I call it the 'lean green bioregional machine'
-an integrated political and Earth Stewardship system (did u read Will Steffen's latest paper under 'Links and Resources?')
-?similar to the direct democracy model in Switzerland or simply a Federation restructure
-Elon Musk supports direct democracies in principle so they must be good
So, how can it be done?
-make a map of bioregions based around river catchments and groundwater aquifers
-get a map of 'House of Representatives' electorates
-overlay the two in a GIS and shave off the 'House of Representatives' electorate borders along bioregional perimeters
-allocate bioregional 'Senate' seats based on an equation integrating area, water and population within the bioregion
-blockchain the PM and possibly the system using POS method on the Ethereum platform
-what about State Governments? These would be replaced by bioregions
-what about Local Government? Borders could also be redefined within bioregions
-transition some Government jobs from State Government to the new bioregional platform/structure
-use those funny video link-ups on wheels for meetings (C U Geoffrey Blainey's 'Tyranny of Distance')
-what about debates? These could take place online using video link-ups...less travel kms and possibly lower testosterone levels. People from the community and experts could join in!
-likely high initial cost to set up but undoubtedly long-term savings which could transfer to lower income taxes
-A Carbon tax with direct dividend to consumers
-Apptech/Green tech seed funding - distributed tech and grid restructure
-Increased apptech/greentech R&D military budget
-Increased environmental refugee intake
Do we have a working model in progress?
CSIRO bioregional assessment programme could be a start plus working models in Australia and ?overseas
Why not give those poor ol' climate scientists their jobs back in CSIRO? Maybe a fundraising Gala dinner...
In the not too distant future...
When the pressure mounted on humanity to turn the world economy on a dime to avoid catastrophic climate heating, many people, institutions, corporations and other business entities tried to scramble to the top of the energy mountain and use what fossil energy was left to secure their own nests.
A decentralisation movement took over the low energy ground. The people on top of the mountain became stranded and increasingly isolated. Pressure from below resulted in a grand compromise never seen before on Earth.
It was in everybody's interest to drawdown greenhouse gases and restore a safe climate. Financial and opaque barriers were broken by cryptocurrency using 'Proof Of Stake' algorithms on a low-Carbon blockchain. Global internet was deployed by 2025 by SpaceX. Information became accessible to almost everyone on the planet with a simple internet chip built into their smartphone. Coal stations were shut down due to intense pressure from climate activists both on infrastructure and on the corrupt political institutions that supported it.
Technology, including appropriate technology, developed rapidly following new information flows. Living standards were raised globally however during the 'great transition' many people became environmental refugees and most of these refugees had small Energy/Carbon/Water/Chemical footprints. Refugee camps sprouted up all over the planet and became semi-permanent to permanent. Disease quickly spread throughout the camps so it was essential that biochar was used to filter water (in addition to boiling) and purify soil used for production of culinary and medicinal plants (via it's many benefits to soil including increased soil fertility, Water Holding Capacity, soil porosity, Cation Exchange Capacity and Carbon sequestration).
The camps became apptech incubators - new tech was imagined and built on a daily basis by refugees with support from aid and development sources. 'thelevelmarket.com' became the Costco of cheap affordable apptech - TLUD stoves became a popular way to cook food (and boil water) since Carbon credits known as 'Carbon Removal Certificates' were able to generate NORI cryptocurrency tokens, which could be exchanged as currency between refugees however bartering became the most common resource transaction. 'The Energy Kit' became popular which included a TLUD stove with USB centrifugal fan, power bank/torch, semi-permanent LED lighting, and solar panel. Xiaomi became King of cheap, large, well specced and low power smartphones. Tablets, laptops and desktops became a thing of the past.
More organised efforts, some likened to the Marshall Plan such as 'drawdown.org', sprung up and spanned the global economy. Some countries, mostly Socialist ones, created their own green plans. China led the way in Asia but much of their effort was undoing the damage that fast and dirty industrialisation had caused in the 1990s and 2000s. Most green ideas revolved around retrofitting people's homes and workplaces with efficient tech, apptech, greentech et al Factories were retooled to produce renewable energy tech, workers transitioned from old, unsustainable and dirty industries. Coal, oil and gas became less available than before (read 'The race for what's left') and in many cases new apptech could be built without that resource anyway. Many of the waste resources from 'fossil fuelled' Civilisation were employed in apptech, such as Earthships and Permachar Wicking Barrels. Permaculture became the dominant design system for sustainability but meanwhile the planet was still in decay...
The 'lungs of the planet' and 'medicine cabinet', the Amazon rainforest, continued as a war zone as forest enforcers battled with illegal loggers. Reforestation projects ('Terrestrial Carbon') took place in a number of areas such as Southern Peru, but as the cloud forest dried up due to increasing atmospheric temperatures and illegal logging, it became harder and harder to build new forest due to reduction in rainfall and increasing numbers of wildfires. The tree planters kept planting regardless, driven by a vision of hope, prosperity and culture.
The oceans acidified due to the increased amount of 'Blue Carbon' absorbed into the sea water. Reversal of acidification would take millenia. Healthy coral reefs became a rarity, where most either disentegrated, got taken over by pests such as 'Crown of Thorns' or bleached from increased sea temperatures. The biggest problem became phytoplankton unable to effectively calcify it's miniscule exoskeletons due to acidification. With a gradual collapse of the bottom of the food chain, populations of most species began to collapse. Sea kelp farming became popular as did ocean aquaculture. As fishery stocks collapsed, black soldier larvae became a popular source of protein as a substitute for fish meal in terrestrial aquaponic systems.
Snow caps, glaciers, icebergs and permafrost continued to melt. The permafrost melting exposed biomass that would break down due to increased microbial activity and realease vast quantities of methane (which is arguably 23+ times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2). Additionally, frozen methane clathrates in the sea beds also continued to melt releasing massive amounts of methane gas. Consequently, river flows reliant on glacial melts decreased affecting massive numbers of people dependent on irrigation for agriculture along the rivers. Sea level rises, mostly from icebergs melting, affected many mega-cities built along the coastline. In some countries such as Bangladesh, people became trapped as they tried to go to higher ground. The temperature increases from permafrost and clathrate melting added to the feedback into the climate system warming and only accelerated the melting.
Superstorms became the norm of extreme weather. Florida became deserted.
The key to the lock was limiting global temperature increases from pre-industrial times to 1.5 degrees Celsius. If higher increases were reached eg. 2 degrees Celsius and emissions were not controlled to limit further temperature increases, the planet's climate system would uncontrollably tip into 5 degrees and stabilise there. In this scenario, only about a billion people would survive and most species would die. If humans continued to add climate emissions then the climate could tip over into 10 degrees of warming increase. GAME OVER.
Or was it GAME OVER? What if we could stabilise the climate at around 1.5-2 degrees. What if humanity 'got it's shit together' and collaborated on the mother of all 'complex wicked problems' - climate change? What if world peace could be cemented through this collaborative effort? What if apptech could be the driver of this change? Is this what people like Buckminster Fuller and E.F. Schumacher imagined for the future? A world where everyone could meet their basic needs while at the same time steward the climate and all of the other Earth Systems - biological, chemical and geophysical?
There are many aspects to how the human species is going to interface itself with computers, its software, and physical technologies and resources around the planet. What I see is a convergence
between artificial intelligence and physical intelligence.
What do I mean by AI? There are a range of interpretations of what this means in 'reality'. However, the 'reality' is that we are using more and more mathematical algorithms to solve 'real world (physical)' problems. These algorithms are enshrined in software code based on a physical system such as smartphones, laptops, desktops and cloud-based server farms. I was at a Summer solstice party a couple of years ago and I spoke to a bearded computer science student who described AI as basically using software, based on computers, to solve problems. That could be as simple as using a sensor such as a moisture meter to tell an Arduino microcontroller to turn on the water in a wicking bed to water the plants. It could be as complex as modelling the climate for change, mining a cryptocurrency and searching out new exoplanets in the universe for human habitation.
What do I mean by PI? An old film director, known as 'Smokin' Joe' who directed the movie 'Mystery Train' lived in a guesthouse at Nakano in Tokyo. I was staying there in 2006 while I was teaching English as a Foreign Language. We had a number of conversation about physical intelligence. What Joe was trying to get to was the interface/relationship between people and planet. He described how people were losing their ability to think about how they interacted with the physical environment losing their connections to physical resources in the face of globalisation. How is it that we could be so connected to everyone else yet many so dimly aware of our own impacts on the physical resources of the planet? At that time, Japan was importing 90% of its soya beans and starting the smartphone revolution. I was teaching many students at that time who were coding apps for smartphones. A few years later I went and studied a Diploma of Permaculture and realised then that scarcity of resources was manufactured and that design science embedded in human/physical systems was the main driver of future sustainable societies.
So, the question on my mind is interface. I've been playing with the hardware and software interface in my music studio for 20 years. I have seen a steady trend in integration between hardware and software over that time. It's at a point now where a company called 'Native Instruments' have achieved such tight software-hardware integration that one doesn't even need to look at a computer screen while producing electronic music. Access to all the sounds is at your fingertips. Smartphones are no different - apps are getting smarter than we are and information, or intelligence, is available in an instant. Big data is collected by most software companies and more and more sophisticated algorithms are being coded to create increasingly efficient ways to mine data and get the results the user might be looking for.
But, is efficiency a substitute for sustainable technology? I would argue that efficiency can be more sustainable in certain applications that might save energy usage, such as smart grids and variable controlled greenhouses/warehouses eg. 'Plenty' and shipping containers eg. 'Terrafarms'. However, if the designs of those systems are creating an increased demand in the physical resources based in those systems, are we creating an overall larger ecological (physical) footprint? As we see a growing middle class around the world with more sophisticated consumer demands, AI applications may float more boats and make life more convenient with less physical resources due to efficiency increases. More importantly resources need to be used more than once and have multiple functions. I have found that most aspects to biochar technology cannot be substituted with software algorithms telling me what to do or even doing it for me. A software program can't harvest the biomass, the raw product for biochar, could integrate with a laser cutting machine with additional hardware, can automate expensive and complicated kilns, can't operate simple kilns such as the 'Carbon' to produce the biochar and can't physically distribute the biochar to its various cascades such as animal feed and bedding, construction (eg.hempcharcrete), water filtration and soil fertility. But I can write a physical algorithm aka operating/usage instructions to use the resource within a designed ecosystem.
I imagine that there will be greater convergence with AI and biochar in the future but ultimately automation and efficiency algorithms can't solve many of the physical problems posed by managing physical resources such as biochar. Arguably, it is only a matter of time for AI and big data to catch up with PI, but will probably never completely take it over - just move closer to a converged state of mind eg. Mapping. There's plenty of ways people can collaborate with mapping on the internet and it seems to be the ultimate way to communicate between the mind(s) and machine(s). Mapstory.org is one example though it's still in beta and contains many incomplete datasets but houses some pretty stunning maps. Google 'MyMaps' (also shareable) seems to be an easy way to collaborate in mapping something basic like georeferenced points eg. Biochar kilns, as long as you've got a Google account. These can probably be embedded in a website too. Google Maps 'Mashups' can also be easily created with many tools freely available on the internet. Call me biased, but I love a good map though as a wise man once told me 'The map is not the territory'. Enough said.
Reports and their observations and predictions are generally getting gloomier all the time -from Arctic Summer sea ice extent shrinking to Greenland/Alaska/Antarctica/Himalayas etc melting of icebergs, glaciers, snow caps; ocean/sea level rise, deforestation, biodiversity loss (the world's '6th great extinction event'), superstorms, abrupt weather changes, extreme flood events, mudslides, clathrates already melting nearby the Arctic tundra etc etc
A 6-8 degree increase or more by the end of the century if business as usual doesn't change. Taking into account the heat latency effect in the climate system, even a 2 degree warming event compared to pre-industrial global atmospheric temperatures would be catastrophic for the South Pacific and many other places, not to mention an acceleration of all of the events mentioned above.
Apply to most countries (even the US might still get on board) and legally binding.
As mentioned before, 2 degrees average global temperature increase from pre-industrial levels is 'too high'.
Needs new Carbon-based sustainable industries to accelerate progress towards meeting Paris accords goals and obligations.
Worked for a while but involved ecological destruction such as destroying native forests, displacing entire villages, high water consumption, arsenic leaching into groundwater and rivers, often corrupt business relationships. Quality control was it's advantage - you could test the purity, weigh it, transport it, trade it but it needed to be secured which was probably problematic for many countries - Carbon doesn't face that problem.
Now relies on trust with Federal/Government reserves at a time when trust in quasi-Government and Government institutions are falling.
Becoming redundant - checks and balances for inflation no longer as effective as it used to be...can be abused by printing more money which has happened in many countries such as Bolivia (they used wheelbarrows to cart the money to do their groceries) during it's financial and political collapse and more recently in Venezuela, where more trust is now placed in cryptocurrency than in national fiat currency. There's been a huge uptake of individuals mining cryptocurrencies since their inflation rate is currently 1600% and rising and their national currency is good for starting fires.
Why is it banks print more money when growth slows down and inflates?? Is it to increase cash flow?
In this scenario the value of money depreciates and ultimately goods and services become even more expensive. Between controlling currency value and changing interest rates, the growth rate is at the mercy of global influences/globalisation. What if degrowth, which is the only sustainable option, could be accelerated without changing amounts of currency in circulation and manipulating interest rates?
In an ethical degrowth world, job growth and sustainability can occur simultaneously aka green collar jobs. I call this transition 'Contraction and Emergence' i.e. 'Contraction' of the fossil fuel based economies and an 'emergence' of Carbon-backed technologies and economies.
In a CBNDC, the amount of currency in 'circulation' would be fixed, in line with other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The main lever left then to control inflation would be interest rates - which might also become increasingly insignificant, though inter-related, as we move into a renter economy. As the value of Carbon-backed industry increases, so will the value of the CBNDC as happened with the Gold standard, though Gold was probably more prone to fluctuate with international prices (unless there became a global market for CBNDC's). Using the 'Precautionary Principle', I would suggest doing a trial of the CBNDC first, decoupled from the national fiat currency. Down the track, if a trial was successful and Carbon-backed industry 'emerged' (with digging up coal as an exclusion), the CBNDC could be traded with other CBNDC's and possibly other cryptocurrencies like fiat currency can be traded with other fiat currencies - though Australian citizens might want to hang on to their CBNDC for a while! Furthermore, non-Australian citizens would be likely to buy our CBNDC if we go first, which would add value to both the currency and the Australian economy including the transition to Carbon-backed technologies and industries.
'Proof of work' (POW) eg. Bitcoin
Increasingly massive computer energy usage solving maths problems for encrypting the decentralised ledger and therefore increasingly high Carbon footprint.
By 2030 blockchain mining will consume the equivalent of all the power consumed in Denmark (or so they say). High Carbon footprint, has initiated a technology arms race in cryptocurrency mining. This will result in the undermining of the democratic and decentralised peer to peer principles upon which it is based eg. first generation of quantum computers will take over using artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of neural processing units (NPUs) in large server farms then eventually personal quantum miners with AI and NPUs will begin to catch up on the game. This all assumes engineers will find a way for quantum computers to efficiently 'hash' the blockchain - which they probably will.
'Proof of Stake' (POS)
eg. IOTA and next gen of Ethereum - requires much less computing power and Carbon footprint. Security of the decentralised ledger will increase as more people get on the network. In other words, as more and more Australians use the CBDNC, the security of the currency would be increased. Though not ideal, moderators can be used (provided by the Federal Government), such as the IOTA example, until there are enough users/consumers to secure the network.
-Carbon-backed national digital currency
National digital currency would still have some centralised control by relying on IT security experts to partly secure it though becoming increasingly redundant but what if secured by a decentralised commodity that will create new industry and new jobs aka Carbon-sequestration that will meet or exceed Paris accords obligations? Throw in POS and we may have hit the best of all currency models - minimal Federal Government regulation, minimal Carbon footprint, empowerment of consumers/users, quantum-proofing of network attacks.
Problem will be standardising Carbon technology eg. biochar production units/kilns/ovens/stoves etc., reforestation, Carbon-negative construction etc etc and its resultant sequestration amounts but much work has already been done with Carbon accounting instruments (eg. http://americancarbonregistry.org/) when the Carbon tax was being considered and prior to that with Carbon accounting work done on Carbon credits, both in Australia and around the world. Taxes, especially new ones, are unpopular anywhere - not just Australia.
Carbon rationing would be unpalatable to the (Australian) public though can be scientifically modelled with increasing accuracy using supercomputers that are rapidly getting faster and more powerful and are now moving into the quantum domain i.e. Planetary modelling can make predictions about how much Carbon is 'safe' from one year to the next in the climate system - this would translate into rations for each country and allocated on a per capita basis but would struggle taking into account historical responsibility of Carbon pollution. 'Cap and trade' is gamed and hasn't drastically cut down Carbon pollution and probably never will. Carbon credits don't go far enough and can be traded on the stockmarket and also gamed. Could the CBNDC be gamed? Maybe make more acacia/bamboo/hemp biochar? Graphene storage for the renewable energy systems already in place and coming online in the future? Implement more holistic models such as 'Carbon farming' (well described by Eric Toensmeier)? Could all of this be the 'Tragedy of the Commons' in that if one nation doesn't go first to create a CBNDC no nation will? Carbon utilitarianism? When it comes to currency, isn't that utilitarian anyway?
If a CBNDC used the blockchain, then the Carbon-backing could offset the Carbon footprint of the blockchain encryption and then some but would face an ever-increasing Carbon footprint.
If a POS approach was taken for the CBNDC, it would be Carbon-negative permanently (assuming it never crashes but if it did at least the Carbon-backed economy would be kickstarted) - a 'positive' positive climate feedback loop for a change - much needed. There's always good ol' fashioned bartering if all else fails!