[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.