Ideas about a climate friendly money supply

Sovereign countries have the right to print their own money. Such printing is fundamentally based on investment projects. Which are the best investment projects a sovereign country should invest?

I personally believe such decision should be based on many factors, mainly, the return on the investments. But how to make such calculations? These are deep concerns that unfortunately are not simply economical: they are political. Each country makes such decisions differently. It depends on the politics of the country: is a country democracy or totalitarian?

The main purpose of public investments is not entirely economical, it should be based on the well-being of the public and its ongoing demography and the climate issues. The climate is like a threshold: something that puts a limit on the choices. We live in natural ecosystems and damaging the ecosystem damages our survival as mankind. For this reason, when making a public investment decision, it is important to consider ecosystem climate issues as a limit. Once we have this limit we ought to make calculations on the demography of the population, such calculation is still dependent on climate change and ecosystem issues. An increase in demography that is too rapid might damage the ecosystem. Then, we need to do calculations based on the level of consuming of such demographics. What is their level of consuming and what about the consuming of future demography. The consuming must be as much as climate friendly as possible: that’s where innovations should be focused.

The main purpose of a population in an ecosystem should be that of creating a lifecycle inside nature that brings well-being and happiness and that can be sustained as much as possible: a demographic increase along with consuming that doesn’t damage the ecosystem: thus, our chances of survival inside an area. Such lifecycle can be envisioned with imagination and intelligence. Countries now can collect enough data as to make calculations that are related to consumerism and demographics. The capitalist boom has increased the welfare of the people very much, not necessarily the well-being. Technology and innovation have increased well-being but have also caused bio hazards in the ecosystem we live. We have blamed the damages humans have caused to nature to capitalism, but the truth is that many communist societies would harm the environment too. Therefore, the issue of the environment is not about communism or capitalism, it is in the mentality of the people who invest. Do people think about the future when they make investment decisions? Do people reason in the long term? Are the investments, the ideas good ideas for the long term?

The human world is a broken place. We don’t have an international organization that is able to make these visions and predictions. But in this situation each country governments should have responsibility over their decisions for their nations. We live in an era of nation states, each state has to try to fight for their own life cycle and ecosystem and well-being of their citizens. A sovereign state that prints its own money needs to make such considerations when they decide to make an investment.

Let’s think outside of the box: outside of the concept of return to investment as considered in capitalist societies. A government institution considers many ideas; before deciding where to invest they have to decide whether the result of the investment will improve the well-being of its citizens without harming the climate, or without harming the climate more than a certain threshold. That's the main idea I am trying to express here.

It is like considering that all the resources in the investment: whether natural resources, humans and goods, can or cannot synergically build up a situation that improves the condition of all its creatures living in the area.

One might think: what about those ideas that don’t bring a positive return to the investment intended in economic terms. In fact, that’s the advantage of a country that is sovereign. In such country, the legal system, the system of ownership can be deliberately set in such a way that such investments for the overall well-being might bring economic returns. But such issue is a very delicate matter: how to make something like this happens without damaging the democratic, property and human rights. That’s an important issue: it is important to think about the future, but thinking about the future doesn’t justify slavery, especially when the path to slavery has already been build for the the next generation.

Building the pyramids might had been a very good investment to the ancient Egyptians, but we don’t know exactly the ways how they were built: through freedom or slavery. The most important matter in the near future might be the ability to keep the balance between investments for the future and well-being in the present. Maybe that’s how it has always been.