News cycles being what they are, there is a risk that this week’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will create a stir for a few days and then humanity will continue destroying the planet as usual. This might be cynical, but the science has been unequivocal for decades, yet the world has marched on towards the abyss, ignoring the signals – the heatwaves, tsunamis, the gales, the coral bleaching and the ice cap melts.

Climate change deniers – the vested-interest flat earthers of the day – still get airtime in the media, which is the moral equivalent of putting Hitler on a TV panel to discuss the holocaust. The IPCC, by contrast, brings together the most expert voices in the field from around the globe – 200 authors, 42,000 pieces of evidence…. And every time they produce a report the outlook gets more grim.

What the IPCC is saying is that the planet needs to invest 2.5% of global GDP over the next 20 years to limit global warming to 1.5°C, otherwise we could cross the 1.5°C threshold in just 12 years. These seemingly arbitrary figures mean the difference between coral reefs and no coral reefs, ice caps and no ice caps, and if that is too abstract, let’s go further.

When the permafrost of the tundra melts, clouds of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas, will be released, droughts will cause carbon dioxide trapped in the soil to be released… sea levels will rise as the ice caps melt, and so on and so forth. At what point do we reach the ‘I must do something’ moment?

Let’s look at the cash. What does 2.5% of global GDP buy you? If global GDP is around 75 trillion USD, we spend 2.2% on arms (2016 figures), down from 3.3% in 1992. So, we can find that kind of money when we need to. Nonetheless, it’s a big sum of money, but the sum is going to seriously bigger if we wait, jump off the cliff, finally wake up and then start spending. The message from the IPCC is, do it now, as you will certainly have to spend more later.

Of course, humanity could just shove its collective fingers in it ears and just pretend it’s not happening. On the other hand, it could wake up and take a good hard look at itself. Here are some of the things that I think we might need to collectively re-evaluate if we are serious about saving ourselves.

The time of BIG government has arrived
We need to act fast. Only governments have the power and the resources and the ability to act quickly. We cannot wait for consumers, markets, inventors – we need bold action, investment and legislation as the framework for change. It is only governments that can commit nations to massive cuts in CO2 emissions and authorise the spending needed.

Let ‘the market’ decide?
As Kyoto was signed, the world embarked on a period of free-trade agreements, gripped by a belief that globalisation and markets would find the solutions to all problems. Governments stepped back from ‘interfering’ in the market. Markets were the idea of the day – even to sort out climate change. The European Union created a carbon market – to trade in a commodity that no-one wants – which, after several bits of ‘interference’, is perpetually being hailed as being on the verge of delivering. With 12 years to go, this approach is too slow.

Politics matters
You cannot get away from it, the President of the USA is a climate change denier, busy ripping up US climate change legislation and pulling out of international agreements. This is not just a problem, it’s a catastrophe. A priority to anyone and everyone has to be political change in the US, the world’s richest nation. And Bolsonaro, a one-man environmental car crash, is the front runner in the current Brazilian presidential elections. If he makes it through the second round, the Amazon region – the lungs of the world – is at serious risk of becoming a loggers’ paradise.

In the 12 years to come, nations and people must speak out forcefully against those that threaten further the fragile planet, and when it comes to voting time, vote for those that are actually going to do something.

Polluter pays
There can be no quibbling about who pays for the planet-saving switch. The rich, industrialised nations must pay the lion’s share. Apart from being responsible for most of the emissions to date, through the process of globalisation our nations have outsourced manufacturing, so the emissions of the developing world include ‘our emissions’ for everything produced that we buy.

Growth is not necessarily good and neither is ‘stuff’
We have believed ‘growth is good’ for so long it seems like heresy to question it. Many years ago, a film, ‘The Age of Stupid’ put forward the idea that for everyone to enjoy an average ‘western’ lifestyle, we would need nine planet earths. It is not possible to keep on growing economies in the traditional sense. Do we all need a car? Really? And do we all need endless stuff? Any look at what we put in our bins would indicate we are locked into a cycle of buying and throwing away.

Perhaps we could have a different kind of ‘growth’… less manufacturing and more low-carbon ‘growth industries’ such as health, education and conservation – things that bring real value to people and don’t end up in landfill.

A change of heroes
But how would we pay for it all if we are not growing? Growth is very uneven, 42 individuals own more wealth than half the world, some 3.5 billion people. We could provide for the world with less growth, if we shared what we have already more widely.

I have had enough of reading inspirational mantras from rich individuals who blast cars into space or have uber-expensive hobbies. It’s not the ‘politics of envy’ but the ‘politics of exasperation’. With 12 years to go, can we afford to let so much wealth go to so few?

Corporations – solution or problem?
If we are serious about saving the planet, we need to recognise that some companies will be big winners and some will be big losers. How is a fossil fuel company going to react to the latest IPCC report? How is a renewable energy company going to react? Or a car company? We know the answer. The bottom line is … the bottom line.

This is why, although many companies can help over the next 12 years, they cannot be the driving force of change. A car company will make electric cars, but it will never suggest a switch to public transport. A renewable company will suggest a renewable solution, but is it the best one?

Saving the planet is going to be a bumpy road, companies will go down fighting, jobs will be lost, and other companies will triumph. The important thing is that governments remain above the game, with their eyes on the climate prize.

The difficult bit
And it really is difficult. Seriously thinking about workable solutions means questioning things we hold dear – lifestyle habits, political opinions, everyday certainties. It means individuals not just acting individually, but acting collectively. It might mean thinking differently, acting differently and voting differently. It will mean putting the next generation first, the Maldives ahead of our own country, the planet ahead of our consumer desires.

Or not. 12 years to save the planet, or fiddle while Rome burns.