Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A new kind of money

Posted by Julian Darley at 1:01 PM on July 20, 2006.


Today's money is based on the belief that it's worth something. Crazy, no? Why not back your dollar in sustainable energy produced in your hometown?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Julian Darley in your
mailbox!

 

The decline in the availability of cheap energy is likely to be accompanied by an equally ominous possibility of world financial meltdown. That we are facing both of these threats now is not an accident: energy and financial stability are intimately linked. I believe the solutions for dealing with these twinned threats are equally linked. To build an environmentally sustainable, monetarily stable world, we need to create an economy in which locally produced energy provides the backing for local currencies.

Let's start with energy first. Energy decline will soon challenge just about every common notion of life that we have developed during the industrial era. Most of what we have built in the globalizing world of the last half century depends on cheap energy, particularly oil and natural gas.

After years of oil-industry financed obfuscation, there is a broad scientific consensus that our profligate use of fossil fuels is producing global warming. And despite similar oil industry denials, there is a growing consensus that we are rapidly approaching Peak Oil, after which world oil output will go into permanent decline. (The United States experienced Peak Oil in 1971.) After global Peak Oil, oil will still be available, but at ever increasing prices.

To lessen the impact of global warming and the inflationary pressures of Peak Oil, we should be moving as rapidly as possible to an energy system based on locally based renewable energy production. (Go here for more details about why cornucopian schemes like nuclear power or oil from tar sands will not solve our energy problems).

Accepting the limits of locally produced renewable energy flies in the face of one of the basic assumptions behind the current energy system, that there is an endlessly increasing, supply of cheap fossil fuels, especially oil.

And here's the link to money: we have made the same limitless assumption about money, that the world monetary supply could grow without end as well. In both cases, we assumed that the growth in energy-use and in money supply was an unmitigated good.

There have been a growing number of voices warning us that both of these assumptions were wrong, that the notion of unchecked growth was leading us toward environmental and financial meltdowns. And while we have been making some progress in understanding the energy problem, there is virtually no mention of the role of money.

I admit that thinking clearly about money can be difficult. Money has been around far longer than the oil age, the industrial era, and may even pre-date civilization itself. But though we may take money for granted, it is neither simple nor solid nor reliable -- far from it. Money is a complex and fragile construction, and as history has shown over and over again, money can become worthless almost overnight. In the long run, money has proven very difficult to manage -- it's a tricky and strange invention.

The original driving force behind money was our need for specialization as we grew from hunter-gatherer societies to settlements of a few thousand, and now cities of millions. Money helped us to increase our carrying capacity -- the number of humans a given area will support at a certain level of technology -- but it has also helped us to become largely disconnected from the real material world.

Today's global monetary system is based on currencies controlled by national banks, and the global trading system is mainly based on one of those currencies: the US dollar. This system leaves communities and individuals vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global market. The level of trade in a locale is heavily dependent on money that flows in from external sources. Any disruption to that flow can restrict trading activities locally. This potential shortage leads people to try and obtain more and more money, a quest which is ultimately unsustainable.

Money can be "backed" by all kinds of physical substances, like precious metals. Or money can be "fiat" ("let it be made") like most national currencies today, backed by nothing except faith and confidence -- or sometimes just confidence tricks.

Unlike a backed currency, a fiat currency can at least in theory quite literally expand for ever. There is no direct link to material reality to impose limits, only economic theory, which is devoted to eternal growth and doesn't like to deal with limits -- or reality -- at all. An unlimited currency along with unlimited growth and (so far) unlimited energy has allowed us to do almost unlimited damage to the planet. However, as the availability of cheap, abundant energy declines, energy will soon become the dominant partner in the relationship with money, and money's true dependence on energy will finally become apparent for all to see.

As energy becomes increasingly expensive and scarce, the colossal size and scale of our infrastructure, which has characterized the rise of industrialism, will selectively crumble and become unserviceable. It is only the energy subsidy from hitherto ever-increasing use of cheap fossil fuels that has allowed our current grandiosity. If this argument is correct, national currency reform will become an oxymoron. It will become apparent that local currencies must be created, currencies based on the resources of the locale -- be they abundant or austere.

Communities can further insulate themselves by de-monetizing as many goods and services as possible and try to produce as much of their vital needs as locally as possible, especially food (from local farms and processors) and renewable energy. Demonetizing means taking a product or service out of the market so that it does not need a monetary value. Hence the need either to stop using a product or to produce it yourself.

When you take a potato from your garden, if you are fortunate enough to have one, you don't pay yourself a dollar for the privilege -- you just clean it, cook it, and eat it. Demonetizing can also be done via barter, and this is in fact quite common in business, including in the industrialized world. But demonetizing flies in the face of globalization and the Industrial Revolution.

Communities that create such local or regional currencies will have a much better chance both of riding out the coming energy decline and of being buffered from any monetary or economic collapse that may happen for whatever reason. The sooner such systems are created, the more ready that region will be to withstand shocks and to avoid the terrible unemployment which severe monetary instability invariably brings.

Backing money with local renewable energy would cause the material economy to be constrained by the amount of energy available from the sun -- just like all other living things, which have been around far longer than we have. This limitation would undoubtedly mean that some places would be more suitable for human habitation than others. But since nature is now starting to teach us this lesson anyway, it would surely be a much better idea to plan for constraint than to wait for the energy and climate avalanches to hit us broadside, especially as we can now hear increasingly ominous economic and environmental rumbling.

In our forthcoming book, Relocalize Now! Getting Ready for Climate Change and the End of Cheap Oil, we discuss strategies for how communities can create local currencies. Making the transition to an ecologically sustainable world is going to be the most difficult task which our species has ever undertaken. We have a much better chance of success if we develop strategies that incorporate an understanding of the unavoidable linkage between energy and money.

Digg!



Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
HOLY FUCK!!!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 20, 2006 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone FINALLY gets that the destruction of local economies (and local communities along with ) is a huge part of the problem we face....

I'm not much for living as a slave whether it be to a government or a corporation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Local"? There is no "there" there.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 20, 2006 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Wise Man of the Mountain,

Either you are inviting us to join you in your playhouse where we will have a tea party together and pretend that we are gods who can rebuild the world the way it ought to have been done in the first place,

Or, if you are serious, you will lay your cards on the table so that we can see exactly what you are holding.

Your cards will include those you've accumulated from your so far accurate predictions of the future, or even those you've made that approximated some event, one will do, in the real world.

If you have no cards, as I suspect, then this is all just a pipe dream. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm not interested.

It's not what will happen but when it will happen that matters. Otherwise, "What goes up must come down" is about the level of insight you are offering.

In your new book, please offer some thoughtful depiction of what you mean by "local." If you are letting events define what is local, that provides as much leverage as a wet noodle.

Surely your noodle isn't wet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Energy as a commodity. Posted by: Sojourner
» point Posted by: brasilaron
I've liked the idea of energy-backed money for a long time.
Posted by: wli on Jul 21, 2006 3:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fiat currency is frankly far too prone to manipulation. Dumping dollars, EUR, etc. and going straight to Joules would very nicely eliminate the printing presses for "starve the beast" to hurt people and various other bad things.

The big trouble is that energy is too pervasive and ephemeral to account. Mechanical and thermal energy flow about with no hope of human control in the very air. Electricity, flows of electrons, can't be made to hold still very well (batteries degrade over time).

To flesh out the idea, forms of stored energy have to be standardized and "baskets" of them agreed upon for convertibility. At that point you're backing currency with commodities again, with the hopefully not-too-fungible proviso that they're supposed to represent readily-usable energy and hopefully not too much manipulation of the basket weightings. These things could be, for instance, batteries manufactured to some specification, gasoline, refined uranium (maybe that shouldn't be so freely covertible), and so on.

One potentially large obstacle to this is that people could end up manufacturing their own money and it would be legal tender.This has nothing to do with the objective viability of the system, but rather its political viability. Rest assured that the wealthy elite will strenuously object.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fiat is ferkit
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jul 21, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting collection of comments thus far. Must add my wiffling to the basket of wiffle currency.

Yes, fiat currency, like so many other bright ideas of the economists, is a bit of a phantom. Fiat currency does go ferkit in extremely surprising ways, such as when currency speculators dive into a country and dive out, leaving the economy shredded and losing several billions of putative dollars.

An article from Yahoo, I think, today hinted in a fairly genteel fashion that a bit of indigestion in the stock market caused 'the loss of billions to stockholders'. I have this image of a stockholder opening their filing cabinet to a 'whfffssst!' and a plume of sulphurous smoke, as the value of their holdings suddenly plummets. Perhaps accompanied by a piping 'Banzai!' from the stock certificates.

So practical long-lasting currency really should be backed by something of value, and that value should be relatively stable. So bananas won't do it, because when all the grannies stick their wealth under the bed, in six months all they'll have is compost and a new green furry carpet.

Energy is a nice one, particularly because there's no way that anyone could corner the market (unless the corp-rats get their way, and we're all herded underground). It's relatively stable and predictable, and doesn't succumb to the kinds of abrupt behaviour that can cause a rain of stock market analysts.

I don't think it's necessarily a return to commodities, though, because all that's necessary is that the money is backed by energy, which means that if you desire, it can be exchanged for the appropriate amount of energy. You wouldn't be expected to cart around half a dozen car batteries when you go shopping.

Ahhh, the world looks interesting from this point of view. May we all live in interesting times...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

$?$?$?
Posted by: AlienSlave on Jul 21, 2006 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the difference between being rich and being wealthy?
The only time I need to have a Federal Reserve Note is when I do business with the Government it’s their choice of exchange. I very seldom do business with the Government so I hardly ever have any of their paper lying around.
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: $?$?$? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: $?$?$? Posted by: AlienSlave
» I envy you Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: I envy you Posted by: AlienSlave
unfortunately, totally unworkable
Posted by: baradir on Jul 21, 2006 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as the Economist's View: http://economistsview.typepad.com/
economistsview/environment/index.html
points out, even if returning to localism and eliminating inter-regional specialization and trade were desirable, it cannot be achieved by throwing out a national currency. A currency can be based on whatever is reached upon through political agreement, but who will stop trading and exchange in that currency? All you would do with that scheme would be to introduce some relatively minor transaction costs to a trading system that would remain fully functional.
You also need to realize that the local currency plan would actually increase environmental degradation - by having a money based on agriculture or commodities you would increase the incentive to recklessly harvest resources (literally, in an attempt to grow money on trees), not to mention introduce tremendous currency volatility by backing currencies with easily producible goods. Let alone the fact that the supply of the commodity regulating a commodity backed currency does not determine the value of economic output that results from trading with that currency.

You all have to realize that trade and specialization was not the invention of a cabal of greedy, megalomaniacal industrialists, although they certaintly exist. Rather the historical trend of growing technology, transportation, and communication (which really took off with the emergence of the European nation state in the 15th and 16th centuries) has been the prime motivator for our economic and industrial revolution. Come up with a plan to eliminate communication, travel, and the development of new technological ideas without crushing all notion of personal freedom and civil liberties and then maybe you can realistically counter hundreds of years of historical development and effect a return to localism.

Finally, I will say that rising fossil fuel prices are one of the best signs that environmentalists could hope for - it increases the incentive to develop more fuel efficient technology. And the more durable energy efficient technology we develop, the costlier it will become to revert to fossil fuel burning infrastructure, which further decreases demand in the industrialized world. The result is a rise to peak price in fossil fuels, followed by a long, steady decline as more and more countries switch to cleaner technology.

I sympathize with your concerns - loss of local autonomy, faceless international institutions, environemental degradation - but I'm afraid that loopy ideas like this make it a lot harder to defeat right wingers and callous business interest in the court of public opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Point to Consider
Posted by: smokey on Jul 22, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Community-currency sounds like reasonable idea.

However, as long as there is a federal government under whose jurisdiction these communities exist...

And as long as that federal government chooses the currency, levies taxes and demands that taxes ONLY be paid in that currency...

And as long as that federal government has the power to enforce that demand...

These communities will need to possess a sufficient amount of the federally authorized currency.

Which, in turn means, that they must also obtain that currency by trading something of value to one who possesses that currency.

Which begets even more questions:

"Let's see. How many chickens can I fit in this cart? And how far did you say it was to Capital City?"

0.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]