http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/f...e-likely-green/

The green movement never really started. Why? Because the financial means of sustaining one were/are not even remotely feasible at the level of federal and personal insolvency that America harbors. Most of this "green" stuff was nothing more than a fad propagated by corporations like GE to drum up fascist business in the first place. Sure, as usual, the kids fell for it hope, change and sinker, but then kids have neither the world experience to know better, or income to sustain it.

When a large enough population of people over 30 or 35yrs old are taking on to something, and have the financial means to support it, it will become a movement. As long as little electric cars are $40K+, solar power at around $10/watt, not to mention all of the taxpayer subsidies, there isn't going to be much green to look forward to. People just cannot afford it.

...and that car won't work for people much taller than 5'

6' is probably really pushing it

I am over 6' tall and couldn't even drive nor even sit in the front seat of my buddies SATURN with-out my knees hitting the dashboard

I had to sit in the back seat

Yet we're all driving the playtoys of the rich, those troublesome and expensive horseless carriages.

All it will take is $160/barrel oil and green technology suddenly becomes competitive. How far in the future do you suspect that price might be?

Regardless of the fundamental economic merits of "green industries", I'm thinking we can play the bubbles and resulting burst-bubbles, and subsequent re-inflated bubbles and the inevitable rebursted-bubbles on it for decades to come. That's pretty much my retirement plan.

I'm thinking the Ethanol hype-and-disaster that Bill Gates lost his lunch money on is just a preview of so much more to come. Should be fun.

My son used to work for a company that built ethanol plants. He jumped ship to work for a GM dealer instead.
If that says anything about relative job security.
Unfortunately both are shuttered now. The only place growing is the prop plant- builds blades for wind turbines. There seems to be a small but stable demand for those things.

I have no doubt that there'll be bubbles booms and bankruptcies in the green energy industry, heck that's been the case since their inception.
At some point IMO we'll just plain run short on fossil fuels, unless someone wants to travel back in time and shove a couple more dinosaurs into the tar pits. It may not be until that time comes that alternate energy becomes a stable, viable business. Even so there will still be bubbles and busts- they still exist in the oil industry now, after nearly 100 years of mainstream operation.
IMO your retirement strategy should be safe.

The next bubble to burst will be government bonds from heavily indebted countries.

and retailers...

It's not like you have to be fancy to be a little greener and save some money.

Reusable bags. Don't drink bottled water. Get CFLs. Check your tire pressure. Turn off your computer when you're not using it. Get a solar attic fan.

The bags are cheap and the rest save you money directly, even if there is a cost up front.

but those are so HARD TO DO!!!!
:sarcasm:

Being "green" will soon be a matter of quality of life, if it isn't already. There is a tremendous unseen cost associated with living the way a typical citizen of a developed country currently lives today. It's simply easier to ignore at the moment because we're all using China as the dumping grounds for all the byproducts.

living simply is an easy choice IMHO. Some people make a big deal about of rejecting conservation because it makes them feel better about the waste they produce.

Many conservation measures one can make in his or her own daily life are also things that make prudent money management sense.

that somehow the idea of conserving produces a visceral ideological response in some suggest they are not interested in trying to manage their money prudently. i.e., ideology matters more than smart finances.

I agree. The only thing that I don't agree with is the snake oil idea that green means that everybody gets to live a 1st world standard of living. We have a population problem, not an environmental one. Anyone care to guess how this has impacted the first world as the third continues to be absorbed into our nations? After all, it isn't "us" that we are having to accommodate with all of the concrete, new water wells, air pollution, food sources, etc..

I think we (US) also have an excessive consumption problem. A lot of our consumption is sustained by foreign imports from lower-cost countries such as China. Demand for imports of consumption goods at the lowest possible cost means more is being manufactured in China. Goods we consume aren't made out of thin air, just because they aren't manufactured in the US doesn't mean there is no impact on the environment. The burden of pollution from consumption growth has simply shifted elsewhere.

It is true that as imports from China increased and India went through tech and financial boom, standard of living and domestic consumption there has gone up as well (more cars, electronics etc per capita), but IMHO excluding US/Europe and other importers from the pollution equation and merely blaming population growth in developing countries produces an incomplete picture.