New discussion regarding our current trajectory to AGW/OP/TEOTHWAWKI.
#1. Think about the paradigms that dictate our current economic systems across the globe. What is the fuel for global our economy? Money? I think so. The more the merrier. The acquisition and accumulation of money is the primary goal for everyone who participates in our modern, 21st Century economy. Money governs policy. Ecological concerns are secondary to financial concerns. Threats to income and jobs outweigh the threats to our planet and our environment.
#2. Which is the greater resource for our future? Money, or energy? Can money do anything without energy? Money can buy energy, and money can produce energy, but energy is the greater of those two resources. You can do pretty much anything with energy. You can use energy to grow food. You can use energy for transportation. You can use energy in nearly every aspect of our normal daily lives. Does money illuminate a light bulb, or does energy illuminate a light bulb?
#3. In order to influence people to take AGW more seriously, and to follow through with the Paris Climate Accords and COP21, which is the greater incentive to change people's policies and behaviors: money, or energy? Right now, the greater of the two incentives is money. Money is what runs our economies, and that is the paradigm that we must change if we are to avoid/minimize AGW. Energy must become the currency that drives the changes necessary to sustain society. What is the use of money to buy energy when you already have the means to produce your own energy for all of your household needs? In that sense, as payment for the performance of Job A, would you rather be paid in dollars, or with the independent means to produce your own energy? Or, would you rather be paid in dollars for a job, or would you rather be paid in the use of 1000 kws of renewably produced electricity from your local utility?
#4. Money buys energy, but energy is the end product. Nothing can be produced without energy, and using energy as an incentive for the conduct of responsible behaviors will achieve greater results than the continuation of BAU, where everything is valued in terms of dollars. Would you rather be told you have to behave in a certain manner, or forced by a law to change your behaviors in order to implement any particular policy goal of COP21, or would you find it more palatable to be rewarded for your participation/behavior with the use of energy, or the ability to independently produce your own? The value of money goes down appreciably when energy is offered as an alternative form of payment, or as an incentive for positive behaviors.
#5. Both money and energy are measurable, controllable, and quantifiable values. In order to change our direction, which makes more sense in the form of currency? Could energy be transformed into a new global currency?
#6. The common understanding of energy must be separated and distinguished from fossil fuels. A barrel of oil has a certain value in its energy equivalent, but the side effects of the conversion of that oil into energy reduces its value as a form of currency. For example, a barrel of oil produces X ppm of CO2. CO2 has a negative value to the goals of COP21 and the Paris Climate Accords. Therefore, that barrel of oil has less energy value than wind or solar that convert sunlight and wind into energy with fewer negative side effects. The conversion of our economic system from money to energy will greatly accelerate the production of clean energy, aka currency producers.
Shifting the paradigm of our global economic system to the end product as the goal and purpose of our economic system will accelerate and enhance the global economy, and health of our planet.
And BTW, i am not suggesting that we get rid of money as a currency, altogether, Clearly, it still does have several beneficial uses and purposes, but on a global scale, energy must become considered and used as a viable currency.
OK. Rip it to shreds. That's what i'm here for.