Tag: carbon tariffs

Someone in Europe Is Talking Sense on Carbon Tariffs

The nominee for EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht has taken the brave step of opposing carbon tariffs, called for by many European politicians (including, notably, French President Nicolas Sarkozy).

In the first day of his confirmation hearings, Mr. de Gucht expressed concern that carbon tariffs were a possible first step in a “trade war” and implied that they were in any event inconsistent with current trade law. (I agree.) He also called for abolishing tariffs on goods beneficial to the environment as a trade-friendly way to reduce greenhouse gases, and expressed support for the Doha round of multilateral trade talks. (More here.) While the Trade Commissioner’s influence over actual trade policy in the EU is arguably limited, it is good to have someone in the post who is instinctively suspicious of green protectionism and friendly towards the WTO.

The European Parliament is due to vote on the European Commission nominees (en masse) on January 26.

The Start of Interstate Carbon Tariffs?

Not content with waiting for federal legislation on the matter, it seems that Minnesota has introduced a “carbon fee” of $4-$34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions on energy produced –mainly using coal – in North Dakota.  The fee is scheduled to go into effect in 2012. (see here)

North Dakota plans to challenge the new tax, which it rightly says will discourage the purchase of North Dakota power (that is, indeed, the whole point of the tariff). I’m no constitutional scholar, but Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution says that “No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws…” so the Minnesota tariff appears to be unconstitutional (for whatever that’s worth these days…), at least unless and until Congress gives its consent for it. 

On the one hand, the current political make-up of Congress would suggest that such consent might, disappointingly, be given. On the other, the cap-and-trade bill has stalled in Congress despite the wishes of the majority leadership and the administration, suggesting that the desire to regulate energy and greenhouse gas emissions is lacking crucial support.

In related news, another body supportive of carbon tariffs, the French government, has seen its plans thwarted recently after the Constitutional Court there struck down the proposed carbon tax as unconstitutional.  President Sarkozy had intented to extend the carbon tax EU-wide so as to prevent adverse competitiveness effects on French industry, thus giving the EU the incentive to apply a trade bloc-wide tariff on imports from less regulated countries. So the setback in France is good news for those of us concerned about the damage that carbon tariffs would do.

HT: Scott Lincicome

More Trade News

My colleague Dan Griswold pointed out yesterday some unfortunate editing in the Washington Post. Here are a couple of other trade-related items in the news recently:

  • Sen. Max Baucus (D, MT and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) has seemingly thrown his weight behind the idea of “border measures” (i.e., carbon tariffs).  After paying the semi-obligatory lip service to the United States’ obligations under international trade law – and I say only “semi-obligatory” because some U.S. lawmakers appear not to care about it at all – Baucus goes on to deliver this rhetorical gem:

    I think often the United States has to lead,” Baucus said, noting that what lawmakers come up could be used as a model for other countries to copy.

    So the U.S. would saddle its consumers with higher prices in exchange for little benefit environmentally and in the process risk retaliation and alienating countries who it insists are necessary for global cooperation on climate change?

    Some leadership.

    And it may well be that the Chinese have the jump on the United States here, in any case. They’re proposing to introduce a carbon tax of their own, to prevent double-taxation in the form of carbon tariffs by the developed countries (banned under WTO rules) and to keep the carbon tax revenue – collected, remember, from U.S. consumers! – for themselves, all while seeming to play nice on climate change. I bet those who proposed carbon tariffs are sorry they spoke out now. (HT: Scott Lincicome)

  • Brazil has published a list of over 200 mostly consumer and agricultural goods that would be subject to retaliatory tariffs as part of the on-going dispute over U.S. cotton subsidies (an excellent backgrounder to that dispute is available here).

    I note with sorrow that the list also contains intermediate goods, which of course would mean saddling Brazilian manufacturers with higher prices. Even if the Brazilian government isn’t too concerned about  burdening its consumers with extra taxes, rarely a concern of politicians apparently, you’d think they would hesitate to impose higher costs on manufacturers, who employ people.

    Again, it is important to draw a distinction here between the mercantalist political logic of retaliatory tariffs and the economic insanity of increasing costs to your own people in “retaliation” for the harm another country’s policies have done to you. (And no, I don’t count the “game-theory” argument as an “economic” one here. That is a fancy way of saying that in an international relations, i.e. political, sense, retaliation can bring about the desired change.  I’m talking about the fact that costs to consumers from tariffs – whatever their rationale – far outweighing the benefits that producers derive from protection). But this latest development is a sign that Brazil is serious about getting the U.S. to reform its agricultural policies, something it should be doing anyway.

    Brazil was, it should be noted, given permission from the WTO to suspend intellectual property rights protections as a form of retaliation, a new but increasingly attractive way of exacting retribution, but only after a certain amount of damages had been collected the usual way.

  • Chamber of Commerce Endorses Carbon Tariffs?

    Even though the climate change summit in Copenhagen next month is likely to yield very little, domestic shenanigans continue. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works passed a bill on Thursday amid controversy, and the farmers’ friends in the Senate (notably Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D. Mich) are looking to send goodies their way by filing an amendment that would pay farmers for not cutting down trees, not farming, and will likely see states such as — well, how about that! —  Michigan “cashing in” (see here).

    Meanwhile, those concerned about the cost of climate change regulations may have lost an ally. Often, but not always, one can depend on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to defend free enterprise, or at least free trade. On climate change, however, they are a little more ambiguous. If anything, they appear to be getting more sympathetic to climate change legislation. Nothing to do with membership defections, they assure us, just good business practice. Maybe it is. I’m not a member of the Chamber so their strategy is not really any of my business.

    What concerns me is the apparent shift in their position toward so-called carbon tariffs (also called “border adjustment measures,” and often spoken of in terms of “international competitiveness,” “negotiating leverage” and other terms that should raise the alarm). My friend, and former Catoite, Scott Lincicome does an excellent job here of parsing through the Chamber’s recent public letter in support of  the Kerry-Graham “framework” (outlined in this New York Times op-ed) and their strange silence on the framework’s inclusion of the need for carbon tariffs, so I won’t repeat his analysis here. Suffice to say, their non-comment on the issue of carbon tariffs is worrying. As Scott points out, they appear to endorse the concept, if in a coded manner.

    Back in June, the Chamber explicitly opposed Waxman-Markey, in part because “It would also impose carbon tariffs on goods imported into the U.S., a move that would almost certainly spur retaliation from global trading partners.” (See here.) I would feel a lot more comfortable if a similarly explicit statement had been repeated in their letter.