7 ms·

If only countries could work together to institute a global carbon tax. Pollute too much - pay the tax. Don't pollute - great and, if you are poor/developing, h

• withinboredom 6y ago
  It’s amazing they could all come together to make sure people couldn’t pirate movies and music and video games. But save the planet? Nah.
• bryanlarsen 6y ago
  We don't need anywhere near global consensus, a small group of nations can start. The idea is called a "climate club", and it won William Nordhaus a Nobel Prize. https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
• AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  The problem is the largest CO2 polluting country is unwilling to join any such agreements. This is true now and it was true 30 years ago.
  • vkou 6y ago
    So levy punitive tariffs against it, and anyone else who does not sign onto a carbon tax.
    • RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
      I don’t think the Europe Union really wants a trade war with the US. Basically, Germany is the weak spot in this. They are an export driven economy and a US embargo on Germany would be devastating.
      • AlchemistCamp 6y ago
        The US isn't the largest CO2 emitter, though it used to be. China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing.
        • seanwilson 6y ago
          > China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing. China's population is 1.4 billion compared to 330 million for the US though. Surely you should be comparing this relative to population size (China is four times bigger) and countries with smaller emissions per person should be recognised as doing well?
        • wahern 6y ago
          China's per capita CO2 emissions are still 1/2 that of the U.S. More importantly, neither the Chinese government nor powerful Chinese politicians deny anthropogenic climate change. And they've recently recommitted to nuclear energy expansion despite growing public fear after Fukushima and a subsequent rise in costs as Chinese regulatory policies became more strict. Part of the reason for the gap in nuclear construction in recent years, separate from Fukushima, seems to have been growing trade tensions with the U.S. Now that construction and approvals have resumed, it seems like China has decided to ditch almost all foreign designs and only build their "homegrown" AP1000 derivative. Unlike American politicians, Chinese politicians haven't forgotten the art of turning lemons into lemonade. Nuclear, solar, electric cars--they're using the transition to bolster and develop their industrial sectors. As countries should be making many of these investments anyhow to hedge and supplement the often myopic and short-sighted pursuits of the free market, the net costs to abandoning the fossil fuel economy can be significantly reduced. (In retrospect the contracts for American nuclear plants were probably handouts, anyhow, intended to mitigate balance of trade tensions. But with all goodwill having been burned to ash by the current administration, not to mention the collapse of the American nuclear construction industry, it became a pointless gesture.)
          • AlchemistCamp 6y ago
            Mother nature doesn't handicap for overpopulation. The earth has a carrying capacity, locally, regionally and globally, and a high population density does nothing to increase it.
  • socialdemocrat 6y ago
    Put taxes on imports from big polluters. That will make them tow the line. Frankly it should have been the approach from the start to avoid need for cooperation.
• jnxx 6y ago
  Each country can do this on their own and tax fossil energy imports at the border. This should include embodied energy, or "gray energy", in materials like steel, aluminum and cement.