In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by implementing new technologies, for example, some industries that depend heavily on fossil fuels will have to spend more money to maintain their businesses at the same level as they have in the past. However, considering only the new costs incurred by an existing company is but one part of the equation. When a company is forced to spend money, another company earns money by selling goods and services. If we lose one job in the fossil fuel industry, we may gain a job in the green energy sector. That’s exactly what has happened with solar energy in the United States, which gained 14,000 jobs between 2010 and 2012, while fossil fuel lost 4,000 jobs. If you look around, you’ll see that innovative new businesses are already emerging to capitalize on solutions to the climate change problem.

You may have seen pictures of the Tesla roadster, a high-performance electric sports car popular with Silicon Valley executives, which sells for $109,000 a pop. The company’s dashing founder, Elon Musk, has proven to General Motors and other legacy automakers in Detroit that there’s money to be made by switching from gasoline and diesel to electricity. The company brought in $3.2 billion in revenue in 2014, but Musk does not expect to turn a profit until 2020, when the company is rolling out 500,000 vehicles per year.

The two major types of electric vehicles on the road today include the battery electric vehicle, or BEV, and the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV (Figure 14.36). Life cycle assessments (LCA) demonstrate that electric vehicles generally produce lower greenhouse gas emissions, compared with similar vehicles using internal combustion engines, particularly at lower driving speeds and when carrying smaller loads typical of urban commutes. However, driving at higher speeds and carrying heavier loads reduce the greenhouse gas savings realized by electric vehicles. In addition, it’s important to remember that the greenhouse gas outputs of electric vehicles are affected by the energy source used to generate electricity in the first place. Naturally, they are lower where renewable energy sources make a larger contribution to electrical generation.

Biofuels, including ethanol produced from corn and plant matter or biodiesel produced from cooking grease or algae, are also a promising strategy to reduce the use of fossil fuels in transportation, and a variety of companies have emerged to do just that. In theory, biofuel crops will reabsorb a fraction of the greenhouse gas emissions released from the previous year. However, technologies for efficiently producing a gasoline replacement from terrestrial crops or algae are in their infancy (see Chapter 10).

One of the biggest incentives for companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that it can save them money. When researchers at Architecture 2030—a nonprofit organization established in 2002 to mitigate the climate impacts of buildings—carefully analyzed how energy was used in all sectors of the economy, they found that in the United States, buildings account for nearly half of the nation’s energy use (Figure 14.37). Because of their tremendous energy demand, improving the design of new buildings and factories offers one of the best opportunities for energy savings, through better insulation, careful materials selection, incorporating passive solar heating, and taking advantage of natural lighting (Figure 14.38).

458

Many states, cities, and individuals have committed themselves to more efficient construction. One of the highest profile examples is that of New York City, where former Mayor Michael Bloomberg approved a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%. It turns out that nearly 75% of the energy consumed in New York is used to run its 1 million buildings, which is well above the national average.

Bloomberg commissioned a study that found some buildings used 3 to 5 times the amount of energy per unit area, compared with other buildings with similar uses. As a result of such discoveries, efforts to improve energy efficiency in the city could focus on those buildings where efforts will produce the greatest results. One of the main targets is to install more efficient lighting when it is lacking. Another is to “retro-commission” buildings, meaning a process would exist to verify that all building systems, such as those used for cooling and heating, are working efficiently. The eventual costs of New York’s “Greener, Greater Buildings Plan” are estimated at $5.2 billion, while the estimated savings in energy costs for companies are $12.2 billion. The city also estimates that the program will create more than 10,000 jobs.

The developing world has its own particular set of energy problems to deal with. The wood stoves and dirty coal generators used in countries like India and China do not completely burn their fuel, and they release soot in addition to greenhouse gases. Soot is a dark, powdery form of carbon that is particularly potent when it comes to heating up the atmosphere because it directly absorbs sunlight while it is floating in the air or after it lands and darkens reflective surfaces such as snow. One recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres concluded that soot was more important than methane and was second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to climate change.

The good news is that soot only stays in the atmosphere for a few weeks and is washed away by rain or covered up by new snowfall. Because soot causes health problems, such as lung cancer, a transition to cleaner forms of cooking and power generation would be good for the climate and for human health. The Indian startup Prakti is already trying to profit from this transition, developing cleaner-burning wood and charcoal stoves that will also save families money.