Jamieson points a critical eye toward where we find ourselves with respect to climate change, how we got here, and what we can do going forward. The basis of his thinking can be boiled down to this: human ethics, morality, and institutions were never designed to handle problems such as climate change where cause and effect are distributed across space, time, and actors. For example, it's really hard to think ethically when the impacts of decisions made today may be a thousand years in the future; it's really hard to feel morally culpable for turning up the thermostat even though collectively this may result in the suffering and/or death of uncountable people; and it sounds a bit off when our best economic models claim that European explorers got a raw deal when they bought Manhattan for $24. Human beings were built to react to cause and effect when and where they see it - so one of the key problems with climate change is that it's so hard to see the when and the where (let alone the who).
As far as presentation goes, the bulk of his book reflects on how we got here. Jamieson takes us through the early days of climate science, the recognition of climate change as a problem, and the institution of climate diplomacy. He discusses how climate diplomacy failed due to the disconnects between politics and science, the disconnects between public good and corporate good, etc. He also discusses the limitations of economics when applied to climate change, especially when it comes to valuing present and future lives. The takeaway is that since diplomacy and economics have failed to solve the climate change problem in the past we shouldn't expect them to be the solution going forward.
The next subjects he takes up are ethics and morality. As with diplomacy and economics, he discusses where human ethics and morality fall short when it comes to climate change. He surveys a variety of recent attempts at establishing a new ethics for climate change, but identifies a range of challenges that each must address before any of them can be considered coherent.
The last part of the book looks forward. Unfortunately, this is the shortest (and in my opinion the weakest) part of the book. The chapter titled "Living with Climate Change" is by far the shortest chapter in the book. Jamieson's reflections on measuring meaning in terms of activity (vs. results) and cultivating a respect for nature seem less convincing than any of his earlier arguments (even for someone like me who would emphasize the same). The final chapter provides a Confucian-like "rectification of names", a discussion on how future policy discussions may play out in terms of those names, and also introduces Jamieson's seven principles for the way forward. Readers with an activist bent may find this chapter useful in that it points out how people in climate change discussions often talk past each other by using the same names to mean different things as well as how the conversation will likely turn toward emphasizing "adaptation" and "geoengineering" now when in fact "abatement" and "mitigation" remain critical elements of any solution. His seven principles for the way forward, however, are similar in brevity to his earlier discussions of meaning and respect for nature - so while my previous education allows me to agree with each of his principles, they're not quite the arguments you might use to sway a fence sitter (let alone a staunch denier).
All in all, a great discussion on how we got to where we find ourselves with respect to climate change. The latter part of book that deals with the way forward, while a little weak, can itself be taken as outlining a way forward for further reading (as opposed to being a final word on the subject).