Idea for non-political carbon-emissions reduction

[BrunoGenovese]

My first post on the topic. Being quite disgusted by the political wrangling and low progress at COP26 I started thinking of a simple, purely scientific, non-political solution.

This is just an idea and probably needs to evolve, but it creates a strong incentive to reduce emissions regardless of whether countries join an accord for it:

- Determine what per-capita carbon emissions is required to completely stop global warming.

- Measure each country's per-capita carbon emissions (probably already done) once a year. Use that value for the following year.

- If the exporting country is below the cap, nothing happens.

- If the exporting country is over the cap AND the importing country has lower per-capita emissions then apply a Global Carbon Import Tax (GCIT). Tax % rate to be determined, and proportional to the difference in per-capita emissions. High emitters pay the most, especially when exporting to low emitters. Note that I am saying nothing about what the tax % rate should be, I have no idea... scientists and economists will have to figure what is the right rate to achieve the goals while minimizing any negative effects.

- 25% of GCIT is paid by the exporter company directly to a global UN fund, to be used in emission reduction projects. Projects to be selected by a panel of scientists purely on its merit towards reducing global warming. Projects managed by UN teams with total transparency and public exposure, with no funds ever handed over to a country to reduce misuse and corruption (money goes directly to the individuals and organizations doing the work).

- 75% of GCIT is paid by the exporter company to the importing country *if* the importing country is a signatory of the accord. Low emitters get rewarded this way, and rewarded more the lower their emissions are, even below the cap. If the importing country is not a signatory the 75% goes to the global fund.

- If the importing country is a signatory and the exporting company has not yet paid, customs will not allow the import (already a standard procedure in most countries when import taxes aren't paid).

- Taxation starts 1 year after the initial signing of the accord to give countries and companies time to get ready. After the 1st year signers can activate as soon as they are technically ready to accept payments.

- Critical imports (i.e.: food, medicine, pollution reduction equipment) should be excluded from the tax. High polluters (i.e.: energy produced from dirty types of coal) should not be excluded even if they are critical.


CONCLUSIONS

This is a pretty simple mechanism.
- Politics and negotiation is eliminated.
- Countries would have a strong incentive towards reducing emissions but have the freedom to approach it in their own ways.
- Can start even with a few signatory countries and grow over time.
- Those below the cap would have an incentive to reduce emissions further as that would increase their 75%.
- Polluters would benefit from signing, since they'd receive "something" when importing from worse polluters, and they could choose to use those funds towards reducing their own emissions.
- Non-signers might avoid the tax when exporting to other non-signers but would be contributing to emission reductions every time they export to signers.

I hope you all find this worth thinking and discussing, modify it to make it more usable and then communicate it those in positions to make it happen or even repost it in other forums.

I want no credit for the idea (assuming you find it worthwhile), I simply care about stopping global warming before self-interested politicians get more of us or our descendants killed by the effects of global warming.

 

[Muhammed]

Carbon dioxide is good for our environment. There's no need to reduce it.

 

[Anomalism]

Good luck getting China on board with that. By the way they'll probably be running the world pretty soon.

 

[TNHarley]

Global warming occurs naturally. You cant "completely" stop it.
Taxing doesnt stop it. EVs wont stop it. Solar panels wont stop it. Taking away a countries sovereignty wont stop it.

 

[Anomalism]

Global warming occurs naturally. You cant "completely" stop it.
Taxing doesnt stop it. EVs wont stop it. Solar panels wont stop it. Taking away a countries sovereignty wont stop it.

I think a lot of left wingers just don't realize the magnitude of what it means to overcome our dependence on fossil fuels. I absolutely think we should work toward that, but it cannot be overstated how deeply imbedded fossil fuel use is in our way of life. It's going to take a long time and we're not even close yet. Also the technology isn't ready, no matter how much left wingers want to fight with me about it. It's not, sorry. It can be soon though. We should be investing heavily into clean energy R&D, particularly solar, so we can create the kind of solar panels that can replace fossil fuels on the free market. And anybody that thinks it won't happen is out of their minds.

 

[BrunoGenovese]

I think a lot of left wingers just don't realize the magnitude of what it means to overcome our dependence on fossil fuels. I absolutely think we should work toward that, but it cannot be overstated how deeply imbedded fossil fuel use is in our way of life. It's going to take a long time and we're not even close yet. Also the technology isn't ready, no matter how much left wingers want to fight with me about it. It's not, sorry. It can be soon though. We should be investing heavily into clean energy R&D, particularly solar, so we can create the kind of solar panels that can replace fossil fuels on the free market. And anybody that thinks it won't happen is out of their minds.

That's the point of this idea. To not rely on politicians. To create a strong incentive, but not force any specific measures. Self-interest will do the rest.

 

[Anomalism]

That's the point of this idea. To not rely on politicians. To create a strong incentive, but not force any specific measures. Self-interest will do the rest.

Instead of using so much force maybe we should instead try to work toward the point that the technology just can't be ignored anymore. Money talks. That's how the world works and it's the most realistic approach going forward I think.

 

[Hellokitty]

You loss me with your inclusion of the UN...

 

[Anomalism]

You loss me with your inclusion of the UN...

The U.N is kind of a joke, but it's also a good thing I think. It helps encourage peace among major nations, and I think that's a pretty important thing in a world with so many ICBMs. I also understand why right wingers are put off by it though. I've simply accepted that eventually there will be a one world government, so it doesn't bother me.

 

[BrunoGenovese]

Instead of using so much force maybe we should instead try to work toward the point that the technology just can't be ignored anymore. Money talks. That's how the world works and it's the most realistic approach going forward I think.

Exactly "money talks". It needs to be made about money.

Going green is already cheaper, but there are roadblocks.

For example, solar power has long been the cheapest form of power (I am not sure about wind, I think it too if the conditions are right), but power companies have little interest in investing in new infrastructure without some kind of incentive. Electric cars are everywhere but they still are ridiculously expensive and people (me included) will not move to them unless there is a decent recharge grid nearby.

Coal pollutes, but we will likely still need it for a very long time at least during times of peak demand when nothing else is available... like right now. China and Eastern Europe are using it massively and polluting horribly, but the alternative would be people dying from the cold, so it has to be accepted at least until other options become viable.

In the end, it all comes to the old style carrot and stick, and it works best when the formula does not depend on ANY politicians (left or right).

 

[MisterBeale]

I think a lot of left wingers just don't realize the magnitude of what it means to overcome our dependence on fossil fuels. I absolutely think we should work toward that, but it cannot be overstated how deeply imbedded fossil fuel use is in our way of life. It's going to take a long time and we're not even close yet. Also the technology isn't ready, no matter how much left wingers want to fight with me about it. It's not, sorry. It can be soon though. We should be investing heavily into clean energy R&D, particularly solar, so we can create the kind of solar panels that can replace fossil fuels on the free market. And anybody that thinks it won't happen is out of their minds.

When you use the word, "fossil fuel," it reveals how little you understand about the Earth and planetary science.

Tell me about seas on Jupiter's moon Titan.

Then tell me how we make fertilizer to feed the billions of people on the planet.

You continue to demonstrate . . . that you have been in some cases, accidentally, and in some cases, purposely, miseducated about reality, just like 95% of the population.

This is why I rarely get involved in these threads.

 

[Anomalism]

When you use the word, "fossil fuel," it reveals how little you understand about the Earth and planetary science.

Damn. You sure got a lot from that.

Tell me about seas on Jupiter's moon Titan.

If you have context to add you should do it yourself instead of asking me to. That would probably make your argument more persuasive.

 

[MisterBeale]

Damn. You sure got a lot from that.

If you have context to add you should do it yourself instead of asking me to. That would probably make your argument more persuasive.

I have already given you that information once.

If it did not interest you to read then? Why should I assume you would read it if I gave it to you a second time? Hell, it was a white paper from Harvard explaining why all of your assumptions about reality are wrong, and all the propaganda you are exposed to about the energy paradigm is complete bullshit.

If the term "fossil fuel," had any real meaning, why are the seas of Titan composed of "fossil fuel?"




The first thing you need to assume?

EVERYTHING, that is taught about energy, in the schools, in the media, circulated in society for public consumption . . . all of it, everything that the masses know. . . IS A LIE.
Just as in ancient days, the masses believed an eclipse was the work of mystical forces, but the elites were the only ones who studied cosmology, and thus, their spiritual leaders KNEW, and used that knowledge for power.

This is why the career of Nikola Tesla, and much of what he did, is still a state secret. You know who was the last person in possession of his work before the US Government? Donald J. Trump's uncle. Go look it up.

You proceed from the assumption that you know what truth and reality is. I do not. Look up what Plato taught us on the parable of Socrates vis-à-vis Athens and the oracle, about beliefs on knowledge.

Energy is everything in our modern world, and for the masses to believe we have enough information about what is going on to meaningfully discuss the matter? Hubris.