Many of our congressional representatives refuse to act on climate change because, they explain, “It would damage the economy.”
Citigroup, one of the four largest banks in the U.S., is hardly a radical environmental organization. So it is very interesting to read the report they published this month, in which they compare the cost of action on climate change to the cost of inaction.
They say that if the scientists are right about climate change, a “do-nothing” strategy could damage the global economy to the tune of $44 trillion by 2060. On the other hand, acting to prevent climate change offers a reasonably good return on investment – in the range of 3-10 percent.
Citigroup concludes that when you consider the economic benefits of taking action, combined with other benefits like cleaner air, you begin to ask, “Why would you not?”
The rising cost of fighting forest fires – almost $2 billion last year – is just one example of how climate change can adversely affect our economy.
So I ask our congressional representatives: In light of the threat that climate change poses to our economy, and to the quality of our air, why are you not acting on climate change?
Don Gaede, Fresno