How the Trump administration’s climate math doesn’t add up | There's an old argument that protecting the environment hurts the economy. It's wrong for a lot of reasons.

Even if it were a financial desaster, climate change will be a natural disaster.
And natural disasters are financial desasters.

There are two words that eviscerate the argument by demonstrating the ignorance of it (as if the fact that they need to deliberately zero out half the equation in their data isn’t enough):

Ecosystem Services.

If saving our planet hurts our economy, our economy doesn’t deserve to live.

Once you disregard the consequences, because “woke”, and predict gas prices to be constant for 30 years, then more efficiency is just a cost with no benefit. If your only consideration is immediate profit to a corporate owner, any cost is “fraud, waste and abuse”. /s

The math adds up just fine, you just have to be smart enough to uynderstand Terryology.

Uhhhh I mean yes and no?

Solar and wind generation have long since surpassed oil, coal and gas in terms of cost-effectiveness.

That being said, it adds a lot of cost in other places. In my personal experience, it adds mountains of cost in commercial diesel vehicles. in 2007 they added a bunch of emissions regulations which required significant investment in aftertreatment systems. These systems cost a fortune in R&D. They also add to upfront cost, and significantly reduce reliability of the vehicles (probably the largest expense of them all). Of course, all of this can be eliminated by going electric, which is totally viable in many cases. Why we haven’t already transitioned, I can’t explain.

It costs more to properly dispose of waste. Electronics had “energy efficient” settings added, which significantly impairs performance and other experience. And honestly saves a laughable amount of energy in comparison to things like inefficient HVAC systems and just consumerism in general.