For some at least. In a piece about how now that policy already means limiting climate change to 2C - that is, announced policies will reach that - we are told this:

But they are also disruptive and at odds with long-running means of maintaining power and making money. Ultimately, limiting heating to below 2C – or 1.5C – demands that we overcome the ideas, economic systems and organisations that enable this power. Tackling this imperative can feel like an overwhelming challenge.

The aim - for those some at least - is to fight the power, not to power civilisation without boiling it.

This, we fear, is why the actual solution, that carbon tax, is not used. For if we were to use the generally agreed by the experts - Stern, Nordhaus, 93% of polled economists, even the IPCC itself in the right chapters of its reports - and efficient method then there would be no need to fight the power to stop the boiling.

Therefore we end up with markedly less efficient policies which do still leave room to call for that overthrowing of The Man. The effect of this is, as the Stern Review itself points out, that we do less to prevent the boiling. For humans do less of more expensive things, more of cheaper. The use of the efficient method would mean more dealing with climate change is done.

Which does lead to an interesting point. Those arguing against a carbon tax - as many indeed do - are in fact arguing for more climate change.