The slow shift away from the widespread use of non-renewable energy resources is largely the product of the continued resistance of those who either have some sort of economic or other personal interest at stake or perhaps have nothing more than a general aversion to rapid change. Andrew Charlton points out that those who remain opposed to the implementation of clean energy resources such as solar or wind have moved away from their original argument that the science on climate change and human involvement had not yet been resolved. Instead, according to Charlton, the opposition’s argument is now centered on the economic feasibility of such rapid and widespread change.
Perhaps this is why a group of scientists and economists has created the Global Apollo Program. In order to combat the economic argument in opposition to the shift to solar power — as well as other green energy resources — the Global Apollo Program has adopted a stated goal of making solar energy cheaper than the new coal-burning plants that have been offered as an alternative. In fact, a number of politicians in the United States have taken to referring to coal as a viable green energy option while noting it is also one of the most cost-efficient options available.
The Global Apollo Program hopes to accomplish its goal within a decade and will rely on funding from countries all over the world. Countries committing to the project are asked to contribute a relatively meager sum of .02 percent of GDP for an initial sum of $15 billion. Considering the global investment of public funds into renewable energy research checks in at just $6 billion, it is clear that countries all over the globe have to approach this pressing issue with a much greater sense of urgency.