Economists in agreement: plan for climate change, even if it might not be as bad as it could be

Hmm, that's a long title. But here's the article:


Surprise—Economists Agree!:

A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change. So why is no one writing that?


Excerpts:
"If you look closely at what climate economists are saying, you can discern two areas of basic agreement. First, there is a broad consensus that the cost of climate inaction would greatly exceed the cost of climate action—it's cheaper to act than not to act."

"[Robert] Stavins, director of Harvard's Environmental Economics Program, phrased it this way in a recent paper: "There is general consensus among economists and policy analysts that a market-based policy instrument targeting CO2 emissions ... should be a central element of any domestic climate policy."

"The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, an influential but controversial 2006 report for the British government, concluded that climate action would cost 1 percent of global GDP (though Stern now warns that our failure to act is raising the price tag) and that inaction could reduce global GDP by up to 20 percent."

I had to include that last part for all those conservatives who don't think climate change -- GLOBAL WARMING -- will be a problem. It's always hard to think long-term when short-term needs are pressing, but if I moved to Oklahoma and had to buy a house without a storm shelter or basement, I'd get one dug and ready right quick before spring, because the potential costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action.