Letter in New York Times on Trade and Climate

Published on June 16, 2015

USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson at a press conference in Lima, Peru on December 8. “If a global agreement on climate change doesn’t work for and with businesses, it just won’t work,” he said.

USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson has a letter in today’s issue of The New York Times on climate change and trade policy. The letter is reproduced below, and you can view it on The Times’ website by clicking here.

Robinson rebuts a recent piece by Times columnist Eduardo Porter that suggested border taxes on products from countries outside a so-called “climate club,” saying that countries should instead offer trade incentives, rather than punitive tariffs, to reduce carbon emissions and spur the deployment and use of greener energy technologies.

This letter is especially timely, as it comes after the most recent negotiating session of the UN climate change talks in Bonn, where USCIB played an important role in voicing private-sector views. Click here to read our report. It also comes as we gear up for next week’s climate-focused meeting of USCIB’s Environment Committee and the North American Business Climate Consultation, held in conjunction with the International Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Finally, USCIB continues to advance American business interests in the WTO’s Environmental Goods Agreement talks as well as other key trade negotiations, even as we grapple with the current trade deadlock on Capitol Hill.

—

The New York Times

June 15, 2015

The Opinion Pages/Letters

Climate Change and Trade Policy

To the Editor:

Eduardo Porter advocates launching a trade war as a way of ”solving” the climate challenge (”Climate Deal Badly Needs a Big Stick,” Economic Scene column, June 3), imposing tariffs on those countries that don’t join a ”climate club” committed to reducing carbon emissions.

But we should offer carrots instead of sticks to accelerate the transition to greener energy. Rather than threatening higher-emitting countries with punitive tariffs, we should roll back barriers to trade in environmental goods and services.

There is no contradiction between economic development and climate protection. Indeed, as countries grow richer, they can devote additional resources to cleaner energy.

To be viable, climate solutions must factor in real-world needs, including the need for economic growth, and deliver benefits today to people in both rich and poor countries.

And they need to be in line with political and market realities, including the global community’s common interest in keeping markets open and economic relations cordial.

The ”big stick” that Mr. Porter endorses fails to meet these criteria.

PETER M. ROBINSON
President and Chief Executive
United States Council for International Business
New York

Climate policy embraces a range of approaches

Published on June 3, 2015

Financial Times

Letters

Sir, It is unfortunate that Pilita Clark and Ed Crooks present the call from leading oil and gas firms for the widespread introduction of carbon pricing mechanisms in the context of a supposed transatlantic schism (News, June 1). In reality, the prevailing international business view is somewhat more nuanced than it might at first seem.

The anticipated Paris climate agreement will combine a broad range of national and local approaches to combating climate change in what will be a novel form of “bottom-up” global architecture. Carbon pricing instruments (Letters, June 1) can certainly play an important role in spurring emissions reductions in those countries or regions that choose to use them; but it is important to recognise that they are just one part of the policy mix. While carbon pricing may be the most cost-effective climate solution in some countries, other approaches — such as incentive-based systems or efficiency standards — may be a more viable option elsewhere. What’s more, carbon pricing schemes also need to be carefully designed to promote a global level playing field for commerce and to enable future trade-driven growth.

This leads to an important secondary point: the intervention from leading European energy firms is illustrative of a broader effort on the part of the private sector to engage constructively in the development of climate policy. That’s why leading business networks called last month — at the conclusion of the first-ever Business and Climate Summit — for governments to establish a recognised consultative role for the private sector under a future climate accord. Better harnessing of business know-how would be a significant step forward in the way we go about addressing the shared challenge of climate change — irrespective of the specific policy instruments employed.

John Danilovich
Secretary-General
International Chamber of Commerce
Paris, France

Trade and the Environment

Published on January 22, 2014

By Norine Kennedy

The New York Times

“Re “Administration Is Seen as Retreating on Environment in Talks on Pacific Trade” (news article, Jan. 15):

While the article dismisses the environmental side agreement in the North American Free Trade Agreement as “only appendices,” the agreement has resulted in two decades of cooperation to raise environmental standards and practices, the latest example being nearly half a million dollars’ worth of grants from the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental projects on both sides of the United States-Mexico border.”

Read the full letter: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/opinion/trade-and-the-environment.html?_r=1