California’s Cap-And-Trade Carbon Emission System May Be Failing

TN Note: Proponents must wonder why cap and trade program keep failing. The main reason is that cap and trade is economically and morally bankrupt before it even opens its doors for business. It is a sham business that has no demand, no products and virtually no regulation. It reminds me of a post office scam in the late 1970s where someone put an ad in the paper that merely said, “Send $5 to P.O. Box 4837, city, state” and some people actually did so. 

California’s much-vaunted cap-and-trade system of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may be collapsing.

This month’s quarterly auction of carbon dioxide emission allowances, which was supposed to generate more than a half-billion dollars for politicians to spend, brought in a paltry $10 million as the Air Resources Board sold a tiny fraction of the allowances it was offering.

It could be a one-time adjustment, of course, but those who study the complex market believe that the underlying conditions are more systemic than situational, the most prominent being an increasing concern that the program will expire in 2020.

When the Legislature passed the enabling legislation a decade ago, it was aimed at reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, not only through selling a declining number of allowances at rising prices, but through more specific targets, particularly increasing the level of renewable electric power generation.

There’s a fierce, albeit mostly private, debate over whether the cap-and-trade system can legally exist after 2020, or would have to be reauthorized by the Legislature. Meanwhile, there’s a pending lawsuit, filed by business groups, that seeks to have the system branded a tax, which would require a two-thirds legislative vote.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration contends, most recently this week in testimony to a legislative committee, that cap and trade can continue without reauthorization, but it’s by no means a settled issue. And it may be moot if the market is, as it appears, imploding.

Moreover, were reauthorization sought, it could run afoul of a 2010 ballot measure that tightened up the legal definitions of taxes and fees and therefore could be, politically, a nonstarter.

If the system is, indeed, falling apart, the emission reduction goals themselves are not affected. In fact, the sharp decline in emission allowance sales indirectly tightens up the cap. The impact is mostly financial – slowing or even blocking plans by Brown and legislators to spend what they thought would be billions of dollars that they wouldn’t have to raise though direct taxes.

Read full story here…

California Considers Expanding Cap-And-Trade To Prevent Global Deforestation

TN Note: California views itself as the savior of the world. Somehow self-flagellation in California will change behavior of other people and systems all over the world. 

Deforestation accounts for approximately 15 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions every year. The California Air Resources Board is considering allowing companies regulated under cap-and-trade to purchase carbon offsets to protect tropical forests. It’s based on the United Nation’s Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation program, or REDD. Some environmental groups says the program is fraught with problems.

“We believe that any type of trade program like this is very difficult to verify the offset credits, who’s managing the verification, what is the process for verifying whether the offsets are actually happening,” says Sandra Lupien with the environmental group Food and Water Watch.

She says it also allows businesses to control and profit off indigenous peoples’ lands. California is working with the Brazilian State of Acre and the Mexican State of Chiapas.

“The projects that we’re looking at are supported by the locals,” says Dave Clegern, a spokesman with the California Air Resources Board. “They are what is known as sector-based projects, which means that they would be run in conjunction with the government of that country which would provide the opportunity for regular monitoring, verification of the quality of the offsets.”

Several environmental groups support the program. It will likely take more than a year before the Air Board adopts any proposal.

Read full story here…

Flashback – Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?


Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global cur­rency are per­haps thinking too small.

On the world horizon looms a new global cur­rency that could replace all paper cur­ren­cies and the eco­nomic system upon which they are based.

The new cur­rency, simply called Carbon Cur­rency, is designed to sup­port a rev­o­lu­tionary new eco­nomic system based on energy (pro­duc­tion, and con­sump­tion), instead of price. Our cur­rent price-based eco­nomic system and its related cur­ren­cies that have sup­ported cap­i­talism, socialism, fas­cism and com­mu­nism, is being herded to the slaugh­ter­house in order to make way for a new carbon-based world.

It is plainly evi­dent that the world is laboring under a dying system of price-based eco­nomics as evi­denced by the rapid decline of paper cur­ren­cies. The era of fiat (irre­deemable paper cur­rency) was intro­duced in 1971 when Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon decou­pled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s pri­mary reserve asset, all other cur­ren­cies even­tu­ally fol­lowed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increas­ingly unde­sired, unstable, unusable.

The deathly eco­nomic state of today’s world is a direct reflec­tion of the sum of its sick and dying cur­ren­cies, but this could soon change.

Forces are already at work to posi­tion a new Carbon Cur­rency as the ulti­mate solu­tion to global calls for poverty reduc­tion, pop­u­la­tion con­trol, envi­ron­mental con­trol, global warming, energy allo­ca­tion and blanket dis­tri­b­u­tion of eco­nomic wealth.

Unfor­tu­nately for indi­vidual people living in this new system, it will also require author­i­tarian and cen­tral­ized con­trol over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.

What is Carbon Cur­rency and how does it work? In a nut­shell, Carbon Cur­rency will be based on the reg­ular allo­ca­tion of avail­able energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Cur­rency will expire (like monthly min­utes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allo­ca­tion based on new energy pro­duc­tion quotas for the next period.

Because the energy supply chain is already dom­i­nated by the global elite, set­ting energy pro­duc­tion quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Cur­rency in cir­cu­la­tion at any one time. It will also nat­u­rally limit man­u­fac­turing, food pro­duc­tion and people movement.

Local cur­ren­cies could remain in play for a time, but they would even­tu­ally wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Cur­rency, much the same way that the Euro dis­placed indi­vidual Euro­pean cur­ren­cies over a period of time.

Sounds very modern in con­cept, doesn’t it? In fact, these ideas date back to the 1930’s when hun­dreds of thou­sands of U.S. cit­i­zens were embracing a new polit­ical ide­ology called Tech­noc­racy and the promise it held for a better life. Even now-classic lit­er­a­ture was heavily influ­enced by Tech­noc­racy: George Orwell’s1984, H.G. Well’s The Shape of Things to Come and Huxley’s “sci­en­tific dic­ta­tor­ship” in Brave New World.

This paper inves­ti­gates the rebirth of Tech­noc­racy and its poten­tial to recast the New World Order into some­thing truly “new” and also totally unex­pected by the vast majority of modern critics.


Philo­soph­i­cally, Tech­noc­racy found it roots in the sci­en­tific autoc­racy of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 – 1825) and in the pos­i­tivism of Auguste Comte (1798– 1857), the father of the social sci­ences. Pos­i­tivism ele­vated sci­ence and the sci­en­tific method above meta­phys­ical rev­e­la­tion. Tech­nocrats embraced pos­i­tivism because they believed that social progress was pos­sible only through sci­ence and tech­nology. [Schunk, Learning The­o­ries: An Edu­ca­tional Per­spec­tive, 5th, 315]

The social move­ment of Tech­noc­racy, with its energy-based accounting system, can be traced back to the 1930’s when an obscure group of engi­neers and sci­en­tists offered it as a solu­tion to the Great Depression.


The prin­cipal sci­en­tist behind Tech­noc­racy was M. King Hub­bert, a young geo­sci­en­tist who would later (in 1948 – 1956) invent the now-famous Peak Oil Theory, also known as the Hub­bert Peak Theory. Hub­bert stated that the dis­covery of new energy reserves and their pro­duc­tion would be out­stripped by usage, thereby even­tu­ally causing eco­nomic and social havoc. Many modern fol­lowers of Peak Oil Theory believe that the 2007 – 2009 global reces­sion was exac­er­bated in part by record oil prices that reflected validity of the theory.

Hub­bert received all of his higher edu­ca­tion at the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago, grad­u­ating with a PhD in 1937, and later taught geo­physics at Columbia Uni­ver­sity. He was highly acclaimed throughout his career, receiving many honors such as the Rock­e­feller Public Ser­vice Award in 1977.

In 1933, Hub­bert and Howard Scott formed an orga­ni­za­tion called Tech­noc­racy, Inc. Tech­noc­racy is derived from the Greek words “techne” meaning skill and “kratos”, meaning rule. Thus, it is gov­ern­ment by skilled engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians as opposed to elected offi­cials. It was opposed to all other forms of gov­ern­ment, including com­mu­nism, socialism and fas­cism, all of which func­tion with a price-based economy.

As founders of the orga­ni­za­tion and polit­ical move­ment called Tech­noc­racy, Inc., Hub­bert and Scott also co-authored Tech­noc­racy Study Course in 1934. This book serves as the “bible” of Tech­noc­racy and is the root doc­u­ment to which most all modern tech­no­cratic thinking can be traced. Tech­noc­racy pos­tu­lated that only sci­en­tists and engi­neers were capable of run­ning a com­plex, technology-based society. Because tech­nology, they rea­soned, changed the social nature of soci­eties, pre­vious methods of gov­ern­ment and economy were made obso­lete. They dis­dained politi­cians and bureau­crats, who they viewed as incom­pe­tent. By uti­lizing the sci­en­tific method and sci­en­tific man­age­ment tech­niques, Tech­nocrats hoped to squeeze the mas­sive inef­fi­cien­cies out of run­ning a society, thereby pro­viding more ben­e­fits for all mem­bers of society while con­suming less resources.

The other inte­gral part of Tech­noc­racy was to imple­ment an eco­nomic system based on energy allo­ca­tion rather than price. They pro­posed to replace tra­di­tional money with Energy Credits.

Their keen focus on the effi­cient use of energy is likely the first hint of a sus­tained ecological/environmental move­ment in the United States. Tech­noc­racy Study Course stated, for instance,

Although it (the earth) is not an iso­lated system the changes in the con­fig­u­ra­tion of matter on the earth, such as the ero­sion of soil, the making of moun­tains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typ­ical and char­ac­ter­istic exam­ples of irre­versible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy. (Tech­noc­racy Study Course, Hub­bert & Scott, p. 49)

Modern emphasis on cur­tailing carbon fuel con­sump­tion that causes global warming and CO2 emis­sions is essen­tially a product of early Tech­no­cratic thinking.

As sci­en­tists, Hub­bert and Scott tried to explain (or jus­tify) their argu­ments in terms of physics and the law of ther­mo­dy­namics, which is the study of energy con­ver­sion between heat and mechan­ical work.

Entropy is a con­cept within ther­mo­dy­namics that rep­re­sents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer avail­able for doing mechan­ical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ulti­mate state of inert uniformity.

In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Fur­ther­more, the end state of entropy is “inert uni­for­mity” where nothing takes place. Thus, if man uses up all the avail­able energy and/or destroys the ecology, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again.

The Technocrat’s avoid­ance of social entropy is to increase the effi­ciency of society by the careful allo­ca­tion of avail­able energy and mea­suring sub­se­quent output in order to find a state of “equilibrium,” or bal­ance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is evi­denced by Tech­noc­racy, Inc.‘s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts balance.

To facil­i­tate this equi­lib­rium between man and nature, Tech­noc­racy pro­posed that cit­i­zens would receive Energy Cer­tifi­cates in order to operate the economy:

“Energy Cer­tifi­cates are issued indi­vid­u­ally to every adult of the entire pop­u­la­tion. The record of one’s income and its rate of expen­di­ture is kept by the Dis­tri­b­u­tion Sequence, so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Dis­tri­b­u­tion Sequence to ascer­tain the state of a given customer’s bal­ance… When making pur­chases of either goods or ser­vices an indi­vidual sur­ren­ders the Energy Cer­tifi­cates prop­erly iden­ti­fied and signed.

“The sig­nif­i­cance of this, from the point of view of knowl­edge of what is going on in the social system, and of social con­trol, can best be appre­ci­ated when one sur­veys the whole system in per­spec­tive. First, one single orga­ni­za­tion is man­ning and oper­ating the whole social mech­a­nism. The same orga­ni­za­tion not only pro­duces but also dis­trib­utes all goods and services.

“With this infor­ma­tion clearing con­tin­u­ously to a cen­tral head­quar­ters we have a case exactly anal­o­gous to the con­trol panel of a power plant, or the bridge of an ocean liner.” [Tech­noc­racy Study Course, Hub­bert & Scott,p. 238 – 239]

Two key dif­fer­ences between price-based money and Energy Cer­tifi­cates are that a) money is generic to the holder while Cer­tifi­cates are indi­vid­u­ally reg­is­tered to each cit­izen and b) money per­sists while Cer­tifi­cates expire. The latter facet would greatly hinder, if not alto­gether pre­vent, the accu­mu­la­tion of wealth and property.


At the start of WWII, Technocracy’s pop­u­larity dwin­dled as eco­nomic pros­perity returned, how­ever both the orga­ni­za­tion and its phi­los­ophy survived.

Today, there are two prin­cipal web­sites rep­re­senting Tech­noc­racy in North America: Tech­noc­racy, Inc., located in Fer­n­dale, Wash­ington, is rep­re­sented A sister orga­ni­za­tion in Van­couver, British Columbia isTech­noc­racy Van­couver, can be found at

While Technocracy’s orig­inal focus was exclu­sively on the North Amer­ican con­ti­nent, it is now growing rapidly in Europe and other indus­tri­al­ized nations.

For instance, the Net­work of Euro­pean Tech­nocrats was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social move­ment that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of tech­noc­racy.” The NET web­site claims to have mem­bers around the world.

Of course, a few minor league orga­ni­za­tions and their web­sites cannot hope to create or imple­ment a global energy policy, but it’s not because the ideas aren’t still alive and well.

A more likely influ­ence on modern thinking is due to Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory intro­duced in 1954. It has fig­ured promi­nently in the ecological/environmental move­ment. In fact, the entire global warming move­ment indi­rectly sits on top of the Hub­bert Peak Theory.

As the Cana­dian Asso­ci­a­tion for the Club of Rome recently stated, “The issue of peak oil impinges directly on the cli­mate change ques­tion.” (see John H. Walsh, “The Impending Twin Crisis,” One Set of Solu­tions?, p.5.)

The Modern Proposal

Because of the con­nec­tion between the envi­ron­mental move­ment, global warming and the Tech­no­cratic con­cept of Energy Cer­tifi­cates, one would expect that a Carbon Cur­rency would be sug­gested from that par­tic­ular com­mu­nity, and in fact, this is the case.

In 1995, Judith Hanna wrote in New Sci­en­tist, “Toward a single carbon cur­rency”, “My pro­posal is to set a global quota for fossil fuel com­bus­tion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.”

In 2004, the pres­ti­gious Har­vard Inter­na­tional Review pub­lished “A New Cur­rency“and stated,

For those keen to slow global warming, the most effec­tive actions are in the cre­ation of strong national carbon cur­ren­cies. For scholars and pol­i­cy­makers, the key task is to mine his­tory for guides that are more useful. Global warming is con­sid­ered an envi­ron­mental issue, but its best solu­tions are not to be found in the canon of envi­ron­mental law. Carbon’s ubiq­uity in the world economy demands that cost be a con­sid­er­a­tion in any regime to limit emis­sions. Indeed, emis­sions trading has been anointed king because it is the most respon­sive to cost. And since trading emis­sions for carbon is more akin to trading cur­rency than elim­i­nating a pol­lu­tant, pol­i­cy­makers should be looking at trade and finance with an eye to how carbon mar­kets should be gov­erned. We must antic­i­pate the policy chal­lenges that will arise as this bottom-up system emerges, including the gov­er­nance of seams between each of the nascent trading sys­tems, lia­bility rules for bogus per­mits, and judi­cial coop­er­a­tion. [Emphasis added]

HIR con­cludes that “after seven years of spin­ning wheels and wrong analo­gies, the inter­na­tional regime to con­trol carbon is headed, albeit ten­ta­tively, down a pro­duc­tive path.”

In 2006, UK Envi­ron­ment Sec­re­tary David Miliband spoke to the Audit Com­mis­sion Annual Lec­ture and flatly stated,

“Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new cur­rency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy elec­tricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emis­sions, the Gov­ern­ment would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.” [Emphasis added]

In 2007, New York Times pub­lished “When Carbon Is Cur­rency” by Hannah Fair­field. She point­edly stated “To build a carbon market, its orig­i­na­tors must create acur­rency of carbon credits that par­tic­i­pants can trade.”

Point­Carbon, a leading global con­sul­tancy, is part­nered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon mar­kets. In 2008 they pub­lished“Towards a Common Carbon Cur­rency: Exploring the prospects for inte­grated global carbon mar­kets.” This report dis­cusses both envi­ron­mental and eco­nomic effi­ciency in a sim­ilar con­text as orig­i­nally seen with Hub­bert in 1933.

Finally, on November 9 2009, the Tele­graph (UK) pre­sented an article Everyone in Britain could be given a per­sonal carbon allowance:

“imple­menting indi­vidual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effec­tive way of meeting the tar­gets for cut­ting green­house gas emis­sions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when pur­chasing prod­ucts that con­tribute to their carbon foot­print, such as fuel, air­line tickets and elec­tricity. Like with a bank account, a state­ment would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.” [Emphasis added]

As you can see, these ref­er­ences are hardly minor league in terms of either author­ship or con­tent. The under­cur­rent of early Tech­no­cratic thought has finally reached the shore where the waves are lap­ping at the beach.

Technocracy’s Energy Card Prototype

In July 1937 an article by Howard Scott in Tech­noc­racy Mag­a­zine described an Energy Dis­tri­b­u­tion Card in great detail. It declared that using such an instru­ment as a means of accounting is a part of Technocracy’s pro­posed change in the course of how our socioe­co­nomic system can be organized.”

Scott fur­ther wrote,

technatecard“The cer­tifi­cate will be issued directly to the indi­vidual. It is non­trans­fer­able and non­nego­tiable; there­fore, it cannot be stolen, lost, loaned, bor­rowed, or given away. It is non­cu­mu­la­tive; there­fore, it cannot be saved, and it does not accrue or bear interest. It need not be spent but loses its validity after a des­ig­nated time period.”

This may have seemed like sci­ence fic­tion in 1937, but today it is wholly achiev­able. In 2010 Tech­noc­racy, Inc. offers an updated idea of what such an Energy Dis­tri­b­u­tion Card might look like. Their web­site states,

“It is now pos­sible to use a plastic card sim­ilar to today’s credit card embedded with a microchip. This chip could con­tain all the infor­ma­tion needed to create an energy dis­tri­b­u­tion card as described in this booklet. Since the same infor­ma­tion would be pro­vided in what­ever forms best suits the latest tech­nology, how­ever, the con­cept of an “Energy Dis­tri­b­u­tion Card’ is what is explained here.”

If you study the card above, you will also note that is serves as a uni­versal iden­tity card and con­tains a microchip. This reflects Technocracy’s phi­los­ophy that each person in society must be metic­u­lously mon­i­tored and accounted for in order to track what they con­sume in terms of energy, and also what they con­tribute to the man­u­fac­turing process.

Carbon Market Players

The modern system of carbon credits was an inven­tion of the Kyoto Pro­tocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the estab­lish­ment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becoming inter­na­tional law in 2005, the trading market is now pre­dicted to reach $3 tril­lion by 2020 or earlier.

Gra­ciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Con­sor­tium for Risk Man­age­ment and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Pro­tocol, states that the carbon market “is there­fore all about cash and trading” but it is also a way to a prof­itable and greener future. (See Who Needs a Carbon Market?)

Who are the “traders” that pro­vide the open door to all this profit? Cur­rently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Bloomberg noted in Carbon Cap­i­tal­ists on December 4, 2009 that

“The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market deriv­a­tives con­tracts that will help client com­pa­nies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related finan­cial prod­ucts to out­side investors.”

At JP Morgan, the woman who orig­i­nally invented Credit Default Swaps, Blythe Mas­ters, is now head of the depart­ment that will trade carbon credits for the bank.

Con­sid­ering the sheer force of global banking giants behind carbon trading, it’s no wonder ana­lysts are already pre­dicting that the carbon market will soon dwarf all other com­modi­ties trading.


Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is talk, there is action.

If M. King Hub­bert and other early archi­tects of Tech­noc­racy were alive today, they would be very pleased to see the seeds of their ideas on energy allo­ca­tion grow to bear fruit on such a large scale. In 1933, the tech­nology didn’t exist to imple­ment a system of Energy Cer­tifi­cates. How­ever, with today’s ever-advancing com­puter tech­nology, the entire world could easily be man­aged on a single computer.

This article intended to show that

  • Carbon Cur­rency is not a new idea, but has deep roots in Technocracy
  • Carbon Cur­rency has grown from a con­ti­nental pro­posal to a global proposal
  • It has been con­sis­tently dis­cussed over a long period of time
  • The par­tic­i­pants include many promi­nent global leaders, banks and think-tanks
  • The con­text of these dis­cus­sions have been very consistent
  • Today’s goals for imple­menting Carbon Cur­rency are vir­tu­ally iden­tical to Technocracy’s orig­inal Energy Cer­tifi­cates goals.

Of course, a cur­rency is merely a means to an end. Who­ever con­trols the cur­rency also con­trols the economy and the polit­ical struc­ture that goes with it. Inquiry into what such a system might look like will be a future topic.

Tech­noc­racy and energy-based accounting are not idle or the­o­ret­ical issues. If the global elite intends for Carbon Cur­rency to sup­plant national cur­ren­cies, then the world eco­nomic and polit­ical sys­tems will also be fun­da­men­tally changed forever.

What Tech­noc­racy could not achieve during the Great Depres­sion appears to have finally found trac­tion in the Great Recession.

Bib­li­og­raphy & Resources

Scott & Hub­bert, Tech­noc­racy Study Course, Tech­noc­racy, Inc., 1934

Hanna, Toward a single carbon cur­rency, New Sci­en­tist, 1995

Victor & House, A New Cur­rency, Har­vard Inter­na­tional Review, Summer 2004

Hannah Fair­field, When Carbon Is Cur­rency, New York Times, May 6, 2007

M. King Hub­bert & The Tech­noc­racy Tech­nate Design, His­tor­ical blog

Everyone in Britain could be given a per­sonal carbon allowance’, Tele­graph (UK)

Net­work of Euro­pean Tech­nocrats, web­site for Europe

Tech­noc­racy, Inc.web­site for U.S.

Tech­noc­racy Van­couver, web­site for Canada

Asso­ci­a­tion for the study of Peak Oil & Gas, web­site for Peak Oil

This article was originally written in 2010

First Decentralized Eco-Friendly Crypto Currency EDRC Debuts

TN Note: Necessity is the mother of invention. As calls for a cashless banking system increase, entrepreneurs are rushing to fill the void. Bitcoin is energy intensive to create. The answer to that is this “Ec0-Friendly” blockchain crypto-currency. ERDC is not the end of the invention, as many others are throwing new products into the mix. In the end, it is almost certain that some major central bank (e.g, Bank of England) will enter the game by acquiring another currency company, or inventing a new crypto-currency of its own. If the central banking system controls such a currency, it will spell the end of commercial banks throughout the world.

First Decentralized Eco-friendly Crypto Currency EDRC to Change World of Money for the Better — Blockchain has launched the first decentralized eco-friendly crypto currency EDRCoin. It is based on USA-Dollar rate and can be used for transaction of goods and services all over the world

The fast evolving world of crypto currency is reportedly buzzing with the latest launch of first decentralized eco-friendly crypto currency EDRCoin. Developed by Blockchain, the futuristic currency is aimed to change the world of money for better.

With its costs based on the value of USA-Dollar rate (1EDRC =$1), EDRC can be deployed for internet shopping, virtual game payments and for the transaction of goods and services in any country.

“We are glad to announce the launch of our latest crypto currency EDRC which is going to add a new positive dimension to the world of money. The advanced decentralized crypto currency is themed on a green mining principle that banks on sustainable energy-efficient policies for generating money”, smiled one of the chief spokespersons from Blockchain.

Esteemed philanthropist and business tycoon Charles Chen partnered up with Marco A. Fernandez, a long-term IT entrepreneur, to develop and co-found EDRC.The main objective behind EDRC is the creation of a general-purpose payment system and steady exchange rate, themed on USA-Dollar rate- with due regard to the environment.

“While the regular cryptocurrencies unmindfully destroy the earth’s ecology with their mining operations, EDRC is careful about protection of natural resources. Our unique technology takes to utilization of alternate energy like solar panels and we make sure to leave no carbon footprint on Mother Nature.”

EDRC’s eco-friendly operations are carried in collaboration with independent private farms situated in different parts of the globe. 7 percent of the income generated from EDRC system would be utilized for the restoration of mangrove forests in Asia and the development of new solar panels.

Based of PoS (Proof-of-Stake) method, EDRC uses Skrypt function for hashing.

“Our developers have considered the issue of hacking attacks common with POW-based existent digital money and addressed all such flaws with the new advanced EDRC. Our cutting edge crypto currency assures complete credibility and solid protection from any external attack, theft or hacking invasions. To ensure complete security, user’s personal and financial data would be kept private.” explained the Blockchain manager.

EDRC mining is ongoing and would supposedly complete by 31st December, 2017, with the release of around 22 million coins.

“As our PoS system capitalizes on the users owning coins to validate the transactions, one transaction per day would be rewarded by an increment of 0.35 percent of the wallet-total. EDRCoins are immaterial & follows a purely mathematical approach that works with digital code.”

Speaking further, the manager emphasized on an edgy feature of EDRC that allows seamless number of accounts for creating and mining. Given its decentralized structure and antitrust philosophy, EDRC mining is guarded from artificial increment of cryptocurrency number. The banking system cannot exert any control on EDRC mining and hence can’t affect its value and quantity.

“EDRC is the best thing from the contemporary financial world. Join the EDRC community now for a welcome change in the perception of money”, the manager added in.

Blockchain was founded in 2015 by Hong-Kong businessman Charles Chen and Marco A. Fernandez, long-term IT entrepreneur, with the goal to improve our planet’s health through the development of an environment-friendly digital currency.

Read full story here…

Why Cap And Trade Doesn’t Work

TN Note: Cap and Trade does not work. Not before, not now and not in the future.

Many people, including many highly trained economists, seem to think the economics of decarbonizing the U.S. economy are simple and straightforward. Reduce the use of fossil fuels for producing goods and services by imposing taxes equal to the estimated economic cost of the CO2 emissions generated by their production. Increase the production and use of power from wind and solar by subsidizing power from these sources.

The actual impacts of such taxes and subsidies are not this simple. Consider first the tax side. A carbon tax is intended to increase prices of goods or services whose production generates CO2 emissions, lowering demand and ultimately production and emissions. But in the U.S., demand for many carbon-intensive things — such as gasoline for automobiles and electricity for heating and cooling — is highly inelastic. This means higher prices don’t significantly reduce the number of miles that people drive or how much electricity they use. What higher prices for carbon intensive goods and services will almost certainly do is to severely punish poor and middle class households with higher costs for life’s necessities — like driving to work and heating the house, leaving less money for truly discretionary spending.

If carbon taxes do more than this, and actually reduce CO2 emissions, then they actually may succeed too well. A major justification for carbon taxes is that the revenues from such taxes can be used to lower other taxes that distort incentives while allowing funding of public services to remain unaffected. But as the history of state cigarette taxes — used to fund public schools — shows, once governments become dependent on a tax source, their incentive is to increase the tax level to get more funding, even if the data show that this increase may not be achieving its ostensible aim.

Indeed, if CO2 emissions did not fall or even increased — as would happen if by some miracle the future U.S. economy somehow escaped its Obama-era no growth doldrums — the pressure to increase carbon taxes would be enormous. But if producers of coal, oil, and natural gas and other carbon intensive goods and services were to expect higher future carbon taxes, and hence lower future revenues, then they would have an incentive to produce as much as possible now. In this way, the imposition of a carbon tax could very plausibly increase current CO2 emissions.

The flip side of this coin consists of subsidies for or mandated use of renewable energy sources of electric power. These are ostensibly designed to create incentives for a long-term transition toward renewables and away from fossil fuel energy sources. As experience in Germany has shown, however, subsidies for wind and solar not only punish consumers with massive increases in electricity prices, but perversely can ultimately require subsidies for thermal, fossil fuel-fired power plants.

The economics behind this is illuminated by an excellent recent report by the Swiss firm Finadvice. In Germany, producers of electricity from renewable energy sources get fixed price subsidies for power produced called Feed-In Tariffs (FIT’s). Costing more than $412 billion to date, and estimated (by former German Minister of the Environment Peter Altmeier) to end up costing $884 billion by 2022, the German FIT has been so high that it has doubled household electricity prices in Germany since 2000, with taxes and charges (subsidies) increasing from 25 percent of total price in 1998 to 40 percent in 2012.

Read full story here…

Governments Of The World Are Coming For Your Cash

TN Note: Other analysts are catching on the negative interest rates will drive cash out of the bank and into the hands of consumers, which will set them up for a final conversion of cash to digital currency. Also see Bitcoin Threatened By Rival Super-currency Designed By Central Banks. The whole process may wipe out the majority of commercial banks and transaction services, and centralize the control of money and financial transactions into the hands of central bankers.

Large denomination physical cash is going to be outlawed if central bankers have their way. The push toward a fully digitized monetary system─where every transaction will be recorded, scrutinized, controlled, and taxed─is being sold to the public as some miracle elixir to cure the world of criminal behavior.

It can be argued that up until a few years ago there were still ways to exist off the grid and operate outside the monetary system, but the implementation of negative interest rates has now virtually assured that cash, as we know it, is on its last leg.

You can have cash or you can have negative interest rates, but you can’t have both. If negative interest rates are further reduced, what could be described as slow motion bank runs will likely ensue. The common man, seeing his hard earned savings robbed with each declining monthly bank statement, will finally awaken from complacency and begin actively withdrawing their money in physical form, thereby endangering the very foundation of fractional reserve finance.

Banks can’t exist without deposits. Keeping money in a mattress is preferable to being financially bled to death with negative rates. Central bankers are well aware of this and are already prepositioning policies and taking steps to prevent the coming exodus. Outlawing large denominational physical cash and large cash transactions will be used to financially imprison the public while the negative interest rates simultaneously pick their pocket.

Laugh all you want. Pretend this is just another conspiracy theory run amok, but these policies are already set into motion in Europe with the U.S. trailing not very far behind. Under the guise of stopping criminal activity, ending corruption, and fighting the global war on terror, the last bastion of financial freedom is now being sacrificed to prop up a debt tsunami.

Global debt has increased by over 57 trillion dollars since 2007. At these levels, sovereign debt in particular cannot be repaid with sound currency. Rather than dealing with the debt and slowing its growth to levels below the rate inflation, the central bankers’ solution is to instead destroy physical cash and punish savers.

The cold reality is that just paying the annual interest cost, at historically normal interest rates of 3-4%, would be next to impossible for the majority of the world’s governments. Burdened with surging unfunded entitlement obligations, these governments no longer have any wiggle room for surgical reductions in spending. It is simply much easier for governments to reduce borrowing costs to below zero, eliminating those constraining interest payments, than admit they were wrong and reverse course.

Allowing politicians and central bankers to implement negative interest rates is like giving your teenage son a bottle of whiskey and the keys to the Ferrari─it will only lead to trouble. Arguments that the economy of the world is stable and improving does not match up with the over seven trillion dollars in mounting sovereign debt at negative interest rates that requires no interest payments.

Read full story here…

Bitcoin Threatened By Rival Supercurrency Designed By Central Banks

TN Note: This editor has anticipated this news because it fits perfectly with the Technocracy meme seen around the world. What is not mentioned is the Touchstone that would be used to limit or moderate growth in the blockchain currency. Technocracy has already specified energy as measured by supply, production or demand. Secondly, if one or more central banks “own” the currency, they will have the ability to put all of the global banks out of business if they choose to do so. Why? Because all financial transactions would be cleared directly through the central bank, obviating the need for intermediaries. Think about it. 

Computer scientists have devised a digital crypto-currency in league with the Bank of England that could pose a devastating threat to large tranches of the financial industry, and profoundly change the management of monetary policy.

The proto-currency known as RSCoin has vastly greater scope than Bitcoin, used for peer-to-peer transactions by libertarians across the world, and beyond the control of any political authority.

The purpose would be turned upside down. RSCoin would be a tool of state control, allowing the central bank to keep a tight grip on the money supply and respond to crises. It would erode the exorbitant privilege of commercial banks of creating money out of thin air under a fractional reserve financial system.

“Whoever reacts too slowly to these developments is going to take it on the chin. They will lose their businesses,” said Dr George Danezis, who is working on the design at University College London.

“My advice is that companies should play very close attention to what is happening, because this will not go away,” he said. Layers of middlemen in payments systems face a creeping threat across the nexus of commerce, stockbroking, currency trading or derivatives. Many risk extinction over time.

“Deep in the markets there are dark pools buying and selling shares, and entities that facilitate that foreign exchange. There are Visa, Master, and PayPal. These are the sorts of guys that we are going to disrupt,” he said.

University College drafted the plan after being encouraged by the Bank of England last year to come up with a radical design for a secure digital currency. The Bank itself has an elite four-man unit grappling with the implications of crypto-currencies and blockchain technology.

Central banks at first saw Bitcoin as a rogue currency and a threat to monetary order, but they are starting to glimpse ways of turning the new technology to their advantage.

The findings of the University College team were delivered to the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) in San Diego, revealing for the first time what may be in store. Dr Danezis said a national pilot project could be up and running within eighteen months if a decision were made to launch such a scheme.

Read full story here…

The Next President Has An Opportunity To Implement A Carbon Tax on Energy

TN Note: Carbon tax is a precursor to energy currency, and it is a program loved by conservatives as much as liberals. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have made public statements against carbon tax and cap and trade. 

Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all achieved significant tax reform in their first years. While a president may ultimately have more than one bite at the tax apple, it is clear that a new chief executive gets a pretty big bite in the first year.

Perhaps the greatest two determinants of what and how much a president can accomplish are the party composition of each house of Congress and whether the president chooses to make tax reform a priority, particularly during the campaign. But regardless of party – and even of the makeup of Congress – the next president has an opportunity to do something truly dramatic: implement a carbon tax.

While this seems counterintuitive, given that most Republican candidates have not shown interest in the greenhouse gas policies often associated with a carbon tax, doing so makes good economic and political sense and has the support of a great number of economists, both liberal and conservative. A carbon tax would charge for carbon pollution, thus raising revenue and allowing for a combination of long-term debt reduction and cuts to taxes on personal income and corporate profits.

The discovery and exploitation of natural resources by humans gave rise to the advanced civilization in which we live today. Coal, petroleum and natural gas fueled industrialization, raising living standards and life expectancy for most. Energy use continues to fuel economic growth and development today. But along with the benefits of energy consumption come substantial societal costs – including those associated with air and water pollution, road congestion and climate change. Many of these costs are not directly borne by the businesses and individuals that use fossil fuels, and are thus ignored when energy production and consumption choices are made. As a result, there is too much consumption and production of fossil fuels.

Greenhouse gas emissions create a series of problems for the economy and the environment.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that emissions, if left unchecked, would increase “the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

Economists have long recommended specific taxes on fossil-fuel energy sources as a way to address these problems. The basic rationale for a carbon tax is that it makes good economic sense: Unlike most taxes, carbon taxation can correct a market failure and make the economy more efficient. “Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer ,” wrote former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw in 2013.

To be clear, a “carbon tax” should address all greenhouse emissions to the extent that they are attributable to an identifiable party. Carbon dioxide accounts for the vast share of emissions in the United States, but other emissions of other gases – for example, methane and nitrous oxide – are more potent and would need to be taxed under separate schedules.

Carbon taxes would contribute to a cleaner, healthier environment and better environmental and energy policy by providing price signals to those who pollute. A Tufts University study estimates that a $15 per ton tax on CO2 emissions that rises over time would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent, while a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the European countries’ carbon taxes have already had a significant effect on emissions reductions, up to 15 percent. The University of Ottawa found that the carbon tax implemented in Canada’s British Columbia led to a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the province, compared to less than 5 percent for the rest of the country, where comprehensive carbon taxes were not applied.

Read full article here…

Energy Currency: Towards A Perfect Currency

TN Note: Technocracy’s original specifications in 1933 called for a currency based on energy to regulate its resource-based economic system run by scientists and engineers. Today, this concept is being openly discussed in international circles and it is important to understand the mindset behind it. The text below appears on a website called “The Perfect Currency”. 

Environmentalists measure in real physical units, not monetary units. Money was developed to facilitate the trade of disparate real goods across a broad range of distances where direct exchange of goods was impractical. But money has many shortcomings in representing the full real wealth creation process and assets especially over time. Environmentalists have waited patiently for the commercial economics side of the real wealth creation process to develop monetary measurements which will capture the stocks and flows of environmental processes and non-renewable resource assets.

Without such common measurements, no broad based and unified initiatives on our planets many environmental challenges can easily take place. There will continue to be strong resistance from the commercial economics sector to any environmental sector efforts to make radical policy changes based on factors which do not show up in their monetary based accounting system.

If we wait for commercial economists to develop a unit of measure which clearly represents all processes, we will wait in vain as it is not in the interests of the finance sector to change. It is up to the science community to provide a monetary basis which will adequately represent both human and natural processes.

Fortunately there is now an opportunity to combine the real wealth creation sectors demand for a representative currency with the need of the commercial economics sector to change the currency used as the basis for international trade.

As the international standard of commerce, the American dollar has had its day.

The proposal by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China’s central bank, in March 2009, to establish an international financial reserve currency based on a basket of national currencies is only the start of the process to replace the US dollar as the medium of trade and finance.

But a basket based currency, even if it is more stable, also adds more complexity. It is still based on printed money valuations and incorporates all of the other weaknesses inherent in currencies which are not hard asset based.

Even though the Chinese proposal was widely rejected, the need for a stable international trading currency is clear and is the subject of ongoing discussion. But why settle for another fabricated currency? The opportunity exists to advance to a real and stable standard.

Upon which bedrock can an upgraded currency be based to facilitate accurate valuations, stability, fluidity to represent any scale of asset or transaction and offer resistance to speculation? Gold is limited by scarcity and scalability. Although it can dampen the gyrations of national currencies, it doesn’t represent in and of itself, the real wealth creation process.

There is only one commodity which is universally produced and consumed with both the scale and resolution to represent the full scope of any human endeavour. We already measure it in tremendous detail and it is central to every economy and process.

Energy based currency would represent real wealth creation potential and would not be subject to the shifting valuation issues to which every national currency is prone. Energy represents the value of work already done as well as the potential of work which can be done.

Some 800 years ago, the Mongols avoided inflationary pressures on their currency by performing inventories of their assets and matching the money supply to it. The Mongol empire did not suffer from the boom and bust cycle generated by the currency inflation which has plagued other monetary economies. Energy based currency would eliminate this cycle by representing constant real product and illuminating actual input costs.

Energy underwrites all commercial and environmental activity. It is the most widely measured, consumed and produced commodity on the planet. In contrast to the gold producing club, every nation produces energy from a wide variety of sources.

Energy currency? Fine. But which units should be used? A barrel of oil in raw energy numbers, contains 5.9 million btus, 1729 kilowatt hours, 6.2 billion joules or 1.49 billion calories. Awkward, to say the least. Currently a US dollar (at $50/bbl of oil) translates to about 120,000 btus, 35kw hours, 120 million joules and 30 million calories. Kilowatt hours is the best known and the most widely used measurement.

The closest thing to being a round number while having roughly the same magnitude as the current US dollar would be 100,000 btus or 100 million joules. Will we settle on “beatees”, “julies” or “watties” as the base currency unit?

Scientists would help monetary experts decide. That would be a new partnership. The first of many paradigm shifts necessary in the integration of real world physical accounting and the representation of commercial economic activity.

A kilowatt hour (or BTU, joule, calorie) is the same in Canada as it is in Kazakstan. It represents the same potential now as it would have centuries ago or will centuries into the future. As a scientific unit of measure, there will be no speculation about what a kilowatt will be worth in 10 years.

“Speculating”, “hedging”, “converting”, “runs against” – these would be superfluous activities of the past. Energy currency is elemental, timeless and universal; three qualities which arbitrary currencies or other commodity based currencies do not possess.

In moving to energy based currency, we will have made a huge step forward in stabilizing and rationalizing the economic process at every level. And when the technology is ready in 30 or 300 years, we can step easily from energy based currency to energy actually being the currency.

If energy storage technology can be developed to the point at which several thousand kilowatt hours can (safely) be carried on something the size of a credit card, then we will have developed the perfect currency.

Commodities, services and goods will always fluctuate in relation to energy but those fluctuations would be no longer be speculatively driven on the monetary side – they would be real cost and real demand driven. And there would never be a stampede away from energy. To what? Time?

Our current national policy focus on monetary flows is one of the prime reasons for the disconnect between policy makers and environmentalists. The GDP/monetary metric simply does not represent the physical processes or the assets of the real world which environmentalists see as essential, uncounted and rapidly degrading.

Energy currency very readily yields energy accounting which can provide a more comprehensive description of real output and resource consumption. Compared to monetary analysis, it is a 3D catscan for programs associated with alternative energy and carbon emissions. These issues need energy accounting to avoid negative sum game red-herrings like corn ethanol at northern latitudes which can survive only in the fog of our current monetary system.

In contrast to adopting energy currency, the process of dumping the US dollar in favour of a spectrum of other national currencies is a political minefield loaded with huge implications for the many players.

No matter who champions it, no one nation will own energy based money. It will be the first truly international, non-political currency base. No nation will be able to manipulate it to avoid the consequences of its own economic mis-steps or to beggar its neighbours.

The recent Chinese efforts to promote the creation of a new standard for international financial reserves have not produced results although the reasons for the proposal remain obvious and valid. A move to energy based currency offers a graceful and non-political avenue of monetary reform as a logical step forward not an abandonment of a failure.

Despite the rejection of Mr. Zhou’s initiative, the ball is still in his court and will remain there until a successor to the US dollar is found.

In the face of rapidly deteriorating environmental conditions as well as the necessity of retooling international finance, change must come to our monetary system. Conversion to an energy standard will take full advantage of this opportunity.

Energy Currency has all of the positive attributes of arbitrary money without many of the large problems. It opens the possibility of addressing environmental problems in a comprehensive fashion – something that baseless currencies cannot do.

Read full story here…

Here Comes The Cashless Future

TN Note: A cashless society would pave the way for a common energy-based currency that would complete the transition to a Technocracy economic system. In addition, it would forcefully incorporate all those who are currently not in the banking system, such as poverty-stricken nations and the homeless. 

Cash had a pretty good run for 4,000 years or so. These days, though, notes and coins increasingly seem declasse: They’re dirty and dangerous, unwieldy and expensive, antiquated and so very analog.

Sensing this dissatisfaction, entrepreneurs have introduced hundreds of digital currencies in the past few years, of which bitcoin is only the most famous. Now governments want in: The People’s Bank of China says it intends to issue a digital currency of its own. Central banks in Ecuador, the Philippines, the U.K. and Canada are mulling similar ideas. At least one company has sprung up to help them along.

Much depends on the details, of course. But this is a welcome trend. In theory, digital legal tender could combine the inventiveness of private virtual currencies with the stability of a government mint.

Most obviously, such a system would make moving money easier. Properly designed, a digital fiat currency could move seamlessly across otherwise incompatible payment networks, making transactions faster and cheaper. It would be of particular use to the poor, who could pay bills or accept payments online without need of a bank account, or make remittances without getting gouged.

For governments and their taxpayers, potential advantages abound. Issuing digital currency would be cheaper than printing bills and minting coins. It could improve statistical indicators, such as inflation and gross domestic product. Traceable transactions could help inhibit terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.

The most far-reaching effect might be on monetary policy. For much of the past decade, central banks in the rich world have been hampered by what economists call the zero lower bound, or the inability to impose significantly negative interest rates. Persistent low demand and high unemployment may sometimes require interest rates to be pushed below zero — but why keep money in a deposit whose value keeps shrinking when you can hold cash instead? With rates near zero, that conundrum has led policy makers to novel and unpredictable methods of stimulating the economy, such as large-scale bond-buying.

A digital legal tender could resolve this problem. Suppose the central bank charged the banks that deal with it a fee for accepting paper currency. In that way, it could set an exchange rate between electronic and paper money — and by raising the fee, it would cause paper money to depreciate against the electronic standard. This would eliminate the incentive to hold cash rather than digital money, allowing the central bank to push the interest rate below zero and thereby boost consumption and investment. It would be a big step toward doing without cash altogether.

Read full story here…