4 ms·

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 a

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/

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/