Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zoupa]

I don't think this is going to get done by reducing emissions. It's too cheap and easy to pollute, and CO2 doesn't care about borders.

We need large scale carbon capture tec, IMHO anyways.

[Jacob]

I guess the ideal would be large scale carbon capture that is somewhat profitable (but not so profitable that it leads to somehow fucking up the planet by capturing all the carbon and creating a disaster because there's insufficient carbon in the atmosphere).

[Sheilbh]

I don't think this is going to get done by reducing emissions. It's too cheap and easy to pollute, and CO2 doesn't care about borders.

We need large scale carbon capture tec, IMHO anyways.

Incidentally part of me wonders if in combination with China being super vulnerable, needing a solution, little bit indifferent about local environment/conservation etc etc if part of the story ends up being some form of massive geoengineering project

I can't remember where I read it but I always remember reading about one like painting x amount of desert white would cool the earth by some amount. Something like that.

[Jacob]

China does have a bit of form in that department. They routinely seed rain, for example, and have done so for quite a long time.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - and it's not geo-engineering but you think of something like Three Gorges and it just slightly feels possibly a little bit on brand.

[Admiral Yi]

pass a carbon tax and a carbon import tax.

[Zoupa]

Every country on the planet would need to impose the same tax then. Good luck with russia for example.

[Josquius]

Every country on the planet would need to impose the same tax then. Good luck with russia for example.

Would they?
If you have the G7 and EU all passing carbon import taxes then that's a huge incentive for others to ensure their industry is as green as possible so as to access these important export markets.

And its fairly standard that tariffs trigger tit for tat

[crazy canuck]

Every country on the planet would need to impose the same tax then. Good luck with russia for example.

The perfect is the enemy of the good

[Admiral Yi]

Every country on the planet would need to impose the same tax then. Good luck with russia for example.

Explain your reasoning.

[Zoupa]

Same reason we have Scandinavia and Bahamas tax systems. Greed.

[Josquius]

Same reason we have Scandinavia and Bahamas tax systems. Greed.

This is less of an explanation and rather more deepening what needs explanation.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

China does have a bit of form in that department. They routinely seed rain, for example, and have done so for quite a long time.

China also has a bit of history of engaging in big projects that make the situation basically worse. That and the lying about most everything rendering their stats dubious at best.

[Sheilbh]

pass a carbon tax and a carbon import tax.

How does that fix housing or generate capital for investments into upgrading or building new infrastructure?

If you have the G7 and EU all passing carbon import taxes then that's a huge incentive for others to ensure their industry is as green as possible so as to access these important export markets.

The EU has worked on carbon adjustments for inputs. One of the problems is that as with a lot of trade policy it's really technical but incredibly political too - so there's been very large rows over what qualifies as "green" with expensive lobbyists on all sides.

Also that ULEZ chart is also appropriate here. Developing countries point out that they are most exposed to the impact of climate events, which are caused by the carbon emissions by European and other Western countries which made them rich and gave them their position in the global order (buttressed by imperialism). Those rich countries are then also imposing a solution which is effectively a tariff wall unless those developing countries are basically able to implement European environmental policies.

And the tax wouldn't even be collected by the exporting country but the importing market so it's not like they could use the revenue from it to help green their industry - it would be collected by the importing market where it would be spent on making their economy even more green (so less subject to carbon pricing).

Also those Western markets matter but for a very large swathe of the world China is the biggest trading partner and given your products would just become more expensive in the West, you wouldn't get the money to green them - my guess is most countries would just try to increase their relationship with China - and maybe see if China would be interested in funding some green or infrastructure projects?

But it is broadly speaking the liberal, market based solution and it is the one the EU are wedded to. Their approach is basically all sticks and very few carrots, while the Americans are going for all carrots with no sticks. Ideally you'd have a combo but my instinct is that we need more carrots. Although I get the issues that make a Bidenomics approach really, really difficult for the EU - and I sympathise with a couple of them (others are simply wrong).

[Tamas]

pass a carbon tax and a carbon import tax.

How does that fix housing or generate capital for investments into upgrading or building new infrastructure?

If you have the G7 and EU all passing carbon import taxes then that's a huge incentive for others to ensure their industry is as green as possible so as to access these important export markets.

The EU has worked on carbon adjustments for inputs. One of the problems is that as with a lot of trade policy it's really technical but incredibly political too - so there's been very large rows over what qualifies as "green" with expensive lobbyists on all sides.

Also that ULEZ chart is also appropriate here. Developing countries point out that they are most exposed to the impact of climate events, which are caused by the carbon emissions by European and other Western countries which made them rich and gave them their position in the global order (buttressed by imperialism). Those rich countries are then also imposing a solution which is effectively a tariff wall unless those developing countries are basically able to implement European environmental policies.

And the tax wouldn't even be collected by the exporting country but the importing market so it's not like they could use the revenue from it to help green their industry - it would be collected by the importing market where it would be spent on making their economy even more green (so less subject to carbon pricing).

Also those Western markets matter but for a very large swathe of the world China is the biggest trading partner and given your products would just become more expensive in the West, you wouldn't get the money to green them - my guess is most countries would just try to increase their relationship with China - and maybe see if China would be interested in funding some green or infrastructure projects?

But it is broadly speaking the liberal, market based solution and it is the one the EU are wedded to. Their approach is basically all sticks and very few carrots, while the Americans are going for all carrots with no sticks. Ideally you'd have a combo but my instinct is that we need more carrots. Although I get the issues that make a Bidenomics approach really, really difficult for the EU - and I sympathise with a couple of them (others are simply wrong).

Short summary: nobody is willing to take a hit. Which is partially justified at all ends but still won't end well.

Reminds me of how a line in a poem compared humans and their fate to a pile of firewood. They are individual pieces but their weights and positions keep each other locked in a predetermined pattern.