Economic costs of global warming (UPDATED)

Here is something you don't often hear about in the global warming debate. Someone is talking about putting a dollars-and-cents estimate on the cost of fighting emissions of greenhouse gases vs. the cost of not doing anything. Whatever your thoughts on global warming, it's something we need to talk about. But it will take some time for the people who are politically, economically or emotionally invested in the debate to do that.

The dollars-and-cents of global warming is now a welcomed topic among economists and governments. One can thank Sir Nicholas Stern for that. Last October, his report put a price tag on what must be done. Since then, others have chewed over his numbers.

As head of Britain's Government Economic Service, Dr. Stern led a team that estimated a cost to the task of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by a necessary 80 percent (to settle at about twice their preindustrial concentrations) by 2100: The world's economic growth rate would be shaved about 1 percentage point a year if all the necessary regulations, taxes, and carbon-trading schemes were in place.

Stern's team also calculated the cost of not taking action. If the world conducted business as usual, the effects of warming could cut GDP growth rates by at least 5 percent and as much as 20 percent a year indefinitely. The trade-off seemed clear: Taking action is less expensive than neglect.

To see the full editorial whence this came, click here. Sometime today, I'll try to track down the original report.

UPDATE: Via the BBC,
Summary
Full presentation

UPDATE 2: American Electric Power joins other companies in talking about climate change.

Here is background on the Global Roundtable on Climate Change.

And here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says.

I know that's a lot of links, but ...