Climate Wars: Nick Stern Threatens U.S. With Trade Boycott
Ben Webster
The United States will be banned from selling goods to many countries if it continues to shirk its promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to the world’s leading climate change economist.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said that nations that were taking strong action on emissions could start imposing restrictions on “dirty” US exports by 2020.
Lord Stern, who advises several G20 leaders and is one of the key players in the international negotiations seeking a deal on emissions, made his comments ten days before the annual United Nations climate change conference opens in Cancun, Mexico. They reflect the feeling in many countries that a lack of action on emissions in the US is delaying progress in the talks.
…
Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions. “If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account,” he said. “Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”
Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.”
Lord Stern said that a complete ban on some goods was also possible. He said the American people should overcome their historical antipathy to taxation and accept that emissions needed to be controlled either through a tax or a trading scheme.
Full story (subscription required)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
————–
Dave Springer,
I do love the good Scottish single malts dearly. However, should a trade war, instigated by the like of Stern, breakout then that would clearly give businessmen in the USA considerable incentive to buy a few good unemployed (by Stern’s trade war) distillers to immigrate to the USA and we will have the good stuff produced here in the USA and Canada after some aging years. In fact, we don’t need to wait for a trade war started by the likes of Stern. I am looking for a few investors as of now. : )
Dear Mr. Stern . . . . thanks for the lovely idea.
I leave you with a quote from Von Mises, “Free trade begins at home.” from his book ‘Omnipotent Government’ p. 237. I think that means if Britain heavily interferes (interventionism) with its own economy to the point of virtual socialism then of course they cannot advocate international free trade consistently . . . . therefore the likes of Stern.
Von Mises Institute is found at; http://mises.org/quotes.aspx
John
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, if what you want is erudite intercourse among the intelligentsia, might I suggest the hallowed halls of the Ivory Tower. I hear they have such intercourse as exampled by their sterling emails to each other.
As for me, I’ve decided I have had my fill of hopey changy snobbery, and I voted for it! So call me slack mouthed!
It is time for Brits to revert to their old ways. I have in mind how peers were dealt with when they got out of line. They were imprisoned in the Tower of London and later beheaded if they refused to accept banishment and forfeiture of their estates.
@ur momisugly Dave Springer
“Get off your high horse. 420,000 American servicement lost their lives fighting YOUR war. Total UK casualties including civilians was 450,000. We poured as much blood into that conflict as the UK and far more treasure. ”
This is not really relevant to discussions of Lord Stern’s daft proposals. However I am sure that most British people, like me, are grateful to America for its role in the war and are particularly grateful to those Americans like your father who risked their lives in it.
However you dishonour the role of such Americans by referring to it as “YOUR war” unless you mean it in the sense that it was a war that Britain CHOSE to fight. Hitler did not want war with Britain and would have been willing to make peace in return for a free hand against Russia. Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, flew to Britain to try and make contact with people willing to negotiate with Hitler. If the German overtures had been accepted Germany would probably have gone on to defeat the Soviet Union and would have been in effective control of all Europe and the USSR. In that case the United States would not be the dominant power in the world today.
As a proportion of our population Britain’s loses were considerably greater than those of the US in both world wars, especially WWI. The United States did contribute considerably more in absolute terms to the financial costs of WWII but again not in relative terms. After WWI Britain never regained its former place in the global economy. We emerged from WWII almost bankrupt having sacrificed a huge proportion of our GDP in the defeat of the Axis powers.
Please note I am not in any way trying to minimise the contribution America made to the cause of freedom in the two world wars or to preserving freedom during the cold war.
By all means criticise Lord Stern. I can understand Americans who talk about retaliating against the UK and EU if, and only if, his proposals were adopted. However the (unfortunate) fact that he is British should not be an excuse for anti-British diatribes any more than the fact that Al Gore is American should be an excuse for anti-American diatribes.
[Reply: Stern does not speak for UK citizens any more than Gore speaks for Americans. The rank-and-file British and American citizens are allies, not enemies. That state of affairs ended in 1812. ~dbs, mod.]
I am disappointed by the decidely puerile, emotional and partisan nature of most of the comments on this thread. The remarks attributed to Lord Stern by The Times did not deserve such derision; given the background of belief in AGW, they were actually quite sensible. When it says, “… nations that were taking strong action on emissions could start imposing restrictions on “dirty” US exports by 2020” it doesn’t mean boycotting or banning imports, it means imposing the same carbon tax on them as applies to domestic products, so they do not have an unfair advantage. In suggesting that this might occur by 2020 he is being quite conservative; it could easily happen much sooner. Such impositions are entirely within WTO rules. We have only recently been discussing here how California intends to introduce such measures itself. In such a case, many US firms might effectively find themselves “shut out of [world] markets” because the emissions levy would appear to them as tariff making their exports less competitive against those of other nations, with the most energy or emission-intensive products being hit hardest. Some US products might also be banned outright – as 100W light bulbs already have been. He indicates that this might be based not so much on the emissions produced in the manufacturing of the capital good or product, as on those emanating from its use (again, the 100W light bulb is an obvious example). There is nothing remotely unrealistic about this; it is the way things are already moving. It is certainly questionable whether or not Europe is leading and the US lagging, on balance, but such dubious comparisons are par for the course in political lobbying. As for the trade war aspect, well, trade wars between Europe and the US are common; there are usually several going on at any time. Between the double standards of US politicians and the bureaucratic inanity of the EU, it’s a wonder that anyone bothers to trade at all!
What Lord Stern was getting at with the “conceptual mistake” remark is probably something like this: Emissions trading schemes are, arguably, not taxation in the strict meaning of the term (eg., like income tax or corporation tax), but should be viewed either as user fees – a license permitting one to use something in common ownership (eg., like roads, or in this case, I suppose, the atmosphere) – or as a fine for polluting other people’s property. If CO2 actually were the dangerous pollutant it is alleged to be, then appropriately set carbon “taxes” would be the just payment for the negative externalities emitters wrongfully impose on other people.
By the way, the singular of “goods” is indeed “a good”. That’s very common usage in economics.
re: Paul Birch
Now that is some mighty good spin’n right thar.
Paul Birch says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:55 am
I am disappointed by the decidely puerile, emotional and partisan nature of most of the comments on this thread. The remarks attributed to Lord Stern by The Times did not deserve such derision; given the background of belief in AGW, they were actually quite sensible. . . . [edit] . . .
————
Paul Birch,
I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does.
Nick Stern (he is not my lord) is representative of a political/socio-economic group of supporters of the IPCC postulated AGW climate science; that climate science of current problematic fame. British leadership and their men, like Stern, appear susceptible to it in the current situation.
Your point seems to be that he is a typical and well thought of member of that group.
We knew that.
Partisan? Old Nick proceeds to more than imply intimidation toward the USA for not supporting that group. So, if we disagree with old Nick and that group then we are partisan. At the same time you imply a high road for Nick and that group; that they are implied by you to be non-partisan. I think you think that the noble save-the-world attitude (a.k.a. corruption) of him and his group allows them to be above partisanship or conflict of interest. That doesn’t work anymore, if it ever really did. They are not.
Emotional? Last I heard it is a natural part of the human psyche. It would seem natural to me that implying intimidation toward one’s country does tend to bring emotion out. So, does the initiation of intimidation (done soooo unemotionally/gentlemanly by Stern) require responders to be like Stern? Nah, we can just be honest in our response. Most aren’t accepting his intimidation unemotionally. : )
Puerile? After looking up what it meant. : ) I see you are just appealing to hype while complaining about what you view as the hype of commenters here. Nice hypocritical try there; but you weakened your argument considerably by using that word.
Old Nick made a mistake with his idea of intimidation. He emboldened the potential adversaries of the American liberal and environmental establishment . . . just what the American liberals/ enviros don’t need right now after the results of the USA midterm elections earlier this month. He give fuel to the Tea Party and, more importantly, all independents to disassociate themselves further from the American liberal and environmental establishment.
Paul Birch, if you are a supporter of old Nick and the group like I conclude you are, then you should advise him/them to retract what he said. I personally hope he doesn’t retract it; he scored an own goal.
John
DBS [moderator], you just got yourself Quote of the Week.
“The rank-and-file British and American citizens are allies, not enemies”.
IN naval terms “stern” means rear-end.
I guess this statement is best referred to as talking out of one’s stern.
What a prick.
His greatest “contribution” was the 2006 Stern Review which seems to have convinced may politicians that global warming was a business (and taxation) opportunity. This, more than anything else, seems to have converted mainstream european politicians into stalwart greenies.
The proverbial taxing the air that we breathe had never seemed possible before.
What ? REAL light bulbs are still available in America ? Where can I order?
Better mark them as “electrical space heater” on the customs declaration though.
Gentlemen
Oh Dear, let’s see. What would be the likely economic impact of Lord Stern’s threat?
1) The U.S. would naturally turn to internal production to feed its demand.
2) Naturally U.S. manufacturing would increase.
3) The average Joe’s income will increase substantially; because high-skill manufacturing jobs pay very good wages.
4) There would be a slight decrease in demand due to the higher cost of domestic goods. But, then not much more than in the mid 1960’s and this, more than likely, would be offset in by higher wages.
5) The U.S. would have less incentive to protect Europe and Asia on the U.S. dime. So, a decrease in defense spending would produce substantially lower federal spending.
6) Blue collar America’s attitude would be “Buy American”. While European/Asian economist might consider this behavior “irrational”; they would have a have hard time explaining this to their exporters and unemployed.
7) Emphasis would be place on the use of the U.S.’s abundant internal resources. In particular coal – which can easily be converted to liquid fuels via coal gasification/refining.
8) Naturally the U.S. could slap a “reverse carbon” tax on imported goods; thus increasing internal employment considerably.
9) Likewise the U.S. could slap a “reverse carbon” tax on a food – an abundant U.S. export which Europe and Asia depend to feed their populations.
On balance…Well… bring it on.
Regards, Kforestcat.
Roy says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:22 am
Don’t be quite so fast to conclude an alternate history of Germany ruling the world.
That’s a tough call. By 1944 when the Normandy invasion took place the Manhattan Project that was begun in 1939 was only a year away from friution. That late in the program the technology was a done deal and it was just a matter of time while 130,000 people were busy at facilities around the country enriching enough fissile material. Germany wasn’t even close to getting the bomb. Had the ground invasion of Europe been delayed by a year there would have been no need for it for exactly the same reason there was no need for a ground invasion of Japan.
You are quite right to chastise me for calling it YOUR war. I apologize for that. I meant to say it was your continent. It was our war too beginning in 1941 but the Manhattan Project itself was begun in 1939 with Berlin as the designated target.
Dear Lord Stern,
Let’s go back for a minute to 1942……
You should not insult your friends. Sometimes they are the only ones you have.
John Whitman says:
November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am
“I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does.”
The objective truth of what I said does not depend upon my or anyone else’s belief. I have no idea whether or not Lord Stern believes what he says.
“Your point seems to be that he is a typical and well thought of member of that group.”
I have no idea whether or not he is a typical member of the group, nor whether or not he is well thought of. I have never heard of him before. My point was, as I stated, that, given belief in AGW, what he is reported as having said is quite sensible.
“Partisan? Old Nick proceeds to more than imply intimidation toward the USA for not supporting that group.”
Lord Stern is arguing (probably correctly) that, in the event that the US lagged behind other nations in controlling emissions, the US would be likely to find its exports subject to additional restrictions. Do you seriously imagine that these countries would simply allow their domestic policies to be vitiated by failing to apply appropriate emissions tariffs to imports from countries that lacked such emission controls? That’s not a threat; it’s a statement of the political realities and the sovereign rights of nations. It’s not hard to set a levy on imports that taxes their emissions at approximately the same rate as domestic manufactures. It will probably happen. Face it.
It is partisan – and a double standard – to imagine that for other countries to subject imports from the US to domestic law is somehow offensive, but for the US to subject its imports from other countries to US law is magically OK.
“At the same time you imply a high road for Nick and that group; that they are implied by you to be non-partisan.”
I did nothing of the sort (assuming you meant “moral high ground”). However, in point of fact, I don’t think they are being partisan here. I have every reason to believe that they wish, insofar as it is practicable, to apply the same emissions standards to everyone. The “group” draws its members from all over the world, with the US contributing more than its share – including the US President himself! It is not a partisan movement, but a globalist one.
‘Lord’ Stern is a very well qualified global warming it’s all going to hell in a handcart p***k.
I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe I am repeating something…
Boston, enjoy the tea party!!
You Americans will appreciate that!
Peter Walsh
Kforestcat says:
November 20, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“Gentlemen Oh Dear, let’s see. What would be the likely economic impact of Lord Stern’s threat?”
First, it’s not a threat. Americans must be feeling really insecure to see it as such.
Second, most Americans wouldn’t even notice (just as they don’t notice numerous other tariffs and restrictions on US trade). The US government would make some token objections, and probably subsidise some of the exports most affected (or those with the most powerful lobbies, such as the steel industry), which in turn would lead to more stringent quotas on them. But for the most part, since they are firmly in the same ideological camp, they would use it as an excuse for domestic measures to control emissions, bringing them more in line with more “progressive” international norms. They would then be able to negotiate the removal of the tariffs on a reciprocal basis.
However, even if the US government did nothing, the effect would be limited; the mix of US exports would shift to less emission-intensive goods, with a modest economic loss both internally and externally; the dollar would fall slightly against other currencies, partly offsetting the impact of the tariff.
That said, it’s just as likely to be the other way round, with the US imposing carbon levies on imports. It would probably be doing so already, were it not for its reliance upon China to fund its deficit. Recent anti-China rhetoric from the Obama administration suggests that it may be positioning itself to move in this direction (hoping that the drop in Chinese lending would be fully offset by the extra revenue generated).
REPLY: And consider getting your own blog if you want to run one. – Anthony
Tried. Big oil said they weren’t funding any new denier blogs until at least fiscal 2012 because of the recession. Times are tough all over.
Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy.
——————————————————————————-
Question: The Fare East? – like China and India hohohohohohohoho
What low carbon sources of energy, how much and when will it make a significant difference?
——————————————————————————
He also said – They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions.
————————————————————————-
Question: What industries are powered by such low carbon sources and what competition do (the Europeans) present that are not already heavily subsidised?
——————————————————————————-
“If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account,”
———————————————————————————
Question: Charging Properly for carbon? Properly?
———————————————————————————
he said. “Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”
—————————————————————————-
Question: Forward thinking? Who can these people be? and is this some kind of threat?
Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.”
———————————————————————————-
Stunning such !
Question: What aircraft do the Euros make that are not already heavily subsidised and what aircraft engines do they make that are safe these days?
———————————————————————————-
Lord Stern said that a complete ban on some goods was also possible. He said the American people should overcome their historical antipathy to taxation and accept that emissions needed to be controlled either through a tax or a trading scheme.
Lol
Douglas
Paul Birch says:
November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm
The objective truth of what I said does not depend upon my or anyone else’s belief. I have no idea whether or not Lord Stern believes what he says. . . . [edit] . . .
—————–
Paul Birch,
First let me thank you for your considerable reply.
My reply (November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am) to your reply (November 20, 2010 at 10:55 am) was lengthy. Likewise your subsequent reply (November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm) was lengthy. So, let me respond one sound bite at a time over several comments addressing the multiple sound bites of our lengthy comments. This keeps the length on any given comment a little more manageable.
My response to sound bite #1 follows.
Paul, I must directly say that I respect you for introducing the word ‘objectivity’ into our dialog. Should we concur with a meaning of that singular word then there would be no possibility for you and I to disagree on method and premises. We could only disagree on correctness of specific applications, which is hardly any major contention at all. I look forward to the possibility of that discussion of objectivity.
However, directly, I must say that the position of Nick is hardly a worthy subject to test the concept of objectivity on since his world view is exactly a subjective belief system (as opposed to testable science) that supports the culture around which the IPCC’s AGW bias is the focus. Also, of all the possible economic/ political / social possibilities presented in the history of Western Civilization, Nick’s authoritarian approach with a clear British style socialist slant is trivially wrong.
If you truly are not a supporter of Nick, then I think you could see his non-objectivity clearly already.
John
The US doesn’t have much to fear Stern’s threat. In fact it’s actually humorous. The socialists and multiculturists have almost destroyed the UK. It’s like being barked at by a toothless old dog that was once a fierce power to be reckoned with but is now just happy to make a noise let alone make a move.
re post: Paul Birch says: November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I find it really hard to believe that you are serious. This is going on like mad right now. The US has tremendously more restrictive emission controls, expensive emission controls, than countries such as China and India – and yet we buy their products like mad, mostly without tarrifs that would even begin to make up for the cost differences imposed by our emission controls, or, for that matter, wage and labor controls. So I know full well that CO2 tarrifs are being bandied about left and right and some believe it only ‘fair,’ for someone to ask if anyone could seriously imagine countries allowing themselves to be undercut by not applying emission tarrifs, when that situation is occurring right now and has been for decades….. well… watts up with that??!!??
Paul Birch said:
I think that the only thing that is inevitable at this stage is that more governments will back away from this emissions tariffs bullshit … it’s funny to see the Labor party in Australia pretending to have an emissions trading scheme to keep the Greens happy while delaying its introduction in an effort to avoid being kicked out in the next election (or before).
All this talk of tariffs recalls the Smoot-Hawley fiasco, in which one country would raise tariffs, and the next country would retaliate. Before long, world trade was choked off, and everyone naturally became poorer as a result.
This is the beginning of Smoot-Hawley 2.0
Lord Stern is bucking for highest-qualified nincompoop, isn’t he?
Hang on… what do you mean he’s not the official Court Jester in HM’s Court?
Stern’s thesis gets an “F” but he still manages to get a doctorate from the (formerly venerable) TU Berlin. Perhaps the Berliners are counting on harnessing the energy of deceased alumni and professors (like Ertl, Coanda, Hertz, Dornberger, Junkers, Reuleaux, Schinkel and Zuse) spinning in their graves at the thought of a fool like Stern being honoured with a doctorate.