11. Won’t our national and global economy suffer if we implement drastic reductions in CO2 emissions? 

    Our global economy will benefit from the concrete actions we take to arrest climate change.  The rather modest cost to make a transition to energy systems that reduce global warming serves other objectives as well.  For example, moving toward fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids (visit www.calcars.org) and to alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel made from agricultural and other wastes (visit www.energycommission.org and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/ps-mfc042205.php) will also contribute to prosperity for rural America, reduce developing countries' debt burden (often adversely affected by oil imports), and help free us from oil dependence. 

   A central tenet of economics is to leave principal intact: Don’t kill the Goose that lays the Golden Egg.   Left unchecked, global warming will destroy the very resource base our economy depends on.  But if we choose instead to usher in a world powered by clean, renewable energy - we'll create jobs, stimulate the economy, promote energy independence, and protect our nation's health.  

www.environmentaldefense.org has this to say on the subject:

Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.

Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.