It is difficult to convince people to change their way of life. It is even more difficult to recognize and consider the countless facts during implementation. The realization needs many more studies and even more good ideas. I'm trying to point out some aspects. As a basic rule the gardener is a benevolent business partner and only wants to protect the resources and thus us humans.
The gardener is, of course, a fictitious person and must be replaced by a body that is accepted worldwide. Maybe this body will be part of the UN. The members of this committee should break away from national interests and make decisions in the spirit of the gardener in order to preserve and strengthen the garden. They must act as if it were their own garden.
Resource costs arise at the border to the ecosystem:
The entire economic system has developed and optimized over many years under consideration of money. Introducing a new market participant abruptly and without compromise is out of the question. It would be more than just an economic earthquake.
Compromises increase acceptance. Especially people who consume the most resources need to change their behavior and must have a chance to adapt and discover new advantages.
These compromises are conceivable:
From my point of view, an individually adapted REU budget, e.g. depending on income or property, would not be useful: People who have high resource consumption due to their financial means and social position should not receive a higher REU budget. Such a construction would contradict any sense of justice, promote corruption and instead of tackling problems, we would argue about quotas.
Instead, they could buy REU from other people. This is also not optimal but better than the current situation where resources are consumed at the expense of less affluent people.
The first step would be to establish the REU currency:
At the beginning it is sufficient to consider a critical resource, e.g. CO2, and to channel the costs through the economic system.
Once the payment methods for a resource have been established, additional resources can be added.
How can the REU currency be introduced to the existing classic money without the economy collapsing and without too much time passing before resources are actually saved?
The board has these meansfor adjustments:
The committee determines that resource prices are to be paid from a certain date and the total budget available.
Phase 1: The aim is to pass on the REU costs to the end consumer as quickly as possible.
Within the companies, it is determined how the REU costs are broken down into the various products. This is similar to classic cost accounting. The product costs are passed on directly to the corporate customers, who have to pay these costs immediately upon delivery. This means that all companies will initially have a negative REU balance corresponding to the resources brought into the company but not yet delivered as products.
However, the total REU deficit of the economy cannot be greater than the resource costs collected at the sources. If several months are considered, this applies to the sum of all resource costs and all previous months.
If the products were manufactured with resources that were removed from nature before Phase 1 without REU compensation, this will not be taken into account. This means that companies' inventories suddenly have REU value, as they can be sold for REU without having paid REU themselves. This unfortunately opens up a possibility of fraud, as resources would be withdrawn from stock before REU introduction.
Depending on the length of the production chain, it can take several months before the resource costs are shown in the end products and therefore companies would have a negative REU balance sheet.
If a negative balance sheet had no disadvantages, companies would not be forced to calculate their REU product costs correctly: they could arbitrarily understate REU product costs to make their products more competitive. If there were no economic consequences for companies, balance sheets would become increasingly negative.
To prevent this, companies have to settle their REU debts at the end of the month by purchasing REUs from the total budget of the state with normal money. The exchange rate cannot be formed by supply and demand, since in this phase there is only the state as REU supplier. The price should be as low as possible: The revenues should not finance the state, but motivate companies to pass on or to avoid REU costs.
Companies may not acquire more REUs than are necessary to balance the balance sheet. This is intended to prevent some companies from overcompensating the balance sheet and others from missing these REUs.
If REU prices already reach the end consumer in this phase, the consumer can pay for them with his minimum budget. He may have to exchange money for REU.
Step by step end products will show increasing REU prices.
The budget to be paid to the people is determined by means of a sample shopping basket, similar to the determination of the inflation rate. The current value of the shopping basket is increased by a factor and paid out of the total budget.
If people have a REU surplus, they can sell it to companies or save it.
After a few months, the REU budget, i.e. the shopping basket, will be settled and the gardener will slowly increase the REU costs at the sources. At the same time, additional resources are taken into account and the budget is adjusted according to the shopping basket. At the end of the phase, the state will pay out almost the entire budget to its citizens.
When all resources are evaluated and a balance is reached, the budget is slowly reduced. Now, at the latest, this shortage is making it necessary to save resources or offer products with low REU costs.
The consumption of resources has decreased to such an extent that we live sustainably. REU Budget and REU prices remain constant or are only slightly adjusted. So we will not consume the surplus resources completely and the ecosystems will recover again.
The total value of the resources is measured with a quantity of REU such as 1000 REU per month per capita.
The total resources should correspond to the total budget of mankind (phase 3, see above):
total annual budget = 1000 REU per month * 12 months * 7e9 people total population = 8,4e13 REU
This means that if all people spend their 12.000 REUs in one year, they have completely consumed the resources. In the initial phase, there would be no resources saved. Nevertheless, these positive effects can be expected:
The states receive the total budget of their citizens and are responsible for paying out the budget. As small a part of the budget as possible is retained in order to fulfil general tasks which cannot be assigned to a consumer but to the general public:
Wherever REU costs for a service or facility can be allocated to a citizen, the REU costs should be passed on so that here too environmental costs become transparent for the end consumer and the state also optimizes resource consumption. This direct allocation of REU costs is essential and transfers responsibility for resource consumption to the ultimate responsible.
Services and support
All people receive the same budget, so all resources should also be evaluated according to a uniform cost catalogue. This is like a globally valid price list for resources, e.g. 5 REU per kilo CO2 or if 1 ha of potential primary forest has been converted into arable land, it costs 500 REU per month.
The gardener will prioritize and address the most pressing issues to determine the relationship between individual resource costs, e.g. if climate change is the acute threat, the CO2 price will be chosen to outperform REU costs for the ecological devaluation of land. However, other resources must not be under-represented so that their consumption does not increase.
The relation is permanently adjusted so that land consumption is not overlooked.
Similar to today's tax system, the state must demand REU costs at source from those who use or extract resources at the ecosystem/economy interface within the country.
The gardener estimates the total resources extracted in that country and charges the State for these resources. The state charges the amount to each undertaking.
The state receives the REU budget from the board, which is paid out to its residents. The state also responsible to charge companies for used resources.
It is important that this path is not shortened: REUs must flow back from the end consumer via the value chain to the sources of resources. It would be inadmissible for the state to use the budget to pay the resource costs directly and thus pass over the responsible consumers.
Each newly produced substance is evaluated in its harmfulness (effect, degradation time, quantity, distribution, complexity of collection and processing, risks,) and increases the REU costs.
The gardener initially assumes that all substances will return to nature sooner or later. If substances decompose after they have been released into nature, the harmful effects of the decomposition products must be taken into account.
If the substances are collected again after their use and thus prevented from being distributed in the environment, REUs are partially refunded.
If the collected substances are rendered harmless by us humans, a part of the REU costs will also be refunded. In total, however, less REU will be paid out than was previously required from the gardener because the gardener expects risks for the garden and not all substances can be neutralized.
If materials are recycled, the gardener does not pay out any further REUs, because instead the recycled materials can be resold (even against REUs). If other ecological costs are incurred during recycling (auxiliary materials, energy, transport, residual waste), these REU costs must be paid to the gardener and allocated to the recycled materials.
If things are produced that are difficult for people to collect and recycle, the risk of uncontrolled release into the environment and long term efficacy is increased. This would apply, for example, to micro plastics, which are mainly discharged into waste water or soil.
Substances, e.g. fertilizers, pesticides which are specifically applied to ecosystems (soil, groundwater, rivers, air), and which weaken them, are already evaluated and invoiced during production.
If substances arise that pose a risk or whose risk is unknown (pesticides, antibiotics, etc.), a high REU price is charged. The gardener is very careful and assumes the worst in the interest of the garden. She would prefer to exclude such substances completely. Just as we would defend ourselves if we were promised that the planned cement plant in our garden would be completely unproblematic.
It remains unaffected that certain substances will be completely banned by governments, e.g. particularly critical pesticides that have been shown to be harmful to health.
If chemicals are used they are harmful and REUs are required during production and passed on to the end consumer. When e.g. electronic products are returned, REUs are refunded because they are prevented from dispersing in ecosystems. Further REUs will be reimbursed if the substances are disposed of correctly.
The REU price is similar to a deposit system for material resources: If resources are returned and neutralized, I get a portion of the REU is payed back.
If, for example, crude oil is produced, the gardener first assumes that it will ultimately be burned, i.e. CO2 and other toxic substances are produced. For this, REU are already due at the source. Further REU costs are caused by damages during oil production, the use of machines, energy, etc.
If the crude oil is converted into other products (plastic granulate, oils, solvents, fertilizers, etc.), it is also assumed here that these substances enter the environment and cause long-term damage there. Depending on the harmfulness of the materials, REU will be invoiced at the moment of production.
Plastic may be more harmful to the environment than burning crude oil, because they can only be degraded very slowly by ecosystems. The effects are not even fully understood and pose a major risk to the garden. Plastic is distributed globally and has a negative effect on living beings, e.g. hormonally. For these plastic products a REU price must be raised.
If plastic is not distributed but burnt, other toxic substances are produced (dioxins, filter dust, etc.). However, this CO2 contribution would have been taken into account at source.
If plastic is collected for recycling, REUs are repaid because the plastic is no longer released into the environment in an uncontrolled manner. Recycling incurs normal monetary costs, which cover the disposal costs of the companies. Depending on how the plastic is processed (incineration, material reuse), further REUs are repaid. However, the total amount of REUs paid by the gardener is significantly lower than the amount previously paid. The consumption of plastics is to be reduced. This notwithstanding, plastic can still be used because it can also make a contribution to saving resources (lightweight construction, corrosion protection, reusable transport packaging, etc.).
The geographical and climatic conditions for different land and sea areas are different. For each area, its theoretical maximum ecological value is determined if man had not intervened. Next, the current ecological value is calculated and the difference results in the consumption of regeneration resources.
This is true everywhere, even in areas that today don’t have forests because of previous deforestation, but could still have them today. This prevents those who have previously consumed excessive amounts of resources from being favored.
There are already research projects that determine the value of ecosystems .
In order to explain the procedure, the evaluation could, for example, be carried out according to these criteria. It must be transparent and universal. The following is evaluated
With a points system, the evaluation could look like this:
(*) Any pollutants introduced or stored shall be considered separately.
If, for example, an adult mixed forest is converted into arable land, the ecological value is reduced by 33-11 = 22 points. These points will be evaluated with REU.
If there could be pine forests (25) in an area due to climatic conditions, and if this forest was turned into steppe (9) by complete deforestation, this costs 16 points per month.
Roads and developed plots are completely sealed and have no ecological value. A corresponding REU amount is due for use.
In order to reduce costs, areas could be ecologically upgraded: Reforestation, greening of roofs, drainage areas, green strips, etc. Where possible, areas should be used more efficiently.
There are very good concepts for this, which may even enable better ecosystems than would naturally exist, e.g. the high-rise complex Bosco Verticale in Milan. .
If REU costs do not provide adequate ecosystem protection, countries must receive compensation from countries with above-average consumption for the conservation or reconstruction of resources. For example, the preservation of the rainforest is essential for the entire human race. If these countries are not to use it, they must receive compensation.
In addition to the REU price, there must also be sanctions: Whoever destroys resources or does not pay REU costs has to make up for the damage by strengthening the ecosystem with his capital, his labor etc. A fine or imprisonment won't do the gardener any good.
First and foremost, it is important to assign resources a price at all and to reduce the total consumption of resources. This will also work if the evaluation of resources at the garden/human interface is not entirely correct.
As a blatant example, one could assume that a kWh of coal-fired power cost less REU than a kWh of solar power because the REU costs were wrongly determined at the resource source. All humans would therefore use coal electricity. However, as their REU budget is limited, the consumption of coal electricity will still be limited. Of course it would be better for the reduction of the more critical resource consumption (coal) if the estimate were realistic.
Moreover, it is obvious that even normal prices do not reflect 100% of the manufacturing costs. For example, each company allocates overhead costs to its various products using an arbitrary key. In addition, the price is also determined according to the market situation and includes a share of the profit that is used for the development of other products. This means that the customer does not really only pay the exact manufacturing costs for a specific product. Nor does the REU price have to perfectly reflect the ecological costs.
The regions in which the resource surpluses are determined should be identical with nation states, because nation states are responsible for the legislation and shaping of the economy.
Thesis: Depending on the amount of resources in a country, its citizens should receive more REU.
REUs must be distributed equally and not according to the lands volume of resources.
However, as soon as the largest economic areas introduce the REU, all countries will have to move along so that they do not isolate themselves.
Even a state without having introduced REU receives a REU budget. The state can distribute the budget to importers so that they can pay the REU price for imported products. Thus products are available within the importing country without REU costs and just as expensive as without REU.
If the state does not accept a REU budget, the importers of this country must buy the REU in other countries. Imported goods become more expensive as a result.
The REU budget for the importing state is much smaller than the REU budget that would be paid for all inhabitants, because the inhabitants consume a large part of their national resources without paying REU.
The REU costs for each product are estimated and awarded as the REU price for the product. In any case, the product should have higher REU costs than a comparable product in the importing REU state, so that ecological products are not disadvantaged. This would be similar to import duties. The importer must pay this REU price directly to the gardener and passes the REU costs on to his customers.
The REU currency is not a cash currency. In the simplest case only a primary account card is necessary. This avoids some disadvantages:
Every person receives exactly one REU primary account for life. The monthly REU budget is only paid out to this one account.
The user must define how the REU budget is to be transferred:
The currency should be as simple and inexpensive as possible. The currency must also be practicable in countries with less infrastructure.
26 letters + 10 digits = 36 symbols -4 unused characters results in 32 characters that can be represented with 5 bits.
To get at least 20 billion account numbers, log 20e9 / log 32 = 6.8 => 7 digits are necessary and an eighth digit can be used for error detection.
7*5 bit = 35 bit + 5 bit CRC = 8 digits, maximum 32 ^7 = 34e9 account numbers.
Example: E8HT 05ZQ
In addition to the account number for the user, there is also an internal unique card identification number that is not visible. It is used to check or block individual cards if the card has been reported lost and needs to be replaced.
Secondary accounts can be set up arbitrarily, but the monthly budget is never paid into these accounts. REU can be transferred to secondary accounts from the primary account or from any other account.
Secondary accounts are used by both private individuals and companies. The handling is analogous to previous money accounts.
Dual accounts are accounts or credit cards that simultaneously have a balance in REU and in classic money. Payment processes are simplified to the current state by authorizing the payment of both currencies with a PIN entry or signature.
If there is no online account infrastructure or someone does not want to open an online account, they must have the REU budget transferred to the primary account card at a service point.
For this the person must identify himself. If a person comes irregularly, but then identifies him or herself, the REU amount is paid.
Service points have internet access to check data. In addition to the budget transfer, these processes are possible at service points if the card is not blocked:
Payment must be as simple as possible, because it must be paid at the same time with normal money.
It would be ideal if REUs could be exchanged directly between account cards without further aids. That would save a lot of time:
With Solar/ Energy-Harvesting / OLEDs / Processors / Near Field Communication I consider such a card technically possible.
Have an active device with which REU can be debited from an inserted card (primary, secondary , dual accounts).
They can be paid directly from a REU account.
There is a small REU overdraft that has to be balanced with the next REU budget.
If the card is overdrawn, only everyday products can be purchased. When the overdraft is exhausted, nothing more can be bought. I don't want anyone starving to death because of REU.
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, tbd.
If the primary account card is lost, the lost card must be blocked using its internal card number and a new card is issued. No REU budget can be paid on blocked cards.
The finder of the card can
The original owner:
The new card has no REU credit, but allows a small credit, see 8.4.7
Only if the blocked card is noticed at a service point could the REU budget be transferred to the new card.