The "conservative" carbon tax proposal seems like a long time ago:

A little over a year ago, 195 countries signed on to the historic Paris Climate Accord to limit global warming pollution. This year, the United States pointed a loaded gun at its own foot, and President Trump pulled the trigger, announcing he will withdraw from the agreement. But the rest of the world is moving ahead with carbon pricing programs that will give other countries a head start in the race to a clean energy economy. Notably, The United States’ neighbors to the north and south are adopting national carbon pricing programs in 2018, and the European Union and China are allying to become global leaders in the transition to a low-carbon economy. …

In December 2015, 195 nations signed on to the Paris Climate Accord, agreeing to try to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees—or maybe just 1.5 degrees!—celsius (3.6 or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively). The signatory nations—accounting for more than 95 percent of the world’s GHG emissions—are drawing up plans, and many are already putting them into action.

Article 6 of the Paris Accord lays the groundwork for an international carbon pricing regime. Most countries want in: nearly 100 nations, accounting for 58 percent of global GHG emissions, submitted initial plans saying they are interested in participating in international carbon pricing to help them meet their pollution reduction goals.

Several are already implementing domestic or regional prices, as shown in the map above. Add an international program to existing progress, and a price could soon be in effect across much of the globe, covering about two-thirds of global emissions.

via www.sightline.org

"At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?" Er, now?

Posted in , ,
  1. PaulS Avatar

    “‘At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?’ Er, now?”
    This seems like a variation on the old “everybody else is doing it” playground taunt. But really, when we get down to the proverbial brass tacks, what possible salience does it have? Any such laughter impinges only on those connected to the international cocktail-party circuit. Who else needs to care even one whit?
    The énarques of Paris can laugh to their hearts’ content, and it will not change my life or my neighbor’s life by one iota. After all, they are thousands of miles away. Actually, even their American equivalents live in their own hermetically-sealed bubble, separate and apart from ordinary folks even on the coasts, never mind ordinary folks in “flyover” country.
    The biggest potential for changing most people’s lives would be the high likelihood that carbon pricing will quickly add to the gentrification of all forms of travel. The énarques, living lives of relative luxury, will hardly feel that at all. On the other hand, ordinary people will feel it, and feel it but good.
    Feelings of that sort seem hardly likely to garner votes, despite the willingness of some to render pious responses to abstractly cost-free stated-preference surveys. Instead, what might actually garner votes is anything that could discomfit the smug énarque-equivalents of the USA, who are rather widely disliked (as exemplified by, say, Hillary Clinton when she couldn’t be bothered to campaign much in “flyover” country.) Face it, regardless of the merits, withdrawal from the Paris treaty fits the bill. It seems to be discomfiting the disliked quite effectively.
    So break out the popcorn and enjoy the show, laughter and all. It looks set to go on for quite some time.

  2. John Whitehead Avatar

    PaulS,
    Other than the swipe at stated preference surveys, I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make.
    Re: stated preference surveys. Do you have a particular problem with them? Do you have a suggested alternative?
    I have several papers that provide evidence that they are fairly accurate in predicting behavior. I’m fairly confident that they give us better information about preferences than nothing.

  3. PaulS Avatar

    Simple. I’m unsure of the very point I quoted. Why does anyone in the US really need to care what the European or other elites think about carbon taxes in the US (or any other domestic policy.) How could their attitudes (or in this case laughter) make any difference whatsoever, outside of the cocktail party circuit? What could an ordinary US citizen possibly lose by ignoring or even scorning them utterly?
    In other words, the quoted point about them laughing fails the “so what” test miserably, so what was it about? They can laugh to their hearts’ content and it matters in no way whatever. The withdrawal from the agreement will be done with complete impunity (if it sticks.)

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading