> dwarfed by both the damage from the coronavirus, the threat of overpopulation and the benefits of economic growth (powered by fossil fuels) in Asia Isn't the

> dwarfed by both the damage from the coronavirus, the threat of overpopulation and the benefits of economic growth (powered by fossil fuels) in Asia Isn't the high end of the cost to address climate change now $50 trillion? Seems like a pretty good value to me.