OneLaw.Earth

Net zero: All greenhouse gases emitted by humanity are compensated by us ( World Resource Institue: What Does "Net-Zero Emissions" Mean? 8 Common Questions, Answered).

As of today, no one can definitively answer the feasibility with a "Yes" or "No". However, there is much evidence to suggest it is possible.
Studies by renowned institutions show how "net-zero" can be achieved, for example, in the entire energy sector (IEA: Net Zero by 2050). Viewed globally and across all sectors, the answer depends on many assumptions and requires much more extensive research.

This is where OneLaw.Earth comes in, because given the clearly predicted consequences of the current path and the revenues generated from it, our goal is to turn the question around.

The question "Is it feasible?" protects the status quo by posing the task:
"Prove to me that it's possible.",
but without directly addressing anyone.

For this question to be answered, it must be reversed.
With every vote for OneLaw, with every even small country that adopts OneLaw, and with every day that the likelihood increases that net-zero will become mandatory, the burden of proof will shift, and the question will be directed at the companies and their fossil fuel-generated financial resources:
"Prove to us that it's not possible."

We are eager for more and more detailed studies on feasibility and will, as part of the planned wiki, compile a catalog of all scientifically based studies on the subject.
Both Pro and Contra, because studies that identify obstacles on the path to net-zero are particularly valuable as starting points for new solutions and innovations.

We believe that science and innovation are the key, not dogma and conservatism.

We believe that humanity can overcome this challenge and emerge stronger and more united than ever before.

Our goal is that during the voting and implementation phase of OneLaw, both the fossil fuel industry and the supporters of OneLaw will conduct extensive studies on this issue. Thus, by the time the final decision on the introduction of OneLaw is made, we will have a sufficiently solid body of studies.

If this question concerns you, you may have already read the question Is climate neutrality (net-zero) feasible? The considerations are similar because it is less about whether this question can be definitively answered today and more about what impact an increasing probability of net-zero can have on the answer.

If feasibility is confirmed, then the answer to "When" will largely depend on how much focus humanity gives to the issue.
This is exactly where OneLaw can be the "game changer."
OneLaw aims to change the status quo, the starting point of all considerations.

As of today, significant companies in the global economy are still thinking about how they can push back the point at which they must act through lobbying, marketing, non-binding commitments, and other approaches.
During the remaining and prolonged time in the fossil era, where the nearly cost-free use of the atmosphere is possible, it is de facto mandatory for every company to maximize its profits within these parameters. A few companies will use climate goals as a marketing or capital market measure, even fewer will commit to it driven by their own morality, but most will fully exploit the virtually cost-free resource "atmosphere" to the extent that it leads to higher revenues or lower costs.

This is, neutrally speaking, market economy in the status quo.

If global legislation now dictates net-zero as a new reality, this logic would change. Every smart corporate leader and politician would focus more on the question of how they can score in their markets and regions in a net-zero future. There are already convincing examples today of what is possible, and we will compile an overview of successful and smart solutions in our wiki.
We believe in the innovative power of humanity, and the market economy will ensure a rapid transition.

Once the countless innovation departments and startups, with all their current and future smart approaches, have a predictable net-zero market ahead of them, once investors can factor in OneLaw and the success stories in this area become unavoidable, and once people focus their education on this market because millions of workers are needed for the transition to a net-zero economy, then a new "economic miracle" will be almost inevitable.

And to give a little reason to celebrate: According to the World Economic Forum, 8 countries are already operating net-zero.

That might make sense. We assume that the body of studies will continue to improve, allowing humanity to answer precisely what it would bring if we removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to varying extents.

However, it will become considerably easier to address this question once we, as humanity, have first achieved climate neutrality.
Our goal is to make OneLaw.Earth as simple and effective as possible. Similar to the question Why start with 50%?, the net-zero economy is a clearly defined and understandable objective.

From the moment we achieve net-zero, our actions will no longer harm the planet. We can once again focus on opportunities like in the 70s, 80s, and 90s of the last century. The question of whether, with this success and the technological capabilities behind us, we want to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a certain level is something future generations can address.

This issue is too urgent for us to allow ourselves to wait until everyone is on board. But where do you draw the line?
The majority is the next logical alternative if you don't want to engage in endless and ultimately pointless discussions.
It was clear from the outset: It's not about half of the people, but about the economy as the cause of the problem.
What good would it do if 50% of humanity wanted the change and adjusted their laws, but they lived in regions of the world that only contribute a fraction of the problem?

The important thing is: Half of the world economy should only be the beginning. Any company that wants to export from the "other half" to the climate-neutral economic zone will have to plan for additional costs, requirements, and tariffs to ensure climate neutrality.
A constant competitive disadvantage.
As a result, sooner or later, the demand of the people for the law will be accompanied by the desire of companies to be able to serve all markets again. This way, the global market helps to ensure that more and more countries, regardless of their forms of government, join the climate-neutral economic zone.

This question could be broadened even further:
How is it supposed to work in countries where there are no grassroots democratic initiatives, such as petitions or referendums?

Both in democracies, monarchies, and even dictatorships, the rulers must constantly weigh whether they want to expand or reduce the support and goodwill of the population through a decision and what the cost of that decision is. Who knows, perhaps the world will surprise us, and the first country to introduce OneLaw will be a monarchy whose ruler decides, based on the country's situation or other reasons, that OneLaw is the right path.

OneLaw.Earth can show the rulers, in any case, what the mood is like in their population.
In countries with grassroots democratic possibilities, we can then proceed to implementation. In all other countries, we will have to wait for the rulers' response.

However, when it comes to the rulers' decision, another lever must be considered, which is also a crucial aspect in the question Why start with 50%?:
The moment it becomes apparent that 50% of the world economy, and therefore over 50% of my potential export market, is deciding for OneLaw, every country must decide whether to continue trading smoothly with this part of the world economy or whether to subject its companies to the additional challenges that arise when the climate neutrality of goods and services upon import into the net-zero trade zone must be individually proven or compensated based on worst-case estimates.

If they respond to us, we've taken the first step - they take all of us who voted at OneLaw.Earth seriously and consider progressive climate legislation in line with OneLaw as a realistic possibility they must respond to.

If we have achieved that, the projects dealing with their own future in a net-zero world will likely be expanded within these companies. More than 30 years after Kyoto, every serious company has project teams or at least plans on the subject in the drawer. That would also be entirely positive, as it would give more influence and resources to the voices within these companies that are thinking in the direction of change - because there are such voices in every one of these companies.

Other parts of these companies will try to discredit us and the net-zero idea or find other ways to make the issue disappear again.
Then it will depend on the people. On how strongly people speak out for it, how much and what kind of attention the press, bloggers, and people with reach give to the idea.
OneLaw.Earth does not see itself as an institution to implement net-zero climate legislation worldwide - quite the opposite, we do not believe that there is any institution today capable of doing so.
OneLaw.Earth can only be the voice of the people. If enough people see the urgency, but also the opportunity, of a net-zero vision, it will be the merit of humanity if we succeed!

Looking at the introduction of OneLaw, there is only one possibility of who can be behind it to make it happen:
A sufficiently large proportion of people in a group of countries that together represent more than 50% of the world economy.

If the question is who is behind OneLaw.Earth, then we recommend visiting the About us page.

We wanted to make OneLaw as simple and comprehensible as possible. In the end, the question remained what would happen if OneLaw relatively quickly reaches more than 50% of the world economy and thus companies are confronted with a substantial change in their business practices at very short notice. When we say relatively quickly, we still assume several years to reach people and legislative processes, but the transition to climate neutrality will perhaps be the greatest assignment for the world economy it has ever faced.
Against this background, we wanted to allow for an additional buffer and were, for the first time, at the point of having to choose a number that wasn't obvious.
It was clear that it should be in the range of a few years, but would 3 be enough or would 5 be too much?
There were discussions, and so we turned to Douglas Adams and used the 42, the answer to life, the universe, and everything. At the same time, we agreed that this number would not be touched under any circumstances because any discussion on this would open the door to discussions on all aspects. Discussions on timeframes and thresholds have been used in all previous negotiations of the global community to torpedo meaningful solutions. The message of OneLaw is simple:
42 months after reaching 50%, only net-zero can be traded.
There are no "absolute facts," at most opinions that would inevitably make another formula better. Anyone who starts a discussion here - even if they would have liked to shorten the period - is inadvertently or deliberately working against the basic idea of OneLaw.Earth and should simply vote against it.

The biggest cost is probably psychological:
Finally, we could do all the things we want to do without thinking about them. No more constant bad conscience. Finally, our mere existence would no longer be a threat to the future of the planet and our children.
We would be the generation that saved the future from our past selves. Porcelain shattered - but at least cleaned up again.

But there is, of course, also a financial cost. Or rather, a cost we wouldn't have to pay. Here are some studies on the expected costs that we already have on our books today:

• World Economic Forum: Climate change is costing the world $16 million per hour: study
• Harvard Gazette: Revising the cost of climate change
• World Economic Forum: Quantifying the Impact of Climate Change on Human Health

With each passing day, these will only grow larger.

But you might also be interested in the cost we will have to pay. We will create a dedicated section in the new wiki to explore this question from various perspectives and back it up with studies. Generally, most people are surprised that the actual additional costs are significantly lower than the public discussion suggests. This article provides a nuanced view of the topic from different perspectives: Does climate protection harm economic growth?

Science is at the core of our considerations. If it should one day turn out that global warming is neither man-made nor influenced by us, or does not affect our future or the planet's future, we would stop the project. Don't get your hopes up.
If there is anything else fundamentally against this project, we would also stop it. Let's wait and see.
It is important that you know that research and science are the basis of our activities and that we will always be transparent about it.
Therefore, we will collect and link research in the relevant areas in the wiki. Both Pro and Contra. Because every argument against OneLaw must also be critically and fairly assessed.
The only important thing is that it is serious science and not opinion masquerading as science.

Each individual can change many things in their private life to reduce their CO2 emissions today. We will also create a section in the wiki to provide suggestions and link to organizations and initiatives that address this topic.

However, the focus of this project is to introduce climate legislation that takes this decision out of the hands and minds of people and ensures that whatever we do, everything is climate-neutral.
Just as we don't want to think about whether the food we buy in the supermarket might be contaminated with bacteria and we rely on the state to ensure a certain minimum level of hygiene, so we see it as the task of legislation to ensure that our daily consumer choices do not work against the planet and the livelihoods of future generations.

Back to the question, what can I do?
The first and most important thing is to vote.
Beyond that, you help onelaw.earth by informing as many people as possible about it.
And if you want to do even more, then contact us at support@oneLaw.earth.