Despite predictions of economic ruin, new EPA rules on global warming will pose little cost to the economy, argues New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Just look at the numbers from the rules' opponents, he says.

A report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, attempting to paint of picture of regulatory ruin, asserts the carbon-reduction program will cost $50.2 billion a year between now and 2030.

Editor’s Note: Pastor Explains His Biblical Money Code for Investing

The chamber wants you to think that's a lot of money.

"Instead, if you know anything about the U.S. economy, it sounds like Dr. Evil intoning 'one million dollars.' These days, it's just not a lot of money," Krugman writes, pointing out the U.S. has a $17 trillion economy that's growing even larger over time.

Despite its spin efforts, the chamber actually argues the U.S. can take real action on global warming while reducing our incomes by just one-fifth of 1 percent, he says. "That's cheap."

The chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy estimates the rules will cost each household $200 a year. Not too much for the average American household earning $70,000 a year.

Krugman questioned the chamber's estimates, saying they're on the high side for several reasons.

Growth in emissions will probably be slower than it estimates since economic growth will slow as baby boomers retire, which will make emissions targets easier to reach.

The chamber's study doesn't take into account the increasing use of renewable energy like solar power.

And since the economy is still depressed and many workers are still idle, decreasing carbon emissions will actually increase economic growth. For instance, building new, low-emission power plants would create jobs.

The chamber, Krugman charges, is serving special interests, especially the coal industry and "the ever more powerful anti-science sentiments of the Republican Party."

"Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy.

"Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap."

The rules will probably be challenged in court, reports The Wall Street Journal. The agency is relying on a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act since carbon dioxide isn't regulated under any Clean Air Act.

The rule change "is in many ways unprecedented, so it will attract a challenge to its core," Jody Freeman, a Harvard University law professor and former White House adviser, tells the Journal.

The rules will require coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emission but will give the companies and states broad flexibility in how they limit overall emissions in what's effectively a cap-and-trade system.

Editor’s Note: Pastor Explains His Biblical Money Code for Investing

Related Articles:

• 'Time Running Out' as CO2 Levels Hit New High: UN
• Kerry Calls on College Graduates to Face Down Climate Change