Better, Cheaper, yet Greener

Amid climate’s political storm, look to solutions that thrive beyond the debate.

With geopolitical conflicts, trade wars, and soaring energy costs dominating headlines, climate change is no longer top of mind for many. Unfortunately, this makes altruistic appeals for climate action less attractive amid pressing economic pressures. In many parts of the West, climate action is being grouped into a broader 'culture war'—lumped with DEI, ESG, and other terms seen by some as partisan, performative, or 'woke', making climate the easy target for political rollback.

Yet not all climate solutions need policy support or public goodwill. Some succeed even when politics turn hostile—not because people want to do good, but because climate benefits are a side effect of rational customer choice. For instance, consider a data center adopting small modular nuclear reactors for cost-effective, reliable energy; a cosmetics brand using domestically produced bio-based chemicals to reduce supply chain risks; or a staunch Trump supporter switching to oat milk due to taste preference.

But why are these areas especially important? Because they address the fundamental flaw in how climate tech is branded today—a reputation that's overly broad and tied to sacrifice, which limits its reach in a distracted world.

Climate Tech’s Branding Pitfall

Climate tech has become an overstuffed label—lumping moonshot carbon capture with mature renewables. This flattens differences in cost, maturity, and use case, reinforcing the idea that climate solutions require a “green premium”: higher prices, lifestyle changes, or policy support.

The result? A view of climate tech as a moral or partisan obligation rather than a rational choice—alienating skeptics, as surveys show support fading when costs hit home: only 45% of Americans would pay even $1 more monthly for electricity to fight climate change [1].

As Bill Gates notes, green premiums must drop to zero for broad adoption, since “people won’t adopt clean energy if it’s more expensive or inconvenient,” especially in developing economies focused on affordability. Reaching net-zero by 2050 demands annual climate finance of $6 trillion or more by the late 2020s, far beyond current $2 trillion flows [2], amid barriers like political resistance and cost concerns that undermine voluntary efforts.

The real opportunities lie in markets worth hundreds of billions without climate framing—like efficient energy or secure supply chains—that scale to trillions when low-carbon perks align with economic gains.

Yet spotting these isn't about chasing eco-labels; it's about finding innovations where green is a byproduct of being superior and more affordable.

Identifying better, cheaper, yet greener products

There are three pathways for greener products to thrive through self-interest alone—categorised by their primary economic or user-driven incentive (cost reduction, risk mitigation, or intrinsic desirability)—covering the spectrum of market-led adoption where emissions cuts are incidental bonuses.

1. Cost-Reduction Pathways

These slash expenses outright compared to legacy options, thriving in operational contexts via technological scaling and optimisation—independent of subsidies or mandates. Examples include:

• Lower Energy Generation Costs: Solar and wind power, generating electricity at lower LCOE than coal or gas in many regions

• Waste Reduction/Efficiency Improvements: AI-driven supply chain forecasting at Walmart, optimising inventory to cut food waste via precise demand prediction

• Location Arbitrage: Synthetic biology chemical production in bioreactors, enabling low-cost siting without proximity to raw materials like oil fields

2. Risk-Mitigation Pathways

These fortify against disruptions while inherently lowering emissions, integrating into critical infrastructure via modular innovations that sever ties to volatile, carbon-heavy systems. Examples include:

• Against Energy Disruptions: Solar-battery microgrids in California, providing reliable backup during wildfires at lower long-term cost than diesel generators, with zero-emission power

• Against Energy Volatility: On-site renewable energy storage, like Tesla Powerpacks for factories, stabilizing power costs and reducing reliance on fossil-fuel grids

• Against Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Bio-based chemical production for cosmetics, using local feedstocks to replace high-carbon petroleum imports, minimising logistics emissions

3. Desirability Pathways

These captivate through superior user experiences like enhanced performance, health benefits, or simplicity, aligning with lifestyle shifts in consumer goods—fueled by wellness and tech trends. Examples include:

• Performance and Innovation: Tesla EVs, chosen for acceleration, autopilot, design, and lower maintenance over gas cars

• Health and Sensory Appeal: Oatly oat milk, selected for lactose-free benefits over dairy in wellness-focused diets.

• Convenience and Lifestyle Fit: E-bikes in cities like London, Amsterdam or New York, adopted for faster, effortless commuting versus cars

Capitalise on the Green Side Effect

Amid geopolitical strife, soaring energy costs, and political polarisation, "climate tech's" sacrifice-heavy branding is a liability—it repels adopters and ignores market forces. True winners skip altruism and subsidies, delivering better, cheaper, greener solutions that cut emissions as byproducts of economic superiority and wide appeal. Altruistic tactics like offsets nudge edges but have so far failed at gigaton scale, dwarfed by cost-competitive renewables' dominance.

This is markets trumping policy lag: Solar PV undercuts new coal builds, with unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)—a lifetime average cost per megawatt-hour of power produced—as low as $38/MWh versus coal's $71–$173/MWh; microgrids ensure resilience against extremes; and e-bikes transform commutes—all fueled by resilience needs and user preferences for efficiency.

The framework shifts: Tech like batteries needs scaling for parity, perceptions lag. Spotting wins is simple; acting—via investment, adoption, innovation—is tough. With Side Effect, I’ll explore where these solutions surface, from policy shifts to personal interests, rooted in the conviction that self-interest—like a Trump supporter choosing oat milk for its taste—fuels the transition to a more sustainable economic system.

Sources

[1] Americans WTP for green premium - https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views-on-climate-change-and-policy-in-12-charts/

[2] - Conservative estimate of annual investment requirements to reach Net-Zero https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2025/

[3] Plummeting cost of solar - https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electricity-beats-lowest-cost-fossil-fuel-even-without-tax-credits/