What a mix of sense and rubbish. The sense is the sensible concern about climate change and is well expressed with “” when politicians say they’re committed to staying below 2°C of warming, they’re usually full of shit””.
The dubious part is extrapolating climate change from weather events — a very basic knowledge of history is all you need for weather events that make anything in the last decade seem minimal — try the 1703 great storm in Europe or the drought in USA before Europeans arrived that judging by tree ring data lasted a couple of years and hit most of the SW of USA or maybe the snowfall in Australia that blocked railways from Melbourne to Brisbane ~ sometime in the 1890s.
First problem with the analysis is not realising climate change with all its terrors is only a subset of our destruction of the environment (I was tempted to say our God given environment but I’m an atheist) and that has mainly been caused by simply too many people. The total weight of human beings and our domestic animals now out weighs all the fish, birds and animals by a ratio of 99 to 1. Then is second problem is his ‘lets blame capitalism’. Solve capitalism and you solve climate change? Think again. Only capitalism generates the wealth needed to do anything serious. Places with no capitalism have not proved themselves to value the environment — Russia and China and very big places and not easy to destroy but their communist governments sure tried hard. Check the Caspian sea and the sea of Aral, check the nuclear waste, check the pollution of the yellow river, etc.
The most sensible book about climate change was written by a left wing American: Jim Flynn. He points out that controlling emissions with current technology is virtually impossible unless the developed western countries force the developing world to stop developing and that is unacceptable on moral grounds and probably impossible anyway. His solution is we should be searching for technical solutions (all those seeding the oceans ideas) — he is not expert on technology and I doubt anyone is (although Elon Musk might have the confidence to claim he is) but his suggestion that the developed world needs to invest in research is the best sense I’ve read. Just a small fraction of the money spent building levees and putting out fires would be a major step forward. Of course Jim Flynn is ignored because he is not a climate scientist (doesn’t claim to be either) and mainly because the climate change warriors just don’t like his acceptance that however hard the west tries (under any system of govt) emissions worldwide will get worse. You only have to check the per capita emissions by country; compare those large undeveloped countries with the figures for countries that are wealthy and trying really hard — say Norway or Germany. Can you honestly say the developed world cannot have fridges for their medicines? No buses to take kids to school?
The idea that people like the author who have won life’s lottery and are wealthy and educated people should be despairing is an insult to those who have a hard time putting food in front of their kids. Ask your great-great-grandparents — from the beginning of time until the 1850s every time a woman was pregnant she played russian roulette with death in childbirth; and they didn’t despair.