As hurricane intensity increases and glaciers retreat, it is undeniable that that our climate is changing. Global warming is clearly one of the largest looming environmental and economic challenges we face. The question is not whether to do something about it – the question is how to best address the challenge of global warming. Taking no action is the riskiest and most expensive course. Fortunately, states and cities around the country, including Maine, are showing leadership and moving forward because they know that we cannot afford to ignore the impact global warming will have on our economy and environment.

An op-ed piece in the BDN (“Greenhouse gas controls bad business,” Sept. 20) asserts that addressing global warming is bad for Maine business and bad for Maine consumers. This is simply wrong.

Extensive economic modeling performed in Maine shows that out of 55 recommended policies in the state climate action plan, 15 increase state economic productivity, meaning there is no cost per ton of carbon avoided – only economic savings. Another eight measures have zero cost and another 16 cost less than $20 per ton of avoided carbon. Some measures, such as reducing diesel pollution, that do have costs offer added benefits like greatly improving public health.

The current proposal under development in nine states including Maine to cap greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, is estimated to cost only $1 to $3 per ton of avoided carbon dioxide. That translates into economic impacts that are barely noticeable. And supplemented with added energy efficiency investments, personal income and jobs will actually be stimulated as consumers save money on energy bills.

Maine’s Climate Plan generates many opportunities to improve Maine’s economy. Landowners who harvest wood could get paid for carbon- friendly harvesting practices that help “sink” carbon in our forests. Homeowners, businesses and schools could reduce their energy bills dramatically through cost-effective energy efficiency investments. More efficient cars will save consumers money on gasoline. As energy prices rise, renewable power becomes more and more competitive – helping to clean our air and improve health problems like asthma exacerbated by fossil fuel generation.

No longer able to claim that global warming is not happening, opponents of taking action now resort to gloom- and-doom economic scenarios. The Charles River Associates study cited in the Sept. 20 op-ed is an example of this trend – riddled with extreme assumptions that lead to misleading conclusions inconsistent with any of the work completed by Maine or other state climate plans:

. the Charles River study completely ignores the many cost-effective solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions developed in Maine and other states through multi-stakeholder processes supported by extensive economic modeling;

. the study assumes the most expensive option for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases – car-bon capture and sequestration;

. the study did not model a cap and trade system, as is being discussed by the states where only the least cost reductions take place, but rather a command and control system, where all emitters must reduce equally regardless of cost;

. the study didn’t even model the electricity system but simply assumed a price more than 300 times what states project costs will really be in 2015.

Real, practical solutions abound. By investing in more efficient use of electricity, natural gas and home heating oil, consumers will literally save billions of dollars by 2020 in the form of lower energy bills. Those dollars, rather than flowing out of state and to foreign countries, will stay right here. In Connecticut – where the Charles River study appeared a year and a half ago – simply improving home heating oil and natural gas efficiency is predicted to save consumers $3 billion in lower energy bills, create more than 1,800 new jobs and increase gross state product by $2 billion by 2020.

Nearly half of the states and more than 145 mayors have started taking action to reduce global warming emissions. Canada and the provinces are doing the same. Businesses of all sizes are participating by weeding out waste and investing in the technologies of the future. Maine’s economic future and its ability to add jobs is dependent on making our economy more efficient, diverse and productive. Those are exactly the results of sound plans to reduce emissions of global warming pollution.

Daniel L. Sosland is executive director of Environment Northeast in Rockport, a regional environmental research and advocacy organization that focuses on energy and climate policies.