This story is crossposted from our friends at envirowonk.com
How much would it cost, really, to take on global warming? The strongest and angriest debate against capping emissions comes from industry, saying that ANY system would severely slow the American economy, and hinting that we might never recover from such a shock.
If you were wondering if that was a complete cow crap, so was the Environmental Defense Fund. They recently funded an analysis that suggests that the truth may be quite the opposite. They find that reducing global carbon emissions will cost just 1 percent of our GDP in 2030, retarding our economic growth by only two to seven months.
EDF's report also finds that the pressure to innovate and find new energy sources will stimulate the economy through the creation of so-called green collar jobs, which will help to offset the minimal projected job losses in the manufacturing sector. Household energy costs are projected to rise, but EDF suggests that the rise will be small enough that programs could be put in place to assist low-income households with energy costs.
This report may allay some fears that global warming mitigation will be too expensive, and may mitigate resistance by lobbyists and pro-business politicians. (Maybe. When it comes to politicians, all bets are off.)
The report concludes, however, with a caveat: that the costs they calculate will quickly become unmanageable if mitigation is delayed. In other words, policymakers, finish your business or get off the pot, before it becomes too difficult to do either.
written by joseph, April 26, 2008
written by Buck Redman, April 27, 2008
|< Prev||Next >|