10-01-2009, 02:40 PM
That's probably tough to answer. The government doesn't spend much on it. There was some stuff in the stimulus bill to convert federal buildings to green technology and there's proposals for the 2010 budget to spend a fair chunk of cash on renewable energy but I think the real cost would have to be measured by looking at what industry has spent on compliance with regulations.
But even there you'd probably want to try and separate "anti-pollution" regulations from "anti-global warming" regulations. That is, I'm sure our country has spent billions if not trillions on "going green" collectively but a lot of that was aimed at stopping pollution or conservation of resources and not, specifically, "global warming". However, anything about reducing CO2 emissions would be an expense aimed directly at global warming, since I don't think CO2 was previously considered to be a "pollutant".
"Cap and trade" is still on the table as well, and my understanding of that is it's going to be a big expense in the name of combating global warming.
But even there you'd probably want to try and separate "anti-pollution" regulations from "anti-global warming" regulations. That is, I'm sure our country has spent billions if not trillions on "going green" collectively but a lot of that was aimed at stopping pollution or conservation of resources and not, specifically, "global warming". However, anything about reducing CO2 emissions would be an expense aimed directly at global warming, since I don't think CO2 was previously considered to be a "pollutant".
"Cap and trade" is still on the table as well, and my understanding of that is it's going to be a big expense in the name of combating global warming.