4 ms·
Many years ago, I actively engaged the political discussion surrounding carbon markets, as I thought I might be able to help. I've been directly involved in sim
by jandrewrogers 7y ago
Many years ago, I actively engaged the political discussion surrounding carbon markets, as I thought I might be able to help. I've been directly involved in similar types of international negotiations, albeit at a smaller scale and unrelated to carbon markets. Talking to people involved in the carbon market negotiation made it abundantly clear why there will never be a useful outcome.
Most of the governments involved in negotiating a common international agreements on carbon markets unofficially represent for-profit interests seeking advantage in the structure of the carbon market. There is an enormous amount of profit that can be realized here, and the good faith actors are in the minority. This is quite normal even in small international agreements but it becomes exponentially harder to arrive at an agreement that is minimally corrupted with respect to its nominal purpose as the profit incentive to corrupt the agreement increases. The last time I looked in on the current state of the carbon market negotiations, it had been corrupted beyond redemption. I have no faith that something useful will result.
This is why international agreements are unlikely to have a material impact on climate change. International agreements tend to only be effective when there is minimal profit or advantage to be gained by corrupting the purpose of the agreement. Climate change activities simply involve too much money for an international agreement to produce a credible outcome. It is the wrong tool for the job.
- vijaybritto 7y agoIn short: capitalism
- carapace 7y agoI disagree, I think it's just simple greed. Capitalists are more-or-less rational and not unintelligent. Greed explains why e.g. VW would cheat on emissions tests, etc.
- vijaybritto 7y agoCapitalism inevitably leads to consolidation of power and greed.
- philips 7y agoDo you think carbon taxes can work without international agreement? If so what approach gives you hope?
- gfodor 7y agoNot the OP, but the best approach to climate change to me seems to make it so it's more expensive to produce energy that damages the climate. The government's role in this would be to take steps to encourage these kinds of developments. This certainly seems within our grasp, if we had the willpower to disband the top-down approaches being advocated and ones that will never work because it's asking the developing world to ... stop developing. If they don't stop emitting we're all doomed. In contrast, if one or more countries develop a cheaper, clean technology that can be exported globally (perhaps at a cost) all countries would be incentivized to switch to it to save costs, and emissions start to plummet. We need a full court press on getting to next-generation energy sources that stand to be 10x cheaper than existing ones. I'm not sure if you can get there with solar and other renewables alone, but from first principles (ie physics) it sure seems tractable to get there with some combination of nuclear technology and those sources.
- EGreg 7y agoGovernments passing bills like this so people want to increase pivogian taxes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend#Unit...
- phkahler 7y agoCarbon taxes are easy. You tax anyone who pulls it out of the ground or imports it. With international agreements you might drop the import tax and let to source country tax the extraction. The producers will just pass the added cost on to the users. Even this simple solution will be shot down by politics.
- rhegart 7y agoIt’s a fat regressive tax at a time when the lower working class is already rebelling. Invest more in technology and instead increase subsidies and build transmission lines
- option 7y agoSadly, international agreement is the only hope because it is a global problem. For example, if California will go 0 emissions tomorrow, it will hardly matter if the rest of the world would remain on the current trajectory.
- Consultant32452 7y agoThere will never be international agreement. No one will agree to put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else. So greener technology will have to become the cheapest option or you'll have to commit mass murder to force other nations to submit against their will.
- skitout 7y agoIf Burundi goes 0 emissions tomorrow it hardly matters If California does, it matters : - It shows it is possible, and increase political pressures on others - It create a pressure and market (California is big enough and Burundi or Alaska are not) for new solutions (technology based or not) that can be implemented elsewhere - It help decreasing the cost of many existing solutions, and everybody will benefits from it - It is possible to set up carbon tax at the border, increasing the incentive to follow California path
- jacinabox 7y agoRight when you or I look at it we say that the biggest producers need to buy the most carbon credits. When coal and manufacturing look at it they say those industries need the most exemptions because they emit the most carbon.