As i see it now we have two main issues and two approaches.
First issue is inequity and the proposal is growth of the economy in order to create jobs.
The second is climate and the approach is to seriously constrain the economy because economic activity creates more co2.
These are at war with each other, a war that limits success for both problems.
I see two most plausible scenarios.
First narrative is drift into what Tainter called The collapse of complex societies. He proposes that as societies grow more complex maintenance costs go up faster. But worse, the infrastructure is usually owned by the elites and, when the system gets in trouble, instead of paying to repair it they cut costs in order to protect themselves.
Second narrative is draconian moves to cut fossil fuel use to zero in order to stay under a 2° rise in world temperatures. This would have drastic affects on for example the food supplies. It is not clear with this scenario that enough technology innovation would remain in place to do the sequestration necessary to pull out of the atmosphere existing CO2 that will continue global warming.
Given these dire alternatives, can we propose a third alternative that can survive obvious criticism?
We cannot avoid that something will happen. Lets work to make it the best possible, even if it is not going to be very good.
GardenWorld Politics - the book 