You seem to understand the nature of the Gordian knot of energy, climate, money and politics, and it is quite the tangle! That's why I argue that magma energy needs to be developed as a global good. This would be governments opting to develop magma energy specifically to tackle climate change, by providing the energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle - on a global scale. It would not be - at least not right away, a competitor to fossil fuels. Hopefully, in this way - the conflict of interest can be sidestepped.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am Without a massive change in the way money controls interests fossils fuels will always be mined and traded whilst they represent an immediately cheaper means of providing energy. This is not going to come from the libertarian West. The maybe a chance that a country that has the potential for a single minded ideologial interest could make that change. But that would mean such an entity would have to have global control of markets. Such an entity would have to put the interests of the ecological future above the interests of economics.
I'm certainly attempting to form a plan that truncates the massive changes that need to be made, because they are an obstacle. I'm not in denial, but I am trying to decouple up front infrastructure costs from environmental benefits; for example - the UK is planning to phase out petrol powered cars from 2030. There are approximately 30 million cars on the roads, and approximately 10,000 charging points. You see the problem!
Quite aside from suddenly sourcing transport energy from the national grid, that's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built up front - before so much as a whiff of carbon is prevented. That's far worse in terms you consider prohibitive of my approach, and yet it's happening - sort of, in a haphazard way. It may be counter intuitive to suggest there's an easier way that will also be more effective - but that's precisely what I am suggesting; cutting the Gordian Knot with magma energy - developed outside the energy market as an intergovernmental approach to tackling climate change. It will buy us time, give us the energy to mitigate and adapt to climate change - and so not require trashing wholesale social and industrial infrastructure to achieve environmental benefits.
I sympathise with your assessment of the current situation, but maintain you don't quite appreciate (yet) why developing magma energy is the right answer, or how - the way in which I suggest it is developed avoids many of these problems. You do know these people; politicians, bankers, businessmen - are human beings? They are acting on climate and the environment insofar as they can. I see windmills popping up along the coast, plans for electric vehicles, insultation in lofts, energy rating stickers and all sorts of things. The will to address this issue clearly exists in spite of capitalist economic interest. All I'm suggesting is channelling that willingness into what I believe would be a more effective, less disruptive approach - that hasn't previously been considered because it lies outside the national and capitalist economic ideological framework of decision making, and is not premised upon the mistaken assumption of a limit to resources.