> If oil was $10000 per barrel, they would power ships with nuclear or gasp wind power just like before. Great! Nuclear and wind are both carbon-neutral. I wo

> If oil was $10000 per barrel, they would power ships with nuclear or gasp wind power just like before. Great! Nuclear and wind are both carbon-neutral. I would be very satisfied with that. > But the concept that stuff from 5000 miles away "should" be more expensive, and that we should make policy based on that assumption, is just ridiculous. No, that's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that stuff that has caused more carbon emissions 'should' be more expensive, and conversely, stuff that caused less carbon emissions 'should' be (relatively) less expensive. How many miles that stuff happened to travel is only material to the discussion insofar as transport tends to cause carbon emissions.