Eco-Friendly Economy

Last night I had a somewhat heated discussion with a friend that covered topics ranging from alternative energy, alternative economics to alternative political theories.

I have concluded that, in this day and age, there is a better chance at revival and change in the world by organizing these three issues into one theory. That is to say the discussion of social change needs to involve new energy sources and plans, and thus new economic theories need to include these plans in their discussion, which would then necessarily lead to a political theory that implements them both.

Why?

We all know the end result of our over-consumption of NON-renewable energy sources. The discussion, at least in the majority of the western world, either blatantly refuses to address the issue of alternative energy sources in any serious manner, or turns the discussion to that of nuclear energy as the only viable alternative. Are they, those in power, really so bold as to think that most of the world thinks that those are the only viable alternatives? Iceland has taken the lead on this issue by currently testing 4 city buses run on hydrogen, which emits only water. Now why aren't the energy companies putting some of their windfalls into research and development of this source. Instead, they see only as far as their wallets, and are capitalizing on the reduction of the resources for which we, and they, depend.

Now in developing a new and, most importantly viable, economic theory that could help reshape our world, we must take the use of alternative energies into account. These theories must take into account the transition away from fossil fuels. The reason being that much of the worlds economies are based, either in large or small proportions, on the free market, which is ultimately lead by companies involved in the fossil fuel industry. When these companies collapse due to the lack of alternatives, and the disappearance of fossil fuels, what do you think will happen to our economy if it is based on the same theory as is currently practiced? Of course, it will collapse. In reality, before this happens it might have already collapsed due to the outbreak of armed conflict that is most likely to occur due to the battle over that last little precious barrel of oil. If you don't believe this will happen, and in our own backyard, you are fooling yourself. It has already begun. All you have to do is read the papers and listen to our "leaders".

Therefore, the new economic theory needs to account for the loss of the fossil fuel sector, and include the new resources in its discussion.

Thirdly, there will then necessarily need to be a change in political theory as it is practiced world wide. Many of our leaders benefit from the market as it is, more than we will ever know. Also, much of the investment of tax dollars is in places that depend on a stable economy. Sure, so far, we have been fairly lucky...so far. Many governments also depend highly on the success of non-renewable energy resources and companies. There fore, a new political theory in turn needs to account for the change of economics and resources levels.

Further more, Democracy, is the going craze these days, but in practice, there are no real democracies, and we once again are kidding ourselves if we think there is. First past the post...when 25 % of a government set area are able to elect one person to represent all of their interests....that is not democracy. Neither is a two party system, both with very similar ideals. A system where the only issues that cause differentiation seem to be that of state involvement in the bedroom and with the churches. Funny that is a world that has globalized to such massive proportions, it is still frivolous issues that make or break an election, in Canada, it may amount to as much as same sex marriage.

Alas, I digress. The point to all of this, is that there needs to be serious discussion to alternatives to the systems that are in place now. Serious. Discussions that occur not only in the academic world, but that are taken further into the mainstream scope, so that ignorance may be defeated, and progress, will actually mean progress, not wealth.

And I am sure I will be criticized for criticizing our system when I myself have no viable alternative to bring to the table. Yet the purpose of my ideas are to begin a discussion, to get people thinking about alternatives. If you can give me one person who can say there are no serious flaws in systems that we uphold today, and they can prove it, then I will stop this discussion. Until then, let us begin to look forward, to the world that our children and grandchildren and even great-grand children will be left with, and what we can do now to make it that much better for them. To prosper, not necessarily with empty material things, but with health and happiness, which is growing more and more uncommon.

I will be including links very soon that will delve into these topics and that will therefore aid in the commencement of serious discussion on these and other related matters. Patience.

If you have links that you think are pertinant to this discussion please let me, and all others know about them in the comments section. Thank you.