Along the way, over the next 10-30 years we will have replaced most major fossil burning things - the only way you will be able to compete with PV power is if you're sitting right on top of a gas field in a location with little sunlight and no grid connection.

Incidentally, with ever-falling battery storage costs, I'd assume the need for large interconnect buildout to be diminishing, but there's lots of inertia in that system so societies might end up with some underused assets. Still better than all the stranded assets I suppose, but still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Awa_Maru

- "The authoritarian infrastructure will be built"

I'd argue it already has been built, by Google, NSA et al. Also, I fail to see why these "high levels of government regulation" would be bad, since we've tried the alternative and it obviously doesn't work..

- "The Green New Deal has turned into a jobs program."

I'm no american, but has this been put into law already?

- "the Soviet Union was immensely energy inefficient and polluting"

I do hear that from time to time but no one can provide any sources for this claim. Can you? Not planning on protecting the ol' USSR, but still seems insincere to just throw this around without attribution.

- "Increasing middle class prosperity is inherently incompatible with reducing carbon output."

That's a pretty flat statement. Why would this be so?

- "the Global Climate Strike platform categorically rejects market mechanisms to address climate change."

We tried this, it hasn't worked (so far). Why should we continue with this measure instead of other approaches?

- "Carbon capture and cheap nuclear power"

both of which do not exist. See my comment about LCOE and the link below for cheap nuclear power. With regards to carbon capture, we have some pilot plants but this technology (or rather mix of technologies) is nowhere near ready for the massive scale of deployment we'd need already. That's why the focus is on political solutions imo.

I've done some further googling and found some studies on the topic, though on-land: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0... and some more from a presentation https://www.feem.it/m/events_pages/20167111127315Zeng_presen...

Though the question still remains how securely the CO2 would be stored under the ocean. Maybe with a large enough layer of rock on top it would suffice.. I suppose it's high time we started field trials on all these approaches.

My own back-of-napkin calc says that we'd need to cut about .1 to .2 % of tropical rainforests per year and remove them from the carbon cycle, not sure if that's right.

"Aluminum, discovered in minute quantities in a lab in the eighteen-twenties, was hailed as a wonder substance, with qualities never before seen in a metal: it was lightweight, shiny, resistant to rust, and highly conductive. It could be derived from clay (at first, it was called “silver from clay”), and the idea that a valuable substance was produced from a common one lent it a quality of alchemy. In the eighteen-fifties, a French chemist devised a method for making a few grams at a time, and aluminum was quickly adopted for use in expensive jewelry. Three decades later, a new process, using electricity, allowed industrial production, and the price plummeted."

In addition, there are more disincentives to "easy" IP transactions: 1. Even when you've found a matching patent it doesn't mean that you can just pop out a product. Most of the actual work is still ahead of you. 2. Pricing and contract negotiation is rather difficult and costs as well. 3. The existing marketplaces are mostly rather small with the largest having maybe 20-30k offers. Just not enough to impact the myriads of problems available...

Still interested? Just reply, maybe I can help.