Since the beginning of our species, people have been altering the earth to our will, in ways like deforestation and domestication of wild plants and animals. During the industrial revolution, we began producing an alarming amount of emissions in the form of green house gasses that trap the heat of the Sun in our atmosphere, the primary one being carbon dioxide. This trend of is mainly due to energy production using fossil fuels which release pollutants that have been slowly destroying the world we live in. Now we stand and face a choice to correct our mistake or sit passively by and watch the destruction of the planet. The question of this argument is that we have the technology to produce green energy now, ones that will not produce these dangerous chemicals, why are we not using it to prevent the deterioration of the Earth, through the raising of the temperature and destruction of the environment, and what can be done to implement such change in the next fifty years. Through the use of technologies such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power along with the use nuclear energy the entire energy grid can be made eco-friendly and the days of oil and coal ruling the energy industry will come to an end. This however, will take time and require many to change their views on climate change and the cost and benefits of green energies versus traditional fuel sources. This change will affect the world in a way that will resonate for generations. 

The reservations of some about switch are relevant while those of others tend to have more in common with fear mongering than logical sense. This kind of resistance to switch to green energies from traditional energy sources stems from ignorance and corruption of the oil industries. The ignorance of climate change of governments and big corporations usually comes from a place of non-belief in the scientific evidence like Larry Bell, who in his article about alternative energy sources only discuss the short comings of such systems and does not mention climate change (1). This ignorance can also be seen in heads of State like President Donald J. Trump who signed an executive order recently to undo his predecessor President Barack Obama’s work to reduce the carbon emissions of the United States (Davenport 1). This decision was largely supported members of the oil and coal industry, who will benefit from an increase in the use of their products as the rate at which they are replaced by green energies begin to slow. This leads to the next problem of the resistance to the transition to green energy and that is corruption of corporation producing the traditional energy sources and the politicians they interact with. An example of this interaction and influence of oil and coal companies on politicians, also known as lobbying, was in an article by the Los Angeles times that featured the amount of money that was spent by interested parties on lobbying Californian politicians over many different bills, but the single largest spender was an oil company that spent $7.7 million to influence different members of the state legislature over a bill about emissions (McGreevy 1). This lobbying deregulates the industry as well as preventing bills and laws from passing that would be beneficial to the environment. Not to mention that most of the legislation that does get through only places a tax or fine on business in violation of the law and tends to be significantly less than what any of the major oil companies might net in a year. The United States government also makes a significant amount of money of the taxes on products like gasoline, in 2004 the amount of taxes that were collected on gasoline was $58.4 billion. This too makes it less likely for congress to pass any significant law to prevent the increase in size and value of these corporations. Corruption of these entities does not stop at influencing public officials in law making but also includes public opinion and even scientific research. There is evidence to fact that companies like Exxon Mobile have known what the result of burning fossil fuels are for decades and ignored it if not actively sought to disprove it. In Oliver Milman’s article he says that “Exxon had a dedicated in-house team that established the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, but the company still spent years refusing to acknowledge the issue and funding climate denial activities” (1). This blatant act of denial and cover up that their business practices were detrimental to the environment is evidence of the corruption that is inherently in the oil and coal industries as well as most unregulated industries.

There are many opponents of switching to green energy and some of them have practical reasons for their resistance. The reasoning most often quoted by opponents of this include the argument that for wind and solar energies, the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. These are legitimate fears faced by cities and countries that wish to go green, will a rain shower that blocks out the sun shut down the power grid and put lives in jeopardy? This argument is often disputed by proponents of green energy by the use of batteries and capacitors that would store energy during times of high production and tapped in to during times of little or no energy production. Another of these arguments is of the economic cost of shutting down functional power plants for brand new systems not yet intergraded into the infrastructure, such as who will pay and will the new system be as efficient at producing enough power. As one website states the total output of energy from a coal burning power plant is twice that of a wind farm that would cost the same amount of money (Power Plant Comparison 1). However, this economic strain will be only a temporary, relatively small effect of the switch compared to the permanent damage being done to the environment and the health of entire generations (Perera 1).  These concerns do provide questions that must be answered by the green energies if the switch would be realistically possible.

Though there are many ridiculous reasons to not to make the switch to green energies some arguments have base in facts. Like a few of the issues mentioned above must be addressed prior to an entirely green system from going on line one of the biggest problems faced is an aging power grid that is used to the constant, regular flow of electricity from the location of production to the consumer. Energy sources like wind have a tendency to fluctuate between higher and lower energy output with the increase and decrease in the speed of the wind this can put a strain on the system that carries the power to the consumers. This issue is mentioned in Larry Bell’s article “Difficulties arise as segments of the grid become overloaded or underserved by the renewables, requiring the conventional-source turbines which balance the grid to meet base demand loads” (1). This is not a problem most people would think about when considering the transition to green energies, but it is one that need to be addressed. Quite simply to fix this problem the electrical infrastructure would need to be upgraded and a source of constant electricity would need to be added in order to provide a steady load to consumers. Another issue that arises is that of what will cover the base load demands if these alternative energies fail for whatever reason. When blackouts effect hospitals and financial centers people might die or the economy may collapse. This is a worry when a severe storm hits, this may soon be a problem if it is a cloudy day outside and the wind is still or simply not blowing hard enough to turn the blades on a wind turbine. The battery banks that will be required do not currently exist, nor do highly efficient mass producible batteries. One such system is a nuclear reactor that can produce electricity for decades without any harmful by-products until the core is removed, however with energy from nuclear fusion, a process of combining smaller atoms together to form bigger ones like helium, a nessecary and scarce resource, as the by-products. With this technology on the horizon even this issue will soon not pose a problem to the environment.  Problems like these are ones that need to be solved prior to a total switch of energy sources. This means however that despite what she said, Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would not have been able "To put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" (Clinton) without server economic issues to follow such an action. 

This leaves only the multiple reasons to pursue this endeavor of green energy. Mainly that of preventing climate change from getting any worse and at best reversing it. To do this, we would need to bring our carbon output under that of the ecosystems ability to absorb it or break it down this can be done through the use of biomass, or a large ecosystem of plant matter that can capture the carbon dioxide in the air and store it as the plant life degrades. As Mike Sharpe says in his article “If we continue burning fossil fuel at the current rate, sometime in the foreseeable future we will reach the point of no return. The temperatures of the atmosphere and the earth will rise, the icecaps will melt, the continents will be inundated, crops will wither, and life on earth will become hell” (1). He then goes on to talk about the environmental costs of the coal and oil industries and the industry for nuclear energy. All three of which provide the United States with the majority of its electrical power, however nuclear power only becomes dangerous in the case of a meltdown and not regular, safe use. The next reason that the United States should begin the transition to clean energy is that it is already possible. Countries like Costa Rico, Iceland, Albania, and Paraguay have all already gone one hundred percent clean energy (Ling). Though they may be small countries they provide a model for many other countries, especially those that have the ability to produce hydroelectric power and utilize geothermal energy, including parts of the United States that could use the same techniques to provide electricity for their citizens. For the rest of our country plans have already been drawn up by engineers for one hundred percent clean energy. These plans provide an electric grid design that will make the entire country green energy reliant by the year 2050 (100% Renewable Energy). This push to switch to full green energy is not something that will have to be started now as it has already begun. In the states of California and Massachusetts have recently passed bills on the state level that will require the electric grid to be one hundred percent by the year 2050 (Chow 1). Though these states tend to be on the fore front of issues like this, they pave the way for the rest of the United States and provide a working model for which the rest of the country can follow suit. The United States department of Energy has even suggested that at the current rate of green energy growth the country will have eighty percent of our power supplied by green energy sources (Tomain 5). This concept that green energy is possible in our country makes it very important that the change be made as soon as possible and we do not wait for the decision to be made for us.

These reason that making the switch is not only logical environmentally and realistically but also financially for the consumers of the electricity. Once the system is in place to begin producing power the running cost of renewable energy sources is much lower. This is due to the fact that you simply do not have to continuously add resources to your generator to get it to produce the energy you need. Extracting coal and oil will no longer first be required prior to operation of the generators. Trucks and trains that transport these products will no longer be required, removing another layer of cost to our current electric bills. This could make one argue about the loss of jobs in this market but with self-driving vehicles becoming an increasingly common occurrence one could also argue their jobs were the next to be automated without the coal and oil industry disappearing (Lab 1). Also with a brand new industry on the rise there will be numerous job opportunities to be had for all job classes, more engineers to design new more efficient systems for creating, transporting and storing electricity (Oncel 1), there will also need to be more contractors to build extensive wind and solar farms to obtain these resources and more technicians to do regular inspections and repairs. This transition will give rise to a brand new industry and brand new way of life for many unemployed or under employed workers. Also with a new two way grid that would be required to run off of green energies individual families and houholds would be able to make money back from the energy producing companies by running their electric meters backwards. This can happen for someone with privately owned photovoltaic cells, also known as solar panels, or wind turbines on their land. These benefits to people financially makes the switch to green energy even more attractive if one can afford to create their own electricity (Tomain 6). 

There are many reasons to not do something, but there just are not enough reasons to prevent the switch to green energies as a nation. With the advances in technology and many solutions that are right around the corner there is no better time to attempt to change the way we create energy prior to the environment or a shortage of fossil fuels forcing us. The other benefits to people’s health and financial status can make this use of green energy even more incentivizing. Politics and corporations make it a game but if the coast is suddenly much farther inland due to rising sea levels the District of Columbia will no longer be the meeting place of our government. The oil companies may only be trying to force every last cent out of this industry prior to completely losing public opinion and the right to continue their practices but in the end they will not be the victors writing the history books, but rather the footnote in the long history of energy production, whose wealth may come to be the cost in a post fossil fueled age as the need to correct the path they chose for us must be undone.  In the next few decades we will face challenges that will bring out the best of humanity but if the achievement of one hundred percent clean energy, it is a challenge worth accepting. 
