ttbn,

>The IPCC’s modelled pathways show that US $2.4 trillion must be invested in new clean energy
>every year up to 2035, an almost sevenfold increase on the $333.5 billion invested in
>renewable energy in 2017. In total, we’re looking at aggregate investment of $48 trillion.
That sounds about right.
As an engineer, big numbers don't scare me. Do they scare you?

>The interest bill alone (at say 5 per cent pa)
Ah, the old trick of using an unnecessarily high interest rate!

>would be $200 billion per month – more than the whole world currently
>spends on childhood education and environmental protection combined.
Spending less on renewable energy won't make more money available for childhood education or environmental protection, though increasing the renewable energy spend would probably reduce air pollution, and so probably reduce the need to spend so much on environmental protection.

>All this pain for no gain.
On the contrary, the gain would be enormous! Much less would need to be spent on fossil fuels. And check out what the world currently spends on fossil fuel subsidies – you'd better google it yourself, as you won't believe ti coming from me!

>And the pain will be suffered by ordinary consumers.
And the gain will be enjoyed by ordinary consumers.