The claim here is that climate change is already beaten

Whether we wish to believe this claim - or any of the claims on the subject - is another matter. But the claim being made by the International Energy Authority here is that climate change is already beaten:

Slashing CO2 emissions and switching to renewable energy is not a ‘cost’ or a constraint on rising affluence: it lifts global GDP growth by 0.4pc a year over the course of this decade. World output is 4pc bigger in real terms by 2030.

...

It does not raise energy costs: it cuts the average bill for households on heating, cooling, electricity, and car fuel from $2,800 to $2,300 a year by 2030 in advanced countries. From then on it is a canter. The energy share of disposable income halves from 4pc to 2pc by mid-century. It is tantamount to free energy.

Human beings tend to do moire of what makes them richer. They also tend to gravitate to cheaper ways of gaining what they desire. So, if renewable energy, not using fossil fuels, is cheaper and makes people richer then this is what people will do - move from fossil fuels to renewables. Climate change is beaten.

We have mentioned this before. If the claims of the new being cheaper are true - if - then that is the problem dealt with for the above logic is impeccable. This also means that attempts to plan, like the following, are entirely unnecessary:

Gas boilers to 'be banned from 2025' in every UK household

Not just unnecessary but entirely contraindicated for that’s to impose more costs on a process that is happening anyway. If, of course, those claims of reduced costs are true. So too the banning of ICEs, the ethanol mandates and all the other central planning mistakes that festoon our economies.

Of course, it is possible that the claims of cheaper aren’t in fact true:

Net zero does not cost jobs: it replaces five million lost in oil, gas, and coal with eight times as many jobs for engineers, electrical experts, offshore operators, solar technicians, or lithium and rare earth miners, whether directly or indirectly.

Using the labour of 40 million people to power society is a higher price than using the labor of 5 million to do so. Jobs are, after all, a cost, not a benefit.

But this base logic is still true. If this green new world is cheaper then nothing more need be done because it will happen precisely because it is cheaper. Those shouting that we must have the restrictions, the laws, the bans, must be those arguing that it is not, in fact, cheaper.