4 ms·

It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich t

It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes. Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year. There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 trillion dollars. Wow are we in trouble. Even if we only tried to get half of it out and get neutral, that is a massive amount of money. But the thing is, globally, there does exist probably 10 trillion dollars we can devote to fixing the problem (4 to stop the current bleeding, 6 to start drawing down the existing "debt"). Hopefully we find something cheaper.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> 4 trillion per year. For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient. Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
- PeterisP 5y ago
  It's worth noting that there's no international mechanism where countries can be "given a quota" unless they voluntarily agree to the quota, and there is no mechanism for enforcing compliance to that quota unless countries voluntarily choose to accept some consequences. It's not realistic to expect that such a tax would be paid across borders - by default, every country would pay net zero tax even if they are not net zero on carbon emissions; IIRC all the major emitters have explicitly refused to have climate solutions that involve significant wealth transfers from them to other countries, and there's nothing (IMHO even including extreme violence like WW3) that is likely to force them to do so. It is somewhat realistic (though difficult) to have most countries agree that they will tax polluters under a comparable rules & rates. It's not realistic to expect that they will use that tax revenue on someone else's citizens instead of their own. Also, 5% of gross product is a LOT. For a comparison, that is more than the global spending on education. I have a hard time believing that countries will choose to spend on carbon capture more than what they currently (or ever) invested in developing their citizens' skills.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> 4 trillion per year. For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient. Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

PeterisP 5y ago
It's worth noting that there's no international mechanism where countries can be "given a quota" unless they voluntarily agree to the quota, and there is no mechanism for enforcing compliance to that quota unless countries voluntarily choose to accept some consequences. It's not realistic to expect that such a tax would be paid across borders - by default, every country would pay net zero tax even if they are not net zero on carbon emissions; IIRC all the major emitters have explicitly refused to have climate solutions that involve significant wealth transfers from them to other countries, and there's nothing (IMHO even including extreme violence like WW3) that is likely to force them to do so. It is somewhat realistic (though difficult) to have most countries agree that they will tax polluters under a comparable rules & rates. It's not realistic to expect that they will use that tax revenue on someone else's citizens instead of their own. Also, 5% of gross product is a LOT. For a comparison, that is more than the global spending on education. I have a hard time believing that countries will choose to spend on carbon capture more than what they currently (or ever) invested in developing their citizens' skills.