Whatever our view of climate change itself, its severity, cause and all that, it is obvious that if we power civilisation without carbon dioxide emissions then it’s not a problem. Or, even, it was, or could or might have been, but now isn’t. Because the cause of the problem, the carbon dioxide emissions, now is solved.

Which does appear to be the case:

Almost two-thirds of wind and solar projects built globally last year will be able to generate cheaper electricity than even the world’s cheapest new coal plants, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena).

The agency found that the falling cost of new windfarms and solar panels meant 62% of new renewable energy projects could undercut the cost of up to 800 gigawatts (GW) worth of coal plants, or almost enough to supply the UK’s electricity needs 10 times over.

Solar power costs fell by 16% last year, according to the report, while the cost of onshore wind dropped 13% and offshore wind by 9%.

In less than a decade the cost of large-scale solar power has fallen by more than 85% while onshore wind has fallen almost 56% and offshore wind has declined by almost 48%.

As has been noted elsewhere - and this is derived directly from the IPCC work - those gloomier predictions of imminent disaster were derived from a model in which coal consumption increased off into the future. This is not now going to happen. Therefore nor are the gloomier predictions even if they were true to start with, it not being obvious that they were even possible, let alone true, to start with.

That is, assume that the entire canon of climate change is true. The solution is cheap, non-emittive, energy generation. The claim at least that is being made here is that this now exists, cheap and non-emittive, and it that it will naturally be installed as the option of choice off into the future.

Excellent, so, to the extent that we believe what we’re being told about climate change it is now solved, isn’t it?

What problem shall we try to solve next then?