Thanks. The odds of some profoundly new economic that works coming along is effectively zero because they violate fundamental principles of economics, business, innovation, human nature, and human rights. Bioengineering humans might work but goodness knows what that would look like ;-).
The one solution people don't consider enough is sticking to the fundamentals. Singapore and other smaller countries tend that way and they do much better on almost every front. That requires, of course, old fashioned hard work over decades.
We will solve the warming problem because innovation is rapidly making it possible -- it is actually economically inevitable (we are on a 100 year Moore's law for decarbonization). It is just a long slog because changing the world's infrastructure is a huge, expensive job. Solar and batteries are getting there exponentially fast. You can easily see them as the preferred solution in many situations in 15-30 years. But making a measurable dent in warming is a 50+ year project.
We will also decarbonize by innovation making growth and prosperity happen faster in the developing world. Getting a population above $10k per capita is the most important step. If population growth continues to grow exponentially, all is lost. But at $10k, population growth goes rapidly and exponentially negative. Already the biggest problem in some developing countries is a population decline of 2x every generation (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.). I guess we can consider getting rid of people another form of decarbonization!
Efforts to make both of these developments go faster are good. That is what the new PM in India is trying to do. Digital, that is more innovation, is the enabling factor. Digital is also enabling unprecedented efficiency gains, producing even more decarbonization. Without profit we would be dead in the water with no effective way to drive these innovations. Innovation itself is also one of those fundamentals that we often discuss here: how can we do it better -- much better?
What am I missing?