The limited ecological resources of our earth have an absolute value for us. Only they enable us to survive.
Out of pure self-interest we would have to protect the resources comprehensively, but in many areas this is not done. Our actions are determined by short-term advantages and not by the value of resources.
Can we more easily choose sustainable products if their resource value is indicated by a resource price tag?
However, resource prices must not be paid with our money, because we can generate and manipulate our money at will. The absolute value of the limited resources would be opposed by our arbitrarily large money supply and we could continue to consume all resources. In addition, our fictitious money is only valid for limited periods of time within our economic system. Just as play money only applies during a monopoly game and is worthless outside the game.
With a trick, however, we can give resources an absolute price:
1. A fictitious gardener becomes our business partner and provides us with ecologically relevant resources. She only accepts her own currency REU (Resource Equivalent Unit) as payment. For example, the storage and reprocessing of CO2 is a service resource that would have to be paid with REU.
2. Each person receives a monthly REU budget (*) as a gift from the gardener. With the total budget of all people, we could pay just as many resources as the gardener can provide without destroying the basis of life. The budget is very generous at the beginning and will be reduced over time. The smaller the budget, the more sustainable our way of life will be. Limiting the REU budget is a fundamental difference to environmental taxes and charges. Although these can be introduced quickly, they only have a steering effect and do not lead to a limitation of resource consumption.
1. People who pay the gardener's resources in REU and use them to produce products will pass on their REU costs to the buyers of their products, just as they do with traditional money.
2. All products and services along the production chain up to the end consumer receive a second price in REU. The resource price measures the ecological footprint and becomes a second purchase criterion. The classic price continues to value human achievements (work, inventiveness) and possession.
3. The limited REU budget will lead to resource consumption being optimised in all economic processes. A competition to save resources will emerge.
4. REU costs are fair because all people receive the same budget. Nowadays it is unfair that some people overuse resources and thus destroy the livelihood of others. On the other hand, with the REU currency people with higher resource consumption have to save more resources or they may earn REU by strengthening ecosystems and thus producing resources. Ultimately, people with lower resource consumption could also sell their REU and a compensation would take place.
1. Proven business mechanisms are used to minimize REU costs. This also applies to the end user, who ultimately causes all resource consumption.
2. The REU currency is a currency linked to resources, comparable to the gold standard. However, the resources represent an absolute value: Either they exist and we persist or they do not exist.
3. Obviously, many different resources are consumed for each product, but they can only be estimated. The REU currency would make the smallest differences visible for each individual product. Today we know the price of milk, but not how the price was formed. In the future a litre of organic milk would have a higher classic price and a lower REU price while for conventional milk this would be reverse.
4. Resource-saving processes and products will become more attractive and profitable.
I can only see a small part of all aspects, many more details can be found on this website and in the PDF documents. I'm sure there are misconceptions. I appreciate your opinion and critical remarks and further suggestions how we can live sustainably.
Let's prove that we are smarter than a mildew that survives until the breeding ground is depleted!
(*) The individual budgets may differ while transformation to a sustainable way of living , but at the end they are identical.