The Economic Costs of Climate Change Inaction
Opponents of climate change are focusing on a new tactic: the claim that tackling climate change will be too costly.
Mashable : “That economic argument had gone virtually unchallenged by senior Obama administration officials and other leaders. That is no longer the case.”
“In an unusually blunt policy address on Thursday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called opponents of climate change action ‘sad,’ and portrayed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions as a net economic winner.”
“McCarthy said avoiding action on global warming will be far more expensive in the long run, compared to reducing emissions and hardening infrastructure to cope with climate impacts.”
McCarthy: “… When it comes to climate change, the most expensive thing we could do, is to do nothing … The bottom line is: We don’t act despite the economy, we act because of it.”
McCarthy’s speech came … more than a week after an international assessment about the economics of climate change showed that taking action sooner rather than later could be an economic boon.
“Another report, this one by a bipartisan group of American business leaders , warned that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, by 2050, between $66 to $106 billion of existing coastal property in the U.S. will be below sea level. This would grow to up to $507 billion by 2100.”
Working Capital Review : “Lately, the push to connect business and the environment comes not just from environmentalists, but from businesses themselves.”