Fifty claps for the title Will, but I still see you papering over the main issue.

Profit is an energy con.

Money is always energy, but energy is only money when it suits us. This is what needs to change, we have to account for every KWhr of energy, the same way as we account for every cent of money.

Conventional science hasn't dared to breach the rule that we must never question profit (Bite the hand that feeds us), but when it is no longer feeding us, but the opposite, imposing scarcity whilst at the same time destroying the planet, of course we have to question it.

Otherwise we are just continuing to practice the grand energy Ponzi, pushing up the temperature.

Money has energy value in markets, always. If it doesn't have energy value then it has no value at all,

When money makes money, energy has to have been gained.

The energy gained had to come from somewhere because energy can't be created or destroyed, just pushed around.

The planet is the only party that can provide more energy out than it received, joule for joule, kWhr for kWhr, calorie for calorie.

We can't con the sun to give more than it already gives for free, so profit can't come from the sun.

We account for the gained energy of profit in the form of money but what we didn't account for was the energy lost by the planet, which happened in addition to the energy we gained. This is the energy lost in the refinement of various fuels, including nuclear, it far outweighs what we got out, and this has to heat the planet.

Notice we do account for all losses in the case that we are computing the theoretical losses in an energy chain during hydrogen handling and creation from solar. Those figures of maybe 20 or 30 percent energy actually put to use don't sound so good when we compare with the conventional analyses of efficiency of energy utilisation from the planet, becausee we are ignoring the vast bulk of the energy lost by nature. Every gallon of petrol or diesel took nature millions of years of solar energy to create. How much would that be if we converted it to money? Of course we couldn't because if we did we would realise we never could afford to use it. But we are happy to burn some just to get to the supermarket to buy some food.

So we only put a price on energy when it suits us, but we can't get away from the fact that money is always energy.

Hence why COP28, if all they are going to talk about is profit, that is money profit, rather than energy profit (Since it is technically impossible), it is on a hiding to nothing.

On who is guilty of polluting the environment, we all are, because we all participate in the for-profit system.

Hence why, if they are really honest at COP28, they will talk about solar indexed stimulus, and when/how it needs to be issued, because this is the only way to keep any value in money given we will not be able to use it for conventional profit, after we have moved to solar, and actually, issue of this will fully incentivise us to makeing a very sudden switch to solar hydrogen.

This is the catalyst we are now waiting for, to get busy living, truly creating, whilst cooling the planet, instead of being so busy dying, destroying whilst pretending we are creating, using energy that is impossible to truly create from, whilst relentlessly heating the planet.

We are scheduled to either burn by capitalism, or move up a notch to a photosynthetic existence that we might call energyism.

The former would be like a stillborn, the latter would be a birth, we can compare with anything born, it all makes sense, birth is the usual result, but in our case there seem a million things that could derail it. I hope this helps understanding.

Btw, its obviously unique, a first in known history, so there is not much sense we can really make, of comparing things that happened previously, like the Weimar, and New York stock crashes. In those days we had a completely different choice, it was negative energy or nothing.

The choice we have now is positive energy or burn.