Crank, your financing plan is built upon an asset with market value, solar generated hydrogen. Karl's financing plan is built upon an asset that can't be used, and thus has no market value. — Jake

I'm hoping that Karl will see there is a real alternative to mortgaging oil in the ground.

So you didn't get it right on the first try. So what? — Jake

Visionaries very often work alone. When they start working with other people, they start receiving annoying (but very useful) new information, and their vision or invention improves. I suspect Karl has spent a lot of time working on this alone. It seemed like a compete and perfect idea. The trouble with sharing one's bright ideas is that they aren't always immediately recognized as brilliant. Quite annoying, really.

Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology.
— karl stone

If solar generated hydrogen is a practical energy source (and let's say it is) then the logical place from which to obtain capital finance is the market. Since the technology is scalable, you don't have to finance the final stage before the first stage is built. IF you built the final stage of the project today, had 300 square miles of solar panels and a plant cranking out hydrogen, and freighters lined up to take it away you wouldn't be able to sell much of it because the industrial base isn't ready to receive and use H. What you would do is finance a 10 square mile solar panel set up, located near the right shore, and start producing electricity, drinking water, and some H. The electricity and water could be sold to the nearby shore (i.e., India). The H would have to find its market. The profit could be plowed back into the operation, or used to pay dividends. When you were ready to expand, additional shares could be sold to finance enlarging the plant. And so on down the line.

The usual way to pay for capital projects is either a national subsidy or the capital market. — Bitter Crank

That seems like a reasonable argument, from a certain perspective - but in fact it's not. It doesn't recognize that ideological motives for action cut across the grain of nature. Your comments demonstrate quite clearly how an assumption that ideologies are true and authoritative, limits the application of technology. But we have followed those ideas to this point, where we now know we are under threat, and though we have the knowledge and technology to meet the challenge, we lack the will to apply it. We have to transcend that rationale.

If renewable energy could displace fossil fuels through market mechanisms alone, it would have happened already. But the ubiquitous position of fossil fuels in the market makes it more economically rational to continue using fossil fuels, than it does to change. Inelasticity of demand for energy - basically ensures that, whatever the price - we'll pay it. Even at the vast expense of building oil rigs, and towing them miles out to sea, to drill holes in the seabed, two miles down - it's more economically rational to do that, than it is to collect free radiant energy from the sun. It's a trap - and one that will strangle us to death!

Bearing in mind the dire warnings issued by scientists in recent weeks and months - a more comprehensive approach is warranted. I do not insist it be my approach - but it's the best idea of which I'm aware, that addresses all the relevant factors (of which I'm aware.) Describing this approach illustrates the relevant issues - issues which must be addressed by any other idea. Your argument, reasonable as it may seem - doesn't address the one reason we're doing this at all: climate change!

If I were merely trying to start a business - I'd use mirrors to heat sea water, to produce clean water and steam to drive a turbine to produce electricity, and irrigate wasteland for agriculture. But I'm trying to save the world from a fossil fuel addiction, built into the very infrastructure of society. And that's like... the end of Homer's Odyssey, where Odysseus fires an arrow through a dozen axe heads.

The particular approach I describe - mortgaging fossil fuels to provide funding to build floating solar farms, producing hydrogen and fresh water, is quite simply, the cheese at the end of the maze. When you work the problem - it's there. And it maintains, and works with the larger part of existing energy infrastructure. Hydrogen can be burnt in power stations, and distributed at petrol stations with fairly minimal adaptions to existing technology. I think we can do a little better than this:



If you'll forgive me for going on at such great length - I want to address again, this question of mortgaging an asset that cannot be used, so has no value. I think we're getting hung up on the word mortgage. I cannot think of a more apt word - but the economic logic of commercial assets that follows from the word, is unwelcome baggage. Funding on such a scale could only be had with government assurances; essentially, sovereign debt. Sovereign debt is not secured by the mortgaging of an asset with a commercial value. It is however, necessary to monetize fossil fuels to keep them in the ground. There is no political will to simply ban them, and so this is where we came in, with transcending the rationale. Surety for the debt follows from an explicit political commitment to ensure the continued viability of civilization.

The trouble with sharing one's bright ideas is that they aren't always immediately recognized as brilliant. Quite annoying, really. — Bitter Crank

I hear you, that's true, and I've had that experience myself. In the end it boils down to where one's true loyalty lies, with the ideas, or with the person typing the ideas.

A related problem is that forum software presents each of us as if we're all standing on the same ground. But, some of us have been using philosophy forums for years and expect to be challenged no matter what we say, while the culture of philosophy forums may be a new experience for others.

I'm hoping that Karl will see there is a real alternative to mortgaging oil in the ground. — Bitter Crank

I'm in favor of Karl continuing his quest, and feel that will go better if he doesn't get too attached to any particular scheme. If one idea is debunked, just try again, on to the next idea.

They were just doing their physicist thing. Which is of course what your are pointing out: smart people just doing their thing risks our undoing. — Bitter Crank

Yes, scientists are not evil, they're just doing what they were born to do with typically good intentions. The problem is that while we can be very smart technologically, we aren't very smart philosophically. Technologically we're going 100mph, philosophically we're going 5mph, and thus a dangerous gap is opening up between the two.

If renewable energy could displace fossil fuels through market mechanisms alone, it would have happened already. — karl stone

I disagree. The reason has been that the technology hasn't been there earlier to make renewable energy like wind and solar competitive compared to fossil fuels. Once it's far cheaper to produce renewable energy than produce energy with fossil fuels, then the market mechanism takes over.
It's as simple as that.

If you'll forgive me for going on at such great length - I want to address again, this question of mortgaging an asset that cannot be used, so has no value. — karl stone

Perhaps the thing is about using oil and coal to produce energy and this is the big issue. Yet there are a variety of other uses for oil like making plastics.

It is however, necessary to monetize fossil fuels to keep them in the ground. — karl stone

My understanding is that the real obstacle is that renewables can not yet fully power our civilization. If they could provide the power we want we could simply tax fossil fuels out of the market.

A useful focus might be the question, what are the key obstacles preventing a full transition to renewable clean energy?

Once it's far cheaper to produce renewable energy than produce energy with fossil fuels, then the market mechanism takes over. — ssu

Why isn't it already far cheaper? What's the obstacle there?

Why isn't it already far cheaper? What's the obstacle there? — Jake

As I said, technology, production costs. Take for example solar power. Battery technology has been one thing and the obvious reality that the sun doesn't shine always and the intensity is different around the World, hence there has to be some stop-gap power production nowdays. Then there is photovoltaic effieciency: how much the solar panel can transform sunlight into electricity. Let's remember that the whole technology of silicon solar cells was basically invented as late as the 1950's.

I'm sure you're aware of the Peter Principle, which suggests that people will rise in their careers until they finally arrive at a job that they can't handle. That's basically what I'm suggesting, that we will continue to develop greater and greater powers until we inevitably create one that we can't manage. It's reasonable to argue that this has already happened with nuclear weapons. — Jake

Nuclear weapons have been around for about 75 years and we haven't blown ourselves up yet. Their existence may in effect have prevented war between nuclear powers.

What's the obstacle there? — Jake

No new technology springs out of the box and takes over the market. It tends to take around 50 years (rough figure) for a new technology to fulfill its market potential. Take automobiles: The first autos had few roads designed for autos. There were few service facilities. The machines were not terribly reliable, and in crashes they just shattered (talk about unsafe at any speed). They were not terribly easy to use. One had to turn a crank to get them started. It took more than 30 years for everything to fall 1/2 way into place. A really good auto-friendly highway system wasn't built in this country until starting in the 1950s.

Passenger trains followed a slower course: The good old days of passenger travel were terrible. The railroads didn't make passenger travel comfortable or convenient. Where transfers were necessary one often had to walk quite a ways from one station to another. One might have to stay overnight to catch the next train. Dining cars didn't exist until late in the game. Ditto for comfortable Pullmans. We're talking... roughly 50 years between the first trains and comfortable trains (at least for the hoi polloi.)

The really luxurious trains waited until after WWII. It was a short-lived paradise. Roomettes rather than bunk beds; splendid dining cars; cocktail lounges; sightseeing domes (west of Chicago) and air conditioning were the new standard. this regime starting running down almost as soon as it began. The railroads never made a lot of money hauling passengers, and by the 1960s a lot of the roads were going broke hauling anything. (A long history of bad management finally killed a lot of railroad companies off.)

By 1970? Amtrak was created to take over a ghost of passenger travel. The promise of railroad travel began around 1840. It took about a century to finally become really nice, and then it died (all this only applies to the US.)

I'd use mirrors to heat sea water, to produce clean water and steam to drive a turbine to produce electricity, and irrigate wasteland for agriculture. — karl stone

Indeed one could do that. But solar-thermal power hasn't taken off. Mirrors can focus a lot of heat, but not on cloudy days, and not at night.

Your solar to H plan is better.

I think we're getting hung up on the word mortgage. — karl stone

Right; I would just drop "mortgage" from your description. It has too many specific connotations connected to purchasing property or getting consumer loans.

There is no political will — karl stone

Where there is no political will, nothing happens. Period. Your plan is going to require plenty of political will too. I don't know exactly when political will is scheduled to arrive. It had better be pretty damn quick or we are totally screwed.

Nuclear weapons have been around for about 75 years and we haven't blown ourselves up yet. Their existence may in effect have prevented war between nuclear powers. — praxis

Right. So if I walked around with a hair trigger loaded gun in my mouth all day long every day, but the gun had never gone off, people such as yourself would say that I'm successfully managing my firearm.

As I said, technology, production costs. — ssu

So fossil fuels are still cheaper than renewables, and we don't have a good method of storing the energy generated by renewables? Is that a fair summary?

I disagree. The reason has been that the technology hasn't been there earlier to make renewable energy like wind and solar competitive compared to fossil fuels. Once it's far cheaper to produce renewable energy than produce energy with fossil fuels, then the market mechanism takes over. It's as simple as that. — ssu

I don't believe that's correct. I think there's a massive 'hidden' advantage for fossil fuels in the fact that we've developed and applied the infrastructure - oil rigs, tanker ships, chemical refineries, cars and petrol stations etc, coal mines, railways, power stations - all of which enjoyed vast government support in the early days - that it seems, renewable energy is denied today. Subsidies for piecemeal application of renewable energy technology merely cement that structural disadvantage. If renewable energy is even nearly competitive - it's actually out performing fossil fuels by a huge margin. Given the kind of support for renewables, fossil fuels historically received - i.e. on a level playing field, renewable energy would easily win out.

Perhaps the thing is about using oil and coal to produce energy and this is the big issue. Yet there are a variety of other uses for oil like making plastics. — ssu

That's true, and those are things we are going to need, assuming we secure a sustainable future now. We are past "peak oil" - and still burning a non-renewable resource at a rate of 100 million barrels a day, from which we derive thousands of products vital to civilized life. However:

"On average, U.S. refineries produce, from a 42-gallon barrel of crude oil, about 20 gallons of gasoline, 12 gallons of distillate fuel, most of which is sold as diesel fuel, and 4 gallons of jet fuel."

That adds up to 36 gallons of fuel, from a 42 gallon barrel of crude oil - leaving six gallons of waste, from which thousands of products are made. But do you think those products account for 600 million gallons of non-fuel waste per day? Assuming incorrectly, this waste only has the density of water, that's easily a trillion tons per year - about 300 million tons of which is made into plastic, and plastic is everywhere. It's choking the rivers and the oceans. So where's the other 700 million tons of non-fuel waste going? Someone should probably look into that.

Indeed one could do that. But solar-thermal power hasn't taken off. Mirrors can focus a lot of heat, but not on cloudy days, and not at night. Your solar to H plan is better. — Bitter Crank

Right, but it was a counter example to your suggestion that renewable energy should be applied piecemeal, and on a commercial basis, to compete with fossil fuels. If I were starting a business - I wouldn't go for solar/hydrogen. The start up costs are prohibitive. So I'd go for an ultimately less effective, but cheaper alternative. And this is the very dilemma renewable energy faces. It's subject to commercial demands (fossil fuels were not subject to in the early days) where prices are dictated by its main competitor.

Right; I would just drop "mortgage" from your description. It has too many specific connotations connected to purchasing property or getting consumer loans. — Bitter Crank

Maybe you're right, but we're talking about it. The essential idea has been communicated, and now - we're talking about how oil could be monetized without being extracted. (That's a clumsy turn of phrase.) The one thing that hasn't come up yet, is that besides oil - there's about 2000 years worth of coal we can't burn either, and massive amounts of natural gas. I don't have an answer for that - other than, once renewable energy infrastructure is in place - there will be no economic motive to dig for coal.

Where there is no political will, nothing happens. Period. Your plan is going to require plenty of political will too. I don't know exactly when political will is scheduled to arrive. It had better be pretty damn quick or we are totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

I accept that's true - but politics is often the art of the possible. If we can prove it's possible - it might happen. If we can jigger the economics so that it's profitable, the chances of the political will manifesting are improved considerably. It's not an easy circle to square. (Theoretically, it would require a near infinite number of non-Euclidean geometric operations!) But seriously, this is either an incredibly difficult problem to solve - or it's very simple. Do we value human existence or not? I think we do - mostly our own, admittedly, but I think there's a number - a cost we're willing to bear for the continued existence of our species, and I'm trying to show we can meet with that number.

I don't believe that's correct. I think there's a massive 'hidden' advantage for fossil fuels in the fact that we've developed and applied the infrastructure - oil rigs, tanker ships, chemical refineries, cars and petrol stations etc, coal mines, railways, power stations - all of which enjoyed vast government support in the early days - that it seems, renewable energy is denied today. — karl stone

First of all, that's not a hidden fact. Secondly, all those factors you mention make fossil fuels cheap and the supply ample. Our transport fleet, ships, aircraft, trucks and personal cars won't immediately be replaced either. One has to count also this to the equation: it's not only that we are adding renewable to the mix, it's that we would be scrapping existing infrastructure that would still work for a long time. It's a huge task to replace and grow the sector when you are reducing energy production simultaneously.

Let's not forget that Germany is already paying the highest price for electricity in the EU (alongside Denmark). In my country (Finland) the price per KW/h is half of that in Germany. The cost has risen all the decade and this does start to have an effect for example on industry:

Power prices are increasing, and that’s turning into a problem for Germany’s huge Mittelstand sector of small and medium-sized companies, many of whom haven’t hedged themselves with futures contracts.

A megawatt hour is currently trading at just over €40 ($46.70) on the futures market of the Leipzig Energy Exchange EEX, well up from below €20 at its lowest point in February 2016 and following sharp rises in world prices for oil, coal and gas. Big companies had locked in low prices for a number of years with futures contracts but many of those contracts are due to expire next year or in 2020 — and scores of Mittelstand firms are now facing the full brunt of the price hikes.“I’m getting queries from a lot of companies whose contracts expire next year and who are shocked by their future energy bills,” said Wolfgang Hahn, director of Energie Consulting GmbH (ECG), which advises firms on their power purchases.

One metalworking company in the western industrial state of North Rhine-Westphalia secured a price of €20-25 per megawatt hour until 2019 and will have to pay over €40 with its next contract. That will increase its annual power bill by almost €100,000. This is a major burden given that its earnings are already under pressure from a decline in demand for the wind turbines it manufactures. “Electricity prices have doubled over the last two years,” Mr. Hahn said. “It’s very painful for a lot of our customers.” Large companies are best-equipped to cope because they can afford energy procurement departments that know their way around the futures market. But even they aren’t always fully hedged.

By 1970? Amtrak was created to take over a ghost of passenger travel. The promise of railroad travel began around 1840. It took about a century to finally become really nice, and then it died (all this only applies to the US.) — Bitter Crank

Even if a bit off the subject, this is a wonderfull example of how American transport policy (and the lack of it) has made a once fairly good transport system very insignificant and weak. Not the cargo and freight sector of it, but passenger rail.

Eisenhower opted for the highways and the focus was automobiles as the method of transportation. Likely a very American choice for the individualist US consumer. And while the railroad network was owned by private companies and they stuck to what was (is) profitable and that's freight, no wonder that passenger rail withered away. Without the government focusing on rail as in other countries, the passenger rail system is now so frail in the US. The niche of high speed passenger rail is now basically filled with passenger aircraft.

You reap what you sow.

But seriously, this is either an incredibly difficult problem to solve - or it's very simple. Do we value human existence or not? — karl stone

I'm sorry, but the answer is no. If we valued human existence we wouldn't have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats. Evidence. It can be so inconvenient.

We want to answer yes, we sincerely feel that we value human existence, but if we are to make it very simple and boil the answer down to a yes or a no, the evidence is telling us the answer is no.

The most important factor in the equation is us, a fact typically overlooked by all conversations that look upon climate change as a technical problem requiring a technical solution. The real problem is, we don't really give a shit. We want to avoid climate change, but only if it doesn't upset the modern consumer culture apple cart too much.

As example, imagine that some future president (there's no hope for the current one obviously) were to come on the TV and say that the only way we can avoid catastrophic climate change would be to turn off the Internet (just a simple example). There'd be a revolution, even though we got along just fine without the Internet for thousands of years, including most of my life.

If we somehow did develop abundant free clean energy the result would be that the economy would take off like a rocket, leading to an acceleration of species extinction, consumption of finite resources, more dangerous technologies etc. That is, the problem wouldn't be solved, it would just be moved from one box to another box.

Ultimately we can't solve climate change with technical fixes because at it's root it's not a technical problem, but a human philosophy problem. All we can do technically is convert the climate change problem in to another equally threatening array of problems.

We are a race of nerds. We are superficially quite savvy, but emotionally we are like little children. One need to look no farther than the nearest philosophy forum to see this phenomena in action.

There is of course also the possibility of carbon sequestration. And on that front, and on other fronts, it is worth considering low tech solutions. http://www.greatgreenwall.org China is also reducing its deserts. Techno-energy solutions have their place, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal etc, but bio-solutions are even more important.

I would say that climate change is a management problem; we need to stop making destructive exploitation profitable and incentivise sustainable production. And one crucial aspect to address is short term-ism in the economy. To plant a forest is to make a 50- 100 year investment, whereas to cut down a forest is to make an immediate profit. A democratic government has a hard time thinking further ahead than the next election. Fertilising the oceans is simple and cheap, and would make a huge contribution, but needs to be globally financed because it only has global benefits.

First of all, that's not a hidden fact. Secondly, all those factors you mention make fossil fuels cheap and the supply ample. Our transport fleet, ships, aircraft, trucks and personal cars won't immediately be replaced either. One has to count also this to the equation: it's not only that we are adding renewable to the mix, it's that we would be scrapping existing infrastructure that would still work for a long time. It's a huge task to replace and grow the sector when you are reducing energy production simultaneously. — ssu

I didn't say it's a hidden fact. I said it's a 'hidden' advantage. I do not mean to suggest 'shhhh! - people don't know we have fossil fuel infrastructure' - but rather that enormous government aid in establishing fossil fuel infrastructure - is not reflected in the price of fossil fuel energy, with which - it was argued, renewable energy should compete.

You apparently understand the principle - because you say: "all those factors you mention make fossil fuels cheap and the supply ample." That's exactly what I meant - so how can renewable energy compete? I also agree: "Our transport fleet, ships, aircraft, trucks and personal cars won't immediately be replaced either." Which is why, I expect we will experience significant climate change - and have suggested building renewable energy infrastructure to produce fresh water and hydrogen. Abundant fresh water will be necessary for irrigation and habitation, and hydrogen can be used, with minimal adaptions, in power stations, cement and steel plants, while transport technology adjusts.

Let's not forget that Germany is already paying the highest price for electricity in the EU (alongside Denmark). In my country (Finland) the price per KW/h is half of that in Germany. The cost has risen all the decade and this does start to have an effect for example on industry: — ssu

I have read the following passages - but I'm not reproducing them here. To me, the plight of the Mittelstand speaks of the need for abundant clean energy. The example of the wind turbine factory with a $100k hike in energy bills precisely illustrates my point, that renewable energy is a price taker - and not a price maker. The price of energy is set by the fossil fuel market - as is clearly stated:

...well up from below €20 at its lowest point in February 2016, and following sharp rises in world prices for oil, coal and gas.

Economic effects like this are complex, because arguably - that should make renewable energy more attractive, but at the same time - imposes costs on the industry that eat away at operating capital, and make for a stunted application of technology. In face of the existential threat climate change poses - I find it very difficult to understand why a comprehensive renewable energy infrastructure isn't government funded. Instead, they want me to stop eating meat, cycle to work and wear my overcoat indoors - just so they can keep pumping the black gold!

In face of the existential threat climate change poses - I find it very difficult to understand why a comprehensive renewable energy infrastructure isn't government funded. — karl stone

For the reason you cite in your paragraph:

Instead, they want me to stop eating meat, cycle to work and wear my overcoat indoors - just so they can keep pumping the black gold!

Capital finance (embodied in a few hundred people who make major investment decisions) and fossil fuel owners don't care (can't care) about the environment, the various species, and whether you and I freeze or not. They pretty much MUST focus on perpetuating the life of the gold-egg laying goose and generating a steady stream of profits for hundreds of thousands stock holders.

You and I would experience too much cognitive dissonance to be worrying about the future of the species and at the same time doing business as usual.

The situation is reflected in the statements of some business leaders traveling to Saudi Arabia who were asked about their presence, considering the Saudi crowned thug's recent chopping up a journalist in their Turkish embassy. "I'm here to make deals; I'm not concerned about anything else."

There is of course also the possibility of carbon sequestration. And on that front, and on other fronts, it is worth considering low tech solutions. http://www.greatgreenwall.org China is also reducing its deserts. Techno-energy solutions have their place, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal etc, but bio-solutions are even more important. — unenlightened

That's really quite hopeful. Those people are on the frontline of climate change, and they're acting now - with some really quite amazing efforts. Below the great green wall story - there's a dozen other stories, all similarly hopeful. Solar farms, irrigation, agriculture. I'm almost ashamed to strike a pessimistic note - but facts are facts. The GRACE satellite conducted a major study of aquifer depletion, published in 2009, and the news was not good. About 2 billion people are dependent on water from aquifers - and they are being used up fast:

According to Jay Famiglietti, director of UCI’s Center for Hydrologic Modeling, “Most of the places that we see with the GRACE where groundwater is being depleted are the arid and semi-arid regions in those mid-latitudes,” he added. Many of these areas tend to be big population hubs. “Most of those are agricultural regions — the North China Plain, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, some southern Europe and North Africa. In the U.S., we see the Ogallala Aquifer and the Central Valley. Even the southeastern U.S. — you think of it as being very humid, but they are in the grips of a long-term drought, and so they are using groundwater, too.”

https://www.circleofblue.org/2012/world/satellite-perspectives-nasas-grace-program-sees-groundwater-from-space/

Like I've said above, we need to start making huge amounts of fresh water, and only with a renewable energy infrastructure can we do that. Otherwise, those 2 billion people will migrate in ever increasing numbers - and migration is already becoming a contentious political issue.

Capital finance (embodied in a few hundred people who make major investment decisions) and fossil fuel owners don't care (can't care) about the environment, the various species, and whether you and I freeze or not. They pretty much MUST focus on perpetuating the life of the gold-egg laying goose and generating a steady stream of profits for hundreds of thousands stock holders.
You and I would experience too much cognitive dissonance to be worrying about the future of the species and at the same time doing business as usual.
The situation is reflected in the statements of some business leaders traveling to Saudi Arabia who were asked about their presence, considering the Saudi crowned thug's recent chopping up a journalist in their Turkish embassy. "I'm here to make deals; I'm not concerned about anything else." — Bitter Crank

A lot of business leaders didn't go to Davos in the desert though - did they? Admittedly, it was mainly companies who's business model requires they give a crap about their public image - but nonetheless, it's a little simplistic to give me the Scrooge McDuck theory of capitalism as an explanation of our existential dilemma - particularly after I've given you an exquisite epistemic theory, identifying the fundamental problem as our relationship to science. Capitalism has achieved extraordinary things, and could do so much more. Focused by a science based political rationale on solving our problems, capitalism would solve them.

As a socialist, it's not my job to defend capitalism. "We have not come to praise Capital; we have come to bury it." I do not believe that capitalism is compatible with continued human existence into the next century. Despotic dictatorships are also not compatible with human life, whether they pay heed to Karl Marx or Adam Smith.

Scrooge McDuck vs. exquisite epistemic theory... Indeed capitalism could do more; much more. People like the Koch Brothers and the whole oil/coal industry are doing their capitalistic damnedest to do much much more.

As a socialist, it's not my job to defend capitalism. "We have not come to praise Capital; we have come to bury it." I do not believe that capitalism is compatible with continued human existence into the next century. Despotic dictatorships are also not compatible with human life, whether they pay heed to Karl Marx or Adam Smith. — Bitter Crank

I'm in the UK, and consider myself centrist. I liked Tony Blair - Labour Prime Minister from 1997- 2007, and I generally dislike the Conservatives. But I'm very suspicious of Jeremy Corbyn. He's too far left for my liking. I'm fine with capitalism with a social conscience - but dragging down the successful to make everyone equal is where I draw the line. One has to remember, I think - that production is fundamental to human welfare, and it's only in addition to productive activity that socialist values have any meaning whatsoever.

A capitalist economy - as opposed to a command economy, allows for personal and political freedom, a command economy must necessarily prohibit. In order to design production, a command economy must tell people what to do, when to do it, and cannot stand dissent of any kind - because the State manages production.

The miracle at the core of capitalism is the invisible hand - described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations as the coincidence of rationally self interested actions that marry like the cogs of a wheel, to drive society forward. And it's real. It's a genuine miracle, that the goods and services people want and need are produced and distributed without any central planning whatsoever. It's rather ironic actually, that capitalism affords you the political freedom to be socialist!

In relation to our bigger problem, I honestly do not see capitalism as the guilty party, but rather - place blame with the failure to recognize science as truth from 1630, which had the effect of divorcing science as a valid understanding of reality, from science as a cornucopia of cool gadgets and neat ways to kill people. Had science as truth been integrated politically over the past 400 years - rather than decried at every turn as heresy, it would have provided a valid regulatory context for the conduct of capitalism - that would have outlawed the excesses, many assume paint capitalism as the villain of the piece.

In my view, capitalism is indispensable to any possible solution - and it's my aim to convince capitalist interests that they are best served - ending the race to the bottom by adopting scientifically valid standards of production. You might ask - "Why would they take on these regulatory burdens? It will reduce profits!" But not necessarily. If all companies are required to adopt the same standards, and all pay the same opportunity cost in regards existentially necessary environmental welfare regulations, there's no competitive disadvantage.

a command economy must necessarily prohibit. In order to design production, a command economy must tell people what to do, when to do it, and cannot stand dissent of any kind - because the State manages production. — karl stone

The USSR was a command economy sometimes described as "state capitalism". What the hell does that mean, you ask?

In state capitalism there is one corporation: the state. The state corporation runs industry, commerce, politics, religion, whatever there is to run. That is not "socialism" or "communism" as Marx defined it. It's just a totalitarian society. Marx described a system where all the institutions of capitalism (including the state) were replaced by a bottom-up system of social management.

The American socialist Daniel DeLeon felt that in democratic countries violent revolution was unnecessary and counterproductive, Rather, use the machinery of democracy (unionized work force, the ballot, political organization, education, etc.) to prepare the citizens to assume political and economic control of society.

Marx expected the bourgeoisie (the owning class) to inadvertently prepare the working class to take over the management and operation of production. How would this happen? By workers doing more and more skilled management type work. Employees perform most of the work involved in both managing and running British companies. Per Marx.

Of course, the owners don't expect the employees to take the company away from them. (That happens when the socialists are in power; the ownership of industries, capital property (like office buildings, warehouses, etc.) and so on are transferred to the employees of the companies. The primary task of governing a non-capitalist, socialist society is deciding economic matters: what to produce, how much, where to get the raw materials, and so forth, under the guidance of "production for need".

So and and so forth. I don't expect to convince you that this is what should or will happen. Now, the UK is not the US. Our political and class systems and history are quite different. Workers in the US have tended to have harsher experiences than workers in the UK have had, at least under the post-war labor governments. The same goes for much of Europe, which has had a longer history of social welfare programs than the US.

The US has done a much better job than you Brits of camouflaging the fault lines of class differences. Both the UK and the US have a ruling class, and an overlapping very wealthy class. Most American workers have been taught to not see class. That 5% of the population owns more wealth than the rest of the population is unbelievable to many Americans. Credit that to pervasive miseducation. Americans have drunk the kool aid that "Anyone can get rich in America." Your are poor because you just didn't try hard enough. ETC.

The USSR was a command economy sometimes described as "state capitalism". What the hell does that mean, you ask? In state capitalism there is one corporation: the state. The state corporation runs industry, commerce, politics, religion, whatever there is to run. That is not "socialism" or "communism" as Marx defined it. It's just a totalitarian society. Marx described a system where all the institutions of capitalism (including the state) were replaced by a bottom-up system of social management. — Bitter Crank

Ah, the "not real communism" defense. It never is, is it? Russia wasn't communist, Venezuela wasn't socialist - nor was Cuba, or anywhere else you care to mention. I don't suppose you've seen The Colony - with Emma Watson. (Harry Potter) It's about General Pinochet's Chile - which I don't suppose was real communism either. People, places and events in the film really happened though - and watching that film it's a good way to get inside what always seem to transpire when you convince people they are being disenfranchised for their own good.

I've read Marx, of course. I think he's plain wrong in the claim 'the history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggle.' If that were true - how could the working class lack the class consciousness necessary for his glorious revolution? Miseducation? His theory of historical materialism is fundamentally misconceived. But I don't agree with Karl Popper's assessment that it's unfalsifiable - in that it can explain away any fact brought before it, and is therefore pseudo-scientific.

Historical materialism can't explain the fact that hunter gatherer tribes agreed to join together to form societies - and didn't achieve that by overthrowing the alpha male dominated hierarchy. Rather it was achieved by inventing/discovering God as an objective authority for law. That wouldn't have been necessary if Marx's historical materialism were correct - there would be no need to account for the natural conflict of tribal hierarchies, by creating an objective authority - and laws that apply to everyone. Yet we find that all early civilizations had Gods - and world's apart, Egypt and South America for instance - built temples to their Gods in the shape of symbolic representations of hierarchical society, i.e. pyramids.

Now, the UK is not the US. Our political and class systems and history are quite different. Workers in the US have tended to have harsher experiences than workers in the UK have had, at least under the post-war labor governments. The same goes for much of Europe, which has had a longer history of social welfare programs than the US.
The US has done a much better job than you Brits of camouflaging the fault lines of class differences. Both the UK and the US have a ruling class, and an overlapping very wealthy class. Most American workers have been taught to not see class. That 5% of the population owns more wealth than the rest of the population is unbelievable to many Americans. Credit that to pervasive miseducation. Americans have drunk the kool aid that "Anyone can get rich in America." Your are poor because you just didn't try hard enough. ETC. — Bitter Crank

Overwhelmingly, hierarchies are hierarchies of competence. There's an intergenerational element - where the success of an ancestor can hand privilege to an utter buffoon, which explains the decline of the aristocracy in Europe, leaving little more than the occasional monarch symbolically hanging around. There's intergenerational disadvantage too - but a truly competent individual will tend to overcome that, and a capitalist society will gladly look past class differences where there's talent and tenacity that can be translated into profit. And here we come back to socialism.

The essential problem with revolutionary socialism is an artificial upturning of hierarchies of competence - i.e. a bottom-up system of social management. I don't agree that's what Marx was proposing exactly, he was talking about property held in common ownership for the common good. That's a command economy. The problem is that the natural hierarchy of competence will reassert itself over time - and so pogroms against the intelligent and talented are consistent features of communist societies. Pol Pot - for example, went around killing people who wore glasses, or who spoke a foreign language. But I guess he wasn't a real communist either. They never are!

we need to start making huge amounts of fresh water, and only with a renewable energy infrastructure can we do that. Otherwise, those 2 billion people will migrate in ever increasing numbers - and migration is already becoming a contentious political issue. — karl stone

You are quite right, though more careful use has a role also. But forests make their own water, or their neighbour's. There is a complex relationship, not fully understandable, between vegetation and aquifers, and there would be some effect also from large scale solar cells cooling the atmosphere and increasing rainfall. But enough is known about the cycle of desertification to understand that the loss of vegetation leads to erosion, faster runoff, and sets up a vicious cycle that can be reversed with careful management. It's not called 'the green movement' for nothing - caring for our green brothers that form the 'other' side of the carbon cycle that we are the consumer side of, has got to be the backbone of the solution.

As a side note, to answer some of the criticism of your scheme to use hydrogen, it is quite possible to produce fairly conventional fuel from solar. This would have advantages in not requiring a total transformation of present infrastructure.