COP29 looks set to be another hum-dinger of a conference, with an Agenda yet to be set as we write in January 2024. The event may serve Azerbaijan in human rights terms, if they tolerate reasonable freedom of speech. By way of example, in the UK they are possibly imprisoning more protestors and stifling the right to impart information with their anti-protest measures in this British statute:

1. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the 

2. Public Order Act 2023

Who is worse?

The organising committee for the COP29 global climate change summit in Azerbaijan comprises 28 men and no women, according to the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. The world may see this as indicative of discrimination, that is prohibited in international law.

The decision was called “regressive” by the She Changes Climate campaign group, which said “climate change affects the whole world, not half of it”. In contrast, 63% of the members of the organising committee for the COP28 climate summit, held in the United Arab Emirates in 2023, were women.

One of the most intelligent persons in the world, was Cleopatra. Excluding such intellect from important policy making, is something we'd suggest should be made a priority for Azerbaijan, to help them attain greater presence on the world stage.

Being appointed, and as a nation heavily reliant on their petroleum industry for jobs and exports, Azerbaijan's presidency provides an opportunity to join with other oil producing nations, to find a socially acceptable solution of transitioning to renewables, that clean energy might bring in terms of negative impacts on communities reliant on fossil fuel jobs.

Just transition programs are crucial to support these communities and ensure a fair and equitable shift. The inevitability being that wind and solar energy will displace fossil fuels in terms of price, and once that happens, income for oil producers will all but dry up.

This is because, nobody will want to pay more for energy, and certainly, they will not want to deliberately pollute the planet, where clean alternatives are extant. Thus, it will pay to engineer a gradual phasing from one economy to another. Fortunately, for many of the oil producing nations, they are blessed with sea or ocean frontages for wind farms, and massive sandy expanses onto which to install solar farms.

Coming to terms with the swap to renewables, and planning in advance to ensure reduced economic jarring, might be a topic of discussion at COP29.

"She'll not take much more Captain" Scotty to bridge on the Starship Enterprise. Planet earth is being incinerated by fossil fool policies. Whole towns have been burned to the ground. Rich arable land is being turned to dust, and the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are being melted, not only raising sea levels., but also destroying the mechanism for cooling the globe.

BUSINESS AS USUAL

It is unfortunate, and we know from the continued rise in temperatures, flooding, and melting ice caps, that the Parties at these conferences, have not yet had any success in preventing our world from getting hotter; in all the twenty-nine years of talking about it. But at least they get together approximately once a year to speak about their progress. Hot air or not, it is better to face a problem.

But we keep pouring petrol on the burning fire!

The challenge is to prevent Planet Earth from being burned to a crisp, from becoming ashes. The already hotter nations will become badlands, and temperate zones, deserts. Cities will burn. Towns, already have. Fueled by coal fired electricity generating stations and petroleum for transportation and natural gas for heating.

The Group of Twenty (G20), know all about these issues, which they probably see as political one-upmanship - with scant regard for the natural world, or the extinction of animals they are causing. Just so long as their economies are growing, and they are elected to power on extinct policies, aiming for extinction of the human species. By way of gambling with your lives.

Or in the case of Russia, growing their empire using fossil fuels to underpin the invasion of the Ukraine, to steal lands aggressively. China, being no exception, and now with Red Sea transits under threat from indiscriminate Houthi drones. Imagine if money spent on weapons of war, was spent on peaceful transitioning to a sustainable society. An accountable monetary system, might help stop the financing of wars. Including seizing the overseas assets of nations acting illegally - those owned by persons who (Russians, for example) hold the requisite nationalities (passport). By way of penalizing the aggressor nations, and potentially shaping future warmongering tendencies, making them unacceptable risks to the rich and powerful.

Not much ice left since we started using coal and now heavy bunker diesel to fuel our ships. What do you think is causing that? It does not help that many of the big players are prevaricating to buy more time. In the process, raising the temperature of planet earth. Don't forget the sinking islands.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HOT AIR?

COPs have been held since 1995. Since when some progress has been made, but only with promises. Nothing solid to bind the parties: there are no binding targets, just promises. 

In fact, it may be that these conferences are seen as a mechanism by which the greedier nations might bargain for more time to exploit and exhaust natural resources, as Red Growth policies, promoted by Henry Ford (Fordism). All at the expense of the planet.

Hence, COPs have been more cop-outs, or flops in the past. Where the intentions of the nations with bigger economic needs, was to bargain with the smaller entities, to allow them to continue to burn the planet. Their intentions, somewhat disingenuous, not in good faith and not coming to the table with clean hands.

A STABLE MONETARY SYSTEM - THE CORN EXCHANGE

The idea of linking a currency, like an "agri-dollar," to real-world assets like agricultural output or energy production (often referred to as a commodity-backed currency) is certainly worth exploring, for the sake of the planet. But it comes with its own set of complexities and challenges. Let's dive into the pros and cons:

PROS:

- Stability: Tying a currency to tangible assets like food or energy could potentially offer a level of stability that purely fiat currencies (backed by nothing but government promises) often lack. This is because agricultural output and energy production are essential for human survival and economic activity, making them less susceptible to fluctuations caused by speculation or government policies.

- Lending by banks and venture capitalists, or the World Bank, would be limited to what the planet is actually producing. Not what the banks would like to lend to suit their billionaire aspirations, based on nothing tangible at all. Just because the system is open to abuse, and poorly policed.

- Inflation control: With a fixed amount of currency in circulation tied to a real asset, it becomes harder for governments or central banks to simply print more money, potentially leading to lower inflation. This could benefit savers and those on fixed incomes who see their purchasing power eroded by inflation.

- Transparency: Linking a currency to a readily measurable asset like food or energy (electricity or hydrogen) could potentially increase transparency and accountability in the monetary system. This could help to prevent abuse and manipulation by central banks or other financial institutions.

CONS:

- Volatility: While agricultural output and energy production are less volatile than some financial assets, they are still subject to natural fluctuations due to weather, climate change, and other factors. This could lead to unpredictable fluctuations in the value of the agri-dollar, making it less attractive for use as a stable currency.

- Complexity: Implementing and managing a system that ties a currency to real-world assets would be complex and require significant coordination between governments, financial institutions, and agricultural and energy producers. This could be costly and time-consuming, and there is no guarantee of success.

- Inefficiency: Some argue that tying a currency to specific assets could lead to inefficient allocation of resources. For example, if the value of the agri-dollar is tied to food production, governments might be incentivized to prioritize food production over other important economic activities.

- Fraudsters: There will always be rogue traders. This will require the use of anti-money laundering computer technology. That, fortunately, already exists. Heralding in a new era of transparency that criminals in the banking system will fight tooth and nail to avoid. But, morally upright bankers and economists will want to champion.

APPLYING THIS CONCEPT TO BITCOIN AND OTHER CRYPTOCURRENCIES:

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not backed by any real-world assets and are often criticized for their volatility and potential for manipulation. However, some argue that they could be used as a bridge between fiat currencies and asset-backed systems like an agri-dollar. For example, one could imagine a system where the agri-dollar is pegged to a basket of cryptocurrencies that are themselves tied to various real-world assets. This could potentially offer some of the benefits of both systems, but it would also introduce additional layers of complexity and risk; if not properly policed.

Overall, the idea of an agri-dollar or other "asset-backed currency" or "Corn-Exchange" has merit, but it is not a panacea for the problems of the current monetary system. There are significant challenges that would need to be overcome before such a system could be implemented successfully. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to adopt such a system is a complex one that requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks. As a climate related matter, the subject could, and should be included in any meaningful conferences on global warming and sustainable practices.

We live in a world where the technology exists to make it happen, provided there is the political will.

1995 COP 1, BERLIN, GERMANY
1996 COP 2, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
1997 COP 3, KYOTO, JAPAN
1998 COP 4, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA
1999 COP 5, BONN, GERMANY
2000:COP 6, THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS
2001 COP 7, MARRAKECH, MOROCCO
2002 COP 8, NEW DELHI, INDIA
2003 COP 9, MILAN, ITALY
2004 COP 10, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA
2005 COP 11/CMP 1, MONTREAL, CANADA
2006 COP 12/CMP 2, NAIROBI, KENYA
2007 COP 13/CMP 3, BALI, INDONESIA
2008 COP 14/CMP 4, POZNAN, POLAND
2009 COP 15/CMP 5, COPENHAGEN, DENMARK
2010 COP 16/CMP 6, CANCUN, MEXICO
2011 COP 17/CMP 7, DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA
2012 COP 18/CMP 8, DOHA, QATAR
2013 COP 19/CMP 9, WARSAW, POLAND
2014 COP 20/CMP 10, LIMA, PERU
2015 COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France
2016 COP 22/CMP 12/CMA 1, Marrakech, Morocco
2017 COP 23/CMP 13/CMA 2, Bonn, Germany
2018 COP 24/CMP 14/CMA 3, Katowice, Poland
2019 COP 25/CMP 15/CMA 4, Santiago, Chile

2020 COP 26/CMP 16/CMA 5, Glasgow, Scotland

2021 COP 26/ Glasgow, Scotland 1-12 November

2022 COP 27/ Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, November

2023 COP 28/ Expo City, Dubai, UAE, 30 Nov - 12 Dec

2024 COP 29/ Absheron, Baku, Azerbaijan 11 - 24 November

But these economic bullies, are caught up in a political world tied to banking and fossil fuels that is as opaque as it comes, with an almost total lack of transparency.

One simply cannot have a banking system out of kilt with the real, or natural world. Planet Earth can only produce so much sustainably, without becoming a dried prune, and finally igniting the fires of discontent. Leading to World War Three, and ashes. Or, a cold world war three. A commercial battleground, with economic skirmishes.

Purely fictitious currencies that are not index linked to energy or agricultural output, should be banned, as fueling irresponsible lending, and so superheating the planet. We need a return to a Gold Standard of sorts. As a natural brake on the aspirations of billionaires to become trillionaires.

SOCIAL JUSTICE DURING TRANSITION

Implementing a combination of fossil fuel taxes, eliminating harmful subsidies, and incentivizing renewable energy investments is a powerful and multifaceted approach to tackling climate change while ensuring a smooth transition to a sustainable energy future. Here's a breakdown of each element and how they can work together:

Taxing Fossil Fuels:

- Carbon Pricing: A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system places a price on carbon emissions, making fossil fuels more expensive and incentivizing businesses and consumers to switch to cleaner alternatives. This can generate revenue for governments to invest in renewable energy and support vulnerable communities impacted by the transition.

- Fuel Taxes: Increasing taxes on gasoline, diesel, and other fossil fuels directly raises their cost, discouraging consumption and encouraging energy efficiency.

Eliminating Harmful Subsidies:

- Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Many governments still provide billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, artificially lowering their costs and hindering the competitiveness of renewables. 

Eliminating these subsidies levels the playing field and allows renewable energy to compete on its own merits.

- Agricultural Subsidies: Some agricultural subsidies can encourage practices that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, such as deforestation and intensive livestock farming. Reforming these subsidies to incentivize sustainable practices can help reduce emissions and promote soil health.

Rewarding Investment in Renewable Energy:

- Feed-in Tariffs: Governments can guarantee a fixed price for electricity generated from renewable sources, making them more attractive investments for developers.

- Tax Credits and Rebates: Offering tax breaks or rebates for individuals and businesses that invest in renewable energy can make them more affordable and encourage wider adoption.

- Research and Development: Investing in research and development of new renewable energy technologies is crucial for driving down costs and improving efficiency, making them even more competitive with fossil fuels.

Maintaining Reliable Energy Supplies during the Transition:

- Energy Efficiency: Investing in energy efficiency measures can significantly reduce overall energy demand, making it easier to transition to renewables without compromising on energy security.

- Energy Storage: Developing and deploying energy storage technologies like batteries and pumped hydro can help address the intermittency of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, ensuring a reliable grid.

- Diversification: Investing in a diverse range of renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower, can help mitigate the risks associated with relying on any single source.

Transition Timeline:

A five to ten-year timeframe is a realistic and achievable target for implementing significant changes in the energy sector. However, the pace of transition will depend on various factors, including:

- Political will: Governments need to have the commitment and political capital to implement the necessary policies and regulations.

- Public support: Building public awareness and understanding of the need for change is crucial for generating support for transition policies.

- Technological advancements: Continued advancements in renewable energy technologies can make them even more cost-effective and competitive with fossil fuels.

A successful transition will require a comprehensive and long-term strategy. A five to ten year timeframe may be too short to fully decarbonize the energy sector, but it can be a significant first step. Setting ambitious yet achievable targets for this period can help guide policy decisions and track progress.

Overall, a combination of fossil fuel taxes, subsidy reform, and renewable energy incentives can effectively address climate change while ensuring a smooth and secure transition to a sustainable energy future. By implementing these measures over a five to ten-year timeframe, we can create a cleaner, healthier planet for generations to come.

It's important to remember that this is just a general overview, and the specific policies and approaches will need to be tailored to the unique circumstances of each country or region. However, the key takeaway is that a comprehensive and well-planned transition to renewable energy is not only possible but also essential for addressing the climate crisis.

www.researchgate.net

www.climate-transparency.org

Please use our A-Z to navigate this site or return HOME

LET US HOPE THAT THOSE POORER NATIONS AFFECTED BY THE GLOBAL WARMING ACTIVITIES OF THE G20 NATIONS, GET SOME KIND OF FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE FLOODS, RISING SEA LEVELS, FOREST FIRES AND SARGASSUM PLAGUES THEY ARE HAVING TO CONTEND WITH

This website is Copyright © 2024 Cleaner Ocean Foundation & Jameson Hunter Ltd