If you could choose where you bought your Electricity?

Question

Would you choose to have your home powered by

Clean, green technology even if it cost a bit more,
Stay with what you had now regardless of cost and source of fuel,
Or go with the cheapest regardless of the source of fuel?

If you chose green technology, do you think free markets would work faster than government solutions?

Dana - I think there are many more people like you who would pay a bit more to buy clean power. I think you underestimate other too much.

Answer 1

I would go with the green not because of "global warming" but because it is still the environment.

Answer 2

If you take into account that fossil fuels still receive billions in subsidies from our tax dollars vs only hundreds of millions spent on research and tax credits for the "clean, green" technologies, in certain cases right here in the good ole USA people may actually be paying more for dirty power than if the alternatives were made available to them.

If we truly had "free markets" and a level playing field, this country might be 10 to 20 years technologically ahead of where we are today!

A very good question you've offered up here, as it shows how ignorant most people are about this issue...

While many still believe cheaper is better and taken their eye off the ball, the leadership in green technology innovation has been surrendered to Asia in solar , Europe in wind, Norway with tidal and Greenland and New Zealand for geothermal.

We could be #1, but we are held back by ideological wedge issues like "global warming" , and a greater desire to maintain the status quo... which only benefits an elite few at the expense of our planet.

Answer 3

I already buy clean power from Bull Frog Power . I believe that most people lack a real sense of social conscience and would rather save a buck than go green. So no, the free market will not work faster.
Take for example goods imported from nations with low cost labour. You could get a better quality item for a higher initial cost made in your own country. Unlike many cheap products made today, it could have the ability to be repaired, meaning it would last years longer than an item made cheaply and shipped half way around the world.
I'll give you the example of an old typewriter that lives in my attic. It was built in the 1930s, it weighs about fifty pound, is made of brass and is as functional as if it were made yesterday. The only thing wrong with that old typewriter is it outlived its own usefulness by obsolescence. In contrast I have had to replace my computer printer about four times in the past five years. Would I buy a printer made like that old typewriter? You bet I would if I could find one, but a machine like that is unavailable. It turns out people would rather have cheap disposable goods pushed by big mega corporations that strive to make things cheaper and cheaper rather than more expensive durable goods that end up being cheaper in the long run. The more expensive goods are both better for their own economy and far easier on the environment. Do you think this makes sense? No, so why would a person spend the extra bucks for slightly more expensive green energy? It’s because the big players in the free market dictate what you want and will not respect the environment if it’s going to cost them money.
People don't want green if they can have cheap. Governments have to step in for the overall good.

Answer 4

I would choose green electricity even if it cost a bit more, and I do.

To give renewable energy sources a boost and to make sure they are developed in a fast rate I think the free markets TOGETHER with enough incentives from governments would be the best solution to start with. Then after some time, we can probably leave it to the free markets alone to deal with.

Answer 5

I do pay a bit more to subsidize wind power development by my utility.

But it's a matter of seeing that everyone paying a bit more now will save society a lot more later. People aren't very good at making those decisions. It's called "the tragedy of the commons".

Consider water pollution. Individual factories will take the cheapest way and dump pollution that affects downstream users.

The free market failed to protect water, and water became terribly polluted by the 1970s. You couldn't fish. Urban rivers smelled so bad you didn't want to be anywhere near them. A river caught on fire.

Only government action, the Clean Water Act, could turn things around.

This is EXACTLY the same thing.

Answer 6

I would buy the cleaner power.

One cool thing about that would be, that a lot of the people that have higher incomes would get the cleaner power. I know some of them are cheap, but the ones in my city are the ones that recycle. So, since they have the larger houses, it would help more than the lower income people with the 2 bedroom apartment.

Answer 7

I actually buy Green Power which is available from TVA and does cost a bit more (about 12-15%) It comes from solar, methane from landfills and wind turbines.

I think any new technology is helped through government assistance but cannot succeed unless the market truly wants it. We have a system where innovative technologies are DISCOURAGED through subsidies to established industries (ie tax breaks and preferential government contracts to coal, natural gas and oil)

Answer 8

Clean, green technology even if it cost a bit more.

No, I don't think free markets would work faster than government solutions, because most people want the cheapest energy source.

Answer 9

http://www.snopud.com/energy/home/plpwrpgm.ashx?p=1793

Around 3,000 subscribers last time I checked (out of maybe 300,000 total), so it's 1% participation. How that fits into their goal of 10% renewal energy by 2016 or so I don't know, or whether Snohomish County is average in terms of their goals and actual results.

Free markets are not known for their ability to regulate growth, they're more known for producing tragedies of the commons.

Answer 10

I think that all people (incluyed me) must be more conscious when it involves this issue, for example, should sort bicycle instead of car, you should use less electricity, use biodegradable fuel, and so on.
But unfortunately those who have the power of empresar that emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere do not want to stop.

Answer 11

I would choose clean.

A government intervention would speed the market to a greener future, as shown in California (solar and wind initiatives).