3 ms·

I'm a skeptic of this approach. How do you begin to measure CO2 emissions for the entire lifecycle of a product? I have a hard time believing it wont just benef

• xnx 6y ago
  Would taxing the extraction from the ground address this?
  • adrianN 6y ago
    If you manage to instate a global carbon tax. In the more realistic approach of only having a carbon tax in a couple of countries at first, you need some way to estimate tariffs and rebates for trade purposes.
• xoa 6y ago
  >How do you begin to measure CO2 emissions for the entire lifecycle of a product? You don't, the entire point is that it naturally gets dealt with (or at least, sufficiently) if you simply internalize the emission cost of inputs. You set the price of emitting a ton of CO2 equivalent during energy or material production at the present bid price of industrial scale rapid removal of a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere with some attractive margin (10% maybe, but that could be set by experts), and then the market can figure it out from there. All energy then becomes net neutral, as well as the vast majority of materials, and it's more straight forward to police (though still real work) since law enforcement just need to focus on a smaller number of central points. "CO2 emissions" don't just materialize by magic, they're a result of energy/material inputs to a product. Take care of those and there isn't any need at all to care what people do with the product or for how long. There is no stupid, counter productive moralizing required either about what people do with their luxury energy budget. The goal is that the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays static (or at this point, is lowered back to our optimal standard, then kept steady state). That goal is what should be legislated, not how to reach it.
  • zests 6y ago
    Ok so what if my foobar is manufactured in a foreign country and shipped to the United States by a foreign company? CO2 removal will cost the same no matter which country emits it. Who is going to foot the bill for CO2 manufactured in developing nations? When the farmer says "you have to account for the CO2 removed by my crops to offset my expenses" and then the multinational conglomerate says "you have to account for the CO2 removed by the trees that I am planting" who wins?
    • xoa 6y ago
      >Ok so what if my foobar is manufactured in a foreign country and shipped to the United States by a foreign company? It'll have to be dealt with the same way any other existing cross border standards is? Countries will be able to exert leverage to the extent another country wants access to their markets in all the typical ways. Best would be adopting equivalent or even the same standards for a more efficient multinational effort, but they can also require it for all imports and present an either/or: countries can comply with the rules, including independent inspections and such, and get priced that way. Or alternatively they can get shoved into a very conservative blanket worst case estimate and tariffs imposed accordingly. Ongoing energy usage could of course be handled entirely unilaterally, though countries might choose to pursue tariffs against countries that don't comply. Fairly geographically precise CO2 emissions can be monitored via satellite by any country that wishes to, so everyone can have a clear enough idea of what other countries are emitting. >CO2 removal will cost the same no matter which country emits it. Who is going to foot the bill for CO2 manufactured in developing nations? What do you mean? The market will figure it out on anything imported, that's the point of pricing it in. Precisely because capture can happen anywhere equivalently, it's fine to just handle it with money. The current subsidy by externality goes away. Developing nations will still have other cost advantages, and will be on a level playing field with developed world manufacturers when targeting the markets of implementing nations. Some developing nations may even find it extremely profitable to specialize in CO2 capture capacity. As far as who foots the bill if other countries decide to impose it in other ways worldwide, that'd no doubt come up during the process of such a decision. But it will be much cheaper to do so when capture infrastructure is already well developed. >When the farmer says "you have to account for the CO2 removed by my crops to offset my expenses" and then the multinational conglomerate says "you have to account for the CO2 removed by the trees that I am planting" who wins? Neither, because there is no need to account for that. I said industrial-scale rapid removal (and planting crops doesn't have any significant net effect anyway duh). If countries want to simply outright subsidize farmers for national-security reasons or the, they can do that directly.