Would you support your country joining an 'open invite' Free Trade Agreement with the only stipulation being the implementation of a Carbon Tax? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by Yondoza@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The way I see it, the major barrier to countries implementing carbon taxes is the fear their economic competitors won't do the same, therefore hindering their economic growth needlessly. A valid concern.

Why don't some nations build an 'opt in' style Free Trade Agreement that allows any country to join as long as they prove they have implemented and enforced a carbon tax. Those countries then have high financial incentives to only trade within the 'carbon tax block' and any country outside is at a serious trade disadvantage.

I've (quickly) looked and have not found anything like this proposed (which is frankly crazy).

Would you support your country jumping into this FTA?

What are the unforeseen downsides or objections to a plan like this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So then your problem is that access to the FTA markets comes with barriers to the non-FTA markets.

Then you’ve got a network effect problem. Let’s say one country declares it’s the new FTA starter. What does the second country’s situation look like then?

If the second country joins the FTA, then its effects will be:

Trade access to the small FTA market
Trade barriers to the non-FTA market

What you did with the opt-in idea is found a solution for some of the incentive barriers to this agreement. Sort of an incremental growth approach which is more likely to succeed than an all-or-nothing approach.

But then the rule that it involves tarrifs against non-FTA countries means there is a downside to it. Suddenly the utility graph has a big zone that’s below zero.

This is a really hard problem (one that is historically solved by armies forcibly consolidating territory into unified political units), and I hope you keep working on it.

[-] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

But then the rule that it involves tarrifs against non-FTA countries means there is a downside to it. Suddenly the utility graph has a big zone that’s below zero.

In what I was suggesting, there are no required tarrifs between the non-FTA and FTA countries. The only requirement would be that within the FTA there are no tariffs. Presumably the trade laws between a non-FTA and FTA country would remain the same, and might have a slight increase to compensate for the internal carbon tax.

I'm sure this small clarification doesn't actually make much of a difference on your larger point. I'm clearly not a trained economist. I appreciate your response, but there are a few things over my head. Do you have good suggested reading/videos for "Network Effect Problems" or "Utility Graphs"? Or should I just search around?

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023

44 points (87.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43859 readers

1716 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS