I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship, or pumped through pipelines to shore.
— karl stone

May I point out that covering the oceans will prevent phytoplankton from absorbing CO2. Put your solar panels on coastal deserts instead, and use the desalinated water to irrigate inland and grow some forest. — unenlightened

You might be right, but coastal land is valuable real estate - particularly if it's sunny. Out in the ocean a million square miles of nothing right on the equator - where flotaing solar panels could be soaking up 16 hours sunshine a day and making energy for us - while shading the oceans from accumulating heat. I wouldn't presume to dictate - but ...

As to the politics and economics, what is required is to wage a global war against CO2. Money becomes irrelevant in wartime, one does whatever it takes. — unenlightened

I came up with that idea also, a long time ago. A war for survival - turn over the entire economy to the effort, but found it wasn't necessary. I do not even agree with the scientists who wrote the report published yesterday, when they said:

"Staying below 1.5C will require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

I think that approach is wrong, and what we should be doing is defending living standards - by applying the energy technology to afford them, as described in my OP. Another article asks - "Are you prepared to give up beef to save the world?" No. I'm willing apply renewable energy technology so that I can eat beef guilt free. And lots of it!

Sorry. Didn't realize I was being a dick. Does that make it better or worse? I don't know. — TheMadFool

Much, much worse! I'd really rather it were a matter of choice - and then I could blame you!

Anyway, the future is so difficult to predict with any degree of certainty. As someone said there are too many variables to factor in. — TheMadFool

That's why it took me twenty years thinking about it, to come up with what now seems pretty bloody simple.

I suggest we do what is most practical. Act locally, think globally. — TheMadFool

What does that mean in practical terms? Is it not just a trendy soundbite that has no meaningful implications?

"Common sense has been proven wrong many-a-times."

Unlike philosophy?

"Your point?"

I'm talking about sustainability in the immediate future, and pointing out that entropy implies - the sun will explode and burn the earth to a crisp in five billion years or so, entirely misses the serious purpose of my remarks. I guess my point is - stop being a dick!

Do you think philosophy has an unhelpful tendency toward superlativism - that passes through common sense, but then just keeps on going?

Have we met? lol

This universe tends toward heat death - a million billion years from now - that's true, but we ain't staying.

Good question. The answer is a little ill-defined at present, because of the multiplicity of possible variables. But there wouldn't be an immediate transition from fossil fuels to renewables - it would take 30 years at least to apply the technology on a sufficient scale. Secondly, oil would continue to be extracted for other things, like plastics - humankind will need long term if we aim to survive. Thirdly, does it matter how we get from here to there? Even if it were to a greater or lesser degree a conceit - to mortgage fossil fuels in order to overcome fossil fuel use, there is always in theory the potential for its use - like with land banks, who cannot be induced to build, because the value of land rises faster than the rent that can be commanded in the market.

There are always forces acting on the ball bearing such that - the initial condition is false. Forces like gravity, electromagnetism, heat, noise etc, are acting on the ball bearing all the time - such that it was never really "balanced." That's human perception. In physics, there is no stationary other than at absolute zero.