If you’ve been within earshot of the latest volleys in the climate bill debate, you know things have gotten a bit loud and tense. Ideological even (surprised?). Basically, those that are resisting the push to address climate change with a real program, one with teeth and a cap and trade system, make the same argument we’ve been hearing for years: Trying to fix the environment will be hard on business. And these are tough times, the thinking goes, so we should all sit tight and wait for an economic recovery first. And in the meantime, maybe a miracle or two.

But this is a false argument. There is no reason we can’t create real change in our emissions profile and grow the economy at the same time. In fact, one will likely lead to the other. Here’s how:

According to a McKinsey & Company study from 2007, nearly 40% of the greenhouse gas abatement we’re looking for can be had using proven technology and efficiency measures. AND, these measures will net a negative cost. This means that energy savings in the form of reduced utility bills would totally cover the cost of the programs implemented. All it takes is breaking down some of the persistent barriers to market efficiency, which is one of the key things the climate bill should do. What business out there wouldn’t mind lower operating costs while doing the right thing for the environment?

Secondly, take a look at the Environmental Defense Fund’s interactive Green Jobs Maps at LessCarbonMoreJobs.com. Listed by state are the many existing companies and new technology startups that stand to gain in a new low carbon economy, driving job growth and economic recovery. Yes, these gains for certain businesses are anecdotal, but the logic is sound – A new suite of industries, supported by a government mandate, create new products and services to fulfill the mandate, creating jobs at the same time. If you’re an entrepreneur with a great new technology product, do you want to risk going to market in tough economic times on the hope that your potential clients WANT what you have to offer, or would you rather go to market knowing that they NEED what you have to offer?

Sure things might be tough for a while, and the costs will not be borne equally across the spectrum or over time (estimates from McKinsey put the cost for a variety of measures at additional 0.7 to 2.3 percent of total financing for global capital expenditures. The increase in oil prices in 2008 cost business more than twice that). And in fact there will be some losers too. But when has that not been the case? Isn’t this kind of development, a leap into a new age, what we do over an over in this country? The industrial revolution and the internet revolution both saw old world companies and practices die off, and new ones grow in their place. It will be the same in the carbon revolution.

Tags: climate change, green business, green jobs, greenhouse gas