A global carbon tax is a good idea. Unfortunately it’s very hard to put in place and is politically vulnerable. And who pays for the “legacy pollution “ of the last few hundred years?
This new policy idea proposes using monetary policy (and multiple central banks) to underwrite a new currency that’s earned on a per ton basis. Much easier to put in place. Without border issues. And much less political. It turns mitigated carbon into a financial asset.
Why would powerful actors relinquish their power?... Finally, the resource that maintains the institutions and power of countries and corporations is violence.
Its the money. Whoever has the money is going to buy and burn the oil. Consider the fascist elite will burn less than if the money is redistributed. Also consider the easy money should just disappear, go back to old money that can't be readily expanded.
What we have is a land problem.
Our European ancestors took their land and converted it to large farms (the mistermed Green Revolution, its more a fascist takeover). Now the method is being emulated. The disenfranchised are all dependent on the machine system (which requires to burn oil).
the real question is how to retain global relationships and unified economics as the system devolves. as Rachael implies wealth must be redistributed to the most vulnerable but that wealth only exists as unequal access to resources in the current global economics where wealth is the primary goal. global social justice is limited to consumer democratization through growth. survival itself in the next two decades, even without the abrupt climate change challenge, is tenuous. the psychotic/unjust green economy currently being politically persued will test our ability to adapt and find scientifically justified solutions. one only need look at Germany who touted their green energy through ficticious accounting while persuing eponential emissions growth through coal and wood burning.
Peter Zeihan, in his "the end of the world is just the begining", lays out the apocalytic deglobilization that will 'naturally' usher in degrowth and destabilization through the current demographic shifts alone. the economic and insuing political crisis may be capable of detangling capital markets and resources, degrowth on steriods (and not without horrific costs, think 20% depop and decades long global depression and food insecurity.)
Unfortunately, good ideas to resolve climate change issues are being aired only to be sucked into the political chambers, where they are 'attenuated' before embedding into the climate policy.
Is there any piece of 'no man's land' left on our planet that can be occupied and inhabited by the climate change concerned volunteers from across the world as its citizens? In their territory, they would have full power to repair the climate damage caused by the 'orphan' trash disowned by their producers from different nations. Meanwhile, the tug of war between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' continues...
A global carbon tax is a good idea. Unfortunately it’s very hard to put in place and is politically vulnerable. And who pays for the “legacy pollution “ of the last few hundred years?
This new policy idea proposes using monetary policy (and multiple central banks) to underwrite a new currency that’s earned on a per ton basis. Much easier to put in place. Without border issues. And much less political. It turns mitigated carbon into a financial asset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Carbon_Reward
Why would powerful actors relinquish their power?... Finally, the resource that maintains the institutions and power of countries and corporations is violence.
Its the money. Whoever has the money is going to buy and burn the oil. Consider the fascist elite will burn less than if the money is redistributed. Also consider the easy money should just disappear, go back to old money that can't be readily expanded.
What we have is a land problem.
Our European ancestors took their land and converted it to large farms (the mistermed Green Revolution, its more a fascist takeover). Now the method is being emulated. The disenfranchised are all dependent on the machine system (which requires to burn oil).
Land, trees, gardens, please.
the real question is how to retain global relationships and unified economics as the system devolves. as Rachael implies wealth must be redistributed to the most vulnerable but that wealth only exists as unequal access to resources in the current global economics where wealth is the primary goal. global social justice is limited to consumer democratization through growth. survival itself in the next two decades, even without the abrupt climate change challenge, is tenuous. the psychotic/unjust green economy currently being politically persued will test our ability to adapt and find scientifically justified solutions. one only need look at Germany who touted their green energy through ficticious accounting while persuing eponential emissions growth through coal and wood burning.
Peter Zeihan, in his "the end of the world is just the begining", lays out the apocalytic deglobilization that will 'naturally' usher in degrowth and destabilization through the current demographic shifts alone. the economic and insuing political crisis may be capable of detangling capital markets and resources, degrowth on steriods (and not without horrific costs, think 20% depop and decades long global depression and food insecurity.)
Unfortunately, good ideas to resolve climate change issues are being aired only to be sucked into the political chambers, where they are 'attenuated' before embedding into the climate policy.
Is there any piece of 'no man's land' left on our planet that can be occupied and inhabited by the climate change concerned volunteers from across the world as its citizens? In their territory, they would have full power to repair the climate damage caused by the 'orphan' trash disowned by their producers from different nations. Meanwhile, the tug of war between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' continues...