If only George Monbiot bothered to read the climate change science

This applies to many more we’re afraid:

His is the latest in a line of books by professional optimists – Gates, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley – who have failed to grasp the nature of either Earth systems or the political economy that bears upon them. These men are not climate deniers; they are politics deniers. They appear to believe that the transformations necessary to prevent systemic collapse can happen without political pressure or political change. Understandably, the media loves them. Nothing fundamental needs to change, we can sit and wait for technological and demographic shifts and everything will work out in the end. A simple story with a happy ending, telling power what it wants to hear, this is the Disney version of environmental science.

Therefore, Monbiot goes on, we need to have a radical political change in order to beat climate change.

Except that’s not what the science says, not at all. In fact, it’s built into all of the models and assumptions used by the IPCC (let’s stick with the idea that that’s the real science here) that technological and demographic shifts will solve the problem. Or at least, can potentially do so.

Going back to the SRES, the base economic models which underpin the entire sector. The A2 (the model Stern used) and B2 models, assuming a regionalised and fragmented global economy, do worse by every measure. More and poorer people with more and worse climate change. So, let’s not do that then, let’s stick with globalisation which does better - the A1 and B1 models. B1 is largely a global social democracy and this again does worse than A1, which is, roughly speaking, globalised free market capitalism - neoliberalism that is. Worse in the sense that the people are poorer at the end of it all.

So, assuming that it’s possible to beat climate change within the A1 series of scenarios that’s the one we should prefer.

As it happens, A1FI is similar to that RCP 8.5 (effectively, it’s the same model) that would all three of be a disaster, is described as business as usual and isn’t going to happen. A1T is that globalised capitalism powered by nuclear and renewables with unconventional oil and gas (ie fracking) as an intermediate stage. Which does indeed solve global warming and does so as well as any of the other models studied.

So, to the extent that we can even try to influence the global economy that’s the one we should plump for. Solving climate change while leaving humanity as best off as it can be while doing so.

If we leave these issues to “the market” and other supposedly automatic processes, we can see what will happen.

Well, maybe, that might happen. Given the way that the IPCC set up those SRES models that is a possible outcome. They are very clear that all of the scenarios are equally possible.

But we’ve decided that we would like to at least attempt to influence that global economy. Which gives us Nordhaus, Stern and 93% of polled economists. In order to maximise that opportunity of taking the A1T path we desire a carbon tax at the social cost of carbon. At which point we’re done. We’ve stuck our oar into the market incentives the once, been as efficient as it is possible to be and thereby flipped the global economy over to that most desirable outcome. Solving climate change while leaving humanity as well off as it is possible to be having done so.

Globalised free market capitalism plus a carbon tax. That is what the science actually says.

Now, it’s possible to disagree with all of the science that underpins the IPCC process, most certainly it is. But if one does so then none of the other conclusions to be drawn from that process are valid either, are they? Can’t go around insisting that climate change is a problem that must be solved if you’re arguing about the evidence and logic that leads to the conclusion that climate change is a problem that must be solved.

This is one of the things that so amazes us about the entire climate change shouting match. The very people who demand that we all act according to the science seem to be the most insistent upon ignoring that science.

Perhaps they’re just ignorant of it?