HI Hans I have been throwing around this idea lately to see if it gets some traction , Nature to have its own currency as a way to stabilize its destruction.
without a price on nature demand will always drive deforestation and as countries become more wealthy so demand will increase. We all understand nature provides a service and could come to an agreement to a price, what we need is a nature currency like any country has and is provided to the countries that these natural services come from. Any country that then refuses to trade in it has the option but those that do can use it as part of their inter country capital exchange. If countries wish to generate more nature capital they could be given an advance on the future service and some of the poorest countries in the world will now have a reason and the funds to secure this service of nature for the future. If a country reduces this service then they lose an income stream. Sounds simple and easier in many ways than bitcoin and monitoring could be paid for in the same currency so as not to reduce the capital of any one country.
Johnathon Tonkin points out that any valuation may undermine something essentially priceless but we print money for almost anything else and call it progress at least this way it costs us nothing and opens up many opportunities.
Anastassia Makarieva thinks that we need a new social contract with nature amongst ourselves and one such as this has little draw backs
Nature having its own currency would not tie any one country to natural interactions that take place across boarders and will not rely on end polluters paying to pollute. A universally acceptable currency like a crypto currency where instead of mining the process of currency creation it is a reflection of natural benefit provided, seems the only logical solution. This is not reliant on any one country for the process to work and a new social contract is an excellent way of seeing this but it is not really new just neglected. As you state it only takes 20% to engineer change do you think with European backing they could facilitate this change? I would like to hear your thoughts
HI Hans I have been throwing around this idea lately to see if it gets some traction , Nature to have its own currency as a way to stabilize its destruction.
without a price on nature demand will always drive deforestation and as countries become more wealthy so demand will increase. We all understand nature provides a service and could come to an agreement to a price, what we need is a nature currency like any country has and is provided to the countries that these natural services come from. Any country that then refuses to trade in it has the option but those that do can use it as part of their inter country capital exchange. If countries wish to generate more nature capital they could be given an advance on the future service and some of the poorest countries in the world will now have a reason and the funds to secure this service of nature for the future. If a country reduces this service then they lose an income stream. Sounds simple and easier in many ways than bitcoin and monitoring could be paid for in the same currency so as not to reduce the capital of any one country.
Johnathon Tonkin points out that any valuation may undermine something essentially priceless but we print money for almost anything else and call it progress at least this way it costs us nothing and opens up many opportunities.
Anastassia Makarieva thinks that we need a new social contract with nature amongst ourselves and one such as this has little draw backs
Nature having its own currency would not tie any one country to natural interactions that take place across boarders and will not rely on end polluters paying to pollute. A universally acceptable currency like a crypto currency where instead of mining the process of currency creation it is a reflection of natural benefit provided, seems the only logical solution. This is not reliant on any one country for the process to work and a new social contract is an excellent way of seeing this but it is not really new just neglected. As you state it only takes 20% to engineer change do you think with European backing they could facilitate this change? I would like to hear your thoughts