Climate Change vs Sovereign Economic Model

Climate Change vs Sovereign Economic Model

Climate change is constant, as Earth is a living organism and things change, depending on solar radiation, earth axis(magnetic pole shifts) and eventual catastrophic natural disasters like volcanic eruptions which can severely block sun radiation.

But the biggest threat of climate change is as buzzword of a fear mongering narrative, which is used to scare people, and push big shifts in technologies, laws and taxes, and mostly to, reward or punish people, businesses and whole countries.

We already know that climate change will be used to disrupt trade, by taxing fossil fuel and other perceived "dirty" "non-green" natural resources. Probably there will be also taxes and regulation for countries and companies which are not perceived as "sustainable"or because of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. Taxes and wealth will be distributed to companies and countries which are in compliance. One can see the Tesla example which sells "green credits" to more conventional car makers.

I  believe that the Sovereign Economic Model is definitely the way to go for emerging countries, precisely for the climate change issue.
A nation has to take advantage of its land, natural resources and context, in order to satisfy the need of business, people and state.
So unreasonable impositions for climate change should be rejected if it imperils the sovereignty of the people and the state. Not every industry sector can be made in complete sustainable or clean way. And an country which gets industrial goods in a third country does not mean it is climate friendly, as the country also raises demands for goods because of consumption.

I believe the right way is both adopting the Sovereign Economic Model, but also try to protect the environment as much as possible, not as afterthought, a buzzword, but with technical tools and scientific effort.

Add comment