The True Cost of Production

By Sam DePaolo

In the past year, the price decrease of solar and wind energies below that of fossil fuels has been heralded as a promising shift towards a greener future. Amidst such encouraging trends, articles have declared that all nations, particularly developing ones, should be able to invest in renewables while promoting economic growth. 

While such developments represent an important progression in green technology, we cannot view such an event as the end-all, be-all for global warming. Renewable energies are only responsible for cutting emissions from electricity, heat, and transportation; this only accounted for roughly 50% of global emissions in 2020. The remaining emissions come from agricultural or industrial processes, with each category responsible for about 20% and 30% of emissions, respectively. 

While the price of renewable energies may have plummeted, the agricultural and industrial sectors have seen little to no advances in green technologies. The green premium, defined as the cost of choosing a clean technology or product over one that emits greater pollution, remains significantly high with sustainably produced products such as cement costing double the price of its fossil fuel counterpart. With such a large price disparity, renewable supplies are unable to compete against the cheaper fossil fuel alternatives, resulting in little demand for such products without heavy subsidies or carbon taxes. 

While many developing countries have promised to cut emissions, few have invested in renewable materials. By 2030, China plans to raise power purchase to 40%, while India is focused on reaching 450 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity. While these investments are admirable, China and India, two of the largest contributors to global emissions, have not promised any expenditure towards renewable materials because of the impracticality of buying such supplies. For such nations, paying a higher price for sustainable products means receiving less material for much needed urban development to raise the living standard and promote economic growth. Thus, green material investment would sacrifice progress in the fight against poverty in the name of sustainability, creating a politically nonviable tradeoff. Therefore, without decreasing the green premium to zero and ensuring sustainable materials are affordable for developing nations investing in growth, reaching zero emissions in the next few decades is impossible. Of the top ten largest contributors to carbon emissions, six are developing countries. Furthermore, these six nations were responsible for roughly 50% of all global emissions in 2018. The pressing need to lower the price of sustainable products to affordable levels is clear, but how is such a development possible when such little progress has previously been made? 

The answer is innovation. As explained by Bill Gates in an interview with TED, “unless we, through our power of innovation, make it so cheap for all countries to switch all categories [to sustainable options], then we simply aren’t going to get [to zero emissions].” In the same way investment in research and improving efficiencies helped push the price of solar and wind energies below that of fossil fuels, it is necessary to search for new methods of material fabrication to decrease production emissions while increasing the affordability of sustainable supplies. In particular, developed countries with enough funds must use their resources to foster new technologies and promote an atmosphere of innovation and growth. With such advancements in the industrial sector, the green premium can be significantly driven down and materials made affordable for developing countries, encouraging the use of green supplies. 

Within the US, there has been a large push for government and private investment into sustainable research, but there is still more to do. In the past week, investments in sustainability-focused funds reached $2 trillion, a record high amount. Additionally, with his

infrastructure plan, President Biden has proposed $35 billion in spending for technologies “that address the climate crisis and position the United States as the global leader in clean energy technology and clean energy jobs.” While both developments mark promising movement towards a greener future, little mention of investments towards clean agricultural or industrial innovations has been made. It is imperative that research in sustainable fabrication is not overshadowed by a focus on clean energy improvement and production; such a hyperfocus could leave these sectors technologically underdeveloped, and the catastrophic consequences of climate change would be unavoidable. 

Despite government or private effort, true progress comes from the people who advocate for change; now, more than ever, all individuals must advocate for innovation and funding towards industrial and agricultural research to truly move towards a green future. Without making a change and driving the green premium down, we face a future of hardships and poverty magnified by global warming. However, by banding together and cultivating new, cleaner technologies in these sectors, we can create a future in which worries of climate change are a distant memory.