Possible climate change solution

[zed]

Well perhaps not as grandiose as the title suggests
but I thought of this about a month ago.

ATM each country has/or doesnt have a carbon scheme usually
1. emissions tax
2. emissions trading
but of course in reality none work its all smiles and handshakes and photo ops, theres so many loopholes/exceptions etc so nothing major happens

Now hows this for a possible solution.

IMF/world bank/UN/WTO etc membership funds are gathered each year based on a countries greenhouse gas emissions per tonne scaled by a multiplier(*) per country, this value per year increases 5-15% thus its in a countries interest to reduce their gases.

(*)eg GDP per capita, though I hate GDP as its a terrible indicator for wealth see singapore for reasons why

 

[nutball]

IMF/world bank/UN/WTO etc membership funds are gathered each year based on a countries greenhouse gas emissions per tonne scaled by a multiplier(*) per country, this value per year increases 5-15% thus its in a countries interest to reduce their gases.

Or, you ensure that it's in those country's interests to leave the organisations you've just listed.

 

[zed]

So tell me why they dont leave them now & save themselves lots of cash in fees?
Answer -> cause they greatly benefit being part.
So you think they'ld be better going it alone, like say north korea? I donno last time I checked that hasnt worked out well

 

[Blazkowicz]

You can leave IMF easily, it's popular among e.g. south american countries, they decide to pay the debt and say fuck off. If anything IMF/World Bank/whatever are an impediment, it's crap and we even invented the word "neocolonialism" for them.

UN, well everyone gets to be in the UN except Taïwan. You don't want it to fall apart.
I don't know what to do. "Do a carbon tax or you'll be nuked" (but you get to stay in the UN) is better but has its own problems.

 

[zed]

You can leave IMF easily, it's popular among e.g. south american countries, they decide to pay the debt and say fuck off.

from wiki

Apart from Cuba, the other states that do not belong to the IMF are North Korea, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Cook Islands, Niue, Vatican City, and the states with limited recognition (other than Kosovo

so you better update the wiki page if theres a host of South amreican countries not in it?

whether or not the IMF/bank/WTO is good or not is moot, (perhaps I dont agree with certain things eg some of the WTO stuff) but like I say its moot.
the fact is, the vast majority of countries do think its of benefit (otherwise they would save cash & exit).

also refining my original point, perhaps u could incentivise by saying if your emission are not less than 1990s levels then percentage increase per year is 20%, otherwise 5% (or better yet a sliding scale) hitting someone in the pocket often has the fastest results

 

[Blazkowicz]

To ensure such terms this suppose that you have incredible power, such as your own robot slaves army. I guess you have a slashdot account.

Probably everyone is part of IMF but being indebted to IMF is another thing and you can get out of that. This is like European Stability Mechanism maybe, you can sign and ratify the treaties and be almost safe, then when you get in trouble it will put you down in the shitters and make you like Greece.. Maybe ESM is worse, I dunno. Does Venezuela's constitution say if the country is in deficit then the IMF fucks it and sell all public assets, I don't know.
At least, we know that amazing coercition can be done so fighting global warming could be done if the EU begins to do it, as with USB phone chargers (except Apple)

 

[nutball]

So tell me why they dont leave them now & save themselves lots of cash in fees?
Answer -> cause they greatly benefit being part.

There is a cost to membership, and there are benefits from that membership.

As things currently stand most nations have performed a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the benefits outweigh the costs. What you're proposing is radically changing the costs of membership for some countries, whilst leaving the benefits unchanged. It's far from clear that their conclusions would be the same under this new regime.

This matters because the nations most likely to be hit hard in your scheme are the richer developed nations - the very nations that pony up the money that the IMF and World Bank distribute to poorer nations that need it.

Would individual countries be better off going alone? Maybe, maybe not. It depends which country you're talking about. I'm sure some of the larger nations could survive quite happily outside those organisations, and the organisations would be the losers if they were to leave. Moreover if large countries start to cede membership, smaller countries may well follow, as the perceived benefit to membership of a lessened WTO/whatever is much reduced.

 

[zed]

To ensure such terms this suppose that you have incredible power, such as your own robot slaves army. I guess you have a slashdot account.

no to that & facebook, never taken part in either
the rest of your post doesnt make sense to me

As things currently stand most nations have performed a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the benefits outweigh the costs. What you're proposing is radically changing the costs of membership for some countries, whilst leaving the benefits unchanged. It's far from clear that their conclusions would be the same under this new regime.

no the cost are initially the same, ala in the first year you are no better off or worse off from taking part of the IMF/WTO/UN etc, now with those organizations the cost rise per year, but here they only do based on your carbon etc output, in fact u can decrease the amount u pay!

This matters because the nations most likely to be hit hard in your scheme are the richer developed nations - the very nations that pony up the money that the IMF and World Bank distribute to poorer nations that need it.

well if all goes well they pay less! which is the crux of the issue, punish those that emit more & reward those that improve

Would individual countries be better off going alone? Maybe, maybe not. It depends which country you're talking about. I'm sure some of the larger nations could survive quite happily outside those organisations, and the organisations would be the losers if they were to leave. Moreover if large countries start to cede membership, smaller countries may well follow, as the perceived benefit to membership of a lessened WTO/whatever is much reduced.

yes like the US didnt take part of the 1980 olympics,yes that worked out well for the guys that idnt take part, they got to win golds in the in place (sponsered by nike REALDEEEEEALLLLLLLLLL olympics(*))

(*)do not hold the gold meadal by an open fire.


now mate since the 1980 olympics are been and gone, next time u meeet someone who competed ask them are they happy with their REALDEEEEEALLLLLLLLLL, (sponsered my macdonalds cooking the best fies since 1957) (tm) medal or would they have prefered an olympic medal

gotta eat now

 

[green.pixel]

The advantage of not being a member of the IMF is that you won't get drained by the IMF.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The problem with any scheme like this is how do you get them to sign up for it? Answer, you don't. There's no functional way to get China or the US or Russia to sign up for it. If those countries won't sign up for it (the biggest polluters), why would anyone else agree to punish themselves just to be at a disadvantage to the countries that won't sign on?