I agree, Ray. As I've covered the 'UBI and health based on sales tax' theory enough already, I will suggest another route. Everyone can appreciate the news about climate, and "carbon", but they have a hard time making quantitative associations of oil's effects and projections. We've been through one stage of almost 'getting it' collectively (the 2007 house finance crisis). That bump in the road was caused at least partially by increasing gasoline prices. People who were barely making house payments suddenly had to choose gas to get to work or keep the Mcmansion. Fracking smoothed over the Meddle East war bumps, but the march up the oil slope didn't change. Politicians have been pushing ethanol to keep pump prices of gas down, but that jacks the diesel costs. The media is not correlating food costs, shipping costs, restaurant costs and Trump's popularity with the stubbornness of the oil fantasy. People don't want to hear what's wrong, or that oil can't last: they only want to believe that "somebody will do something", whether it's getting more with war, building fusion reactors or praying to AI bitcoin finance for some unknown miracle to allow us to stay oblivious and eating cheeze balls while celebrities take off their clothes at 14 million dollars per minute.

What's the point here? Tell people to think and question how much they will be able to do when oil goes to $1000 per barrel and gas goes to 10, 50 or 100 bucks per gallon when our favorite morality posers start all-out war over oil/religion/bullying money. Wall Street is smoking some potent weed right now, but once the insurance starts denying everyone's climate claims, there won't be anymore real growth projections.