With respect Paul, we don't see eye to eye, as you know from our interactions, my own formal systems analysis, using multisciplinary tools and techniques (MBSE), in which you are not trained or exoerienced, indicate profit itself is at the root of the problem, which is fundamentally an energy problem. The system solution dictated by the stakeholder analysis - domestic and community based solar hydrogen, as necessary to keep aerospace airborne requires automated issue of money to be made as solar indexed stimulus, to ensure all get energy in the form of money, luxury money, to remove all from the need to carry on damaging the planet for money.
You obviously don't think you are part of the problem, but you are, as long as you support the system of amassing and wielding capital to achieve your own ambitions, like Musk, a hero of yours is doing.
The truth is mainstream science is failing to fix the problem, science for profit has to fail to fix the problem because if the problem is fixed, there is nothing left to make profit with, right?
On the success or failure of Musk, he's obviously successful at making profit and this is what you and all the Musk fans seem to admire, even worship. But look, profit is planetary damage dude. Profit is monetised destruction, and it is at its heart a dishonest energy con.
Profit itself is the bite taken from the planet, and profit is fundamentally directly traceable to temperature rise.
So unfortunately, there does need to be a much more radical shakeup than you have identified, based on your own informal analysis, which I would challenge, does not meet all the stakeholder requirements.
The system identified as the solution, which appears to be being forced by nature in any case, might be called Energyism. to avoid it being conflated with anything tried and failed previously.
As Ray seems to have identified also, it's all about positive and negative energy, it's about mathematically aligning our use of energy with the way nature mathematically uses energy, and there is no halfway house in this, it has to be all one or the other, positive or negative energy for the reasoms identified in the Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework, which you have yet to evaluate and comment on, as far as I can tell, and mathematically negative is the one unsustainable, from which we need to switch.
Your comments on the EPMF would be much appreciated.