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.


Do you really want an alternative energy economy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:31 AM
Do you really want an alternative energy economy? Then you need a solution. The solutions to typical economic issues of cost vs. efficiency cannot be solved until something new comes along. But who says that something new has to be a new technology?

Why can't it be a new way to handle where our tax money goes? Meaning we can actually choose what we're willing to 'donate' taxes to, instead of being arbitrarily and monolithically taxed on things we don't support.

For example, the nearly 1 trillion dollar "defense" budget is completely absurd. If we ALL had an actual say in how our individual tax money is spent, that cost would be slashed freeing up budgetary funds that could be put into otherwise non-economic energy thrusts that require less personal investment as time pushes on.

I've started a couple threads the past week or so where I've tried championing this idea:

Normally I'd argue that it doesn't make sense to spend money on things that actually cost more, but the arguments citing the fact of all of the WASTED budget money are still valid. I think with this we can merge the truths of both realities, and have a rally cry that might even prevent the looming economic collapse.

People get tired of hearing problems without viable solutions. We face brick walls when we don't have massive solutions (worth fighting for ) to offer as we try to show the way. Because of that, the potential this proposed solution offers is even more powerful than the solution itself.

This is what I'll be fighting for from now on, and I hope you'll join me. Don't approach it as if it cannot be done, instead approach it as if it can.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:59 PM

ATS: The wrong place to try to talk about actual solutions to our problems.

If you have ideas for solutions, or would at least like to discuss solutions in general, ATS is the wrong place to go. But if you have something to complain about ATS it is. Er, wait, now I'm complaining.

Or is it?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:18 PM
I've offered a few solutions before and offer them again:

1. Cap wealth at $1 billion: there is no inherent "right" to unlimited wealth, and no legitimate need it fulfills.

2. Change the budget process: establish physically secure electronic taxpayment centers/voting centers where taxpayers can allocate their taxes to the programs they feel worthy and well-run using block amounts based on the size of their bill: $50, $100, $500 block sizes, etc.

3. Allow citizens to override their congresscritters' votes if a sufficient percentage of voters disagree, using the tax payment/voting centers.

4. Expand the House as the Constitution mandates to bring representation to manageable levels: anyone "representing" a million voters represents themselves and their cronies, not the people. It needs to be down to at most 50K voters per representative. The House should be expanded with additional chambers, the current House would become the chamber representing business interests, the others should represent Science, Health, Education, and Arts. Bills passed in one chamber would then go on to the the full House before going to the Senate, which itself should be expanded to allow four to six senators per state.

5. Mandate a living wage at twenty hours a week.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:22 PM
Yes, I want an 'alternate energy economy'. It's long past time to develop quantum-level zero-point-field energy. It has been yapped about for years. If quantum-level exists (as physics states it does), then developing ZPE should be priority #1 for physicists.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:27 PM
Like all our problems it all comes down to profit and money. We have the technology and the resources to do this. We just can't afford it under the current monetary paradigm.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:31 PM
Yes and no. On a personal level I really want to get rid of my car which I don't drive much anyway and get a small motorbike - electric or gas either way. I just don't have a safe place to park it. Secondly I have a ton of southern exposure on property that I own. I know no one likes the idea of energy credit or credit swaps but I'd share some of mine if a large company were to buy up my very small carbon footprint (green credits) and help me fund a solar energy project, bike paths and better public transportation.

Let them offset their environmental damage but sponsoring me a better and greener lifestyle for me...yeah, I know this is fraught with all kinds of problems but do you see the direction I'm heading in?

And yes, slash the military budget! If only we could vote on some part of that at the very least. Or at least put some of our personnel on the job domestically. They drill wells for water and adeducts, schools and health clinics in Afghanistan and I have met soldiers who were so proud of that work but why don't they build some stuff here at home too? Can we please put our military to work for us?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Again, great thread.

To answer the title of the thread, yes.. absolutely!

Solutions are never as easy as the status quo. That is the biggest obstacle, and one that has to be addressed before the conversation can even be had about alternative energy.

We are addicted to oil, and not just for gas. I don't think people realize that almost everything in their life is centered around oil.

I am typing this reply on an oil enhanced/produced product.


EDUCATION! Proving in a simple way to people how much they would benefit from an alternative form of energy.

If you only turn one person on to alternative energy, you have started something.. even if it is only one out of 10,000. That person is then dedicated and will then turn one person on out of the next 10,000 and so it goes. Movements do not start in mass, but rather with a single person educating another.

I feel a lot of wars are fought over natural resources, even if it is an underlying reason that isn't really seen. Think of all the money spent in the current wars of the US.. imagine if all that was put into what they were seeking in the first place.. Natural Resources. We are not fighting against terrorist, we are fighting for natural resources. Morning radio was buzzing about Afghanistan's newly found.. you guessed it.. natural resources this morning. You could hear the lust for money on their lips. Oh what fools we breed into the folly.

I'm a fan of getting rid of government, it is a roadblock to progress. Power seekers are money seekers, and they are never out for anything that will better mankind. Some may not agree with that, but that is me.

I'll stop here, I gotta pee.

Thanks for starting this conversation, it is needed, and well received as a message by at least myself.


posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by apacheman
2. Change the budget process: establish physically secure electronic taxpayment centers/voting centers where taxpayers can allocate their taxes to the programs they feel worthy and well-run using block amounts based on the size of their bill: $50, $100, $500 block sizes, etc.

This is the conclusion I arrived as recently, as championed in my OP and those 2 threads, where we have a massive checklist on our tax forms for the stuff we are willing to pay into.

I'm curious if you've seen others propose this idea. I'd like to see their work and further ideas, and perhaps collaborate.

The best name for it I could come up with was "Concentual Taxation", and by googling that I sadly only found one other with the same idea who also only published it recently.

3. Allow citizens to override their congresscritters' votes if a sufficient percentage of voters disagree, using the tax payment/voting centers.

I like this idea also, ala Direct Democracy. A mechanism needs to be hammered out and implemented that allows this to happen efficiently.

Between these 2 the role of congress critters would be almost irrelevant and could be the best hope for putting an end to corruption, which applies to your #4 idea. I think just about anyone could agree with these. I'm really all out trying to seek solutions though that the masses can agree on. If people won't agree then things won't get too far, but if they do then we have a chance to rally the masses.

I know we've had our differences but I think you might enjoy those 2 threads I linked in the OP.

You're #1 & #5 will be hard sells with a lot of people. I don't personally like #5, but with #1 it isn't unreasonable to only get $1B and after that the rest goes to charities.

top topics


log in