Concerns abound that implementing measures to reduce harmful fossil fuel emissions would create more cost than benefit. A new study published by Nature Climate Change, however, found that it could actually save the U.S. trillions within the next 15 years and more important -- lives. Based on current carbon emission reduction goals of about 80 percent by 2050, this study assumes a reduction of about 2.7 percent each year between 2015 and 2050. For 2030, that would be in the ballpark of a 40 percent reduction relative to current emissions. The proposed Clean Power Plan rules — which would account for about half of the required emissions cuts — are expected to cost up to $9 billion. It might sound steep, but the measures could save about 250 billion dollars annually in terms of about 15 million prevented sick days and 29,000 child asthma-related trips to the hospital. http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2...d-actually-save-us-billions-dollars-each-year The New Climate Economy report pretty much comes to the same conclusions: http://newclimateeconomy.net/conten...er-plan-will-still-drive-energy-transition-us
It's a question of which value-system you use. When were lives more important than profit? More than 100 people died on the Hoover dam to prevent cost-overruns or time penalties. Anyway, under a conservative [sic!] government, those asthmatic children wouldn't have health insurance and the labourers wouldn't be paid for sick days, just replaced if they took too many.
