I'm sure there are still thousands of unanswered questions. This is only a first attempt to find and answer them.
If an ecosystem is damaged by humanity as a whole and no polluter can be identified, the overall budget is reduced accordingly, e.g. for the Great Barrier Reef.
If damage is attributable to a company, it must be paid directly, e.g. in the case of palm oil plantations.
Nature reserves or particularly important ecosystems (rainforests, reefs, etc.) must be protected with high priority. The REU costs as a result of devaluing the systems may not be high enough to protect them. In addition to the REU costs, there should be an additional incentive.
There are two possibilities:
Contra: When mankind finally uses only few resources (and that's the goal), the REU auctions are not very productive. However, the panel will gradually reduce the budget and increase resource costs, so that a need for additional REU can always be expected.
Regardless of the REU currency, there will protected areas by law.
The gardener does not grant REU credits (exception, see 8.4.7), because surplus resources that may arise in future cannot be consumed today.
People can lend or sell each other their unused REU budget. Interest could be paid with both normal and REUs. This is a decision of the people.
It would be less good if the state withheld part of the total budget and lent or sold it to companies at normal interest rates, because the REU currency is not intended to finance the state, but to transfer responsibility for resource consumption to each individual.
For investments both REU and classical money are needed. The REU need can be covered by debt, but at the gardener but from other people, see 11.3.
Research will also consume resources that need to be paid for. The REU costs are borne by the state or by third parties in the same way as classic financing costs, see 11.3.
Yes, that is possible: if a company uses resources for products that cannot be sold, it will have both REUs and classic debts that cannot be paid. At some point these debts will be too high and the company will go bankrupt. From the gardener's point of view, this makes sense: Why should a company waste resources on products when nobody really uses them?
This corresponds to today's economy: if a company produces unsaleable products, it will also go bankrupt.
Since the REU currency should be fair and not discriminate against future people, the resources used for old stocks would have to be paid for in part retroactively and in instalments, because they are still being used. This must be done depending on the age of the product. The payments go to the gardener and because no new resources are consumed, these REUs can be used to help other people e.g. to build a house.
The moment the substances are produced, he has to pay REU for them, because the gardener assumes that they are released into the environment. If the company has no REU, no toxins may be produced.
Storage & endangerment will continue to be regulated by law.
Children also get REU a REU budget. It is partly paid out to the parents, as children also consume resources. The unpaid part is collected and paid to the children at the age of 18 as a starting budget. Objective: There should be no incentive to start large families so that parents can increase their own resource consumption.
There would be an eco-crash because this resource would be overloaded. But this is unlikely because the budget is limited and everyone has to spend their budget on different resources.
Companies with a product monopoly could take in more REUs than they have to spend on the product production. Other companies could charge higher REU prices because the product is so attractive.
Additional revenues in REUs are also permissible and necessary because they enable further developments.
Saving REU is unproblematic and even positive for the gardener. The REU then correspond to unused resources and these form reserves in the ecosystem. However, sooner or later they will be used to purchase resources.
Yes, a large volume of saved REUs could be problematic, as many resources could be purchased at once. In addition, the temporal course of a REU index could be wrong. . However, the gardener could make critical resources more expensive.
Is there any interest?
The damage must be paid in REU. Missing REUs can be bought with normal money from other people. Insurance can cover the risk. Insurance fees are paid with normal money.
REU costs must always be taken into account because resource consumption is proportional to the total volume of the product multiplied by resource costs (straw).
Exemptions could apply to everyday products and to a limited extent, to be discussed
For a self-sufficient person who uses almost no resources, it can be estimated that his activities consume less resources than his budget allows. Thus he does not have to pay the resources at the source with REU.
But when he buys fertilizer, he also has to pay REU for this fertilizer.
The buyer could take out a REU loan with other people, whose interest is paid with normal money. The gardener does not grant REU credits, see 11.3. Chapter 11.7 describes how compensation could be achieved by owning old stocks.
Due to the REU costs construction methods will change in such a way that fewer resources are used, e.g. mineral wool could be used instead of polystyrene insulation. This would then reduce REU cost as intended.
Without a change in consumer behavior, i.e. with unchanged resource consumption, products will become more expensive due to REU financing costs. However, this is not an undesirable effect, but will encourage a rethinking.
Indirectly: Limiting population growth: the more people there are, the smaller the budget paid out for each person. States may have an interest to stop over population.
Direct: One reason for population growth is the provision for old age by large families. The REU budget is a kind of basic income that can also be converted into normal money. This is a small pension plan as an alternative to large families.
However, there is a risk that at some point all people will live so sustainably that they will manage on their own budget and do not have to buy extra REU. Then REU credit balances could not be sold for normal money and old-age provision no longer worked. But I expect that there are always people or companies needing some extra REU.
Yes, unfortunately this is foreseeable and difficult to prevent, just as it is in all areas of society.
The overexploitation of nature could become even more attractive. For example, an illegal extraction of resources would 'earn' money and REU at the same time.
Criminal activities directly harm people because they destroy the basis of life.
Nevertheless, there are advantages with REU compared to the current situation. Damage caused by criminal activities would be measurable in REU. Right now, it's just abstract damage. If somewhere illegal logging takes place or garbage is disposed of, this is only worth a daily news. Sometimes the perpetrators are punished with fines or imprisonment, but the damage is hardly reversible.
The ecological damage in the garden cannot be paid for with money. The gardener has no advantage when someone is sent to prison. Instead, she expects the damage to be reversed. Criminals could achieve this, for example, through reforestation or renaturation projects. This could also change their attitude.
If the damage cannot be compensated, classical criminal prosecution would also have to apply in order to achieve deterrence.
Animal welfare is not a primary goal for the gardener and must be solved differently. However, there will be animal protection indirectly through the REU, because mass livestock farming (feed cultivation, pesticides, antibiotics, waste, land use) entails high REU costs. Meat consumption should also be reduced due to the high use of resources, so that fewer animals have to be kept.