Here's my top 5 things to know about these types of estimates of the reduction in economic growth from climate action: (1/6) https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1327009233720799234

1. They don't account for our ability to use climate policy to improve the economy in ways we might not do otherwise, like investing in crumbling infrastructure, accelerating innovation, or using carbon pricing revenue in pro-growth ways (2/5)

2. They ignore the economic benefits of emissions reductions from local pollution and from climate change. That includes not only things like health benefits, but also improvements in labor participation and productivity, especially in frontline communities (3/5)

3. They assume we use efficient policies that perfectly target low-cost emissions reductions. In reality we're more likely to see a less efficient and more costly patchwork of policies. (4/6)

4. Economy-wide models typically cannot account for localized transition costs. In many places coal communities are the most extreme example of this, by far. (5/6)

5. They rely on models are that uber-conservative about technological progress and behavioral change, and therefore highly likely to be overestimating economic costs over the next century.

But, other than that, these estimates are great .
What did I miss?