Climate Change, the Economy, and the Cost of Inaction

Much of the public debate around climate change and the economy has centered on the economic costs of taking action. Moving away from coal and oil, some people argue, would cost jobs, jeopardize the economy, and hurt business. But talking in terms of the costs of action, writes former treasury secretary Robert Rubin in a recent op ed, is actually the wrong way of looking at the issue. Instead, we should reframe the issue in terms of the costs of inaction.
 
This simple tweak in wording puts the issue in a whole new light. Not taking action on climate could cost billions in storm damages, property loss in coastal areas, and lost wages due to increased temperatures in many parts of the world, to name a few. Other small changes in how we talk about climate change — by focusing on climate solutions, for example, rather than polar bears — can have enormous impacts on support for solutions. To learn more simple strategies to improve the effectiveness of climate change communication,  check out Communicating on Climate: 13 Steps and Guiding Principles, an ecoAmerica publication.
 

Robert Rubin: How Ignoring Climate Change Could Sink the U.S. Economy

Robert Rubin, Contributor to The Washington Post, Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, and former Secretary of the Treasury
 

Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change — and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks. While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions because of their potential magnitude.

 

The scientific community is all but unanimous in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat. According to Gallup, nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Still, for many people, the effects of climate change seem like a future problem — something that falls by the wayside as we tackle what seem like more immediate crises.

 
Read more.
 
Image credit: Skip Sterling for The Washington Post