People want to feel that they are not inherently linked with depleting the environment to provide power or convenience, and seem to be a more accurate reflection of the economy of nature than the economy of humanity. However, the economy of humanity, at least under capitalism, has explicit rules regarding supply and demand relationships that are not necessarily well-served by a cost-effective analysis, which is a drawback of solving environmental problems that still appears frequently. To prevent the greenhouse effect, human beings first need to understand the consequences of their actions on the health of the planet, and then they need to realize what they can do as individual to halt, and even reverse, the process.
Before they start to combat the greenhouse effect, people need to understand what it is, and believe that it is a problem. That is, going green is not always the most cost-effective option, so many people refuse to be educated about it. Others are simply ignorant of the problems, and these people would perhaps be more likely to change than those thinking of cost increases. And although this increased expense was greater in the past than in the present, and can be justified in terms of the relatively serious cost of ruining the planet offsetting the increased costs of material and energy production through green living, many in the society still view going green as an expensive and marginal option, rather than an operational norm or status quo. This has changed somewhat, as times have changed and technologies have become less cost prohibitive. But people need to be made aware of this, or they will not be willing to make the necessary changes.
Many people have realized that some of the problems with mainstream energy sources is that they release carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. This problem is of increasing importance when one considers the theory of the greenhouse effect, in which