I wonder how much more effective in economically damaging Russia it would be to push solar (and efficiency, insulation etc.) in regions on its southern border.
EU should do it at home too, as its the smart thing to do regardless, but bang-for-buck probably depends more on a) geography, b) growth rate of electricity usage, c) displacement of coal power, followed by poorly regulated methane extraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... sort by year and by capacity for highlights.
But that gain, unlike the carbon output, will be bounded by the national border, unless there's some way of exporting it for cash.
EU carbon tariffs will have a similar effect, making Indian goods relatively cheaper on the export market if they invest in solar.
This comes up again and again. The famous "Renewable Energy Without the Hot Air" for example is about how the UK could generate it's own power cleanly.
Which is effectively irrelevant in a global context of 60 Million vs 11 Billion people, but it makes phasing out fossil fuels seem harder so there's a lot of people pushing it as an unstated assumption.
Morocco gets cheap, clean energy independence and industrial investment, the world gets less fossil co2 and even if they get taken over by Martians in the future that don't respect human laws, the climate benefit is already delivered and can’t be "cut off".
However, the same groups that have poisoned the well on carbon "taxes", seem to have really done a number on the whole concept of offsets and emissions trading.
Free market economics? Not acceptable if it hurts fossil fuels and helps the poor, only vice versa it seems.
https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/gold-standard-feature...
But fossil fuels oligarchies destroy society and civilization just as much as they destroy the environment.
Faith in government, science, rule of law, democracy and economics have been polluted as thoroughly as the air.