Environmental Effects of International Trade Harvard国际贸易的环境效应哈佛.pptVIP

International Trade and the Environment Jeffrey Frankel Harpel Professor, Harvard University A Report for the Swedish Globalisation Council, Government of Sweden January 20, 2009, Stockholm The anti-globalization movement Ten years ago some protestors at the Seattle WTO Ministerial meeting, launching the first of the big anti-globalization demonstrations, wore turtle costumes.  They felt that a WTO panel had, in the name of free trade, negated the ability of the US to protect sea turtles, simultaneously undermining  national sovereignty the international environment. Central questions Is trade good or bad for the environment? Does globalization help or hurt in achieving the best tradeoff between environmental and economic goals? Do international trade investment allow countries to achieve more economic growth for any given level of environmental quality? Or do they damage environmental quality for any given rate of economic growth? Do the WTO environment conflict? How can globalization best be harnessed? But these rough correlations tell us little. To isolate the effect of trade on a country’s environment, we need to control for other determinants, such as income democracy population density. Econometric analysis Frankel and Rose, 2004 I have now updated this econometric analysis for my Swedish Globalisation Council paper -- putting together data from 1990-2004, for 158 countries. EKC (inverted U) shows up for PM10 CO2 emissions, and water pollution. Trade still appears to worsen CO2. Again, the obvious explanation is the lack of a comprehensive global climate agreement. We now have the Kyoto Protocol But it lacks: Provisions for targets in future years Targets for US, China other developing countries An enforcement mechanism including an incentive for holdouts to join, and enforcement of the agreement. Could trade sanctions be the mechanism? Precedent (2): The true meaning of the 1998 WTO panel shrimp-turtle decision New ruling: environment