> "would adding more money speed it up, or are all available resources already being used as effectively as they can be?" That question doesn't make sense. Mor

> "would adding more money speed it up, or are all available resources already being used as effectively as they can be?" That question doesn't make sense. More money adds more resources. So even if they only have 50% efficiency, increasing the money will increase the resources. And clearly not all resources are going to avert climate change. For instance, we can fix the "transmission" problem by just choosing area close to desert cities and building plants there as opposed to further away where they are expensive. We could have giant artificial gravity storage. Those things are very expensive, but they are also very doable. We could be carrying bowling balls up the Empire State Building to build local energy storage. But we don't need to go that far. The US is just beginning to suggest that using groundwater at 100-1000x the rate of it recovering to drain the aquifers that took many millennia to fill to grow alfalfa in the desert might be a bad idea. And don't forget, a key argument being made was that salaries aren't high enough to get the best people (especially those choosing majors in college) into the greening industry as opposed to SV or Wall St.