It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If going "green" is so imperative, why is it so expensive?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:05 PM
This is an attempt at starting a discussion:

Every day (it seems ) we are bombarded with threats of the impending doom looming over us by our carbon emissions and other things. We are emplored to "go green" and "save the planet." A holier-than-thou attitude exists among Prius drivers (my buddy has one and has the attitude) and green is the new black. My question is, if it is so imperative we all "go green" ASAP, then why is it so expensive?

I would like to hear all theories.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:21 PM
Because progress aint cheap?

Because vegetables cost more than meat?

or maybe's just a new and interesting way for the same old players to take the most money from your pocket with the least amount of overhead and inventiveness.

My $.02


posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:26 PM
The reason going green has become so costly might be due to the fact that the government coupled with corporations have gotten involved in this little fad. This is compounded by the simple fact that new technologies never come at a cheap price - that being electric, solar, wind, etc. Sad to say it's all about dead presidents on (Ironically) green paper.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:31 PM
Change is hard and costly. It costs less to stay on oil than to put money into research and building new facilities, it costs less to keep buying the same old products than the ones that maybe are more "green" but do indeed cost a little more to produce, especially since a lot of "green" products still have people involved in their production instead of being made by fully automated factories and thus cost more to make.

And yes, it is all about someone trying to make a buck off of you. Yay capitalism.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:35 PM
One problem with going green is that many institutions have laws to forbid it. I live in a development that has a homeowners association. One of the bylaws states that no house (these are individual family homes, not condos) may install solar panels. In addition, needless to say, windmills are forbidden. Now I can understand the windmills, in a development being a problem to neighbors, but Solar panels on your ROOF? I've tried talking to the board of the homeowners association, and they are adamantly against allowing solar panels. In addition, clotheslines are illegal. Change the bylaws, you say. Well, that requires 75% of all homes to vote to overturn it, and that vote can only take place at a meeting in the evening on a weekday. Note it requires 75% of all homes in the development, not 75% of those attending the meeting. Some people refuse to attend any meetings, and so it is impossible to change any of the rules. By the way, the rules were instituted by the builder, and although he is no longer involved, his original rules still stand, due to the 75% rule. Since that rule is a bylaw, it woiuld require 75% to change THAT. CATCH 22!

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:36 PM
Not that progress isn't cheap its because they are greedy and you would think its because it would save our great planet but its not. If that were the case they would give it all away free .. money wouldn't be a problem because this is to save our race....think about it and for once wake up.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:43 PM
Because the ptb and BP would like you to stay in their back pocket nursing on the oil nipple for as long as possible.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:48 PM
This is sort of related.

In the early 90's, while laptops were still pretty expensive, for a lower end model, clients at a law firm I did some contract work for, wanted the best laptops money could buy. Laptops were the buzzword at the time, and sort of a status symbol. The bigger, and more expensive the laptop was, the higher up on the food chain you were, (I guess..).

I tried to talk those guys into lower priced machines, as they were really only doing briefs, law references, etc. This was before high speed interent access.

We wound up paying aroub $3,200 apiece for 5 laptops, for the senior partners, $2,500 for a bunch of lower end laptops for the junior partners, $800 apiece for docking stations, (docking stations being a big buzzword), 20 desktops for the paralegals and clerical staff.

You would be amazed how many of those attorneys would walk into a courtroom, plop that laptop down, flip the lid, and work a case. You'd also be amazed that out of 15 laptops total, 13 of them wound up in the courtroom, without batteries in them, because batteries made the portable computers "too heavy.".

Right now, Green seems to be a buzzword, so construction, and implementation is going to be a lot more expensive. As some new fad takes place, "green" will become reasonably priced.

If you can wait until the current buzzword becomes old, you can save a lot of money.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by skoalman88

Why is 'going green' so expensive? Some aspects are just because they can be and some because they have to be.

Things like the Tesla car have been in development for years, and all that research, facilities, and salaries costs lots of money. It's the same with any new technology, like Playstation. It costs a bundle when it comes out but then right before they bring out the next one the bottom drops out of the price.

Then there are things that don't have to cost a lot, but do because people are getting rich off of the idea of global warming. For example, where I live, if I want to recycle my used motor oil I have to bring it to a city facility. But, they will only take it if it's in quarts and not in the big bucket. Why? Because they're afraid that someone somewhere isn't paying them to recycle their oil. It seems to me that if they cared so much about recycling they'd just take it instead of telling me to waste money buying smaller containers and waste resources on more packaging so they know I'm a consumer and not a business.

Same with recyclables. If they see one jar that you didn't wash out in your recycle bin they won't take it. Now if they really cared about the environment they wouldn't be encouraging people to just throw things in the trash by not taking the blue bin if someone forgot to remove a lid on a glass jar or rinse out the last bit of mustard.

AND there's the issue of particle filters on diesel engines. This one really pisses me off. My truck is an 01 and uses the Cummins engine previous to the generation that's out now. It doesn't have a particle filter, which is supposed to cut down on particle emission pollution. Good, right? Wrong. The particle filter causes the new engine to get 30% less gas mileage!! So that's 30% more fuel you have to buy just to do the same amount of work. So you're not only using more fuel, you're using 30% more resources to make that fuel and emitting 30% more pollution with the 30% more fuel. It's absolutely retarded.

Basically, I think global warming is a total scam to make money.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

People don't want that stuff in the neighborhood because it looks terrible. Clotheslines are allowed again now after 30 years of being banned here, and it looks horrible. Instead, people could use a drying rack or three INSIDE their homes. They work just as well, better in the rain and winter, and don't bleach your clothes. Plus, I don't have to see your knickers.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:15 PM
I remember when Y2K was the big thing. Computer guys were getting filthy rich off of panic. Generator sales were through the roof. Some guy moved here, and had a $8 million dollar bomb shelter built. Companies were selling half pints of sterelized water in little silver plastic bags for $6 and $7 apiece.

In short, much money was being made in the Y2K panic.

Much money is being made in the Global Warming panic.

Sad but true.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:31 AM
reply to post by skoalman88

It cheap compared to the alternative, correct? How will you feel about cost / benefit when you have to buy water to live? I don;t mean city water charges that one might pay now, I mean buying water for your kids to drink like we buy gas for your Expedition now...

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:35 AM
reply to post by metallion do realize that Y2k was a real repeatable, testable problem and companies / IT guys worked up to 15 years in some cases to minimize the impact. Where are all the Y2K millionaires that resulted from this as you imply?


It has also been suggested that on September 11, 2001, the New York infrastructure (including subways, phone service, and financial transactions) were able to continue operation because of the redundant networks established in the event of Y2K bug impact[22] and the contingency plans devised by companies.[23] The terrorist attacks and the following prolonged blackout to lower Manhattan had minimal effect on global banking systems.[citation needed] Backup systems were activated at various locations around the region, many of which had been established to deal with a possible complete failure of networks in the financial district on December 31, 1999.[24] Had the emphasis on creating backup systems to deal with Y2K not occurred, much greater disruption to the economy could have occurred.[citation needed] Decentralization of infrastructure — in particular, the creation of multiple sites for backup data — helped keep banks up and running.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:00 AM
I've often wondered this myself. I guess if you take in the overall money you'll the end "green" or "greener" options will probably save you money..but the amount of the investment itself is hard to get over.

For example, for the past 10 years I've ran a standard run of the mill top loading washer and dryer. Paid only $900 for the pair (very cheap), but my water and hydro bill averaged around $210/month. In January, after the old pair pretty much died, we bit the bullet and paid $2400 for a front loading oversized pair that the biggest selling point was it's energy efficiency and energystar compliance rating. Almost 3x the cost of a lower end top loading set. I'll be honest, I wanted the front loaders not for economical reasons, but more for efficiency. Since I have a family of 5, and 5 daycare kids in my home around the clock I do a TON of laundry...and the oversized front loaders do about 1.5x time the laundry in half the time. Anyhow, haven't I also been pleasantly surprised to find my hydro/water bill are now down to around $160-$170/month. At a savings of $50/month on my utility bills, this set will have paid itself off in only 4 years....and I would expect them to last MUCH longer than that. So in the end I was happy with the choice, but gritted my teeth the entire time we were finalizing the purchase.

This issue goes hand in hand with the healthy eating issue. I can buy enough hamburger to feed my family for about $4.00...but enough chicken breast is about $12, and any half decent fish is around $15...They "want" us to do the right thing, but half the time it's hard for the average person to afford


edit for spelling

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Michelle129]

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:17 AM
reply to post by skoalman88

There are many reasons why Green is expensive.
Often it is locally produced, so say if you are in the west and producing clothing using materials that are also green(ie organically farmed, recyclable etc) and not mass produced in third world countries, your production costs for materials and labour alone are going to be high. As so the price.
Growing Organic or non GM food is also expensive, for some of the same reason. Also the fact that it is not produced in massive volumes means that the price will be higher to cover the production and to provide income for the grower( no-one else works for free so why should conservationists and green farmers or buisnesses).
New Green Tech also has to go through the process of RD etc which is expensive. As it breaks into the market it is expensive so as to recoup costs until industry innovation results in mass production and cheaper more efficient means of production. This is the same process that most technology goes through. Just because it is green does not exclude it from this process.
These are just a few reasons why Green products are viewed as expensive.
There are also a number of ways green can be cheap.
Grow some of your own food I you have a yard. I saw some Designs and working prototypes not long ago and I believe there will soon be some amazing indoor Growing systems specifically designed for Apartments and smaller dwellings, so watch that space.(especially for you "herb" smokers.hehe)
Install a rain water tank.
Install Solar Panels.
On the subject of an electric/hybrid car.(General Motors EV1 only needed water and a tyre rotation on service) This car was scrapped, I wonder why. Even cheaper, buy a pushbike. Get fit for free. Travel for free.( I ride to work everyday, 18km and average 27km an hour. The average speed of driver commuting into Sydney CBD is 22km).
Look at local recycling co-ops that repair or restore goods. We have a company in sydney called Reverse Garbage. The amount of everyday goods you can buy for little to nothing is amazing.
You don't have to buy "green" to be green.
Remember too, that Just because Non-green products are cheap to buy, does not mean there are no other costs. Like the loss of natural habitats and forests, the cost on air quality, the cost to water ways and oceans, the cost on soil quality and the cost of herbacide and pesticide run off. The cost of plant and animal extinction. The costs go on. As we go on consuming our cheap products over more expensive green products......factor those costs in the next time you buy something green.
How much does a new planet cost, can we afford to trash this one.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by atlasastro]

top topics


log in