3 ms·

More importantly, having an actual price tag on removing carbon from the atmosphere would allow carbon markets to finally work. Assuming there is enough politi

More importantly, having an actual price tag on removing carbon from the atmosphere would allow carbon markets to finally work. Assuming there is enough political will to properly monitor and tax CO2 emissions worldwide, which is a huge ask. A lot of companies and countries will be tempted to lie because it will make their products more competitive.

aunty_helen 5y ago
Cant we see this from space? Estimate the amount of co2 coming from each country that way and send them a bill every year. My first thought was “that’s where auditing and bureaucracy come in” but maybe satellites are a better way
- dymk 5y ago
  CO2 is colorless, odorless, and is produced in many ways, not just from factories or out of tailpipes. For instance, would we want to bill countries with receding glaciers which release methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas that decays into CO2?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Unless the glaciers are being operated in secret, couldn't we just calculate their emissions and not count them against that country?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Is "we" the united states sending a bill to other countries?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterisP 5y ago
  We can measure the total amount, but it's rapidly mixing and moving so we can't reliably allocate the CO2 production to states from space measurements, no. Furthermore, countries only are liable for the commitments to which they voluntarily agree in international treaties or get forced to agree with credible threats of excessive violence. As all the climate talks have clearly shown, no one is going to sign a treaty which accepts the obligation to pay such a bill even if it could be accurately calculated; the world simply does not work that way.
  - aunty_helen 5y ago
    >4 km2 (1.5 sq mi) or smaller, 3 times per second. Looks like there's accuracy enough to be able to model this. OCO-3 is apparently observing city level CO2 levels. And the data is available (thanks NASA): https://oco2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/data/OCO3_DATA/OCO3_L1B_Calibration.EarlyR/ https://oco2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/data/OCO3_DATA/OCO3_L1B... As for the human aspect, I think holding carbon trading countries to account when there's been a treaty signed and a financial incentive to do so isn't too far fetched. I also think as the world gets a bit more desperate there will be more motivation. I personally would like to see sanctions on products (like Brazilian beef) but probably that's dreaming.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Okay, I'm surprised by this capacity and it looks really nice - it does not measure emissions, though, but at that resolution perhaps can be used to get a reasonable estimate of them. However, I don't consider is plausible that major carbon-emitting countries will simply agree to sign a treaty in which they will owe a lot of money to others. Currently there have been only some proposals where there would be a financial incentive to trade increases or decreases in the emissions, or to implement financial incentives within a nation or region, where any penalties get paid back to your own budget/economy, and not to third world countries, and even those tend to have a hard time passing. I simply don't consider it plausible that the nations will agree to any major wealth redistribution at a meaningful scale - they can agree to win-win solutions when getting some reasonable benefit or political consideration in return; they can agree to solutions where your problems get fixed and our balance is roughly neutral; they can agree to some charity/support in certain cases (which usually do come with some strings attached) in a limited amount, but not a wealth distribution so large that their own citizens would feel it in their wallets. I also do not think that this will change as the world gets a bit more desperate - there is little overlap between the people and regions who will be the first to get desperate and motivated and the people whom you would want to convince to agree to pay.
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  CO2 no, but spatial imaging is already being used to help create systematic databases of fossil fuel assets. See: https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/spatial-finance-initiative/ https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/spatial-finance-initiative/
makeitdouble 5y ago
This would be a great idea. I think it’s also interesting to trace how much all of it come from really good, simple and forward thinking principles, to slowly become the state we are in now. For instance, following your idea, there will be the issue with countries that produce more CO2 than they can afford, but we can’t make them pay as it would literally be a matter life or death to them. So they get an exception. They then become a beacon of CO2 relocation. We start to pass more laws to limit that trend, but the existing companies will be grandfathered. They then have a monopoly on the scheme, and also find other loopholes, progressively expanding the amount of CO2 they can get away with. During that time, these countries will be more and more CO2 swamped, degrade beyond belief, and someone will be pesting against the demon that thought about taxing countries in the first place. To put my naive ideas out as well, I kinda see economic tricks the same way we say “don’t try to solve social problems through technology”. We should straight get the bigger economies to shoulder infra construction in weaker economies no strings attached. No loan, no debt, no nothing. We’re all extinct anyway if we don’t do it.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  > "We should straight get the bigger economies to shoulder infra construction in weaker economies no strings attached" Who is meant by "we" in this sentence? And in what ways do you consider that it's plausible to "get them to shoulder it" in excess of whatever they freely choose to do? > We’re all extinct anyway if we don’t do it. Citation needed - the IPCC published worst case scenarios are far from extinction, and especially in the countries which would shoulder the burden the expected damage the local consequences are "very bad" in the sense that a few percent decrease in GDP growth is an enormously large economic damage. It's not clear if spending 5% of GDP on that (or much more, if you expect them to "shoulder the burden" as well) would be worth it for them, since they'll have to invest in local mitigations anyway due to the already accumulated greenhouse gases. 5% of global gross product is a lot. For example, it's more than what the world affords to spend on all kinds of education together. It's far more than what would cost to truly eliminate world hunger and most major diseases. It's an order of magnitude more than what the world has devoted for charitable purposes. It's literally the equivalent of mobilizing 400 million people to work only on that thing - if the expected bad consequences of climate change are e.g. 200 million displaced people, then that's very bad, but it's not worth to have 400 million people devote their lives to prevent 200 million from needing to migrate.
pfdietz 5y ago
Global CO2 taxes would be augmented with CO2 tariffs, imposed on countries that didn't impose the taxes or tariffs.
vbezhenar 5y ago
Why do you need any actual price tag? Put it into market. If company releases carbon, it must buy capture carbon futures. If company captures carbon, it can sell capture carbon futures. Add government subsidies, like 98% in 2021, 0% in 2071, so companies have enough time to adapt and restructure their business.

aunty_helen 5y ago

Cant we see this from space? Estimate the amount of co2 coming from each country that way and send them a bill every year. My first thought was “that’s where auditing and bureaucracy come in” but maybe satellites are a better way

dymk 5y ago
CO2 is colorless, odorless, and is produced in many ways, not just from factories or out of tailpipes. For instance, would we want to bill countries with receding glaciers which release methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas that decays into CO2?
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  Unless the glaciers are being operated in secret, couldn't we just calculate their emissions and not count them against that country?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spywaregorilla 5y ago
Is "we" the united states sending a bill to other countries?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 5y ago
We can measure the total amount, but it's rapidly mixing and moving so we can't reliably allocate the CO2 production to states from space measurements, no. Furthermore, countries only are liable for the commitments to which they voluntarily agree in international treaties or get forced to agree with credible threats of excessive violence. As all the climate talks have clearly shown, no one is going to sign a treaty which accepts the obligation to pay such a bill even if it could be accurately calculated; the world simply does not work that way.
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  >4 km2 (1.5 sq mi) or smaller, 3 times per second. Looks like there's accuracy enough to be able to model this. OCO-3 is apparently observing city level CO2 levels. And the data is available (thanks NASA): https://oco2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/data/OCO3_DATA/OCO3_L1B_Calibration.EarlyR/ https://oco2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/data/OCO3_DATA/OCO3_L1B... As for the human aspect, I think holding carbon trading countries to account when there's been a treaty signed and a financial incentive to do so isn't too far fetched. I also think as the world gets a bit more desperate there will be more motivation. I personally would like to see sanctions on products (like Brazilian beef) but probably that's dreaming.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Okay, I'm surprised by this capacity and it looks really nice - it does not measure emissions, though, but at that resolution perhaps can be used to get a reasonable estimate of them. However, I don't consider is plausible that major carbon-emitting countries will simply agree to sign a treaty in which they will owe a lot of money to others. Currently there have been only some proposals where there would be a financial incentive to trade increases or decreases in the emissions, or to implement financial incentives within a nation or region, where any penalties get paid back to your own budget/economy, and not to third world countries, and even those tend to have a hard time passing. I simply don't consider it plausible that the nations will agree to any major wealth redistribution at a meaningful scale - they can agree to win-win solutions when getting some reasonable benefit or political consideration in return; they can agree to solutions where your problems get fixed and our balance is roughly neutral; they can agree to some charity/support in certain cases (which usually do come with some strings attached) in a limited amount, but not a wealth distribution so large that their own citizens would feel it in their wallets. I also do not think that this will change as the world gets a bit more desperate - there is little overlap between the people and regions who will be the first to get desperate and motivated and the people whom you would want to convince to agree to pay.
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
CO2 no, but spatial imaging is already being used to help create systematic databases of fossil fuel assets. See: https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/spatial-finance-initiative/ https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/spatial-finance-initiative/

makeitdouble 5y ago

This would be a great idea. I think it’s also interesting to trace how much all of it come from really good, simple and forward thinking principles, to slowly become the state we are in now. For instance, following your idea, there will be the issue with countries that produce more CO2 than they can afford, but we can’t make them pay as it would literally be a matter life or death to them. So they get an exception. They then become a beacon of CO2 relocation. We start to pass more laws to limit that trend, but the existing companies will be grandfathered. They then have a monopoly on the scheme, and also find other loopholes, progressively expanding the amount of CO2 they can get away with. During that time, these countries will be more and more CO2 swamped, degrade beyond belief, and someone will be pesting against the demon that thought about taxing countries in the first place. To put my naive ideas out as well, I kinda see economic tricks the same way we say “don’t try to solve social problems through technology”. We should straight get the bigger economies to shoulder infra construction in weaker economies no strings attached. No loan, no debt, no nothing. We’re all extinct anyway if we don’t do it.

PeterisP 5y ago
> "We should straight get the bigger economies to shoulder infra construction in weaker economies no strings attached" Who is meant by "we" in this sentence? And in what ways do you consider that it's plausible to "get them to shoulder it" in excess of whatever they freely choose to do? > We’re all extinct anyway if we don’t do it. Citation needed - the IPCC published worst case scenarios are far from extinction, and especially in the countries which would shoulder the burden the expected damage the local consequences are "very bad" in the sense that a few percent decrease in GDP growth is an enormously large economic damage. It's not clear if spending 5% of GDP on that (or much more, if you expect them to "shoulder the burden" as well) would be worth it for them, since they'll have to invest in local mitigations anyway due to the already accumulated greenhouse gases. 5% of global gross product is a lot. For example, it's more than what the world affords to spend on all kinds of education together. It's far more than what would cost to truly eliminate world hunger and most major diseases. It's an order of magnitude more than what the world has devoted for charitable purposes. It's literally the equivalent of mobilizing 400 million people to work only on that thing - if the expected bad consequences of climate change are e.g. 200 million displaced people, then that's very bad, but it's not worth to have 400 million people devote their lives to prevent 200 million from needing to migrate.

pfdietz 5y ago

Global CO2 taxes would be augmented with CO2 tariffs, imposed on countries that didn't impose the taxes or tariffs.

vbezhenar 5y ago

Why do you need any actual price tag? Put it into market. If company releases carbon, it must buy capture carbon futures. If company captures carbon, it can sell capture carbon futures. Add government subsidies, like 98% in 2021, 0% in 2071, so companies have enough time to adapt and restructure their business.