3 ms·

Usually agriculture is very subsidied everywhere yes because countries want cheap food for stability which is totally understandable. There are nasty side effe

Usually agriculture is very subsidied everywhere yes because countries want cheap food for stability which is totally understandable. There are nasty side effects to that though, the first one being that these subsidies usually are based directly or indirectly on the land size which made less efficient food products like meat much more subsidized than anything else. We'll have to bring some more rational approach there if we want to improve the land use for climate change. And then there's also the utility of the fuel used as you mentioned, there should be a difference of treatment between tractors and private jets indeed. But I don't think it needs to be too precise, cutting the worst offenders and taxing otherwise should be good enough.

Closi 3y ago
That's only one dimension - Another major dimension is country. The same tax applied globally will have very different effects in a third world country to a first world country. Farmers in the USA will react very differently to a 5p per litre tax to farmers in Burundi.
- realusername 3y ago
  As long as taxes are applied in the developed world and the big polluters, the rest (like Burundi) are rounding errors at best.
  - Closi 3y ago
    Well China still sees itself as a developing country, and would make up about 30% of CO2, so it all depends on definitions and international agreement.
    - realusername 3y ago
      I'd argue that China is pretty bad at this, it's a developed country indeed but has the same CO2 per capita as France when excluding the exports, that's a very bad result and that's why it should be included since it's a big polluter. Usually developed countries are emitting less, the cause of that abnormally bad result is the high number of coal plants in China.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Groups like the IMF recommend different pricing floors for low income, middle income, and high income countries: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/05/19/blog-why-countries-must-cooperate-on-carbon-prices#:~:text=The%20ICPF%20proposal%20sets%20price,%2475%20for%20high%2Dincome%20countries https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/05/19/blog-why-co....

Closi 3y ago

That's only one dimension - Another major dimension is country. The same tax applied globally will have very different effects in a third world country to a first world country. Farmers in the USA will react very differently to a 5p per litre tax to farmers in Burundi.

realusername 3y ago
As long as taxes are applied in the developed world and the big polluters, the rest (like Burundi) are rounding errors at best.
- Closi 3y ago
  Well China still sees itself as a developing country, and would make up about 30% of CO2, so it all depends on definitions and international agreement.
  - realusername 3y ago
    I'd argue that China is pretty bad at this, it's a developed country indeed but has the same CO2 per capita as France when excluding the exports, that's a very bad result and that's why it should be included since it's a big polluter. Usually developed countries are emitting less, the cause of that abnormally bad result is the high number of coal plants in China.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Groups like the IMF recommend different pricing floors for low income, middle income, and high income countries: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/05/19/blog-why-countries-must-cooperate-on-carbon-prices#:~:text=The%20ICPF%20proposal%20sets%20price,%2475%20for%20high%2Dincome%20countries https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/05/19/blog-why-co....