5 ms·

Americans also consume way more per capita than Europeans. For future trade deal deliberations, EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not

Americans also consume way more per capita than Europeans. For future trade deal deliberations, EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. It's astonishing how much impunity US gets on not doing anything of value in regards to the Climate crisis. China leads in solar rollout, China leads in EVs. China leads in HSR. EU leads in building codes/insulation/heat pump adoption (you can't import most of the heat pumps into US because uhh scary refrigerant is being used!).

throwaway11460 2y ago
China also leads in coal, oil and gas.
- shortsunblack 2y ago
  As they can. It is still largely a developing country with half the population in poverty. If we are to take United States' historic emissions and equalize it to per capita, China can pollute at current rate till death of universe. This inconsequential of an argument you are making. Green colonialism is not desirable.
gruez 2y ago
>EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. I get the justification for a carbon border tax is to equalize the cost difference between a country that has a carbon tax vs one that doesn't, so manufacturers from the country with carbon tax isn't disadvantaged, but what's the justification for enacting taxes just because the country's citizens are polluting? Is it just a "we don't like what you're doing" tax?
- jijijijij 2y ago
  Because pollution is of global consequence?
  - gruez 2y ago
    You can make the same argument for any other geopolitical reason, eg. "American imperialism" or whatever
    - jijijijij 2y ago
      Begging the question. Obviously, some geopolitical issues are subject to trade agreements and legislation. While "American Imperialism" is an intangible concept, pollution very much is not. What can and cannot be made for an argument depends mostly on economic/geopolitical leverage, not faulty categorical thinking. With less adversarial framing, you could think of it as finding common ground for an intermingled future.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >Begging the question. Explain? Countries invoking "American Imperialism" isn't exactly an unheard of concept. The point isn't whether "American Imperialism" or "pollution" is objectively true, it's whether other countries would invoke those reasons to set up retaliatory tariffs. >While "American Imperialism" is an intangible concept, pollution very much is not How about something more concrete like "EU/NATO enlargement", "Chinese spying", or "tech giants (who are mostly American) spreading misinformation"? >With less adversarial framing, you could think of it as finding common ground for an intermingled future. That's a nice thing to hope for, but isn't the world we live in. Countries who have the tariffs applied to them aren't going to interpret them as "common ground for an intermingled future", they're going to think it's the opening shot of a trade war.
TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
That's not going to work, because USA is exporting very little while EU is exporting quite a lot, so you would make EU exports not competitive and replaced by cheaper alternative.

throwaway11460 2y ago

China also leads in coal, oil and gas.

shortsunblack 2y ago
As they can. It is still largely a developing country with half the population in poverty. If we are to take United States' historic emissions and equalize it to per capita, China can pollute at current rate till death of universe. This inconsequential of an argument you are making. Green colonialism is not desirable.

gruez 2y ago

>EU must demand US pay for its pollution. Carbon credits, but not for goods, but individuals. Tax the carbon of imports, too. I get the justification for a carbon border tax is to equalize the cost difference between a country that has a carbon tax vs one that doesn't, so manufacturers from the country with carbon tax isn't disadvantaged, but what's the justification for enacting taxes just because the country's citizens are polluting? Is it just a "we don't like what you're doing" tax?

jijijijij 2y ago
Because pollution is of global consequence?
- gruez 2y ago
  You can make the same argument for any other geopolitical reason, eg. "American imperialism" or whatever
  - jijijijij 2y ago
    Begging the question. Obviously, some geopolitical issues are subject to trade agreements and legislation. While "American Imperialism" is an intangible concept, pollution very much is not. What can and cannot be made for an argument depends mostly on economic/geopolitical leverage, not faulty categorical thinking. With less adversarial framing, you could think of it as finding common ground for an intermingled future.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Begging the question. Explain? Countries invoking "American Imperialism" isn't exactly an unheard of concept. The point isn't whether "American Imperialism" or "pollution" is objectively true, it's whether other countries would invoke those reasons to set up retaliatory tariffs. >While "American Imperialism" is an intangible concept, pollution very much is not How about something more concrete like "EU/NATO enlargement", "Chinese spying", or "tech giants (who are mostly American) spreading misinformation"? >With less adversarial framing, you could think of it as finding common ground for an intermingled future. That's a nice thing to hope for, but isn't the world we live in. Countries who have the tariffs applied to them aren't going to interpret them as "common ground for an intermingled future", they're going to think it's the opening shot of a trade war.

TheLoafOfBread 2y ago

That's not going to work, because USA is exporting very little while EU is exporting quite a lot, so you would make EU exports not competitive and replaced by cheaper alternative.