- Report Reveals America Under-Prepared In The Event Of Nuclear Style AttackPosted 19 hours ago
- FBI Blames North Korea For Sony AttackPosted 3 days ago
- VIRAL VIDEOS: Denver The Guilty Dog Strikes Again!Posted 3 days ago
- Highlights From The American Country Countdown AwardsPosted 3 days ago
- Jeb Bush To “Actively Explore The Possibility Of Running For President”Posted 4 days ago
- Insurance Industry Giving Affordable Care Act Customers More Time To Pay PremiumsPosted 5 days ago
- Boehner Responds To President Obama’s Immigration Plan [VIDEO]Posted 1 month ago
- AFMW: Comedian Sebastian ManiscalcoPosted 1 month ago
- FOX in the Fast Lane: Kicking Off The ChasePosted 3 months ago
- Obamacare Data Discrepancies Could Jeopardize CoveragePosted 6 months ago
The Economic Case For Fighting Climate Change
Climate change is often posed as a tradeoff between economic prosperity and environmental concerns. It’s not necessarily so, as Cass Sunstein points out Sunday.
Much the same can be said about climate change. Recent reports suggest that the economic cost of Hurricane Sandy could reach $50 billion and that in the current quarter, the hurricane could remove as much as half a percentage point from the nation’s economic growth. The cost of that single hurricane may well be more than five times greater than that of a usual full year’s worth of the most expensive regulations, which ordinarily cost well under $10 billion annually. True, scientists cannot attribute any particular hurricane to greenhouse gas emissions, but climate change is increasing the risk of costly harm from hurricanes and other natural disasters. Economists of diverse viewpoints concur that if the international community entered into a sensible agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the economic benefits would greatly outweigh the costs.
Good environmental policy is often good economics, and climate change is an extreme example of that.