What do you think of my plan to save the world?

Question

Many people think we have a problem with over population, but I think the problem is more to do with a lack of energy resources. We will soon have a big problem from lack of energy resources, and capitalism seems to be unable to fix the problem because it's sole purpose is profit. This may sound crazy at first, but think about this...
We use fossil fuels because that's how big energy companies can make the most profit. So here is my idea:
Private energy companies should be disbanded and nationalised so they aren't all about profits for their shareholders. Once all oil companies are nationalised, they should then be merged together into a global energy "institution" (similar to the UN, but purely dealing with the worlds energy needs). Then, all countries should contribute an equal percentage of their GDP towards the building (and research) of a globally owned chain of geo-thermal powerplants. If we properly harnessed geothermal or fusion energy, then we would have a thousand times more energy than we would ever need, and could then fix the food shortage problems by growing food using artificial lighting inside skyscrapers built specifically for farming.

I know that this idea would destroy some economies who's main income is oil, but to combat that, the 'Energy UN' could compensate them with extremely cheap or free electricity until their economies adapt and find other sources of income.

If you can think of why this wouldn't work, then let me know and I'll try and find solutions to those problems.

Answer 1

I think thats a very good and well thought-out idea that could really work, good job!

Answer 2

To be honest, I think that you are absolutely correct, although there are so many powers at be that would never allow such a thing, because as you stated, they are all about the profit. But in regards to the fossil fuel being the least expensive method to produce the ever growing energy needs of the world, that is slightly incorrect. Being that the fossil fuels have no actual cost because it is owned by mother earth, the most costly part of the whole process is the billions spent on finding the source, and being able to retrieve it and then in turn make it into the product that is being used.



That is why I think that these companies should be utilizing the services of smaller companies that have cost cutting measures and are thinking out of the box, rather than just constantly ripping apart the world in order to feed the need for oil.



For example, I did a research paper for school several years ago and researched a company who was doing just that, Seisma Oil Research company, now name Seisma Energy Research, AVV.



http://www.seismaresearch.com/



Part of their approach to the old methods is as follows according to the Seisma Oil Research website: "Seisma Energy’s principal responsibility to its clients is to intelligently acquire, operate, explore, exploit and develop oil and gas properties. Our portfolio of projects include production, exploration, pipelines, water rights, and a new value added emphasis on renewable energies such as ethanol and bio-diesel. We continually strive to be on the cutting edge of our industry and among its elite leaders."



I know that allot of companies out there like Seisma talk about it, however after researching their methods and talking to executives, they truly are trying to make a change (on a small scale), they also recently completed a paperless office system as well in order to lessen their carbon footprint.



Seisma Energy Research, LLC Has Gone Paperless -- June 30, 2009

an effort to be more environmentally friendly and efficient, Seisma Energy l Research, LLC has been implementing an ongoing plan to become a “paperless” office.



I know these are all small steps, but think about it this way, if all of these types of company's were taking similar steps or steps of their own, atleast their could be a minimization of the overall process.



But back to your post, I think it is a great idea, although again, big company's don't care about their competition and would rather keep status quo.

Answer 3

1. You're talking about globalization.



2. Who controls the energy, they control the world. You can see the ramifications of course.



3. Harness fission? It's not made yet, maybe in the future when we do harness it.



4. Over population is a different problem. Look at places like mexico city, it's not so much energy but over crowding.



5. Fossil Fuels are an easy thing to get and easy profit.



6. Not all countries will agree to this.



Great idea, keep thinking, it's better than nothing. :)

Answer 4

You're assuming that the government...any government could run this enterprise efficiently.



However, the government's track record of running ANYTHING efficiently is abysmal. I challenge you to find a government entity that operates on a lower cost and higher output basis than it's private sector equivalents.



You can't. There isn't one.



Not to mention the severe loss of democracy and autonomy we'd be facing. With all the energy on the planet in the hands a single government body, regardless or representation, the USA would be at the mercy of any other number of countries.



Open your borders or we shut off your power! Make partial birth abortion legal or we shut off your power! Disband your military! Give up your guns! No free speech! No political demonstrations or we shut off your power!!



What you're suggesting is a form of socialism. And socialism will never be as efficient as a capitalistic country.



You denigrate profit? Profit is what built the computer you typed this on and the internet you posted it in. These things were created for profit! Do you consider them evil for that reason.



Your entire premise is based upon unity of purpose and inherent morality, neither of which exist. This is why communism is always directed by a group of social elites.



Good Luck!

Answer 5

Why the NWO approach? Geothermal energy could be a winner but why not let countries go about it in their own way. Say Scotland became a winner due to tidal energy, why should we bail out Dubai or Saudi Arabia? They've had it great for years. Perhaps they should have been investing for the future rather than paying Craig Bellamy et al a kings ransom.

Answer 6

First off, what are you trying to save the world from?

All the ugly ppl in the world need to stop having babies first of all...

As for your energy problem, I think we need to chill out with draining the Earth of its natural resources...

If you want all the countries on this planet to get together and work on something, lets develop a solar panel and actually works... not these big *** sheets of glass that, at best, absorb 20 or 30% of the suns rays...

Answer 7

It won't work. For one, you're idea of ending oil companies and replacing them with government control of oil. That's already been done. It's called OPEC. Better yet, look what Iraq does with its oil. Iraqis don't pay taxes because the government just sells oil and keeps the profits. That means Iraqi civilians have a tough time getting gasoline though. Sucks to be them.

Answer 8

Haha. c:



I think it would only work when the great, great problems of the world were falling off the edge of the cliff.



Right now it's on thin ice, but that doesn't mean anyone's gonna do anything about it yet. Not big companies like that, atleast.



:D But, maybe when everyone realizes it, you can introduce your plan.



^^ Would make a great movie, don't ya think?

Answer 9

The problem with this is that the age of imperialism isn't over and nations that have superior energy may not be willing to surrender their advantage over other nations.... I like this idea though

Answer 10

Main income is oil. They may never find another solution or adapt to something different.

Answer 11

i just skimmed through because its too much words

when you wrote 'all countries should contribute'

i need to stop you there

if this world is about sharing and being equal the world wouldnt have problems in the first place

face it this world is about being selfish and overpowering as much as it is being equal and sharing

Answer 12

hmmmm interesting idea, I think it -could- work theoretically but there would be a lot of opportunity for corruption and you would face a looooot of opposition to getting it started!

Answer 13

Sounds good at heart.

Answer 14

This plan is way to detailed and logical to ever

be seriously considered

sorry

Answer 15

Because socialism never works and it's an evil system.



The earth doesn't need to be saved.



The road to Hell is paved with good intentons.

Answer 16

You should try to run to be the first orange haired president.

Answer 17

i think its great ur tryin 2 save the world but sorry thats too long for me to read :)

but good luck :)

Answer 18

it wouldnt work because most countries denounced socialism in the 60s....

Answer 19

It's stupid really you want to save the earth start with the animals and trees

Answer 20

you can try to save the world, but why not live your life:

plus to, others would try to destroy it, not everyone wants the world to be good

Answer 21

Well, at least you're trying to help us...

Answer 22

cute but folly