So there is no excuse for continued inaction.

The consequences of inaction would be a threat to future generations.

Besides, is inaction a real alternative?

In this crisis, intention takes a back seat to action (or lack thereof).

The cost of inaction would be considerably higher than the required investment.

But we have to understand the consequences of wringing our hands instead of putting them to work.

The time was past to seek comfort in denial or to pretend that any nation could stand alone, isolated from the global community, as no country could escape from the consequences of inaction.

The G 8 is now reaping the consequences of its inaction.

The scale of the violence in Syria underscores the risk implied by inaction.

Inaction in other areas will be bad news for many.

But the long term nature of this challenge must not lull us into inaction.

But failure to act now will only raise the price of delayed action at some moment in the future.

The Taliban and its backers bear the responsibility for the consequences of that outrageous act.

The pressure on policymakers to address the risks of divergence will increase next year.

Germany s Angela Merkel says it makes economic sense to cut CO2, because the the economic consequences of inaction will be dramatic for us all.

It is based on comparing the cost of action with the cost of inaction, and almost every major politician in the world uses it.

But even the most reluctant policymakers recognize that the cost of inaction is too great.

The risk of inaction or inappropriate action has reached enormous proportions.

This lack of action reflects the increased complexity and linkages of the global financial system, and the absence of an effective anchor for financial stability.

In fact, he forecasted that the price of doing nothing could even approach 20 of GDP.

The Price of Inaction

The failed rescue of Lehman Brothers was a game changing event financial markets actually ceased to function.

The costs of inaction are morally and economically untenable.

Twenty years later, with the stakes even higher, we can no longer afford inaction.

But not acting, in effect accepting Iran s nuclear might, risks bringing about a more dangerous and possibly costlier future.

The United States ill considered bio fuels subsidy program demonstrates how not to react.

President Lyndon Johnson, when deciding to escalate US intervention in Vietnam, drew an analogy with Munich, when the failure to respond to Hitler s aggression had catastrophic consequences.

But Barroso s punchline was that the cost is low compared to the high price of inaction.

Indeed, failure to publish research results is by far the most common and worrying form of scientific and ethical misconduct in health research and it has had lethal consequences.

Misusing the Inaction Argument

The inaction argument is really terribly negligent, because it causes us to recommend aspirin and lose sight of smarter actions that might actually save the leg.

Inaction or delay would be disastrous for the climate, but it would also be disastrous economically.

The cost of inaction or merely pretending to act is likely to be high for everyone in the Middle East.

China s mixture of inaction with a mercantilist approach to its Third World trading partners attests to the hypocrisy of its foreign policy.

Failure to act quickly on this program would leave China far too vulnerable to the inevitable next shock in a crisis battered world.

Turning its back in the face of such challenges is no longer a viable American option.

Failure to take such action can entail the risk of serious consequences.

There is nothing we can do now to compensate for failures to manage risks in the past.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has gone on record with the exact same words. In the United States, both John McCain and Barack Obama use the cost of inaction as a pivotal reason to support carbon cuts.

It is to be hoped that it will not take us that long this time given the level of global interdependence, the costs would simply be too high.

The Rio Treaty in 1992 called for common but differentiated actions by developing nations, not inaction.

Nor is the global financial crisis a justification for the world s leaders failing to keep their word.

Failure to make that effort could expose all of our countries and populations to this disease.

Presumably, none of this will happen, and it is precisely such inaction that is, in large part, the cause of Russia s strength and Europe s weakness.

In other cases, a lack of clarity as to the rules of when intervention can occur has resulted in tragic inaction, as was witnessed during the Rwandan genocide.