Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

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).

Definitely it couldn't stand alone. I'd use the money raised with the tariffs for what RH said, green focussed international aid.
But we need to use every tool we've got and this is one that I can see working well politically and having an impact.
So countries decide they'd rather export to China..good? Wouldn't that help friendly industry?
Exceptions can of course also be set in place for vital industries.

[Jacob]

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.

Definitely.

And to be clear, I don't consider rain seeding to be a positive example.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Short summary - carbon pricing is a useless market-based liberal sticking plaster that we should move past (Acknowledging that alternatives are difficult for the EU for a mix of good and very, very bad reasons.)

I'm broadly optimistic still  - for example the other side is that globally the growth rate on renewable energy installation is actually at a level where it means we would hit our targets.

I think that's the other side of doomerism is people absolutely think reading stories about the impact of climate is important - and it is; but there's a tendency to dismiss anything about progress as panglossian, irrelevant or intended to encourage inaction. I think it's also important to read those mainly because it's also reality so part of being informed but also I think hope is a better route to change than despair.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Short summary - carbon pricing is a useless market-based liberal sticking plaster that we should move past (Acknowledging that alternatives are difficult for the EU for a mix of good and very, very bad reasons.)

I'm broadly optimistic still  - for example the other side is that globally the growth rate on renewable energy installation is actually at a level where it means we would hit our targets.

I think that's the other side of doomerism is people absolutely think reading stories about the impact of climate is important - and it is; but there's a tendency to dismiss anything about progress as panglossian, irrelevant or intended to encourage inaction. I think it's also important to read those mainly because it's also reality so part of being informed but also I think hope is a better route to change than despair.

Panic is probably a much better motivator.  If voters get panicky politicians must respond.

[Sheilbh]

Panic is probably a much better motivator.  If voters get panicky politicians must respond.

I totally disagree. I think it's disempowering, it's atomising and it's demotivating. I also think it's more likely to lead into conspiratorial thinking and anti-politics. I also think it's untrue for the reason Tyr's article and scientists absolutely rejecting climate doomerism make: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61495035).

Also I can't think of any positive change wrought by a movement inspired by panic (it's mainly backlash politics). I think hope (and anger) have a better record in scale and quality of change.

Edit: But also, fundamentally I don't think it's true or reflects reality. It's just focusing on one stream or side of what's happening as if it were a complete reflection of the story.

Edit: So slightly weirdly - and I haven't listened to this (and don't subscribe so can't hear the full episode) but just saw it being re-tweeted, here's something rather on point
https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-203-the-case-for-climate-optimism/

[crazy canuck]

Panic is probably a much better motivator.  If voters get panicky politicians must respond.

I totally disagree. I think it's disempowering, it's atomising and it's demotivating. I also think it's more likely to lead into conspiratorial thinking and anti-politics. I also think it's untrue for the reason Tyr's article and scientists absolutely rejecting climate doomerism make: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61495035).

Also I can't think of any positive change wrought by a movement inspired by panic (it's mainly backlash politics). I think hope (and anger) have a better record in scale and quality of change.

You are a smart guy, so when you say you cannot think of anything positive that developed because of panic, you were not thinking that hard 

Americans didn't get to the moon first because of hope.  They got there because of the panic caused by the Russians launching a satellite first.  The allies didn't win WWII because of hope (actually they almost lost the war because of the hope of peace in our time).  They won because of the panic of what would happen if the bad guys won.  Its actually a good cause of recovering from hope and getting down to work. 

Hope gives people an excuse not to do anything, its all going to work out right? 

[Valmy]

Panic is probably a much better motivator.  If voters get panicky politicians must respond.

I totally disagree. I think it's disempowering, it's atomising and it's demotivating. I also think it's more likely to lead into conspiratorial thinking and anti-politics. I also think it's untrue for the reason Tyr's article and scientists absolutely rejecting climate doomerism make: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61495035).

Also I can't think of any positive change wrought by a movement inspired by panic (it's mainly backlash politics). I think hope (and anger) have a better record in scale and quality of change.

You are a smart guy, so when you say you cannot think of anything positive that developed because of panic, you were not thinking that hard 

Americans didn't get to the moon first because of hope.  They got there because of the panic caused by the Russians launching a satellite first.  The allies didn't win WWII because of hope (actually they almost lost the war because of the hope of peace in our time).  They won because of the panic of what would happen if the bad guys won.  Its actually a good cause of recovering from hope and getting down to work. 

Hope gives people an excuse not to do anything, its all going to work out right? 

To continue this WWII analogy: as soon as it became clear France had no hope of stopping the Germans before they over-ran la métropole that became a reason to stop resistance. The British did have some hope they could stop a German invasion.

You have to have panic + hope....at least a little bit anyway.

[Josquius]

I wouldn't say panic was helpful there. Panic nearly led to halfiax becoming PM and making peace.
Hope led to Labour backing Churchill and Britain fighting on.

[Sheilbh]

You are a smart guy, so when you say you cannot think of anything positive that developed because of panic, you were not thinking that hard 

You're too kind

Americans didn't get to the moon first because of hope.  They got there because of the panic caused by the Russians launching a satellite first.  The allies didn't win WWII because of hope (actually they almost lost the war because of the hope of peace in our time).  They won because of the panic of what would happen if the bad guys won.  Its actually a good cause of recovering from hope and getting down to work. 

Yeah I'm with Jos on WW2. Panic = Vichy and Petain. I can't think of a politician who better embodies hope than FDR (probably part of why I love the framing of the Green New Deal).

Churchill is, admittedly, more defiance and bloodymindedness than hope - but his great success is in actually ending panic which was Halifax and cutting a deal now.

Hope gives people an excuse not to do anything, its all going to work out right? 

I don't think so - I don't think hope is the same as complacency.

[crazy canuck]

Panic is probably a much better motivator.  If voters get panicky politicians must respond.

I totally disagree. I think it's disempowering, it's atomising and it's demotivating. I also think it's more likely to lead into conspiratorial thinking and anti-politics. I also think it's untrue for the reason Tyr's article and scientists absolutely rejecting climate doomerism make: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61495035).

Also I can't think of any positive change wrought by a movement inspired by panic (it's mainly backlash politics). I think hope (and anger) have a better record in scale and quality of change.

You are a smart guy, so when you say you cannot think of anything positive that developed because of panic, you were not thinking that hard 

Americans didn't get to the moon first because of hope.  They got there because of the panic caused by the Russians launching a satellite first.  The allies didn't win WWII because of hope (actually they almost lost the war because of the hope of peace in our time).  They won because of the panic of what would happen if the bad guys won.  Its actually a good cause of recovering from hope and getting down to work. 

Hope gives people an excuse not to do anything, its all going to work out right? 

To continue this WWII analogy: as soon as it became clear France had no hope of stopping the Germans before they over-ran la métropole that became a reason to stop resistance. The British did have some hope they could stop a German invasion.

You have to have panic + hope....at least a little bit anyway.

Sure, I agree with that, panic or hope alone won't cut it.

[crazy canuck]

You are a smart guy, so when you say you cannot think of anything positive that developed because of panic, you were not thinking that hard 

You're too kind

Americans didn't get to the moon first because of hope.  They got there because of the panic caused by the Russians launching a satellite first.  The allies didn't win WWII because of hope (actually they almost lost the war because of the hope of peace in our time).  They won because of the panic of what would happen if the bad guys won.  Its actually a good cause of recovering from hope and getting down to work. 

Yeah I'm with Jos on WW2. Panic = Vichy and Petain. I can't think of a politician who better embodies hope than FDR (probably part of why I love the framing of the Green New Deal).

Churchill is, admittedly, more defiance and bloodymindedness than hope - but his great success is in actually ending panic which was Halifax and cutting a deal now.

Hope gives people an excuse not to do anything, its all going to work out right? 

I don't think so - I don't think hope is the same as complacency.

FDR's policies would not have been possible if there had not been panic and the need to address it with radical political change.  He did not give his famous speech about fear because everyone was hopeful.  He gave it because everyone was fearful and his policies gave a solution to it.

I adopt the friendly amendment made by Valmy, panic alone is not sufficient, there must be a way out.  But the way out is only possible because there was panic.

[Oexmelin]

There is obviously a matter of terminology / semantics at play, here. Panic, to me, etymologically at least, is a fear that cannot be faced or dominated. The stakes are so high that the frenzy feeds itself uncontrollably - reaching the point where any sort of compass, moral or otherwise, is jettisoned in favor of doing anything. Its opposite might be the "magical thinking / complacency": that things will be somehow better without any form of reckoning of a specific situation, which similarly erodes moral compasses. Panic can put pressure on politicians, and complacency can lift them up, but they are very poor guides. Fear and hope are their tamer counterparts: in both casesy, I feel there is still the sense that something can be done, which would achieve significant results.

[crazy canuck]

I think rational people fear what climate change will do and also fear that we are running out of time to avoid those effects.  But that is not enough to engage the necessary political will to act in time to avoid those effects.

[Sheilbh]

There is obviously a matter of terminology / semantics at play, here. Panic, to me, etymologically at least, is a fear that cannot be faced or dominated. The stakes are so high that the frenzy feeds itself uncontrollably - reaching the point where any sort of compass, moral or otherwise, is jettisoned in favor of doing anything. Its opposite might be the "magical thinking / complacency": that things will be somehow better without any form of reckoning of a specific situation, which similarly erodes moral compasses. Panic can put pressure on politicians, and complacency can lift them up, but they are very poor guides. Fear and hope are their tamer counterparts: in both casesy, I feel there is still the sense that something can be done, which would achieve significant results.

I agree with this.

My point is that looking at this thread (or the media I read - Guardian etc), I don't think we're short of the fear, pessimism or the negative news. That needs a corrective because there is (relatively) very significant progress in recent years, say the last 5-10, and it is accelerating. Both sides are true and somewhere in the tension between them is where we are (and, I'd argue that's also the location of the hope on this). But as I say in this thread (or the generally left/liberal press I read) you only really see one side.

The challenges around this issue (and the contrast with a false equivalence) are really well covered in the first five minutes of the free version of that podcast link.

[Admiral Yi]

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?

It doesn't.  It addresses the issue raised by Jacob, of China an India free riding.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.