There are three obvious sets of actors
- Unknown 4th?
What will happen is likely to be a mix with one dominant.
Four obvious approaches/strategies
- Stop co2 and shrink the economy
- Stop co2 and innovate green like mad to expand the economy
- Just invent new technologies
- Do nothing
Those who prefer decentralization with its open society with equity (guaranteed annual income) approach are hostile to what a massive corporate initiative might be like. My sense is that we will not do the future without taking into account the momentum of the present. Corporations and capital certain dominate now. It is hard to believe that they would just give up to serious climate change, especially when the alternative as they see it might be “green rush” for the gold, with increasing centralization of wealth, class, power, and, they would hope, quality of life as the Plant struggles.. They would mobilize rapidly This is a challenge to government and local initiatives because the corporate feudal system would want to not be motivated by the negative of climate but seize the day, milk the society for all the cash it can to invent, organize and profit from the activity.
That is, corporations would have a three-fold agenda.
- Deal with climate heating
- Increase but at least maintain capital flow by going massive green
- Maintain security for themselves (the top 1% plus their support people in law, politics, education, health, lan, etc.).
One unknown is the Internet
- Internet of social surveillance
- Inernet or organizing grass roots, local initiatives into a full bore coping with climate realitiies.
Aso unknown is the character of a majority of the people at the top. Push comes to shove, prefer a more decentralized or clearly corporatist society?
The Green New Deal proposes
- stop fossil fuel to zero,
- deal wiht the resulting social chaos wiht guarnateed annual wage, training.
The problem is what if we get the first but not the second? This is the approach I think the corporatists will want to take.