The Role of Trade and Competitiveness Measures in US Climate Policy

2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Fischer ◽  
Alan K Fox

We review the proposed measures for addressing competitiveness and carbon leakage concerns in recent US climate policy legislation. For eligible energy-intensive, trade-exposed sectors, output-based rebates would initially dampen cost increases; later, border adjustments would ensure that imports face comparable cost burdens. Both measures can in theory enhance the economic efficiency of carbon reduction efforts, but both pose some interesting economic and practical trade-offs. This paper discusses our recent research into the welfare and carbon leakage effects of using output-based allocation and trade measures in conjunction with climate policies.

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Löschel

AbstractThis article looks at the impacts of climate policy on international competitiveness and Carbon Leakage and the role of environmental tariffs. More specifically, it analyzes the current climate debate and illustrates potential future challenges in implementing environmental tariffs. It argues that environmental tariffs are not the least evil among the different trade measures as a means of protecting domestic industry.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-210
Author(s):  
Simone Borghesi

AbstractThe present article describes the main insights deriving from the papers collected in this special issue which jointly provide a ‘room with a view’ on some of the most relevant issues in climate policy such as: the role of uncertainty, the distributional implications of climate change, the drivers and applications of decarbonizing innovation, the role of emissions trading and its interactions with companion policies. While looking at different issues and from different angles, all papers share a similar attention to policy aspects and implications, especially in developing countries. This is particularly important to evaluate whether and to what extent the climate policies adopted thus far in developed countries can be replicated in emerging economies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Pam Boschee

Carbon credits, carbon taxes, and emissions trading systems are familiar terms in discussions about limiting global warming, the Paris Agreement, and net-zero emissions goals. A more recent addition to the glossary of climate policy is “carbon tariff.” While the concept is not new, it recently surfaced in nascent policymaking in the EU. In 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a “carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM)” as part of a proposed green deal. In March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible CBAM. A carbon tariff, or the EU’s CBAM, is a tax applied to carbon-intensive imports. Countries that have pledged to be more ambitious in reducing emissions—and in some cases have implemented binding targets—may impose carbon costs on their own businesses. Being eyed now are cross-border or overseas businesses that make products in countries in which no costs are imposed for emissions, resulting in cheaper carbon-intensive goods. Those products are exported to the countries aiming for reduced emissions. The concern lies in the risk of locally made goods becoming unfairly disadvantaged against competitors that are not taking similar steps to deal with climate change. A carbon tariff is being considered to level the playing field: local businesses in countries applying a tariff can better compete as climate policies evolve and are adopted around the world. Complying with WTO rules to ensure fair treatment, the CBAM will be imposed only on high-emitting industries that compete directly with local industries paying a carbon price. In the short term, these are likely to be steel, chemicals, fertilizers, and cement. The Parliament’s statement introduced another term to the glossary of climate policy: carbon leakage. “To raise global climate ambition and prevent ‘carbon leakage,’ the EU must place a carbon price on imports from less climate-ambitious countries.” It refers to the situation that may occur if businesses were to transfer production to other countries with laxer emission constraints to avoid costs related to climate policies. This could lead to an increase in total emissions in the higher-emitting countries. “The resolution underlines that the EU’s increased ambition on climate change must not lead to carbon leakage as global climate efforts will not benefit if EU production is just moved to non-EU countries that have less ambitious emissions rules,” the Parliament said. It also emphasized the tariff “must not be misused to further protectionism.” A member of the environment committee, Yannick Jadot, said, “It is a major political and democratic test for the EU, which must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This will give us the best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market.” The Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal.


2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Ekardt

AbstractThe paper offers an innovative structure for a future transnational climate policy beyond the Kyoto Protocol (and criticizes the overall methodology of climate economics), but mainly assesses the possibilities for a strongly extended pioneering role of the European Union - secured by complementary border adjustments for imports and exports. Border adjustments do not discriminate against anybody in global free markets and therefore do not violate WTO rules, as they make sure that whoever refuses to protect the climate will not be granted an unfair advantage by eco-dumping. Border adjustments do not spare us to rethink our way of life. But border adjustments allow the EU to act as a role model for countries like China, India and or the USA in advancing an effective and social (and economically prospering) climate policy. This may be the only way to stimulate action for a global, effective and social climate policy.


Author(s):  
Christopher Shaw

Purpose This paper aims to use the results of a synthesis of six social science fellowships to explore how alternative framings of the climate justice debate can support fairer climate policies. Design/methodology/approach The original fellowships drew on sociology, economics, geography, psychology and international relations. Cross-cutting themes of rights, risks and responsibilities were identified following a series of workshops. Results of these workshops were discussed in a number of policy fora. Analysis of the feedback from that fora is used to propose the case for a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to building a more accessible climate justice debate. Findings Existing climate policy unjustly displaces a) responsibility for emission reductions, b) risks from climate impacts and c) loss of rights. Foundational questions of acceptable risk have been ignored and a just climate policy requires procedurally just ways of revisiting this first-order question. Research limitations/implications The contribution a rights, risks and responsibilities framework can bring to a process of educating for climate stewardship is at this stage theoretical. It is only through trialling a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to climate justice debates with the relevant stakeholders that its true potential can be assessed. Practical implications Policy actors expressed strong resistance to the idea of overhauling current decision-making processes and policy frameworks. However, moving forward from this point with a more nuanced and tactical understanding of the dialectical relationship between rights, risks and responsibilities has the potential to improve those processes. Social implications Educating for climate stewardship will be more effective if it adopts an approach which seeks a co-production of knowledge. Beginning with the foundational question of what counts as an acceptable level of climate risk offers an inclusive entry point into the debate. Originality/value Reveals limits to public engagement with climate policy generated by a ‘justice’ framing.


Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 236
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Fragkos ◽  
Kostas Fragkiadakis ◽  
Leonidas Paroussos

Carbon leakage features prominently in the climate policy debate in economies implementing climate policies, especially in the EU. The imposition of carbon pricing impacts negatively the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries, inducing their relocation to countries with weaker environmental regulation. Unilateral climate policy may complement domestic emissions pricing with border carbon adjustment to reduce leakage and protect the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing. Here, we use an enhanced version of GEM-E3-FIT model to assess the macro-economic impacts when the EU unilaterally implements the EU Green Deal goals, leading to a leakage of 25% over 2020–2050. The size and composition, in terms of GHG and energy intensities, of the countries undertaking emission reductions matter for carbon leakage, which is significantly reduced when China joins the mitigation effort, as a result of its large market size and the high carbon intensity of its production. Chemicals and metals face the stronger risks for relocation to non-abating countries. The Border Carbon Adjustment can largely reduce leakage and the negative activity impacts on energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries of regulating countries, by shifting the emission reduction to non-abating countries through implicit changes in product prices.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1529-1542
Author(s):  
Mohammad M. Khabbazan ◽  
Marius Stankoweit ◽  
Elnaz Roshan ◽  
Hauke Schmidt ◽  
Hermann Held

Abstract. So far, scientific analyses have mainly focused on the pros and cons of solar geoengineering or solar radiation management (SRM) as a climate policy option in mere isolation. Here, we put SRM into the context of mitigation by a strictly temperature-target-based approach. As the main innovation, we present a scheme that extends the applicability regime of temperature targets from mitigation-only to SRM-mitigation analyses. We explicitly account for one major category of side effects of SRM while minimizing economic costs for complying with the 2 ∘C temperature target. To do so, we suggest regional precipitation guardrails that are compatible with the 2 ∘C target. Our analysis shows that the value system enshrined in the 2 ∘C target leads to an elimination of most of the SRM from the policy scenario if a transgression of environmental targets is confined to 1/10 of the standard deviation of natural variability. Correspondingly, about half to nearly two-thirds of mitigation costs could be saved, depending on the relaxation of the precipitation criterion. In addition, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 ∘C or more, in case of a delayed enough policy, a modest admixture of SRM to the policy portfolio might provide debatable trade-offs compared to a mitigation-only future. Also, in our analysis which abstains from a utilization of negative emissions technologies, for climate sensitivities higher than 4 ∘C, SRM will be an unavoidable policy tool to comply with the temperature targets. The economic numbers we present must be interpreted as upper bounds in the sense that cost-lowering effects by including negative emissions technologies are absent. However, with an additional climate policy option such as carbon dioxide removal present, the role of SRM would be even more limited. Hence, our results, pointing to a limited role of SRM in a situation of immediate implementation of a climate policy, are robust in that regard. This limitation would be enhanced if further side effects of SRM are taken into account in a target-based integrated assessment of SRM.


Nature ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 588 (7837) ◽  
pp. 225-226
Author(s):  
Wei Peng
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document