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..
Hmm.. unlike human civilization, the climate is not a conscious entity. If the end goal is carbon neutrality, that means per capita emissions must be set to zero across the board. If this is not the end goal, then we (as a species) should accept our role in the current mass extinction (genocide by technical definition) on the only inhabited planet in the known universe..
I agree with most of what he says, save for the American exceptionalism. The United States is exceptional in some ways, for example it recently pulled out of the Paris Accords due to a change in political parties.
No, this is wrong. Since global emissions matter, total matters and per capita does not.
"Individuals who emit more should have more duty to cut than individuals who emit less" <-- This is a MORAL argument, and the climate does not care about morality at all.
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?
...myopic was the wrong word. What I mean is, if we flex the many problematic existing systems that we have (that have actually helped create a climate crisis) just to de-carbonize, where will that leave us in a future where we will certainly be managing some level of adaptation.
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.
In fact, I don't think there's much (or really, anything) we can do to influence China diplomatically now. No bargains to be struck, grand or otherwise. That's why I think our only move here is to push down the price of renewables so much that they decarbonize out of pure self-interest, not diplomatic agreement.
If there is a carbon tariff dependent on the carbon price in the exporting country it would give China a self interest in collecting that money by them self.
That might be true, but reducing the cost of clean energy would be the right strategy even if China didn't exist. I think Beinart was advocating something more concrete in terms of how we engage with Beijing, although he didn't spell out the details. How do you think Biden should apply the prioritization of climate specifically to his China policy, or to his foreign policy more broadly?
But I agree with you that we can't sacrifice entire nations and groups to make a bargain with China...first because it's repugnant and anyone who suggests it has a serious moral compass problem (if you're the OP and thinking "is she saying I have a broken moral compass??" the answer is yes), but second because it's not like China adheres to bargains it strikes. Hong Kong isn't even the first time the CCP has gone back on its word without so much as an "I'm sorry". The *best* they can do is promises they won't keep if it's inconvenient. The worst they can do is genocide (and they are, and I see from the above that some people think that's acceptable. It's not.) There is no world in which we make a deal with China and they actually stick to the deal if it doesn't suit them.
That's how the CCP works.
To be frank, that's also how the US works sometimes, but at least the tools exist to make it better than it was, even if we're not always successful. The CCP has no redeemable qualities and no way of being made better, by us or their own people.
Seriously, there is no discussion to be had between "should we negotiate with China and put human rights on the table" and "should we not do that and hope the CCP sees the light".
Neither will work, because the CCP will do exactly what suits them *even if* we strike some grand bargain. It's just totally irrelevant. The only way to win that game is not to play.
There's SOMETHING in here that's tiresome, imo it's your insistence that China must be pursuing the economically optimal strategy in the face of all contrary evidence. https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost China has plenty of history of taking losses to achieve other goals that are important to them (manufacturing for one). As they see the rest of the world moving on from coal they may see a comparative advantage in "cornering the coal market" or the new coal plant building market. Which may be economically/geopolitically savvy but is terrible for the planet. And has very little to do with the lowest cost resources.
Reliable power can be achieved without coal. Probably requires some intermittent natural gas and some nuclear. Coal is on the way out in the US and needs to be on the way out in the world or we're all effed.
Gabe is right: The sunk cost is a big hurdle, because otherwise, what you're describing is happening. The reality is that we (and China!) already are pursuing the transition, driven by the market, and renewables are winning anyways. They aren't winning as fast as they need to if we're going to avoid the worst impacts of warming and they're going to need help in specific sectors, especially transportation but also industry.
To your further points: Every 0.1 C matters quite a bit, actually. China's net-zero commitment could be worth an additional 0.2-0.3. Now you're more than halfway to closing the gap between 1.5 and 2 degrees C warming, which is *very* important, maybe the difference between societal collapse and survival, but definitely the difference between what developing and vulnerable countries have asked for and the minimum we globally have committed to. Each contribution made, especially by rich countries, cogenerates further ambition in a straightforwardly game-theoretic fashion, but it also keeps at bay the possibility of defectors from global order pursuing bilateral deals with rogue petrostates and wrecking our chances at a managed retreat from 400 ppm CO2.
The idea that the US _could_ benefit is not entirely impossible but it's also presented in a facile form here. To your "northern latitudes," I see you 100 million+ Americans live in Southern California, AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, PR. Moreover, temperature rise is only the first domino. New York City is on that rising thing called the Ocean. Wherever you go in the lonesome empty West you're worrying about fires or drought. Extreme weather abroad will redound geopolitically or in the form of climate migrants. There will be nowhere to hide from the monster we have loosed. By virtue of our resources (wealth and natural) we might be the net winners of a situation where everyone is losing, but sorry if that isn't the kind of victory I aim for, thank you kindly.
The European Union already has a carbon emissions trading scheme which is now in its second decade. I consider that to be exceptional! This is just one of the reasons why the average European has a much lower carbon footprint than the average American.
At the end of the day, it comes down to national policy, infrastructure, and multilateral treaties. I would be delighted if the United States could outperform the European Union on carbon dependence, or even join their carbon market to create an international carbon trading regime. But given the intense petrochemical financial and industrial interests in the United States, I think this will be tough to pull, politically (within Washington DC). Despite of this, I am hopeful that Biden gets a big Green New Deal through Congress. Then, maybe, we can start finger pointing, like the EU is currently threatening Mercosur over trade after unchecked deforestation in Amazon (thanks Bolsanaro).
I have no doubt that the US can lead the world in renewable technology, but can we/they also tax gasoline like Europe? Can we/they fix our own backyard? When will the last coal plant shut down in the United States?
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.
Brilliant
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.
I think you're exactly right.
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.
Yeah!!
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..
I agree, but sadly the climate doesn't care about rights, or ethnocentrism, or nationality. It cares only about numbers of particles.
Hmm.. unlike human civilization, the climate is not a conscious entity. If the end goal is carbon neutrality, that means per capita emissions must be set to zero across the board. If this is not the end goal, then we (as a species) should accept our role in the current mass extinction (genocide by technical definition) on the only inhabited planet in the known universe..
You seem to be agreeing with Noah's post.
I agree with most of what he says, save for the American exceptionalism. The United States is exceptional in some ways, for example it recently pulled out of the Paris Accords due to a change in political parties.
I don't know that America is exceptional, but I am in America talking mostly to Americans.
You sure about that Paris accords part?
Yeah Trump pulled us out and then Biden put us back in. Like switching a hat.
No, this is wrong. Since global emissions matter, total matters and per capita does not.
"Individuals who emit more should have more duty to cut than individuals who emit less" <-- This is a MORAL argument, and the climate does not care about morality at all.
He didn’t even HINT that Americans would have a greater right to pollute.
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?
...myopic was the wrong word. What I mean is, if we flex the many problematic existing systems that we have (that have actually helped create a climate crisis) just to de-carbonize, where will that leave us in a future where we will certainly be managing some level of adaptation.
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.
In fact, I don't think there's much (or really, anything) we can do to influence China diplomatically now. No bargains to be struck, grand or otherwise. That's why I think our only move here is to push down the price of renewables so much that they decarbonize out of pure self-interest, not diplomatic agreement.
If there is a carbon tariff dependent on the carbon price in the exporting country it would give China a self interest in collecting that money by them self.
It might help, yeah.
100%
That might be true, but reducing the cost of clean energy would be the right strategy even if China didn't exist. I think Beinart was advocating something more concrete in terms of how we engage with Beijing, although he didn't spell out the details. How do you think Biden should apply the prioritization of climate specifically to his China policy, or to his foreign policy more broadly?
Yikes, that'll be a big no from me.
Sincerely,
A person who has Chinese missiles pointed at her house
Sacrificing them how?
It's not paranoia. The danger is real.
But I agree with you that we can't sacrifice entire nations and groups to make a bargain with China...first because it's repugnant and anyone who suggests it has a serious moral compass problem (if you're the OP and thinking "is she saying I have a broken moral compass??" the answer is yes), but second because it's not like China adheres to bargains it strikes. Hong Kong isn't even the first time the CCP has gone back on its word without so much as an "I'm sorry". The *best* they can do is promises they won't keep if it's inconvenient. The worst they can do is genocide (and they are, and I see from the above that some people think that's acceptable. It's not.) There is no world in which we make a deal with China and they actually stick to the deal if it doesn't suit them.
That's how the CCP works.
To be frank, that's also how the US works sometimes, but at least the tools exist to make it better than it was, even if we're not always successful. The CCP has no redeemable qualities and no way of being made better, by us or their own people.
Seriously, there is no discussion to be had between "should we negotiate with China and put human rights on the table" and "should we not do that and hope the CCP sees the light".
Neither will work, because the CCP will do exactly what suits them *even if* we strike some grand bargain. It's just totally irrelevant. The only way to win that game is not to play.
Installing new wind or solar is a lot cheaper than new coal. The problem is existing coal has sunk costs (and politically powerful lobbies).
There's SOMETHING in here that's tiresome, imo it's your insistence that China must be pursuing the economically optimal strategy in the face of all contrary evidence. https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost China has plenty of history of taking losses to achieve other goals that are important to them (manufacturing for one). As they see the rest of the world moving on from coal they may see a comparative advantage in "cornering the coal market" or the new coal plant building market. Which may be economically/geopolitically savvy but is terrible for the planet. And has very little to do with the lowest cost resources.
Reliable power can be achieved without coal. Probably requires some intermittent natural gas and some nuclear. Coal is on the way out in the US and needs to be on the way out in the world or we're all effed.
Gabe is right: The sunk cost is a big hurdle, because otherwise, what you're describing is happening. The reality is that we (and China!) already are pursuing the transition, driven by the market, and renewables are winning anyways. They aren't winning as fast as they need to if we're going to avoid the worst impacts of warming and they're going to need help in specific sectors, especially transportation but also industry.
To your further points: Every 0.1 C matters quite a bit, actually. China's net-zero commitment could be worth an additional 0.2-0.3. Now you're more than halfway to closing the gap between 1.5 and 2 degrees C warming, which is *very* important, maybe the difference between societal collapse and survival, but definitely the difference between what developing and vulnerable countries have asked for and the minimum we globally have committed to. Each contribution made, especially by rich countries, cogenerates further ambition in a straightforwardly game-theoretic fashion, but it also keeps at bay the possibility of defectors from global order pursuing bilateral deals with rogue petrostates and wrecking our chances at a managed retreat from 400 ppm CO2.
The idea that the US _could_ benefit is not entirely impossible but it's also presented in a facile form here. To your "northern latitudes," I see you 100 million+ Americans live in Southern California, AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, PR. Moreover, temperature rise is only the first domino. New York City is on that rising thing called the Ocean. Wherever you go in the lonesome empty West you're worrying about fires or drought. Extreme weather abroad will redound geopolitically or in the form of climate migrants. There will be nowhere to hide from the monster we have loosed. By virtue of our resources (wealth and natural) we might be the net winners of a situation where everyone is losing, but sorry if that isn't the kind of victory I aim for, thank you kindly.
No. The climate only cares about total, not per capita.
The European Union already has a carbon emissions trading scheme which is now in its second decade. I consider that to be exceptional! This is just one of the reasons why the average European has a much lower carbon footprint than the average American.
At the end of the day, it comes down to national policy, infrastructure, and multilateral treaties. I would be delighted if the United States could outperform the European Union on carbon dependence, or even join their carbon market to create an international carbon trading regime. But given the intense petrochemical financial and industrial interests in the United States, I think this will be tough to pull, politically (within Washington DC). Despite of this, I am hopeful that Biden gets a big Green New Deal through Congress. Then, maybe, we can start finger pointing, like the EU is currently threatening Mercosur over trade after unchecked deforestation in Amazon (thanks Bolsanaro).
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/analysis--twenty-years-on--eu-turns-cold-on-mercosur-trade-deal-14444604
I have no doubt that the US can lead the world in renewable technology, but can we/they also tax gasoline like Europe? Can we/they fix our own backyard? When will the last coal plant shut down in the United States?
The United Kingdom no longer uses them.