President Barack Obama on Sunday called a House-passed climate change bill "an extraordinary first step," but spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that fail to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals," Obama said in an Oval Office interview reported by The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
"I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach," Obama said.
The Democratic-controlled House on Friday passed the climate change bill that would require large U.S. companies, including utilities and manufacturers to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases associated with global warming by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, from 2005 levels.
No, no, no, and,umm, no.
This climate bill, in fact any climate bill, while necessary will end up costing US business a nontrivial amount. All you have to do is compare the energy consumption and the type of energy consumption and you will see where it'll hurt in detail. My wife did a pretty good paper on this a while back. Two years ago? I think? The only way to balance this out - because, y'know, the Chinese and others, but especially the Chinese, are not going to do a single thing about their carbon emissions - is to impose a 'carbon tariff.'
That Obama opposes it is disheartening. Sure, let's raise the costs for US businesses, but not others.
*sighs*
FWIW, I whole heartedly support a climate bill. I prefer the carbon tax rather than cap and trade, but...eh. Either way carbon emission reductions need to be done. And soon. No matter what, we are getting a climate change. Now its just a question of how drastic. We have the power to curtail and mitigate the looming desicated polar bear, but only if the whole world does this. China and India have to be on board too...or else we are fscked. Tech development is a good way: our newest green revolution, but that will take time. Time we
4 comments:
"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession.."
So President Obama is deeply concerned about the effects outside the country of a carbon tariff, which makes much more sense scientifically than Cap and TRADE. Meanwhile C&T costs affect US business and consumers deliteriously but he expresses no concern about the US economy from this tax aggragating policy. Why more concern for other countries than the one you lead? And why support a policy that allows carbon production given the payment of indulgences. Disappointing to say the very least.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." Threatening tariffs at this point is loudly shouting about the size of your stick. It could go wrong in all sorts of ways that could ultimately hurt the environment. Would China respond to threats? And if not, then what? Slowing Chinese economic growth is not necessarily the same thing as slowing the growth of Chinese energy consumption. In fact, it could be the reverse, if Chinese industry reoriented from slapping together light-manufacturing for export to making more heavy goods for domestic, or building more capital goods at home to replace the ones that they'd no longer be able to buy from abroad.
I'm agnostic, to be honest, but "no, no, no, and, ummm, no" seems a little much.
I would like to see your wife's paper.
Someone has to take the first step. Sure China and India are the big kids on the block in terms of manpower and emissions, but if the US wants to take the lead on this most important of issues then the government has to be prepared to take a risk.
There is another way out of this bind; pass legislation forbidding US companies moving offshore to where carbon emissions are cheaper or indeed free.
Except that it's not a solution, Roger. I don't know what you mean by "offshoring." A ban on allowing U.S. firms to open overseas subsidiaries would simply give foreign-owned firms an advantage.
A tariff, like I said, runs the risk of not changing Chinese behavior. And a slower-growing China will be a more polluting China.
I can imagine a circumstances under which a tariff makes sense.
The WTO has declared them okay under its rules.
But it is not a no-brainer in the slightest, and a carbon tariff runs the risk of causing more carbon emissions.
Will, where can I find your wife's paper?
Post a Comment