The Coming Carbon Currency

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A central authority would effectively ration energy by making regular quotas for energy consumption and then issue the appropriate number of carbon currency units to all citizens. These currency units would be non-transferable and would expire within a relatively short period of time, thus prohibiting the accumulation of private capital. It would in effect put the majority of the population back on the feudal manor, where they would live on whatever the feudal lord decided to grant them, with no independent means of subsistence whatsoever. Only in this case, the 'feudal lord' would be an authoritarian world government.

Such a society would be to the advantage of the financial elite, as it would enable them to permanently dominate the world economy through issuance of this currency to suit their interests. Nations could be denied or supplied, as well as individuals, depending on their degree of compliance with whatever agenda the ruling authorities might be pushing. Production and real economic growth would finally be under the direct and absolute control of high finance. We have been moving in that direction for a long time through the activities of Wallstreet/London and the IMF, designed to stifle the development of any economic power and potential rival in the third or second world independent of the markets which they control. Wallsteet/London's control of most of the world's oil reserves and of the world reserve currency in which oil is priced has thus far been the basis of the cartel's power over economic development or the lack thereof - though control by law of all energy consumption through truly global authorities would be yet more effective.

An early advocate of this energy credit system was M. King Hubbert, also the creator of the so-called Hubbert Peak: i.e. the concept of peak oil. What is likely to happen at peak oil? There are only two options, assuming there won't be total systemic collapse: 1) nations and economies transition as rapidly as possible to the exploitation of new energy sources (esp. nuclear), or 2) the world enters a gradual but permanent decline in available energy and therefore in economic activity, societal complexity, etc.

Consider what the reaction to peak oil might be on the part of a global financial syndicate that owes its power to control of world oil reserves and of the currency in which oil is priced. Certainly this cartel would resist option 1, as it would entail the abandonement of the precious resource, control of which is the basis for their power. Option 2 is in efffect the policy which the establishment has persued since the First World War: i.e. prevention of real economic growth in the world - through IMF austerity policies, denail of investment capital, wars, etc. - to prevent the rise of any potential rival.

Consider that the financial establishment's activities - in the 70's esp. -are largely responsible for the failure of most nation's in the world to adopt nuclear power, the only truly viable alternative to fossil fuels. What I am implying is that this cartel has no interest in the world developing new energy sources, for the very simple reason that, unlike petroleum, the likely new energy sources - esp. nuclear - would not be as easily cornered and controlled by high finance. If for example the technology was developed to efficiently extract fissile materials from seawater, to be used in nuclear power generation, every nation on the planet with a coastline could become energy independent: i.e. no longer dependent on the world energy markets, which are dominated by Wallstreet/London. Economic rivals to the cartel would develop, the petrodollar would lose its power, and the cartel along with it.

A solution to their problem would be to acquire the legal right to issue a new currency based on all energy, not just oil. By issuing this currency they would be able to dramatically influence world economic development just as they did previously with control of oil. This parasitic system would be able to increase it's relative influence, albeit in a world shrinking in absolute terms due to the parasites depredations. This trend, as mentioned earlier, is already in progress and has been for some time; though the industrial power of the US and UK has collapsed due to the activities of high finance, that same financial establishment has managed to maintain its power in spite of the loss of domestic industry, by stifling industrialization globally. It's a zero sum game - the cartel wins because it gains a greater share of a shrinking pie.

A good article describing the basic structure and history of the idea of a carbon currency:

Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,121 • Replies: 19

No top replies

@BrightNoon,

"Such a society would be to the advantage of the financial elite, as it would enable them to permanently dominate the world economy through issuance of this currency to suit their interests. Nations could be denied or supplied, as well as individuals, depending on their degree of compliance with whatever agenda the ruling authorities might be pushing."

How exactly would they 'issue' carbon currency? Doesn't it depend on controlling the resource first?

2 Replies

@josh0335,

Im not sure I fully understand the principles involved but as Josh remarked who is holding the actual assets. Those holding them would they relinquish their rights to a third body. When certain countries have a monopoly on power, for the greater good ,how or why would that country divorce its ability?

0 Replies

@josh0335,

josh0335;124853 wrote:

How exactly would they 'issue' carbon currency? Doesn't it depend on controlling the resource first?

In this kind of system, the currency would be some kind of note (probably electronic) representing a right to 'use carbon:' i.e. a right to consume an amount of goods and services that correspond to a fixed quantity of carbon emissions. For example, all American citizens might be alotted 100 carbon credits monthly, which would allow them to purchase a certain amount of stuff - with each item having posted on it, next to the price, a number of carbon credits. A gallon of gasoline might have a price of 1 carbon credit in addition to the dollar price. Even if a person had enough money to buy 10,000 gallons of gasoline monthly, if he only had 100 carbon credits in his account, he could only buy 100 gallons.

So, in this case, there is no actual resource. The currency is based on nothing, just like the dollar. The government would simply order that all goods be given a certain carbon credit price and grant people a certain number of credits. It would be justified by resorting to the idea of global warming of course, while in reality it would serve the interests of people interested in preventing economic development and growth; i.e. high finance. As they previously used oil as an economic weapon, designed to prevent industrialization of the third world so that there was no rival to Anglo-American power, now they could use this or another form of carbon-use regulation. Actually, this version is not very workable IMO (besides being horrific), as it doesn't allow the credits to be traded. Probably we will see some arrangement like this, except with the caveat that the credits are transferable. In this way, finance capital can control the market price of credits as they do oil, rather than relying directly on the government for regulating carbon use.

In any case, this is just the general outline of the idea. How it will ultimately be realized I haven't a clue, but I expect it will be rather soon. Carbon credits for businesses are already trading on commodity markets apparently. It works like this I believe (very new, so Im not entirely sure); business are allowed to emit a certain quota of carbon. If they wish to emit more in the course of their activities, they have to purchase carbon credits, issued by the government. These credits are not sold directly from the government to productive companies, but rather sold into commodity markets, where they are subject to speculation through the futures market of course. Quite a few people are predicting that this is going to lead to a giant speculative bubble at some point in the near future. Others are suggesting that Warren Buffet's recent purchase of a major railroad may have been motivated by a desire to buy and trade in carbon credits.

Again, all very speculative at this point, but I think the various angles are worth considering.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Carbon credits = new form of taxation.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I only see this developing into a commodity exchange system. Humanity is very good at overcoming rationing. You might not be able to sell the currency but you would the commodity.

1 Reply

@xris,

I don't know about overcoming THIS rationing. Have you noticed the recent legislation (passed) to severely discourage farmer's markets, home gardens, and other small scale and local markets? Couple that with the growing corporate control of most production and retail of just about everything, and it's hard to imagine much grey or black market activity escaping a carbon credit scheme, as happened in the past during wartime rationing in the world wars.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;127008 wrote:

I don't know about overcoming THIS rationing. Have you noticed the recent legislation (passed) to severely discourage farmer's markets, home gardens, and other small scale and local markets? Couple that with the growing corporate control of most production and retail of just about everything, and it's hard to imagine much grey or black market activity escaping a carbon credit scheme, as happened in the past during wartime rationing in the world wars.

Im not aware of US legislation on markets. We do have honesty boxes outside farms for consumers to buy farm produce, without the farmer being there. No amount of legislation could stop that. If they gave me a carbon note and I did not need it, I would just sell you my petrol, gas. Surely those who sold the commodities would soon start using their muscle if their sales dropped?

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

I don't belive in carbon currentcy.

I would belive in digital currentcy, or plastic currentcy, easier to implant holographic pictures.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;139080 wrote:

I don't belive in carbon currentcy.

I would belive in digital currentcy, or plastic currency, easier to implant holographic pictures.

Regardless of what fanciful basis the currencies of the future may have (carbon, the full faith and credit of X, etc.), I would bet my house that they'll be digital. I do not, however, share your enthusiam. If all money exists only as notations in an electronic account in some bank or government institution, taxes can be levied instantly and without even the possibility of appeal or resistance, while the accounts of uncooperative consumers can be fined, frozen, or deleted altogether. Of course, let's not forget about inflation; the people are already at the mercy of the Federal Reserve, vulnerable to hidden taxation at all times, but with digital currency, the government could inflate much more easily, in a more controlled manner, and would no doubt take advantage of that development. The dystopic possibilities are enormous. Imagine an underclass of dissident non-citizens (as with the French Revolution e.g.), who do not 'belong to the American family' in the words of Rahm Emanuel: unable to buy anything in any legal store, or receive legal wages, not to mention own a firearm, fly on a plane, get a passport, a national ID card, etc, etc.

In my opinion, the only currency that allows for human freedom is hard currency. Fiat monetary systems encourage totalitarianism, not to mention economic ruin.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;139162 wrote:

Regardless of what fanciful basis the currencies of the future may have (carbon, the full faith and credit of X, etc.), I would bet my house that they'll be digital. I do not, however, share your enthusiam. If all money exists only as notations in an electronic account in some bank or government institution, taxes can be levied instantly and without even the possibility of appeal or resistance, while the accounts of uncooperative consumers can be fined, frozen, or deleted altogether. Of course, let's not forget about inflation; the people are already at the mercy of the Federal Reserve, vulnerable to hidden taxation at all times, but with digital currency, the government could inflate much more easily, in a more controlled manner, and would no doubt take advantage of that development. The dystopic possibilities are enormous. Imagine an underclass of dissident non-citizens (as with the French Revolution e.g.), who do not 'belong to the American family' in the words of Rahm Emanuel: unable to buy anything in any legal store, or receive legal wages, not to mention own a firearm, fly on a plane, get a passport, a national ID card, etc, etc.

In my opinion, the only currency that allows for human freedom is hard currency. Fiat monetary systems encourage totalitarianism, not to mention economic ruin.

?
Think you are too paranoid. I havn't had a single money bill in my hand for like 10 years, and done perfectly. Only time I ever actually have any currentcy in my hand, is when going to the supermarket and uses a shopping cart.

Money bills can easily be forged by common people.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;139178 wrote:

?

Exactly. Discover the nature of our monetary system and then come back and tell me you're comfortable with electronic currency.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I'm not sure where you're getting your info on carbon currency, but as it stands currently there are only talks of a carbon currency for businesses that emit Co2. And those credits are transferable. I haven't heard any realistic talk about instituting those credits on an individual basis. Just the idea of it sounds like a major pain in the butt for everyone involved.

I don't mind the idea of cap and trade at all. It encourages sustainable living either way, and that should be the goal of any society.

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

Rwa001;139827 wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting your info on carbon currency, but as it stands currently there are only talks of a carbon currency for businesses that emit Co2. And those credits are transferable. I haven't heard any realistic talk about instituting those credits on an individual basis. Just the idea of it sounds like a major pain in the butt for everyone involved.

A tax on businesses IS a tax on the people. Businesses will just pass off the cost of the tax onto the prices of their goods or services. So indirectly the individual will have to pay the tax. This is a trick the government uses all the time to hide taxation. They just add it to the commodity and people think it's great but if they were to add the same tax to your income then it is somehow bad. The funny thing is no matter where it is, it is still a tax on your income. If you have pay higher prices for goods or services then it is no different than just taking it directly out of your pay to begin with.

People have completely bizarre rational when it comes to taxation. They assume businesses will just absorb the taxation and not pass the cost down to the consumer, but it is a lie, they ALWAYS pass the cost onto the consumer. Why or how do I know? Because businesses are based off profit margins and if taxation is creeping into their profit margins by increasing their overhead for operating expenses then they will ultimately raise the prices of their goods or services to compensate for that overhead.

Tax on business IS taxing the individual.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I don't disagree with that at all. But that is way different than saying the government is issuing a new carbon currency that individual Americans have to manage.

Even with all of that in mind, the new 'tax' would still incentivize the lowering of emissions for companies, and the reduction in energy consumption in individuals. Companies would want the ability to sell this eventually precious commodity and would develop ways to lower their emissions. Companies would offer incentives to people who find ways to lower their energy consumption (several companies already do), and the individual would end up saving money in the long run.

Sustainable living is win-win. We all save money in the end, we and cut our miserable dependence on a non-renewable energy source and the Middle East in general.

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

Rwa001;139860 wrote:

I don't disagree with that at all. But that is way different than saying the government is issuing a new carbon currency that individual Americans have to manage.

Even with all of that in mind, the new 'tax' would still incentivize the lowering of emissions for companies, and the reduction in energy consumption in individuals. Companies would want the ability to sell this eventually precious commodity and would develop ways to lower their emissions. Companies would offer incentives to people who find ways to lower their energy consumption (several companies already do), and the individual would end up saving money in the long run.

Sustainable living is win-win. We all save money in the end, we and cut our miserable dependence on a non-renewable energy source and the Middle East in general.

What you are talking about, all that is going to happen is force more and more businesses out of the country to other countries that don't have these carbon taxes. It happens all the time. The US tries to instill some new regulation, it costs businesses too much so they leave. This is why the US doesn't produce anything any more because they have forced out businesses due to, too much regulations.

I guarantee if they implement this carbon currency more businesses will leave the country. They will move to places like china where there are fewer regulations. It will further causes strain on the US economy and ultimately what will end is an entire economic collapse.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Conventional logic would suggest that companies that produce or supply energy can't move overseas. That would highly limit their ability to, you know, produce or supply. As for production companies, that remains to be seen, it seems incredibly unlikely that the cost of carbon credits would be more than the cost of shipping goods from countries that don't have the same credits.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that companies would want to stay here to take advantage of the new carbon market anyway. Companies who can find innovate ways to lower their emissions can sell their unused credits for substantial profit.

It seems like you're ignoring all the benefits altogether. Why wouldn't you want a sustainable society?

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

Rwa001;139869 wrote:

Conventional logic would suggest that companies that produce or supply energy can't move overseas. That would highly limit their ability to, you know, produce or supply. As for production companies, that remains to be seen, it seems incredibly unlikely that the cost of carbon credits would be more than the cost of shipping goods from countries that don't have the same credits.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that companies would want to stay here to take advantage of the new carbon market anyway. Companies who can find innovate ways to lower their emissions can sell their unused credits for substantial profit.

It seems like you're ignoring all the benefits altogether. Why wouldn't you want a sustainable society?

Because it is sanctions on businesses and sanctions are never good for the market or for consumers. Yes companies will profit off these credits but ultimately it is the consumer that has to pay the price for them. It does not benefit the poor in any way, and instead it makes people more poor.

The funny thing is, reducing emissions from power producers is impossible. If they could have reduced their impact they would have so what will happen is. They will pay the carbon tax and raise their prices of their services. This will effect the poor because their bill for their electricity and other service will go up. But this whole time the power producer was not reducing any emissions.

So in other words it is a lie. The government wants you to believe this is going to make the world cleaner but it is a lie. A lie to get you on board so you won't be annoyed when you see the cost of things increase. You will write it off and say, well the world is going to become cleaner, but it won't. If they really wanted to make the world cleaner they would just give incentives to companies to find the best and cleanest sources of power but they don't. Carbon credits are not an incentive because it does not force a business to be clean, it just forces them to pay a tax and push that cost onto consumers.

All carbon credits are is a clever way to hide taxation.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Even if every bad thing you've suggested comes true, as the price gets passed on to individuals, there will become an increased urgency in lowering energy consumption. This WILL, in turn, lower the emissions of those companies. The individual will still come out either even or ahead by saving money through energy conservation. Honestly, this is what I do for a living, I save people money on their electric bills. It's a lot easier than the world wants to believe, and it benefits all of us.

And maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I'm positive there are ways for companies to lower their emissions that they will take advantage of if it means they can sell credits to their competitors. That's just good capitalism, right?

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

Rwa001;139892 wrote:

And maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I'm positive there are ways for companies to lower their emissions that they will take advantage of if it means they can sell credits to their competitors. That's just good capitalism, right?

It is not good capitalism because it is a scam. I don't know how else to point it out to you that it is a scam to collect tax. The government already takes over sixty percent of everyone's income in the form of tax. Now they want even more but instead of saying they are going to raise your taxes they decide to mask it behind businesses.

People who are uneducated don't see the connection between business and consumer. So they assume that the business will suck up the costs of these carbon credits but that is where the problem is. They won't and many companies actually can't afford to so they will pass the cost onto their consumers. That makes you pay more for the goods or services. Paying more means you have less to do anything else with. The problem is not just on one level because every thing you buy, will have this cost hike. So it is exponential taxation.

I guarantee that businesses will not become cleaner because of carbon credits. How do I know? Because the government doesn't actually want them to be cleaner, it wants them to pollute and feel guilty then pay the carbon tax to relieve their guilt. That is how they plan to make money. They want companies to pollute, the more they pollute the more tax revenue they get. There is absolutely NO incentive for a company to become clean, none, because it is a scam.

0 Replies

The Coming Carbon Currency

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know