Although being the number one product among many countries, fossil fuels are recommended to be replaced with the alternatives. While I am a supporter of freedom of choice among business owners, I am of the opinion that such changes are desirable in a long run.
To start, the recipe for thriving business models is cutting costs. Common materials are generally more affordable, so the costs are below the line. Fossil fuels are a great example of a product that ought to have a lot of tasks done with minimal cost. Hence, limitation in their use can raise the costs which will disadvantage all walks of life. Secondly, it is believed that most of the budget of a country comes from exchange and taxation of valuable materials. Should authorities set limits on their exchanges or on the size of fossil fuels companies, the consequences will be dramatic.
However, regardless of the alternative energy sources’ shortcomings, the nations can benefit immensely if they are widely used. The costs argument can be debunked if the governments were to reallocate the amounts from environmental protection and healthcare sectors. Renewable energy is proven to have less externalities, thus, resolving the problems with the environment that result in sicker people. Moreover, the changes would also solve the economic issue of limited resources due to its very renewable nature. This, as a result, can pave a path for more innovation.
In conclusion, the financial drawbacks of energy source alteration might be massive in short-run, but the long-term social and economic impacts shouldn’t be underestimated.