The gift token on this may be view-count gated. If it runs out, you can use an archived copy of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today web.archive.org
I’ll also note that paying the cost of this transition is far lower than dealing with the economic consequences of not engaging in the transition.
Shift some of the oil and gas subsidies to climate-positive projects.
Yes, but that has a real history of being politically difficult
Hot take: the question is foundationally flawed. The long term cost of not doing the transition is “a significant portion of the human population dies due to food scarcity brought on by climate-change-driven crop failures”.
Then again, they’ve probably got a dollar value amount they have worked out for a single human life, inversely proportional to age, and the success criteria is “spend less/make more money” instead of “try not to let billions of people die because we’re too fucking greedy”.