First, I’m glad to see serious consideration for the financialization of the global response to climate disruption. I still think Kim Stanley Robinson’s idea of a Central Banks-backed Stable Coin that can be mined (as in bitcoin) by carbon sequestration is the best approach. Second, I think these conferences are useful in that they create frameworks that can offer a scaffold for a multitude of separate actions–that in spite of the “no teeth” complaints. I feel the same way about the Hague Court and the UN. Finally, it seems to me that some actors (national and others) will eventually try to geoengineer and it would be useful to think about what that will mean in terms of the scaffolding.
My economist colleagues continue to argue in terms of GDP loss. In that GDP doesn’t value ecosystem services, I think that’s a big problem.