Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Trump’s Global Trade War Was Over Manufacturing, Biden’s Will Be Over Clean Energy

Divergent Climate Plans Will Spark the Next Trade War 

The Peterson Institute for International Economics is concerned about a Trade War Over Climate Change and wants the WTO to step in.

Two months before the next big United Nations climate conference in November, the three biggest greenhouse gas emitters—the United States, Europe, and China—are at loggerheads over how to reduce reliance on fossil fuels without excessively disadvantaging their own economies. Their confrontation is based on fears that if each country or region takes tough steps on climate change, the other two players will take unfair advantage in the arena of international trade.

The US and EU border tariffs schemes have prompted opponents to complain about the impact on international trade. US climate envoy John Kerry expressed concerns about the EU CBAM, and Australian prime minister Scott Morrison declared that carbon tariffs are “simply trade protectionism by another name.” As an economy that is expected to be hit hard by the border adjustment plans, China also voiced objections, saying that CBAM violates WTO rules, will seriously undermine the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, will erode mutual trust in the global community, and curb prospects for economic growth .

Importantly, China has not yet promised to decrease allowances over time. This is unfortunate since some power plants may relax their efforts to cut emissions and instead just rely on their historic quota of free allowances. While the market currently only covers the power sector, officials have indicated that other high-polluting industries such as steel, cement, chemical, electrolytic aluminum, and papermaking—some of them already covered in local pilot programs—could be covered in later stages.

As carbon tariffs are debated by lawmakers and move through US and EU legislative bodies, their compatibility with WTO rules will be vigorously contested. Importantly, both the US and the EU proposals grant discretionary exemptions to qualified trading partners. While seemingly benign, such exemptions could put border adjustments in violation of the WTO’s non-discrimination rule. Furthermore, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), signed in 1947 and reaffirmed with the creation of the WTO in 1994,mandates in Article III that taxes on imported products should not exceed those imposed on like domestic products. The EU free allowances on CBAM products (which can be seen as a subsidy) and the absence of a US domestic carbon tax both raise national treatment questions.

Difference of Opinion and Strategies

Slim Chance For WTO

Back in February, Bloomberg reported Biden Picks Up Where Trump Left Off in Hard-Line Stances at WTO.

The U.S. delegation to the WTO, in a statement Monday obtained by Bloomberg, backed the Trump administration’s decision to label Hong Kong exports as “Made in China” and said the WTO had no right to mediate the matter because the organization’s rules permit countries to take any action to protect their “essential security interests.”

The Biden administration on Monday said the U.S. has consistently argued that national-security disputes are not subject to WTO review because it would infringe on a member’s right to determine what is in its own security interests.

Recall that Trump gutted the WTO by not making appointments, leaving the body short of the required numbers of persons to even hear a case. 

That changed on August 10 when the WSJ reported Biden to Nominate María Pagán as U.S. Envoy to World Trade Organization

President Biden is expected to nominate María Luisa Pagán, a longtime government trade negotiator, as a deputy U.S. trade representative and ambassador to the World Trade Organization, a critical role for accelerating the administration’s engagement with the multilateral organization that has faced multiple challenges in recent years.

According to administration officials, Mr. Biden is also expected to name Christopher Wilson, another veteran of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, as the agency’s chief negotiator for innovation and intellectual property, a job tasked with solving increasingly thorny IP disputes in digital and pharmaceutical industries.

Their nominations will come as frustration builds over the slow pace of the appointments of key trade officials among business executives and trading partners who are eager to see disputes resolved and new agreements initiated. Katherine Tai, U.S. trade representative, has been working without any of her three deputy positions.

The WTO has faced various challenges in recent years, including failure to conclude negotiations in key areas such as e-commerce and environmental goods, as well as the dysfunction of the appellate body, the helm of its dispute settlement system, caused by blocking of the appointment of judges by the Obama and Trump administrations.

Mistrust Everywhere

Despite the appointments, there is mistrust  everywhere. And the WTO is horrendously slow to decide anything. The Boeing-Airbus dispute lasted an amazing 17 years. 

The case was not resolved by the WTO but rather by joint agreement of the US and EU to suspend tariffs for 5 years.

The US Progressive Express

Meanwhile, Biden, AOC, and Pelosi are hell bent on there mad scheme for a border adjustment tariff that is against WTO rules. 

EU Tries to Convince Trading Partners Its Carbon Tax is Not a Tax

On July 6 I noted EU Tries to Convince Trading Partners Its Carbon Tax is Not a Tax.

CBAM, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism looks like a tax, acts likes a tax and is indeed a tax. However, the EU says it is not a tax, but an “adjustment mechanism”. 

Hope For Nothing But Expect a Mess

If anything happens in Congress that gets Biden’s $3.5 trillion bill off the ground it will be a guaranteed mess. 

There is no way the WTO or anyone else will resolve it, and the bill itself is stagflationary.

The best thing that can possibly happen is nothing. Anything else is a mess.

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

18 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
The best thing that can possibly happen is nothing. Anything else is a mess.
Spoken like a true libertarian. Fortunately, we will get something a bit better with Biden who is clearly governing from the center and letting the left and right say what they want and look foolish.  Another solid speech by Biden today stating exactly why what happen, did happen and would have happen anyway no matter when the US got out.  He even openly questioned why Obama never got out of Afghanistan and stated why the Trump deal with the Taliban sucked. But he stuck to his conviction and didn’t cave to either the Trump mistakes or the Obama mistakes. Sometimes the best thing isn’t nothing because changing a bad policy actually makes a difference.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
US semiconductor companies are working with the US government to reel in about $50B in government investment/grant in order to acquire more semiconductor manufacturing capacity. I attribute this mostly to the current administration along with shared goals by both Democrats and Republicans to pass this package in order to make sure China does not corner the manufacturing capacity of the world if they take over Taiwan. Intel is in talks to buy GlobalFoundries. It appears the sellers are getting greedy and driving up the price because they know the US gov has a fund to do exactly this. Had Trump not been so anti-everything and fought Covid along with actually helping US companies, he may still be President. The truth is Biden is taking the mantle of America first seriously unlike Trump.  Out of Afghanistan and helping US companies increase manufacturing capacity. That is a pretty good 8 months. 
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
The point is the trade war. After all, “trade war” is just another way of spelling handing productive people’s earnings to connected, useless leeches who can’t compete at anything other than being beneficiaries of theft by the totalitarian state. Which is what all The West has been about, for the past half century.
The rest, the specific excuses the leeches toss around for justifying the theft and harassment, is just optics and propaganda aimed at fooling the reliably clueless indoctrinati.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Biden’s appointments are : ‘María Luisa Pagán, a longtime government trade negotiator’ and ‘Christopher Wilson, another veteran of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.’  Given the stellar performance of trade negotiation in the past, expect another cluster f*(k.
Probably easier to just let China take over.
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
There’s no way of measuring how much CO2 any foreign country is generating from any of their activities. And countries will just lie about how much they think they generated. The only real solution to stabilizing CO2 levels with current technology is building a lot of nuclear power plants and building a lot of electric vehicles that charge off the power plants. But, nuclear power is evil according to the same people who are scared of COVID, think the world will end in 10 years, and think your sex isn’t determined by chromosomes. So, we’ll just beat our heads trying to convince a bunch of scientific illiterates that their ideas can’t possible work.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
People in New Orleans who face the prospect of 3-4 weeks without power are probably mighty glad they don’t own electric vehicles.
This hurricane illustrates a big problem with going all electric. The photo’s of those high metal power lines down says that windmills and solar farms would not survive a Cat 3+ hurricane. So you can’t generate locally and if you try to generate far away you need the towers which get blown down. It’s a catch-22.
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
A residential community not far from me  has its own community water system. However the install of the piping was sub optimal . As a result, much leakage occurred .   For many years the residents complained that they were paying “extra” for the lost water .  Additionally the state run water management district levied fines against the community  for wasted water . As a result the community decided to  accept bids to repair/update the water infrastructure . The costs of the  extensive repairs was deemed prohibited .  As a result the community decided to pay the recurring fines and live with the water loss.   Same is true of these carbon/adjustment    taxes . Companies rather than reduce their carbon footprint will  just pass the cost on to you . Net, net ,net the company still pollutes, you pay more , governments have a new revenue stream . Planet Saved !
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Another fine mess they’re getting us into…….More “greenpork”  for the donor class. Better optics on climate change, which is becoming the major political issue of the future…..but not much real progress either, unless I’m very much mistaken. They will only try the right strategies after all other avenues go nowhere.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
The real problem is that we don’t have the technologies available yet to meet the goals (carbon neutral by 2050, 50% reduction in 8 years). So it’s all political posturing anyways and it’s going to change every few years when the next election cycle comes around.
Jmurr
Jmurr
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Unless nuclear is an option
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Jmurr
So there are two sides to every argument, and one can argue that we will find a way to make enough cheap power to keep our lifestyle and our technological progress going into the far future.
Energy is the key. With endless energy you can control the environment enough to live comfortably indoors, even if outdoors becomes completely uninhabitable. With energy you can desalinate sea water. With enough energy you can grow huge plant farms indoors, under lights.
Without cheap energy we will have to spin down to some lower level than where we are now…..probably much lower, in terms of the kind of existence even poor people enjoy at present. Some places are going to be outside out comfort zone.
The old nukes are dangerous and dirty. The new ones are safer and cleaner. But uranium is limited and mostly comes right now from places far away that use the Cyrillic alphabet and shoot AK’s. And it gets pumped out of the ground, using fracking. You don’t hear much about uranium fracking….they don’t call it that. They call it ISL….in situ leaching….but it’s fracking, make no mistake.
I’m pretty glad we’re just fracking for oil and gas hereabouts. Hydrocarbons in the aquifer are bad enough without radioactive water mixed in. 
PostCambrian
PostCambrian
4 years ago
The best way to handle this is to have a worldwide carbon tax at the wellhead (for oil) and the mine (for coal). Tax to be paid to an international administrative body and rebated to the country that uses the oil. The individual country can then determine the best way to distribute the funds to reduce oil use. Carbon tax can start small and ramp up on a scheduled basis to allow the world a little bit of time to adjust. Some method of transferring some of the tax to less developed countries for carbon reduction programs should be included. Any carbon sources attempting to avoid the tax would be destroyed (although this would be difficult in Russia). All countries would be required to meet the scheduled reduction in carbon use. It would need to be transparent and auditable.  Any countries not participating would need to be frozen from world trade. Unilateral action by individual countries will not work due to distrust and cheating.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  PostCambrian
The way to approach reducing dependance on FF’s is to reward people for cutting consumption at the personal and local level.
Reward NOT commuting to work. Reward people for lowering their use of electricity (if it comes form FF’s). Reward lower energy lifestyles. 
We can’t possibly do that because it negatively impacts our consumer driven economy. It would push us right into a recession, and then what?
It’s a Catch-22…we have an auto industry. We won’t quit making so many cars… we just want to make electric cars….and if they’re successful we can build MORE of them. Unfortunately electric cars still have a carbon footprint. A single tire still takes uses 7 gallons of oil to manufacture. Last I checked, electric cars still have 4 tires that wear out every 30-40K miles.
You don’t get to a point using less by building more. But we have an economy that depends on endless Y.O.Y. growth forever.
Concrete has a huge carbon footprint. Are we going to quit pouring concrete? Is China? They poured more in one year than  the US has poured in our entire history.
We ship cheap consumer goods from China to the US in giant container ships. The economics of that are not amenable to a solution based on changing from diesel to electric, AFAIK.
Jmurr
Jmurr
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
The only way to do it is to severely reduce human population which is actually the goal of the climate change alarmists if they were honest. Green new deal=stack the corpses high. 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Jmurr
That’s certainly one possibility…and I think it’s pretty much a given that at some point overpopulation is self-limiting, although we’ve pushed the envelope with technology far further than people like Malthus once thought. Malthus wasn’t stupid. He was brilliant. He just couldn’t see what was coming, and we can’t either.
One thing I think is important to consider, is that we aren’t likely to get where we need to go the way we’ve been headed for the last 150 years…..which is that we’ve completely acquiesced to central authority and central government, on whom we depend to solve all our problems. That isn’t working out well, and it’s at least partly because it puts people in power who aren’t particularly beholden to us, the people. They are far away, and they are influenced by rich people who don’t much care about us.
Local power, local food, and local government…these things give us both more say….but also some responsibility that we’ve gladly abandoned.
I think we will go local again, because “centralized”is very likely to miserably fail at some point.
I don’t look for the future to be a bed of roses…not in 50 or 100 years. Civilization has had peaks and valleys, and this looks more like a cliff to me than the bottom of anything.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
So Global Climate Change does not prove Malthus was right?
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Malthus was just a guy who was good at arithmetic, and he was smart enough to understand the math didn’t work for food production at the rate humans were reproducing in 1798, with the farm production they had at the time.
He was one of the first real demographers, although he was primarily known for being an economist. Economists are almost always wrong about some things, in case you haven’t noticed…lol.
 But only a big thinker would have even worried about such a thing…..at a time when the world was such big place and there were so few people in it. He was far ahead of his time, imho.
He just had no idea about how much technology would change food production.
I don’t see climate change as making Malthus right. It’s just another thing that that wasn’t in his frame of reference in his time, which was the Ben Franklin/Thomas Jefferson/William Pitt years.  
He couldn’t see ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which wouldn’t become a thing until 1913 when Carl Bosch figured out how to make it cheap enough to use widely for farming. He couldn’t see the energy we’d get from oil, since he was born in the first half of the real Coal Age.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  PostCambrian
“Tax to be paid to an international administrative body and rebated to the country that uses the oil.”
The grand, benevolent poobah in the sky!
Moving north, and/or wearing shorts, is an awful lot cheaper and less invasive.

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.