Scientists say that climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. But if you ask policy makers, you might hear them argue that combatting it is just too expensive a battle to fight. President Trump called the Paris climate accord a “self-inflicted major economic wound” when he announced that the US will back out of the agreement. He’s also proposed slashing the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31 percent. Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that funding efforts to curb rising global temperatures are “a waste of your money.”
But they are dangerously wrong. In fact, experts say that the economic costs of climate change are so massive that delayed action, or inaction, is the most expensive policy option out there.
OMB Director Mick Mulvaney on climate change: “We consider that to be a waste of your money” https://t.co/JaqaoOPfhZ
— Alysha Love (@News_with_Love) March 16, 2017
First, let’s get this out of the way: there is overwhelming evidence that climate change is real, and caused by carbon emissions. Scientifically, the debate’s over and this is our fault — no matter how much Scott Pruitt or Ryan Zinke try to duck responsibility on behalf of humankind.
Sitting out on global warming is a bad deal for America
Second, there are big chunks of the US economy that depend on the global temperature staying put — like the agriculture and fish industries, for example. All told, the agriculture and food sectors account for more than $750 billion dollars of the United States’ gross domestic product, according to an EPA report.