The answer is probably not.
Let's look at where he has his numbers from first. The 2% come from the IPCC report which states:
Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate.
Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors.
With these recognized limitations, the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (±1 standard deviation around the mean) (medium evidence, medium agreement). Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range (limited evidence, high agreement).
Additionally, there are large differences between and within countries.
Losses accelerate with greater warming (limited evidence, high agreement),
but few quantitative estimates have been completed
for additional warming around 3°C or above.
Estimates of the incremental economic impact of emitting carbon dioxide lie between a few dollars and several hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon 60 (robust evidence, medium agreement). Estimates vary strongly with the assumed damage function and discount rate.
This indeed says that the estimated global economic loss of income is between 0.2 and 2.0% for an increase in temperature of 2°C. Which is (from the same report) in the high-emission scenario going to be around 2050.
It also says however that this is difficult to estimate and that for higher temperature increases, there are few estimates.
Now where do the 11% that policies will cost come from? It's from another IPCC report:
Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs (Table SPM.2, green segments). Under these assumptions, mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2 eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as co‐benefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation — of 1% to 4% (median:1.7%) in 2030, 2% to 6% (median:3.4%) in 2050, and 3% to 11% (median:4.8%) in 2100 relative to consumption in baseline scenarios that grows anywhere from 300% to more than 900% over the century.
These numbers correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median:0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth
in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year.
So the report concludes on a reduction of 3% to 11% in consumption in 2100 or more clearly on a annual consumption growth that it is slightly reduced (0.04 to 0.14 (median:0.06) percentage points).
Now, of course comparing a reduction of the consumption rate to a loss of income is comparing apples and oranges. The conclusion that the costs of climate policies are five time highers than the benefits cannot be drawn from those numbers.
Other than that there are other aspects why the reasoning is false. For instance it does not take into account the costs of not taking action now will have on the time after 2080, where if no action is taken, the temperature will continue to grow (see the IPCC report).
Further information can be found on this article on the Skeptical Science blog with additional sources.