3 ms·

There's a chance it could make the US be more willing to go out of its way to help and/or push them change course...

BurningFrog 7y ago
Aside from threatening nuclear war, I don't see what power the US has over China or India to do major sacrifices. And that sure looks like a cure worse than the disease to me...
- losteric 7y ago
  The US doesn't need to lift a finger. Climate change will severely disrupt China and India's populations, and likely lead to the collapse of some neighboring nations - it's an existential threat they are motivated to address.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  That's just a lack of imagination. The worst case option is that we pay them to stop. The best case option is that they balance getting their population out of poverty with ensuring they have a population at all in the next 100 years on their own. But there is a massive spectrum of options in there: import-side carbon tariffs to make their goods less competitive, WTO policies to mandate carbon taxes, literally paying them to put emission mitigation in,...
- woodpanel 7y ago
  Although not a popular word these days, but what about tariffs? If First World Country A sees Emerging Market Country B as major contributor to global climate change (affecting A) it could impose tariffs on goods from B. It could be argued, that B’s products were unfairly subsidized by B having no environmental restrictions (from energy production and worker’s health to waste disposal etc). Of course tariffs also hurt A’s citizens - but I’d consider it a fair deal: A’s people pay a price for being convinced that climate change needs to be tackled. At least - considering how climate policy is usually a first world issue while those same countries are only contributing small fractions to world’s share of emissions (ex. USA) - it seems odd that those First world countries usually directly punish their own citizens (that have limited impact on climate change) instead of the main polluters in emerging markets.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    My sarcasm aside, you do have a point. There could really come a point when the US and other countries truly makes this their primary global policy priority, and both make the sacrifices themselves and applies what pressure they have on others to make this happen. My "nuclear attack" option is a caricatured and unrealistic version of this, but a humbler version can certainly happen. Though the problem with these things is that we're talking about a Public Good. In the strict economic sense: I should do something that's bad for me, but good for everybody. These things strongly tend not to get done unless someone is forcing it done. Which leads us to a world government. Which actually scares me a lot more than global warming!

Aside from threatening nuclear war, I don't see what power the US has over China or India to do major sacrifices. And that sure looks like a cure worse than the disease to me...

losteric 7y ago
The US doesn't need to lift a finger. Climate change will severely disrupt China and India's populations, and likely lead to the collapse of some neighboring nations - it's an existential threat they are motivated to address.
scarejunba 7y ago
That's just a lack of imagination. The worst case option is that we pay them to stop. The best case option is that they balance getting their population out of poverty with ensuring they have a population at all in the next 100 years on their own. But there is a massive spectrum of options in there: import-side carbon tariffs to make their goods less competitive, WTO policies to mandate carbon taxes, literally paying them to put emission mitigation in,...
woodpanel 7y ago
Although not a popular word these days, but what about tariffs? If First World Country A sees Emerging Market Country B as major contributor to global climate change (affecting A) it could impose tariffs on goods from B. It could be argued, that B’s products were unfairly subsidized by B having no environmental restrictions (from energy production and worker’s health to waste disposal etc). Of course tariffs also hurt A’s citizens - but I’d consider it a fair deal: A’s people pay a price for being convinced that climate change needs to be tackled. At least - considering how climate policy is usually a first world issue while those same countries are only contributing small fractions to world’s share of emissions (ex. USA) - it seems odd that those First world countries usually directly punish their own citizens (that have limited impact on climate change) instead of the main polluters in emerging markets.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  My sarcasm aside, you do have a point. There could really come a point when the US and other countries truly makes this their primary global policy priority, and both make the sacrifices themselves and applies what pressure they have on others to make this happen. My "nuclear attack" option is a caricatured and unrealistic version of this, but a humbler version can certainly happen. Though the problem with these things is that we're talking about a Public Good. In the strict economic sense: I should do something that's bad for me, but good for everybody. These things strongly tend not to get done unless someone is forcing it done. Which leads us to a world government. Which actually scares me a lot more than global warming!