The International Institute of Monetary Transformation   [ click to return to main site ]   subscribe

Four main arguments and six challenges of the Tierra Cap&Share system

Post By gaia1 in Tierra Currency

There are three main parts to the TCS system which are like the three legs of a stool. They support this tripartite monetary proposal to deal with the climate crisis. Though they are inextricably connected, each of these three components can be considered to constitute a subsidiary argument to the TCS system as a whole. The fourth argument consists of the feasibility of having these three components combined into one system, i.e. the TCS system.


I will indicate in each argument the level of acceptance as I presently believe to be the case.


1. Monetary argument for a carbon-based international reserve currency

  • Need to move away from present reserve currency—increasingly acceptable given the June 2009 UN Stiglitz Commission’s report
  • Need to be base the new international reserve currency on a carbon standard rather than basket of currencies, purchasing power parity, etc—not yet cogently presented publicly. The TCS system book would be a primer.

2. Cap & Share carbon reduction approach argument

  • Advantages over cap-and-trade, cap-and-dividend and other carbon reduction methodology – uphill battle since early 1990s
  • Advantages over other "Whole World" view approaches—will become evident after the UNEP Technical Review of these approaches.

3. Public control of money creation and regulation of financial flows

  • Regulation of financial flows accepted, though reform legislation weak. Flows to be part of a Tierra International Clearing Union system
  • Substantial movement in the US and UK to remove the fractional reserve banking from the privately-owned banking systems.

4. Feasibility of having all three arguments for the tripartite TCS system

  • TCS system is not publicly presented yet, so public acceptance is not known
  • Widely accepted is the notion that innovation is often a new way of using existing ideas—so acceptance of parts or the totality of the foregoing three arguments is the beginning of the acceptance of the TCS system.


Four of the six main challenges are the four arguments presented above. Though parts in the four arguments are acceptable to a certain degree, while other parts are still unacceptable, all four arguments still present a challenge, particularly also their combination in argument 4.

The other two challenges of the TCS system can be considered foundational challenges. They constitute the foundation upon which the TCS system is built. One deals with a sustainability economics framework that stands in opposition to the neo-liberalist market framework that is failing both people and planet. The other deals with a value framework that integrates social and ecological values as proposed in the 2000 benchmark version of the Earth Charter.  It was at the beginning of the June 2009 UN Conference that GA president Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann MM eloquently introduced the Earth Charter as a value document for further planning on the financial and monetary crisis and its impact on development.  He advised the participants to go beyond “controls and corrections” of the present system and seek transformational change based on its vision and its ensuing global ethics.

It will have become obvious that the proposed TCS system, however valid and useful, is far from being adopted in the next couple of years. It constitutes a monetary transformation not simply a monetary reform. People are accustomed to adopting reforms, far less so transformations, let alone in a field that is arcane to most.


What may happen is the growing acceptance of the two foundational challenges and parts of the four challenges that are associated with the components of the tripartite TCS system and their integration. It is up to enlightened states and effective CSOs to help advance the larger vision of a fair, sustainable, and therefore, stable international monetary system that would be used to reduce the ecological indebtedness of countries in the global North for the benefit of people and planet in both the global North and South.