Elvis Was Right

A Little Less (Carbon) Conversation, Please

I have always hated meetings. Boring, sometimes confrontational, rarely necessary, meetings are what you settle for when you can’t—or don’t want to—do anything else but still desire that feeling of satisfaction that comes with a job well done. When I read that the EU is preparing for the next iteration (this will be Number 30) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) by watering down their already failed carbon emissions reduction commitments, I am struck by how utterly useless and wasteful those meetings are.

Source: Openverse

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will note that I have been tracking our stunning lack of progress in combating global carbon pollution. A conspiracy theorist might begin to think that “the powers that be” have instead been making a conscious effort to avoid reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This latest European proposal is to allow member countries to meet up to five percent of their emissions reduction targets by purchasing carbon credits. A carbon credit is a license to emit carbon that is paid for by inducing someone else, somewhere else, to do the job you were supposed to do in the first place—stop emitting carbon. In theory a cap-and-trade credit market that steadily decreases the maximum total amount of allowable emissions would eventually lead to overall atmospheric carbon removal. But that is not what is happening. A plethora of carbon credit generating businesses are continuing to vie for funding. There are many prospective credit customers, but only one atmosphere, and no globally enforceable limit on total worldwide emissions.

Neither COP 30 nor the next thirty COP meetings will change that last fact, because it will always be in the interest of rich nations to pretend that they can outsource responsibility. Emitting more carbon while asking another nation to refrain from doing so is analogous to paying your neighbor to permit you to dump your trash over the fence as a way of “cleaning up” your yard. After a while, it will begin to stink up the entire block, even if you can’t see it from your beautiful new redwood deck.

There is a solution to this problem, and, as I have argued previously, it would take the form of (don’t laugh) a tariff. A carbon tax levied on all fuels and raw materials based on their as-manufactured carbon content is the only rational way to rigorously pursue decarbonization of the global economy. If a material can be demonstrably recycled and returned to economic service, then one could conceivably take “credit” for the embedded carbon in that material. A tax on embedded carbon structured in that way would operate similarly to the deposit some states charge on glass beverage bottles.

(Aside: In the 1970s and 80s it used to be possible to purchase glass pop [we didn’t say “soda” back then] bottles in the State of Washington, which did not charge a deposit, and then “return” them across the Columbia River in Oregon to “collect” said deposit. It is my understanding that those two states have put a stop to this shocking arbitrage opportunity—not that I know anyone who would ever have done such a terrible thing.)

Such “carbon border adjustment” tariffs have long been considered, but only in a piecemeal, ad hoc fashion: they need to go global. The world has shown over the past ten months just how easy it is to implement a global tariff policy. Hell, you don’t even really need to have a policy—you can just tweet (or X-ify or whatever you call it now). Far better, of course, would be to coordinate carbon tariffs with other nations, and if you absolutely, positively, have to hold a meeting, then that is the meeting to hold. Forget about emissions targets; just negotiate the tariff rate per kilogram of carbon. Of course, there are still ways to game that system, most notably by finagling the amount of carbon contained in various fuels, chemicals, and alloys (e.g. steel). But it’s harder to cheat that way, because the elemental composition of raw materials—and I specifically differentiate raw materials from finished goods here—can be measured. Compositional measurements are deterministic, amenable to evaluation using repeatable, observable experimental methods. If the global rate of emissions does not fall, then you need to increase the carbon tariff rate. If you are unwilling to do that, then you are admitting that you don’t care about reducing atmospheric carbon levels.

What should we do with the proceeds of this carbon tax? That’s a trickier political problem, to be sure. My vote would be to dedicate it to civil infrastructure, disaster relief, public education, and universal healthcare—not necessarily in that order. Yes, I’m saying the “S” word (socialism). Wealth inequality and climate change are inextricably connected to each other, because climate change is fundamentally a consequence of overconsumption. We mine metals and pump oil to build stuff that people buy. Rich people buy more stuff than do poor people. The ultrarich refuse to pay a wealth tax, which they should. Failing that, a comprehensive tax on all raw materials tied to their carbon content, with all proceeds dedicated solely to socially valuable projects, is the only legitimate alternative. Financing public works through decarbonization is a way to make the best use of our market economy to do good.