People always make it out to seen that being “green” is more inexpensive, but it really only is, after awhile. For example: Solar panels. They cost an arm and a leg at first but after awhile they pay for themselves. or how buying the “green” light bulbs can be more expensive than the regular ones at first, but then they pay off because they last longer.
I actually think it is more about being environmentally friendly, though than just to save money.

The ultimate goal for planet activists is to provide a better tomorrow for future generations. (Which I personally disagree with)
Many entrepreneurs are using it as an opportunity for income.
It has nothing to do with saving money. Even though advertisements say that is what it may do.
However, contradicting its true intentions, and false promises, humans are paying billions to save the Earth.
“Making life better” is just a matter of speech. It’s a very bias term and should not be taken as a one-sided fact.

save the planet

Actually, solar panels cost so much that you won’t save money for about 20 years or more after having them installed. Also, there’s plenty of fossil fuels left but they cause terrible pollution. As I understand it hydrogen is cleaner burning; however, it’s plenty expensive and building an infrastructure to supply hydrogen to everyone would also be extremely expensive. Changes like solar panels and hydrogen cars aren’t ones that save money.

There’s quite a few “green” alternatives that do save money, but usually they are the ones that require people to exert more of their own time and energy, such as riding bikes and sorting garbage into recyclables. With the economic crisis, you might see more of that type of change but you won’t see many solar panels going up.

The price has gone up on energy so you will pay more, use less or use an alternate means of replacing your dependence on the not green non renewable energy We are also running out of time to come to grips with issues of individual choice and the money that fuels big energy.

Depends on the person. Some people do it for moral reasons; to do their bit to provide a good world for tomorrow. Others do it to save money. Solar power is currently very expensive, so unless you live away from the national grid or live somewhere withe expensive grid electricity you won’t save money from solar electricity.

On the whole, a lot of environmentalism makes economic sense.

In economics, there is an idea called the ‘externality’[1], which is a price paid by someone not involved in a transaction. For example, a coal power station gives out air & water pollution. Air pollution kills tens of thousands of people and water pollution kills fish. If this power station kills some people and forces a bunch of others to go to hospital and it also kills a load of fish that fishermen were relying on, then it has cost the economy a certain amount of money.

Currently, coal power stations don’t pay for this, the people who’re hurt and the fishermen who lose their jobs do. If they were forced to pay for these externalities, then it might become cheaper to create less pollution and the whole economy benefits.

Some environmentalism is people voluntarily paying for these externalities or trying to act in their own long term self interest.

Whenever you spend money you have choices to make; whether to go for the cheapest option or to pay more and get better quality.

Other posts have pointed out how expensive solar electricity is, but I content that, depending on location and size of panel, new thinner panels are reducing the pay back time to a reasonable 5 to 7 years. Also, you can use solar heating (not electricity generation) to produce much of the space heating and hot water that you will require, which is low tech and doesn’t require photovoltaic cells, which can be expensive.

Hydrogen is a difficult technology and although improvements are being made all the time, it is not really ready for use in everyday motor vehicles yet. It can be used as a store of energy from renewable resources, such as wind or solar, to produce electricity close to where it is produced though.

Most people at the moment are finding it difficult to cope with the credit crunch and unemployment and will not be investing in new things require some up front capital spending to achieve savings. Most people are happy to go to the cheapest energy supplier and not invest for the future. In this climate (excuse the pun) we will rely on government more to ensure that our major energy providers are using the best and cheapest and least polluting technologies.

and to help the enviroment!

More than that, it should be a conscious from within, an effort to make the planet more habitable for the future generations which are here to come on Earth. It should also be to prevent the entire downfall of the human race, as would happen during global warming. It should not always be considered economical, but necessary.

at first some green products might be more expensive than regular products, like solar panels or CFL light bulbs, but after time people that bought the regular light bulbs have to buy new ones and new ones and all that money adds up, but CFL bulbs last 9 years so you pay for a more expensive one, less times. in the long run it’s better.

Most green alternatives are actually more expensive. If they were cheaper, we would be green already.