be
recovered in production of Hydrogen-fuel, and in other sectors belonging to
before, it’s not only fossil fuels that need alternatives, but also nuclear
important misconception certain people like to believe, and that is that
nuclear energy is also green energy. I’m not saying these people are dumb or
idiotic, I’m guessing they are misinformed about nuclear energy. It is indeed
true that nuclear energy doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses, but nuclear energy
does produce nuclear waste. This waste is harmful to everything around it for
hundreds of years when not stored away safely. This means very large
installations and buildings have to be constructed, just for storing waste. This means you do get pollution from
nuclear energy, it may not be air pollution, but definitely radiation pollution.
some viable alternatives for nuclear energy? Well, most obviously, there is wind
and solar energy. Solar energy is already generally accepted and used, in my
country that is at least. Wind energy on the other hand has more problems. This
is, I think, the problem of the NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard idea. Because this
is applicable to anything that may cause a slight disruption of people’s usual
lives, it’s also applicable in this case. People support the idea of wind
energy, but as soon as it comes too close to their home or to their personal lives, they oppose the idea. They don’t want it near their homes, so they
sue the contractors. The grounds they have for not building windmills near
houses vary from ruining landscape, to causing dizziness by continuous passing
of shadow over houses. That last thing couldn’t be an issue, because
contractors have to make sure the shadow of the windmills never hits houses,
this is stipulated by a very strict set of rules.
All I want
to say is that people need to get over this irrational fear of wind mills, I’ve
seen several built in natural environment (i.e. terrain of a farmer), and they don’t
cause a lot of trouble. Perhaps some people can’t stand their sight, but they
definitely don’t cause problems concerning noise, the newest versions can
barely be heard.
point I’ll address in this part is insulation. By using strict insulation rules
for houses, you can save a lot of energy. I haven’t got any hard numbers for
this, mainly because it depends from house to house. I think this is a very
important factor that mustn’t be overlooked. It’s important we don’t invest
billions in green energy when houses and buildings just waste that energy by
time writer here… This’ll be just a place where I put things I’m thinking
about. That means I could put texts on here that handle concepts and ideas I’m
thinking about and working on, that means it’ll probably range from science to environment to whatever is on
my mind. It could also mean there’s just a couple of lines with something
interesting to think about, I’ll see how it works out… It’ll probably grow as
it goes along, I’ve got a couple ideas about what to do you’ll see them soon
It’s just this one. And while I do realise how cliché this type of first blog
is, I’m hoping the rest won’t be.