I am confident that technical solutions exist or can be implemented, but the technical solution is only one part of the problem (as I see it). Producing abundant, clean energy is the supply side. Consuming energy that isn't a fossil fuel presents its own set of problems, led by infrastructure and a massive installed base. The world's installed base of trains, trucks, planes, and cars run on oil. Heating and cooling buildings (offices, factories, homes) is also based mostly on fossil fuels too, as does the whole plastics industry.

Even if fusion started working tomorrow morning, it would take a long time (50 years, most likely) to complete the shift from fossil to fissile to fusion fuel, or sun, wind, and waves. This requires a huge re-assignment of wealth and resources, and a huge organizational project.

The Axis and Allied powers massively reassigned productive resources to wage WWII, but even massive climate change doesn't seem to quite match a major war for motivation. There is a vast amount of wealth all over the planet invested in fossil energy production and consumption. Disinvesting and reinvesting will also take a long time--before large amounts of production and consumption can change.

BTW, the developing world has the smallest installed base; in some ways they are in a much better position to shift gears than the developed world is.

[we] face being literally impaled by a nut screaming Allahu Akbar — Thorongil

And we really, really hate it when that happens. If anyone out there has a sure fire method of predicting who the next Allahu Akbar-screaming jihadist lunatic will be, please notify your local defense department.

your posh, materialistic lifestyle and rampant consumerism — Thorongil

Or our posh, materialistic lifestyle and rampant consumerism? If you missed out on the lavish, luxurious lifestyle that the rest of this philosophizing crew rolls around in, I am sorry you were standing in the wrong line.

Greens, and human beings in general, face being literally impaled by a nut screaming Allahu Akbar, which is much more imminent than whatever is supposed to happen due to climate change.

Really?

What would you say the odds are of your being killed by a militant jihadist? And how does that compare to your odds of being killed by a car, a preventable disease, a drive-by shooting, a police shooting (silly me, reaching for my wallet to show my licence) or a workplace accident?

Sources for probabilities quoted would be of special interest.

What would you say the odds are of your being killed by a militant jihadist? And how does that compare to your odds of being killed by a car, a preventable disease, a drive-by shooting, a police shooting (silly me, reaching for my wallet to show my licence) or a workplace accident? — andrewk

None of those things have to do with climate change.

I meant the industrialized world and the aspirations of the developing world, summarized and spoken to in the second person, since I don't live or care about such a lifestyle. I want nothing to do with it.

I meant the industrialized world and the aspirations of the developing world — Thorongil

Some people think that we should all aspire to a lifestyle of high consumption, and that with cheap and clean energy, there will be enough of everything for everybody.

An old joke (from the 1960s...

First the good news: The water is 100% polluted.
Now the bad news: There won't be enough to go around.

Even IF we had as much cheap clean energy as we wanted, we can not conjure fish from the sea that are not there, grain from harvests that have failed, and apples from orchards for which there are no bees. The mass of the earth may have more of every mineral than we could possibly use, but that doesn't mean it can be extracted without high cost in terms of capital, pollution, destruction. No environment will support an indefinite number of people living high consumption lifestyles.

So, "the lifestyle you want nothing to do with" might be the lifestyle which we should all have nothing to do with, if we are to make it through to the other side.

The view that we should live with less materiel is anathema to many. "No, no, no." they say; "technology can solve all supply problems. There will be enough for everybody's wants and wishes." The only reasonable response to this approach is "Bullshit!"

What aspirations can be met, should be met, and what can not be met is something that we really need to settle.

Some people think that we should all aspire to a lifestyle of high consumption — Bitter Crank

I'd say most people think this, sadly.

As David Harvey says, the current economic system is predicated on 3% annual growth forever, which is impossible given the finite resources of the planet, some of which are nearing complete exhaustion. This means that at some point, probably several decades from now, we will be forced into thinking about a zero growth economy.

In the meantime, let's please try and get as many people and countries on board with the secular rule of law and the respect for human rights.

None of those things have to do with climate change.

Neither do terrorists, so why did you bring them up?

It was just a general comment. You'll notice it wasn't directed toward anyone in particular.

Btw, if you highlight a piece of text, a quote button will appear and allow you to quote someone so it's clear who wrote what.

As David Harvey says, the current economic system is predicated on 3% annual growth forever, which is impossible given the finite resources of the planet, some of which are nearing complete exhaustion. This means that at some point, probably several decades from now, we will be forced into thinking about a zero growth economy.

In the meantime, let's please try and get as many people and countries on board with the secular rule of law and the respect for human rights. — Thorongil

Totally agree.

I care not a whit whether the Spectator is right wiing, left wing, or something else. Its analysis of the contemporary Left is sadly true.

The left is definitionally pro working class.

The problem recounted in the article is that people and organizations that used to be left have drifted right in their old age, and don’t recognize that.

There are still people advocating for the working class, who are to the left of what the establishment considers “the left”.