This is what happens when someone tries to make an economic case for a climate change religion dogmatic position. There are some flawed premises and assumptions; not to mention outright ignorance of major issues beyond the scope of a single country abound. This reads like PR to endorse a bad congressional budget.

I appreciate the contrast of how much we'll spend to recover & rebuild from the COVID pandemic, to what I call the #GlobalCO2Crisis. I believe the article catches the #1 point of the Science article. But since I don't subscribe to Science, I only saw the author's summary, not all the details. And I was disturbed to see the summary's “…differences across countries and regions at differing stages of development emphasize the role that international support and global partnership must play to create conditions that enable a global climate-positive recovery.” The Grist.Org article only mentions another economist's opinions about “political will.” No mention of the challenge of the “international support” or “global partnership.” About 3/4 of CO2 emissions originate outside the US, and there's no proposed mechanism to solve the problem without rich nations helping to restructuring the rest of the world's economies. If the “political will” is missing *within* the US, how will we find the will to deal with Russia's or India's emissions? Anyway, the article's a start, even though it overlooks the elephant in the room.