News Journal:Why imperil our future with climate change denial?

Never underestimate our human ability to deny reality when it is painful to accept it. Try, for example, to reconcile these two recent news items.
A study by researchers at NASA and the University of California at Irvine found that “a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.” The study, based on 40 years of observations, estimates these glaciers contain enough ice to raise global sea levels by 4 feet and are melting faster than previously expected.
A few weeks after the NASA study was released, the AP reported on what’s been happening to a $300 million program in New Jersey called Blue Acres, set up by the state to buy houses in flood-prone areas at pre-Sandy level prices. “But none of the money so far has gone to the areas hardest hit by Sandy: Monmouth and Ocean counties, where the oceanfront storm surge destroyed thousands of homes and flooded thousands more. While the state has approached some coastal communities, none has indicated a serious interest in participating,” said Fawn McGee, who runs the program for the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Maybe those communities are still in denial, but there are at least some signs that more Americans are beginning to face reality. A Washington Post/ABC poll conducted earlier this month found nearly 70 percent of them now say “global warming, also known as climate change” is a serious problem facing the country, with 57 percent calling it “very serious.”
A bipartisan majority is in favor of federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions and is willing to pay for them with higher energy bills. Asked if Washington should still go forward with limits if they “significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month,” 63 percent of respondents say yes, including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.
Given that response, you might think opposition would be more muted to the EPA’s recent draft proposal to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent by the year 2030. But the usual suspects are out in full high dudgeon. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, predictably against any and all government regulations, proclaimed the proposal “would add immense cost and regulatory burdens on American job creators.” The Chamber estimated it will cost the economy an average of $51 billion and 224,000 jobs a year through 2030.
The EPA’s own estimates are a far more modest cost of $5 billion to $9 billion a year, with minimal job losses in the first years and an actual increase in later years. Analysts at Goldman Sachs, hardly a cheerleader for regulation, said the direct economic effects of compliance “do not appear to be large,” estimating a GDP decline of 0.1 percent or less.
Even more optimistically, the National Resources Defense Council estimates the economic impact of the EPA action would be more than offset by savings created by the proposal. An ICF International study commissioned by the NRDC concludes “the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants can save American households and business customers $37.4 billion on their electric bills in 2020 while creating more than 274,000 jobs. … The federal carbon pollution standard could fuel a surge in energy efficiency investments, creating new jobs filled by electricians, roofers, carpenters, insulation workers, heating/air conditioning installers and heavy equipment operators, among others.”
Who is right about the costs? It seems to me the question isn’t very important if you are not in a state of denial about the NASA study. Maybe its estimate of a rise of 4 feet in sea level is too high (of course, it could also be too low). Maybe it will be only 2 feet, or 3. Either level is enough to virtually wipe Miami off the map and cost trillions of dollars more in other coastal areas. Either level is enough to create a global catastrophe that would devastate every economy in the world.
Some very smart people say the EPA action is too little, too late. Maybe so. But would they do nothing? I can’t accept that. Much more has to be done, but the new regulations are a good step in the right direction. My grandchildren, and yours, deserve more from us than apathy, resignation and denial.
Ted Kaufman is a former U.S. senator from Delaware.

.