Experts issue warning after calculating hidden cost of wildfires for every household: 'People often incorrectly assume the cost is zero'

A recent study by the University of Oregon tallied the dollar value of damage caused by climate shifts to residents of the state.

What are the costs of rising global temperatures in Oregon?

The report estimates that every household in Oregon is spending up to $3,900 each year to contain and recover from wildfires. Smoke from wildfires is costing households $450 for every day of exposure. This comes as heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere are costing Oregonians $12,000 in personal income per year.

Calculating those figures required looking at direct losses, such as the cost of a house burning down. The report also factored costs a few degrees removed from residents. Other goods and services don't typically have dollar values associated with them. These "nonmarket" costs were central to the study and included lost time, declines in health, and deaths.

"If they don't see a market price, people often incorrectly assume the cost is zero, and they look away from it," report co-author Ernie Niemi said.

Why are climate costs important?

The bottom line is that it's cheaper to invest in mitigation now than it is to pay for adaptation later.

"Action we take today to both reduce climate-damaging emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change will have a measurable impact on these costs," the report stated. "Our goal in compiling this report is to highlight that existing work provides a sound and reasonable basis for public investments in climate interventions. While some interventions may come with a substantial price tag, the cost of inaction is even greater." 

Watch now: How bad is a gas stove for your home's indoor air quality?

The report used data on heat and human health, wildfires, air quality, freshwater supplies, ocean acidification and heating, ecosystem health, and global disruptions to tally various costs.

How research helps with climate costs

The study also dug into "counterfactual" data. Since it looked at additional costs, the research needed to be relative to another scenario. That was one with fewer extreme weather events exacerbated by human-made pollution.

This counterfactual data is how costs were calculated, and it represents a more optimistic future. Researchers were hoping this framing and the associated monetary savings could mobilize people to take action, if only to improve their bottom lines.

"State, local, and federal governments; businesses; and the international community are trying to figure out how big of a deal climate change is and how much do we need to invest to prevent it and adapt to it," co-author Keaton Miller said. "It's really hard to make policy decisions without having some idea of what the costs are if you do nothing."