Slashdot Mirror
Fixing China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions For Them
mdsolar writes: 'Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel Prize for understanding world trade, has proposed carbon tariffs as a way to get China to cut greenhouse gas emissions. He wrote, "China is enormously dependent on access to advanced-country markets — a lot of the coal it burns can be attributed, directly or indirectly, to its export business — and it knows that it would put this access at risk if it refused to play any role in protecting the planet. More specifically, if and when wealthy countries take serious action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, they're very likely to start imposing "carbon tariffs" on goods imported from countries that aren't taking similar action. Such tariffs should be legal under existing trade rules — the World Trade Organization would probably declare that carbon limits are effectively a tax on consumers, which can be levied on imports as well as domestic production. Furthermore, trade rules give special consideration to environmental protection. So China would find itself with strong incentives to start limiting emissions." As I read it, Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does indeed allow us to unilaterally impose tariffs on China.'
mdsolar continues, "I'd suggest that there should be a ramped approach. First, we should acknowledge that dangerous climate change has come early and we are already suffering damages. The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to the effects of climate change. Instead of increasing premiums, we should use climate damage tariffs to cover this increase. That amounts to a pretty small tariff, but it firmly establishes the liability connection. Non-Annex I countries (as listed in the Kyoto Protocol) are becoming the main contributors to cumulative emissions just as climate change has turned dangerous, that makes their emissions the cause of dangerous climate change. An accident of timing? Yes. But deliberately increasing emissions, as China is doing, eliminates safe harbor as well.
This small tariff could be used as a stepping stone to larger tariffs imposed cooperatively with other Annex I countries if China does not turn around. The larger tariffs could be used to assist with adaptation costs in countries with low per capita emissions where vulnerability to dangerous climate change is high. Lack of a clear funding mechanism for this sort of thing has been a sticking point at climate negotiations. This would essentially get funds from those who are causing the damage."
This small tariff could be used as a stepping stone to larger tariffs imposed cooperatively with other Annex I countries if China does not turn around. The larger tariffs could be used to assist with adaptation costs in countries with low per capita emissions where vulnerability to dangerous climate change is high. Lack of a clear funding mechanism for this sort of thing has been a sticking point at climate negotiations. This would essentially get funds from those who are causing the damage."
That's a good idea. China needs an economic incentive to clean up their air pollution problem. They can certainly do it. It took less than 20 years after the US Clean Air Act to get air pollution under control.
How about we all stop buying cheap Chinese shit if we care so much?
The prize is in honor of Nobel since Nobel did not institute a prize in economics. It was awarded in 2008 for Integrating the previously disparate research fields into a new, international trade and economic geography. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...
"Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel Prize for understanding world trade"
Like, whoa dude.
Soooooo.... we tax ourselves to make China change? Because that's what's being proposed. Tariffs are passed straight through to the buyers of the products. We we're raising prices on imported goods, to change the behavior of the manufacturers, who will still take in the same revenue. As long as domestic manufacturing remains more expensive than the imports plus tariffs, we will still be buying the imported goods, just paying more for them and funneling the extra money back to the federal government.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
I'd suggest that there should be a ramped approach. First, we should acknowledge that dangerous climate change has come early and we are already suffering damages. The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to the effects of climate change. Instead of increasing premiums, we should use climate damage tariffs to cover this increase. That amounts to a pretty small tariff, but it firmly establishes the liability connection. Non-Annex I countries (as listed in the Kyoto Protocol) are becoming the main contributors to cumulative emissions just as climate change has turned dangerous, that makes their emissions the cause of dangerous climate change. An accident of timing? Yes. But deliberately increasing emissions, as China is doing, eliminates safe harbor as well.
This small tariff could be used as a stepping stone to larger tariffs imposed cooperatively with other Annex I countries if China does not turn around. The larger tariffs could be used to assist with adaptation costs in countries with low per capita emissions where vulnerability to dangerous climate change is high. Lack of a clear funding mechanism for this sort of thing has been a sticking point at climate negotiations. This would essentially get funds from those who are causing the damage."
Your reading of GATT is not applicable. China falls under MFN, and tarrifs based on carbon emissions generally fall under "special interest protectionist measures", which means that they are not applicable.
In reality, implementing this would either require revocation of MFN status for China by the U.S., or modification to GATT. Modification to GATT would require a unanimous vote in the WTO, of which China has been a member since 11 Dec 2001, which means that a modification to GATT is off the table.
I've suggested that the way to deal with this, and with most of the job threat from offshoring, in fact, was to hold countries supplying products to the same standards that a domestic producer of those products would be held. That would include environmental, labor, and similar standards. This wouldn't address the economic inequity of people being to live for a lot less in China as on the same wages of the U.S., or that products manufactured for markets other than the U.S. market would necessarily meet U.S. standards either. But it would be a step in that direction.
To deal with any of the other loopholes, such as the "final assembly" loophole, where tarrifs aren't charged if the final assembly occurred within a given economic block, rather than in a foreign economic block (also called the "last major transformation" clause), would require even more work. So companies like Apple could still perform final assembly of Apple products in the Czech Republic, which, as an EU member, means not paying VAT import taxes compared to if they were wholly manufactured in China. Just as companies like GM do in the U.S. with regard to primary engine components for automobiles manufactured in Brazil.
Practically speaking, there's no way to get rid of all the loopholes without a One World Government(tm), which most people are against (especially the existing governments of nations which would be superseded by such a thing).
We may be driven there eventually, but we know the real solution to the carbon problem is to move to other sources capable of handling ever increasing base loads - and yeah, that doesn't mean hydroelectric, which endangers fish populations, or unreliable wind, or solar based on the available of solar grade silicon, relative to demand, being rather low.
How about a tariff on a per capita basis? Especially if we can tax on the amount of resources consumed per person per year. If the cost is not tied to each individual's life style, some people in some countries would continue burning through their huge SUV, while asking everyone else to live a caveman's life.
So, we have a non-lawyer, discussing a hypothetical situation, in which his understanding of international trade law allows for a hypothetical solution.
. My hypothetical solution that works even better, cheap fusion for all! Why didn't he ask me?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's no such thing as climate! The Lord God Jesus Christ created the weather and the weather never changes. It's always sunny in Orlando, it's always rainy in Seattle, and it's always snowy in Duluth. So says the Will of The Lord.
"China is enormously dependent on access to advanced-country markets". If Americans, for example, didn't have access to BUY goods from China, a lot of our inexpensive consumer goods would cost quite a bit more. Cables for electronics, lightbulbs, trash cans, trailer hitches, and a million other things would cost alot more to produce domestically. Therefore, cutting ourselves off from China would mean we could afford to buy less - we'd all become poorer, in terms of purchasing power. In that way, we're nearly as dependant on China as they are on us, are we not?
Krugan certainly knows more about global economics than I do, but he's not shy about the fact that his writings are as much about promoting a liberal agenda as they are about understanding how global markets actually work. His book and blog are both titled The Conscience of a Liberal. Perhaps this proposal is a bit of wishful thinking, of wanting to promote "green", setting aside the fact that we don't really have much leverage over China. Heck, we've been trying for decades to get them to have some respect for basic human rights and we haven't been able to coerce them to do anything on human rights that they didn't want to do. They've been quite bold with claiming territory and sending warships to places they ought not be, so they don't seem to think the western countries have any leverage to rebuke them.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/... " It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."
exactly.
Owing to Article XX, retaliatory tariffs are not allowed.
There is tremendous pent up frustration with the increasing corrupt and irrelevant government in China. Cracking high tariffs on goods from China likely will put 1000 times more pressure than all of the finger wagging and human rights pep talks the west has made in that last few decades, increasing unrest and civil collapse in China. However the west really likes to look the other way to get low wage / low cost / pro-business manufacturing, so likely tariffs will be lobbied against by US's own global business titans.
Perhaps an NGO / consumer information institution to lead a product labeling campaign so at least consumers of the world can see 'virtual carbon' production cost on product packaging. Then consumers and businesses can more directly make choices about how carbon neutral their supply chain is. Currently there is very little information available on this when purchasing decisions are made in the west.
China produces more TW-h per year than any other country at this point in time. There is already a HUGE effort in China to improve on that further. This is a nonsensical piece, the US is still the world's leader in terms of human waste production and CO2 emissions *per person* - I'm not sure what the political/fearmongering purpose behind this is but I'm sure there is one.
Nobel did institute a prize for economics, and the other social studies. It is called "Nobel prize for literature".
and possibly actual war... they are building up in the south china sea for a take over of basically everything that isn't nailed down.
I don't know if this will help that situation.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why should China, or any developing country, give up its own economic development when the currently developed and powerful countries didn't have to and because they lack the political will do their part? Developed countries should see this as an opportunity to make money from China by selling them back cleaner technology that the developed countries invent.
It's bollocks to say "well, we already have a developed economy and we're too scared to change anything, so we'll make you live by the sink or float rules that we impose on you because we can".
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
by... anyone? Anyone? That's right, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act... Let's just destroy the global economy for the sake of the world, shall we?
Uh, you do understand we're talking about tariffs, not sanctions, right? Sanctions are generally restrictions on trade and/or financial transactions. I suspect Iraq is the example you're thinking of. Tariffs are simply are tax on export. or (more commonly) imports. I honestly don't know where sanctions stand constitutionally in the United States but any argument that tariffs are unconstitutional is utter crap. Pretty much the first piece of major legislation passed after the introduction of the constitution was the Tariffs Act.
These are no tariffs, that's just putting a price tag on externalities - probably something we should have done ages ago.
Ezekiel 23:20
This sounds SO good, clean, and to the point. But there are holes in this picture.
But, what could possibly go wrong?
For example, what does the world do if China turns around and hurriedly constructs a hundred Chernobyl style reactors for power?
I'm surprised nobody (moderated high enough to matter) here has asked that obvious question. This is simply an application of the general rule that no good deed goes unpunished or the old cliche about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
So, yes, I really am wondering, "What could possibly go wrong?" I wonder because as a pessimist I figure the worst possible thing will go wrong if you apply a nuclear weapon to digging a hole in the ground.
{^_^}
The EU has been taxing imports from non EU countries to protect their own market for decades. The reasoning was that those countries had "unfair advantages" because the EU producers had to deal with strict(er) laws on environment, labor and warranty and such. This lead to the countries that wanted to export trying to find a way to produce even cheaper, making their own environment and labor situations worse than they were already, leading the EU to raise taxes to offset the competition advantage again.
I'd say tax foreign manufacturers for not adhering to the standards you hold your producers to locally. That way, if something was manufactured with the same competitive rules as you hold your own to, there wouldn't be a tax and the manufacturers *and* your local economy would be trying to implement the measures you want them to take as efficient and fast as possible, just to gain a competitive advantage. You want your iPhone to be produced by people that don't jump off buildings? You don't want to send your rice and soy to poor countries because they can't afford to feed themselves? Tax them for not improving their standards of living and environment, not for producing cheap. The benefit of this is that your local competition will stop lobbying for higher import taxes but for stricter rules that they already can comply to and boost local innovation into greener, people friendly solutions instead of outsourcing as much as they can to cheap countries and trying to find holes in legislation to get away with it.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
How about we all stop buying cheap Chinese shit if we care so much?
But the bottom dollar will always trump morals.
How many people do you know who complain about Walmart or China? How many of these people actually abstain from buying things there?
It's easy to criticize these countries or corporations, but when you can get your products there for half the price of the mom-and-pop store, guess where you're gonna go shopping?
A tariff collected in the importing country doesn't contribute to China's efforts to install more solar or wind turbines.
China is currently installing massive amounts of solar and wind generation capacity.
They appreciate future savings and independence from imports.
Solar is cheaper now because it is made in China.
Just look at Australia's dumb government, a pack of climate change doubters.
Going backwards on carbon trading, undoing incentives to install green energy.
Go well
Exactly. For example, every time Krugman gets involved in a debate about the banking sector, it becomes clear why he got the award. The Honorary Nobel Prize he got was handed to him by the head honchos at the Swedish Central Bank, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when his views are heavily leaned towards a more finance sector friendly Keynesian way of thinking.
So trying to boost his credibility with this "Nobel Prize" will only work on people who don't know what kind of a rigged anti-prize it is.
Absolutely false. The Riksbank gets its authority from the Swedish Parliament.
As you can see in this photo, Krugman is being handed his Nobel by King Carl XVI Gustaf who is a strictly ceremonial head of state. The King may be a customer of the bank, but he isn't a honcho at the bank; Parliament controls it.
However, figurehead Carl XVI Gustaf has no say in who gets the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences; that is decided by this group of professors. Not the Sveriges Riksbank at all. Yeah, I know, you've got a conspiracy theory to explain why all these professors are puppets of a bank. Bullshit.
I just don't get why people post lies on the internet that are so easily checked on the internet. Makes no sense dude; for a ten second chuckle, you've branded yourself a liar in the Slashdot community. Where's the win in that?
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Nobel prizes are often handed out for being "first" rather for being "right" or "most knowledgeable". In some cases, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to...
The growth in Federal crop insurance payouts is primarily due to the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill introduced federal crop insurance (or at least as it is currently implemented) and that went into effect with the 2014 crop year. So, the rise in federal crop insurance payouts have NOTHING to do with global warming. Second the growth in federal flood insurance payouts is due to the increase in the value of developed properties in flood plains. Federal flood insurance was introduced in 1972. Since that time, largely as a result of federal flood insurance, there has been a steadily increasing trend toward placing expensive structures in the flood plains of the country. This results in the value of the properties being insured increasing, which leads to increased flood insurance payout. There are several other factors which contribute to those increased payouts. All of those factors make the impact of global warming on the amount of those payouts insignificant.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
> without greenhouse gas emissions. States with access to Hydro
Methane, which hydroelectric dams produce thousands of tons of, is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. You do go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you do it because it'll never run out. Natural gas is a better choice in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. See ex Fearnside for details, or International Rivers links to good to sources of detailed info. (International Rivers is not objective, but they link to reliable sources).
Let's get our own act together before we try forcing other to do the same.
That applies equally to carbon emissions and democratic elections. We produce about 3X as much CO2 per capita as China, but we're going to try to tell them how not to spoil the air we breathe? Our elections are a joke- held periodically to give the general populace the illusion of living in a democracy, yet we send advisers and observers to other countries to tell them how to do it right.
It's no wonder the rest of the world hates Americans.
Typo. That should read "you don't go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you go hydro because it is renewable". Hydro is probably worse for global warming than natural gas. Naturally gas will eventually run out, though.
That's a good idea. China needs an economic incentive to clean up their air pollution problem.
They've already got one. How expensive do you think it is going to be to treat the health problems of over a billion people caused by pollution? They also have a political motivation. The ruling party wants to stay in power and if the people get sufficiently pissed off about the pollution their continued rule might come into question.
I've been to China. They are WELL aware of the problem. The trick for them is dealing with it without causing massive economic damage in the process of dealing with it. China is trying to drag tens of millions of people out of poverty through economic growth. They have more poor people than the entire population of the US.
RoHS stopped them putting hazardous substances in products just to keep costs down.
RoHS isn't really about economics related to production costs. It's primarily about keeping six known toxins out of products, specifically lead, mercury, cadmium, hexvalent chromium, PBB and PBDE. While there is a economic price tag attached, the economic cost of RoHS compliance is pretty minimal in practice. The majority of electronic components sold these days are RoHS compliant already. For most companies the primary cost is in using lead free solder and providing a certificate stating that the product is RoHS compliant.
I agree Paul Krugman is a expert in economics. However, he is completely ignoring the role of politics in his solution. Does he think big corporations like Wal-Mart, who profit handsomely from the flow of cheap goods from China, is going to allow such tariffs to be implemented? Is he oblivious to the existence of lobbyists? Sorry, but I've become very cynical in my middle age. In terms of slowing the effects of climate change by reducing fossil fuel emissions, I think we are done. Collectively we are too stupid to see we are shitting where we sleep. Now it is all about surviving the coming climate catastrophe. Unless we begin a massive program to look at alternative agricultural methods (giant greenhouse domes?) millions will starve to death as today's fertile land turns to desert or bog.
"Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
You would be taxing away the competitive advantage that companies in a polluting country would have against companies in those who restricts its carbon emissions.
You are presuming that China would/could not tax US products equally in return. US companies want to do business in China. Ford and GM sell a lot of cars there for example. If the US (hypocritically) imposed a carbon tax on China then China would be virtually certain to impose on on US goods in return. Rather than cooperatively work together on the problem we would hurting both economies with a trade war that in the end would be very unlikely to solve the root problem.
In the short term, it would promote domestic business.
No it would not - at least not in the way you are thinking. It would make components in everything you buy more expensive. A lot of stuff is made in China and there is no alternative or domestic supply chain equivalent for much of it. Supply chains do not change overnight. It would take time (years) to shift substantial amounts of production elsewhere, even when such a thing is easily possible. Furthermore the main thing that people buy from China doesn't emit pollution. The #1 reason we make stuff in China right now is because of cheap labor.
Manufacturers will still take the same revenue per unit sold, but they would sell fewer units with higher prices.
VERY unlikely and grossly oversimplifying the issue. I'm guessing you aren't actually in manufacturing. I run a manufacturing company. Manufacturers are very often not able to pass on cost increases to customers. The biggest product my company sells goes into some GM cars. If our costs go up, we have very limited ability to pass on that price increase to our customer. The customer in this case could decide to either take production in house or to find an alternative source. They buy it from us because we can do it cheaper but as material costs rise our ability to do that is reduced. All we do is assemble the product so there are no manufacturing techniques that could dodge or reduce the tariff. Not for us or for anyone else. Our material costs would rise and our profits (meager already) would fall.
Does China currently have any incentive to buy the cleaner technology?
Sure they do. Same incentives we have. Pollution has very big health care costs, food supply costs, and if it goes on long enough, climate change costs. There are quality of life incentives. There are political incentives too - if enough people get upset enough about the pollution it can become a threat to the ruling party. The Chinese are acutely aware of the problem. It's just harder to deal with than you seem to think.
In fact implementing this tariff could be the thing that convinces them to start buying the cleaner tech.
China has more poor people than the entire population of any country in the world, save India. They are perfectly well aware of the need for pollution control but they also have the problem of trying to raise tens of millions of people out of poverty through economic growth. There is no easy answer to this.
Furthermore the US and other western countries pollute plenty themselves and it would be HUGELY hypocritical to impose a carbon tax when we emit plenty of the stuff ourselves. To a non-trivial degree the reason our carbon emissions are as low as they are is due to us outsourcing our emissions (along with product production) to China and elsewhere.
Want to cut down carbon emissions? Promote the use of nuclear, wind, solar and hydro power. Coal is plentiful and cheap in China and the US and it will not stop being used until other energy sources are competitive, even taking into account the fact that coal is not being forced to pay for much of the pollution it causes.
I've been proposing this for ages - it's just VAT for carbon ("CAT"), or even pollution in general ("PAT"). People inside the "PAT" zone pay taxes based on the added embodied polluition at each step of the manufacturing process. Goods leaving the PAT zone get a PAT rebate. Goods entering the PAT zone get their estimated embodied pollution charged to them at the point of entry. As a consequences, countries can't cheat and get a competitive advantage by gutting their environmental regulations (including carbon) - the world competes on a level playing field.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
China is a Second World country
First World - western countries aligned with NATO
Second World - communist bloc (USSR before it broke up, China, etc)
Third World - everyone else
In other columns and particularly his blog, which usually has much more data (and visualizations of the data etc) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c... Krugman is well aware that the US must act before the rest just because we are one of the biggest offenders here with much more CO2 use per capita than others.
China is still 50% subsistence farmers that live nearly carbon neutral lives. By contrast, "rural" Americans generally have a modest collection of SUVs; almost everyone in the US a is solid contributor to the per capita CO2 figure.
If you attribute Chinese CO2 to the Chinese actually responsible for the CO2 — the urban Chinese workers employed by Chinese industry — per capita CO2 doubles to 14.2 tonnes. And while that still doesn't match the US at 16.4 tonnes, US GPD is almost 2x greater.
So the US looks comparatively good; we get a lot more value for the carbon we emit. Likewise, if the US had 300 million subsistence farmers to improve that average we would be far down your list as well.
The per capita argument is a cop-out used to rationalize extreme CO2 reduction schemes. It's a bogus argument that goes unchallenged too often.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
So there would soon be no more sweatshops for corporate America. Watch your economy crumble.
Krugman spouts nonsense at times, but this one is appalling. Pollution in China involves a lot of forces, including the `clean' countries, acting in their own interests and he can't possibly fail to understand that. Neither the Chinese government nor the US corporations would like such a change. The root of the problem is that some people like to earn money by messing up the world.
This proves he's just a propaganda mouthpiece, to help the US make a handsome profit from polluting activities around the world, while shedding every single bit of responsibility.
This should not be directed at China but all nations and states.
Basically, America can solve this since we are the world's largest importer. But it needs to be done right.
First, we can not go with estimates. They are mostly in non-western nations. So use oco2 to measure the co2 flow in and out of nations. This way nations are not held responsible for others pollution.
Second, it needs to be normalized. Doing it per person is a joke. Instead, u want the tax to be based on co2 / $ of GDP. IOW, you want nations to grow, but u want the to do it efficiently.
Third, it is then applied as a VAT upon a whole seller selling to the retailer. Full tax is charged, unless the item is submitted to web app in which parts are described and where from. If u make to good in a nation like Sweden or costa Rica where emissions are low, then no tax.
Fourth, all delivery systems like FedEx that imported have to collect the tax. They can add some amount more to cover their costs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... check out the chart on the following page --- compiled by the United Nations Millenium Development Goals Indicators
http://cotap.org/per-capita-ca...
Just in case you do not trust anything from the United Nations, how about a chart compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Compare for yourself the carbon footprint per capita of China versus that of the United States of America
If Paul Krugman is so eager to impose a tax on China, why don't he impose a more hefty tax on the US of A first ??
All this proposal would really amount to would be starting a trade war with China. That's not going to help anyone (and no, it doesn't matter whether the treaty says China won't retaliate or not; words on paper rarely trump perceived national interest).
Everyone should have to spend a year growing their own food. You would willing to give your first born son to a Monsanto salesman for a few gallons of Round-Up. I started farming in 1970, before most herbicides were developed. Weeds everywhere, water gulping, fertilizer stealing, machinery tangling weeds.
Perhaps it's not that he doesn't know anything, it's just that what he knows happens to be wrong?
He's not pushing for balanced trade. He's pushing to force China to reduce carbon emissions. According to him, he calls his own agenda liberal. Conservatives have their own separate concerns about our relationship with China .
Umm, you do realize that the constitution specifically provides for the government to levy tariffs in Article 1 Section 8, right? Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the federal government until the income tax was established.
The EPA says:
CH4 (methane) is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
As you said, in thelong term methane becomes co2, so if you're worried about co2, you should also be that much more concerned about methane. Therefore, one who is concerned about global warming would be concerned about hydroelectric. Not that it matters much - there are only a certain number of places that can be flooded by building hydroelectric dams. Hydro is self-limiting.
Who is Krugman a propaganda mouthpiece for?? Aside from the fact the Nobel for economics is a sham to promote ideas those bankers like, just who is promoting him to shill for?
You would think there was no history at all... The economy in the past was different than it is today; just saying that ANY change will destroy it is ludicrous. This is the age old conservative argument by the successful who benefit from whatever is going on currently and FEAR that change could upset a good thing (for them.) It came from the emperors, the robber barons, the bankers, the dictators, the slave owners, etc. Time and time again they have been proven wrong as better systems have resulted from change (not every time, eventually in some places-- which then served as examples to others. The USA having been previously one itself.)
If the race to the bottom STOPS, the economy will obviously change; not necessarily for the better for some. The transition will not likely be smooth either, especially if things get too entrenched and fragile (like massive Ponzi schemes are.) As long as transportation costs continue to rise, the "benefits" of globalization will shrink and there will be increased pressure to compensate for those costs by removing other expenses. So we drop tariffs using trumped up arguments, cut taxes, subsidize (corporate welfare) so the true costs are externalized... but ultimately still are paid by the populations-- it's just robbing from more people, future generations, and the ecosystem to benefit the upper classes of today.
China's pollution is largely the USA externalizing pollution and labor costs. Previously, the USA did pretty well (#1 economy) by NOT doing that stuff (Yes, we still did some but nowhere near the level today.)
The USA is too corrupt to even debate Krugman's proposal. I can't see how his advocacy of accountability is helping the US profit from polluting the 3rd world; when it would effectively be punishing the USA's current practices of exploiting the world and moving it towards something more ethical (not ethical, just more ethical. There is no way a culture that doesn't give a rip about non-Americans is going to be ethical.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It would appear that Krugman wants to do all he can to promote every possible cluster-fuck to deepen and worsen the current depression, including attacking world trade with his rehash of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And what would that be?
Cheap labor is China's biggest export. I should have thought that was clear from the earlier post.
Yes, the cheap labor is a big reason production moved there,
It's not "a big reason", it is THE big reason. If labor costs in China had parity with those in the US (or were even close) then the manufacturing would occur elsewhere. Products with a higher material content and relatively lower labor content tend to stay domestic.
but that production still produces a great deal of pollution, not to mention transporting the product halfway around the world.
Producing steel for example is polluting no matter where you make it. China now leads the world in production of a lot of goods (like steel) thanks to their low labor costs but if those goods were produced in a different country then that country would suffer from much of the same pollution problems.
We have NO technology that can filter carbon in large quantities from burning fossil fuels. As long as we continue to burn large quantities of coal, oil and gas this problem will continue. The only technological solution we have for reducing carbon right now is nuclear and renewables like solar and wind and nuclear comes with its own set of serious problems. Carbon tariffs on any country will not solve the incentives problem - at most if will force the carbon emissions problem to occur elsewhere. Furthermore the US has a huge carbon footprint as well so it smacks of hypocrisy to insist that China reduce their emissions when we're even worse on a per-capita basis.
And where would people go to get cheaper products if *everyone* is paying carbon taxes?
Strawman argument. Such a carbon tax is not going to happen. There is simply too much economic incentive against it.
The only way a carbon tax will become feasible is if some other form of technology (say solar+fusion) becomes cheap enough that it can compete with fossil fuels even allowing for the fact that fossil fuels aren't required to pay for their carbon emissions. Then people will be able to still get their energy without costing jobs and reduced economic output.
Honestly I'd be pleased if we would even just stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. Big oil companies are absurdly profitable. They do not need tax incentives of any kind and yet they get lots of them.
Whoever wrote this doesn't know China. They will simply lie about it. Lie, cheat, steal, and copy - those are the 4 cornerstones of any successful Chinese business.
Having half your population be starving rural subsistence farmers is how you get your emissions per capita so low as China. It should be the goal for every American who cares about global climate change to adopt this lifestyle. Rice and gruel in a yurt for all!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If the US has been invading countries for economic gains, we have been doing it wrong. Maybe we should have sold Iraq to Qatar or Kuwait. Or Israel.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
we offshored most of our manufacturing. XBoxes are made in Mexico because they can dump the waste in that country and nobody cares. Google "Cancer Village" too sometime...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...and I'd take tariffs on imports over the IRS any day of the week.
I think you mean China would dump US treasuries. With the prosperity the tariffs bring to the US, there likely would be lower bond sales. China's leverage would be in dumping. However, confidence in the US would be higher when it is leading an effort to get China to cut emissions, and we'd see buyers willing to take up the US bonds to protect that effort. I think you've raise a good point, but I don't think you've thought the whole thing through. These environmental exceptions in GATT are there to promote peace and prosperity. They are a step away from war, not towards it.
I don't understand Krugman (who I respect) saying... "United States accounts for only 17 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, while China accounts for 27 percent — and China’s share is rising fast." ...when per-capita we're emitting far more than them. Not even counting historical carbon, emitted so that we could build roads and infrastructure then even total carbon emissions still dwarf China.
If we're not AT LEAST recognizing that we emit WAY more GHG more per-capita TODAY, then this is... this is terrible coming from Krugman.
http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
China's per capita emissions are the same as Europe's. Read the linked IPCC WGIII report. http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/assessm... You have to read the actual report, not the Summary for Policy Makers. China wanted the facts about its emissions buried.
Hey. People work real hard to earn these things. Just look at Obama. He ... uhm ...ooo... let me see ... nevermind.
Because paying more for lamb was so important to American citizens.
Tariffs help protect entrenched local interests against foreign competition, and empower government regulators to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
But I'm sure it's all about love for Mother Gaia, who the Lorax says just hates CO2.
China produces less CO2 per person the most of the rest of the industrial world. Why do you guys go bash on Luxembourg who is 9th on the list. Tax those CO2 producing jerks. China is in the 50's on the per capita list. What do you expect them to reduce? Now Sulfur Dioxide is a whole other ball of acidy wax.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Such tariff are way overdue for a variety of reasons.
Companies will just find a different oppressive country in which to manufacture their goods.
Adding carbon tarriffs does not change the fact that it is expensive to manufacture in the US.
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
You're right.
Global Warming / Climate Change / Whatever-you-want-to-call-it is a load of BS. Fortunately more and more people are waking up to the fact!
Biggest science fraud ever?. The "evidence" is all made up. Almost entirely.
Pollution, on the other hand, is a real problem that needs to be addresses and in China (and London) and what I do agree with is that creating incentives to reduce that is not a bad thing. However, basing that on a massive fraud like "Climate Change", is indefensible.
...we should do it to ourselves, too. The entire Western world should adopt a carbon tax, and implement it as a tarriff on any country that doesn't adopt it voluntarily. The money raised should be dumped into nuclear fusion development.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Smog aside, CO2 emissions have a very small effect on global warming. I would like to see Krugman's analysis of the cost per degree of climate warming abeyance. I think it's a number with 15 zeros.
We've already done that several times: WWI, WWII, Ozone Layer....