My point is that the "2% is not useful" statement, applies the wrong logic to the problem at hand. in fact, 2% of global energy is a significant single-change outcome, irrespective.

I used the homelessness problem because it has a $cost at scale which people see as intractable. The wisdom of fixing it by throwing money at it, rather than throwing money at lawyers to overturn the stupid planning issues is a different question.

Actually, throwing $1.5b to the homeless would probably work pretty well.