To compensate for the suicidal carbon taxes on production, companies and workers will want the suicidal drugs of protectionism and subsidy. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
Read more
Other things being equal, trade between two countries is good for consumers. Country A emphasizes what it does best, Country B does the same, and overall efficiency increases. It’s called Comparative Advantage. Free trade between advanced countries is almost a no-brainer. However trade between an advanced country and a developing country is in a special category.
Suppose that neighboring Country B has lower standards with respect to water pollution, and that that impacts the river that forms part of the boundary with Country A. Then the playing field is not level, and a tariff–or the threat thereof–may be appropriate. However the calculation of a reasonable tariff is not a trivial exercise, and that calculation is vulnerable to various irrational political forces.
Because putative CO2 pollution is phony environmental issue, it’s in a different category than water pollution. Although CO2 emissions do not affect the playing field, Cap’n Trade does. From the perspective of Country A, the rational players in Country B have an unfair advantage. One possible result: Climate Alarmist crybabies in Country A will shoot themselves in the foot a second time, and clamor for ‘Protectionist’ measures.
Out of spite, Country B will respond by shooting itself in the foot with a retaliatory tariff. The net result: The greedy Gories are better off, while most working class people in both countries are worse off. And Gaia will continue to thumb her nose at anthropogenic carbon emissions, and at the false prophets of doom who pretend to act in her name.
“Growth is the only way to save the poor and to invent and promote energy-saving technology. Stimulating trade is the best way to promote growth and recover from the recession.”
This is a biased argument which costs the west and increases real pollution. Adjustments through subsidy and protectionism restore the SQ but then nothing is achieved so what was the point of it all in the first place?
As sceptics seem to be in the minority to speak out against this crazy carbon tax it can only be assumed that the majority are busting for a bigger, crazier, less efficient, less accountable, more expensive government.
Same result as any other excuse for protectionism. Raises prices for local consumers and annoys overseas trading partners, who inevitably find ways to retaliate. Trade wars are not sustainable, and often end up economically hurting the initiating country the most.
Can only succeed as a political lever for the time the initiating country absolutely controls something the other party badly wants. The USA is not in that position.