Cutting emissions will benefit, not cost, U.S.

Larry Casey's letter of Dec. 29 said that cutting U.S. emissions to net zero by the year 2050 would harm our economy and citizens. However, doing nothing would not only be far more harmful but far more costly. Year after year, offices, factories, roads, ports, and crops are being damaged or destroyed at increasing rates and a mounting fortune. And the more businesses and individuals pay to repair/rebuild and cover higher insurance premiums, the less they can spend on everything else.

Therefore, major U.S. businesses are advocating for carbon pricing to avoid economic stagnation, financial instability, lower profitability and layoffs. For instance, in September, the Business Roundtable (an association of CEOs of companies with more than $7 trillion in collective revenues) said, "The consequences of climate change for global prosperity are significant; the world simply cannot afford the costs of inaction."

The Roundtable endorsed pricing carbon as an essential step in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In the same month, all five commissioners of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, appointed by President Trump, reported that "Climate change poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system and its ability to sustain the American economy."

Notably, they called for "effective, broadly applied carbon pricing."

There are also business opportunities in solving climate change. A 2019 report by CDP - a nonprofit that helps companies and cities measure and manage climate change risks and opportunities - stated that 225 of the world's 500 biggest companies had identified more than $2.1 trillion in potential climate-related opportunities.

It's definitely not just "Biden and his devout followers" who think we need to act now on climate change. Business executives are in solid agreement that if we don't, the damage to the economy will be severe. Moreover, Americans will miss a great opportunity.

Susan Scown

Glen Ellyn