According to a story in Sunday's Washington Post, titled Climate Change Debate Hinges on Economics:

The potential economic impact of meaningful climate legislation — enough to reduce U.S. emissions by at least 60 percent — is vast. Automobiles would have to get double their current miles to the gallon. Building codes would have to be tougher, requiring use of more energy-efficient materials. To stimulate and pay for new technologies, U.S. electricity bills could rise by 25 to 33 percent, some experts estimate; others say the increase could be greater.

But the argument against not enacting meaningful climate change legislation is even greater:

Measures taken by the world's governments to reduce greenhouse gases could cost 1 percent of world economic output, according to a report commissioned by the British government and written last year by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern. But Stern said the cost of not taking those steps would be at least five times as much, hitting the developing world hardest.

Wouldn't it be nice to prove Congressman Dingell wrong? I, for one, can't abide by his point of view:

I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them. 

I fully realize how short-sighted we human beings can be, but doesn't it make sense to pay the piper now?

Carbon Neutral Journal's thoughts are brought to you by Hawtin Jorgensen Architects.

Popularity: 7%