2 ms·

Let's say government A implements a carbon tax that increases fossil fuel costs by 25%. Government B chooses not to do so. So energy, the driver of the economy,

by beat 12y ago

Let's say government A implements a carbon tax that increases fossil fuel costs by 25%. Government B chooses not to do so. So energy, the driver of the economy, is 25% cheaper for government B, giving them a competitive advantage. Now government A will be under massive internal pressure to abolish the carbon tax, because they're losing market share to the cheap energy of government B. That's why it won't work. Externalized costs are a problem, but they're not a problem we're going to do anything about in a serious way.

crdoconnor 12y ago
Government A will more likely see their market operate in a rational way rather than irrational way. The rational way for its market to respond will be to shift to non-carbon forms of energy generation (which are already pretty much cost competitive without subsidies anyhow). The irrational way would simply be to stop producing and exporting goods because coal is more expensive.
- 67726e 12y ago
  The problem with that line of thought is that it's not going to be cheaper overnight. All the while Government A is plugging along on renewables, driving the price down, Government B is going to be eating Government A's lunch.
  - dirtyaura 12y ago
    If the problem (CO2 pollution) is considered serious enough by multiple governments, Government A can join forces with Government C, D, and E and form a trade agreement against B. They can create a trade embargo against B, or have higher customs tax for products from Government B or other kinds of trade sanctions. Isn't this just international politics 101? EU and US have trade sanctions against Russia at the moment. UN had embargo against South Africa during the apartheid. Environmental issues are no different.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      Let's use a real-world example: China. How likely is that to work out? Now well. China gets cheaper oil, can't be easily coerced by force, and there is a large level of dependence.
      - dirtyaura 12y ago
        First, if it works against Russia, it can work against China. It's just harder. Level of dependence between many EU countries and Russian energy sources are comparable to US trade with China. Second, there's a false assumption in your real-world example that China doesn't want to protect their environment. If the danger is real and serious, they will. Currently they are just playing catch up with economic activity and living standards and at some point the environmental issues will become to focus. There is already raising environmental awareness in Chinese cities due to pollution.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >The problem with that line of thought is that it's not going to be cheaper overnight. Absolutely wrong. Renewables are pretty much cost competitive without subsidies now. What you are saying may have been true 5 or 10 years ago but is not any longer. A tax on carbon would just be a nudge over an already existing tipping point. It would turn a cost/benefit analysis that could go either way into a no brainer. That's what we want.
emodendroket 12y ago
The same could be said for international regulations on, say, fishery. We nevertheless have a system in place that, while flawed, is considerably better than just throwing our hands up.
- beat 12y ago
  Good point, but it's a little different. It works well for fish with well-defined fisheries in territorial waters, but it doesn't work for open ocean species. Bluefin tuna in particular is an example. They often cross oceans to get to breeding grounds, and that water is totally unregulated. It can be fished without regulation or reprisal.
alexqgb 12y ago
This is an absurdly oversimplified scenario that in no way accounts for the broad set of options available to governments faced with other governments operating like this. Let's just say your "Screw it, why bother?" approach is pretty far down the list.
- beat 12y ago
  Reality vs theory - "Screw it, why bother?" is the real-world top result. Do you see a concerted international effort to regulate away our dependence on fossil fuels? Because right now, the only concerted international effort I see is OPEC dumping oil on the market to underprice new competitors out of existence. The "options" of which you speak are mostly what wealthy industrial nations impose on poor and underdeveloped countries. International politics and economics is a seriously hardball game. Sure, it could be better, but it won't be.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    Considering my initial point was that it's only a lack of political will that prevents action, I'm not sure what novel point you're making here.
    - beat 12y ago
      "Lack of political will" ignores the complexity of the situation, when actors are motivated to cheat or exclude themselves from consensus. It's not a far cry from saying we lack the political will to end all wars. I'm an engineer. Rather than complaining about what I wish I could do if I only had the resources, I think about what I can do with the resources that I have. In the case of something like fossil fuel, I think about how to create a less expensive alternative. Truly cheap wind/solar would put oil out of business by default. This is also why I idolize Elon Musk. Rather than complaining about the lack of political will on the part of governments to get humanity off Earth permanently and stop using fossil fuel altogether, he created SpaceX and Tesla, and is making it profitable to solve humanity's deepest problems.
      - 12y ago
venomsnake 12y ago
Government A also taxes the carbon emission on goods produced in B on the border ... example Europe VAT.

by beat 12y ago

crdoconnor 12y ago

Government A will more likely see their market operate in a rational way rather than irrational way. The rational way for its market to respond will be to shift to non-carbon forms of energy generation (which are already pretty much cost competitive without subsidies anyhow). The irrational way would simply be to stop producing and exporting goods because coal is more expensive.

67726e 12y ago
The problem with that line of thought is that it's not going to be cheaper overnight. All the while Government A is plugging along on renewables, driving the price down, Government B is going to be eating Government A's lunch.
- dirtyaura 12y ago
  If the problem (CO2 pollution) is considered serious enough by multiple governments, Government A can join forces with Government C, D, and E and form a trade agreement against B. They can create a trade embargo against B, or have higher customs tax for products from Government B or other kinds of trade sanctions. Isn't this just international politics 101? EU and US have trade sanctions against Russia at the moment. UN had embargo against South Africa during the apartheid. Environmental issues are no different.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    Let's use a real-world example: China. How likely is that to work out? Now well. China gets cheaper oil, can't be easily coerced by force, and there is a large level of dependence.
    - dirtyaura 12y ago
      First, if it works against Russia, it can work against China. It's just harder. Level of dependence between many EU countries and Russian energy sources are comparable to US trade with China. Second, there's a false assumption in your real-world example that China doesn't want to protect their environment. If the danger is real and serious, they will. Currently they are just playing catch up with economic activity and living standards and at some point the environmental issues will become to focus. There is already raising environmental awareness in Chinese cities due to pollution.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >The problem with that line of thought is that it's not going to be cheaper overnight. Absolutely wrong. Renewables are pretty much cost competitive without subsidies now. What you are saying may have been true 5 or 10 years ago but is not any longer. A tax on carbon would just be a nudge over an already existing tipping point. It would turn a cost/benefit analysis that could go either way into a no brainer. That's what we want.

emodendroket 12y ago

The same could be said for international regulations on, say, fishery. We nevertheless have a system in place that, while flawed, is considerably better than just throwing our hands up.

beat 12y ago
Good point, but it's a little different. It works well for fish with well-defined fisheries in territorial waters, but it doesn't work for open ocean species. Bluefin tuna in particular is an example. They often cross oceans to get to breeding grounds, and that water is totally unregulated. It can be fished without regulation or reprisal.

alexqgb 12y ago

This is an absurdly oversimplified scenario that in no way accounts for the broad set of options available to governments faced with other governments operating like this. Let's just say your "Screw it, why bother?" approach is pretty far down the list.

beat 12y ago
Reality vs theory - "Screw it, why bother?" is the real-world top result. Do you see a concerted international effort to regulate away our dependence on fossil fuels? Because right now, the only concerted international effort I see is OPEC dumping oil on the market to underprice new competitors out of existence. The "options" of which you speak are mostly what wealthy industrial nations impose on poor and underdeveloped countries. International politics and economics is a seriously hardball game. Sure, it could be better, but it won't be.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Considering my initial point was that it's only a lack of political will that prevents action, I'm not sure what novel point you're making here.
  - beat 12y ago
    "Lack of political will" ignores the complexity of the situation, when actors are motivated to cheat or exclude themselves from consensus. It's not a far cry from saying we lack the political will to end all wars. I'm an engineer. Rather than complaining about what I wish I could do if I only had the resources, I think about what I can do with the resources that I have. In the case of something like fossil fuel, I think about how to create a less expensive alternative. Truly cheap wind/solar would put oil out of business by default. This is also why I idolize Elon Musk. Rather than complaining about the lack of political will on the part of governments to get humanity off Earth permanently and stop using fossil fuel altogether, he created SpaceX and Tesla, and is making it profitable to solve humanity's deepest problems.
    - 12y ago

venomsnake 12y ago

Government A also taxes the carbon emission on goods produced in B on the border ... example Europe VAT.