Yaron thanks for your response. Firstly I don't see it as an idea, it's something any systems Engineer doing the work I've done would see as a fix, in the same way as if we analysed a broken machine, and found what was broken, what is needed for the fix becomes obvious. This story comes about following a formal Systems Engineering study of the human economic system and the economic system of nature, energy is the currency of nature, all living things fundamentally live on energy, abstracting and ennumerating energy by embodying it with various physical media. We do this with money, whether we knew it or not, it's always been energy which is conveyed by money, physically. The energy price in markets is a reasonable way to quantify the energy content of money. Nutrients in plants already do what the study shows we need to do with money to complete the function of becoming photosynthetic as a species, which appears to be the way we are being pushed to do by nature, we are adapting to energy depletion in the environment in the only way we can, by moving our energy dependence from the Earth to the energy of the sun. The story is a numerical quantitative confirmation that this is what is happening.
So to me it's more an observation than an idea.
So the answer to the first of your questions is yes, we would be tying money down to something physically quantifiable and measurable in a way that we could audit all energy in the system, and compare with all money, to know if we'd issued too much, or not enough, to accurately ennumerate energy. The energy value in money is another way of evaluating the effect of inflation on money, always in any case. We have to accept that money will devalue in terms of energy, as long as the energy value in money depletes, as it is depleting, as things stand.
Energy quantifies what we can physically do with money, at any time.
To answer your second question we need to separate out energy added to the planet and ennumerated as things other than heat, by nature from the sun, and energy subtracted from the planet by us, and other things "de-ennumerating" it to heat (heat being what the sunlight becomes, if nothing ennumerated it to anything, in other words, if nothing used it)
Here we should notice there is a connection with heat, temperature goes up, with less energy ennumerated as things other than heat.
So we have to mathematically sign energy to show when it is being added to the economic system of nature, and when it's being subtracted.
When we take it from the planet in any way at all, it has to be negative, because this is de-ennumeration of it from things previously used by nature, to heat. Some folk will try to claim a flaw in this logic, by saying there are sources of energy on the planet that never came from the sun, based on the big bang theory and accretion. But the big bang theory is just a theory, recall, it's never been physically proven, whereas we can measure and audit temperature and energy on Earth. It matters that the sums stack up on the planet, for our survival. If that conflicts with an unproven theory, then it's the theory that needs adjusted, I think.
Further to that, greenhouses gases are still just a theory. There is no conclusive proof that those are really to blame for temperature rise, whereas we are seeing how to calculate temperature rise just by auditing the system in terms of energy, which is indisputable, it even fits perfectly into thermodynamics, we have confirmed in lab experiments that energy, temperature, and information, are all related minimally by a fixed fraction of Boltzman's constant per bit of information created or destroyed, the temperature goes up by 0.69 x Boltzman's constant for every bit of information destroyed, and down for every bit created. So we might say nature always had a lie detector, and the burning planet is perfectly predictable, given we know we live in an imaginary world created of lies, the penalty is the burning planet. It's also something that would be seen with scorn by other intelligent species of life that had got as far as being interplanetary, they would see our burning planet, and know we were burning up as a result of an "intelligent" species that basically lives by lying to itself.
In the end, it's the physics of nature we run up against, when all the lying is done, and everything is brought to account.
Anyhow, the end result of signing all energy flows, gives us the result that only solar energy is positive. It's the only one we can use to decrease entropy and the maths fits perfectly with entropy, which is fundamental to thermodynamics.
The only way we can reduce entropy, is by using the energy of the sun. We reduce it by doing things with it, ennumerating it as things other than heat.
So money, by rights, as stands, should be mathematically signed, to show that the energy it currently ennumerates, is negative as stands, it's a product of profit, which comes exclusively extracted from the planet, since only the planet provides more out in response to a little put in (The sun can't do that - it just gives what it gives, nothing is put in).
So we should recognise profit by itself is the thing unsustainable, this is what is really pushing up temperature, it's destruction by definition, it is actually monetised destruction, and all money ennumerating it, should be mathematically signed negative, to honestly show this.
Whether we do or not, as availabilty of things to de-ennumerate continues to deplete, money has to either decrease in circulation, to correspond with depleting energy availability and increasing temperature, or the energy value in it will continue to decrease.
Either way it has to continue to devalue, despite this being a seemingly ridiculous outcome, since the actual energy being put to use, solar, is ramping up physically, it's counterintuitive to think money is devaluing, but it is, until it is issued honestly, for the energy being put to use.
Finally, nature insists we tell the truth, it seems to me.