Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:21:22.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Climate and trade policies: from mutual destruction to mutual support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2012

PATRICK A. MESSERLIN
PATRICK A. MESSERLIN*
Affiliation:
Groupe d'Economie Mondiale at Sciences Po, France.
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is no doubt that trade and climate policies can be mutually destructive. But there are three strong reasons to suggest that they can also be mutually supportive: they have a common problem, common foes, and common friends. Mutual support would be much stronger if the world regimes for these two policies shared a few common principles. The climate community should feel at ease with the broad WTO principles of ‘national treatment’ and ‘most-favoured nation’, and rely on them in building its own treaty and institutions. The trade community should grasp the opportunity to benefit from the better disciplines on adjustment policies that it is hoped the climate community will design.

These conclusions should put the many pending problems into a more positive perspective, and persuade negotiators to find pragmatic compromises, as was the case with the GATT. Using this perspective, the paper focuses on a few key issues, such as the definition of carbon border taxes and the reasons to ban carbon tariffs. Other cases of mutual support are examined. For instance, the climate community should not repeat the mistakes of the world trade regime in dealing with the developing and least developed countries.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 53 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Patrick A. Messerlin 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antholis, W. (2009), ‘Five “Gs”: Lessons from World Trade for Governing Global Climate Change’, in Bairnard, L. and Sorkin, I. (eds.), Climate Change, Trade and Competitiveness: Is a Collision Inevitable, Brookings Trade Forum 2008/2009, The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Banks, G. (2010), ‘Gaining from Trade Liberalization: Reflections on Australia's Experience in an Economy-Wide View’, Speeches on Structural Reform, Productivity Commission, Australian Government.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (2007), ‘Barrett Proposal: A Multitrack Climate Treaty System’, policy brief, 5 September, The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
Brenton, P., Edwards-Jones, G., and Jensen, M. F. (2009), ‘Carbon Labeling and Low Income Country Exports: A Review of the Development Issues’, Development Policy Review, 27(3): 243–67.Google Scholar
Cadot, O., Carrère, C., de Melo, J., and Portugal-Pérez, A. (2005), ‘Market Access and Welfare under Free Trade Agreements Textiles under NAFTA’, World Bank Economic Review, 19(3): 379–405.Google Scholar
Carasco, A. (2010), ‘L'idée d'une taxe écologique aux frontières ne séduit guère’, Le Monde, 25 March 2010.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2003), ‘Trade and Climate: Potential Conflicts and Synergies’, Working draft, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (2008), ‘The case for charges on greenhouse gas emissions’, October, Discussion Paper 2008–10, The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
Cramton, P. and Stoft, S. (2009), ‘Global Carbon Pricing: A Better Climate Commitment’, Research Paper No. 09-06, Global Energy Policy Papers.Google Scholar
Dam, K. (1970), ‘The GATT: Law and the International Economic Organization’, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
de Bruyn, S., Nelissen, D., Korteland, M., Davidson, M., Faber, J., and van de Vreede, G. (2008), Impact on Competitiveness from EU Emissions Trading Scheme: An Analysis of the Dutch Industry, June, CE Delft.Google Scholar
Delgado, J. (2007), ‘Why Europe is not Carbon Competitive’, policy brief 2007/05, Bruegel, Brussels.Google Scholar
Esty, D. C. (1994), Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment and the Future, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009), ‘Decision of determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage’, Website europa.eu.Google Scholar
Graichen, V., Schumacher, K., Matthes, F. C., Mohr, L., Duscha, V., Schleich, J., and Diekman, J. (2008), ‘Impacts of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme on the Industrial Competitiveness in Germany’, Unweltbundesamt Research Report 3707-41-501.Google Scholar
Gros, D. (2009), ‘A Border Tax to Protect the Global Environment?’, Commentary, 11 December, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B., Martin, W., and Mattoo, A. (2010), ‘Conclude Doha: It Matters!’, Policy Research Working Paper 5135, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. (2008), ‘The Permissible Reach of National Environmental Policies’, Journal of World Trade, 42(6): 1107–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. (2010), Border Carbon Adjustments and the WTO, London: CEPR.Google Scholar
Hourcade, J. C., Demailly, D., Neuhoff, K., and Sato, M. (2008), ‘Differentiation and Dynamics of EU ETS Industrial Competitiveness Impact: Climate Strategies’, available at http://www.climate-strategies.org.Google Scholar
Houser, T., Bradley, R., Childs, B., Werksman, J., and Heilmayr, R. (2008), ‘Leveling the Carbon Playing Field’, Peterson Institute for International Economics and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G. C. and Gabyzon, C. (1996), ‘Fundamental Tax Reform and Border Tax Adjustments’, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G. C., Charnovitz, S., and Kim, J. (2009), ‘Global Warming and the World Trading System’, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G. C. and Kim, J. (2010), ‘Climate Change and Trade: Searching for Ways to Avoid a Train Wreck’, Second Conference on Climate Change, Trade and Competitiveness, The Graduate Institute Geneva, Center for Trade and Economic Integration.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. F. (2009), ‘Leveling or Mining the Playing Field? Implementation Problems of Carbon-Motivated Adjustment Taxes’, mimeo, November, Global Trade and Finance Architecture (GTFA), World Bank.Google Scholar
Kommerskollegium (Swedish National Board of Trade) (2009), ‘Climate Measures and Trade: Legal and Economic Aspects of Border Carbon Adjustment’, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Low, P., Marceau, G., and Reinaud, J. (2010), ‘The Interface between the Trade and Climate Change Regimes: Scoping the Issue’, Second Conference on Climate Change, Trade and Competitiveness, The Graduate Institute Geneva, Center for Trade and Economic Integration.Google Scholar
Martin, W. and Messerlin, P. (2007), ‘Why Is It so difficult? Trade Liberalization under the Doha Agenda’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(3): 347–66.Google Scholar
Mattoo, A., Subramanian, A., van der Mensbrugghe, D., and He, J.. (2010), ‘Reconciling Climate Change and Trade Policy’, Working Paper No. 09-15, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Metcalf, G. E. (2007), A Proposal for a US Carbon Tax Swap, October, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Monjon, S. and Quirion, P. (2010), ‘How to Design a Border Adjustment for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme’, Energy Policy, 38(9): 5199–207.Google Scholar
Moore, M. O. (2010), ‘Implementing Carbon Tariffs: A Fool's Errand?’, Mimeo, April, Department of Economics and Elliot School, Institute for International Economic Policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2005), Trade and Structural Adjustment: Embracing Globalization, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (2006), The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009), A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change, Policy Research Working Paper WPS5095, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2007), US Federal Climate Policy and Competitiveness Concerns: The Limits and Options of International Trade Law, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2011), ‘Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies’, Research Report, May, Australian Government, Productivity Commission, Canberra.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. D. (2009), ‘Notes on American adjustment policies for global-integration pressures’, in Hoekman, B. and Porto, G. (eds.), Adjustment Costs and Impact on Trade, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Ruffin, R. (1979), ‘Border Tax Adjustments and Countervailing Duties’, Weltwirschaftliches Archiv, 115(2): 351–5.Google Scholar
Schaus, M. and Lendle, A. (2010), ‘The EU's Renewable Energy Directive: Consistent with the GATT–WTO TBT Rules?’, mimeo, Trade Law Clinic, Hautes Etudes Internationales, Geneva.Google Scholar
Tumlir, J. (1983), ‘International Economic Order and Democratic Constitutionalism’, Ordo, 34: 71–83.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2007), Trade and Environment at the WTO, Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
World Bank (2005), Global Economic Prospects 2005: Trade, Regionalism and Development, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Messerlin Supplementary Materials

Description of NACE-4 sectors

Download Messerlin Supplementary Materials(File)
File 29.2 KB