But the debt-based economic system being used to fight climate change is just as destructive.
I would suggest that the "debt-based economic system" you're talking about is only as destructive as it is because up until now, there was a large gap in the actual accounting that the 'free market' has been providing. The costs to move society forward have largely been ignoring the environmental debt that has been accrued. Like any other capital projects or long-term strategies, if you do not account for something and then realize further along down the line that it turns out to be apparently be explicitly required in order to move forward, it's going to cost a lot more than if you had just kept up with maintaining it.
Rather, if we had progressed forward through the last 30~50~80 years with a solid balance between industrialization/economic-progress and environmental sustainability, these costs would have been smaller, more manageable, and less destructive (at the time they were being implemented).
However, it seems as though NOW, the bill for the last two to three generations of not investing in sustainable environmental practices has come due. It feels destructive, because we're standing on a pile of poor accounting that largely ignored the foundation of everything it rests upon -- a stable environment and all the sustenance that it provides.
But what do I know... I'm just a guy in civil engineer in Canada.
EDIT: I just remembered why I came here. I was flipping through the SPS proposals, and remembered about your Steem Documentation proposal. Wanted to know how it was coming along, and if there was a link to some docs to check out.
https://steemit.com/@inertia/proposal-10-devportal-documentation-update-final-merge
What is your opinion on the response I gave along these lines, earlier in this part of the discussion?
https://steemit.com/@abitcoinskeptic/re-inertia-pyh5oc