short term funding is at zero, for now, but not long term funding. it's relatively cheap right now, but that may not last (cf "bond vigilantes).

I am not talking about State Debt, which is public borrowing: I am talking about State Credit.

That is what QE actually is: it is not debt, although that is the fundamental misconception of Keynesian and Monetary economists alike. It is akin to a non interest-bearing redeemable share.

State Treasuries may simply spend (under professional management like your good self of course) the necessary development credit either by writing cheques drawn on a central bank or by issuing Treasury notes (eg the US 'greenbacks').

Private banks already do precisely the same thing when they pay staff; other costs; dividends to investors; or when they buy (say) government debt. In other words they both lend and spend credit into existence, creating demand deposits as they do so.

That is how our deficit-based system works.

Jerome a Paris:

But in any case, unitisation will cost more than the sovereign cost of funding, otherwise why would investors do it?

Unitisation of energy is the issue of Units redeemable in payment for energy. (NB to avoid misunderstandings, Units do not secure supply).

There are many billions of dollars already invested in energy, typically through oil and gas Exchange Traded Funds which are generally served (and too often pillaged) by investment banks using structured finance and/or the futures markets.

These ETFs - like any other funds invested in commodities - are 'hedging inflation', and you will understand that like gold, energy offers no return on investment.

Unitisation creates an investment denominated in energy rather than in fiat currency. So it does not necessarily cost more: in fact, the beauty of funding renewable energy in this way is that the Units which are used to fund renewable energy projects or even energy saving projects cost nothing to redeem.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson