Quote from: biodieselchris on December 14, 2014, 07:55:16 PM

It would be helpful if folks could email Bittrex and let them know you support GreenCoin and want it to remain active.

oddly with the price down around 3 satoshi, and that price is low obviously, but GRE begins to price carbon for close to what it might be "worth." Per kg it prices CO2 at:

3 satoshi * 1e-8 (BTC/satoshi) * 31,262.22 GRE per kg CO2 * 352 $/BTC = $0.33 per kg CO2

This is equivalent to $2.97 per gallon of gas or $0.36 per kWh produced purely by coal. That is, if you wanted to offset the carbon of utilizing these sources, that would be the cost of the carbon. Obviously GRE is an open market system, so it doesn't require a gov't agency to step in and force a coal company to buy the coins. Instead, it rewards the solar producer or the biofuel producer for offsetting carbon difference with a payment in newly minted GRE, for free. The demand comes from environmentally conscious carbon buyers who want to hold GRE (CO2) for purposes of creating a better world (and doing so with an asset that can change in value, and if it goes up, make a return). If a biofuel producer can receive GRE at the source for producing the biofuel and sell it at parity with gas or diesel at the pump (say $2.50), then they essentially make $5.47 in revenue per gallon. This is how we think we solve the global carbon problem - by adding a social value to the carbon offset for renewable producers. In turn, more producer come on board to receive a piece of the GRE distribution, furthering carbon reduction.

In a global sense, anthropogenic emissions total 35 Gigatonnes, or 35,000 billion kg of CO2. That's a big number, but what does it mean? Well the GDP last year was ~$85 trillion, or $85,000 billion. At $0.33 per kg CO2, 35 GT of emissions = $11.6 trillion or 13.6% of the GDP. The question becomes, is this the price of carbon? The market decides ultimately, but if carbon affects the GDP more than this figure (in terms of net negative climate change affecting productivity) than carbon needs to be more expensive, if it is less than the price should be cheaper.

Another way to look at this number is dividing carbon output by the GDP which equals 0.41 kg CO2 to produce $1 in GDP (equal to 13.6 cents per $1). The mechanism with which GreenCoin has been designed to work is to lower the kg CO2 per $1 in GDP by affecting BOTH sides of this equation: decreasing the carbon output (by incentivizing renewables with free coins) and increasing productivity (GreenCoin does not punish coal and gas like gov't cap and trade and carbon taxes do) instead of hurting it. GreenCoin = LESS carbon and MORE productivity.

Let's consider distributing carbon over the entire global population. There's 7.2 billion folks on the planet so if the mean emission per capita is 4,861 kg CO2 per year, or 13.3 kg per day. Americans produce about 17 tonnes per capita per year, and there is disparate carbon production around the world for sure, so I put that in as well:

Region	kg CO2 per year	kg CO2 per day	GRE per day	USD per day
Global	4,861	13.32	416,000	$4.40
United States	17,000	46.58	1,456,000	$15.38

The world can offset their carbon for $4.40 per day per person, on average, at the current price. Adjusted for actual output, US residents would need to invest $15.38 per day or $5,612 annual each at the current $0.33 per kg of CO2 price of carbon to offset their carbon output with the commensurate productivity outlay.