US Energy Secretary Steven Chu on March 17 told a House science panel that the United States was to impose a "carbon equivalency fee" on all imported carbon intensive goods from countries which do not have national carbon tax. And the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was passed on Capitol Hill on June 22. According to the act, the U.S. is entitled to impose import tariffs against such countries as China, and the act will be valid as of the year 2020.
A carbon tariff is an environmental tariff on the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is to be implemented mainly on the countries which have not implemented the carbon tax and will be targeted at such carbon intensive import products as aluminum, cement, flat glass and fiber glass. This act can be fully regarded once again as the extension of U.S. trade protectionism.
"The carbon tariff" violates not only the basic norms of the World Trade Organization (WHO) but the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities of the developed and developing countries enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, as the spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has said.
The proposal for the "carbon tariff" the U.S. set forth reflects its strategy of industrial upgrading and climate change across internal and external organization boundaries. By implementing the strategy, the U.S. will strike at traditional industrial forces domestically, protect new energy sources and escort renewable energy and sustainable industries, while adding chips to international negotiations on climate change and compelling such large developing nations as China, India and Brazil to make concessions.
By implementing carbon tariff, the U.S. would avail itself of an opportunity to complete the revolution in reducing carbon emissions and to establish itself on the upper stream of the industry on the one hand and, on the other hand, would make gains to compensate for its own losses during the financial crisis.
In the era of former President George W. Bush, the U.S. took a passive attitude toward the greenhouse gases emissions and played the role of a drag in the climate change negotiations. Since Obama administration coming into office, however, it set forth positive measures to reduce the gas emission of carbon dioxide by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, from 2005 levels, and adopt a rare positive, cooperative attitude in the UN meeting in Bonn, Germany in late March and early April. But the U.S. attitude has been suspicious of playing on words, nevertheless. If it is converted into the internationally adopted datum point of 1999, the U.S. will only reduce carbon emissions by less than 1 percent by 2020.
In fact, carbon tariff is only directed at large developing nations like China and India. They have just made a fresh start and but still occupy in an inferior position in term of industrial setup. So, it is extremely unfair for these nations to assume more responsibilities in the gases emission reduction and at the same time to risk the economic deflation.
The most reliable and trustworthy method is, however, to go on differentiating the principles of the Kyoto Protocol while separating the talks on climate change and trade, which are two different issues that should be debated or discussed in their separate respective areas.
In imposing carbon tariff, the U.S. could only oblige developing nations to set up retaliatory trade barriers instead of forcing down the greenhouse gases emissions. Consequently, the most crucial way to cope with carbon tariffs is precisely to expand its domestic demand and to gradually meet the people's domestic consumption through economic growth and to reduce its dependency on exports, and particularly on the exports of big pollution, high-energy consumption and resources consumption products.
By People's Daily Online and contributed by Gong Xiuchuan, subeditor of "Study Times" newspaper
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article