Read on Twitter
Highly recommend. Tim was able to emphasize more than we did in our article last week that a major reason to seek a 232 *investigation* (and that is all it is) is to launch international climate negotiations. https://twitter.com/Tim_L_Meyer/status/1300447270295437312
Asking for an investigation doesn't and need not end in imposition of carbon tariffs.
Note, however, as did Tim, that the US is not the first mover here: Europe is.
“It’s not whether it’s going to happen — it’s going to happen,” former Secretary of State John Kerry predicts on a EU carbon tariff. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/13/europe-carbon-tariff-climate-change-084892
“It’s not whether it’s going to happen — it’s going to happen,” former Secretary of State John Kerry predicts on a EU carbon tariff. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/13/europe-carbon-tariff-climate-change-084892
We've gotten a lot of great feedback and commentary on our piece, including from @snlester below, who very much disagrees with the approach. https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2020/08/unilateralism-vs-multilateralism-on-carbon-taxes-and-carbon-tariffs.html
There's a lot there, and I think each piece speaks for itself. One of Simon's comments (and we've heard this a lot) is that international coordination from the outset (with no investigation) is a better approach, given allies' skittishness about Trump's use of 232.
A few thoughts, to repeat some of the above: 1) This is just a call for an investigation, not action. 2) That investigation can culminate in precisely such coordination. 3) The investigation backstops the coordination, giving the president a stick to back up the carrot.
Using market power (or the latent threat of using it) is a totally normal thing that governments do, as @ANewman_forward and @dhnexon argue here. https://twitter.com/ANewman_forward/status/1196429014359040000
The calls for restraint (even investigatory restraint) seem to ignore that not all countries are windmill-laden Holland. Russia this year has celebrated the coming of the climate crisis and cast doubt on the science of climate change. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-government-acknowledges-climate-change-publishes-a-plan-outlining-its-positives/
Then there's Saudi Arabia... https://theintercept.com/2019/09/18/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-climate-change/
Did I mention Saudi Arabia? https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-bank-delays-report-on-national-competitiveness-rankings-amid-concerns-of-data-manipulation-11598554654
One of the other objections we've gotten is that the next administration should work with Congress to push for climate legislation, instead of acting unilaterally.
Six word response: The. Senate. Climate. Emergency. Waxman. Markey.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/fixing-the-senate-equitable-full-representation-21st-century/
Six word response: The. Senate. Climate. Emergency. Waxman. Markey.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/fixing-the-senate-equitable-full-representation-21st-century/
It would be political malpractice to assume a cooperative Senate, given the extremely truncated time in which we have to act. https://twitter.com/leahstokes/status/1254795303502245891
And while we didn't get to it in the piece, there's every reason to believe that a carbon tariff regime that makes its way through Congress would be *more* likely to pose concerns about so-called "arbitrary" trade impacts.
MOCs will likely insist on special carve outs and protections for sectors or regions or trading partners that would make the measure less likely to survive, say, WTO scrutiny.
That does not particularly bother me. I would rather change those rules anyway. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/green-new-deal-ten-year-window-to-reshape-international-economic-law/
That does not particularly bother me. I would rather change those rules anyway. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/green-new-deal-ten-year-window-to-reshape-international-economic-law/
But, if there's going to be a carbon tariff (and I think it's a matter or time here in the US as well), and you're a WTO institutionalist, having a process that the executive branch technocrats control may be your best bet.
In any case, I can see strong legitimacy upsides for going through Congress. But any environmental advocate who has paid attention to the last several decades of climate inaction on the Hill would resist putting all their eggs in that basket.
Here is more from @Tim_L_Meyer https://twitter.com/Tim_L_Meyer/status/1300463881916211200
And here's the original piece that sparked the conversation. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-trade-strategy-points-way-us-carbon-tariff
