As it becomes ever more obvious that greens are part of the problem, not the solution, narratives are being revised in an attempt to salvage some dignity.

Just one problem. Winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism's sacred cows. We can afford to ignore neither the carbon-free electricity supplied by nuclear energy nor the transformational potential of genetic engineering. We need to take advantage of the energy efficiencies offered by urban density. We must accept that the world's fastest-growing economies won't forgo a higher standard of living in the name of climate science — and that, on the way up, countries like India and China might actually help devise the solutions the planet so desperately needs.

Wrong answer. Replacing a raft of nonsense narratives with another equally nonsensical narrative, however grand in scope, is no help. The argument seems to be a replay or spin-off of Stewart Brand's environmental heresies position of a couple of years ago. 10 heresies are listed.

1. Live in cities
2. Air conditioning is OK
3. Organic is not the answer
4. Farm Forests
5. China is the solution
6. Accept genetic engineering
7. Carbon trading doesn't work
8. Embrace nukes
9. Used cars - not hybrids
10. Prepare for the worst

Each point has a short, airy justification article, none of which can stand much critical scrutiny. It's a puff piece not a serious discussion, but being green isn't about serious, it's fashion. There are serious arguments that support and/or undermine each of the heresies. Science is harder than fashion, and almost never yields unambiguous answers.

Fashion isn't the only victim of reality, politics is having a hard time as well as scrutiny turns certainty to mush.

If the developing countries did not grow, then safe levels of emissions would be achieved by reducing advanced country emissions by a factor of two or a little more. But with the growth of the developing countries, the incremental emissions are very large because of the size of the populations. To take the extreme case, if the whole world grew to advanced country incomes and converged on the German levels of emissions per capita, then to be safe from a warming standpoint, emissions per capita would need to decline by a factor of four. Reductions of this magnitude with existing technology are either not possible, or so costly as to be certain of slowing global and developing country growth.

What these calculations make clear is that technology is the key to accommodating developing country and global growth. We need to lower the costs of mitigation. Put differently, we need to build more economic value on top of a limited energy base. For that we need new knowledge.

This is from a report issues by the World Bank and UK government: Strategies For Sustained Growth And Inclusive Development. Emissions reductions won't suffice. We don't know how to handle this threat at this time. That has been obvious for a very long time, but it was taboo to say it since so much political capital had been invested in control regimes and carbon schemes. There has been some recent discussion of this problem too. Once bad policies are implemented it is very difficult to reform them since so many become dependent on them. Biofuel subsidies are a common example - a lot of money has been invested, careers have been built. Carbon trading is another.

So what does this new report that recognizes the need for new plans recommend? Nine steps, though twelve would have been more appropriate.

1. advanced economies should cut emissions first
2. generous subsidies should be paid to energy-efficient technologies and carbon reduction technologies
3. Advanced economies should strive to put a price on carbon
4. The task of monitoring emissions cuts and other mitigation measures should be assigned to an international institution
5. Developing countries, while resisting long-term target-setting, should offer to cut carbon at home if other countries are willing to pay for it.
6. Developing countries should promise to remove fuel subsidies
7. All countries should accept the dual criteria of efficiency and fairness in carbon mitigation. In particular, richer countries, at or near high-income levels, should accept that they will each have the same emissions entitlements per head as other countries.
8. Developing countries should educate their citizens about global warming.
9. International negotiations should concentrate on agreeing to carbon cuts for more advanced economies, to be achieved 10 or 15 years hence.

Same old, same old. It's very hard to reform even when the failure of past approaches is admitted. We end up with nonsense recommendations to make symbolic gestures that will do little if anything to help, and may even make things worse.

Climate change isn't a political problem, it's a technological problem, so it is no surprise that policy proposals make no sense. But what can politicians do? They have to do something, they have to at least do some rituals and talk a lot, because their jobs and credibility depend on maintaining an illusion of competence, or at least good intentions.

Expect politics, like green fashion, to continue to unravel. But also expect the tattered condition to be largely ignored. Eyes will be averted to protect virtue and modesty. It's like in the movies: monsters never truly die since that would end the series, kill the franchise.