According to a recent study, the United States could easily reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent at low cost using mostly existing technologies.
The report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company indicated that changes in the way buildings are lighted, heated and cooled could, for a relatively low cost, result in substantial reductions in emissions from burning carbon based fuels. “These types of savings have been around for 20 years,” said Jack Stephenson, who directed the study.
“What the report calls out is the fact that the potential is so substantial for energy efficiency,” said Ken Ostrowski, another researcher. “Not that we will do it, but the potential is just staggering here in the U.S. There is a lot of inertia, and a lot of barriers.”
The United States could reduce emissions with “tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies,” according to the report. But doing so will “require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.”
As a result, the researchers are pessimistic about the prospects for the United States to achieve its potential for easily reducing emissions.
What are some of the barriers?
Equipment for heating, cooling, or lighting a building is often paid for by the landlord or builder. The landlord or builder naturally chooses the least expensive heating/cooling system, instead of the most efficient system, which may cost more to buy in the first place. Of course, what incentive does the builder or landlord have to install an energy efficient furnace since the cost of electricity or other fuels will by paid by a tenant or home-buyer?
Currently, many working-class tenants and homeowners cannot afford to replace outdated, inefficient furnaces or other appliances, and so they continue to pay higher energy bills while burning excessive amounts of fuel.
The problem described by the McKinsey report illustrates one of the crimes of the capitalist system.
Under capitalism, buildings, whether they are personal homes (apartments, houses, condos) or commercial buildings (hotels, office buildings, stores) are manufactured for profit by a sector of the capitalist class. The construction sector seeks to reduce manufacturing costs in order to maximize profits, as do all capitalists.
In this instance, by reducing initial costs and installing heating and lighting systems that waste energy, the builders pass on long-term higher energy costs to the renter or buyer of the building. Not only are renters and buyers paying higher energy bills, wastefully designed buildings are depleting a non-renewable resource (fossil fuels) and further depleting the ozone layer, contributing to global warming. Because buildings are commodities (useful items that are sold for profit) the “right” of the capitalist to maximize profit takes higher priority than halting climate change through easily implemented efficiency measures.
Making profit is the primary law of capitalism. Legislative efforts to restrict profits based on an ancillary social benefit are temporary at best. This is true with the environment, workers rights, health care and other key aspects of society.
Under a different system, socialism, building manufacturers would welcome the findings of the McKinsey report. After all, it would mean that their sector of the economy had the potential to play a leading role in slowing climate change through by making simple changes in the construction of buildings. Putting social benefits first is a primary feature of socialism. No one can benefit from exploitation under a socialist economy. No one would benefit from exploiting the environment either.
The construction sector would work with other sectors as part of the centrally planned economy in order to make sure that all buildings were maximally energy efficient. This is why we need socialism, not tomorrow but today. The planet depends on it.
