I'm only on chapter 4, and I'm convinced Wente's concerns are unfounded. She claims Klein ignores "elementary facts" about China and India's role in GHG emissions, but a cursory look at the index of the book reveals a column of page references under the headings of 'China' and 'India.' Klein clarifies that we've outsourced our emissions when we outsourced our factories. I think she gets it.
Klein's not suggesting we just cut emissions growth in the US and Canada, rather she calls for a change worldwide: "Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us" (22). And that's just in the introduction to the book.
The big difference between this movement and the Occupy movement, is that we've been offered a clear and possible solution that can be put in place if people worldwide can convince leaders this is vital to our survival. Yes, that's a big 'if,' but because it's difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted march after march after march.
I question Wente's insistence that, yet again, this can't possibly make sense or work or help anything. I wonder if it's a matter, as Klein suggests, that "it is always easier to deny reality than to allow our worldview to be shattered" (37). But we do have to "grow up," as Wente says, not to see that "climate change is a complex and fiendishly hard problem" as Wente suggests, but instead to see that we have a real choice to make, that we can take this path towards radically decreasing emissions worldwide even though it's going to be hard. It's not the fun choice in the short term, but it's the only choice that gives us a long term.
As Leonardo Dicaprio said at the UN today, we're looking at climate change as a fiction, but we're seeing undeniable evidence of climate change every week that's decades ahead of scientific projections. This disaster has grown beyond individuals and now requires industries taking large-scale action. We must end the free ride that industrial polluters have been given. It's not just achievable, but good economic policy. This is not a partisan debate, but a human one.