In an article on FastMoney.com, head of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri was quoted as saying that the current costs undertaken by companies looking to cut their carbon footprint “would be negative overall because of the monetary benefits of cutting carbon emissions.” This comes on the heels of an announcement last week that discount retailer Wal-Mart  would be instituting a “sustainability index” for all products on the shelves.

Pachauri also “claims technologies like plug-in hybrid cars and biofuels will shield consumers from rising oil prices, alternative energy sources will lead to energy security, and other climate change security measures could create new jobs, lead to more productive agriculture, and lower air pollution.”

Although this position may seem a bit obvious, especially for a panel whose sole purpose is to encourage the titans of industry, retail, and global manufacturing to adopt similar measures to the ones taken by Wal-Mart, it points to changing attitudes across the board. Even companies whose market share could be negatively affected in the short term by such changes in their business models are “taking immediate steps.” One such company is Exxon, whose brand name may be synonymous to many with the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez. Exxon has spent nearly $600 million on research into algae-based biofuel.

In terms of the overall cost estimates of addressing climate change, the numbers have been high. According to the Gazette’s coverage of the IPCC announcement, “the 2006 Stern report concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he has since said 2% is now more likely.” But even with those estimates, the costs of inaction would inevitably be far greater, as resources dwindle and the long-term impacts on the environment are felt.