There have been to two reports in the news recently that indicate it might be time for some governmental regulations in the area of energy efficiency in order to mitigate climate change risks in the U.S.
The first was the 4th and final report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, released on 17 November, which summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of a climate-science review that were released between January and April. Because the data had not previously been reviewed as a whole, scientists said the synthesized report was more explicit, creating new emphasis and alarm (especially about the rate and scope of sea-level rise). This report elicited a response from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calling specifically on China and the US to step up their game, as the 2 largest GHG emitters, in the area of emissions reductions.The second, from McKinsey & Company and created for DTE Energy (the parent company of Detroit Edison), Environmental Defense, Honeywell, National Grid, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Gas & Electric and Shell, states that the United States could shave as much as 28 % off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations. It focuses on more energy efficient homes and consumer products, such as computers, where currenlty, the supplier sees no competitive advantage to supplying low energy products which in turn leaves the average consumer with no choice but to purchase the energy inefficient house or computer. Hence the need for mandatory regulations to force the system to correct these deficiencies.
Now is the time to turn the tide. Suppliers have not historically spent the extra money on more expensive energy efficient products, not willing to take the risk that they will be in demand by consumers, which in turn does leave most consumers with no choices. If the only way to get suppliers to start creating these options for the average consumer (ie not the folks in the highest tax bracket) is to make it mandatory then perhaps that is the next step that should be put into play, and the sooner the better. As far as the consumers go, having to incur higher up-front costs for a more energy efficient product may take some getting used to, but shouldn’t be that hard to stomach when compared to a larger savings over the life-time of the product. The craziest thing of all is that producers will still be making profits and consumers will be saving money, these are the side effects of cutting out the 28% of carbon emissions mentioned in the McKinsey & Company report. Why is this such a hard sell?
