| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Social distancing? Try a better way to work remotely on your online files. Dokkio, a new product from PBworks, can help your team find, organize, and collaborate on your Drive, Gmail, Dropbox, Box, and Slack files. Sign up for free.

View
 

Global Currency Solution

Page history last edited by Malcolm 7 years, 3 months ago

 

A new combined approach to a new global currency and a new global
carbon dioxide emission permitting regime

For two and a half decades now, we have been writing on the subject of
a combined approach to both a new global currency and a new global
carbon dioxide emission permitting regime. President Obama asked, and
developing countries agreed, that the present United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, that divides nationstates into
`developed' and `developing', should be superseded by a new `universal
convention' that ties all nationstates into a permitting regime. In
this context the old proposal which we had been disseminating over the
years deserves to be revived, ideally as a first step in a conference
of like minded philosophers.

The proposal involves switching the 'Assigned Amount Unit' approach
such as was devised under the old United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change for its 'Annex 1 countries' to a new 'universal'
'assignment' of such units (denominated in 1 tonne of carbon dioxide)
to all nationstates, enabling in turn a switch of the global economy
from one that separates 'economic growth' from 'pollution control' and
renders the two aims mutually exclusionary, to one that has as its
principle aim the aims of the (new) 'universal climate convention'
planned for 2015 itself, namely, the decrease and elimination of
carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and (uranium mining) in the
entire world.

The approach would require all countries to
a) receive the new 'Assigned Amount Units' into their accounts on the
basis of population and on the basis of the climate science, beginning
with 50 billion units in year 2015.
b) reduce the volume of this 'currency' by 5 billion annually - for
example, on the basis of a precautionary approach to the
interpretation of the implications of the science - so as to eliminate
carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (and pollution from
uranium) by 2025, for example
c) subject all installations in all nationstates in the world to the
permitting - cum - carbon dioxide currency system, in other words, all
trade in these substances in the transition phase, until they are
eliminated, will only be authorised if extraction and production
companies (of which there are no more than 1000 in the entire world)
have been allocated their permits – cum- currency units by their
respective nationstates
d) Nationstates accept that this will inevitably lead to their own
demise, as populations (given the constrained energy base of the
society) will re-organise into smaller 'sovereign societies' based on
the energy from animal husbandry and human labour.
e) these smaller 'sovereign societies' will have their own
constitutions and local currencies that have no 'value' outside their
country.

This historically grounded future vision for `humanity' makes use of
the opportunity afforded by the last remaining `emission space' of the
transition period, to power the computers necessary to do the
accounting work, through the new agencies of the `universal climate
convention conference of the parties', taken over from the old UNFCCC.
The approach would acknowledge the concerns of AOSIS, least developed
countries, countries especially vulnerable to drought and
desertification and other vulnerable communities, by committing all
nationstates to a legally binding outcome of total elimination of
fossil fuels and nuclear energy by the target date, but in any case
much earlier than 2030.

The issue of the sovereignty of nationstates that has hitherto
apparently been the stumbling block for the USA in its dealings with
the `international community', may have to be addressed as a separate
strategic topic of discussion in order that preparations can be made
with like minded individuals in the USA to overcome this essentially
legalistic hurdle that is hindering the survival of `humanity'.

As mentioned at the beginning of this note, the `international
community' will have to acknowledge that, one of the reasons the last
twenty years of `efforts' under the `UNFCCC' were wasted as far as
climate change mitigation is concerned, was the emphasis of the
previous Convention on the so-called `principle' that 'measures to
deal with climate change should be cost effective so as to ensure
global benefits at lowest possible cost', and the `principle' of the
need to 'maintain strong and sustainable economic growth. - both of
which are now understood to be incompatible with the aim of climate
change mitigation. One of the reasons for convening a meeting of
philosophers will be to draft a new preamble to the new `universal
climate convention' to bring out the logical incompatibility of
`sustainability of society' and `pursuit of wealth', and to illustrate
this incomapatibility for the `sustainable society' at the `small'
level, as well as at the `international' level.

The meeting will also outline the limits to the `vision' cited for
many countries of "needed change. We can't power a 21st-Century
economy with the fossil fuels of the past. We must invest, as a
nation, in the next generation of clean power plants. We must develop
energy-efficient cars, workplaces and homes. And we must expand our
use of renewable energy."

This so-called vision actually underplays the real energy base of
society, which is animal and human labour, and thus acts to prevent
all nationstates from acknowledging that provided they accept the
inevitability of their own demise, humanity itself may survive even
without renewable energy technologies. `Sustainable societies' and
`humanity' itself can survive without renewable energy technologies,
but not without soul.

Anandi Sharan,

Spokesperson, Green Party of India

__._,_.___

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the Global e-Forum on Climate Change and Global Warming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post message: ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: ClimateConcern-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: ClimateConcern-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Moderators and Managers:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.Ross Mayhew: rmayhew@ns.sympatico.ca, Canada
.Ernest Rukangira, ernestrukangira@yahoo.co.uk, London, UK
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please post only messages related to climate change and global warming and related business. Please do not send your unsubscription request to the whole group. If you use this list for spamming or sending mails about other subjects we will ban and remove you from the list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJka3NjOGtiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYxNDAxMjE4

 

 

 

 

.

__,_._,___

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.