When many people think of the current power situation and the environmental crisis our generation faces, it's very easy to turn the other cheek and say "its the government's responsibility to figure it out, not mine." While in some ways that's true, it's also the very reason the world is in its current state.

I'll admit: when looking at the power and lifestyle changes that need to take place, it's very daunting. Many people (myself, at one point, included) feel that it's the government and society that put them in this position, and that they shouldn't have to change their way of life. Unfortunately, that mentality is destructive, for the pure reason that it doesn't bring about change.

The way I see it, we're on the cusp of a hypermassive shift in human history. Every time we think about the future, it's imagined that it will be an environmental utopia - one where plants & animals thrive in unison to humanity, and that humans have resolved their internal differences. And for me, it all starts here. We've recognized our current energy and lifestyle does indeed cause destruction on a mass scale, either environmentally, socially, or nationally. At the same time, money cannot be removed from the equation in the solution - so the task of finding a way to organize a massive shift of society that everyone will take part of, either willingly or tacitly, has to include the prospect of creating jobs and generating wealth for the working person.

Most of that lies within how we receive power. Coal powered plants are far and above the most commonly used source of power, because it is one of the few systems in operation that can meet the demands of the population. Of course, it's also a huge polluter. There's also Nuclear, which can also meet the demands, but has such a high perceived risk that it's a highly controversial solution.

So the push has moved to Green Energy solutions. But while the stress is to find one solution that can meet the demand, it's probably unlikely that such a solution exists (as of yet). However, many people know of the alternatives, but not much past the basics. Going from a centralized power-system to a decentralized, multiple-source power is no easy task, but it will likely be the one that is adopted. So, what are these power alternatives? Let's break them down:

Wind power
It's certainly a natural, and environmentally friendly way to generate power, as well as sustainable. From a national perspective, it's so decentralized that it's difficult for enemies to destroy - so it has a strategic advantage as well. However, they are exceptionally expensive to install, and don't come even close to meeting the demand needed; only 0.4% of all global power generated is wind powered. They're also loud, but that's a minor problem. However, knowing how little it produces of the demand makes it an unlikely option (unless coupled with something else).

Hydro power
This is a current power practice, known by many in the golden horseshoe area of Ontario/New York with the hydro power plants near Niagara Falls. It's a clean technology when running, and relies on rapid water to turn turbines (in turn, the turbines create the power). It creates a considerable more amount of power than wind, but when building, it creates mass flooding of ecological areas, deforestation, and is a system that is partially central (as in, it can only be built in areas where there is a lot of free-flowing water). In addition, it creates tensions between borders, as cutting water supply to downriver nations depletes their standard of living. And of course, there's always the risk of the dam breaking and flooding the area.

Carbon-Zero Coal Gassification
The main problem with current-day coal power plants was the mass amounts of pollution they produced - a huge factor in why we have global warming today. However, a BC professor named Marc Jaccard developed a system called Coal Gassification, which offers the ability to erase the pollutants coming out of the coal-burning process, and capture the carbon. It's possible to use on a large-scale, but new plants have to be built as opposed to converting the old coal plants; it's also a centralized system, and coal is not a renewable resource (although stocks are estimated to be around 500-1000 years).

There are other systems that are usable, such as ocean waves, solar power, and geothermal, but each fall into the same problem that they're expensive or don't meet the demand for power consumption.

With those options now coming to fruition, and many other experiments being tried and tested, there is at least hope on the horizon. This does push the responsibility away from the average person, but it does not remove it in its entirety.

In reality, any power system that gets tested, approved, and put into mass use will take 5-10 years to implement. In the meantime, old-systems will have to be relied on - which is where the consumer needs to understand their actions do make a difference. Within their own households, relieving the stress on the power plants is essential. From simple things like changing lightbulbs to fluorescents (which use less power, and ultimately, are cheaper on your power bill), to water use, there's a plethora of little things that can help; and frankly, the pros outweigh the cons financially.

Changing the lightbulbs is the most common practice, and many governments are beginning to ban incandescents.

However, washing your clothes on cold also relieves the hot water demand, which uses more power (and costs more). It also has the secondary effect of not shrinking your clothes.

Running your house on lower temperatures also has a mass effect on power consumption. Personally, I drop my temperature to 18-20 Celsius in the winter (15 at night) and put on a sweater; on average you save 20-40 dollars a month. In the summer, I raise it to 25-26 degrees, and open the windows (when I can).

Of course, the hardest is dropping use of your car. I work 7KM (4.5Mi) from my house, so I bike every day when I can, including throughout January and February (although my use is far reduced). Obviously this isn't possible for everyone, but public transportation such as subways and trains are very efficient, and often are quicker than driving. The last summer, I managed to drop my gas cost to 45-80 dollars a month, and as a bonus I was in the best shape of my life. If driving is a must for you, gas-efficient cars are the best bet, although their cost currently outweighs their gas savings (but that will likely change, as they get cheaper and gas gets more expensive). Even if someone has a car and chooses to take the train/bus/subway only for a week out of each month, gas usage will drop substantially, as will the running costs of your car (less stress on a car gives it longer life).

Seeking out green-friendly consumer companies is also another option; choosing not to support one company that doesn't try to relieve pressure on the environment over one that does helps reduce costs by forcing companies to adapt other strategies. This, unfortunately, is the hardest personal task of all, as companies have become very good at masking their production processes from the consumer - but with a little research, even as simple as Googling the company with the word "environment", nothing is as out of reach as it seems.

In the end, nobody can tell you that you have to do one way or the other, but knowing the consequences of inaction, and the monetary, health, and personal gains that come from choosing to do the alternative, it will place added pressure on the government and private organizations to change their ways, and the snowball effect begins.

It's not easy to start changing your own ways - and for a person like myself, the environment takes presidency over my own personal thoughts, so I can understand why it's not the easiest system to adapt to - but the small steps ultimately lead to larger ones, and the result could be something similar to the utopia we all hope to leave our generations after us.