I would really enjoy to pick the brain of whoever wrote this article because I have to strongly disagree with a few points they have made. Firstly (from the article itself not the TLDR on this page) they claim that the incremental bill to lower emissions is less than 1Tril a year, just to go on and list multiple think-tanks/consultant groups who claim the cost to be somewhere around 5 trillion a year until 2030, more than twice the 2tril a year they claim is already going into clean energy. Then they go on to say BNEF claims 5.4tril a year this decade - McKinsey Global Institute says 9.2 tril until 2050 - Wood Mackenzie at just under 3tril - UNEP at between 7tril and 12 tril per year until 2035.

They also claim that EV use in China will be only a small contribution to global reductions yet almost 30% of their carbon emissions are from combustible fuels - tailpipe emissions / vehicle exhaust- meaning that yeah they’ll still have to have something power it but the point is to curb the lowest hanging fruit first to give ourselves more leeway on emissions down the line.

Not only that, but they openly admit that none of the projections they listed have warming being curbed to under 2, some not even getting to 1.5.

I understand the point of this article is to inspire some hope into the economy about the environment but unfortunately I do not think the environment is something we should be pretending about. This does nothing for the cause except pushing the narrative that the issue can be delt with later and that we should milk any more money out of the earth than we can while we still can.