She may have just saved us all. Don't be judgy.

Very cool. I actually have a GlobalCarbonReward.org game in development (each player is a country).

If we can backstop banks to prevent collapse,
why can’t we backstop climate mitigation to prevent irreversible risk?

Link to full paper in the blog post below. Please share widely, we are a small 'think tank' and need partners and funding to make this real

deltonchen.substack.com/p/new-econom...

The carbon reward is best understood as
mitigate-and-trade, not cap-and-trade.
The traded asset represents verified climate service, not permission to pollute

GCR reframes climate action from sacrifice to risk management—similar to how we fund disaster insurance or emergency financial backstops.

In fact, XCR should make an excellent climate hedge for institutional investors. When we're falling behind, the price will rise - predictably

Central banks don’t run climate policy under GCR.
They maintain financial stability while recognizing climate risk—something they’re already moving toward. The same way they support a floor for gold via XAU

GCR doesn’t replace carbon credit markets.
It complements them.
Sticks for efficiency.
Carrots for scale and cooperation.
And XCR are grants that can help EMDE markets gain balance of trade benefits for their natural assets, resulting in a net flow of value from north to south.

Under GCR:
• Projects deliver verified carbon mitigation
• Rewards are issued as assets (XCR)
• A public authority sets rules
• Central banks only defend a price floor for XCR.
• No direct costs to governments or individuals!

Offsets shuffle claims and are prone to green-washing (some think inevitably)
Subsidies depend on public budgets and at the scale needed, high inflation.
GCR issues rewards only after verified mitigation, without zero-sum accounting. No offsets are possible.

We don’t lack climate solutions.
We lack **bankable certainty** at scale.
GCR focuses on one missing ingredient: a predictable, long-term price signal for mitigation.

Carbon taxes target damages that are direct, and basic.

But climate change also creates cascading cycles of systemic risks—political gridlock, finance gaps, tipping points. This creates a "Self-reinforcing Cycle of Inaction"

GCR is designed to price those risks, not just past harm

If carbon pollution is a systemic risk, why do we treat mitigation like a niche market? And then try to solve it with easily weaponized taxes and caps?
GCR treats climate stability as preventive insurance—not charity, not punishment.

Although it has a starring role in The Ministry for the Future as "the carbon coin" or "carboni", the Global Carbon Reward (GCR) is not a currency and not crypto.
It’s a policy mechanism developed over a decade, that issues reward assets for real climate mitigation, with a long-term price floor.

Did someone say central banks ?

open.substack.com/pub/deltonch...

It's real. And so is Dr Chen. But it's not a coin, nor a currency and we may use blockchain for MRV but it's not part of the proposal.

And he just published a 163pp policy working paper.

He's not here, but I'm a volunteer. AMA

open.substack.com/pub/deltonch...

My dream is we need energy asset substitutions as envisioned by globalcarbonreward.org to counter stranded assets, Jevons paradox, and political resistance to make any real progress on climate