Then we really lucked out, although it would still be a bummer about the corals. (And shell fish, acidification is already disrupting oyster farming in Washington)
If the choice is between people having electricity and clean, running water in India, or corals dying out, it isn't moral to choose the corals. Human lives matter.
A carbon tax will non proportionally harm developing nations and the poor in all nations.
Why would Tanzania have to pay more for fuel because it has 55 yr old power plants that pollute much more than France's shiny new ones?
The agricultural industry is responsible for 30% of emissions, if we talk about food in general including transport, processing, manufacturing and distribution then 50-60% of our carbon emissions come from feeding us.
A carbon tax can increase food prices worldwide by 3-400% and the poorer you are and the more the food has to travel the more expensive it will be which again puts many developing nations at a disadvantage.
Those figures don't sound right to me, the US spends about 8% of it's GDP on food, that isn't likely to add up to 50-60% of emissions.
A carbon tax doesn't have to harm the poor either, it can be neutral if it's offset with tax decreases in other areas. There is even an argument that the developing world doesn't raise enough tax, without taxes you can't provide good health care to the poor.
