Global warming needs to be addressed from all angles. A Carbon Tax and Dividend approach is one angle. A World Bank Funding is another. These two approaches might seem to compete against each other for acceptance, but they are actually complementary.

The carbon tax and dividend is unique inasmuch as it is consistent with a balanced budget, as the tax is returned directly to the people. The World Bank Funding is unique in other respects. If all nations printed an additional amount of fiat currency to fund the World Bank for financing remedies of climate change, then a mild inflation could occur supporting those of us in debt and encouraging investment for those of us with money not caring to lose its spending value because of the inflation. The added capital merely facilitates the creation of wealth in terms of a more productive environment. Economic wealth is what money can purchase. The money is only credit allowing creation and distribution of the wealth.

There is economic wealth and there is environmental wealth. The air we breathe is not economic wealth in the sense it is free to breathe. It becomes negative in the economic sense if polluters of it are charged a fee for its use. However, a carbon tax does not mean carbon is a negative. The second most abundant element in our bodies is carbon. Only when it combines with oxygen to become a greenhouse gas is it a negative. The atmosphere containing more carbon dioxide, for instance, absorbs more radiant or low energy instead of reflecting it back into outer space. The equilibrium state of the atmosphere is thus raised to a higher temperature.

Plant life absorbs carbon from and releases oxygen to the atmosphere. Burning wood is carbon neutral if the wood is replaced with the growth of new trees. Using wood for the creation of economic wealth, as for buildings and so forth, becomes a positive with the growth of new trees. Similarly coal can be neutral as long as its use does not contribute to the enrichment of greenhouse gases. If technology becomes advanced enough to collect the gases before they enter the atmosphere, then coal becomes a positive for the creation of economic wealth. Incentive for its creation could be the World Bank Funding. Further incentive for its creative use could be the Carbon Tax and Dividend. The two incentives thus work together for the same purpose.

In contrast is solar energy. If it were totally free, its economics could be a negative. For example, if everyone decided to ride bicycles instead of motoring around in automobile, both oil and automobile industries could become bankrupt, creating unemployment, contraction of spending, further unemployment and so on. However, solar energy is still needed to combat global warming. It does not need to be cheap. If it does become too cheap, then using more of it could maintain the creation of more wealth and employment along with more rapidly reversing climate change.

If population increases, then more money in circulation is needed to accommodate it. If more economic wealth is created per person, more credit is needed for its purchase. Investing in a way that both creates economic wealth and preserves the environment could undo poverty and reduce the incentive for war and crime, except for the greedy who always want more wealth and status.

An obstacle to this proposal is with regard to money providing freedom of choice. Money allows us to choose what to purchase. It thus has psychological value. However, the flip side of freedom is conformity. We can choose who to marry. After choosing, the success of the marriage depends on how we conform to the conditions allowing it to be successful. With the World Bank Funding and Carbon Tax and Dividend proposals, there will be freedom as to compete for funding, and there will be enforceable rules in place to ensure those choices become successful.

About Author / Additional Info:
This article is an abstract from the book I am in the process of writing: Capitalism and Social Unity Balance. It is temporarily being published on Kindle. Rewrites are in order.