New Statesman: "Why Only Radical Social Transformation Can Avert A Climate Catastrope"

Tail wags dog.

   I don't think you can understand this debate well without understanding that leftist social revolution is, as per usual, the left's real goal, and climate catastrophism is a mere means. 

   In case you hadn't heard, the new IPCC report replaces RCPs with a new "narrative" (God I hate that term) "framework" that combines possible climate scenarios with social ("justice") options:

The five Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) used by climate modellers to predict the future temperature of the earth were first published in 2013. They are, in summary: (SSP1) the world goes smoothly, collaboratively and enthusiastically green and more socially just; (SSP2) the same but too slowly; (SSP3) the world system breaks up into competing regional powers, with each country prioritising its own growth and energy security; (SSP4) global inequality dominates, with high social unrest and poor progress on decarbonisation in the developing world; (SSP5) hyper-neoliberalism, where we just burn carbon and rely on the market, and economic development, to curb population growth and (eventually) find a geo-engineering solution for the burning planet.

You really just can't make this stuff up...

   Here's another 'graph for your consideration:

I think we should reject Climate Bolshevism for the same reasons that we should reject Leninism: it didn’t work. After just three years of War Communism, the Bolsheviks had to lead an organised retreat back to market socialism, only by now they had destroyed all vestiges of workers’ democracy and spontaneous self-organisation.

The reason we should reject "Climate Bolshevism" and Leninism is: they probably won't work. Not their injustice, insanity, and utopian inhumanity... Nope. I mean, if Leninism worked, it'd be just peachy! But, sadly, no. They'll just lead us back to "market socialism" or, worse, the dreaded neoliberalism (dun dun duuunnn...) 

   Jesus, these people.