[sokoloff]

From an engineering/economic perspective, I totally agree. From a sociology/philosophy perspective, a lot of the West was built on cheap carbon emission. Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now?

[tomrod]

> Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now?

Yes. Because the alternatives are stark and unwelcoming. And developed nations should enact development sharing to assist at the desire of the developing nations (way more than tokens and pittances).

If we want to go far, we have to go together.

[sokoloff]

What’s in it for a developing county to not defect? I think to make this work, you need transfer payments from developed countries to developing countries and to have those payments tied to effective carbon taxation.

For that matter, we probably need transfer payments here in the US. Put another $5/gallon of taxes on gasoline and you smack the working class hard. Do that and give every individual (literally everyone) who files a tax return 1000 gallons worth of the tax. Commit to reducing the gallon subsidy by 25 gallons per year per person and increasing the tax by 5% per year for the next 20 years. Evaluate every 5 years and see how you’re doing towards your goals. At the end, you’re taxing gas about $10/gallon in today’s money and subsidizing everyone $5K (in today’s money) to cover some of the increased costs of goods and transport, but giving a painful signal at the pump to incent minimizing gas consumption.

I’ve thought about those numbers for five minutes. Undoubtedly, better numbers can be chosen, but I think we’re going to have to give money in one motion and take it away in carbon taxes in another in order to be able to implement carbon taxes steep enough to change behavior.

[m12k]

This policy is called "fee and dividend", and has a pretty well-fleshed out wikipedia article[1]. IMO it's the best way to implement a carbon tax while avoiding "yellow vest protests" or deepening inequality. A carbon tax will tend to increase the cost of consumption, and consumption makes up a larger part of your income the poorer you are. But with a dividend to give money back to households, you offset this, so a poor household that lowers their carbon footprint enough can even end up ahead.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

[coryrc]

Washington state voted on a smaller version of that, I-732, but it was opposed by half the environmental groups because they couldn't skim money off the top for themselves. So unfortunately it's going to be hard to pass such laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington_Initiative_7...

[tomrod]

Since the game is long term the strategy space is much more open for punishment and incentive creation.

Long term existence can be a motivating force, but you have to get the citizens to support solving the issue.

[sokoloff]

Maybe. We’ve made other changes that didn’t have nearly universal support before (Emancipation, Civil Rights acts, forced integration of schools, women’s suffrage, and probably many others).

Sure, I’d prefer to wait a few years if that waiting would bring along willing participation. If we think it would only bring a larger number on the calendar and a slightly worse atmospheric carbon surplus, I’m not as inclined towards patiently explaining this again.

[corpMaverick]

Developing countries get to avoid the mistakes done by developed countries. For example, the amount car dependency in the US is unsustainable. Developing countries could build their cities with higher density, walk-able, and bike-able. It is cheaper, you get higher quality of life without such a high carbon footprint.

[ipaddr]

Developing countries go with the cheaper option. Is higher density cheaper? No not in low value real estate which is found in developing countries.

[andrewjl]

> Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now?

It's a false dichotomy.

The US and others can share climate friendly technologies with developing countries on attractive (cheap) terms and at the same time compensate those that developed them out of tax coffers on market terms. Almost all climate related investment can be financed in the capital markets if World Bank, IMF provide guarantees to investors.

In exchange there'd be an expectation that these technologies are deployed on an accelerated timescale and in greater quantities by nations taking up this offer.

[glogla]

Do we have other choices, when the alternative is the Apocalypse?

And it's not like rest of the world doesn't benefit at all. The early adopters always pay more, the late adopters get to leapfrog.

[shreyshnaccount]

I agree with this, but the gp prolly wanted to brimg up that developed countries will offer subsidies that develping ones cant, just like in agriculture. Imo developed countries need to enact it first, and without subsidies and then pressure developing countries, even though developing countries produce more carbon. From a pure logic perspective thats not the optimal solution, but i think thats the only remotely plausible one that will make a global carbon tax work