We're not talking anymore about measures which require a little bit of tweaking here and there, or a little bit of political tweaking here and there. We're talking about measures which require global revolutionary change ...
And I'm afraid the second uncomfortable message I have to put out to you tonight is that when it comes to dealing with a problem of this scale, small is no longer beautiful. We have to start thinking on the biggest possible terms....
We have very very little time in which to act. We have very very little time in which to bring about the largest economical and political transformation the world has ever seen.
According to Mr Monbiot there is only one possible course of action and that is to accept a global transformation.
Is Mr Monbiot distressed by the thought of massive political and economic change? Well, no. In 2003 he published a book, The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order. One sympathetic reviewer wrote of this manifesto:
Not for him any local, protectionist, small-focus reform initiatives ... Speaking for what he terms the "global justice movement", Monbiot argues for three macro reforms. He wants the establishment of a democratically elected world parliament, an international clearing union to discharge trade deficits and prevent the accumulation of debt, and a fair trade organisation "which restrains the rich while emancipating the poor" ...
He wants to change the way people act and think ("a metaphysical mutation"), and he understands quite clearly the dangerous exultation ("which Christians call joy") that accompanies such intense collective purpose concentrated by adversity.
Monbiot, in other words, believes in a New World Order as a matter of political morality. Little wonder then that he should conclude that global warming requires us to create ... a New World Order.
We need to be careful that global warming doesn't become a means of prising open society for the benefit of a transnational political elite.
Monbiot assumes that it will be the left-liberal elite who will benefit and that global governance will restrain the power of the large corporations. He doesn't seem to have noticed that the corporate elite has also eagerly signed on to the global warming movement. Laying the world open to a transnational elite is arguably just as appealing for them as for globalising leftists.
I'm not suggesting that concerns about the environment should be dismissed. If there is potentially a problem, then accurate data should be collected and the issue debated seriously and openly.
Let's understand, though, that there are those who have other motivations for promoting an alarmist view on the environment.