Krugman on environmental economics

Long but excellent article by Paul Krugman on Environmental Economics 101 and the economics of climate change. I also recommend Michael Roberts' addendum and heartily second his emphasis on argiculture, forests and land use which Krugman under-addresses.

One thing I found interesting was Krugman's favorable take on both the legitimacy and the feasibility of carbon tariffs:

To the objection that such a policy would be protectionist, a violation of the principles of free trade, one reply is, So? Keeping world markets open is important, but avoiding planetary catastrophe is a lot more important. In any case, however, you can argue that carbon tariffs are well within the rules of normal trade relations. As long as the tariff imposed on the carbon content of imports is comparable to the cost of domestic carbon licenses, the effect is to charge your own consumers a price that reflects the carbon emitted in what they buy, no matter where it is produced. That should be legal under international-trading rules. In fact, even the World Trade Organization, which is charged with policing trade policies, has published a study suggesting that carbon tariffs would pass muster. [emphasis mine]

These aren't pushover arguments, but my gut reaction is that even if the WTO sanctions this type of action, the reaction from countries like China wouldn't be pretty.

Haiti and agriculture

Michael Roberts points out that one, U.S. import quotas support a domestic price well above the world price (see below), and two, the Dominican Republic's U.S. sugar import quota is twenty times that of Haiti.

I remember first reading about the stark gap (economic, political, and environmental) between the Dominican Republic and Haiti in Jared Diamond's Collapse; there are obviously a host of causes that go far beyond U.S. policy. Here is a satellite photo of the Haiti-DR border; note the severe deforestation on the Haitian (left) side.

Tyler Cowen suggests that the Haitian quota be repealed in the light of Haiti's recent tragedy. I agree with Michael that the impact now is likely small - what would have really mattered would have been lifting the quota fifty years ago.

In other Haiti news, Roger Thurow laments that the agricultural component of Haiti's recovery aid is being largely ignored

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization says its part of the appeal - $23 million to help revive Haiti’s food production – is being largely ignored. Only 8% has been funded.

Hopefully the recent return to prominence of agriculture on the broader aid scene will facilitate this being remedied by the time the Haitian growing season starts in March,

"Green jobs" preventing green energy?

Geoff Styles on the uproar over the proposed wind project in Texas involving Chinese investors...

The chief complaint about the project in question is that it might be eligible to take advantage of a key energy provision of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009--this year's stimulus bill--that allows the developers of a qualifying renewable energy project to collect an up-front cash grant from the US Treasury equal to 30% of the cost of the project. In this case much of that money, along with the funds provided by the US and Chinese partners, would go to pay for wind turbines imported from China. As a result, most of the jobs this project would create would be in China, not the US. On the face of it, this looks like a colossal loophole that some high-profile legislators--who incidentally voted for the stimulus bill including this feature--are rushing to plug. However, this only looks like a nasty unintended consequence of a hastily-crafted law if you misunderstand the mechanics and purpose of the Treasury renewable energy grant program.

You guessed it, the program was passed to stimulate renewable energy projects in the wake of Lehman's collapse. Which it seems to be doing... unless the green jobs argument gets in the way.

Here's Geoff's conclusion, with which I whole-heartedly agree:

The wind industry has already developed a globalized supply chain, similar to many other industries, and no one should be stunned if wind turbines from China show up in Texas, any more than China should be surprised that its nuclear power plant construction projects are creating jobs in the US. Our assessment of the value of renewable energy sources such as wind power should hinge on their efficacy at providing reliable and cost-effective energy supplies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not on domestic jobs creation--even in a recession.

Thumbs up on cooperation, thumbs down on substance

The Kerry-Graham NYT op ed on climate policy is a welcome sign of collaboration across the aisle, but its substance is mixed. The five main points are:

1. "We agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security." [good!]
   


2. "While we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." [fine]
   


3. "Climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil." [i.e. we need clean coal and offshore drilling]


4. "We cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas." [i.e. we need carbon tariffs]


5. "We will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices." [good]

As a friend points out, clean coal is nice, but it won't do much to displace oil imports, since the vast majority of oil is used for transportation fuel, whereas coal is entirely used for power. (NB: this could change if CNG or coal-to-liquids ever took off in the U.S., but the former is still a Pickens pipe dream for now, and the technology for the latter has bad economics even without carbon pricing, which would make it completely untenable).

But the worst point is clearly the nearly naked defense of climate-inspired trade protectionism. Kerry-Graham claim that such tariffs will incentivize other countries to adopt environmentally friendly policies; this is the best possible outcome, but sparking a global trade war is another one, and it’s not clear to me why the latter is any less likely.

Why did Chicago surpass Buenos Aires

Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser has a very interesting article, which begins by reflecting on Argentina's unusual and unfortunate economic trajectory in the last century:

A century ago, there were only seven countries in the world that were more prosperous than Argentina (Belgium, Switzerland, Britain and four former English colonies including the United States), according to Angus Maddison’s historic incomes database. In 1909, per capita income in Argentina was 50 percent higher than in Italy, 180 percent higher than Japan, and almost five times higher than in neighboring Brazil. Over the course of the 20th century, Argentina’s relative standing in world incomes fell sharply. By 2000, Argentina’s income was less than half that of Italy or Japan.

This is interesting in itself, but my favorite part is his striking comparison of Chicago with Buenos Aires (I had never thought of putting the two side-by-side, but the turn-of-the-century similarities are impressive).

In many ways, the two cities are strikingly similar. Chicago grew great in the 19th century as a conduit for the agricultural wealth of the American hinterland. In 1816, it cost as much to move goods 32 miles over land as to ship across the Atlantic. The enormous costs of shipping by land caused America’s population to perch on the Eastern Seaboard, dependent on an Atlantic lifeline. Over the 1800s, a great transportation network of canals and rails makes America’s rich farmland accessible. Cities like Chicago grew as the nodes of that network.

Chicago’s fortune is made by two canals, the Erie Canal and the Illinois and Michigan Canal, which turned Chicago into the linchpin on a great watery arc that runs from New York to New Orleans. Railroads complemented the waterways and enable the rich farmland of Iowa to ships its corn, in porcine form, to eastern markets via Chicago. Chicago’s most famous 19th century industry was its stockyards, which thrived because of refrigerated rail cars that shipped slaughtered beef back east. Clothing employed even more Chicagoans, who were making garments for thousands of rural customers, supplied by Marshall Field, Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck.

The story of Buenos Aires is broadly similar. Like Chicago, the city was surrounded by a vast, fertile hinterland. Buenos Aires grows as a center for transporting agricultural products east. The frigorificos, refrigerated ships, greatly increased its ability to ship beef. Clothing was also Buenos Aires’s largest industry.

Glaeser's conclusion is perhaps the least interesting part - it turns out education is the probably the biggest driver of the divergence of the two cities. Not exactly the most unexpected thing in the world. Other unsurprising culprits include protectionism, heavy government intervention in and regulation of the economy, and technological innovation (apparently we owe Chicago the skyscraper, the electric washing machine, and the zipper).

Protectionism in Kerry-Boxer

Like in Waxman-Markey, the new Kerry-Boxer bill features concerning provisions which hint at carbon tariffs.

The Boxer-Kerry bill devotes a single sentence to what has become an increasingly thorny question: Should the U.S. slap carbon tariffs on imports from countries that don’t curb their own greenhouse gases, as the House climate bill did? To wit:

"SEC. 765. INTERNATIONAL TRADE. ‘‘It is the sense of the Senate that this Act will contain a trade title that will include a border measure that is consistent with our international obligations and designed to work in conjunction with provisions that allocate allowances to energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries.’’

“Border measure” seems to mean “border adjustment,” which is how the House version of the bill labels tariffs on imports from environmentally-unfriendly countries. The House bill says those tariffs have to be “consistent with international agreements;” the Senate speaks of “international obligations.” Both appear to refer to the questionable legality of carbon tariffs under World Trade Organization rules.

This is triply concerning because the House has already passed a bill with similar provisions, and Obama hasn't exactly distinguished himself as the stalwart defender of free trade.

Ugly protectionism

Yikes - Obama has slapped tariffs on Chinese tires and China is already retaliating. Greg Mankiw is justifiably disappointed. I hope Obama isn't trying to drum up support for healthcare through protectionism. Healthcare reform is not worth the negative impact a trade war would have on living standards worldwide.

Update: Condemnation in the econoblogosphere is rapid and unanimous, cutting across ideological lines. E.g. Brad DeLong: "Barack Obama Does Something Really Stupid". The WSJ's Real Time Economics rounds up others, including this gem from Ferris Bueller's Day Off:

“In 1930, the Republican controlled House of Rep, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the… Anyone? Anyone?… the Great Depression, passed the…Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act which, anyone? anyone? Raised or lowered?… Raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal gov’t. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the US sank deeper into the Great Depression.”

Carbon tariffs reach the Senate

After the House set a poor example, I was hoping the Senate would take a more mature view on carbon tariffs and steer clear of protectionism, despite the temptation. Sadly not:

Today, ten Democratic senators sent President Obama a letter demanding a “level playing field” for U.S. manufacturing in any climate plan. In plain English: If you want your climate bill, you better include “carbon tariffs” to make sure U.S. jobs don’t scurry off to unregulated China.

The list of senators includes some heavyweights, but all are swing votes for the bill—Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin of Michigan; Robert Byrd of West Virginia; Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Evan Bayh of Indiana; and Al Franken of Minnesota. Without the support of these lawmakers, you can stick a fork in the climate bill—it’s done.

... The ten senators take the opposite approach: “By eliminating the competitive benefit of not acting to address this global problem, it should spur countries to reach a comprehensive accord.”

One hopes this can be negotiated around - signed climate legislation enshrining carbon protectionism into law would be a scary thing.

Protectionism in Waxman-Markey

Although I'm glad Waxman-Markey passed the House, it's scary to learn from Green Sheet and MR that potentially protectionist measures were smuggled in via the late-night Thursday night addition. According to the NYT:

The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the night before the vote Friday, that requires the president, starting in 2020, to impose a “border adjustment” — or tariff — on certain goods from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions. The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit permission from Congress.

The provision was added to secure the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because of fears of job losses in heavy industry.

Carbon tariffs could conceivably spark a disastrous trade war. One good sign is that Obama promptly stated his opposition to the potential sanctions.

Update: Tyler Cowen reemphasizes his skepticism.