Several respondents highlighted that the costs of inaction are high and that the costs of acting should be compared to the future cost of not acting, or otherwise emphasised that it is less costly in the long-term to act now (NatureScot, Stirling Council, RCPE, South Lanarkshire Council, SCCS) For example, RCPE highlighted the health costs of not acting, and SCCS pointed to recent research which has shown the costs of action compared to the costs of inaction: “a recent OBR [Office of Budget Responsibility] report shows very clearly that the cost of cutting emissions to net-zero is significantly smaller than the economic damages of failing to act.