Pollution
Yale 360 reports that India, like China before them, has announced that they will not agree to emissions’ restrictions. Obama has said that he opposes trade sanctions against countries who do not agree to carbon caps. From the Times’ article:
The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the night before the vote Friday, that requires the president, starting in 2020, to impose a “border adjustment” — or tariff — on certain goods from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions. The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit permission from Congress.The provision was added to secure the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because of fears of job losses in heavy industry.
In the floor debate on the bill Friday, one of its authors, Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “As we act, we can and must ensure that the U.S. energy-intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.”
In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Obama said American industries like steel, aluminum, paper and glass had legitimate concerns about competition from developing nations. But he warned that trade sanctions based on the extent to which other countries curbed carbon dioxide emissions might be illegal and counterproductive.
While I’m sympathetic to the economic positions of emerging countries– they argue that developed countries contributed most significantly to the current warming crisis and that they should have the oppurtunity to develop in similarly ‘dirty’ manner– I think both China and India need to make some concessions, even if only symbolic ones. Certainly, China and India should be given more leeway than developed countries in terms of their emissions, but at the same time they must recognize that a) they are among the most signicant polluters [China has been #1 since 2007] and b) their refusal to concede will undermine the legitimacy and, hence, efficacy of any international ‘carbon’ agreement.
