BLOG

The Cost of Inaction

-- Mike -- 01/31/2007

One of the favorite arguments of global warming deniers is that the financial costs of solving global warming are too great. But that claim is inaccurate and fails to properly consider the cost-benefit of action vs. inaction.

By comparison, consider the tragedy faced by the people of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. By some accounts, the costs of repairing and rebuilding this great American city could top $200 billion. However, as the New Republic reported in November 2005, a "study in 1998 estimated that New Orleans could be made safer against flooding caused by powerful hurricanes, at a cost of $14 billion, by restoring and sustaining Louisiana's coastal ecosystem."

That same sort of cost-benefit analysis should be applied to global warming as well.

The fact is the cost of investing in efforts to reduce carbon emissions, develop clean, renewable energy sources and improve energy efficiency pale in comparison to the cost of global warming's consequences years from now should we fail to address the causes of climate change.

However, as today's Los Angeles Times points out, efforts to combat global warming are gaining more attention. And just like education, health care and national security, climate change is now an issue that all candidates running for president must address and be prepared to discuss.