The next president of the US makes climate change their top priority. What should be their first actions?
Let's assume that they have full control over congress, so politics isn't an issue. I think looking at what a good global climate policy would be useful, because it allows us to see where we stand. It could also serve as a platform for future candidates.
It seems to me that the new president should take a wide-ranging series of measures to curb emissions in all the major domains: electricity, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. [1]. You might argue that measures taken in isolation from other countries are not sufficient. While that's true, someone has to start. The US taking the lead on climate change would have a profound impact on all other countries. The US could use its very strong diplomatic weight to pressure other countries to adopt similar measures.
So what should these measures be? The major one would seem to be a carbon tax, applied to all major sources of emissions: energy production (coal plants, ...), agriculture (cattle and meat imports), jet fuel (current taxes are very low), etc. Another one could be a tax on imports depending on how much the exporting country does against global warming. Maybe a new kind of free trade alliance among "climate-virtuous" countries could be created.
Any thoughts? Have any serious global policy proposals been made and studied in the past?
[1] : https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change
But you wouldn't be starting or taking the lead. You'd be catching up (just like Australia). For example, lots of countries already have taxes or prices on carbon emissions - but not the USA or Australia (Australia has the unenviable distinction of being the only country to implement a tax on carbon and to then repeal that tax).
Lots of countries are ahead of the US right now. But none (or no western countries, at least) are doing enough. It wouldn't be too hard to take the lead.
I don't think your country has the stomach to implement a $30+/t carbon tax right off the bat but I'd like to see it. It's a hard sell on Canadians, even with gradual roll out, many provinces are fighting it, and our conservatives are often more left leaning that your democrats.
Other countries lead the US in so many areas. I don't understand why we can't just rip off good ideas that others have already implemented. Well, the answer is politics. Many Americans seem to think these problems are American-centric or that the US has some kind of unique slant on problems that everyone else faces. In reality, we could rip off the healthcare system of about a dozen peers and be a lot better off for it.
To expand on one of your ideas: implement the carbon tax, and make it payable to sequestration efforts. For instance, tax carbon at $200/ton, and then from that revenue, pay a carbon bounty of $150/ton for long term sequestration. Put whatever remains of the $50 after administrative costs, which totals to around $300Bn, into big science kind of stuff that's not going to have investment from private enterprise, like large scale construction of fusion and 4th generation fission plants, orbiting solar shades, and so on.
In no particular order:
Massive tax on oil, free/cheap public buses everywhere (we don't have time to build train tracks or other things). People that really need a car (live in a very remote area, etc) get exempted. Also easily available shared cars, for when you really need one.
Massive tax on meat.
Invest in insulation and make heaters/AC more expensive.
Invest in nuclear and renewable. Phase out coal.
Many other things.
Yup. A steep one though, from the IPPC
You said politics isn't an issue, but just how far does that extend? Could I ban the farming of meat (or tax it to the extent that it's effectively banned. Different Brackets of course, the rich aren't gonna get off), introduce energy rationing, and abolish profit?
Seems like ripping that bandaid off all at once would cause a lot more problems than it solves. For one it would absolutely wreck the economy. It would also most likely lead to some sort of armed revolt.
What I'm thinking is that if we can settle on a number of measures that need to be taken, we can petition politicians to take them. Of course the list should minimize impact to the economy as much as possible, and be limited to climate change. Otherwise it will have even less chance of making consensus.
I think one of the biggest hurdles with dealing with climate change is specifically this attitude. We want changes to somehow be easy or convenient or unnoticeable, but we passed that point decades ago. Any meaningful change now will need to look at overhauling our global growth cenentric economy.
Oh, that's not at all what I meant! I mean we should minimize impact, while reducing emissions to acceptable levels. Any set of measures that are strong enough to reduce emissions to acceptable levels will have to be radical. But I think we should still try to minimize their impact, precisely because they will have a strong impact already.
I get what you're saying, but I am still going to nitpick the word minimize because I honestly think it's problematic.
I think when we use language like this we are trying to sell a narrative that we can "make this work" within our current systems, which I believe is untrue. Radical and minimize simply don't work together.
I'm a scientist so to me it's not a real contradiction, but I see your point. And you're right, language is important.
Here are some ideas:
I’m open to discussion on these ideas and more suggestions!
A general carbon tax would cover taxing meat and dairy, vehicles and jet fuel. Just as an example, 1kg of beef causes the emission of 13kg of CO2, so that's at least $2.60/kg for a $200/ton carbon tax.
How high should the tax be? I don't think 2$/kg would have a meaningful effect on beef consumption...
That's more a minimum, but I think $2.60/kg would significantly cut beef consumption. Prices where I'm at are only around $7/kg (for ground beef), so we're talking nearly a 40% price increase from a $200/ton carbon tax.
Yeah, that makes much more sense. Plus it’s probably a lot easier to control than taxing separately.
This is the only point where I think it would be mostly waste of money. We aren't going to be saved with renewable energy - it's unreliable (wind), efficiency:cost ratio is poor (sun) and it's damn expensive to build enough wave/water power plants.
I think the path we should follow the path of nuclear energy if we want to cut out coal power plants. They are expensive to build, but they provide massive efficiency:cost ratio, need very low amounts of U (or Th or whatever), and they emit just water to the atmosphere, making them one of the most green & viable options we have. The only downsides is the burn out fuel - which has to be buried underground at the moment, but there are experimental power plants that can burn and reuse burn out fuel - and, of course, the small problems when the power plant decides to explode.
But I think we shouldn't fear it that much - especially with modern technology, and the focus on security is, like, really big. Chernobyl was experiment that should prove if it even worked - and blown up because of irresponsible officer that knew nothing about what is he doing, but he did it because he wanted to test it. Fukushima - well, try to not build it at the coast.
While I think renewable energy definitely has it's value, I think that the best move would be to invest in nuclear energy, which can replace coal power plants much faster.
Punish trade partners that have unreasonably high carbon emissions.
Punish domestic companies that have unreasonably high carbon emissions.
Ban cars in areas with high population density.
Expand Amtrack.
Are you asking for extra punishment on top of a flat $/t carbon tax or no carbon tax but sanctions on heavy emitters only?
A consumption tax will already negatively affect a heavy emitter more than a light emitter even if it's a flat rate. This should increase pressure for them to reduce their emissions to reduce their tax load which should* also make them more competitive that their peers with consumers forcing their competitors to follow suit.
* Should unless cost of operating technology to reduce emissions cost more than the tax itself.
Fourth Generation nuclear power plants to phase out coal, oil and gas plants throughout the country
Incarcerating and seizing all the wealth of donors who have previously lobbied against addressing climate change, as otherwise any action taken will be undone in a subsequent election cycle.
Incarcerating people for legal activities sounds a bit harsh, don't you think?
There's a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance, though. You generally shouldn't fault someone for not knowing something. However, that sort of ignorance is categorically different from campaigning against facts because they're inconvenient to your personal (monetary) interests.
Incarcerating people for having the wrong politics is the definition of tyranny. And even if the person in power when those powers are granted agrees with you 100% it's only a matter of time before someone else takes power and uses it to do abhorrent things.
It's a good thing that things can be undone in later election cycles. You wouldn't want to be stuck with the current administration's policies forever, after all, would you?
Few things that haven't been said yet.