The Bottom Line: Early and swift mitigation of climate change is the cheapest solution, for the United States and all other nations. The costs of climate change left unattended: loss of biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, migration, and disease control all add up to half a trillion dollars a year- more severe predictions could triple or even quadruple the price. Each moment the US continues its pathetically slow motion forward with climate change legislation the costs climb. Regrettably and at the same time interestingly, it seems that coal states and industries are investing millions to oppose US climate legislation when it would be cheaper to invest in legislation and mitigation.

$444 billion dollars. Adding all the costs from the American Policy Series: biodiversity ($163B), economic spillovers ($80B, annually accounting for a 5% drop in US exports), national security ($120B, annually or $3T per war divided over 25 years), migration ($73B, the annual bill of health services to migrants), and disease control ($7.7B, as benchmark price of 2008 containment of flu pandemic); $443.7B dollars annually is the US bill for climate costs and this is a conservative estimate. It amounts to $1,300 tax per US citizen (estimate with 350M US population). The worse case scenario: biodiversity ($400B, higher environmental valuation estimate), economic spillover ($160B, per 10% drop of US exports), national security ($240B, $120B per conflict: one in the middle east and one in Africa within the next 25 years), migration ($75B, $73B healthcare + $2B for an advanced border wall over 25 years, annually), disease control ($630B for severe epidemic). Considering the worse case scenarios would bring the total to $1.5 trillion annually or $4,300 per US citizen. Compare the costs with the $10B annually needed to appease poor nations to agree to a global climate change agreement (Guardian, 2009) in Copenhagen. $10B for swift climate change solutions or $443B to cover our pollution; the choice is clear.

Enlightenment for the American Policy Series came from "Sea Walls are Not Enough" from Jody Freeman, professor of law from Harvard, and Andrew Guzman, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. In their paper they argued against the viewpoint that the US would be a climate change winner and will benefit from global warming. Proponents of US as a climate change winner argue: "Why should the US shoulder costs to support future generations in other countries." As the US Senate has recently demonstrated, it is ineffective to justify climate change legislation using a moral argument. The consensus of the climate legislation opponents is that such legislation would leave many Americans without jobs. In the larger scheme of things, it 's a minor concern.

Solve climate change or lose your job. Solve climate change to protect your family. Solve climate change to protect your health. Solve climate change or lose your life. Climate change is a global problem, everything and everyone is at stake. There is a price to pay, and it will be paid; for the US it can be sooner and cheaper, or later and pricey.