Are politicians and policymakers able to face up to the challenges posed by climate change? Are they even willing to go beyond the superficial and think about what those challenges might be? The answer so far to these questions seems to be a resounding no. But if there are any out there with the courage to take a peek under the hood, they could do a lot worse than Ian Gough’s 2017 book “Heat, greed and human need”.

Human wellbeing has increased since the Second World War, and human health is better today than at any time during human history. But inequality is rising, and all these advances – in life expectancy, public healthcare, education, the escape from extreme poverty – are threatened in the 21^st Century by climate instability.

Gough sets out to explain how the world could avoid this by dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting human wellbeing and social justice at the same time. This is a tall order, requiring a tour around political economics, ecology and climate science, critiques of capitalism and neoliberalism, social policy and politics, along with a positive thicket of ethical and moral conundrums. But the book is clearly written, well argued, and worth the effort.

First, Gough creates a definition of what ‘human need’ is – distinguishing between basic needs (physical and mental health; the opportunity to participate in society) from the conditions which are needed to support them (food and water, housing, economic security etc.). I was interested to reflect on the fact that those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the materially wealthy rich areas don’t necessarily have all of these basic needs met. Gough argues that in an era of radical environmental change caused by humans “meeting people’s needs should be the first priority of justice.”

The problem is that rising temperatures are likely to make this impossible. The world is currently headed for a 4C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Amongst all the sober statistic and caveats in Gough’s book, climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson’s statement that a 4C temperature increase is “incompatible with any reasonable characterisation of an organised, equitable and civilized global community” stands out for its clarity.

We need a different route. The dominant idea in the climate debate is ‘green growth’ – where fossil fuels are replaced by cleaner technologies, energy use becomes more efficient and economies continue to grow. The second half of the book starts by examining the key policies needed to achieve this, from carbon pricing, to green investment and public regulation. The answers aren’t simple. Just putting a cost on carbon, for example, is likely to lead to more inequality, not less. The basic necessities of life, like food and energy, are carbon intensive, while the luxuries are less so – poorer people, who spend more of their income proportionally on these necessities, suffer more.

Gough concludes “radical carbon mitigation will not be achieved through market mechanisms.” We need a stronger role for the state, to both drive serious emissions cuts, and find ways of offsetting their regressive impacts of measures to cut emissions. But even this is nowhere near sufficient for the emissions cuts needed. Perhaps this book’s most interesting insight is the suggestion that we need a staged process to tackling climate change – first, green growth; second, profound changes to consumption patterns; third a shift to a post-growth world.

Conventionally, countries are held to account for emissions from burning fossil fuels within their own borders. But when consumption patterns, including all the food and materials shipped across the world, are taken into account, the picture changes profoundly. From this perspective just 10% of the world’s population – people living in Europe and North America, and richer communities elsewhere – account for 66% of the world’s emissions. Tackling emissions means finding a way of changing how a small proportion of the world are consuming its resources. Gough digs into different ways of doing this – from the need for ‘community deep learning’ as exemplified by the Transition Town movement, to Personal Carbon Allowances (which he says have the potential for ‘rough justice’) to variable VAT on high-carbon products.

Bit by bit this interesting tour leads us to some sacred cows – including the assumption that there is no alternative to continuous economic growth. According to economist Nicholas Stern, if economic growth and population growth were to continue at their current rate, then global carbon emissions per unit of output would have to fall by a factor of seven in just over the next three decades. This means, argues Gough, that we have no alternative but to consider what a ‘post-growth’ or ‘steady state’ economy might look like.

In a post-growth economy, Gough say, labour currently labelled ‘unproductive’ in a capitalist economy – like social services, or protection of the environment – is valued highly for its contribution to society. Falls in population levels are celebrated. A substantial portion of private wealth is taxed or socialised. People work fewer hours. A defining feature of capitalism – private ownership of the means of production – is called into question.

The entire scenario, he admits, “must appear Utopian” – and a long way from our current combination of neoliberalism combined with a messy slide into populism. But engaging in a clear eyed way with these issues requires both hard-headedness and Utopianism. For this reason, I am sad that I suspect not many politicians are likely to read this book. To help them along I’d love to see a short, simply written summary of Gough’s ideas – or maybe a collection of the graphs and figures in one place. Many of them are fascinating.

In the absence of this… if they want to take a break from Brexit, the brave politician (or brave civil servant) would take this book to the beach, and think about how to fix the world’s biggest problem. I dare you.