April 1, 2008
Carbon Tariffs Could Bring Manufacturers Back From Asia

Imposing carbon tariffs on China could drive some manufacturers back to North America, according to a new CIBC Coming Home (PDF), The Globe and Mail reports.
Jeff Rubin, chief strategist and economist at CIBC World Markets, and a co-author of the report, thinks that once the U.S. institutes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, a tolerance for countries that don’t, like China, will vanish.
Rubin predicts such a tariff, based on $45 a tonne of carbon dioxide and equivalent – about the current price on the carbon trading market in Europe – would collect $55-billion annually. It equates to a 17-per cent levy on all Chinese imports to the U.S. – almost six times greater than current import tariffs.
The advantage of cheap labor that has driven manufacturers to China would disappear, according to the report. (This brings up another issue which the report discusses, by shifting manufacturing production to China and then subsequently importing Chinese-made goods, the U.S. has exported what used to be its own GHG emissions to other countries.)
The industries that might leave, according to Rubin, would be the most energy intensive – plastics, chemicals and steel.
But carbon tariffs may be a difficult proposition. “Imposing tariffs on carbon, even if it could be done in a legal trade context, would be so complicated it would become a dangerous threat to trade stability,” Canada’s Financial Post, which says a carbon tariff is a recipe for global trade wars, reports.
To figure out the appropriate tax level would require a mind-blowingly elaborate carbon-measurement scheme, created on a global scale. It would have to be able to determine how much carbon emissions are embedded in the power drill that is nominally made in China, but is actually assembled from parts made in a dozen other countries. Some of those countries may or may not have carbon control programs in place.
Advertisers
Stay competitive through sustainability.
Find out how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?
Learn how it could affect your business. >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Survey Results: Product Environmental Compliance Best Practices
How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/25/2009
- 11/24/2009
- 11/23/2009
- U.S. Solar Demand Prompts Domestic Production
- Sobeys Aims to Reduce GHG Emissions 15% by 2013
- Government Intervention Required to Drive “Green” Technology
- NREL: State Incentives Crucial to Renewable Energy Growth
- Australia Considers E-Waste Law
- Artic Expedition Investigates Climate Change, Alternative Fuel
- Construction Effluent Rule May Cost $1B Annually
- Germany, UK Ramp Up Solar Efforts
- 62% of Firms Assign Environmental Team for Green Goals
- McD’s in Germany Trades Red for Green In Logo
- Around the Web – Climate Risk, GHG Reporting, Al Gore, U.S. Chamber
- NY Acura Dealer Adds Solar
- Obama May Set Provisional GHG Reduction Targets at Copenhagen
- Climate Scientists Alleged to Have Manipulated Data
- Wind Power Investments Grow in North America
- Sanyo Selling Solar Eco-homes
- WWF, WRI Make Last-Minute Pitches on Climate Change
- CH2M Hill Cuts Paper Use by 21% from 2006 to 2008
- Kraft Rolls Up 50M Miles Saved Through Transportation Efficiency
- Construction Firm Adding Wind, Solar to Demonstrate Possibilities to Customers
- Retrofitted Exit Signs Can Save Up to 90% in Energy Costs
- Electronics Boom, E-Cycling Lags
- Around the Web – Genan, CO Ski Resorts, Sainsbury, MillerCoors
- Replenish Energy Wins Cleantech Open Expo’s Global Ideas Award
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
Jetset1 on Energy-Savings Claims Don’t Add Up for Microsoft’s Windows 7
"This article is wrong. If your PC is less than a few years old,..."
Iain on McD’s in Germany Trades Red for Green In Logo
"Now if only their food was healthy and nutritious."
Phil on Climate Scientists Alleged to Have Manipulated Data
"After reading all the comments it seems obvious, to me, that the individuals populating..."
Marc Hudson on McD’s in Germany Trades Red for Green In Logo
"where will the stone be mined from- under what labor rights conditions? Will the..."
Clyde on Climate Scientists Alleged to Have Manipulated Data
"This just shows all the Global Warming freaks out there are a bunch of criminals cut from..."
Car Rental Singapore on News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
"Energy reduction is a good thing. We need to save the..."
Meme Mine on WWF, WRI Make Last-Minute Pitches on Climate Change
"To the voting public, what the scientists say is irrelevant anymore for if you read..."




Reader Comments
Perhaps the focus of GHG emmissions should not be on countries but on companies. You so rightly point out that the US has exported its GHG emmissions when manufactures went overseas and again rightly point out how difficult it would be to set carbon tarrifs in a ‘Flat World’ (homage: Tom Friedman), so again I ask: should not GHG focus be on companies at least as much as on countries?
Lynn B. Jean | April 1st, 2008
Lynn, the focus of GHG emissions is on companies, hence the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064. This article above talks specificly about tariffs which are obviously set at country levels. But the detail at the product level will be available as it is at company level.
Canadas Financial Posts comments on trade wars and incredibly complex reporting requirements are un-informed. This reporting situation is already happening in Kyoto ratified countries.
The biggest customers in domestic markets, Governments and large corporations, (who are typically the earlier adopters of carbon compliance programs) place pressure on their suppliers to comply as they equate to scope 2 and 3 emissions for a business.
This has a trickle down effect through the (cross border) supply chain as those suppliers products come under scrutiny and then in turn exert pressure on their suppliers (their scope 2 and 3 emissions).
Chris Lindley | April 2nd, 2008