99% of what I hear about climate is on the problem of emissions and technical changes to reduce them. This is interesting but this information hasn't changed much over the past 30 years. To me it sounds like "assuming it's not realistic to design a sustainable economy that takes care of the planet automatically, here's what we can do to keep busy while we wait to see what happens. Hands up everyone who will pay more and work harder to do things that would be easy and cheap if the economy was sustainable!"

1% of what I hear is about the economics and all of this assumes inevitable mandatory limits that get agreed eventually by all countries and then implemented by taxes, trading schemes, regulations, etc. The problem is that this is basically the approach of the Kyoto Protocol which has been under negotiation for more than a decade during which emissions have continued rising. This is because politicians, and probably most people, are resistant to the idea of fixed limits and of being told what they can do. If the survival of th eplanet depends on people starting to like fixed limits on their economies and lifestyles then things are probably worse than we think.

What I never hear is how to reform the economy without needing mandatory limits on emissions and how to do this so that emissions reduce faster than with any possible progress with fixed limits. I take my cue from nature where there are no fixed limits on what any species can do. Everything is possible and most everything happens. There seems to be just one rule in nature's economy - no waste; make sure everything gets used again and keeps coming back as new resources. Why not just transfer this rule to the human economy since people should act like part of nature anyway.

I know it is technically possible to ensure that every kind of product is prevented from ending up as waste accumulating in the biosphere. This can be done in many ways including for hopelessly accumulative materials like heavy metals and fossil fuels, by substitution. Every form of waste prevention can together be called precycling. All that remains is to correct capitalism to prevent rather than cause waste. This seems best done with a version of insurance, which pays out not post-disaster, but preventively to reduce the global risks (which are unaffordable if left to grow). So we can use precycling insurance, with premiums charged according to the risk of the product becoming waste and paid to reduce the waste risk of other products. So you get sustainable investments at three points; by manufacturers reducing their waste-risk to reduce premiums, by funding precycling (cutting dependence on making waste of all kinds including CO2) and by consumers choosing now ceaper sustainable products and shrinking the market for wasteful products.

No mandatory limits, no prescriptive regulations and less money wasted by tunnel-vision governments - so lower taxes. The economy would be generating increasingly sustainable activity so GDP and economic growth become, for the first time in history, an accurate measure of national progress. Since nature is part of the process for turning old products into new resources, precycling insurance would reverse the loss of nature. Since individuals and communities cannot precycle if they are destitute, ill or afflicted by violence, insurance premiums can be spent addressing all the intolerable problems of our time. Government should be able to take care of most of the legacy issues of an unsustainable era, given a clear positive vision of the future and without the burden of micromanaging each ecological problem separately. Businesses will thrive with vast new economic sectors created by the joining up of a linear (waste making) economy into a circular (resource making) economy. Business will also enjoy vastly reduced regulation and complete freedom of choice in making products since precycling insurance would maintain fair competition and funding for sustainable development irrespective of producer choices. Eco-friendly living would still be voluntary but a corrected economy would shift culture and expectations so that wasteful lifestyles would become the marginal option.

This proposal has been published by a peer-reviewed journal and will soon appear as a case study for a book, 'Positive Development', by a sustainable development professor, Janis Birkeland. You can see more info at www.blindspot.org.uk.

James Greyson

1. http://www.blindspot.org.uk Capitalism + one new economic instrument = sustainable development.

2. http://www.grosspeacefulproduct.org.uk Economic competitiveness as a weapon for peace and security.

3. http://www.frontofpipe.net Waste strategy. Throw away dependence on disposal.