Conflicts of interest
We live in a society of humans that believe that “money” talks. If that is true, as Bank of Nature believes it to be, then we can see the many ways that money, the hoarding of it in the pursuit of wealth or growth or value, make our priorities very clear.
Human society created money as a way to facilitate trade. Money represents an agreed upon, and entirely arbitrary, currency for trade, business and our capacity for each of us to take care of ourselves. We fight over it. We commit crimes over it. Money, traditionally, has been the source of conflict.
Bank of Nature, as you see on our site, acknowledges money as a unifying tool — at least as a way to pay nature rent and use money toward endgame sustainability. Money is the capital of a proxy for nature.
Until then, however, we see how money is compromising efforts for planet-scale remedies by that industry and governments entrusted to deal with them.
They are in a a conflict of interest that undermines efforts to engage in planet-scale remedies.
For example, the climate crisis.
Business and government are driven by scarcity economics and have based their progress in growth. That’s growth of economic performance or shareholder value. Many times, growth is legally mandated when growth is threatened by the scope and cost of a climate remedy. If your first priority is growth, then all other priorities like human health and the environment come second.
If the climate crisis were actually bad for business, both business and government would have different strategies. Middling or ineffective strategies, that activities that driven protesters to march, are evidence that climate change is not yet a threat to growth or value. We might argue, instead, that a climate crisis is good for business, value and growth — at least until it is not. So, while business and government can speak to the challenge, its not presently a threat to growth and value, regardless of its threat to human and non-human existence.
Bank of Nature acknowledges a harsh truism for which there is ample evidence of support: That between now and a climate changed future, economy and money will be preserved ahead of all other priorities like human health. That’s a tough love truth which we intend to make a benefit. If a proxy for nature, like a Bank of Nature, is not conflicted by any other priorities that the health of nature to sustain us in perpetuity, how does that help our situation?
We argue that business and government are the wrong advocates for solutions to global pandemics like a climate crisis. They are conflicted out of relevance or effectiveness. Give the responsibility to a proxy for nature that has no such conflict.