This sounds entirely tractable. Institute a carbon tax. In addition, create a tariff on all imports from countries that don’t have an equivalent bona fide carbon tax at the same or higher rate, and set the tariff such that it recovers 150% of the deficiency in taxes vs emissions. The tax needs to be transitive: if countries A and B don’t cooperate and country A reexports something from country B, the tariff needs to account for B’s failure as well.

Make the carbon tax revenue neutral, and pitch it as leveling the playing field and a boon to the local economy.

Sure, there are tons of details to work out, but I think this should be doable.

How do you decide the baseline emissions for the tax and tariffs, internationally? China emits about half the carbon as the USA, per capita. So is the USA willing to pay tax to China unidirectionally, until we get to their level? Does China need to keep their current per capita levels to avoid extra tariffs?

How, roughly, could this work politically at a global level, in a way that also works within the politics of each individual country?

There are no payments between countries. It's a tax and an import tariff on countries that don't have the tax (or an equivalent like tax and trade).

William Nordhaus has done the math, you can read his papers for more details and appropriate levels. Of course the fact that we didn't implement in 2015 when he did his calculations means that the appropriate levels are higher than they were then.

china measured emission are about half of usa measured emission. china non measured emissions are another story. soot is yet another story, because not all co2 is created equally efficiently.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-insig...

oh, and there's all the other shit china does of course https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-discover-chin...

but somehow people dodge the issue every time with 'but the usa per capita' as if these measurement are really comparable.

e: wow, struck a nerve there? sourced with articles, even. now let's wait for dang to come and say this is 'unsubstantive'

If that is true, then the situation seems intractable. The Chinese government won't want to pay for anything beyond it's official figures, but the rest of the world has no interest in those bogus figures being used.

I think it’s possible to get a decent overall estimate of emissions in a given area by measuring local variations in CO2 levels.

I grew up in New Zealand, and now live in America.

In New Zealand, people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if Americans don't change"

Now I live in America, where people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if the Chinese don't change"

And I'm sure in China they say the same thing back to the US.

It's fun shifting the blame.

> It's fun shifting the blame.

I don't think blame is a useful concept at all. The question is, within the complex world of economics and politics, starting from the point we are at today, what would a pragmatic solution look like, that is actually possible?

It is far from obvious that the best solution is to make local sacrifices, then hoping the world will follow. It might be that we all (in the world) need to agree to make sacrifices together first, put some rules and treaties in place, and then start improving together in coordination.

It sounds so Machiavellian but, if we are already making the economic sacrifices (that other countries aren't, but would like us to), I wonder if we aren't even losing potential bargaining power in coordinating globally?

"what would a pragmatic solution look like, that is actually possible?"

William Nordhaus' climate club:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001

https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/

> It is far from obvious that the best solution is to make local sacrifices, then hoping the world will follow.

case in point: Europe. taxes over taxes over taxes has pushed energy cost to the point production is non competitive https://businesstech.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/G...

net result: local decade long slump plus most heavy industry moved to countries that have less energy cost and less regulation, so it's not clear if the world is actually better off, since you also get pollution from naval transport

I believe in China and India they would point out that the West allowed itself to emit pollutants unchecked during its period of rapid economic growth, and it would be ridiculous to ask the East not to do the same. It's more complicated than just passing the buck.

Can we stop with this "growing phase" mythology of high carbon emissions? The US didn't "grow out of it" we out-sourced it to China and India. China and India can't "grow out of it" unless they find someone else that can take it over for them (and I don't think there's enough production capacity in the remaining parts of the world to do this). This article[1] does a pretty good job showing the complexity of this.

The idea that eventually every industrial nation can mature and "grow out of" carbon production makes the ludicrous claim that somehow industrial production magically requires less CO2 over all in the long run. Sure this would be possible if processes could all become more efficient and overall output experience 0 growth, but continued growth is essential for current economic models.

We all know we are living in a global economy, but then talk about resources and waste as if they are local problems. The truth is modern global Capitalism requires perpetual growth and increase production and consumption. We all like getting paid and living in a prosperous society but that money cannot come in a sustainable world. Where do you derive profit from a truly sustainable system?

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...

Depends on what you mean I think. Yes growing out of pollutants is a myth. But it's not wrong to say that India and China are in a period of rapid economic growth where they catch up to their industrialized peers. You might argue that the West never went through such a phase at all, because it was ahead of the rest of the world for all of modern history, but I think that's splitting hairs. In any case, my point was trying to be descriptive about what arguments I think you'd realistically hear, rather than to stake a position either way on the arguments.

IMHO, local sacrifices is a dead end approach because it expects coordinated good will from billions of people. This won't happen: people are as bad as they are allowed to be. The solution should be going after the popular business model that makes consumers buy new items because the old ones break: this applies to everything, from cars to toothbrushes; it even seems to apply to newly built houses now. The manufacturer can't care less if an average buyer has to leave 3 cars behind because those cars were designed to break, as long as it brings profit. Axe this business model, bankrupt these manufacturers by holding them accountable to how much of their products end up thrown away and we'll see how reliable products will take their spot. No more useless waste, no more icebergs of plastic in the ocean, no more need to burn gigatons of coal to make all these intentionally flawed items. I'm sure everybody sees this solution, but nobody has balls to implement it because blaming individual people is easy and safe.

You can start blaming China once there is a single country on Earth on track to stay within the 1.5° carbon budget. Until then you should talk to your own politicians why they aren't doing anything.

> Until then you should talk to your own politicians why they aren't doing anything.

I would love to. But unfortunately the climate problem isn't even a small part of the political dialogue here.

Greta Thunberg was alone when she started protesting.

You not helping makes the problem worse, and you helping makes it better. I wouldn't call that work done in vain.

That's what trade policy is supposed to be about. If the rest of world agrees to a particular standard you make that standard a condition of trade.

The entire world got together and signed a treaty to coordinate. You might not think it's perfect, but it exists.