I think if we are considering the effect of capitalism on environment, it helps to dissociate the term capitalism from politics, and identify it instead as something technical and economical. Specifically, it is the monetisation of capital, and debt, which provides the mechanism that ties us into fossil fuels extraction.

When we see this, we see also that capital is all kinds of energy storage, fuels are special cases that we can get some of the energy back out of again. Debt, as it stands, is a promise to do work using more fossil fuels.

We might see there is a case for communiting our financial debt over to a commitment to use solar, by acknowledging that our financial debt is actually and energy defict to our planet, the energy we've used from it, and not replaced.

The only actual source of energy, the energy that trickle charged it all up, over millions of years, is the sun.

So there is not really a clear line between political capitalism and socialism.

Both practice technical capitalism. But capitalists do it on a more individual basis, whilst socialists do it on a national level, but both are equally damaging to the environment, it seems to me. We only need to look to China to see that.

The necessary technical alternative to capitalism might be described as "Energyism".

The route to changing to Energyism looks inevitable to me, since we are starting to see inflation which will eventually run away, until it is realised that we must set an energy standard on money, instead of the old gold standard, that many still lament.

And since the only actual source of energy is the sun, the Joules of energy we should equate with money creation is solar.

I wrote some more in stories that can be searched out as "Kardashev Money", and "The ~Money-fuel Tree", for anyone interested.