Why is the already existing emissions trading with certificates not sufficient?

Unfortunately, not all instances of the value chain have been included in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. In Germany, only operators of large combustion plants (with a thermal capacity of more than 20 megawatts) and energy-intensive industries such as steelworks, refineries, aviation and cement works are currently participating in emissions trading. According to the German Federal Environment Agency, since 2008 there have been more certificates traded than actually required. The surplus of emission rights has therefore led to dumping prices, making investment in more environmentally friendly technologies simply uneconomical for companies. Emissions trading could only make an efficient contribution to reducing emissions if fewer certificates were issued than emissions were generated. Moreover, emissions trading at such a superordinate level does not take into account the smallest unit in the market, the consumer, with its enormous steering effect. This is not the case with ECO, because the feedback from changes in demand allows the industry to re-educate very quickly and efficiently. Another disadvantage of the EU ETS is the high administrative burden on the part of the legislator, because administration is already required in many areas. The necessary measures to integrate sectors that have not yet been subject to emissions trading would require even greater effort.

 

The EU-ETS is therefore conceptually inferior to the ECO because

 

  • the entirety of all sectors is not represented
  • only industry is included, not consumers, who have no incentive to save additional CO2 as a result
  • the penalty for exceeding the permitted maximum is far too low 
  • the danger of carbon leakage exists (migration of CO2 intensive industry to third countries without ETS)
  • by auctioning the allowances, the purchase price is passed on to the consumer and the prices are thus increased
  • 80% of the allowances are given away for free (until 2020) and the industry has no incentive to invest in green technologies.

 

 

What about the CO2 tax?

Experience has also shown that taxing emissions is not an effective way of combating climate change. This is because taxation merely makes our consumption more expensive. But it does not necessarily limit it. Things simply cost a little more. There is no reliable reduction in emissions. In addition, the possibility of influencing demand via price, for example in the case of fuels, reaches its limits, since price increases have relatively little impact on demand. According to estimates by analysts at the European Central Bank, the short-term price elasticity of fuel demand is -0.15 for the euro zone, i.e. a price increase of 10% reduces demand by only 1.5%. Furthermore, imposing a CO2 tax does not guarantee compliance with a targeted emissions reduction goal, as it only directly affects the price of emissions. At best, the quantity of CO2 emissions can be controlled indirectly and only with a time lag. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use a volume solution rather than price regulation to reduce CO2 emissions.

Another major disadvantage is the lack of transparency (which, by the way, applies equally to emissions allowance trading). Since the surcharged CO2 costs combine with the economic product price to form a total price, transparent differentiation of the climate costs included is virtually impossible for the customer. The separate surcharge of the CO2 footprint is hardly visible. With the resource currency ECO, on the other hand, ALL costs of our ecological footprint become visible. This information flows into the purchase decision. People can now assign a price to the CO2 equivalent of their consumption in addition to the economic value. This is because the monetary price of something is determined by many costs: Materials, production, labor, development, marketing, taxes, etc. This is also true for each of the many components of a product. So the final price is the sum of quite a few cost factors. The additional CO2 price is only a fraction of the total costs and therefore hardly transparent for the consumer.

The ECO price, on the other hand, corresponds exactly to the CO2 resources consumed during the complete manufacturing process. There is no mixing of monetary price and resource price. Even the smallest CO2 emissions are reflected transparently. The intended emission target is achieved exactly. Market economy laws work in harmony with ecological sustainability. Due to the limited personal budget, the total emission volume can be precisely controlled. This gives the right investment and consumption signals to industry AND society. The last or first link in the chain is the end consumer, who brings about the necessary changes in the production processes through his free consumption decision and the limitedness of his personal budget.

 

CO2 taxes are therefore conceptually inferior to the ECO because

  •  they mainly increase costs and do not provide transparency regarding the CO2 footprint
  • they do not reduce CO2 emissions quickly and reliably enough
  • they are a bureaucratic monster, because they have to be administered in all different areas: agriculture, transport, energy, etc.
  • the budgeting is missing, because money is infinitely available

 

Why don't politicians first appeal to industry?

The primary interest of industry is to make profits and not to become more environmentally friendly in order to save the globe. This sounds sober, but unfortunately it is so. One should not overlook the fact that legal frameworks are being exhausted, but are generally being adhered to. The system should be designed in such a way as to put a sensible stop to the selfish pursuit of ever more growth and profit at the expense of the environment.

 

Doesn't change begin at a small scale and shouldn't everyone start with themselves first?

In principle of course yes! However, experience shows that appeal or even a few voluntary self-limitations do not bring about the necessary power of change by far. Many people recognize the pressure to act, but are not prepared to draw personal consequences from it. This is simply because, in contrast to the Corona Pandemic, no immediate threat or feedback is apparent. If we really were to focus exclusively on this, valuable time will pass in order to implement effective countermeasures. Also, many people think, "What can I do to make a big difference?" Resignation spreads and we hide behind the inaction of so many others. Selfishness is also an important factor: Even if many people have certainly recognized the dangers of global climate change, in addition to the systemic understanding of the pressure to act, selfish interests usually gain the upper hand "... but I won't miss out on the cheap offer for the cruise ...". It is important that the issue of climate change should not be about blame. Guilt, in the sense of "...your consumption is worse than my consumption...". No one should feel offended. Because we all live within this system design that enabled the current state of our environment. The focus should rather be on how we as a society come out of the crisis together. And this in the fairest possible way, without losing anyone along the way. The human being should therefore be able to behave in a way that does not affect the rights of third parties.

 

Why is the concept of a resource currency better than the political solutions?

The alternative climate concept is conceptually superior to taxation. The approach is not to describe what everyone can personally contribute in their everyday life to save the climate. Rather, the concept is based on a systemic solution that is as broad as possible for society as a whole. It describes the limitation of emissions to a scientifically defined maximum, as well as the pricing and fair rationing of personal climate-damaging consumption. To this end, the draft pursues a well thought-out system of a complementary resource currency, which corresponds to the CO2 -equivalent, the fossil fuels used to create value. It can be easily integrated into our existing economic system and reliably limits the consumption-based consumption of fossil fuels through fair rationing. Market economy laws function in harmony with ecological sustainability and the polluter-pays principle applies to the smallest unit of the market, the consumer. The special feature of the Alternative Climate Concept also takes into account the case that the system of a complementary resource currency is not immediately accepted and implemented by all countries. It also describes the initially required interfaces to the "rest of the world".

 

If this alternative climate concept were actually implemented globally, then the rich could simply carry on as before?

Of course, the environmental crisis cannot be considered in isolation from social aspects. For this question describes two very complex issues that undoubtedly play into each other: The justice problem and the climate problem. Of course, at first it sounds like injustice if some wealthy people can use their money to buy more emission volume than they are personally entitled to according to the distribution algorithm. Nevertheless, the ECO helps to reduce the wealth gap between rich and poor, because the rich now pay for their extra emissions, which they do not have to do today. More consumers thus pay low consumers directly in financial compensation. The poor have a new source of income through the sale of their unneeded quota, which they do not have today. At the same time, personal emission quotas reliably ensure that no one can consume beyond his means, at the expense of everyone else. This is because the ECO's limited spending amount corresponds exactly to the remaining total emissions budget. Thus, in addition to the very positive effect of reducing emissions, the ECO also has a desirable positive side effect, namely greater social justice. It should also be taken into account that the poorer people do not have the financial means at all to engage in emissions-intensive consumption.

 

This is all much too difficult to implement. How is this supposed to work?

It will certainly not be possible to do this in a cost-neutral way. However, there is also a great deal at stake for all of us to ensure that such an effort is worthwhile. Because there are two reasons for climate change: human activity and human inactivity. Back in the 1990s, the world already showed a remarkable unity - namely when it came to the dramatic expansion of the hole in the ozone layer and the urgent renunciation of CFCs. ALL countries of the world agreed to renounce the use of CFCs within 10 years and to replace them with (more expensive) substitutes. Why did this work back then? Because it was indispensable! Today the world is no less endangered and there is an equally urgent need for action. Nature will probably solve this much more brutally than the processes that humanity itself

can set in motion. Should we fail in our efforts, it will be much more difficult to manage the consequences of global climate change than it is today to implement this alternative climate concept (or any other) at the most multinational level possible. It is our decision how - by design or by disaster. Because the world is facing a task of the century. But we do not have by far 100 years more time for it.

 

How can I still afford to commute to work?

What will happen when ECO becomes mandatory in the near future? Could I then still afford the daily commute to work, for example? Yes, because politics and industry will make green fuels available by then. The possibilities for this have been around for a long time. However, up to now they have not been financially competitive with fossil fuels, as only economic aspects have been taken into account. The ecological view of the accompanying environmental destruction was wrongly ignored. In order to soften the introduction phase of the resource currency, we could discuss an expansion (overshooting) of the ECO budget for a certain transitional period. However, this additional emission would have to be consistently reduced again at a later date (overshooting to the target level). For one thing is clear, nature or physics does not negotiate. The remaining volume of emissions is absolute. Therefore, the strict implementation of the limited resource currency ECO on an agreed date is preferable. It would also be conceivable to use the instrument of state subsidies to industry in a targeted manner in order to alleviate the initial financial burden of investing in green technologies. Furthermore, a reform of the commuter allowance would make sense. The state already contributes to the cost of commuting to work by making daily commuting tax deductible. With the introduction of the parallel currency, this commuter allowance could be extended for a certain transitional phase, gradually melting away, to cushion the initial additional personal burden. However, an initial additional burden is unavoidable. This is the only way to create the necessary pressure for change.

 

But the other countries produce much more emissions than we do. Let them start to change things first!

Surely you could point the finger at others and say that climate protection measures would hardly be effective only at European level. Correct! Nevertheless, we should put our own house in order first, instead of hiding behind the inaction of other countries. Economically strong industrial nations such as Germany should send out a strong signal and take the lead internationally to show how an energy turnaround can take place. Climate change is a global problem and does not stop at national borders.

 

Shouldn't industrialized countries be granted higher emission quotas?
Historically high emissions by industrialized countries should not be used as a justification to derive the right to continue to act in this way in the future. In view of its history and its greater technological and financial capacities, Europe should therefore assume responsibility and take on a pioneering role instead of hiding behind historical customary law. Otherwise, previous low emitters could derive a catch-up right from this and want to expand their emissions to our level. In this way, the climate target would become unattainable.

 

But the German government has already adopted a climate package. Why do we need another one?

The German government's climate package is based on taxation. However, if only one tax is levied on something, only consumption will initially become more expensive. Because if you make something more expensive, this does not necessarily reduce consumption. It simply means that consumption costs more money. It would remain completely unclear whether the necessary reduction could be implemented in this way. 

 

Why is there an urgent need for a complementary currency, the ECO?

A price increase through the introduction of a tax would not be able to curb consumption or reduce the emission of harmful greenhouse gases. The introduction of the ECO ensures that every citizen of the world receives the same quota of this currency, which is not, however, available limitlessly, but is strictly limited and recalculated every year. This is the only way to achieve a reduction in the purchase of goods that cause harmful gases and a fair distribution within the population.

 

The alternative climate concept simply means for me a new restriction in my personal freedom!

Yes and no!

Saving our climate will not be possible for free, and certainly not according to the motto "Keep it up! Things finally need their rightful price. However, personalized emissions trading is enormously efficient and unrivalled in its fairness in relation to other concepts under discussion for saving our climate. It allows a maximum of personal freedom of choice, but within clearly defined limits for everyone. For example, people who does not want to give up the idea of continuing to make three long-distance journeys a year can of course do so, but have to limit themselves elsewhere. Just like with conventional money.

 

Why should mankind save emissions today when it is not yet clear whether climate change has natural causes?

It is not about the natural causes of climate change. These have always existed and will continue to exist. But they take place on other time scales. Nor is it about "the planet." The Earth has already experienced several ice ages and hot periods. Nature adapts to them over the course of millions of years: Species die out, new species emerge. The current discussion about climate change is about the survival of us humans and our civilization. The fact that anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes are by far the greatest driver of this is scientifically unambiguous and clearly proven. Uncertainties exist at most on detailed levels and are used by ideologues and conspiracy theorists for various reasons to sow doubts.

 

Why not simply push ahead with technical solutions to counteract global warming?

Work is currently underway to bring climate-neutral energy sources to market maturity. However, such processes are still complex, expensive or have a poor efficiency. The problem is simply that time is running out and we urgently need to start now to strictly limit greenhouse gas emissions. Through the alternative climate concept, environmentally friendly technologies will finally become competitive. Industry AND society are given the right investment and consumption signals. The last or first link in the chain is the end consumer, who brings about the necessary changes in the production processes through the free consumption decision and the limitation of the personal budget.

 

As a Central European, what do I care about global climate change?

After all, we’ll be probably in the comfortable situation of having a moderate climate here for a long time to come! Yes, it is possible that regions near the equator will become uninhabitable and agriculturally unproductive much faster due to rising temperatures. What will happen when the livelihoods of the people living there are dwindling? There will be streams of refugees, against the scale of which the current "refugee crisis", for reasons of war and persecution, will seem insignificant. Fortress Europe will not be able to protect itself against the millions of climate refugees that will come, even with even higher walls and Frontex. Moreover: only one of the many sensitive tipping points is the Gulf Stream. If the polar caps continue to melt and "dilute" the salty seawater, there is a danger that this gigantic heat pump will dry up, which would endanger the comfortable Central European climate.

 

How are general/public costs handled, such as the purchase or operation of a patrol car?

All economic costs related to general tasks of the state, such as the maintenance of government buildings or official flights of politicians, are of course distributed to the citizens by means of taxes. Similarly, ecological costs will be collected from citizens' climate accounts according to a distribution key.

 

Does not the formula apply: fewer people = fewer climate problems?

That's only partly true. The fact is that it is precisely the relatively few people in the industrialized nations who cause by far the largest proportion of the world's climate gases. However, the effects, in the form of droughts, floods and extreme weather, are currently being borne primarily by the emerging and developing countries, which have contributed least to climate change.

 

Private trade: What happens if a used article, e.g. a car, is resold privately after a whileof use?

Since the complete ECO price was paid by the first owner when buying a new item, the latter will naturally want to get part of the amount back from the later buyer- similar to the purchase price in conventional money. This happens individually between the private seller and the new owner according to the laws of supply and demand. Even in private trade, the transfer of an agreed ECO amount can take place from the buyer's account to the seller's account at the world climate bank. The currency ECO can be freely traded, just like physical goods or a service. The transfer of the negotiated amount is handled by the climate bank. This is as uncomplicated as an ordinary bank transfer or a transfer to a PayPal account.

 

Import/export: For example, what would Russia, as a supplier of natural gas, care if the EU introduced the ECO as a Resource Currency Union (RCU)?

Imports and exports determine our global economic system - both goods and energy. When fossil fuels are imported into the RCU, this additional quota of greenhouse gas emissions must be consistently adapted to the system of the carbon resource currency ECO. If fossil energy sources from the RCU itself were used, all companies involved in the value chain must pay their consumption with the corresponding amount of the parallel currency ECO to the extraction companies, which in turn must pay their share to the climate bank according to the amount extracted. Regardless of where the fossil carbon was originally extracted from the ground. Citizens of the RCU pay the ECO price for the products manufactured with it. Scenario: The EU imports gas from Russia, which is not part of the Resource Currency Union (RCU) The gas source operator therefore does not pay ECO to the climate bank. The first processing company in the EU must pay the specific ECO amount associated with the gas to the climate bank. If the end product obtained from this is sold within the RCU, the cycle remains strictly closed. Further scenarios on the subject of import/export: https://saveclimate.jimdofree.com/in-detail/import-export/

  

What happens to my saved ECO when I have passed away?

Since the transferred personal ECO budget is closely linked to the permitted issue volume, this "credit" of the resource currency can be inherited in the same way as conventional money.

 

How does the introduction of a resource currency affect our handling of packaging waste?
One-way packaging, e.g. made of plastic, or packaging waste in general, is significantly reduced by the parallel currency ECO. The throw-away mentality, with all its associated disadvantages, such as the littering of the oceans with plastic waste, is due to the fact that disposable packaging is produced very cheaply and therefore has little economic value. The consequential costs, such as those of disposal or the damage to marine life, are overlooked. The ECO finally gives this resource its real value, making material-saving handling and recycling systems much more attractive.

 

What's it all gonna cost?!

That's a fair question. Critics fear that meeting the climate targets will hamper economic development. Analyses put the economic costs of climate protection at 0.5 to 2% of the total global gross national product. Surprisingly, hardly anyone asks what the effects of the global climate crisis will cost if we do nothing. The massive restructuring of our fossil-fuelled infrastructure will provide a powerful economic stimulus. And perhaps, by the way, bring about a climate policy economic miracle. This could certainly be a pleasant side effect. After all, ambitious climate protection triggers investments and creates numerous jobs.

 

Once on a cruise ship, do you sit cold all winter long?

The concept of the limiting resource currency is not about permanently restricting people or putting them into existential hardship, but rather about a change in the way we deal with the limited resource atmosphere, which will otherwise get us into hot water very quickly if we fail to make the switch to green energies. A cruise ship leaves with the cheapest heavy fuel oil that can be bought, because we book the trip with the provider who offers us the week Canary Islands for 800 euros or cheaper. The alternatives to coal, oil and gas have existed for a long time. But until now, they were not financially competitive compared to fossil fuels, as only economical aspects were considered. The ecological aspect of the accompanying environmental destruction has been wrongly ignored. That is why we now need this CO2 currency, so that economic production processes become more climate-friendly as a result of consumer pressure, because ECO-friendly consumer goods and services are now in demand.

 

How will I be able to afford larger, long-term purchases such as a house or a car with the ECO?

With the ECO it is very similar to the salary account. Most people will not be able to pay directly for a car and certainly not for real estate with their average monthly salary. There are credit institutions for this. They will grant a loan with mostly monthly repayments + interest, provided that the creditworthiness and feasibility are checked. Similarly, citizens can also apply for an ECO loan from the climate bank for larger purchases. However, there is one decisive advantage: a loan from the climate bank is never charged with interest. The special feature of the ECO resource currency system is, that in contrast to the variable money supply of a country, that there must be no increase in the total quota issued by the climate bank for a period. The ratio of ECO to the emission quota always remains tightly coupled. An interest effect would destroy this basic principle.

 

Are there parallels to the Corona Pandemic in the global climate crisis?

In contrast to Corona, the issue of climate crises supposedly lacks direct feedback - a serious fallacy!

If people feel directly threatened - e.g. to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 tomorrow - then they are even prepared to give up their flights, for example. But when something seems to be so far away - and the poles just don't melt in our front gardens - then it is much easier to suppress it. That is exactly the point. That's why we need a systemic approach to solve the problem that affects society as a whole. The Corona crisis in particular has shown which epoch-making decisions we as a society are capable of. Let us use this ability to overcome the global climate crisis. This pandemic teaches us that there is enough money when we need to react quickly and consistently to serious crises. Even noticeable restrictions in social life are suddenly feasible. This presents a unique opportunity to focus crisis and economic aid on climate protection. However, if parts of the economic aid are used to promote "business as usual" in the coal, oil and gas industries, we will not achieve the Paris climate targets. In a few years' time, we will then see how the uncontrollable heatwave will affect human civilization more than the corona virus could ever manage.

 

Is it possible to cheat on the ECO pricing? Who checks how much CO2 is produced?

The alternative climate concept works completely without expensive and bureaucratic test institutes and is therefore very simple and unrivalled effective. The only regulation is at the bottleneck of the entire consumption chain, namely the amount of ECO paid out to the private climate accounts of citizens. This amount corresponds to the current remaining emissions budget and must therefore be reviewed on a cyclical basis. It is important for understanding the concept that any "mining" of fossil primary energy sources must be paid to the climate bank quantitatively with its ECO equivalent. The only state monitoring takes place with regard to the quantities of coal, oil and gas produced. Their quantity is thus dependent on only one factor, namely the amount of ECO paid by industry to the extraction companies, which in turn has previously been collected from consumers. From now on, the individual players within the value-added chain will calculate the ECO associated with their process as a CO2-equivalent, completely autonomously.

 

There is no possibility of cheating on the pricing of the ECO due to the system and thus no possibility of gaining a price advantage over the competition. The system of the resource currency ECO is explicitly designed in such a way that misuse is virtually impossible. It is by no means possible for companies to make a profit with it. In order to rule out distortions of competition, companies are not allowed to keep a climate account (as private individuals do). Companies only have an ECO clearing account with the climate bank. Each link in the value-added chain must pay the invoiced ECO to the previous instance and, in connection with the calculated expenses for its own processes, pass these costs on to the downstream instance(s) in order to avoid making a loss. It works very similar to the calculation of the sales price in Euro. Only the generation of an ECO profit is excluded, because each instance would like to pass on the lowest possible attractive ECO costs to remain competitive on the market. This, by the way, spurs the rapid conversion of production processes towards "green" and thus reduces the use of fossil fuels.

 

Therefore, it makes no sense for a company to fraudulently set ECO artificially too high for its own processes because this plus cannot be capitalized, just as private individuals can do by selling their surplus ECO on the climate exchange. In addition, this would make their products less attractive on the market than competing ECO products with lower prices.

 

Furthermore, it is also completely uninteresting, even impossible for companies to fraudulently underprice ECO for their own processes. This is because every company must (be able to) pay the upstream instances (receipt of raw materials, transport, ...) by means of the ECO it has collected itself.

 

The ECO is therefore not at all suitable for pocketing money. The charming thing about it is that the ECO prices are calculated completely automatically within this cycle between consumers, trade, transport, production, material extraction and mining through system-inherent self-interest free calculation. The industry visualizes the realistic ECO prices as CO2-equivalent of our consumption. A distortion of the prices upwards is counterproductive and therefore senseless. On the other hand, a downward distortion is not possible at all, because although one wants to position oneself favorably on the market, all expenditure must be covered 1:1 by income at the same time. The most important objective, namely to reduce CO2-emissions below a permitted level, is therefore absolutely fulfilled. And this very lean, fair and effective.

 

Methane: What about the steady increase in meat mass production. Isn't that where the particularly climate-damaging methane is produced?

Correct! Large quantities of methane are released during meat production in particular. Very similar to the billing of the consumption of fossil energy sources, the release of methane could be integrated consistently into the system of the parallel currency ECO in a next step in the near future.Deforestation/afforestation of forest areas: It would also be conceivable to adapt resource consumption by the timber industry to the ECO. This is because non-sustainable deforestation means that these forest areas are no longer available for CO2 absorption and the atmosphere is thus additionally polluted. Consequently, measures that are accompanied by additional compensation requirements for the atmosphere should also be taken into account. Just as with the consumption of fossil resources, the ECO price would be passed on through the wood industry along the entire value chain to the end consumer. Conversely, the reforestation of additional forest areas, for example, would relieve the atmosphere. Thus, ECO can be "earned" by such measures that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and lead to a quantitative expansion of the resource currency. Conversely, ECO could be "earned" and lead to a quantitative expansion of the resource currency. This is because additionally afforested forest areas withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere and thus reduce the burden on the atmosphere.

 

Deforestation/afforestation of forest areas:

In addition to programs to promote climate-friendly energies, reforestation or forest protection projects are playing an increasingly important role in offsetting CO2 emissions and are fully in line with the trend. This is because the climate protection contribution of these measures is very clear and easy to communicate. Trees bind carbon in their biomass and in the soil. But even in the EU ETS

reforestation and forestry projects are excluded for good reason. Because with such concepts, it is not certain whether the afforested forest will still be standing, cut down or burned in the future. We consider forest projects for CO2 reduction to be a good thing in principle. But the accounting of CO2 sequestration from the atmosphere by biomass, cannot be seriously and transparently quantified and integrated into a GHG accounting system.

 

We would like to justify our concerns:

  • If saplings are planted on a defined area today, it takes many years before they absorb relevant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • The CO2 uptake of the trees is subject to strong fluctuations (age, tree species, in which region the trees are located, ...).
  • Keyword sustainability: It is hard to control how long these trees are standing. If they are cut down after X-years and processed to firewood, the entire amount of bound CO2 is released again during the lifetime when burning

In addition, we should generally no longer promote processes that make it possible to continue emitting CO2 today in order to remove it from the atmosphere again later through costly compensation measures. This does not make sense from an energy point of view.

 

How does the ECO affect the often-common practice of destroying returns?

The motto is: use instead of waste. The current practice of destroying new goods and returns is economically cheaper than putting them back into the sales process.  This resource madness would come to an end with the ECO, because things would finally have an ecological value.

 

Can we draw useful parallels from the Corona pandemic for climate policy?

The great opportunity of the Corona crisis lies in the willingness to accept scientific findings as a framework for action. If we succeed in maintaining this respect for scientific knowledge, we will no longer have to argue about whether in the eco-crisis, but only about how. If, after Corona, we remember how quickly and profoundly we were able to adapt our society to biological necessities, we may draw courage from this for radical reforms in climate policy as well.

 

What about tourists from countries not participating in ECO?

Foreign tourists from countries not participating in Personal Carbon Trading or people who, for example, have forgotten their CO2 card when refueling, simply pay the (fuel) price in the store or at the gas station and also the current exchange rate value for the required CO2 units. The ECO price for the corresponding amount of CO2 is then added to the energy price. The required amount of ECO is automatically purchased by the point of sale on the climate exchange and paid directly to the climate bank.

 

What is the level of acceptance of the ECO resource currency among the population?

Because the ECO resource currency system represents genuine per capita budgeting, it is predominantly perceived as fair. For this reason, acceptance of such an efficient, equitable and socially responsible instrument is much more widespread among the population today than is assumed by politicians entrenched in particular interests. Even industry and commerce welcome the planning security it provides. This gives every citizen the choice of how to integrate climate protection into his or her life. Another plus in terms of acceptance is the superiority of this system compared to non-transparent price increases through CO2 taxes or CO2-certificate costs passed on by the industry.

 

Is there also an ecological basic income for children?

Minors also receive monthly ECO transfers from the Climate Bank, very similar to the child benefit in local currency. However, in order not to send the wrong signals, possibly offspring as a business model, these ECO are marked. This is necessary to achieve that these specially tagged ECO can only be used for payment. Unlike the basic ecological income of adults, this digital tagging prevents the basic ecological income of minors from being capitalized. It can therefore not be sold on the climate exchange.

 

Couldn't rich people buy up large sums of ECO to speculate on rising prices?

To prevent the ECO price from being driven to dizzying heights by speculation on the climate exchange, purchased ECO are marked as such. This digital marking prevents resale. Accordingly, additionally purchased ECO can only be consumed by the buyer itself. Only the ECO transferred monthly by the climate bank can be freely offered for sale by anyone on the climate exchange. This prevents price gouging through speculation.

 

Isn't the cost of double-entry bookkeeping unreasonably high for companies?

Climate protection will not be cost-neutral. But after all, we've been practicing overexploitation for decades, and that can't continue. The additional effort for companies to validate their production processes in terms of CO2 emissions is essential and reasonable. Finally, the environmental consumption of our consumption is currently not visibly reflected in the price of money. Therefore, citizens can hardly assess whether they are ecologically conscious or not.

 

Example: If a company wants to put a manufactured appliance on sale, it first requires several product approval procedures - national as well as international, if the item is to receive approval for the global market as well. This procedure, too, is anything but effortless, but it is indispensable for proving, for example, safety or environmental compatibility.

 

Here are a few examples of the most important product markings in Germany:

  • TÜV
  • GS mark for safety
  • CE mark for product conformity
  • Blue Angel
  • Energy Efficiency Class
  • VDE mark
  • RoHS
  • several procedures for the US market

 

Is the concept of a resource currency protected against fraud or manipulation by a parallel economy?

A very legitimate question! The parallel currency ECO is extremely safe from manipulation. In contrast to offences such as tax evasion or illegal employment, the great advantage of this resource currency is that it circulates within a closed loop system. If someone wanted to purchase a product or service without paying the associated ECO, the cycle would be broken. The consequence would be that the retailer or any other upstream entity would not collect any ECO, but would need it to pay for its own CO2 costs. In this respect, all links in the value chain, except the end consumer, have an interest in the CO2 currency circulation. Because, unlike us consumers, they only have a clearing account and are not allowed to trade ECO. Which means that they can neither buy nor sell them. Without the ECO they take, they would have a deficit in their clearing account. Every link in the chain has to pay the CO2 costs of the previous instances from its own clearing account. These costs can only be covered by the payment of the (end) customers, who in turn receive the parallel currency monthly from the Climate Bank. (see figure Consumption Resource Chain).

 

But the ECO thing, that's not possible at all!

I would like to quote an author I do not know:

"Everyone said that it is not possible at all.

… someone came along who didn't know that and just did it." 

 

Amazing that hardly anyone asks what the consequences of not acting would be!

 

This page was translated with the help of DeepL