The article critically examines domestic political concerns about the competitive disadvantages and possible carbon leakage arising from the introduction of domestic emission trading legislation and the fairness of applying carbon equalization measures at the border as a response to these concerns. I argue that the border adjustment measures proposed in the emissions trading bills that have been presented to Congress amount to an evasion of the U.S.'s leadership responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I also show how the "level commercial playing field" justification for border measures that has dominated U.S. domestic debates is narrow and lopsided because it focuses only on the competitive disadvantages and direct carbon leakage that may flow from climate regulation while ignoring general shifts in the production and consumption of emissions in the global economy, which have enabled the outsourcing of emission to developing countries.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Winter 2010 (24.4) • Feature
Common Health Policy Interests and the Shaping of Global Pharmaceutical Policies
The division of interests in key health policy areas are not necessarily between rich and poor countries, but between pharmaceutical industry interests and health policy ...
Winter 2010 (24.4) • Review Essay
Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Where Expectations Meet Reality [Full Text]
Scholars of RtoP need a much deeper understanding of both how norms evolve and the competing normative commitments that drive those who remain skeptical of ...
Winter 2010 (24.4) • Response
The Responsibility to Protect: Growing Pains or Early Promise?
The ability of RtoP to deliver has been mixed, but it is a bit early in RtoP's young life to judge what it will be ...