DOC PREVIEW
Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5 out of 15 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Broadening Climate Discussion:The Linkage of Climate Change to Other Policy AreasAbstractJeffrey FrankelIs trade itself good or bad for the environment?Win-win examplesTypical WTO panel casesTurtles, PPMs, and WTO panel decisionsTwo areas where conflict between the climate regime and the trade regime is less likelyA few prioritiesReferencesJune 20 + Oct. 1, 2004 “Kyoto and Geneva: Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime” Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor, Harvard University Broadening Climate Discussion: The Linkage of Climate Change to Other Policy Areas conference organized by FEEM/MIT Venice, Italy, June 2004 The author would like to thank Joe Aldy, Thomas Brewer, and Steve Charnovitz for exceptionally useful comments on an earlier draft, Maral Shamloo for research assistance, and the Savitz Fund for research support. Abstract The multilateral regime to address the problem of global climate change is manifest in the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in that city in 1997, and likely soon to enter into force. The multilateral regime to address international trade is manifest in the World Trade Organization, established in Geneva in 1995. Are these two regimes likely to come into conflict? This short paper considers some of the potential conflicts, and also some of the potential complementarities. The overall picture is more optimistic than some pro-environment critics of the WTO fear.“Kyoto and Geneva: Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime” Jeffrey Frankel Global Climate Change (GCC) policy is a large and complicated subject. It cuts across many academic disciplines, agencies, interest groups, and so on. If you live in the world of climate and Kyoto, and you run up against yet another area, such as the world of trade and the WTO, you may be tempted to react along lines like the following: “Things are complicated enough already. Our efforts to address GCC are legitimate and important. If trade policy and the WTO are sincere and legitimate, they should not create obstacles or constraints to what we are doing. So we should be able to ignore them and they should be able to work around us.” Unfortunately, one can’t entirely ignore the interconnections between climate policy and trade policy. They are sufficiently deep and numerous that each needs to be aware of the other, and some amount of coordination is desirable. So the idea for this year’s FEEM/MIT conference is a good one: “The Linkage of Climate Change to Other Policy Areas,” and I am particularly pleased and honored to be leading off the first session with a discussion of the linkage between climate change policy and trade policy. I used the word “unfortunate” to describe the fact that one cannot ignore the linkages because they do indeed complicate things. But my central message is a positive one: that international trade, and the multilateral institutions we have in place to maintain the liberal trading system, need not be obstacles to effective GCC policy, and can actually be a great help. But some collaboration is required.i Let me begin by noting that many of those who live full time in the world of trade policy view environmental policy with an attitude that is symmetric to the suspicions going the other direction: “Trade policy is important, and complicated enough as it is. If environmental policy is sincere and genuine, there is no reason why its instruments should involve discrimination against some countries’ exports. So let them work around us.” Free traders, which includes almost all economists, fear that talk about environmental protection will be used as an excuse by some economic sectors to gain protection for themselves against competition from abroad. That fear is symmetric to the fear of environmentalists that talk about free trade will be used as an excuse to give inadequate weight to environmental goals and excessive weight to maximization of market-measured GDP. Both fears have a significant element of truth to them. Thus both areas of policy need to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the other. But the good news is that, if they do, then international institutions and multilateral trade can help give us an outcome where we achieve more environmental protection for a given economic cost, or achieve higher GDP for given environmental goals, or some of both. 2Is trade itself good or bad for the environment? I want to say something about whether trade per se is good or bad for the environment, a distinct question from whether aspects of the WTO and the rest of the trade policy regime are good or bad for the environment. There are many possible effects of trade on the environment. They can be categorized according to whether they operate via GDP, just like investment, technology, and other sources of economic growth, or whether they are peculiar to trade alone, and hold for a given level of GDP. Within each category, there are effects both beneficial for the environment, and detrimental. What is the overall bottom line? It depends on what dimension of environment quality we are interested in. For concentrations of SO2, statistical studies give a relatively clear answer, on average across countries. Regarding the effect via income, air pollution peaks at a per capita income of around $5,700 a year, and after that further economic progress results in cleaner air – the famous Environmental Kuznets Curve.ii It is not that the market solves the problem entirely on its own. Rather, as people grow richer, they demand cleaner air and -- in a country with a responsive and competent government – the result is effective regulation. This is the “EKC” cell in the table.iii Table: Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? (source for estimates: Frankel and Rose, 2005) Effects of trade on the environment via growth in income for a given level of income Harmful effects larger scale of economic activity “Race to the bottom” in national regulation Beneficial effects shifts to cleaner techniques and composition of economic activity “Gains from trade”: ratcheting up of standards, innovation, consumer power Statistical evidence on bottom line for SO2 EKC, after an income per capita of about, further growth tends to reduce pollution (via national regulation) other things equal, the favorable effects of trade seem to dominate for CO2 No sign


Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime

Download Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Linkage of the Climate Change Regime and the Trade Regime 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?