Please don't conflate carbon emissions with air quality. Poor air quality (as measured by AQI) is not caused by high CO2 emissions, even if there's a correlation.

Indian cities do have an air quality problem, but there are other factors at play here. The most densely populated cities in India are landlocked, which means very little wind and no way for suspended particles to disperse. This coupled with practices like crop-burning are what cause "pollution". It has nothing to do with carbon emissions. India doesn't even come close to the per capita carbon emissions of a country like the United States.

> At some point - it's simple. Just pass on a carbon tax on any good, regardless of which country it is created on. Taxed in the country of destination.

I don't think it's so simple, actually. My experience is that when people declare big sweeping "simple" solutions to global problems, those solutions tend to backfire and make things worse.

Determining how much CO2 was emitted during the production of any particular good is quite difficult to do. Are you going to parachute some UN Carbon Inspection Team to investigate the BOM for every manufactured good and add up some carbon tally? How will they know whether some wire was made in a solar powered factory or a coal powered factory? And what about the inputs to those factories, etc? And why would China allow such inspectors?

You will not be able to get that type of per-item granularity.

But you can get general info about countries. OK, what do you do with the general info? Apply the same tax on all goods, or just invent some hypothetical carbon burden for each good produced in a given country? That's a great strategy for getting producers to reclassify goods -- e.g. from passenger cars to personal utility vehicles, or for diverting goods from one country to another.

Moreover here, you've switched from trying to use the market to incentivize behavior to collective punishment of producers, where producers who use green energy sources are also forced to pay the tax.

But then why would other producers change behavior? Moreover by adding these extra tariff costs, you are going to be driving producers to look for even cheaper inputs, and that means more fossil fuels.

Moreover, that's just going to result in counter-tariffs and punishment in the reverse direction.

So you will be punching China and getting an equal punch back at you, and none of that will do anything to reduce CO2. All it will accomplish is a lot of punching in all directions -- e.g this is a tantrum-based approach to CO2 policy.

> Pollution so think it seems like you could dish it up in a bowl. And it's that way at 30,000 ft, in a plane, flying between the two points.

What a load of bullc$ap. Even greta thunberg wouldn't make up things like this.

Yes, pass a tax. Not just on goods but also services: Flights, heating, taxi rides, bus tickets, food delivery etc.

Before the US consumer can claim any kind of leadership, it they must make some real sacrifices.

Part of the reason developing countries are forced to deal with such pollution is because developed countries have offloaded the manufacturing on markets with cheaper capital investments. London had its peasoupers as recently as late 40s, when it was still in the business of making goods.

I find making fun of have-nots from a highcastle of righteousness somewhat disappointing, when its bricks were baked in the homes of these poor gentry.

How does carbon tax solve anything? It is far better to plant trees and find measures to decrease pollution instead of bringing in another tax which will help some company get rich

They create incentives to transition away from carbon emission.

It would have to be global. It would be deeply unpopular to the targeted countries which may start trade wars. It would still realign incentives.

well it's not simple, because that would mean more taxes for the rich developed countries.

their whole agenda is to deflect blame and costs to developing countries.