Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share via:


If all nations printed extra money for the World Bank to address climate change, it could create investment opportunity for our environment.



Agrarian solutions to climate change need to be more than neutral in order to reverse it. A method of storage is recommended by many experts as a key element, such as for electric cars having a longer battery life. The storage need not be only for a battery; it can be for a number of different products. Trees and plants absorb CO2 and also leave roots in the ground, but otherwise they eventually decay or are used in putting CO2 back into the atmosphere. However, using treated wood to build lasting structures could have additional benefit for the replanting of more trees. It could also create wealth. Economic wealth is product; money as credit facilitates the production of products. An infrastructure for this wealth creation is already in place: the World Bank created after WWII for similar purpose. If every nation printed a small extra percentage of their currency to fund the World Bank, it would result in a mild inflation for positive economic growth and allow the World Bank to lend to such projects as development of water sources, reforestation, the use of solar energy, and so forth. However, the World Bank solution is only part solution. Climate Change needs to be addressed from all angles. Cap and Trade works to some extent with states. Fee and Dividend works to some extent on the Federal level. They could provide further incentive for the World Bank solution if it becomes an option for polluters to receive aid for new scientific method for collecting greenhouse gases before they enter the atmosphere. Change, economic or otherwise, can be too destructive in itself. Technology can help for capturing greenhouse gases and allowing the economy to function for a healthier rate of change, which the World Bank proposal could assist.

What actions do you propose?

There has been a great amount of progress in converting to solar energy, but there are both physical and economic restrictions. A physical restriction, for instance, is the immediate pollution of the air for field burning for people who have to breathe it, even though it is carbon neutral in the long run and the carbon left in the ground from the burning provides nutrition for next year's crop. An example of an economic restriction is with regard to utilities buying electricity from solar panels. In Honolulu, for instance, more hotels placed solar panels on their roofs to avoid the high cost of electricity from the utility. To maintain the grid and also purchase from it, the utility eventually raises rates to other customers it might still have as a limited possibility. Raising rates, as equivalent to raising taxes, further persuades companies to produce and import from abroad. However, a World Bank inflated tax would maintain an equal playing field and even aid prosperity with regard to a more even distribution of economic wealth. However, this proposal needs to be examined seriously for its implications. Debate among peers and adversaries could promote its functionality.

Who will take these actions?

It is ultimately the will of the people who decide. If politicians hear the people and the debates, they should follow course. It starts with education, continues with action of the government, and succeeds with critical oversight of an operation to ensure that policies are fairly rewarding to all contributors.

Where will these actions be taken?

Some actions could be taken in building islands and deserts that can be aided with desalted water from the oceans with the use of such solar energy as wind and light. It could even provide habitat for victims of war freeing for a better life. Other actions could be taken by polluting companies, as in the USA, being funded for new scientific mechanism for collecting greenhouse gases before they enter into the atmosphere. Local electric and water utilities promoting solar energy resources could benefit by being reimbursed for their effort. Environmental funding to preservation and reforestation could benefit with more monetary incentive. With the creation of CO2 saving products, economies in all countries could benefit with more opportunity for prosperity.

How much will emissions be reduced or sequestered vs. business as usual levels?

It all depends on the implementation of the goal, what is available and so forth. If a seed is planted, it could eventually grow and spread for a greater distribution of wealth among societal members.

What are other key benefits?

A key benefit is that such natural resources as oil and coal need not be discarded altogether; only their use in adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that creates havoc with the environment. CO2 has many practical uses, as does coal and oil. The second most abundant element in our bodies is carbon. We cannot survive without the use of carbon. It need thus be clear that a carbon tax does not mean the use of carbon itself is contested. Rather, how it is used is what actually is at stake, as for maintaining a healthy carbon cycle by not increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A mild inflation from increasing the money supply also has economic benefit. It encourages investment in product, as economic wealth, whereas deflation by hoarding of money increases economic wealth fewer individuals.

What are the proposal’s costs?

There needs to be alternatives. Coal minors need not be villains for earning a living. They need opportunity for other employment. The real economics costs are labor oriented. Much effort has to be made for ensuring the functionality of the proposal, and there needs to be educated leaders to carry it out. Legal matters need to be worked out, as to ensure investments from all nations are fairly rewarded. There could be exceptions to the rule, as for directing more monetary funding where it is more needed for more good, but such exceptions still need to apply to a system of law and order.

Time line

I am not sure. Change generally needs an adaptation period. There will be winners and losers. A new highway in place could persuade people to bypass a particular street and put a store or two out of business. Too much sudden change, despite how much good it can provide in the long run, could cause destructive opposition in the short run. An abundance of economic benefits could occur in the first 5 to 15 years. A significant decrease in global warming should occur within the next 15 to 50 years, and after 50 years there should be more technology and knowledge to manage the environment and to cope with such natural disasters as earthquakes, volcanoes and so forth as well.

Related proposals

There is bio-char for the storage of carbon. It needs a market and means for producing worthy products from it. Allowing investments in the World Bank for such a purpose could be beneficial. Bio-char can further relate to efficiency. A mechanic once proposed around 1970 that an automobile gasoline engine is only about 5 percent efficient. Most of its heat energy is wasted. He proposed that using the heat to vaporize gasoline into gas before combustion would increase its efficiency to more than 200 miles per gallon. In an automobile, the application could be dangerous, but the principle could be effective in other applications. Only 700 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to product bio-char from carbon waste. If that heat is further used for something like producing steam for heating the facility during a cold night or winter, then energy is used more efficiently.


This proposal came to mind from writing my book Capitalism And Social Unity Balance. The first and last chapters are the proposal. In between is a political economics history in support of the argument. I just published the book on Kindle. It is subjects to changes. I have also been involved with a group of citizens climate change lobbyists proposing the tax (or fee as I proposed for the industrial cost of using up our free air to breathe) and dividend. Our group believes the dividend is needed in order to maintain a balanced budget for the reason that increasing it would compete against other government entitlements.