The amounts are irrelevant, so your snippet is just scare figures. What is relevant is whether the $ spent to save Y metric tons makes sense. The first line of

The amounts are irrelevant, so your snippet is just scare figures. What is relevant is whether the $ spent to save Y metric tons makes sense. The first line of the table on page 7 of your link shows EV Credits were going to cost 168.5 billion to save 1.0 mmt CO2 Emissions. I'm not sure why they mention 20 mmt in your snippet. I tried to find something good to compare against but I'm no expert. From looking at carbon credit prices I suspect that there are better ways to reduce CO2 if you want to spend 168500 million dollars.