Feb 1 2012: Overall we agree => People must be the real cost of things...
Don't really know how to push politics in the right direction (apart from voting once in a while) so recently I focus more on promoting sustainability at work and around me.
Fully agree on the quota for oil extraction. Simply said: Consumption / Oil production time = 0
I am not sure that creating a part of the economy based on bonuses is good. Environmental subsidize often turn out to be miss used. I am not a big fan of C02 stock market value either. Also it should not be ok to pollute a lot just because we can offset it with heavy geo - engineering. If we want to be able to change to a green economy, all those new company must be built on realistic cost structure and not be profitable because some people make enough money by polluting and therefore pay more taxes.
Honestly I can't think of a proper way to put all this money back on nature bank's account. My best idea is to help reaching the millennium goals. Other ideas?
My goal is to find a system where company producing non sustainable product/service have no choice to adapt or close and not to allow them to go on as long as they pay someone to offset/repair. On other word, solving instead of curing.
Concerning offsetting, I could not say it better than her: http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/
Jan 24 2012: System that work are simple system. Putting in place a bonus and penalty system is difficult because it double the difficulty of calculating the benefit and loss. I think paying the real price (=penalty) would be the most efficient as companies would change drastically there production way to remain low price for the customer. Ideal would be that end consumer can see on the price tag: 10 $ (including 4$ for nature rehabilitation) but that makes it complicating again.
we have to agree on:
1. Criteria: Sustainability, CO2 emission, water consumption, air pollution, etc.. more? Less?
2. Value: How much would it cost to replenish the fish stock levels, to catch carbon into the ground or any other way, to produce clean water, etc... More challenging is to put value on non renewable stock like oil. This can only be approximate so we will need people to agree on certain value. This will likely be the most difficult part as every expert will come up with a new number creating and endless debate. Personally I am in favour of a A, B, C, D grade system with only 4 levels. It can even start without payment as awareness like it is tested in France now on many product and like it works extremely well on home appliance like fridge and air conditioning.
3. Who/where to collect this money ?
4. Use of the money collected?
5. Need to include life cycle and disposal as well?
Many point to be solved but I do believe this is the key.
Jan 24 2012: What about the raw material? Wont they be shipped across the world? Key is to develop printers that can actually re-use directly waste. News paper, shopping bags, that would be indeed a great idea.
Could we actually print food? I peel my orange. The skin could be turned into part and print into a mini tomato ?
TEDCred score: +0.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
Don't really know how to push politics in the right direction (apart from voting once in a while) so recently I focus more on promoting sustainability at work and around me.
Cheers,
A reply on Conversation: Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
Fully agree on the quota for oil extraction. Simply said: Consumption / Oil production time = 0
I am not sure that creating a part of the economy based on bonuses is good. Environmental subsidize often turn out to be miss used. I am not a big fan of C02 stock market value either. Also it should not be ok to pollute a lot just because we can offset it with heavy geo - engineering. If we want to be able to change to a green economy, all those new company must be built on realistic cost structure and not be profitable because some people make enough money by polluting and therefore pay more taxes.
Honestly I can't think of a proper way to put all this money back on nature bank's account. My best idea is to help reaching the millennium goals. Other ideas?
My goal is to find a system where company producing non sustainable product/service have no choice to adapt or close and not to allow them to go on as long as they pay someone to offset/repair. On other word, solving instead of curing.
Concerning offsetting, I could not say it better than her: http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/
Looking forward to discuss this further.
A comment on Conversation: Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
we have to agree on:
1. Criteria: Sustainability, CO2 emission, water consumption, air pollution, etc.. more? Less?
2. Value: How much would it cost to replenish the fish stock levels, to catch carbon into the ground or any other way, to produce clean water, etc... More challenging is to put value on non renewable stock like oil. This can only be approximate so we will need people to agree on certain value. This will likely be the most difficult part as every expert will come up with a new number creating and endless debate. Personally I am in favour of a A, B, C, D grade system with only 4 levels. It can even start without payment as awareness like it is tested in France now on many product and like it works extremely well on home appliance like fridge and air conditioning.
3. Who/where to collect this money ?
4. Use of the money collected?
5. Need to include life cycle and disposal as well?
Many point to be solved but I do believe this is the key.
A comment on Talk: Lisa Harouni: A primer on 3D printing
Could we actually print food? I peel my orange. The skin could be turned into part and print into a mini tomato ?