Shuting Pomerleau’s Post

Great and informative article from Brookings/Dr. Barry Rabe on the possibility of a U.S. carbon border adjustment mechanism. With the U.S. electing a president who leans heavily on tariffs as a policy tool, the idea of carbon tariffs feels like it might resonate with the new administration—but not necessarily in the way climate advocates hope. Let’s be real: the likelihood of this being implemented thoughtfully, with a genuine focus on reducing global emissions, is slim. More likely, it could become just another way to justify protectionist trade policies under the guise of climate action. Congress has already laid some groundwork on this issue. In recent sessions, multiple proposals have emerged, including bipartisan efforts like the PROVE IT Act, which focuses on collecting emissions data to highlight the U.S. manufacturing carbon advantage, and the Republican-backed Foreign Pollution Fee Act, which directly imposes fees on carbon-intensive imports without creating a domestic carbon price. On the Democratic side, the Clean Competition Act envisions a more comprehensive approach, combining a benchmark carbon price with domestic performance standards to ensure competitiveness and drive emissions reductions globally. While public support for carbon tariffs is strong (68% according to the latest survey), the real question is whether any future policy will prioritize climate goals or become another tool for protectionist trade strategies. The new administration's "tariffs first" mentality could either accelerate progress on this front or derail it entirely.

A Conservative government may axe the carbon tax but then may have to bring it back The-14 Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) #Canada #ConservativeParty #PierrePoilievre #Politics #Environment #Emissions #CarbonTax #ClimateChange #ConservativeGovernment #CarbonTariffs #CarbonPricing #FossilFuels 

How could a slight shift in climate tariffs under a Harris administration reshape both U.S. competitiveness and global climate efforts? In the latest #EnergyExplained blog, CGEP experts Noah Kaufman and Lilly Yejin Lee outline the economic and environmental benefits of small, targeted changes to the Biden administration's climate tariffs. Read more: https://lnkd.in/epUZK9ws

There has been much analysis on how the new U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods such as EVs, solar panels, etc., could undermine Biden's climate agenda. But Tim McDonnell, who writes the Net Zero newsletter for Semafor, argues they may (counterintuitively) "ultimately accelerate the energy transition." He writes: "The long-term political viability of the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies underpinning the ongoing US climate tech boom relies on Biden being able to prove that taxpayers aren’t handing a mountain of cash to Chinese manufacturers, and that the subsidies can genuinely spur domestic job creation and investment in strategic industries — even if higher prices for consumer climate tech goods cause a loss of near-term emissions-reduction potential." (And if you're interested in the #energytransition then do sign up for his newsletter.)

New reporting greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reporting requirements coming for U.S. steel and aluminum industries, as well as aluminum casting and forging industries.

My latest work is out at National Bureau of Economic Research! Alongside great co-authors, we examine how trade policy can address the climate challenges faced by developing nations, particularly in achieving the net-zero emission goals. Using an extended general equilibrium trade model, we analyze the impact of various taxes and tariffs on emissions, trade and welfare outcomes. Our findings reveal that while trade policy is effective in reducing carbon (GHG) leakages, these effects are relatively small for most developing countries, and border adjustment tariffs may lead to trade declines and even welfare losses in some of them. I'm glad to discuss our research further and to receive comments! #TradePolicy #ClimatePolicy #InternationalTrade #Emissions #CarbonLeakage #DevelopingCountries #GeneralEquilibrium

More import tariffs, abandoning climate policy and resolving conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine are all high on the new President's agenda. Here's our team's analysis of what the election means for the the energy transition; clean tech in the US; global oil and LNG markets; and upstream investment. #theedge

The EU is now introducing so-called climate tariffs to create a fairer level playing field and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For importing companies, it is important to quickly get a grip on the CBAM regulations, otherwise there is a risk that imports will be stopped. The goal is to reduce the Union’s emissions by 60 percent, and to reduce the risk that production and thus emissions will only be moved to countries with different regulations, so-called climate tariffs are now being introduced. read more https://lnkd.in/d5iMmkeC #firstcargo

In his book "How to avoid a climate disaster" Bill Gates introduces us to the concept of the #GreenPremium. It is the additional cost of choosing a clean technology over one that emits more greenhouse gases. According to the author, "lowering the Green Premiums is the single most important thing we can do to avoid a climate disaster." #JoeBiden has decided to maintain and even increase certain punitive #tariffs on Chinese imports in a pre-election effort. These tariffs, initially imposed under the Trump administration, cover a range of products relevant for a green transformation: electric vehicles (up to 100%), lithium-ion batteries (25%), solar cells (50%), semiconductors (50%), and other critical minerals (25%). There are always reasons for #protectionism. Reasons (and experiences) that speak against it, too. I question if this decision will boost the innovative power of the USA and I am concerned that this move will slow down the accessibility and scalability of climate-friendly technology. I hope #Europe takes a good self-critical look at its own competences and capacities for the needed industrial transformation - and its timeline. Find the full list of Tarifs here 👉 https://lnkd.in/e_X7eNW4 #china #tarrifs #us #europe

Great column, well worth reading. This on fossil fuel subsidies is interesting. I guess the key takeaway is that the reality is always much more complex than the headlines. "A few years ago, a drive to reduce government handouts for the use of fossil fuels led to discussions inside the WTO and the OECD, two institutions with deep expertise on subsidies. The debates were usually based on measures of explicit subsidy on the WTO definition, made by the OECD and the International Energy Agency, which currently total $1.5tn a year. But unhelpfully, the IMF began pushing a much broader definition, including the “implicit subsidies” of simply failing to internalise external costs including air pollution and road-traffic accidents. By this measure, annual global fossil-fuel subsidies are a massive $7tn, nearly three times as much as worldwide spending on defence."