Fighting Climate Change With Trade 155
mdsolar writes with this story about the possible elimination of tariffs on environmental goods between the world's largest economic powers. The United States, the European Union, China and 11 other governments began trade negotiations this week to eliminate tariffs on solar panels, wind turbines, water-treatment equipment and other environmental goods. If they are able to reach an agreement, it could reduce the cost of equipment needed to address climate change and help increase American exports. Global trade in environmental goods is estimated at $1 trillion a year and has been growing fast. (The United States exported about $106 billion worth of such goods last year.) But some countries have imposed import duties as high as 35 percent on such goods. That raises the already high cost of some of this equipment to utilities, manufacturers and, ultimately, consumers. Taken together, the countries represented in these talks (the 28 members of the E.U. negotiate jointly, while China and Hong Kong are represented by separate delegations) account for about 86 percent of trade in these products, which makes the potential benefit from an agreement substantial. Other big countries that are not taking part in these talks, like India, South Africa and Brazil, could choose to join later.
Does anyone oppose this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Climate Change Cult (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What! A reasonable plan for alien invasion!?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good step: Offer to eliminate tariffs on solar panels and other things.
Good step: Get behind building LOTS of modern nuclear plants. LOTS.
Good step: Get behind building LOTS of electric cars, and the technology to increase batteries' energy density.
Three great steps!
As to "and other things..." I have always favored a move in the direction of free trade in all things, as Jefferson (not Hamilton) intended. In modern context this involves rolling back tariffs altogether, including ones for which a reciprocal arrangement exists, with the objective of simplifying things in general, and Federal law in particular. Henry George's 1886 treatise Protection or Free Trade [mises.org] remains as relevant and thought-provoking as ever. I agree with other posters who have said that tariffs are a market distortion -- and would add that selective tariffs by technology category (within the classification of power generation) are an even more awful distortion. You're taking the rudder from market forces -- which reflect a combination of necessity and desire -- and placing it into the hands of those who get to decide what is save-de-planet environmental and what is not.
I consider the present worldwide system of tariffs a form of pollution and wasted energy. I believe the only sustainable form of wealth creation is meaningful innovation, not the borderline kind that results from some tech firm beating another to the patent office. I mean something new that can reduce the cost of living by reducing expenses. My chosen (workable) path is to reduce the cost of grid electricity delivered (and remaining hydrocarbons extracted) in North America by harnessing Thorium.
And it so happens that NOT ONE of those politically correct green solutions generates the base load energy necessary to survive a harsh Winter, let alone grow. It really has been two decades of bad road. "Cheaper" Chinese solar panels or wind turbines will not keep us all alive during a continent-wide hard freeze. Until the "Green" parties [youtube.com] of the world agree on a some method of generating an incredible amount of energy 24x7 reliably, something that will work, we're screwed.
Suggest plans for it that everyone can support. Leave the death threats at home. ; )
Okay. Remember in all of this... NO PRESSURE! [youtube.com]
It's fun to discuss nuclear energy on Slashdot [slashdot.org] ... sometimes you just have to point things out point by point [slashdot.org] ... some confuse Weinberg's '300 year best-fit for waste' two fluid design for other single fluid designs [slashdot.org] ... or using solid fuel Thorium, which is pointless so long as uranium is available [slashdot.org] ... yes it's full of dangerous glop, but it is useful and happy glop [slashdot.org] ... yes, I think a LFTR could be developed and built within $4B [slashdot.org] ... every path to biofuels leads to scorched-earth disaster, Thorium energy gives us the surplus to generate synfuels [slashdot.org] ... a move to LFTR may be the only way to preserve modern society in the face of disaster (volcanism, Maunder minimum) [slashdot.org] ...
Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when have protective tariffs been "efficient"?
If we required accounting of emissions, and not simply of currency units, then there would be no need for tariffs to address the issue of the hidden environmental costs. They can eventually be translated into economic costs, but they also affect quality of life — you can assign economic costs to that as well, but you'll hardly tell the whole story.
When you buy goods made somewhere with inadequate pollution controls, many others have to pay part of your bill. My only problem with the whole idea is that any tariffs should be used specifically for bioremediation, and my prediction is that they largely won't be.