That can be determined by CO2 per unit of GDP, and CO2 per scientific article.

For example, Pakistan has about the same level of scientific output as Slovakia [1], and 28x the GDP. Pakistan's population is 40x that of Slovakia.

Slovakia's per-capita CO2 output is 7.1 tonnes, vs Pakistan 0.87 tonnes.

But actually, per unit of CO2, Slovakia is substantially more efficient than Pakistan in terms of economic and scientific output: Slovakia is 4.9x more efficient than Pakistan at scientific output per unit of CO2, and 1.8x as efficient for GDP.

You can see similar things across the world when comparing highly efficient Western countries to inefficient 2nd and 3rd world countries.

But its true that Western countries must decarbonise electricity generation and transport, and then support/force others to do the same.

[1] https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo...

This is why cap and trade systems are much less fair than a global carbon tax. Countries, individuals, businesses should be able to emit CO2 if they think that the return is justified against the cost. Meanwhile, low-value and inefficient output should be eliminated as much as possible.

This is a false assumption. The reason African countries don't produce as many papers is not that they're less "efficient" than anyone else, it's the geopolitical history of the region. Likewise for GDP.

I wanted to comment on what you said about a global carbon tax for countries, individuals and businesses though. I really don't think that's a good way to go. I'm assuming you mean a significant carbon tax, because a small tax wouldn't do much in the time we need it to.

A carbon tax for corporations banks everything on the hope that it will be profitable to move away from fossil fuels in the near future. The cost of failure is a catastrophic global crisis. How do you financially factor that in? How much profit does an activity need to generate for it to be worth causing a global catastrophe? The cost is immeasurable, so you can't put a price on it. Not to mention you might create perverse incentives. An oil company might decide it's financially worth it to emit tons of CO2, pay a fine, cause sea levels to rise, and then corner the market on building inland. There is literally no monetary value that justifies the trajectory we're on.

For individuals, a significant carbon tax means rich people get to emit CO2, and poor people don't. Rich people get to sail on their yachts, and poor people starve because they have to pay more for food.

At a national scale, it's even worse. Rich countries that got rich off of fossil fuels get to keep emitting CO2 as they see fit. Poor countries that were exploited by the rich countries for slaves or resources have to beg for help.

Legislative solutions don't have any of these problem. Ban yachts. Subsidize food. Ban cars. Stop oil extraction. Build public transit. Decrease meat production. Embargo countries that keep emitting CO2. Yeah, these are hard things to do, but they're the only thing we can reliably do. Taking the awful system that got us to where we're at today, adding incentives around it to fix it, and hoping that it works well enough within 10 years so that we don't drive ourselves to extinction is not a good plan. I personally think the economic system we have today is inherently unfixable, but even if you think there is a way of using it for good, are you willing to bet the Earth that we'll find the right configuration for it in time to stop global catastrophe? I wouldn't take that bet

>A carbon tax for corporations banks everything on the hope that it will be profitable to move away from fossil fuels in the near future.

It's almost profitable today without even pricing in externalities.

>The cost of failure is a catastrophic global crisis. How do you financially factor that in? How much profit does an activity need to generate for it to be worth causing a global catastrophe? The cost is immeasurable, so you can't put a price on it.

Failed econ 101... It doesn't matter how high the damage is. The same way it doesn't matter how important food and water is. Food and water is still affordable. Why? Because the value provided by water/food isn't what matters, it's the cost of the next cheapest alternative. If someone sells bottled water for $5000 and someone else for $0.25 I don't have to pay the "death penalty" because I cannot afford the expensive water. It's the same thing with CO2 emissions. A single ton of CO2 could do infinite damage and therefore the price would have to be infinite, that is, if it were impossible to reverse CO2 pollution. It's expensive to extract CO2 from the air but the maximum cost is $600 per ton, that alone reduces the minimum price needed to $600 even though the modeled damage caused by CO2 pollution is infinite.

>For individuals, a significant carbon tax means rich people get to emit CO2, and poor people don't. Rich people get to sail on their yachts, and poor people starve because they have to pay more for food.

What the fucking hell? We are literally taxing the polluters in this case. We are making it expensive for rich people to pollute, we are literally shouting in their face and saying, "You must pay dearly for your pollution, rich prick". We are taking money out of their damn pockets so they have less to spend on pollution. Compare that to the alternative which involves no punishment.

>Legislative solutions don't have any of these problem. Ban yachts. Subsidize food. Ban cars.

You run into the incompetent politician problem, also, you are making the mistake that politicians even give a damn about climate change. In Germany the CDU doesn't give a crap, they will take a CO2 tax shoved down their throat by the greens and never touch it but they themselves are never going to ban yachts or cars.

I hope this planet burns down because everyone involved, including myself, deserves it.

If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, this is one of the most counterproductive policies imaginable.

This is going to mean about a 5-10% cost of living increase for the typical Westerner - affordable, and beneficial because it will also mean much less air pollution.

It would also mean that the 2nd/3rd world would build up with renewable energy and electric transport from the ground up, instead of with fossil fuel infrastructure which will be difficult to replace.

We already have condensed carbon - in the ground, stable, in the form of coal, natural gas, and oil.

We need to just stop digging it out and burning it.

There's really no getting around the need for a direct and transparent price on carbon. The health benefits from lower air pollution alone would probably pay for the transition itself.

For example, at just about $15/tonne, coal is immediately dead (doubled in price) as an electricity source:

https://www.resources.org/common-resources/calculating-vario...

Whereas current techniques are coming in at about $500/tonne for CO2 removal.