The Great Lakes Zephyr - Wind Energy & Hydrogen Journal

Additionally from The Greenhouse Network, a bit on the cost comparisons between addressing global warming and not doing so:

Joe Lieberman, John McCain
Friday, August 1, 2003


For too long, the debate on climate change has been at a stalemate: On one side are those calling for deep cuts in greenhouse gases, whatever the cost. On the other side are many business leaders who have downplayed the global-warming threat, fearing new regulations will cut their profits and their payrolls. The topic of global warming has become overheated with acrimony and polluted by misinformation. But the terms of the debate are skewed: Environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in the long run, they are mutually reinforcing. Understanding this requires that we transcend the zero-sum thinking about climate change and make the right cost comparison.

The question is not whether the costs of doing business will rise if emissions caps are imposed. The real question is how much it will cost business -- and American taxpayers -- in the near future if we fail to tackle this growing threat now.

The bottom line is that the potential economic rewards of confronting climate change outweigh the risks -- and realizing these rewards could be the key to American industry reclaiming its global competitive advantage. It is on these terms that we have worked with both industry and environmentalists to craft the Climate Stewardship Act -- the first serious, balanced, bipartisan legislation that the U.S. Senate will vote on in years as we consider the energy bill in the coming days.

The act -- an amendment to the energy bill -- sets real global warming targets but gives industry the flexibility and incentives to meet them. It is based on sound business principles and built on our success in controlling acid rain by creating a market for companies to trade pollution "credits" and compete to clean the air. Most important, the Lieberman-McCain climate change amendment promises to significantly reduce pollution levels that threaten our health, our environment and our economy.

Taking action to protect the environment is not cost free -- but the costs of our approach are reasonable and affordable, by any measure. A recent MIT study estimated that our bill would cost approximately $20 per household, and analysts for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predict that the impact on our GNP would be no more than .01 percent. A second study by the independent Tellus Institute predicted that our legislation would save Americans $48 billion net by 2020 due to reduced energy demand.

Compare this to the costs of inaction. According to a United Nations' study,

every ton of greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere costs each American up to $160 -- and we are emitting billions of tons each...(Read on in: Climate Change and Federal Policy
A response to inaction on global warming (Please note this does not constitute endorsement of the proposed bill or these gentlemens' candidacies for public office on the part of the G.L. Zephyr.)