Trump and the Paris Agreement

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/trump-climate-change.html

The article above covers the uncertainty of the Paris Climate Accord that was agreed to last year in the wake of Donald Trump being elected president. It is widely known that Trump has stated that he wants to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord. The international political community is currently divided on this issue, and now they are trying to decide what they will do if Trump does withdraw the US from the Accords, "some diplomats turned from talking of rising seas and climbing temperatures toward how to punish the United States if Mr. Trump follows through, possibly with a carbon-pollution tax on imports of American-made goods". This tax would be based on the amount of emissions that US companies have. If a company goes and switches to renewables and substantially reduces their footprint, then the tax would be decreased. Essentially they are trying to go through with the Paris Climate Accord by going around Trump. 

I personally believe that this is an important discussion for world leaders to be having right now. So much is uncertain with a Trump presidency, and it is important to plan for the worst. This deal is extremely monumental because it got countries to come together and agree about something they usually do not agree about. I think that it is great that they are planning on how they can still implement this on the US, even if Trump backs out. However, I do believe that they need to be careful. Trump can often be irrational and as a result, he might resort to extreme measures if they go through with this.

Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Colombia

This New York Times article discusses a rather interesting case in what pertains to Green IPE. In 2008, the British Colombia Liberal Party, a right-leaning party in Canada that shares many of the anti-tax, pro-business beliefs of U.S. Republicans that deny the existence of climate change, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. Despite remarks by Marco Rubio that government efforts to combat climate change would destroy the economy, British Colombia's provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors' even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined. The tax reduced emissions by up to 15%, encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful about heating and cooling homes, and incentivized businesses to invest in energy efficient measures and switch to less polluting fuels. Moreover, opposition for the tax has decreased from 47% of voters to 32% of voters and businesses found it to be the most efficient, market-friendly instrument available in the quiver against climate change. The province, though, has run into a couple dilemmas. Carbon emissions are rising again since the tax has frozen at 30 Canadian dollars, they're missing their goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a third from 2007 to 2020, and the collapse in gas prices is making people stray away from things like electric vehicles. Moreover, cement makers argue that imports from China and the United States grew from 5% to 40% since the introduction of the tax. It's problems like these that must be addressed in order for United States Republicans to embrace a carbon tax if they ever recognize the threat of climate change.

This article hits on just about all the focal points we discussed in class about Green IPE. The first is the set of market externalities as a result of the trade-offs created from this carbon tax. Reduction in emissions, more environmentally friendly and mindful living, and the potential creation and growth of a new market and economic growth based around new sources of energy is encouraging, but increases in imports in certain industries and gas still being seen as a more economically reliable energy source seems problematic. The Republican party would ask: how does one adopt policies to internalize social costs without stagnating economic growth? Moreover, how does one know how to correctly price carbon, especially when it seems that the tax must keep rising or else people will get used to it and keep emitting carbon? Furthermore, it doesn't seem that historic and current responsibility and the fact that the US has one of the highest emission rates per capita is heavily affecting the direction in policy change. It seems that it comes down, at its purest form, to the fact that if the right wing recognizes climate change as a threat, realizes responsibility, and realizes that reform wouldn't be detrimental to the economy, it would ultimately require states coming together to figure out a plan for reform.