Green Green Business

This question comes after reading an article where China says that poor countries should not sacrifice their growth to the general concern about global warming and other environment issues. They have a point by adding that most of the green house emissions comes from the richest countries and that the effect of slowing their economy is far worst than the global warming effect. I belief that if we are able to travel to the moon and orbit the earth, we can find a better way to produce our goods and energy needs in a more efficient and cleaner way than today. Because of the fundings needed for research and development it needs to be done by the governments of the wealthiest nations. We as individual also need to play a part to be more efficient in the use of energy, water and goods. And this is not only is good for the environment but also for your own family budget.

for christmas im going to ask for a small solar energy kit, just something i can keep in my room to charge my cell phone or run my stereo, what do i need to get, how big of panel, do i need any converters or anything or do i just plug it in to the panel, is there a website i can buy what i need from, please help i want to be green and cut my emissions but i dont know what i need for a little solar it in my room to charge a cell phone or run a stereo, thanks, will pick best for information and websites/ books etc. and for answering all questions, thanks again

By this I mean subsidize for citizens. What would the effect of making funds available to homeowners to add solar power to their houses have.
It would reduce emissions.
It would increase power production.
It would spur new innovations in technology.
It would create new business and jobs required to meet demand in the marketplace.

This money would not have to be handouts, but rather could take the form of government insured loans and tax incentives. The tax incentives and yearly energy cost savings would help the average family repay the loans.

Thoughts?
Ed J: I am familiar with what is in the stimulus bill and it is very limited in this area and nowhere near the type of investment I am talking about. It simply provides tax break for those who install solar appliances.
how_would_I_know: the technology is improving all the time in this area. No one says that solar is the complete answer. Massive investment in solar based on sales would lead to improvements in collection effeciency though. As for wind power. This is not a realistic idea for the average home based on the size and noise factors involved.
bkc99xx: You don’t get it. You are going to subsidize this research regardless. Obama is planning a massive expansion of green energy programs in his new budget, but rather than providing you with an avenue to help defer costs (i.e. home generated solar which can be returned to the grid and must be bought from the producer at premium kiowatt per hour rate) his plan will dramatically increase your monthly costs for energy with no plan for offset in cost.
bkc99xx: I said subsidies, but this is not really the correct word except in the case of tax breaks. The money would actually be in the form of secured loans. Yes I do know how much the cost of the system installation would be in my case. Roughly 15000 dollars and I have estimated that it would take roughly 15 years for the system to begin to produce a surplus financially. However this estimate is based on current kilowatt per hour rates in my area. The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that this cost will increase over the lifetime of the system making it more cost effective with time even when you factor in proposed maintenance costs.
Interesting answers which I enjoyed reading. I am going to send this question to a vote. Thanks to all for taking the time.

I see a lot of people in this forum concerned on how they can reduce their energy consumption, reducing green house emissions, blaming the problem on our society , or even complaining about their tenant refusing to recycle. I would imagine if we were to band together and fight to have NAFTA shut down, the positive impact to the global environment would be 10 folds greater.

When a company transfers it operations out of the U.S. , it has to follow the regulations of its host country. A lot of countries laws show little regard for the environment, and these companies will cut what ever corners they will be allowed to.

Should we not strive to bring them back onto the U.S., so we can keep a closer eye on them ?
julvurg - read my question before answering.
Linda - you said ending NAFTA, would cost us a lot of jobs…. NAFTA has allowed a lot of companies to leave the U.S., and hurt our economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Imagine all the increased emissions caused by the coal fired power plants needed to supply the extra energy to the White House. Would the environmentalists be better off with someone in the White House from say, Alaska? :^)

I think it is the greatest source for energy. No green house emissions, safe, and produces a lot of energy.