thethinkertank Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 The Kyoto Protocol is a UN strategy for minimizing greenhouse gas emmissions in nations across the world. The taxes levied on a country's emmissions, are called emmision caps. Now China has an emmision cap twice that of USA. So that means China pays double the emmision taxes as USA. This extraeneous cost could be used to balance out the US china trade deficit if USA manouvered it's trade equation to take into account and control chinas emission taxes. After all, global commerce is a set of equations and one trade route can be enlargened to control another with all parties' agreement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 8 hours ago, thethinkertank said: China has an emmision cap twice that of USA. So that means China pays double the emmision taxes as USA. This extraeneous cost could be used to balance out the US china trade deficit Not sure I follow. Will you please expand on this part? The fees levied on countries for their CO2 emissions are a separate issue from net inflows and outflows of trading goods between two countries, yet you conflate them here. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious layman Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) It seems completely stupid to me to even think America and China can have an balanced trade deficit, china has over 1 billion people, America has over 300 million, just by its sheer size it will always have a trade deficit. i think America just has to come to terms with the fact there not going to be no1 anymore. Edited June 17, 2019 by Curious layman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) Just now, iNow said: Not sure I follow. Will you please expand on this part? The fees levied on countries for their CO2 emissions are a separate issue from net inflows and outflows of trading goods between two countries, yet you conflate them here. Why? Im merely endeavouring to examind global finance as a dynamic and wholesomely connected flow of trade and deficit. Now surely some point, some extraeneous far fetched entity in the global finance chain could seek to combine these two defecits in an equation that would continously balance out one the US China trade deficit vs the Chinese emission caps. It's rather like untying and then reknotting differently a multiple knotted rope, or shaking a slinky in the right places. A starting point might be to check what the US China trade and the China emission caps have in common that might be exploited to this end. Maybe trade of CO2 abundant goods on the silk route, by usa to china? Maybe greenhouse gas emitting cars, made in USA but warehoused to china via saudi arabia, again the silk route connection? I think the silk route is a good starting point to define the commonalities between chinese emission caps and US china trade. Edited June 17, 2019 by thethinkertank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Curious layman said: It seems completely stupid to me to even think America and China can have an balanced trade deficit, china has over 1 billion people!!! America has over 300 million, just by its sheer size it will always have a trade deficit. Why would China sell more to the USA than vice-versa "just by it's sheer size". All other factors being equal it would still be balanced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: I think the silk route is a good starting point to define the commonalities between chinese emission caps and US china trade. You can think whatever you want, but this doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious layman Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Why would China sell more to the USA than vice-versa "just by it's sheer size". All other factors being equal it would still be balanced. I was thinking about how much china will consume, but that would of course have the opposite effect wouldn't it. still think they'll never balance it though, most of what china sells to US is cheap stuff which benefits the poor mainly, they can't compete with the wages ( and government subsidies ). And most Chinese, more than the population of America I believe, are still poor, and America doesn't make that much cheap stuff anymore. Not to mention the fact that most Chinese are nationalistic and prefer there own stuff. But is that any different to Germany or even America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 9 hours ago, thethinkertank said: The Kyoto Protocol is a UN strategy for minimizing greenhouse gas emmissions in nations across the world. The taxes levied on a country's emmissions, are called emmision caps. Now China has an emmision cap twice that of USA. So that means China pays double the emmision taxes as USA. I don't see how that follows. You could pay a tax on emissions that exceed the cap, but you have provided no data on actual emissions, or what the caps are. (and I don't think Kyoto has any actual taxes in it. It's goals for each country. Also, the US has not ratified the treaty, so is under no legal obligation adhere to it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 Just now, swansont said: I don't see how that follows. You could pay a tax on emissions that exceed the cap, but you have provided no data on actual emissions, or what the caps are. (and I don't think Kyoto has any actual taxes in it. It's goals for each country. Also, the US has not ratified the treaty, so is under no legal obligation adhere to it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Please refer above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Please refer above This does not answer my question/address my objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 Just now, swansont said: Just now, swansont said: I don't see how that follows. You could pay a tax on emissions that exceed the cap, but you have provided no data on actual emissions, or what the caps are. (and I don't think Kyoto has any actual taxes in it. It's goals for each country. Also, the US has not ratified the treaty, so is under no legal obligation adhere to it) Kyoto protocol does in fact levy emission caps and the US and every country yoked with the said taxes are in fact legally bound by them. The statistics I provided indicate that China has a emission cap (greenhouse gas production index per annum) twice that of USA. Still searching for exact tax value however, will get back to you on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 57 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: Kyoto protocol does in fact levy emission caps and the US and every country yoked with the said taxes are in fact legally bound by them. Then there should be no issue in you providing the numbers, and a link to the information Quote The statistics I provided indicate that China has a emission cap (greenhouse gas production index per annum) twice that of USA. A cap is not the same as the production amount. Also, cap and trade is not the same as a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 19, 2019 Author Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) Just now, swansont said: Then there should be no issue in you providing the numbers, and a link to the information A cap is not the same as the production amount. Also, cap and trade is not the same as a tax. the UN levies taxes on a nation's emission quota under the Kyoto protocol which is like an inverse version of 'cap and trade' which defines incentives for LESS pollution as opposed to fines levied on EXCESS production which is the case here. Edited June 19, 2019 by thethinkertank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 4 hours ago, thethinkertank said: the UN levies taxes on a nation's emission quota under the Kyoto protocol which is like an inverse version of 'cap and trade' which defines incentives for LESS pollution as opposed to fines levied on EXCESS production which is the case here. That’s not a link to a credible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et pet Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) It appears that some of the Posters in this Thread might benefit from the following Links : https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php " Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first commitment period Countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period and their emissions targets Country Target (1990** - 2008/2012) EU-15*, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Monaco, Romania,Slovakia,Slovenia, Switzerland -8% US*** -7% Canada,**** Hungary, Japan, Poland -6% Croatia -5% New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine 0 Norway +1% Australia +8% Iceland +10% * The 15 States who were EU members in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, took on that 8% target that will be redistributed among themselves, taking advantage of a scheme under the Protocol known as a “bubble”, whereby countries have different individual targets, but which combined make an overall target for that group of countries. The EU has already reached agreement on how its targets will be redistributed. ** Some EITs have a baseline other than 1990. *** The US has indicated its intention not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. **** On 15 December 2011, the Depositary received written notification of Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. This action became effective for Canada on 15 December 2012. " https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change published "The Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual" : https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf " FOREWORD Climate change is increasingly recognized as one of the most critical challenges ever to face humankind. With the release of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific community has significantly advanced public understanding of climate change and its impacts. In this report, the IPCC concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising average global sea level”. The conclusions of the IPCC report made the case for action against climate change stronger than ever before. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global response embracing the needs and interests of all countries. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came into effect in 1994, and its Kyoto Protocol that came into effect in 2005 – sharing the objective of the Convention to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – enable such a global response to climate change. The Protocol sets binding targets for developed countries, known as “Annex I Parties”, to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has established innovative mechanisms to assist these Parties in meeting their emissions commitments. Both the Convention and its Protocol created a framework for the implementation of an array of national climate policies, and stimulated the creation of the carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that could provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. " https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf Edited June 19, 2019 by et pet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, et pet said: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change published "The Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual" : https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf Thank you for the link. Now perhaps thethinkertank can point out the details of the tax he was claiming. I did a search and the term "tax" does not appear to be present. In any event, I still don't see how one can conclude that China will pay double the emission taxes (or whatever) as USA without citing the CO2 production and what the cap level is. Those numbers are not present. I am trying to get thethinkertank to do something that passes as something resembling scientific effort (research, citing a source, perhaps even crunching a number or two) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, swansont said: That’s not a link to a credible source. https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/kyoto-policy-measures.htm Please refer 'taxes' under that article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions That link gives you info on the emission quota per country where you can see USA has a emission quota half of that of China. https://www.google.com/search?ei=WgELXevhDMXw9QP7ipj4Bg&q=kyoto+protocol+emission+taxes&oq=kyoto+protocol+emission+taxes&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21j33i160.4147.9766..9890...0.0..0.280.5785.0j11j17......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0j0i131j0i67j0i131i67j0i22i30.YI_VRHWCmhA The definition of 'Kyoto protocol emission taxes' which is the fee a nation pays for carbon dioxide emitted per tonne of CO2 emitted. 13 hours ago, et pet said: It appears that some of the Posters in this Thread might benefit from the following Links : https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php " Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first commitment period Countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period and their emissions targets Country Target (1990** - 2008/2012) EU-15*, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Monaco, Romania,Slovakia,Slovenia, Switzerland -8% US*** -7% Canada,**** Hungary, Japan, Poland -6% Croatia -5% New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine 0 Norway +1% Australia +8% Iceland +10% * The 15 States who were EU members in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, took on that 8% target that will be redistributed among themselves, taking advantage of a scheme under the Protocol known as a “bubble”, whereby countries have different individual targets, but which combined make an overall target for that group of countries. The EU has already reached agreement on how its targets will be redistributed. ** Some EITs have a baseline other than 1990. *** The US has indicated its intention not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. **** On 15 December 2011, the Depositary received written notification of Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. This action became effective for Canada on 15 December 2012. " https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change published "The Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual" : https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf " FOREWORD Climate change is increasingly recognized as one of the most critical challenges ever to face humankind. With the release of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific community has significantly advanced public understanding of climate change and its impacts. In this report, the IPCC concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising average global sea level”. The conclusions of the IPCC report made the case for action against climate change stronger than ever before. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global response embracing the needs and interests of all countries. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came into effect in 1994, and its Kyoto Protocol that came into effect in 2005 – sharing the objective of the Convention to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – enable such a global response to climate change. The Protocol sets binding targets for developed countries, known as “Annex I Parties”, to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has established innovative mechanisms to assist these Parties in meeting their emissions commitments. Both the Convention and its Protocol created a framework for the implementation of an array of national climate policies, and stimulated the creation of the carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that could provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. " https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf Thank you for the additional statistics contributed. 12 hours ago, swansont said: In any event, I still don't see how one can conclude that China will pay double the emission taxes (or whatever) as USA without citing the CO2 production and what the cap level is. Those numbers are not present. If you combine the three links i posted just now, you can see that China's emission quota is twice that of USA's. Since the Kyoto protocol levies taxes on CO2 emission of a nation, therefore the USA tax would be half that of the China tax. P.S If you would like me to make a brand new thred encompassing all the questiuons asked in this thread and the relevant info I would be happy to do so. Call it a revised version of my Emissions trade us china trade theory. Edited June 20, 2019 by thethinkertank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 6 hours ago, thethinkertank said: https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/kyoto-policy-measures.htm Please refer 'taxes' under that article. You mean the part where they discuss taxes that could be implemented by each country to lower their emissions? The link is entitled "Suggested measures for the achievement of Kyoto standards" Yeah, that's not what you were claiming. You said these were in place, and imposed/collected by the UN. That's wholly different from suggested methods for individual governments to put in place in their countries. 6 hours ago, thethinkertank said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions That link gives you info on the emission quota per country where you can see USA has a emission quota half of that of China. That's only part of what you had asserted, and is not the part that is in question. 6 hours ago, thethinkertank said: https://www.google.com/search?ei=WgELXevhDMXw9QP7ipj4Bg&q=kyoto+protocol+emission+taxes&oq=kyoto+protocol+emission+taxes&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21j33i160.4147.9766..9890...0.0..0.280.5785.0j11j17......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0j0i131j0i67j0i131i67j0i22i30.YI_VRHWCmhA From the first link in that list "Carbon taxes are one of the policies available to governments to reduce GHG emissions." Again, this does not describe the situation you claimed. Second one: "The world should dump the "inefficient and ineffective" Kyoto protocol and replace it with a global carbon tax" Meaning such a tax is not currently in place. 6 hours ago, thethinkertank said: The definition of 'Kyoto protocol emission taxes' which is the fee a nation pays for carbon dioxide emitted per tonne of CO2 emitted. Again, claimed without evidence. 6 hours ago, thethinkertank said: Thank you for the additional statistics contributed. If you combine the three links i posted just now, you can see that China's emission quota is twice that of USA's. Since the Kyoto protocol levies taxes on CO2 emission of a nation, therefore the USA tax would be half that of the China tax. Do you understand what a quota is? If such a system were in place (and you have failed to show that it is) you would pay tax only of you exceeded your quota, and pay none if you didn't. You cannot validly conclude that a lower quota would result in a lower tax. 6 hours ago, thethinkertank said: P.S If you would like me to make a brand new thred encompassing all the questiuons asked in this thread and the relevant info I would be happy to do so. Call it a revised version of my Emissions trade us china trade theory. What would be the point? I have other ways to waste my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 thethinkertank, it is admirable you want to help solving modern world geopolitical and environmental problems. However your ways to solve them, are completely senseless. You didn't pay enough attention to research subjects you want to address. Which should be essential action. How can US decrease deficit with China? Find something which Chinese people need, produce it, and export it. Hard? I know.. Chinese wages are growing, costs of production of product they sell to the world is growing. The closer they are to western wages, the harder they will be able to sell them. So, deficit problem will solve by itself. There is limit at which cost of components+cost of labor+cost of transportation to entire world will be so close to western prices, product will stop being attractive (at least from price tag point of view) to western customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Sensei said: thethinkertank, it is admirable you want to help solving modern world geopolitical and environmental problems. However your ways to solve them, are completely senseless. You didn't pay enough attention to research subjects you want to address. Which should be essential action. How can US decrease deficit with China? Find something which Chinese people need, produce it, and export it. Hard? I know.. Chinese wages are growing, costs of production of product they sell to the world is growing. The closer they are to western wages, the harder they will be able to sell them. So, deficit problem will solve by itself. There is limit at which cost of components+cost of labor+cost of transportation to entire world will be so close to western prices, product will stop being attractive (at least from price tag point of view) to western customers. That depends on infrastructure and the west stopped doing that some time ago; belt and braces seems more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 28, 2019 Author Share Posted June 28, 2019 Note: I mailed the UN and other related organisations online and offline, totalling approximately 40-50, about my theory of solving the US China trade war. For what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thethinkertank Posted June 28, 2019 Author Share Posted June 28, 2019 Just now, swansont said: You mean the part where they discuss taxes that could be implemented by each country to lower their emissions? The link is entitled "Suggested measures for the achievement of Kyoto standards" Yeah, that's not what you were claiming. You said these were in place, and imposed/collected by the UN. That's wholly different from suggested methods for individual governments to put in place in their countries. That's only part of what you had asserted, and is not the part that is in question. From the first link in that list "Carbon taxes are one of the policies available to governments to reduce GHG emissions." Again, this does not describe the situation you claimed. Second one: "The world should dump the "inefficient and ineffective" Kyoto protocol and replace it with a global carbon tax" Meaning such a tax is not currently in place. Again, claimed without evidence. Do you understand what a quota is? If such a system were in place (and you have failed to show that it is) you would pay tax only of you exceeded your quota, and pay none if you didn't. You cannot validly conclude that a lower quota would result in a lower tax. What would be the point? I have other ways to waste my time. Am I allowed to abandon a topic that goes around in circles, citing lack of tools to research sufficient answers? Lets call this topic a no go, for example. If such is allowed. If not, I will try to come up with more answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 9 hours ago, thethinkertank said: Am I allowed to abandon a topic that goes around in circles, citing lack of tools to research sufficient answers? Lets call this topic a no go, for example. If such is allowed. If not, I will try to come up with more answers. You can simply not post, but if you do, you are expected to support your assertions (or concede that you can't), and to answer questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now