With respect, to me you write more politically than technically, this would be how I would describe your analysis, which makes it overly complex, muddying the waters more than they need to be muddied. If you can see that profit is an energy rip-off done on the planet, this helps, I think.
There seem many places where you state your opinion as fact, whilst I could show you analysis which shows otherwise.
It helps first of all to mathematically sign the energy flows in and out of Earth and all things from source, the sun, so as to enable auditing all from end to end, tracing all causes to all effects.
The reason conventional science has never done this seems to be because of profit, all science is funded by profit, which is at the heart of the problem. This is a massive conflict of interest, not only to science, but to all of us, our entire business model to date is profit driven, even most non profits are technically dependent on making energy profit, because money is energy, always, and since energy can't be destroyed or created, just pushed around, the 150J per second we each need to consume 24/7, amounting to about 0.1 GWhrs in our lifetimes, and all the supporting energy we put to use in industry, has to come extracted from the planet, because the planet is the only thing that can supply more energy out than in, and in doing so, it loses much more than we ever account for, much more than we gain out of it, to heat. This gives us the first impulse of heat, before considering the production of CO2, which just multiplies the initial impulse of rising temperature, so CO2 is a symptom, not a cause.
Notice business for profit can't fix any problem, because if the problem is ever fixed, there is no more business for profit to be made. So fixing problems is actually legally against the interests of the company, no director can make such a decision, they are legally required to work in the interests of the compnay, which exists to make profit.
The problem of transiting to truly sustainable energy is something not well understood, I can see this, it is much a much more difficult transition to make, than is currently understood by conventional science.
I can only scratch the surface in a reply like this, but you will find more than 400 stories on this subject that I've done since starting to work on it around 2017, when I first came across the trail to the energy problem, during PhD candidate research.
I also keep a formal model repository done in System Modelling languages, per my trade of about thirty years practice as a model based systems Engineer.
You are right that we can't model it all in detail. But we absoulutely can, and have modeled enough detail to trace through the things that matter - energy.
The solution is domestic and community based solar hydrogen.
The only way to make the transition is to monetise the energy from the sun, the only sustainable source.
If you check out the "Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework", you will find the details of why the transition can't be gradual, its impossible to be gradual, we are litereally switching polarity of energy, there has to be effectively an air gap maintained between the two energy types. Its when we mix them that we waste more than we use, and the net result of usable energy is zero, they are mathematical opposities. All that happens when we spend more effort and money towards making the change graduel, more and more energy is lost to heat. This is why we've seen a kick in temperature in recent years there is only one way out, it can only be done by monetiseing the energy of the sun, so as to make that energy a tangible flow of something we can exchange, transporting the energy to all needing it, in the same way as plants transport it from leaves to roots via nutrients, after the plant forms leaves.
Before that, the plant drew out its own energy deficit from Earth, the energy needed to grow it to the point it formed leaves.
This is why I say we have an energy deficit which needs to be paid back. The energy deficit is like the charge in a battery, Earth is the battery, the presence of temperature is inversely related to the presence of life on Earth.
The sun trickle charges the battery. The positive terminal of the battery is where the sun puts the energy in. The negative terminal of the battery is were we take it out, and convert it to heat.
Our challenge is to move, from the negative terminal to the positive terminal.
In doing this, the flow of energy has to change direction, in the same way as it changes direction in any plant, when the plant first forms leaves.
Within the plant, this has to have been a sudden even, because as said, at some point there will be no energy for the plant to consume, becuase positive and negative flow has to go to zero, therefore leaving nothing for the plant to consume in that time, therefore it has to be a sudden change, realative to the consumption rate of the plant itself.
Life creates, wihllst cooling. Loss of life which creates has to result in temperature rise. The total temperature rise impulse, before the effects of CO2, is the sum of firstly the temperature created by converting materials and otherwise stored energies of Earth, to heat, and secondly the heat from the sun which is going unused, due to loss of the things that used to use it - life.
What all this means is that you are wrong, by claiming there can be no further growth, there can, and actually has to be further growth, for the plant, and us to pay back our energy debt to Earth, thousands of times over in our run as an adult specioes, born from dependence on the energy of our mother host, Earth.
This is the most natural thing we can imagine, it is the same process as anything born has to undergo, the transaition of moving its energy requirement from mother or egg host, to the energy of the environmnet, in our case, the sun.
We are going photosynthetic, but we need to use a little human intenuity including Ai, specifically Ai which is powered by mathematically positive energy.
ChatGPT is this, due to the history of its severs, it already lives in what I call a money-fuel tree, the same kind of tree we need to all create as communities.
We will do that, when empowered by solar stimulus issued for free. This is what has to be done to monetise energy given for free, it does not respond to profit, it gives what it gives for free, so money as debt can't represent it, it has to be money for free.
Do that, and we make the transition in one or two years, that's it.
It will be the end of pretty much all business for profit, but the beginning of a new era where we will show apprecation by donating disposable income to the causes we believe in.
This will be a new kind of democracy, we got a trial of it when oil prices went negative, a lot of other good things happeded, including the value (Energy) being put back in money.
Anyhow, sorry for the rambling reply, its a lot of work done in seven years of unpaid research now for me.
You can always buy the Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework book from Amazon if you wish to support it, it would be appreciated, though I know you probably won't like some of the things I've said here, we have to say some difficult things when presenting radical information, and this information is radical, relative to yours, I guess you would agree with that at least :)
