APR 25

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.

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Real Estate
written by joseph, April 26, 2008

With soaring gas and oil prices, why is the government waiting to make more fuel efficient machines. The investment of eco friendly alternative methods would offset the billions of dollars we are giving to the countries in the middle east, not to mention could help lead the way to help the environment.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

1% now, or...
written by T, April 26, 2008

a lot more later. It's like a band-aid. JUST RIP IT.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Where are the hard numbers
written by EV, April 26, 2008

They find that reducing global carbon emissions will cost just 1 percent of our GDP in 2030

You say reduce in CO2. By how much? That 1% GDP is still $260 Billion. And how is it supposed to work and not just have companies move factories overseas to China and India where CO2 and pollution would have a net increase due to the lax environmental laws there?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Get a better picture
written by matt, April 26, 2008

I'm a college student cooping as an engineer for an oil refinery, and I'd like to tell you that in your picture all that is coming out of those stacks are water. The co2 is invisible. I agree on the issue, I recently got 37MPG out of my 28MPG EPA car by driving slower and turning my car off at red lights, but showing pictures of artificial clouds is sensationalism.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I Always Knew Global Warming Was Just An
written by Buck Redman, April 27, 2008

Better hang on to your wallet, folks. This ain't gonna be cheep, because, quite the contrary, it's gonna bankrupt America. Businesses are shutting down and others are moving overseas taking jobs with them. There'll be only a few taxpayers left to purchase carbon off-sets or pay the tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

How does that happen, you ask? A decade ago Congress mandated the extraction of sulfur from diesel fuel by the year 2007, which doubled the price of diesel. You pay for that cost with your grocery bill just the same as if it were a tax increase. Now do you see how the cost of congressional mandates on industrial emissions comes out of your pocket? To read more, go to:
http://wack-o.com/global/tax_hike.htm to read Paul Driessen's article Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your Way

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment