取消碳关税外文翻译.docVIP

外文翻译 原文 Scrap the carbon traiff Material Sourc /climate/2010/1001/full/climate.2010.132.html Author: Catherine Izard, Christopher Weber Scott Matthews Despite their political popularity, carbon tariffs will be next to impossible to implement effectively, and as such will do little to solve the climate problem. In every US climate policy negotiation thus far, a major sticking point has been the issue of economic competitiveness. If the US, or indeed any country, independently imposes a price on carbon — through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax, for example — domestic industries automatically face higher costs than their international peers and could be at a competitive disadvantage. Rather than pay these costs, of course, US industry could relocate to countries without mandatory emissions targets. This carbon leakage could cost the US jobs while failing to reduce global emissions, a lose–lose scenario. For the majority of US industry, the introduction of climate policy would have a negligible economic impact. There are exceptions, however, most notably energy-intensive industries such as steel and cement. Fortunately, several policy mechanisms can be used to protect their competitiveness. The proposed US climate bill, Americas Clean Energy and Security Act1, uses two: first, the bill aims to rebate the increased costs of carbon emissions to energy-intensive industries through free allocation of emissions allowances. Second, US industries that import energy-intensive goods from countries without a price on carbon are required to purchase emissions allowances for those goods equal to what they would have paid had the imports been manufactured domestically. This tariff, a type of border tax adjustment, ensures that importers do not gain a competitive advantage over other domestic industries. The idea of implementing border adjustment mechanisms is now gaining popularity in the European Union, where France and Germany argue it would protect domestic industry if ot