Countries determined to subsidise expensive forms of greenery (cloudy Germany loves solar panels, for some reason) will be allowed to carry on. This is sold as a punt on EU innovation, keeping a mix of technologies alive while waiting to see which will sell. The model is Denmark, which subsidised wind turbines for years and now makes a mint exporting them--never mind that wind power itself has to be subsidised.
Never mind the tens of thousands of jobs in Germany as well; never mind their own article that points to costs savings for consumers larger than the subsidies thanks to wind; never mind the externalities and direct subsidies to existing energy sources; never mind that wind power prices are capped (they will not go up!) for the next 20 years, something which cannot be said of gas or even nuclear...
The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, complains that if EU policies drive heavy polluters to countries with laxer carbon regimes, that would be "neither efficient, nor fair, nor economically sustainable". To France, it is "indispensable" to fight back with import tariffs on goods from countries that resist binding curbs on greenhouse emissions (trade war, anyone?).
It's not because Sarkozy says it that it's true. It's efficient (cf the guarantee with wind that prices will never be higher than the inital price; it is a lot more economically sustainable than relying on increasingly expensive and rare hydrocarbons.
And we impose safety requirements on all the goods we use (locally manufactured or imported), so that they are not toxic, dangerous or polluting - how would a carbon content norm - or tax - be any different? How is that agaisnt trade if it applies to all? Quite the opposite, it is fair to apply it to imports as well. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And we impose safety requirements on all the goods we use (locally manufactured or imported), so that they are not toxic, dangerous or polluting - how would a carbon content norm - or tax - be any different? How is that agaisnt trade if it applies to all? Quite the opposite, it is fair to apply it to imports as well.
How is this different to applying Irish minimum wage laws to our Chinese imports - taxing them at the difference between Irish and Chinese wage rates for the labour content proportion of the product? One regulation promotes public health, one promotes sustainability, and another promotes equity and avoidance of labour exploitation. Surely trade is all about exploiting such "competitive advantages" at the expense of the environment or workers. Or is it that we don't care about the Chinese sweatshops, but their pollution is now harming OUR environment as well? Index of Frank's Diaries
