Many donors would even donate more if they knew for sure that their descendants will have a descent life. Organisations which are promoting the creation of  foundations or normal insurances could provide a financial service that assures a certain minimum living standard for descendants of donors. Contrary to ordinary pension schemes the descendants would only receive an allowance when they are really in a situation of financial need. Thus the donor would be sure that his descendants do not just lay back and do nothing. At the same time he would not need to use so much of his fortune to assure a descent life for his descendants. Many of the descendants will work or build up their own fortune, without wanting to rely on the financial security scheme. Thus there is less money needed to assure a minimum living standard for all descendants than it is needed to obtain the same effect by heritages.

Road trains could run at the authorised speed along the motorways. Before the exits, they reduce the speed. At the exit their cranes will set out the small cars whose drivers  want to get off the road train. The cranes would set the cars previously taken on board on a parallel lane. On the lane, the cars would be steered for a while automatically, before the driver takes over control again. Small cars whose drivers want to get on the road train wait, a bit further down, on the parallel lane. A software operating from the road train would take over the control of the small car and make it speed up to the road trains moderate speed. At this moderate speed, one of the cranes of the road train takes the small car and puts it on a free place of the road train.

Road trains could reduce the number of accidents, but above all reduce fuel consumption of vehicles. The small cars would not need as powerful engines. The joint transportation of many vehicles would be more energy efficient than letting each of them run on their own.

A world product label or world product approval based on the cumulative fulfilment of regional requirements would improve marketing chances for industry and product quality and reduce risks for environment and human health.

World product labels or approvals 

Harmonisation of technical requirements for products in Europe and worldwide has proven to be very cumbersome. The reason for this is that each country or region wants to maintain its domestic requirements as a minimum requirement without being obliged to accept any other requirements deemed unnecessary. 

The principle of the cumulative fulfilment of regional requirements as a basis for a world product label as marketing tool or a world product approval does not hurt the interest of negotiating parties in as much as each of them can maintain lower environmental or safety levels as a minimum for market access on their territories. On the contrary, products fulfilling cumulatively all regional requirements are of a higher performance and a lower risk for human health and environment. They would thus create more benefit and reduce risks on the territories of all countries or regions without creating the obligation to increase minimum requirements. 

A world product label certifying the cumulative fulfilment of regional requirements would be a first step. The label would become a quality mark appreciated by consumers and increasing marketing potentials for industry. 

A world product approval based on the cumulative fulfilment of regional requirements would, in addition, create an immediate market access in all regions or countries.  

This idea is applicable to all areas for which there are no contradicting requirements in the various regions or countries. 

Technical issues have to be solved as to the permanent renewal or modification of requirements in the various regions and countries.

Industry will use less dangerous substances for its products if a P2P internet database provides comparative information on functionalities and risks.

Comparative risk profiling of substances 

Imagine you are a responsible manufacturer of lemonade, of toys or of shampoo. You would like to use the less harmful appropriate sweetener, the less harmful plasticiser, the less harmful conserving substance. You screen the many databases listed by Toxnet, but none of them answers your question. The current legislative systems dealing with chemical substances are not of much help either. They just distinguish between forbidden and allowed and do not give a comparative picture. Accordingly, a responsible manufacturer cannot easily minimise the risk of doing harm to his consumers or to the environment. 

From the first scientific articles about the potential danger of a substance to the coming into force and application of a legislative ban, the process takes easily five to ten years. In the meantime the dangerous substances get into contact with consumers and the environment and can thus cause damages. Giving responsible manufacturers the possibility to avoid substances which become candidates for a ban reduce these damages and bridges the gap between the first scientific articles about the potential danger and the application of the legislative ban. 

Comparative risk profiling of substances reduces worldwide the risk of health and environmental damages caused by chemical substances used for any industrial application. It does so by allowing responsible manufacturers to choose, for any product type and required functionality, the substance which is most likely to cause no harm. It creates a benchmark for good industrial production so that all manufacturers will, at the end of the day, have to select the substances which are most likely to be harmless.  

First steps could be:

• The creation of an open source database listing substances, functions (sweetening, conserving, plasticising, etc.), product types which allows a comparison of different substances having the same function for a certain product type.
• A worldwide information campaign calling voluntary contributions to the database,
• Another worldwide information campaign inviting manufacturers to use the database in order to decrease the risk for environment, consumers and their work force.

In many other parts of the world people loose their livelihood due to climate change, whatever form it takes: drought, flooding, higher temperature, and storm. In Bangladesh alone millions will loose their ground and their living due to the increase of the sea level. 

Early 2008, an Inuit village in Alaska filed a claim against Exxon and other oil companies to get compensation for their livelihood being damaged the end of permafrost caused by climate change. The claimed compensation amounts to 100.000.000 US Dollar (see www.climatelaw.org). 

To compensate victims of climate change is a matter of justice. To call for compensation and to threaten CO2 emitting companies with lawsuits might deter them from further climate damaging investment. Registration of damages is a condition for both.

Registration of damages in this magnitude cannot be done by one organisation alone. It should be done by many. To facilitate registration, software is needed. 

Climate damage registration addresses two issues:

- The injustice deriving from millions people being considerably damaged by climate damaging industrial activity elsewhere;

- Climate change as such in as much as investors will reduce investment into climate damaging industry. 

Several millions or even hundreds of millions of climate change victims could profit in the long run. The more victims are registered, the better the chance to deter investors from climate damages investment. Deterring from climate damaging investment might help to slow down climate change itself. 

The idea requires the following first steps:

• develop a software facilitating the registration of climate damages,
• launch a information campaign about the possibility to register climate damages on one mother website,
• invite organisations free of charge to launch their own climate damage registration campaign, be it on their own server or on a sub-domain on the mother website.

 
After some years, the following two steps have to be made:

• inform victims and organisations involved in damage registration about legal options in various US States and other countries in the world,
• create a basis for bundling claims so that legal or political action gets cheaper and more effective.

 
Ideally, after some years, a market for climate compensation rights emerges. This market provides for immediate discounted compensation for victims who cannot wait for lawsuits or negotiations to end.