Carbon taxes (or prices from capped markets like the EU one) linked to carbon tariffs is another mechanism. At least if (as in the current EU proposal) the tariffs only target imports from countries without a carbon tax.
I agree with this post completely. The one thing I'm absolutely not worried about is that we'll set the wrong example to the rest of the world by sacrificing growth in order to decarbonize. We will never never never do this. If fighting climate change requires us to sacrifice economic growth, the American people will say, no thank you.
The real challenge is getting Americans to accept things that don't really change their quality of life but do require things to be different, such as buying a high-performance electric car instead of an ICE vehicle, or electric heat pumps and electric stoves instead of their gas equivalents. These are fine technologies, but they're just different, and people are suspicious of new things. I hope we can overcome that kind of resistance.
Jeez, Noah, you keep asking for trouble with smart discussions like this. You’re going to be crucified for suggesting emerging countries have to do anything. Don’t you know policy is all about neomoralism?
- As an addendum, I would add systems innovation as playing a critical role in the eventual success or failure of American green innovation. I’m thinking here about LADOT’s mobile mobility specification, FAA/NASAs UTM is program, GOGOros battery swaps, etc.
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that Americans should have a greater right to pollute than other homo sapiens, by virtue of what some would call an ethnocentrist argument..
Carbon taxes aren't a degrowth tax. See https://taxfoundation.org/carbon-tax/. In a worse case scenario where they aren't accompanied by any spending they only result in a 0.4% drop in gdp over a multi year period, which is far from what I would call degrowth. If accompanied by an equally sized reduction in payroll taxes there would be an increase in economic growth and overall tax progressivist. A carbon fee and dividend plan wouldn't increase gdp by as much, but it would massively decrease poverty by leading to an increase in incomes of over 6% among the bottom quintile of earners! Scream it from the rooftops, reductions in carbon emissions aren't the only good thing about carbon taxes! I don't disagree that we need to spend more on R&D, but there will always be some areas where technology alone won't be enough to make renewables cheaper than fossil fuels. Carbon taxes are necessary worldwide, and a carbon tax in the US accompanied by a tariff on countries that don't have one or a cap and trade scheme is the only way to make progress on this.
OK, although the idea that US demand for solar and batteries could advance the technology and drive down costs in China kinda seems like the tail wagging the dog.
This is to be read in the Context of the Adani 2 Billion USD project in Aussie for Coal Mining !
Y did SBI give a Billion USD loan to Adani’s mines in Aussie - to mine coal and then import it into India to burn in boilers to generate thermal power ?
Indian CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) units are selling power to the Grid at 7 cents/Kwh.What is the ECONOMIC COST of a Coal IPP in India ? These are hybrids of Solar Thermal with Wind,and a standby conventional fuel.
Y is Aussie selling Coal to India to feed the POOR when CSP is available ? dindooohindoo
What is the abundant resource in Indian POOR ZONES ? Agri wastes,animal husbandry,time and vegetation.
Which makes the option of Off Grid Power,from Bio Mass and Solar – THE viable option (for which there is an abundance of grants,subsidies and soft loans)
There is NO INDUSTRY viable in the POOR zones of India – and there is also NO consumer market,as there is no purchasing power.
Bio Mass power will provide income to the poor,and also extend the agri value chain,and increase the purchasing power.
So Y is Aussie funding coal exports to Indian IPPs ?
What is the smell when an Indian Bank,funds a Mine in Aussie – when no other bank in the world,wants to fund it ?
That 4 letter word ! S-C-A-M !
The jackpot is in the IPP in India – at say,a cost of 2 Billion USD.Safe to say that,20% is taken out already (and that was possible ONLY after,the Coal Mine in Aussie was licensed and financially closed)
The way the Indians spin it,is that IPP sells power to Grid – the Grid is bankrupt – and the coal is feeding the IPP.So no foreign bank will fund the Coal mine,as there is a payment and soverign risk,on the IPP power sold,to the Indian Grid.
So the Foreign banker says (on the greasing by the Indians) – get an Indian Banker,to be a part of the Consortium ! They think that the Indian Banker,will vet the Credit and Soverign risk,of the Grid ! The Utopia of Thoughts !
India is the land of Gandhi,id.est., the face of Gandhi,on a Rs 2000 note.Everything and everybody has a price – including the dead,as in Union Carbide.
It is called Vitamin M (Money) and Vitamin G ( face of Gandhi on a Rs 2000 note)
For the Aussies the spiel is that Aussie will give the Indian poor - LIGHT and so goes the parable - Let there be Light - brought by the Angels in Aussie land ! dindooohindoo
LIGHT + VITAMIN M + VITAMIN G
The Aussies need to make the story,more believable,for the sake of posterity – at the minimum.
I just don't understand the reasoning that per capita doesn't matter as much. A bigger country with more people will produce more carbon given the same lifestyle. It would look better if we split them up into provinces.
I agree, it's an emergency, but this feels very myopic. Unfortunately we need to be solving more than one problem at a time. Do we at least do a massive wealth tax to pay for the push, like enough to ground some private jets?
Why wouldn't a pollution tax be complementary? It would further sharpen renewables cost advantage and make investment more potentially lucrative. And if you paid out a carbon dividend, or used the proceeds to fund more green investment, you don't have to worry about "degrowth"
WHAT IF, we taxed carbon emissions of imports but gave subsides to countries that were willing to de-carbonize? So like TPP but with carbon reduction incentives but we allow China to join if they follow along
A fair point on investment may be more effective than pollution taxes. It assumes, however, funding goes to the right place. If you make pollution expensive enough, the payoff to a truly breakthru tech is going to be very high so should draw investment $$$. It will have much less appeal to politicians with incumbent technology interests to coddle.
I think Peter Beinart gets it right: US policy towards China needs to deemphasize human rights for the sake of promoting decarbonization of the Chinese economy. If there's a grand bargain available there, Biden should take it.
Carbon taxes (or prices from capped markets like the EU one) linked to carbon tariffs is another mechanism. At least if (as in the current EU proposal) the tariffs only target imports from countries without a carbon tax.
I agree with this post completely. The one thing I'm absolutely not worried about is that we'll set the wrong example to the rest of the world by sacrificing growth in order to decarbonize. We will never never never do this. If fighting climate change requires us to sacrifice economic growth, the American people will say, no thank you.
The real challenge is getting Americans to accept things that don't really change their quality of life but do require things to be different, such as buying a high-performance electric car instead of an ICE vehicle, or electric heat pumps and electric stoves instead of their gas equivalents. These are fine technologies, but they're just different, and people are suspicious of new things. I hope we can overcome that kind of resistance.
Jeez, Noah, you keep asking for trouble with smart discussions like this. You’re going to be crucified for suggesting emerging countries have to do anything. Don’t you know policy is all about neomoralism?
Two Things:
- Largely agree aight the thrust of this piece.
- As an addendum, I would add systems innovation as playing a critical role in the eventual success or failure of American green innovation. I’m thinking here about LADOT’s mobile mobility specification, FAA/NASAs UTM is program, GOGOros battery swaps, etc.
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that Americans should have a greater right to pollute than other homo sapiens, by virtue of what some would call an ethnocentrist argument..
Carbon taxes aren't a degrowth tax. See https://taxfoundation.org/carbon-tax/. In a worse case scenario where they aren't accompanied by any spending they only result in a 0.4% drop in gdp over a multi year period, which is far from what I would call degrowth. If accompanied by an equally sized reduction in payroll taxes there would be an increase in economic growth and overall tax progressivist. A carbon fee and dividend plan wouldn't increase gdp by as much, but it would massively decrease poverty by leading to an increase in incomes of over 6% among the bottom quintile of earners! Scream it from the rooftops, reductions in carbon emissions aren't the only good thing about carbon taxes! I don't disagree that we need to spend more on R&D, but there will always be some areas where technology alone won't be enough to make renewables cheaper than fossil fuels. Carbon taxes are necessary worldwide, and a carbon tax in the US accompanied by a tariff on countries that don't have one or a cap and trade scheme is the only way to make progress on this.
OK, although the idea that US demand for solar and batteries could advance the technology and drive down costs in China kinda seems like the tail wagging the dog.
This is to be read in the Context of the Adani 2 Billion USD project in Aussie for Coal Mining !
Y did SBI give a Billion USD loan to Adani’s mines in Aussie - to mine coal and then import it into India to burn in boilers to generate thermal power ?
Indian CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) units are selling power to the Grid at 7 cents/Kwh.What is the ECONOMIC COST of a Coal IPP in India ? These are hybrids of Solar Thermal with Wind,and a standby conventional fuel.
Y is Aussie selling Coal to India to feed the POOR when CSP is available ? dindooohindoo
What is the abundant resource in Indian POOR ZONES ? Agri wastes,animal husbandry,time and vegetation.
Which makes the option of Off Grid Power,from Bio Mass and Solar – THE viable option (for which there is an abundance of grants,subsidies and soft loans)
There is NO INDUSTRY viable in the POOR zones of India – and there is also NO consumer market,as there is no purchasing power.
Bio Mass power will provide income to the poor,and also extend the agri value chain,and increase the purchasing power.
So Y is Aussie funding coal exports to Indian IPPs ?
What is the smell when an Indian Bank,funds a Mine in Aussie – when no other bank in the world,wants to fund it ?
That 4 letter word ! S-C-A-M !
The jackpot is in the IPP in India – at say,a cost of 2 Billion USD.Safe to say that,20% is taken out already (and that was possible ONLY after,the Coal Mine in Aussie was licensed and financially closed)
The way the Indians spin it,is that IPP sells power to Grid – the Grid is bankrupt – and the coal is feeding the IPP.So no foreign bank will fund the Coal mine,as there is a payment and soverign risk,on the IPP power sold,to the Indian Grid.
So the Foreign banker says (on the greasing by the Indians) – get an Indian Banker,to be a part of the Consortium ! They think that the Indian Banker,will vet the Credit and Soverign risk,of the Grid ! The Utopia of Thoughts !
India is the land of Gandhi,id.est., the face of Gandhi,on a Rs 2000 note.Everything and everybody has a price – including the dead,as in Union Carbide.
It is called Vitamin M (Money) and Vitamin G ( face of Gandhi on a Rs 2000 note)
For the Aussies the spiel is that Aussie will give the Indian poor - LIGHT and so goes the parable - Let there be Light - brought by the Angels in Aussie land ! dindooohindoo
LIGHT + VITAMIN M + VITAMIN G
The Aussies need to make the story,more believable,for the sake of posterity – at the minimum.
I just don't understand the reasoning that per capita doesn't matter as much. A bigger country with more people will produce more carbon given the same lifestyle. It would look better if we split them up into provinces.
I agree, it's an emergency, but this feels very myopic. Unfortunately we need to be solving more than one problem at a time. Do we at least do a massive wealth tax to pay for the push, like enough to ground some private jets?
Why wouldn't a pollution tax be complementary? It would further sharpen renewables cost advantage and make investment more potentially lucrative. And if you paid out a carbon dividend, or used the proceeds to fund more green investment, you don't have to worry about "degrowth"
WHAT IF, we taxed carbon emissions of imports but gave subsides to countries that were willing to de-carbonize? So like TPP but with carbon reduction incentives but we allow China to join if they follow along
A fair point on investment may be more effective than pollution taxes. It assumes, however, funding goes to the right place. If you make pollution expensive enough, the payoff to a truly breakthru tech is going to be very high so should draw investment $$$. It will have much less appeal to politicians with incumbent technology interests to coddle.
I think Peter Beinart gets it right: US policy towards China needs to deemphasize human rights for the sake of promoting decarbonization of the Chinese economy. If there's a grand bargain available there, Biden should take it.