Taxes, Tariffs, Regulations on Carbon: That’ll Help the Economy

UN calls for spending 750 billion dollars in Global Green New Deal“:

New York – The world’s 20 most advanced economies should discuss investment of 1 per cent of global gross domestic product – about 750 billion dollars – into five sectors to build an environmentally sustainable global economy, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said Thursday.

Such an amount could finance a ‘Global Green New Deal,’ drawing on the idea of the New Deal
launched by US president Franklin D Roosevelt to help put an end to the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Green New Deal? See, that’s different than the Green Marshall Plan. Although both would involve taxing wealth creation, transfering that wealth to government-favored causes.

WSJ, “Energy Chief Says U.S. Is Open to Carbon Tariff“:

WASHINGTON — Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday advocated adjusting trade duties as a “weapon” to protect U.S. manufacturing, just a day after one of China’s top climate envoys warned of a trade war if developed countries impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.

Mr. Chu, speaking before a House science panel, said establishing a carbon tariff would help “level the playing field” if other countries haven’t imposed greenhouse-gas-reduction mandates similar to the one President Barack Obama plans to implement over the next couple of years. It is the first time the Obama administration has made public its view on the issue.

“If other countries don’t impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage…[and] we would look at considering perhaps duties that would offset that cost,” Mr. Chu said.

Bloomberg, “China’s Xie Calls U.S. Tariff Threat on Climate ‘Protectionism’”:
March 18 (Bloomberg) — China’s top negotiator on climate change said a U.S. proposal to impose duties on imports with countries that don’t try to limit their carbon emissions was “an excuse to impose trade restrictions.”

Xie Zhenhua, the vice chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, said he was “absolutely opposed” to a comment by Energy Secretary Steven Chu yesterday that tariffs should be considered “in order to protect American industries.” Chu, speaking before a congressional panel, said the duties would prevent U.S. companies from being at a disadvantage in competition with China and India.

We’re tempted to make a wisecrack — As a trade minister, Secretary Chu is a good scientist — but it does appear he’s representing the Administration’s position.

Good luck Ambassador Kirk!

Leave a Reply