By your logic then shouldn't most first world countries also implement a strict carbon tariff on the US?
Actually, that was kind of the point. For problems dealing with scarce resources that are shared planet wide (such as the atmosphere or oceans) any fair system to determine how those resources are allocated needs to take into account population, but enforcement of any such allocation has to be done by country. The atmosphere doesn't care about our arbitrary political boundaries, but for enforcement they matter.
Too many people make the mistake of thinking that both enforcement and allocation should be by country.
> Smaller population countries like Canada and Australia pollute more per capita than the US.
Australia does indeed emit more per capita than the US, about 4% more. Canada emits about 4% less. The only countries ahead of the US per capita besides Australia are Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, Brunei, Bahrain, UAE, New Caledonia, the Dutch part of Sint Maarten, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan.
South Korea is about 25% less. Taiwan and Russia are about 30% less than the US per capita. Germany and Japan are about 40% less. The UK and France are about 65% less. Mexico around 72% less. (China is about 55% less).
> Also, the carbon tariff should ideally be applied on an activity-specific basis, not at the national level.
Correct. The way this would probably best be handled if we had a world government would be a revenue neutral carbon tax on everything. But we don't, so we have to cobble together something else.
Only 23% of Carbon is on industry: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... - only a small fraction of that is exports.
We don't export a lot of electricity. We do export a decent amount of agriculture, but my understanding is we don't export a ton of meat - which is where the majority of the carbon comes from.
China - as all nations - has a responsibility based on its population scale (ie its total emissions output), not just its per capita output. The total output matters far more than per capita, as we're dealing with a matter of planetary survival, not whether it's fair that Monaco has higher emissions output per capita than China.
Other nations are not responsible for China having those 1.4 billion people. China bears that responsibility. Other nations are obviously not responsible for the US having its per capita emissions output, either.
Estonia having 4x the per capita emissions output of the US wouldn't pose a terminal risk for the planet. And sure, maybe it's fair to argue a tax to incentivize per capita behavior of high per capita emissions nations. And what to do about China's total output risk, given it's going to destroy the planet (whereas smaller nations do not pose that risk)? The logical thing would be to apply taxes to both, in a way the keeps the planet from getting destroyed: it means China can never be allowed to have parity with smaller nations that have high per capita outputs.
China, with its 1.4 billion people, would pose a terminal risk for the globe if it reaches per capita emissions output parity with the US (actually it's already approaching that risk now, and it's merely half way to parity). Taxes don't mean much if half the planet is wrecked. China has a different responsibility than Estonia does given China can all by itself destroy the world with its emissions. I use Estonia merely as an example to highlight the point, very obviously the US has a responsibility as well based on its scale. Sure, we can focus a tax in on Estonia in that case, however it's by far not our most pressing matter.
China going from ~28% of global emissions to ~45%, is a very pressing matter. The globe can't afford China to increase at all at this point.
If a country had four billion people, it similarly wouldn't be reasonable for it to reach emissions parity with the US: it would kill everyone in doing so.
The equation of fairness must also consider the scale of the threat being posed, as it's also not fair if one outsized population nation gets to destroy the planet because it has 1.4 billion people. One can live in fantasy (where fairness means every nation gets equal emissions output per capita), or live in reality. In reality it matters how many people you have and what their per capita emissions are. Reality is course the dimension where we can all die from the emissions output of a nation the scale of China.
Climate change discussions remind me of covid19 policy wank and panic control but stretched out over decades. Many of us were fairly confident covid19 was going to be a pandemic we’ll have to live with, that’s just reality when most of the world do not have capability to respond properly. There’s a lot of interventions and technologies leading countries can export to mitigate, but ultimately everyone has to come to an understanding that we can’t stop climate change due to political realities.
That if they didn't their population would remain poor, and lacking access to healthcare, food, and water? And in an even worse situation when climate change finally hit? Are you suggesting that if China hadn't concentrated on development, the developed countries would be currently falling over themselves to fix the problem?
That's a choice. No one is forcing their hand here. If it were the 90s I would have to agree with you, but, it isn't.
I assume that they're taking an approach of using renewable energy where possible and fossil fuels when that's not enough.
The chief problem is that they're not ramping up nuclear quickly enough, and it's hard to deploy in desert west of the country. And thanks to our persistent self-sabotage there's civil unrest related to these power plants.
The nuclear is to be used to ramp production of solar PV and batteries cleanly, then decommissioned. Timeframe would be 25 years.
Decommissioning of current old reactors is a problem already but there's really no alternative - ramping solar PV with standard energy sources would be bad. A lot of reactors are expected to shut down by 2025...
> But today
We're not talking about today, we're not just talking about the last ~50+ years. And moreover, even today they are pretty happy infringing on many other rights of their citizens.
Anyway, I find the criticisms of the West to be both ignorant and tiring. Tiring because the "blame the West for everything" meme is so worn out and ignorant because there's a pretty stark difference between pioneering industrialization centuries before mature climate science and China's ratcheting up pollution knowing full-well the consequences.