Gateway to Think Tanks
来源类型 | Fact Sheet |
规范类型 | 其他 |
Bottom Line on International Trade | |
Robert Heilmayr | |
发表日期 | 2008-08 |
出版年 | 2008 |
语种 | 英语 |
概述 | Executive SummaryHow will climate policy impact American trade competitiveness? Over the coming decade, countries around the world will adopt a variety of climate policies to impose costs for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since these policies will vary in form and stringency, the costs they impose on manufacturers will not be uniform across all nations. Although a global patchwork of climate policies could disadvantage specific American industries, policy leadership would provide the U.S. economy with an early signal for rising fossil fuel costs and supply constraints, potentially improving future competitiveness of domestic industries. A global, carbon-constrained future will demand a shift to low-carbon energy technologies and business models. Past experience in renewable energy and efficient vehicle technologies has seen companies profit from strong regulatory environments at home to build competitive advantage abroad. Uncertain domestic policy will not serve companies well in the medium to long term, as other countries will build markets for low-carbon products and services. Such concerns have led many major companies to call for strong mandatory U.S. climate policy. Nevertheless, specific industries in countries likely to experience relatively higher compliance costs are concerned that they will be placed at a disadvantage to competitors in countries with relatively lower compliance costs. They argue that aggressive climate policy could contribute significantly to factors that lead to the “offshoring” of jobs and relocation of industry to countries with lower standards and production costs. Could the relocation of industries lead to a global rise in emissions? If global supply chains shift manufacturing from countries with stringent policies to lower cost countries, global emissions would rise through a process commonly referred to as emissions “leakage.” While U.S. climate policy would reduce domestic emissions, the net environmental effectiveness of the policy may be undermined if emission sources simply migrate to countries without absolute caps. In order to prevent this, environmentalists have frequently supported the international harmonization of environmental standards and enforcement to minimize differences in compliance costs across nations. Which industries will be most sensitive to differentiated international approaches to climate policy? The degree to which a particular industry is adversely impacted by higher relative costs of compliance with climate policy depends on three variables:
In general, these metrics indicate that the most adversely impacted sectors include paper, chemicals, nonferrous and ferrous metals, and nonmetallic mineral products (e.g. glass and cement). What could the economic impacts be? Most economic analysis indicates that, in the absence of mechanisms to address relative differences in compliance costs (see page 2), vulnerable industries would face some pressure to relocate to nations with less stringent climate policies. Resources for the Future, an independent research organization, is undertaking an effort to quantify the impact of U.S. climate policy on output from these industries through modeling and econometric analysis. Two initial studies, using different approaches, find that imposing a $10 per ton charge for CO2 in the United States (but not in other countries) would result in a 0.5 to 6 percent decline in domestic output from these industries. What policies could help harmonize compliance costs across nations? The principal policy options currently under consideration to promote the international harmonization of compliance costs for carbon-intensive industries can be divided into three types:
|
摘要 | By encouraging clean technology deployment and imposing new costs on commonly traded commodities, climate policy would have significant impacts on international trade flows. This document answers basic questions about climate policy and its implications for the international trade of goods. |
主题 | Business |
标签 | business ; greenhouse gases ; trade |
区域 | United States |
URL | https://www.wri.org/publication/bottom-line-international-trade |
来源智库 | World Resources Institute (United States) |
资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/27593 |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Robert Heilmayr. Bottom Line on International Trade. 2008. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
个性服务 |
推荐该条目 |
保存到收藏夹 |
导出为Endnote文件 |
谷歌学术 |
谷歌学术中相似的文章 |
[Robert Heilmayr]的文章 |
百度学术 |
百度学术中相似的文章 |
[Robert Heilmayr]的文章 |
必应学术 |
必应学术中相似的文章 |
[Robert Heilmayr]的文章 |
相关权益政策 |
暂无数据 |
收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。