I suppose, one should characterize that thread a seminal discussion of the project. Commenters establish criteria by which to test the "good" value of its ethical construction that persist today. These pertain to technical feasibility and the subjective arbiter which is self-referential even within the most abstruse subtext of this discourse, extraterrestrial colonization. No where do commenters address capital expense (debt) incurred, demand, equity ("interest in"), or preferences of "North African" peoples purportedly investing in this EU project.

Three years later I contested this bias (2010).

The PwC business case, "100% Renewable, a roadmap to 2050 for Europe and North Africa," is here.

I still do. And little of eurotrib commenters' prejudices and advocacy for the project has changed despite a series of very unfortunate geopolitical events marshaled by NATO since 2007 to destabilize the sovereignty and security of "North Africa".

On those issues and others that directly express the economic interest in and priorities of the peoples of "North Africa" the gallery is silent.

Why is that?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.