The tariffs hurt the producer country if the cost of their imported goods becomes significantly more expensive than other sources, because then your own citizens will buy other goods. Yes, this does still hurt your own citizens, but it also hurts the producer country as well, if they can't find a market for their goods.
Of course, this only works if most/all of the significant consumer countries all impose similar tariffs. And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.
>Of course, this only works if most/all of the significant consumer countries all impose similar tariffs.
The problem always seems to be one of international action. If we wait for global agreement, I think we're screwed. Every time I hear the argument "there's no point in us acting while China is building a coal-fired power station every nanosecond", I think of this. Half the problem is that we're effectively exporting a good proportion of our emissions - we can't wash our hands of that and use it as an excuse not to clean up our own act as well. This seems like the obvious answer to those objections to me.
I think this is something that could be designed to work incrementally. Obviously the more countries do it the better, but every time you increase the cost of burning fossil fuels, more marginal renewable energy sources become economically viable.
> And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.
It's been a couple of decades and we're still waiting...
Well, in the same way higher energy costs hurt your own citizens, in the short term. But we need the price of greenhouse gas emissions to include the externalised costs involved, otherwise the market just makes the wrong choices.
The measures can be revenue neutral - just reduce other taxes by an equivalent amount. Folks will have more money, and face higher costs, but will be incented to direct their spending to less polluting imports where possible.
The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...