You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What On Earth Is The "Earth Dollar," And Is It Worth The Initial Investment Of Attention...? (Part ONE)
So I read about this, but how exactly does it claim it can be backed by Earth's natural resources? Where can I read about this?
I'm hoping more specific details of that will be released this week.
Though in short - it's because its based in the Natural Capital Accounting System. To my understanding, its essentially a different set of rules, wherein a concrete value is given to certain assets - i.e. a newly planted tree is worth $xxx. It's not merely the Earth Dollar project's own system, but one designed by the World Bank and led by the TEEB guys - so it's an entirely new global standard working on being implemented.
I too, would like more info on the "official" interconnection with the system. Though given its legit and just needs further articulation, it's a pretty cool model - as the value of the Earth Dollar would therefore be attached to the contributions of network partners' activities in integrating the accounting system, recording natural assets and facilitating work valued within the system, such as planting trees, cleaning up pollution, etc.
In the meantime:
Frequently Asked Questions on Natural Capital Accounting (NCA)
What is natural capital accounting?
Natural Capital Accounting from TEEB
might offer more info.
and I've also started a Twitter list of parties involved with Natural Capital Accounting.
Thanks for this.
A few problems I see with this.
Whenever someone discusses "intrinsic" value as does the EarthCoin, red flags go up in my mind. In economic theory there is no such thing as intrinsic value, that is something has value in of itself because it has value. It's a circular logic that doesn't make sense and is often used in finance, but what they're really talking about is something more like book value. Value is subjective in all regards so for something to have value because it has value doesn't make sense to me. I'd need to see them address this issue before I can agree that something could be backed with $3T worth of assets.
One other note, if they are to value things like air, water, trees, etc. are they using markets to do this? Are they looking at the forestry futures and marking them to market on the books? I'm not asking you specifically, just raising the question.
That said it's a nice idea. I just need more proof of the concept.