Best quote: “the debate on climate change should not be whether or not it exists, but what we should do about it.” The EPA among others have studied the social cost of carbon (cost of doing nothing) and peg it around $60 per ton of CO2 by 2030. In the same year, the year of maximum emission reductions under the EPAs recent emission reduction plan, we would have ~550 million tons of emission reductions. page ES-5 That is equivalent to saving $33 billion in global damage. The US would incur about 10% of global damage from climate change, or about $3.3 billion. The EPA estimates the plan will cost about $9 billion in 2030, others say $50 billion. Either way, everyone agrees that benefits do not exceed the current costs. The rational policy is therefore to invest this $9-50 billion into scientific research towards better alternative energy supplies. The cost of solar panels is currently decreasing about 4% per quarter. At around $0.20/kwh compared to $0.12/kwh for coal, we have a break even cost basis in approximately 3 years from now. Shortly after, itll be cheaper and the problem will go away on its own because people are greedy. What exactly is the government trying to accomplish by instituting regulations that are more costly than their benefits when the market seems prepared to reduce CO2 significantly on its own? Why not just invest in science to accelerate that?