Experts call for new taxes on worst polluters to help poorer nations with climate crisis
Report to be discussed at Cop30 says global agreements should target carbon intensive activities and ‘ultra high net worth individuals’
The roadmap will form the basis of discussions of climate finance at Cop30. Last year’s “conference of the parties” in Baku set a goal of £1.3tn to be provided annually to poor countries by 2035, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather. But there was a bitter taste for many when rich countries pledged to stump up only $300bn of that sum, leaving the rest to come from potential new taxes and levies, the private sector, and related sources.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/05/wealth-and-fossil-fuel-taxes-to-fund-aid-for-poorer-statesOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
7 replies
Know what sector of governments usually are exempt from reporting emissions? Militaries.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/warfares-climate-emissions-are-huge-but-uncounted/
I am positively surprised that there is a plan at all; and that subsequently, some countries have forwarded a pollution reduction plan. Though it's clear that some countries are producing and polluting more than others, either by GDP and or per capita, it's also true that some very poor countries ( ex. Bangladesh, Sahel region, Iran) are suffering way more than others.
Even though climate change is undeniable, some factors like responsible land, forest, water, agricultural use ( resources), but also building quality, can contribute to or alleviate disasters.
It is a complex and codependent world we humans have created, within an apperantly more and more fragile ecosystem. Who will pay, whom will receive, and how much, should be based on some clear measurable variables, but mostly it will probably all depend on political will and moral responsibility.
What?
They have modern cities, but that's not where most live.
Their rural areas burn coal in house, which is incredibly inefficient and causing more pollution in a plant.
But the big problem is US is shipping it all the way over there and I to those rural areas, causing pollution the whole way.
We shouldn't be mining any coal, but the least we can do is burn it here in modern plants. Were pretty much doing the worst possible course right now.
Huh?
We're moving around 120 million tons of coal to China annually...
I'm not saying America should burn coal.
I'm saying if we're blowing up our mountains to get it, burning it here where it's regulated would be better than shipping 120,000,000 tons of coal to China so they could burn it over there.
Obviously the ideal would be to leave it buried in the ground and invest in renewables.
My point is domestic use isn't the metric to look at, it's domestic production. Other countries can't burn our coal when there's a mountain on top of it.
I literally can't tell what that's supposed to mean...
But clearly explaining this more times isn't going to help
It costs more to generate power from coal and diesel.
China and russia should foot the bill.