So, you have decided to begin using an alternate energy source. That is great. But, which one is the right one for you? To start, you must take a look at the area in which you live. What is the climate like? What is the general landscape like? What problems might you encounter with each different alternate energy type?

Knowing and analyzing what type of renewable energy source you need is the first step. Renewable energy comes in all forms. Take some time to really study which one is best for you.

Solar energy is a great non-polluting, renewable energy resource for many people. However, if you spend most of your time in the house staring at the dismal gray sky and wishing that you could walk outside without stepping on a worm, then it may not be right for you. Even with fairly decent sunlight, without an adequate storage method, you are only going to have energy during the daylight, when you probably do not need as much to begin with.

Wind energy is also non-polluting (discounting the noise pollution) and renewable but is not going to be effective in areas where there is not a lot of wind for those areas that are sheltered or blocked in any way. Wind farms need fairly open spots to be set up in, and even the smallest turbine set up must be placed above the tree line to be effective at all. Again, a proper storage system is necessary or you will only have intermittent energy.

A hybrid of the two works better, but again only in those areas where sun and wind are both going to happen with any regularity. And, you would still need the energy storage method, one that is capable of converting energy from either source for storage.

Finally, cost is a consideration to keep in mind. Photovoltaic systems can cost up to $50,000 and even with government subsidies to offset some of the cost, it may be far beyond many budgets. Other systems are available, but they may not be as effective and may not provide enough energy for your home’s needs.

Wind energy systems are generally considered to be more cost effective, but again may not be right for your area. They are also not as simple to operate as most people assume unless they are kept small. Remember, however, the smaller the system, the smaller the energy output will be.

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on ‘carbon credit’ projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A recent investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a ‘green gold rush’, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go ‘carbon neutral’, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The investigation found:

1) Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

2) Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

3) Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

4) A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

5) Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Some companies are benefiting by asking ‘green’ consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap.

The investigation has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. One offsetting company invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, the company said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling ‘carbon credits’ for burying the carbon.

There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.