Noted, your linked posts (1, 2)
The fact that the new energy paradigm can't possibly meet demand has been forecast for years. It's encouraging to see some conservatives (especially techno-utopians) beginning to get it.
But the paper doesn't go far enough.
— If the world can't meet projected demand with alt-energy
— AND —
— If the world is forced by climate change to drastically reduce consumption of fossil fuel
— Where does that leave us?
— I submit again that the logical outcome of approaching events is binary:
(A) Continue using fossil fuels and face the natural outcome: "Mother Nature will act, and she will be ruthless"
(B) Discontinue fossil fuel use rapidly -- as is necessary -- and suffer a huge decline in every aspect of modern life.
When will people understand that there are two drivers for climate change: energy and human behaviour?
The primary factor is energy. Without energy, nothing. With excess energy, you can have growth -- and in economics, profit. Insufficient energy? Decline and death until you reach stasis -- where energy demand matches energy supply.
When there's not enough energy to meet demand, you get decline. Declining production. GDP. Tax revenues. Agricultural output. Rising costs. At the economic margins, more and more people have less: food, shelter, transportation.
It's a good summary, though important factors like the Jevons paradox (1) are only mentioned in footnotes.
What's missing is the inescapable -- and logical -- conclusion.