►
From YouTube: The Real Ministry for the Future - Delton Chen, PhD & Alan Ransil - Montaña (Main Stage)
Description
The *Real* Ministry for the Future: An Urgent Call to Action presented by Delton Chen, PhD and Alan Ransil at Sustainable Blockchain Summit LATAM 2022 - https://sbs.tech/
A
A
B
B
B
Now,
if
you
listen
to
economists
talking
at
conferences
like
this
all
around
the
world,
they
often
focus
on
the
negative
externality,
the
social
cost
of
carbon.
They
don't
really
have
a
theory
yet
for
a
global,
positive
externality
that
can
address
all
the
risks.
What
they
have
is
a
standard
Theory,
because
theory
for
addressing
the
costs
based
on
utility
right
and
what
I'm
saying
is
the
the
natural
solution
is
the
the
carbon
reward
in
this
Matrix
format
that
that
provides
the
scalable
funding
for
the
removal
and
conventional
mitigation.
A
Right,
100
and
I
think
I
think
this
Matrix
is
really
helpful
for
thinking
through
it
I
think
it's
it's
pretty
clear
to
people
what
the
carrot
is
on
the
top
right.
That's
you!
You
pay
someone
to
do
something.
It's
pretty
clear.
What
the
stick
is
on
the
bottom
right.
It's
you,
you
penalize
something
right.
Can
you
explain
what
the
what
the
left
and
right
hand
sort
of
columns
are
fine.
B
B
So
in
taxes
and
subsidies,
things
are
priced
with
those
currency
units,
the
right
hand,
side
introduces
a
new
instrument
which
is
tradable
and
it
has
carbon
units
and
so
you're
creating
two
different
contexts
for
Value,
the
point
being
that
if,
if
you
do
introduce
the
carbon
reward,
the
fourth
quadrant,
it
opens
up
monetary
policy,
because
that
instrument
is
much
closer
to
money.
It's
much
closer
to
a
regular
currency,
and
so
it
can
interface
with
Central
Bank
policy.
A
Great
got
it,
and-
and
maybe
we
could
just
give
an
example
like
what
is
so
on
the
left
hand,
side
right.
We
have
these
policies
that
are
denominated
in
Fiat
money
right
and
so
can
you
give
an
example
of
a
carbon
subsidy
like
just
so
people
can
like
have
something
to
jump
to
like
what
does
that
mean
exactly
yeah.
B
So
carbon
subsidy
is
when
a
government
offers
money
may
be
proportional
to
the
mitigated.
Carbon.
An
example
is
45q.
That's
an
American
policy
that
the
Trump
Administration
introduced
for
sequestration.
Another
example
would
be
the
inflation
adjustment
act,
which
has
money
and
tax
deductions
for
mitigating
actions.
A
B
A
Right,
100
and
then
on
the
right
hand,
side.
So,
on
the
left
hand
side
we
have
things
that
don't
require
this
extra
carbon
token
or
any
sort
of
tradable
unit
of
account
that
is
directly
linked
to
carbon,
but
on
the
right
side
we
do
so
cap
and
trade.
What
is
what
does
that?
Look
like
in
a
cap
and
trade
system?
Okay,.
B
B
The
cap
and
trade
invokes
the
coast
theorem
for
private
bargaining,
such
that
the
optimum
is
a
bit
different.
It's
a
Pareto
Optimum,
meaning
that
people
are
kind
of
happy
with
the
result
because
they
traded
their
way
there
and
the
carbon
reward
also
uses
this
approach,
but
for
the
opposite
for
mitigation
right.
B
Well,
the
amazing
thing
about
this
possibility
is
that
it
might
be
the
missing
link
to
the
economics,
so
I'll
refer
to
Lord
Nicholas
Stern
he's
the
famous
British
Economist,
who
wrote
the
stern
report.
He
recently
published
a
paper
actually
early
this
year
saying
look.
We
have
a
major
risk
problem.
We're
going
to
have
to
leave
standard
economics
come
up
some
solutions
because
he
wants
a
guard
rail.
B
Now
the
other
economists
don't
agree
with
him,
because
they're
wedded
to
the
standard
Theory,
which
is
in
The
Matrix,
and
what
I'm
saying
if
Nicholas
Stern
is
watching
hey,
maybe
you've
got
it
a
bit
wrong,
you're
nearly
there,
but
just
consider
the
Matrix
go
to
the
reward
and
that's
where
we
can
manage
systemic
risk
and
price.
The
risk
literally
100.
A
And
I
think
the
one
of
the
terms
that
you
brought
up
in
your
talk
was
this
idea
of
carbon
quantitative
easing
where
the
idea
is
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
quantitative
easing.
You
know
over
the
past
decade
or
so
in
the
economy
and
any
monetary
policy
when
the
when
the
Central
Bank
steps
in-
and
you
know,
Issues
new
money
According
to
some
rules
that
is
going
to
distort
the
economy
in
some
way
right
and
fiscal
policy
obviously
does
so
like.
So
what
would
be?
A
B
Yeah,
this
is
a
really
topical
point,
so
with
car
with
quantitative
easing
that
we're
familiar
with
that
concept
was
invented
by
Richard
Werner,
professor
of
Economics,
but
his
concept
wasn't
what
they're
doing
he
proposed
the
money
be
created
and
invested
more
in
real
production
to
create
jobs
and
grow
the
economy.
However,
the
central
Bankers
didn't
really
like
that,
so
they
decided
they
would
do
quantitative
easing
to
buy
Financial
assets
and
they
do
have
a
logic
for
this.
It
makes
some
sense
what
it
means
is.
B
People
are
going
to
invest
more
in
riskier
assets
because
the
bonds
are
becoming
too
expensive,
so
they're
Shifting
the
investment
on
the
frontier
of
investing
to
stimulate
the
economy
because
they're
trying
to
prevent
a
recession.
Okay,
it's
it's
it's
sort
of
anti-deflationary,
if
you
like
now,
carbon
quantitative
easing.
Yes,
it's
monetary
expansion,
but
the
money
is
going
proportionally
to
mitigation
with
this
correlation
to
carbon
and
what
it's
intended
to
do
is
de-risk
the
whole
problem.
B
Okay,
however,
I
want
to
highlight
something.
The
world
is
discussing
climate
risk,
it's
a
very
big
topic.
Nowadays,
central
banks
talk
about
risk,
Financial
Risk,
due
to
global
warming,
and
all
the
scientists
are
freaking
out
about
planetary
boundaries
and
positive
feedbacks,
we're
seeing
the
Hurricanes,
the
floods,
the
droughts,
the
fires,
bleaching
of
calories
Etc
at
these
risks.
Yes,
they
are
their
risks,
their
impacts
and
risks,
but
they're
Downstream.
B
So
we've
we
don't
have
our
eye
on
the
ball.
The
real
risk
is
Upstream
in
the
economy,
because
that's
where
we're
stuck
so
we
have
a
systemic
risk,
which
is
this
carbon
lock-in,
which
is
a
societal
lock-in
and
that's
what
this
is
managing.
It's
bypassing
that
that
carbon
lock
in
and
unlocking
it
yeah.
A
100
and
so
I
think
one
of
the
ways
to
see
this
also
is
that,
through
a
combination
of
different
policies,
there's
at
least
a
year
or
two
ago,
there
was
a
trillion
dollars
of
subsidy
for
fossil
fuels
right
and
clearly
that's
having
these
distortionary
effects,
and
so,
if,
rather
than
directly
supporting
fossil
fuels,
we
could
directly
support
things
that
are
climate,
positive
right.
That's
it's
another
sort
of
piece
of
this
right.
B
Yes,
if
you
look
at
the
climate
problem
as
a
risk
management
problem,
where
do
you
begin
well,
you
do
have
to
tackle
the
energy
infrastructure
because
of
the
the
physical
carbon
lock-in
risk,
which
means
avoiding
the
Industrial
Revolution
for
developing
countries,
mothballing
coal-fired
power
plants
and
gas,
fire
power
plants
or
tacking
on
some
CCS
or
something
if
that's
going
to
work.
But
here
the
key
point
is:
if
we're
going
to
fund
like
three
trillion
dollars:
extra
investment
in
a
rapid
energy
transition.
B
What's
the
justification
because
it
doesn't
fit
into
that
utilitarian
model
of
cost
benefit
and-
and
the
philosophy
is
actually
well
established
in
economics,
it's
called
cost
Effectiveness.
A
cost.
Effectiveness
is
not
so
well
known,
but
it's
used
in
the
medical
industry,
because
there,
the
morality
is
a
bit
different
about
saving
lives.
A
B
Well,
when
it
comes
to
individuals,
communities
Society,
it
gets
more
complicated.
Doesn't
it
because
the
reality
is
if
we
spend
the
trillions
on
the
energy
transition
and
building
lots
of
solar,
Farms,
wind
farms,
and
so
on,
that's
going
to
have
a
big
impact
on
the
environment.
Even
reforestation,
Land
Management
is
going
to
have
a
big
impact.
There
will
be
stakeholders
who
won't
like
it
there's
going
to
be
people's
lives
disrupted.
B
The
method
that
I'm
proposing
and
through
the
policy
is
the
co-benefits.
So
we
we
create
a
secondary
price
signal
that
adjusts
the
reward
higher
projects
that
have
good
co-benefits
and
lower
for
those
that
don't,
and
if
the
ups
and
the
downs
and
the
reward
adjustments
are
equal,
that's
across
the
whole
economy,
then
you
have
a
workable
mechanism
right.
A
So
I
think
that's
really
crucial
right
is,
is
the
global
cover
reward
isn't
issued
just
directly
in
proportional
to
tons
of
carbon
if
something
has
really
good
co-benefits,
so
I
think
we're
very
used
to
in
this
space.
Thinking
about
those
code
benefits
thinking
about
how
we're
not
just
removing
carbon
but
regenerating
ecosystems,
helping
people
on
the
ground,
avoiding
carbon
lock-in
like
all
of
these
different
parameters
that
goes
into
that
that
adjustment.
A
It
I
think
so
moving
into
sort
of
the
Dynamics
of
how
this
plays
out
right.
You've
you've
talked
about
the
silver
gun
hypothesis
as
being
sort
of
a
step
on
the
road
to
the
GCR.
Can
you
explain
what's
the
difference
between
what
people
commonly
refer
to
as
a
silver
bullet
right
versus?
What's
a
silver
gun.
B
Okay,
this
name
I
came
up
with
the
silver
gun
hypothesis.
This
refers
to
a
very
technical
thermodynamic,
Theory
and
because
it's
so
technical
I
generally
don't
talk
about
it.
But
the
idea
is
that
we
tend
to
be
focusing
on
Silver
Bullet
Solutions,
that's
technological,
like
I,
think
of
Greta
thunderberg
I
noticed
he
said
in
public
that
we
have
all
the
Technologies.
We
have
the
solutions.
A
I
know
you're
not
you're,
not
a
crypto
person
in
your
background,
but
if
you
were
used
to
thinking
of
money
as
a
technology,
you
are
in
the
right
place,
I
think
so
right.
So
the
silver
gun
hypothesis
is
sort
of
deeply
technical,
but
what
it
ladders
up
to
is
people
have
all
these
different
ideas
that
could
turn
out
to
be
a
silver
bullet.
Maybe
they
will
be,
maybe
they
won't
be,
but
we
need
to
empower
them
to
to
try
it
right
and
we
need
to
like
fund
the
things
that
work.
B
That's
right
so
because
the
silver
gun
is
such
a
technical
Theory,
which
we
won't
talk
about
the
mean
that's
used
in
my
work
is
the
living
systems.
Economy.
I
showed
it
actually
earlier
today
the
two
economies
in
parallel
they're
analogous
to
respiration
photosynthesis
and
they
have
a
thermodynamic
basis.
B
This
is
the
simplified
Matrix
just
the
core,
because
these
policies
are
governmental.
Compliance
policies
on
the
bottom
just
outside
the
Matrix
are
the
carbon
credits
right
and
they
feed
back
up
into
the
sticks
so
not
shown
on
the
right.
There
are
voluntary
cap
and
tray
voluntary
offsetting
not
shown
here,
but
on.
The
left
is
the
voluntary
carbon
tax,
which
is
Shadow
pricing
and
all
four
on
the
bottom.
Shadow
pricing,
tax,
tax
cap
and
trade
and
voluntary
offsetting
all
can
be
offset
right.
B
Yes,
offsets
technically
are
not
really
in
the
Matrix
they're
outside
and
the
reason
is
offsetting
conventionally
really
just
reduces
the
aggregate
cost
of
mitigation.
Offsetting
wasn't
originally
put
forward
as
a
primary
means
of
mitigation.
It's
just
that
in
the
voluntary
Market,
it's
better
than
not
having
it
it's
better
than
if
you
have
a
situation
where
you
don't
have
enough
policy.
At
least
corporates
like
Google
whomever,
are
voluntarily
offsetting.
A
Right,
can
you
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
of
nationality,
so
I
think
one
of
the
really
compelling
things
about
a
carbon
reward.
You're
like
we're
doing
a
doing
a
quick
tour
through
through
a
lot
of
thought.
One
of
the
things
about
a
carbon
reward
is
that
you're
not
comparing
to
a
counter
factual
right,
and
so
how
do
the?
How
does
that?
How
does
that
give
us
a
very
clear
idea
of
how
this
financial
instrument
is
actually
affecting
the
facts
on
the
ground?
Sure.
B
B
So
you
know
it's
significant
and
then
you
can
focus
your
attention
on
how
much
you
want
to
pay
and
that's
where
we
adjust
the
Baseline,
not
a
regular
Baseline,
but
a
carbon
intensity
Baseline,
and
that
Baseline
is
calibrated
to
the
right
price
to
get
these
industries
to
sign
on
board.
Once
they're
signed
on
bang
they'll
decarbonize
quickly,.
A
A
That
will
push
us
in
the
direction
of
the
global
carbon
reward
without
the
full.
You
know
before
the
full
reward
is
actually
implemented
at
a
global
scale.
Right,
there's
a
lot
of
work
we
can
do
in
parallel.
So
what
are
the
pieces
of
sort
of
informational
Plumbing
that
are
are
going
to
be
necessary
things
like
dmrv
in
order
to
to
get
this
to
work.
B
Well,
all
the
technologies
that
I
see
today
and
in
general,
they
work
well
if
they
work
well
with
carbon
credits,
carbon
offsetting,
they'll
work
well
with
the
reward
they
just
might
have
to
be
adapted
to
a
new
standard
and
new
platforms,
but
I
think
the
best
way
to
implement
the
policy
will
be
to
open
source
it
to
a
degree
to
take
the
best
Technologies
and
let
them
grow
again
to
this
new
market.
So
I
see
it
as
actually
quite
a
good
way
to
get
it
going.
A
B
More
or
less
yes,
the
way
I
see
it
is
that
the
actual
currency,
xcc
carbon
currency
I
think
let
the
government
sort
that
out
central
banks
and
Banks
because
that's
what
they
do,
but
with
the
platforms
for
mitigation
and
rewarding
and
co-benefits
and
stakeholders
yeah
that's
going
to
be
decentralized.
It
has
a
lot
of
opportunities
there
for
a
lot
of
different
Technologies
and
I.
Honestly
I
can't
even
imagine
what
it
would
look
like
because
it
you
know,
it'd
be
so
huge.
A
Those
are
our
sort
of
lower
bandwidth
policies
right.
So
so
you
collapse
everything
down
to
money
which
is
which
is
designed
to
be
a
low
bandwidth
right.
It's
designed
to
be
this
kind
of
minimum
value
signal
and
on
the
right.
You
have
these
other
these
other
systems
right,
which
involve
this
tradable
carbon
asset
and
therefore
necessarily
involve
more
information
being
flowed
through
the
economy
in
order
to
Direct
Value.
To
the
right
places
is,
that
is
that
one
way
of
thinking
about
it.
B
It
gives
a
different
context
to
Value,
because
you
you're
with
the
instrument.
The
theory
is,
you
can
introduce
another
objective.
So
this
is
a
theory
in
economics
that
your
number
of
tools
must
match
the
number
of
objectives
and
the
key
Point
here
in
the
in
the
new
conceptual
model
I'm,
claiming
that
we
have
two
objectives:
one
is
to
manage
the
costs
it's
utilitarian
and
the
other
is
to
manage
the
risk,
which
is
a
guard
rail.
So
we
need
at
least
two
instruments.
A
B
It
does
become
rather
theoretical
and
I,
don't
want
to
overdo
it
with
Theory,
but
it's
worth
stating
that
there
are
many
examples
or
examples
in
everyday
life
where
we
have
a
two
objective,
optimization
so
so
one
example
is
cost
and
risk.
So
you
walk
into
the
shop.
You
take
the
shortest
route
because
it
saves
you
money,
that's
a
cost,
but
if
you've
got
to
cross
a
busy
road,
we
might
get
killed,
that's
a
risk,
so
you
take
longer
so
you're
trading,
off
costs
and
efficiency
with
risk
and
safety.
B
A
B
I
think
it's
going
to
have
a
huge
impact,
so
the
concept
that
comes
to
me
most
quickly
is
the
idea
that
we
have
a
100
Year
price
signal
into
the
future.
Knowing
it's
supported
by
central
banks,
it's
got
a
private
Public
Finance
guarantee.
So
immediately.
Since
that
price
is
for
carbon
removal,
we
will
see
a
like
a
gold
rush
to
carbon
removal.
B
B
B
Others
might
disagree
to
the
morality
of
it
to
a
certain
degree,
but
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
business,
because
they're
really
committed
to
their
balance
sheet.
They've
got
to
make
a
profit
to
stay
alive
as
a
business
and
then
for
governments.
The
advantages
governments
can
allow
the
policy
to
take
a
lot
of
the
cost
off
their
fiscal
budget.
So
it's
covered
by
the
monetary
policy.
The
carbon
quantitative
easing
spreads
the
cost
globally
as
uniform
monetary
inflation,
and
it
it
it
it.
B
B
They
pay
for
mitigation
if
they,
if
they
can't
buy
any
more
for
whatever
reason
the
central
banks
then
buy
it,
and
we
spread
the
inflation
and
that's
not
necessarily
a
bad
inflation,
because
in
the
long
term,
if
we
don't
do
that,
we
will
have
a
different
type
of
inflation,
which
is
CPI
inflation,
consumer
inflation
because
everything's
becoming
more
expensive,
because
we've
got
extreme
weather
and
droughts
and
can't
grow
crops.
For
example,
yeah.
A
If
there's,
if
you're,
not
sure
how
much
fossil
fuel
lock-in
there's
going
to
be
over
the
long
term,
everyone
it's
hard
to
plan
right,
you
have
to
kind
of
have
one
foot
in
each
in
each
possible
version
of
the
future
right,
whereas
if
we
can
coordinate
everyone
through
this
sort
of
massive
overall
price
signal,
that's
that's
a
much
more
of
it
ends
up
being
a
much
more
efficient
way
to
to
get
to
the
right
answer.
So
that
is
the
ideal
situation
right.
Yes,.
A
B
Yeah,
let
the
market
make
the
mistakes.
The
policy
won't
technically
subsidize.
So
it's
still,
the
private
sector
has
to
develop
the
tech
Implement
to
take
the
risks
and
if
they're
successful
they
get
rewarded,
so
I
think
that's
a
healthy
way.
It's
it's
kind
of
aligned
with
capitalism.
But
then
again
it's
not
really
capitalism
in
the
conventional
sense,
because
it's
underwritten
by
this
public
policy
right.
A
B
From
the
perspective
of
Grassroots
movements
in
society,
I
think,
if
enough
philosophers
and
economists
and
scientists
and
Engineers
look
at
this
and
if
they
they're
convinced
they
don't
have
to
believe
me
or
what
I
say,
but
if
they
for
themselves
make
up
their
own
mind
and
they
they
think
yeah.
Actually,
this
makes
sense,
I
think
thought.
Leaders
will
influence
society
and
they'll
find
support,
on
the
other
hand,
with
the
central
bankers
and
the
governments,
particularly
central
banks.
B
Currently
they
have
announced
through
the
network
for
Greening
the
financial
system
and
other
statements
that
they
really
want
to
help
on
climate
change,
but
they
want
to
stay
Market
neutral
and
they
really
want
the
government
to
take
care
of
the
problem
because
they
don't
want
to
be
loaded
with
all
this
responsibility.
They
feel
the
governments
aren't
doing
enough
now.
What
this
Theory
says
is
that
that's
not
the
right
approach.
B
We
actually
need
the
central
banks
to
take
on
the
responsibility
to
underwrite
the
currency,
so
we
can
price
the
risk
and
it's
a
monetary
policy
and
Market
policy.
We
create
a
parallel
economy
and
then
there
is
the
realization
that
Fiat
money
isn't
safe.
It's
it's
good
for
certain
things
like
producing
goods
and
services,
but
it's
not
safe
when
it
comes
to
carbon
and
energy,
because
the
growth
economy
is
not
allowing
us
to
realize
the
pathway
to
one
and
a
half
to
two
degrees.
A
B
Exactly
and
if
any
Central
Bankers
are
watching,
I
would
simply
say:
look
the
global
carbon
reward.
It
doesn't
really
require
to
do
much
work.
All
you've
got
to
do
is
trade
the
currency
on
a
computer.
It's
people
like
you
and
everyone
here
is
going
to
do
all
the
work
through
the
assessments,
the
mrv,
the
work
on
the
ground,
the
financial
planning
and
everything
else.
That's
where
the
real
work
is
and
and
the
ministry
for
the
future,
which
is
the
carbon
exchange.
A
B
It's
this
just
being
here
has
made
me
more
hopeful,
because
this
is
the
first
blockchain
anything
I've
involved
in
and
I
honestly
didn't
have
an
opinion
or
a
perspective
on
how
much
sustainability
work
was
being
done
in
the
blockchain
space.
I
thought
it
was
really
quite
Fringe,
but
I
guess
I'm
Fringe
anyway,
so
I'm
at
home.
B
A
That's
what
we're
about
absolutely
driven
by
survival,
Instinct
and
appeal
the
laziness
right!
That's
that's!
What's
gonna,
it's
gonna
get
us
there
awesome
and
I.
Think
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
that
really
makes
me
hopeful
about
sort
of
every
time
we
are
able
to
gather
together
right
is
how
we
really
do.
A
C
Hi,
thank
you.
Earlier.
You
talked
about
the
transition
from
the
current
economy
to
the
parallel
economy
rather
than
the
degrowth.
Can
you
just
give
an
example
of,
what's
the
incentive
for
that
or
how
it
actually
how
it
happens?
How
how
and
why
do
people
move
from
the
current
economy
into
the
parallel
one.
B
Technically
people
won't
move
into
the
parallel
economy.
What's
happening
is
we're
creating
a
new
value
context
with
the
new
currency
and
that
by
having
a
parallel
economy,
we
want
it
to
be
very
specialized.
So
it's
only
going
to
be
undertaken.
Carbon
removal
and
mitigation
conventional
mitigation.
So
it's
a
very
specialized.
B
Then
we,
if
we
need
more
mitigation,
we
increase
the
exchange
rate,
which
is
the
price
signal.
Technically
speaking,
the
carbon
reward
is
the
exchange
rate.
So
that's
calibrated
to
the
amount
of
carbon
removal.
We
will
need
that's
an
optimistic,
minimal
amount
and
then
we
use
the
other
rules
for
conventional
mitigation
to
help
move
that
along
as
well.
So
with
the
policy
we
can
cover
the
carbon
removal
which
is
necessary
and
then
that's
rule,
three
rules,
one
and
two
for
conventional
mitigation.
B
We
really
need,
unfortunately,
whether
you
like
it
or
hate
it
I,
don't
know,
but
we
need
the
top-down
agreement
internationally
for
central
banks
or
similar
institutions
to
back
that
currency
exchange
rate,
then
what
happens
in
my
opinion
is
that
I
have
this
theory
about
society
and
people
when
our
moral
compass
is
aligned
to
profit.
We
get
really
excited
about
things
and
we
love
green
projects
because
we
can
be
moral
and
you
know
what
I
mean
you're
popular
at
parties
and
stuff
like
that.
B
But
yes,
so
there's
strong,
Synergy
there
and
so
Society
once
they
learn
about
the
reward
and
learn
about
mitigation
by
investing
in
it,
because
everyone
will
begin
to
invest
as
well.
That's
the
key
thing:
stock
market,
Equity,
Funds
Pension
funds
will
begin
investing
both
the
currency
and
green
projects,
because
they're,
bankable
and
profitable.
B
This
will
change
the
moral
compass
and
the
political
landscape.
The
theory
of
change
is
that,
as
this
is
happening,
politics
will
adapt,
because
politicians
will
realize
that
people
now
agree
with
the
mitigation
economy.
They
agree
with
strong
mitigation,
because
why
there's
a
profit
opportunity
or
a
better
one
and
thus
over
time,
people
will
then
will
say.
Well,
hey
we've
got
those
rewards,
but
why
aren't
we
taxing
these
dirty
Industries?
More
because
we're
offering
rewards
it
means
that
taxes
can
then
rise
in
sympathy.
A
B
We
can
go
there,
yeah.
Well,
sorry,
I,
just
one
more
comment:
if
I
may,
the
degrowth
economy
or
concept
where
I
find
that
difficult
to
visualize
is
in
Central
Banking
and
monetary
policy,
because
if
we
don't
have
growth,
the
central
banks
will
have
a
freak
out
because
they
know
the
need
growth
for
financial
stability
and
they
actually
Target
growth.
They
might
not
say
that
publicly,
but
they
target
certain
amount
of
inflation,
a
certain
amount
of
growth
because
it
stabilizes
the
financial
system,
so
you're
kind
of
stuck
there.
D
Ice
floor
for
these
new
tokens
and
that
being
part
of
the
exchange
rate
and
that
being
supported
by
the
governments,
wouldn't
that
be
really
expensive
potentially,
and
how
do
you
see
the
feasibility
of
getting
governments
to
commit
that
amount
of
money
or
financial
resource
to
help
support
the
price
floor
and
the
desired
exchange
rate
that
we
would
actually
need
to
get
the
mitigation?
We
really
need
to
stay
within
planetary
boundaries.
B
Yeah
it's
a
good
question
in
in
the
presentation
I
gave.
There
was
one
diagram,
a
chart
of
the
price
over
100
years,
and
the
price
is
calibrated
to
rise
over
30
40
years
Peak
and
then
gradually
fall
with
Plateau
that's
calibrated
to
the
carbon
removal.
We
need
now
because
it's
rising
for
a
period
of
time,
it's
actually
an
asset.
B
So
what
the
the
central
banks
are
doing
with
the
guarantee
they're
creating
a
bull
market
in
the
currency,
so
the
governments
won't
have
to
pay
for
it
because
the
private
sector
will
buy
it
as
an
investment
for
that
period.
It's
only
later
that
they
have
to
expand
the
money
supply,
but
because
it's
a
central
banks
expanding
the
money
supply.
There
is
no
direct
cost
to
governments.
There
is
no
direct
cost
to
business
or
individuals.
There's
no
tax,
there's
no
fee.
We
we're
channeling
the
cost
into
currency
markets.
B
Yes,
Herman
Darley
has
advice
for
how
to
get
out
of
a
recession.
So
his
advice
is
like
you,
your
tax,
you
tax
more
for
the
wealthy,
you
spend
and
you
increase
the
money
supply.
So
that's
a
combination
of
inflationary
and
deflationary
policies,
mixed
together
in
the
right
ways,
softens
the
blow
of
a
recession
and
gets
the
economy
going
again.
So.
C
A
And
and
I
think
regardless
it
is,
you
know,
as
you're
pointing
out
it
is
a
huge
lift,
right
and
I
think.
What
really
draws
me
to
the
GCR
is
that
it
is
one
of
every
few
projects
tackling
the
climate
crisis
at
the
scale
of
the
climate
crisis
right.
So
it's
like
the
amount
of
money
and
the
amount
of
resources
that
we
need
to
be
mobilized
by
the
GCR
are
the
amount
of
money
and
resources
that
would
need
to
be
mobilized
in
order
to
stop
climate
change.
E
So
thanks
for
the
talk
earlier
and
also
this
I
have
to
say
that
I'm
I'm,
really
fascinated
by
the
fact
that
you're,
using
what
I
recognize
as
being
some
traditional
economic,
fiscal
and
monetary
policies
to
kind
of
solve
this
problem,
using
the
tools
that
some
would
say
have
created
the
problem.
So
my
question
to
you
is:
what
is
the
biggest
counter
argument
or
challenge
that
you
have
encountered
as
you've
been
presenting?
E
B
Would
say
the
biggest
challenge,
intellectually,
is
when
economists
immediately
use
the
word
inflation.
So
if
we're
going
to
expand
the
money
supply,
it's
a
kind
of
a
knee-joint
reaction.
Are
we
going
to
create
inflation
and
then
everyone's
worried
about
inflation?
So
to
respond
to
that
fear
or
that
question
we
we
need
to
take
a
long-term
view.