Photo: BBC World Service (flickr)

Recently, decades of climate change warnings seem to have gained traction in political circles. Long-overdue conversation about the environment is finally underway; but is political will enough to enact environmental legislation in the face of a full-fledged economic crisis?

California is seen as one of the U.S.’s environmental leaders, having been one of the first states to pass a cap-and-trade model requiring businesses to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a certain level or pay fees if they generate more than the limit. But resistance to these efforts has increased as the economy declines, with some of California’s businesses and manufacturers saying that they are unable to afford the costs of the new legislation. According to state budget analysts, the up-front costs of this legislation are more than $30 billion, which outpace any initial savings generated from the law. These same state officials claim that, by 2020, a yearly savings of $40 billion will more than make up for this initial cost. Other analysts have openly derided these figures, however, calling them “unrealistic,” and maintaining that costs will be far higher than the forecasted estimates.

The U.S. isn’t the only country that is wrestling with this problem. Low-income countries are also wondering if their environmental efforts will be cut short due to global economic woes. In Bangladesh, a country vulnerable to global warming-induced natural disasters, the government is developing an ambitious plan to protect the country from rising sea levels, cyclones, and droughts. Estimated costs for this plan are $5 billion for the first five years, with a good chunk of the funding coming from international donors. Now, faced with economic uncertainty in their own countries, it’s not clear that donors will come through with funds to support these efforts.

Stopping or undoing environmental damage is an expensive prospect, with large upfront costs and no definitive reassurance that initial investments will pay off quickly. With daily reminders of the global economic slowdown, nearly every country is exercising more caution in choosing their investments. As a result, it’s uncertain whether local, national and international communities will be able to keep in mind that the long-term benefits of prompt environmental action surely outweigh the short-term costs. With scientists issuing dire warnings about global warming-related “floods, drought, disease and extreme weather,” ignoring these predictions is too risky a gamble to make.