1. No, that is huge in a vacuum. If there were a no-cost/no-tradeoff way to save 7% of deaths then it would be a huge priority. 2. Obviously, ending use of fos

1. No, that is huge in a vacuum. If there were a no-cost/no-tradeoff way to save 7% of deaths then it would be a huge priority. 2. Obviously, ending use of fossil fuels is nowhere near no-cost/low-tradeoff. So abandoning fossil fuels probably would not reduce deaths by 7%. Or possibly even cause a lot more death especially in the short term. But again, if it did, that would be a huge deal.