Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Religionists and Economists Together

Religionists need to take a lesson from economists. At the same time economists need to take a lesson from religionists. Our spiritual and secular lives constitute a single reality. That reality is now being tested. Only common thought and action can lead to our survival on this planet.

Here is the economic lesson for the religionists.

From the beginning of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution that followed the economic theory of Adam Smith has been universally accepted. For most people in the world today it is continuing to be fully accepted.

That theory is, however, now being exposed for its power to bring down all life on this planet. The world community finds itself playing “Russian Roulette” with outcomes too horrific to contemplate.

Many now realize that Adam Smith’s “hidden hand of God” is pointing to a high probability of an ecological Apocalypse. And it is just on the horizon.

A search for new economic theory is being called for, one where there is a revised concept of marketplace pricing. Social and/or ecological externalities with negative value will need to be recognized. Such externalities will need to be built into final price. All such externalities dangerous to life on the planet will need to be priced out of the market.

This essay calls for an entirely new economic/monetary theory, one where market entry of goods and services that do not recognize dangerous negative externalities is not tolerated.

First a discussion of fossil fuels: Here is the reality:

In 2012 the World Bank warned that resultant high temperatures from CO2 could trigger what is called a Methane Hydrate Feedback Loop in the Arctic. It could raise planetary temperatures to the point where most life will die out. Scientists are now telling us that this temperature rise has already begun. Recent temperatures throughout the world have been the highest in recorded history.

We need to convert quickly to other forms of energy. The question therefore now becomes: What amount of fossil fuel will be needed for the conversion to counter a CO2/CH4 Arctic feedback loop? This is a question that demands an immediate answer. And it is a question that leads to others. Will industries such as air, automobiles, trucking, ocean shipping and metals now so reliant on fossil fuels be able to make the transition; and if so, what can be the alternative they employ? Another: How will highly carbon consumptive basic industries such as concrete and steel make the transition? Another: How will the citizens country by country, region by region, respond politically to such a state of economic disruption and reorganization?

These are questions that are not being broadly discussed in academia today nor in the business community nor in government nor among religionists. They should be. The future of human civilization is at stake.

There is a way that a relatively non-violent transition can take place. It will, however, require strong leadership throughout the planet at the national level. Fortunately we are beginning to see some positive signs of this. COP21 was a starter. It showed that there was a unity of common purpose among many world leaders. But it also showed a reluctance to make firm commitments. Meetings since then have been a disappointment.

The crisis is calling for far greater resolve. Heads of State must come together under the articles of a newly formed multinational body well beyond the stature of the United Nations. That organization was formed for the purpose of providing a forum for the nations of the world to achieve a unity of purpose. As humanity now faces the possibility of extinction, the need for such new purpose is far greater than it was when that international body was formed.

Within the next 36 months such an organization must come together and economically orchestrate an increase in the cost of carbon world-wide; from first moment of entry into the system and extending through to its becoming a part of derivative goods and services.

This would be a market approach. National and international carbon markets would serve as disciplinarian. They would force alternative forms of energy to be brought into the system up and down the production/consumption line. They would achieve this by pricing in gradual increases in the price of carbon, beginning at its source. Increasing carbon cost at its source would force higher prices to be passed through to the final price of all derivative goods and services. Non-carbon derivative forms of energy would then be given the incentive to become increasingly competitive. They eventually would replace carbon. Some end products that are solely reliant on the burning of large amounts of carbon would be eliminated entirely from the system by way of price appreciation.

There are far reaching social implications. Present consumers of carbon energy dependent goods and services will have to switch over to non carbon goods and services. Carbon producers will be forced out of the market. Carbon reliant socio/economic activities too will be forced out of the market. Price will force change.

This approach is congruent within the currently established framework of existing capital market systems both in nations and internationally.

But first a word on the profession of economics:

A move in the direction outlined here cannot occur without the voices of the prominent economists of our age. They can make the difference. Their profession is in control of economic thought. They can bring the public to an awareness of the seriousness of the problem and its solution by way of pricing in negative external costs.

The time has come for them to recognize this and to speak up. And the time has come for the religionists to pressure them to speak up.

Throughout the world and most notably in the Economic Departments of Western Universities, negative external costs are not being emphasized as a part of the decision making process. Maximizing total financial return is. There is little or no interest in saving the planet; becoming more efficient in raping it yes; but not in saving it.

Now to the details:

For producers of oil, gas and coal a national tax (Negative Externality Tax – let’s call it NET) will be levied at the point of extraction; defined as that point where the product enters the national and/or international market. That national tax will be increased year by year over a fifteen year period. It will therefore become integral to the pricing of all domestic goods and services in the country and the export pricing of goods and services.

The tax rate established for each compliant country will serve to bring domestic and/or international price up to an internationally agreed carbon equivalent figure. That figure would be increased year by year based on an internationally agreed world-wide 15 year carbon reduction formula. Here is an example for diesel: The NET would bring the cost up to say $70 per barrel domestically and internationally immediately and then over 15 years to say $ 200/300 per barrel or whatever price brings global carbon emissions down to an ecologically acceptable level.

In the case above revenue from the domestic tax will first be the difference between the internal production cost and $70, then year by year the increasing formulaic amount. That revenue will be retained by the producing nation where it can be used for needed internal investment and social adjustments. It can also be used to encourage non carbon activities and to develop non carbon sources of energy.

For those countries that refuse to comply, their exports of goods to compliant countries will be penalized (import duty taxed‑let’s call it IDT) by the import compliant country. Each and every import will be evaluated as to its local non taxed NET content.

Can this be accomplished? Some of the finest mathematical minds on our planet now spend their time devising algorithms for computerized trading of securities in order to exploit the weaknesses of other algorithms. The time has come for the economics profession to give these minds a new challenge, one that will benefit human civilization – and save it from the possibility of extinction.

Import duty revenues (let’s call them IDR’s) collected by compliant countries from non-compliant country imports can be turned over to a body such as the World Bank to be used to assist compliant nations with their difficulty in making necessary economic/social adjustments. These adjustments will fall into two categories; one the decline nationally in fossil fuel export revenues and the other the national destruction and dislocation being caused by ongoing climatic events.

Immediate examples of potential beneficiaries in the second category are a number of Island nations in the Pacific already being inundated by rising waters and Arctic settlements being affected by global warming. Most will be without internal resources to resettle population. Many other nations with low land areas being inundated by rising oceans will also need this kind of assistance.

Populations in many areas of the planet will be severely affected as fossil fuels are eliminated. Russia, Australia and the Middle Eastern countries are examples. Many Middle Eastern countries are almost totally reliant on oil revenues to pay for food imports. Such revenues will decline to the point where they will be insufficient for feeding the population. This also will have an impact on Middle Eastern oil and gas non-producers and minimal producers, those countries that have relied on grants from their wealthy neighbor producers. Egypt, reliant on neighbor contributions for food imports is a prime example. The future for Egypt will look bleak. Although extrapolating from present trends to make predictions is always problematic, the current projection is a population that will have increased from 90 million to 138 million by 2050. The Nigerian situation is even more bleak. Its petroleum industry is the largest in Africa. Its population of 186 million is expected to grow to 390 million by 2050.

Time will be needed to allow many of these countries to restructure and rebalance their economies. Others in need of assistance will be countries like India with pockets of poverty and minimal originating carbon revenue. Countries such as these will need massive injections of capital in order to restructure their industries and feed their populations. As a general rule, all nations that are unable to fund societal adjustments will need assistance.

The pricing/costing methodology here outlined will allow the world within the critical 10/15 year period to turn to carbon free sources of energy. Nation states at all levels of technological development will be given time to adjust. As they do, high carbon input products and services will leave the market and be replaced by energy input products with low or no carbon input. Societally, this will force nations at all ends of the planet to adopt a different social political economic energy structural logic from that which exists today.

It must be understood: This is just the first step toward human planetary resource control and human survival. Pricing in of other negative externalities harmful to humanity and all other life on the planet can then come next.

Homo sapiens continuation rests on this premise: The biosphere is finite. We must find a way to live in a congruent state within that finitude.

The time has come for all industrialized nations to acknowledge that the problem is planetary and it can only be solved multi-nationally.

The future of our human civilization hangs in the balance. That includes the future of all religion.

Click here to see David’s Book: Overcoming the Threat to Our Future

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Leave A Comment

Thank You to Our Generous Donors!