In Efficiency

U.S. could slash emissions at little cost through boosted efficiency, says report

Posted at 10:16 AM on 30 Nov 2007

The U.S. could significantly slash its greenhouse-gas emissions "at manageable costs to the economy," says a new study from consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Assuming no significant change in consumer lifestyle, researchers did an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of various options for reducing GHG emissions. Their conclusions: "clean coal" is expensive and unproven, increasing renewable energy sources would make a relatively modest contribution, and raising efficiency of buildings, appliances, and automobiles would be the easiest and, in the end, cheapest way to do the job. The key would be to incentivize manufacturers and builders to boost efficiency, says the study, as shortsighted consumers are swayed more by cheap upfront costs than by products that save them money down the line. Implementation of a relatively cheap, entirely doable plan to reduce GHG emissions "will require strong, coordinated, economywide action that begins in the near future," says the report. We'll get right on that.

sources: USA Today, Reuters, The Mercury News, The New York Times
see also, in Gristmill: McKinsey & Co. on how to reduce greenhouse gases
straight to the report: Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

What's missing: promotion of telecommuting

Clearly, efficiency, along with reduction (cessation) and conservation are the best alternatives, and cheap to free in many cases.

I am puzzled by the lack of promotion of telecommuting as a contributing solution to GHG reduction. But, not just GHG reduction, but also reduction in airborne pollutants, reduction in traffic congestion, reduction in road maintenance, reduction in auto accidents, reduction in road rage, and so on.

I see it as a solution with diverse, positive benefits. And, easily, with no down side. A win win. (The technology for a successfully program certainly exists and is cost effective, or even free!)

But, companies are resistant.

Why not offer companies incentives (e.g., tax credits) for employee telecommuters, on a per employee basis?

Based upon my experience, within companies and client companies, there are many, many jobs that could be done remotely.

So, why is this solution not promoted?

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

by Greta at 12:48 PM on 30 Nov 2007

efficient auto ==> more sprawl

don't make autos better, make them fewer

http://www.freepublictransit.org

by socialscientist at 2:43 PM on 30 Nov 2007

sprawl economics

Since the Reagan years many millions of Americans have made their living through the creation of sprawl. Small farms have been driven out of business by big agra-business. Cheap, undeveloped real estate has become available to 'developers' as farms fail. Contractors cut the trees and grade the land. Others bring in utilities. Reservoirs and power plants are built where needed. Heavy equipment builders sell the machines that make it happen. Roads and expressways are built making living in the 'country' and working in the 'city' a possibility for some. Subdivisions and strip malls spring up like mushrooms. Real estate has become an enormous big business. Bankers fund it all on credit. Cheap gas and abundant vehicles are another ingredient. Auto dealerships, mechanics and parts suppliers are another big part of this economy.

All of these businessmen and their employees depend on the constant creation of sprawl for their livelihood. No doubt they will fight like hell to keep their paychecks coming in.

Anyone who wants to curtail sprawl needs to keep this reality in mind. The elimination of cheap gas and the elimination of even the possibility of turning failed farms into money through the rezoning process would certainly go a long way toward that goal. But it sounds so 'un-American' after 25 years of the Reagan way of doing things and all of the propaganda that has supported it. Too bad we don't live on an infinite planet with cheap, climate neutral, energy for everyone. Too bad, indeed.

by catman at 3:13 PM on 02 Dec 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?