We’re seeing a smart change in how to talk about global warming. Debating it as a moral problem or pointing to the scientific consensus is clearly not enough to convince politicians to commit to broad greenhouse gas reductions. So, instead, the White House is reframing it in language that most people should understand—the economy.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers’ new report on Tuesday describes climate change in these terms, showing exactly why inaction is bad policy. For every decade the U.S. waits to enact climate policy, the report finds the net cost rises 40 percent, with costs rising substantially over time. The more ambitious the target, the bigger the cost procrastination incurs, as it becomes harder with every year to achieve the same goal.

And if we do wait too long, and global temperatures exceed 2 degrees Celsius warming to 3 degrees or 4 degrees warming, the Gross Domestic Product is going to take a hit. The economists say that damages from 3 degrees Celsius would reduce GDP by 0.9 percent worldwide. For the U.S., that would mean about $150 billion lost each year.

All this helps frame climate action as taking out insurance today against the worst of global warming’s impacts, just like a responsible homeowner would buy insurance. Putting numbers to the cost of inaction takes aim directly at a classic Republican rebuttal—that it’s better to wait for the so-called “unsettled science” to settle on exact timing and magnitude of global warming’s consequences.

“If anything, we understate the cost of delay,” Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Jason Furman told reporters on a press call Monday.