Hello Aniya,

The first two questions are pretty simple, really - solar, wind, geothermal, fusion,...the list is pretty long. It could also be defined as non-fossil and non-fission. Who counts? The same people that count it today..power cos., national and int'l agencies.

Now as to the other, more complicated questions:

(3) If you want true sustainability, no money supply beyond that will be allowed. But there has to be a very long transition period, too. Eventually, imagine a currency that is backed by say, 1 Greenback = 100 000 "green" BTU. This is not so far-fetched as it sounds: the US dollar today depends on oil for its global reserve status. Who and how stops money supply? The same people who regulate it today: central banks.

(4) Yes it can, and that is very intriguing because it IS feasible, by comparison with a single, global currency. It could happen thus: say today the split in production between "black"/"green" energy is 95%/5% and that production (in BTU) is rising 5%/20% respectively.

The "strictest" money supply policy would only allow M3 to rise by only 5%*20%= 1%. That would be so restrictive right now it would immediately throw the economy into a deep recession.

The "loosest" policy would be 95%*5% + 5%*20% = 5.75%. This would accomplish nothing.

A "transition" policy would be something like this: (1/2)*95%*5% + 5%*20% = 3.375%, i.e. you "penalize" black energy by 50%. At the very start of the transition period that "penalty" could start at 5% and rise gradually.

Monetarism with a twist..."green" monetarism.

Regards