0. solar thermal across the equatorial regions feeding into grids, wind/wave feeding down from the north
![]()
Well, yes...
Considered as an engineering problem, I'll pull a number out of the air and say it's doable in just under a decade.
But that would require central planning: someone issues a decree on Monday saying "you will break ground for the pipe-making plant here, on Wednesday, and you will finish it in August 2009; you will break ground in the Sahara on 1 March 2009... send the bill to us".
Considered as a political problem, it's about 25 years off, at full tilt; 40 at normal pace.
To achieve it without central planning, you'd need international treaties to set up market conditions that would make it profitable to bid for the work.
Considering the political problem in engineering terms: it is a system with massive built-in lags and hysteresis. It takes a minimum of six months to prepare the papers and positions for a diplomatic conference: this is determined by how fast the "sherpas" that prepare for climbing the Summit can read and how rapidly they can call meetings with the democratically-elected politicians they control

Mind you, in this week's New Scientist economist Susan George proposes that the answer is, indeed, to put the economy on something as urgent as a "war footing":
There is a historical precedent. When the Allies faced fascism in the second world war, it was as dire a foe for them as climate change is for us. The US had not yet fully emerged from the Depression, but it had in Franklin D. Roosevelt a president who understood what was required. Under his guidance, the economy was shifted to a war footing in an amazingly short time. My native city, Akron, Ohio, the "rubber capital of the world", switched to producing tyres and equipment for the army and air force. Every other industrial centre also switched to meet military needs. Chief executives became prestigious "dollar-a-year men", paid that symbolic sum by the treasury for meeting government quantity and quality targets. Many framed the cheque like a badge of honour.
Yes, there were still worker-management conflicts, but on the whole it was a time of opportunity, especially for women and minorities. Workers were well paid, everyone pitched in, "victory gardens" were cultivated, children used their allowances to buy war stamps, petrol was rationed. The country had never been so united before - or since. The war pulled the country out of the Depression at last. It was Keynesian economics, named after British economist John Maynard Keynes.
A similar effort is required to fight environmental meltdown and it would be less difficult than it sounds. The political point is that ecological Keynesianism is a win-win scenario that could provide something for everyone. People are generally way ahead of governments in recognising danger, and they tend to build coalitions to convince politicians they will vote for whoever takes a specific crisis as seriously as they do. Politicians can win on a Keynesian environmental programme because now, as then, it promises a society of highly skilled, highly paid quality jobs and renewed export opportunities.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel...hink-big-to-fight-environmental-disaster.html
patriotic lot, too, aren't they. 

