The monies that Tera Johnson writes about are petty leftovers from real money that are in the play. Figuratively speaking they are crumbs that fell off the table at which real powers involved in the climate change do business.

The main issue is that regardless haw real the actual dangers of the climate change are, all the reasonable evidence suggest that even if we spend all the money we have, we cannot stop it, or even mitigate it in any meaningful degree.

The main money issue is that whatever we supposed to do in order to stop or at least mitigate the climate change, we do not have these money. Hence, if we want to do anything meaningful, as restructuring the combustive fuels based energy industry — we need to borrow the money. With most of governments already in deep debt, many resolutely question this path.

Big financiers love to lend money to governments, because governments can always raise taxes in order to pay debts. And usually they do. In the past, loaning money to run wars was the preferred method. The war in Iraq could be a good example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War. But this war also exhausted the patience and willingness of the public to support a new war. Hence, the biggest worldwide financiers created a climate change scare, so the public, as Ms. Tera Johnson advocate for increased government spending, on credit.

In short, it is not about climate change, it is in justifying a reason for our government to go into deeper debt.