3 ms·
This is where border adjustments come into play. We can, for example, implement a carbon tax in the US and impose a tariff on goods from other countries depend
by NumberWangMan 5y ago
This is where border adjustments come into play. We can, for example, implement a carbon tax in the US and impose a tariff on goods from other countries depending on their own environmental policies. This serves as a way to put pressure on all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions together.
In fact, the EU is in the process of doing this right now, and China is definitely reacting to it (not happy, but it seems like the Chinese government is looking toward expanding their existing policies to cover more industries in an attempt to avoid the EU border adjustment).
Another way to look at it is that given how much the USA has already contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, China would need to continue at their current levels for another 30 or so years before they catch up with us -- and that's with about 4x the population.
I understand that that argument may not be persuasive to some, though, because a lot of the manufacturing and technological development that took place in the USA over that time benefited many countries. And a lot of those emissions took place prior to the wide knowledge of how serious climate change is.
So I'd really say that we should aim for net zero emissions because it's the right thing to do. Everyone has to do it, and it's not going to happen if we all stand around waiting for someone else to go first. There is a pretty massive amount of emissions cutting we could do without much effort at all, and if the rest is spread out over a number of years, the cost will be very small, and will have a lot of benefits to people's health. (Climate change is not the only negative externality of burning fossil fuels by a long shot.)
The place to start is a carbon tax. I highly recommend that everyone who cares about climate change call congress (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-about-the-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-ab...) and ask them to support a carbon tax.
- bookofsand 5y agoHow does the life of the average human looks like in a world with net zero emissions? How is that life different than subsistence farming? We need to articulate the future, not wax poetically toward some vague economic abstractions. Unless we can articulate some hopeful answer to this question, nothing consequential will change. People really do not want to live as subsistence farmers.
- throw0101a 5y ago> How does the life of the average human looks like in a world with net zero emissions? For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable: * https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx If you go further toward "passive house" you can have 5000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m.) of living area and only need 1500W (a hairdryer) to heat it: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA Residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States: * https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122 IMHO there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in just efficiencies that can be plucked before lifestyle sacrifices would need to be made.
- bookofsand 5y agoThis is an excellent answer. The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption? https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThere is always a reason why <insert groundbreaking and game changing technology> has not been widely adopted. If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage. I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
- throw0101a 5y agoPassive house is a very high standard, and I do not think it is very practical to do it at large scale. Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.