5 ms·
And how do you make developing countries pay carbon/pollution tax? There is a stage in country's development where the country don't care about environment and
by YetAnotherNick 5y ago
And how do you make developing countries pay carbon/pollution tax? There is a stage in country's development where the country don't care about environment and prioritise on development. All of the developed countries went through that phase from 1700s-1900s. Either we need, say USA, to coercively make country create less pollution(which we know that it generally doesn't work) with military control, or developed countries need to pay developing countries fees for keeping the rivers and air clean. The second option sounds wrong but it is less wrong than alternatives.
- bwb 5y agoImport taxes like the EU is looking at to charge a carbon tax look interesting…
- amatic 5y agoWhat is happening now is, for example, USA/Canada building oil extraction platforms, possibly with fracking, in Botswana. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/20/new-oilfield-in-african-wilderness-threatens-lives-of-130000-elephants https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/20/new-oilf... Maybe the more developed countries should build or invest in power plants from renewable sources, or maybe nuclear, in less developed countries.
- ThomPete 5y agothat require fossil fuels. Ever seen what goes into building a windmill? https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbclid=IwAR14fH2-d17QvtQ9gjs89pxsX16JBKpP6mmuvjokzGiM4Wxh1_CJE0aXY0k https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbc... We are not even theoretically close to getting off oil, gas or coal.
- amatic 5y agoIs nuclear a better option then?
- ThomPete 5y agoIf it can be built without the draconian regulation you see in the west perhaps. Fossil fuel is still required though.
- amatic 5y agoIf it is safety regulation you're talking about, that is not exactly a plus for the local population. Sure, it is a non-renewable source of power, but it doesn't produce CO2 after it starts to operate. Ideally, it could be even used to capture carbon from air.
- ThomPete 5y agoi am a big proponent of nuclear but less than 20% of any country’s energy needs are electricity.
- toofy 5y agoIf there is ever a good excuse to use fossil fuels its to build something which will deprecate them.
- ThomPete 5y agoI love nuclear but we are not going to deprecate fossil fuels. You can't build neither nuclear nor wind or solar without huge amounts of fossil fuels and again electricity is less than 20% of a country's energy consumption.
- fighterpilot 5y agoYou start with developed countries, and go from there. It's only fair. They've created the most (by far, on a per-capita basis) unpaid negative externalities over the last 200 years, so they should be the first to start paying for it.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThis concept of fairness seems to go against efficiency. As far as any pollution goes, you want to reduce creation and release of new pollutants as well. The old baggage is bad enough. Adding more of it means making the situation worse. So you need to address currently polluting countries as well, because they are very much an important part of the problem. This set partly overlaps with the set of developed countries, partly not.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- SiempreViernes 5y agoHappily this concern largely moot because most emissions are either directly by developed countries or paid for by them in the form of export goods from other countries. It's only a real concern if you are very insistant about calling China and India "developing" countries.
- chriswarbo 5y agoThe ideal solution is to "leap-frog" fossil fuels and go straight to renewables. This is an indirect way for developed countries to "pay developing countries fees for keeping the rivers and air clean"; those "fees" take the form of massive research and development investment to create renewable tech, and massive subsidies to price it below the fossil fuel alternatives. This doesn't need to be charity either; the maintenance cost of renewables can be much lower than the cost of fossil fuels, so they can end up cheaper over the long-term (obviously dependent on the situation). Hence it can be a straighforward loan/investment to set up this renewable tech. When talking about national policy, there are also factors like reducing dependence on oil imports, which can make renewables even more attractive.
- goatlover 5y ago> The ideal solution is to "leap-frog" fossil fuels and go straight to renewables. This is an indirect way for developed countries to "pay developing countries fees for keeping the rivers and air clean"; those "fees" take the form of massive research and development investment to create renewable tech, and massive subsidies to price it below the fossil fuel alternatives. That takes time. Meanwhile coal plants and concrete manufacture will continue as the developing countries grow. Even China has to operate a lot of coal plants to meet its current energy needs. Global C02 emissions likely won't peak for several years, before starting to decline.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoCO2 emissions need to peak no later than 2025 in order to avoid more than 1.5 degrees of warming, according to the IPCC report.
- Throwaway197401 5y agoThey wont. 1.5 degree warming is not major problem we can't fairly easily solve the consequences of.
- ThomPete 5y agoyou cant leapfrog fossil fuels. Wind and solar require backup from either gas, oil, coal or nuclear or it wont be able to provide energy all the time. All you are doing is creating a much more expensive system and you are not getting rid of fossil fuel. Furthermore do you knoe how much fossil fuels goes into building windmills and solar cells? Both from a material and manufacturing perspective. We are not getting of fossil fuels anytime soon. https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbclid=IwAR14fH2-d17QvtQ9gjs89pxsX16JBKpP6mmuvjokzGiM4Wxh1_CJE0aXY0k https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbc...
- cameronh90 5y agoDeveloped countries would need to add import emissions taxes for countries that aren't part of the global emissions trading system. It wouldn't be perfect, but the total amount taxed should roughly correspond to their estimated emissions. We should do the same with international shipping emissions. I'm guessing this would require a change at the WTO level however, making it relatively unlikely.
- aww_dang 5y ago> Either we need, say USA, to coercively... Carbon credits will be enforced with coercion, just as the petrodollar has been. At the end of the day they are both schemes where technocrats print permission slips to consume energy. Putting aside the fear mongering rationalizations for both schemes, I hope posters here can appreciate the inherent moral hazards.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- f00zz 5y ago> There is a stage in country's development where the country don't care about environment and prioritise on development. OTOH renewable energy sources are getting economically competitive so development doesn't have to mean more carbon. For instance, wind power already accounts for 20% of Brazil's energy generation (and most of it was built recently with private capital, as the government has been broke for a few decades already).
- bttrfl 5y agoYou can enforce it using trade bans, don't need military for that. Also, if this would be a global policy then the costs would go globally for everyone making it much easier to cope with since all the competition (on company but also state level) would have the same obligations.
- only_as_i_fall 5y agoUnless you count china in they group it may not be such a problem. If businesses in developed countries had to simply pay the cost of cleanup when importing from countries without their own laws in place, it would still be a massive improvement.