No, every analysis shows that dealing with the problem front and center will require huge amounts of resources and labour. That's not the same thing as benefiti

No, every analysis shows that dealing with the problem front and center will require huge amounts of resources and labour. That's not the same thing as benefiting the economy. There's a well-known problem in economics known as the broken window fallacy. Suppose someone wakes up and notices their window has been smashed. They have to get a glazier in to replace it. Even though this helps to employ someone and causes economic activity, it makes no sense to argue that breaking windows helps the economy - that person has had to spend money to get back to where they would be if their window hadn't been broken that could otherwise be put to use actually improving their life. Much like the broken window fallacy, aggressive climate change action involves throwing vast amounts of resources at hopefully getting to the the same point we're already at and providing things we already have, but hopefully with less CO2 emissions. Those resources then cannot be used for other things. Economically speaking, this makes everyone worse off in order to reduce CO2. There's not really any way around that. The press like to spin all the green jobs action against climate change will create as proof it will benefit the economy, but that's just not how things work.