Step 1. The US passes sweeping climate change that taxes all imports based on the carbon emissions necessary to produce said imports from that country or bans imports from any country where carbon emissions were up year over year (the whole thing would have to be relative to the US to be fair). Possibly a combination (if you lower your emissions, we discount the levy for instance even on energy-intensive products) The laws are phased in over say, 15 years, in order to give manufacturers and countries time to retool and time for US companies to start new businesses to compete with the now much higher priced imports.
Step 2. Every major country on the planet freaks out because theyâll take a serious drop in their GDP if they canât trade with the US - especially ones that have free trade agreements.
Step 3: Everyone else jumps on the bandwagon because it creates a massive trade imbalance between the US and everyone else and the world is saved.
Letâs not pretend like this isnât possible. California alone is responsible for significant improvements in global car emissions simply because they decided they werenât going to allow cars to be sold in the state that didnât adhere to their significantly more strict laws than the US has (and more strict than any other country on earth at the time afaik). Hell, electric car development is largely due to demand from California alone. Thatâs one industry.
Went to bed last night amid a flurry of all-is-lost posts, so am mighty happy to see this one. Thanks for hanging in there. The key concept that was missing last night: tipping point.
On a happier note, remember when everyone was concerned about that growing ozone hole in the atmosphere? Countries for the most part got their shit together and banned CFCâs. Sure this increased the production of some greenhouse gases, but hey baby steps:
Now Climate Change is a much trickier problem in that it would force us to invest in new energy technologies, and the current industries in place are huge and will fight back. Our current alternatives to coal and gas are not good enough yet. Renewables donât generate enough electricity and usually generate the most power when we donât need it. (Not to mention that our current energy storage technology sucks and the US grid is ancient). Nuclear is a bad word, even though safer nuclear plants will probably need to be used as a band-aid to reduce emissions and still produce enough energy for normal consumption.
So first things first, we need to:
Admit that there is a problem.
Provide economic incentives for more efficient, and cleaner tech
Provide leapfrog technologies to developing countries
Reduce population growth rate though women empowerment, education, family planning, and better birth control access
Very hard problems to overcome, yes, but just because something is hard doesnât mean we shouldnât take action on it. Sticking your head in the sand wonât help future generations.
Correct. The canary in the coal mine here is to keep a keen eye on luxuries. Luxuries related to sea levels, climate or local weather conditions, perhaps even fishing, tropical vacations; anything related to global warming and volatile weather. Itâll be spotty at first and hard to notice. But as soon as we see those luxuries getting scarce, on a larger scale, thatâs when the old guard will step up and admit thereâs a real problem & put resources towards finding solutions. Until then, enjoy the beach! I know I will!
You have it exactly right. There is no good, realistic solution to the problem of climate change that will come from the U.S. until the problem is totally out of control. There is not enough political will in either the executive or legislative branches of government to table (or pass) meaningful legislation on this issue. Politicians donât win elections on environmental issues, just like they donât win elections on education issues. They offer us platitudes when they think we are listening and ignore the problem when they know weâre not listening, which in the U.S. is damn near always.
If you canât pass gun control measures after an elementary school was shot up and children were slaughtered as they hid underneath their desks, you are not going to pass meaningful environmental regulations. That dog donât hunt, to use a charming American expression.
Actually the Prisoners Dilemma is not economic thinking, it is a classic psychology experiment that deals with power dynamics and happens to have an economic application. There is an application of that classic psychology problem to economics, but it is not an economic problem. again, misinformed reductionism and exactly proof of what i was saying, things can have an economic application or component without being an economic problem, like the example of the prisoners dilemma that you so conveniently proffer.
No, no Iâm not. If you think that then you went straight to cherry picking for your rebuttal without attempting to actually understand or address my points.
Sad but true. The conservative stranglehold on the US means unless the other voice starts to get louder, exactly nothing will get done even though it is crucial that it does.
That is an excellent point, California has been a great example of how this can be a net economic benefit, and how such changes can have global reach in a very short period of time. They prove that this works if implemented.
I believe I said almost nothing, comparatively nothing, weâve reduced emissions on the two worst offenders, not innovated or changed what those offenders are. Compaired to most countries we are at a standstill. The main drop in energy related carbon emissions in the US was due to a single law that was passed requiring coal burning energy plants to filter the output of all their stacks instead of just raw venting into the atmosphere. The other main drop was due to government emission regulations with automobiles. Sure it cost a bit to do that, but both are great example of how a simple governmental regulation can go a long way to correcting the issues. Unfortunately all we did was improve the capture of the emissions at the output in both cases, mainly through catalytic conversion, not the ideal solution that will correct the issue and there isnât much further we can go with that, but I agree it is a start and Iâm glad we did it.
Also, unfortunately in 2013 carbon emissions in the US rebounded and went back up 2%. So the measures we took to stem the issue were stopgaps that only lasted a few years.
No, and to my thought, I see this as the single largest failure of the US government since the end of the space race. And the sad thing is that the people who lived through and benefited mostly from those projects are exactly the folks who are keeping such things from happening today.
Unfortunatley, you are stating what is a self fullfilling prophecy arenât you?
If any country doesnât do anything, then you donât address the problem globally. And given that there is no global way to address it, then isnât the only way to do so now, to have everybody realize that itâs in their own best interest to do something?
Sure, we canât figure out a way to do this, but isnât at least part of the reason why, the endless navel gazing on a problem that is already too big?
Seems to me to say nothing can be done is to say nothing will be done.
Câmon, nobody expects you personally to fix things, but if there is any hope of a democracy of any sorts at play here, the fact that voters care should be at least relevant and noticeable and therefore important, there is after all no reason to expect legislators to care if people donât care, otherwise you would be saying that they are father/mother figures who know best and best suited to make the big decisions.
That there is some truth to what I am saying is seen when they are still trying to pretend they have reasons to believe in climate change denialism, as well as pandering to religious idealism (not religion itself, but the idea that religion has the answers), you know, the people who vote.
Bah, if the western world passed a carbon tax that was applied to domestic and import goods, India and China would probably start a nuclear war trying to steal renewable energy solutions from each otherâŚ
It would be a self fulfilling prophecy if I were in fact the one who gets to make the decision. I am not though. Currently nobody gets to make the decision on how the world responds to climate change. You specifically mentioned a democracy as the type of system that we hope to solve this problem, I would contend that this isnât a problem that democracy is well suited to solving.
You have fallen for the oil, gas and coal industries lobbying efforts, or you are one of them. Hereâs a hint: theyâre not the only industries in the country. They get preferential treatment codified into law so that they can make money. And when they make money by not paying for the waste they leave behind, most other industries are negatively impacted. Why is a coal executiveâs salary more important than a commercial fishermanâs? Or a farmerâs? Or an insurance executiveâs, for that matter?
Framing the conversation as âclimate scientists believeâ. To believe is to understand something 100%, at which point no further information is required because itâs irrelevant. To science is not to understand something 100%, only what the current state-of-the-art input, recording and processing technologies allow.
âThe map above does show something very important: the average US voter is responsible for far more CO2e than voters anywhere else on Earth.â
So voters in the U.S. are responsible for more CO2 than voters in ChinaâŚIâm assuming this has something to do with the Chinese electorate making a bigger stink about this issue in elections.
