In recent months some have claimed that going green can actually hurt, not help, your ability to stick to a rational budget. Here’s an unbiased look at the balance between your world and your pocketbook.

It’s very difficult to put politics and personal beliefs aside and discuss the environment and finances candidly. Obviously I wouldn’t be writing this article if I didn’t have a strong feeling one way or the other, but I’m going to attempt to openly analyze the situation so that everyone can make their own choices.

Whether you believe in climate change, global warming, melting polar ice caps or whether humans play a role in any of the above, the fact is that humans use resources. Some of us use more resources than others, and we all use them in different ways. So far, the earth has been very supportive of our unabashed consumption – providing more trees, recycling our drinking water, accepting our wastes, maintaining the ozone layer. But, in purely scientific terms, the earth is subject to Newton’s Law – to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, while the reaction can be a matter of debate – whether it’s the depletion of the ozone layer, melting ice, or something altogether unaccepted yet – it can be certain that there is SOME reaction to our consumption.

So, what does that mean to you? Possibly nothing. If you consider everything you use on a daily basis – from staples and pens to paper, to plates and napkins to curling irons and electricity – and can honestly say that there is not one thing that could be reduced or reused, you’re probably on the right track.

If not, then perhaps it would be beneficial to take another look at what you’re using, and what you could be reusing. If you can identify even a few things to reuse, you will most likely be saving yourself the money used to replace those items on a repeated basis. And that will, in theory, help to reduce the earth’s reaction to human consumption.

In recent years “Alternative Energy Sources” have become a very popular idea, but what do they really do for consumers? Many have argued recently that these alternatives do nothing except exert an undue pressure on those who can least afford it. When talking about Alternative energy the discussion generally revolves around two ideas – Green Technologies: Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Hydrogen and similar technologies, and Traditional Technologies: fossil fuels like oil and coal, and nuclear power. Wind turbines, hydroelectric turbines, Hydrogen condensers and containment units, and solar energy collection devices are all expensive – but they tap into resources that have, in most places, been less over used and are more readily available. Fossil Fuels on the other hand are less readily available – and supplies are declining steadily, but the infrastructure to utilize them is already in wide use. Scientists speculate that even if all of the Fossil Fuels in American Territories were tapped immediately, the resulting refined fuels would only last a few years at current consumption levels.

It’s hard to say what the solution is – in fact, realistically, there may be a different solution for each individual and family. While I wouldn’t advocate that everyone sell off all gas guzzlers and urban land and a move to a chemical-free commune, I think it’s reasonable to make this assessment:

The more you can reduce, reuse or recycle, the less you will have to pay for items to replenish your supplies. The more you can produce yourself, the less you will have to pay someone else to do it for you. The less you spend on wants, the more you can spend on needs. The better you budget today, the more you have for the future. The more you share with your communities, the more you get in return.