Mapping out the tribes of climate

Not a horrible framing of things, although the dominant (and likely best) movement is simple technologism, where emerging battery / ev / solar / wind / geothermal / nuclear / vertical farming / artificial meat / etc disrupt mass swathes of traditional / politically entrenched industries.

That's spread across "max energy" (not really), "climate tech" (kind of dismissive of the results/payout).

What it really shows is that almost all of the cited "tribes" have aspects that are needed. Regulation, incentives, urbanization, centralization, technology, resource use reduction, cultural values, even a bit of neopastoralism (home gardens, crafts, reuse/recycling things for other purposes) is significant.

Doomerism is actually a very useful marketing component, because in the process of people discussion "prepping" and analyzing doom prep scenarios, people are forced to deal with problems in a more concrete and detailed way. It also works on an instinctual fear in all people, in some constructive ways. Doomer prep leads to off-grid products that converge with solar, battery, local food production and sourcing environmental tech.

Climate change is an arm of the modern leftist religion.

I would like to see more a analysis of all the problems we have, how they rank in urgency and rank solutions with how effective they are.

From what I see we will rapidly transition to solar/wind/battery/ev way before climate become a real problem.

Many people who are optimistic about what technology can achieve are eco-globalists, because they believe that the technology will only be developed in response to carefully targeted state-enforced incentives. I think the purest form of "climate tech" is people who believe that the technology will appear regardless of policy. There's even a hard core of libertarian technologists who believe that fossil fuel technology would have naturally been superseded by a superior futuristic technology by now if not for government meddling on behalf of oil companies, though I would guess that is a very small and extreme minority of the "climate tech" tribe.

An axis not apparently explored is reality vs. fantasy.

Looking up press about Energy Vault, a fraudulent energy-storage company whose public shares peaked at $2.4B and trade now at $4-600M, it is very hard to find anything published that equates them properly with Theranos. "Analysts" consider them undervalued, and want them to be worth $1B even though they have no product anybody not insane would buy. Apparently "institutional investors" own a big chunk of their shares. (Curiously, everybody seems to agree they have no long-term value.) FWIW, it appears they still have $100M in cash. In principle, they could still buy out a company with a product that actually works.

Similarly for fusion startups. Only one of them (Helion) has any possibility of ever achieving anything practical, and their odds are not encouraging. (One company, Kyoto Fusioneering, builds fake demo equipment for fusion startups, and provides a conduit for abundant fusion venture money into its founders' and maybe investors' pockets.) None of the others can ever produce so much as one erg of commercial energy.

The LCOE for wind and solar certainly make it inevitable at this point.

I just wonder if there wasn't heavy subsidies for fossil fuel, direct or otherwise (and I mean things like the military budget which exists, above all for oil resource control and securing oil shipping) what battery, solar, and of course wind could be at if they started in the 1950s with aggressive research.

Wind blades are just fiberglass (invented 1932), silicon based solar panels might not be economical without the CPU fab industry, but perovskites and all the other kinds? Could the salt water battery coming online next year been done in 1950s or 1960s tech? Who knows.

Of course some of that is "perfect hindsight". But the notion that oil companies haven't gotten substantial subsidies and meddled in energy policy is not an extreme idea.