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.
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.
Correct. But industry in the US would pick up, leading to more domestic prosperity. Without the tariff, China gets to lower costs of production and compete unfairly, reducing US GDP. Note also that we are paying this in increased flood and crop insurance premiums. The latter directly cuts into the competitiveness of our agricultural exports. Better to pay with external tariffs than internal premiums.
"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.
You could also see it this way:
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.
In the short term, it would promote domestic business. In the long term, the polluting country is supposed to lower its emissions and get back in the game, and then both foreign and domestic companies should be able to compete on the same terms - creating more competition and again lower prices.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
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".
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.
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.
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!
This sort of reminds me of a Monty Python sketch about who to tax:
"I think we should tax foreigners living abroad", and "I think we should tax people standing in puddles of water."
The point being, that everyone thinks that problems can be solved by taxing someone else.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Probably because solutions that depend on the herd to implement never happen. Not arguing for or against, I am just saying that expecting everyone to do the right thing will not happen. The only way it does is to legislate it. People are generally selfish and will continue to choose the $1 widget over the $10 widget.
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.