Search the archive.

Regardless of the name, there are several reasons to be highly skeptical of a consequential U.S. carbon tariff bill and to be worried that it would do more economic harm than environmental good. Here are three:

First and most obviously, a carbon tariff would impose significant new costs on American consumers, companies, and workers. For example, recent U.S. tariffs on more than $350 billion worth of imports have been found to cost Americans over $50 billion per year. The PROVE IT Act targets over $600 billion worth of imports, suggesting the cost of carbon tariffs could be even higher than the Trump‐​Biden tariffs. Import taxes hurt Americans by increasing prices, particularly those in the lowest income brackets, and U.S. companies’ competitiveness by raising their production costs or insulating protected firms from market competition. For example, President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on imported steel inflicted significant damage on steel‐​consuming U.S. companies (like nail manufacturers)—the new taxes cost their workers directly through layoffs and the companies became less competitive as they were forced to either share the costs with their customers by raising prices, reduce production, or decrease investment. As a result, the tariffs did little to “level the playing field,” instead the President surrendered home‐​field advantage and gave the edge to foreign competition, who faced no such taxes.

Chinese leaders rebuffed attempts by John Kerry, President Biden’s climate envoy, to persuade them to commit to tougher climate action during three days of talks in Beijing, a response that suggested that tensions between the countries are making it difficult to work together on a crisis that threatens the planet.

Mr. Kerry emerged late Wednesday from the lengthy negotiations in Beijing with no new agreements. In fact, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, insisted in a speech that China would pursue its goals to phase out carbon dioxide pollution at its own pace and in its own way.

The Forum should enable greater cooperation on decarbonization of critical sectors of interest (steel, aluminum, hydrogen and clean energy), and allow members to choose the sectors in which they want to cooperate.

The silver lining was the strong performance of trade in “green goods”, whose growth held strong throughout the year, says UNCTAD’s latest Global Trade Update, published on 23 March.

Green goods, also called “environmentally friendly goods”, refer to products that are designed to use fewer resources or emit less pollution than their traditional counterparts.

First, many studies have shed light on dyadic or domestic conditions that facilitate diversionary conflict. Domestically challenged leaders are prudent in choosing their diversionary targets so as to remain in office. Targeting a territorial or strategic rival can revive domestic support because there is little need to justify the military action to the domestic public (Heldt, 1999; Mitchell & Prins, 2004; Tir, 2010). Also, political leaders may target states with rising power and/or a different identity to exploit their domestic audience’s fear of these rivals (Jung, 2014a), whereas they avoid attacking states that are either too powerful or too weak, because either winning is impossible or it will not strengthen their domestic standing (Tarar, 2006). Human rights violators may become democratic regimes’ diversionary targets because a liberal audience readily supports humanitarian intervention (Tokdemir & Mark, 2018).

Another condition for the onset of diversionary conflict is regime type. Some scholars claim that democratic leaders facing hard times domestically are more likely than authoritarian ones to initiate diversionary conflict (Gelpi, 1997; Smith, 1996). These researchers have concluded that a bad economy, an upcoming election, and low approval ratings may encourage democracies to pursue international conflicts. But others oppose this argument, countering that democratic leaders are more constrained by other political actors such as opposition parties and legislatures (Miller, 1995) and less capable of hiding their diversionary incentives (Bell, 2013). Following this logic, some would expect authoritarian regimes to be more likely diverters than democratic ones. Indeed, non-personalist leaders of juntas and one-party regimes are concerned about their states’ political and military elites, so they sometimes exploit international events to maintain domestic control (Weeks, 2014).

A widely accepted belief is that international conflict unifies states and that leaders use external threats to rally support (Richards et al., 1993). This view is affirmed by A Study of War that states that "foreign war as a remedy for internal tension, revolution, or insurrection has been an accepted principle of government" (Wright, 1942, p. 140). Academics understand the diversionary theory of war as poor domestic conditions that motivate the leader to engage in aggressive foreign behavior (Levy, 1989; Richards et al., 1993). These internal conflicts can be social or economic problems (Gent, 2009). The assertive policy brings a fractured nation together as the public ignores the domestic problems, while a "rally around the flag" effect is also seen (Richards et al., 1993; Tarar, 2006).

Related to the diversionary war theory is the "rally around the flag" phenomenon. This effect is credited to Mueller (1970), who describes it as the short-lived popularity of leaders during times of international crisis. Concretely, conflicts on the international level generate a rally around the flag effect, where members of society become more patriotic and supportive of the leader that subsequently stays in power (Haynes, 2015; MacKuen, 1983). As a result of the rally effect, leaders could engage in international conflicts to distract the population from domestic struggles (Mitchell & Prins, 2004; Ward & Widmaier, 1982). Furthermore, copious amounts of evidence exist that support this phenomenon (Mitchell & Prins, 2004). Due to the fact that the "rally around the flag" effect is such a crucial element for the research question, it will have a separate part dedicated to the subject.

Many CEOs, investors and economists had penciled in 2023 as the year when a recession would hit the American economy.

The thinking was that the US economy would grind to a halt because the Federal Reserve was effectively slamming the brakes to squash inflation. Businesses would lay off workers and inflation-weary Americans would slash spending.

The stock market has predicted nine of the past five recessions—a joke from master Keynesian of decades ago Paul Samuelson. Samuelson’s great rival on the supply-side, Wall Street Journal editorial maestro Robert L. Bartley completed the thought, when he quipped, and in the other four, Washington got the message and mended its ways in time.

The question that all but appears to us today is: is this one of the five or one of the four? The stock market, after all, is wobbling. The Dow industrials are nearing ten percent down from their recent peak, which would be correction range, a place the tech-heavy NASDAQ has already visited.

One familiar argument is the so-called diversionary (or “scapegoat”) theory of war. It suggests that leaders who are worried about their popularity at home will try to divert attention from their failures by provoking a crisis with a foreign power and maybe even using force against it. Drawing on this logic, some Americans now worry that President Donald Trump will decide to attack a country like Iran or Venezuela in the run-up to the presidential election and especially if he thinks he’s likely to lose.

This outcome strikes me as unlikely, even if one ignores the logical and empirical flaws in the theory itself. War is always a gamble, and should things go badly—even a little bit—it would hammer the last nail in the coffin of Trump’s declining fortunes. Moreover, none of the countries Trump might consider going after pose an imminent threat to U.S. security, and even his staunchest supporters may wonder why he is wasting time and money going after Iran or Venezuela at a moment when thousands of Americans are dying preventable deaths at home. Even a successful military action won’t put Americans back to work, create the sort of testing-and-tracing regime that competent governments around the world have been able to implement already, or hasten the development of a vaccine. The same logic is likely to guide the decisions of other world leaders too.

Ben Casselman and Jeanna Smialek, "Could the Recession in the Distance Be Just a Mirage?," New York Times, 7-19-2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/business/economy/economy-soft-landing.html?name=styln-fed-day®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=undefined-- 嘉玮

The job market has been resilient.

Ben Casselman and Jeanna Smialek, "Could the Recession in the Distance Be Just a Mirage?," New York Times, 7-19-2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/business/economy/economy-soft-landing.html?name=styln-fed-day®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=undefined-- 嘉玮

Inflation has come down.

Ben Casselman and Jeanna Smialek, "Could the Recession in the Distance Be Just a Mirage?," New York Times, 7-19-2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/business/economy/economy-soft-landing.html?name=styln-fed-day®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=undefined-- 嘉玮

The recession was supposed to have begun by now.

Jeff Cox, “Fed approves hike that takes interest rates to highest level in more than 22 years,” CNBC, 7-26-2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/26/fed-meeting-july-2023-.html-- 嘉玮

The hike received unanimous approval from voting committee members.

Jeff Cox, “Fed approves hike that takes interest rates to highest level in more than 22 years,” CNBC, 7-26-2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/26/fed-meeting-july-2023-.html-- 嘉玮

WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve on Wednesday approved a much-anticipated interest rate hike that takes benchmark borrowing costs to their highest level in more than 22 years.

Markets are very good at matching buyers and sellers: for a transaction to happen, it has to be beneficial to both parties, and ergo, everyone ends up better off from the transaction. Some behaviors or transactions, however, have social costs the two parties directly involved do not bear. As an example, say a factory makes detergent, and the byproducts pollute the local river. The detergent manufacturer and the detergent customers both benefit from the detergent’s sale. The detergent business has other costs borne not by the manufacturer or the customer, but by the town’s residents, who now face elevated health risks due to the pollution. Without some form of policy intervention, the price of the detergent will not reflect the health risks imposed on the community—as a result, people will produce and use more of the detergent than is socially optimal. A Pigouvian tax (named for economist Arthur Pigou, credited with devising the idea) is a tax on negative externalities, namely the social costs of a particular economic activity that are not borne by the buyer and the seller. The tax forces the buyer and seller to “internalize” the externalities.[2] Producers are incentivized to reduce the social harms related to the particular product, while consumers are incentivized to consume less of it. If the tax reflects the social costs associated with a good, then the market for the good becomes socially optimal. In this way, the Pigouvian tax is perhaps the only tax which leads to a better market outcome. Some taxes, like taxes on consumption, might be less distortive or harmful to economic growth than others (such as taxes on investment), but consumption taxes do not correct a market inefficiency. Some critics of a carbon tax argue it is not a real solution to correct the inefficiencies created by carbon emissions; instead, they say the only real solution to climate change is innovation, with a tax on carbon emissions being a distraction. While it is true that innovation is a major reason why carbon emissions have not grown in the United States over the past decade, carbon taxes would kick innovation into a higher gear. By raising the price of carbon emissions, a carbon tax raises the return to new developments in energy-saving or low-carbon technologies. In a landmark paper, economist David Popp found high energy prices have a strong impact on innovations in energy-efficient technology

The need for a focused approach to grow and support a dynamic national cyber innovation ecosystem in Canada is more urgent than ever. In the 21st century, cybersecurity has emerged as an imperative for national security and nation state competition. As with many technological innovations in history, economic and geopolitical power are at stake in this competition for technological dominance.2 Global technology leadership in the cybersecurity domain has the potential to enhance a country’s global power and security, whereas failure to build national cyber capacity will pose a threat.3 There is also an economic imperative for Canada. Successful commercialization of cybersecurity innovations allows the country to benefit from economic and social gains realized through increased jobs, increased economic activity, and more. Canada’s success has been mixed. Approximately 350 cybersecurity companies have their headquarters in Canada.4 According to Crunchbase, Canada ranked fifth globally in cybersecurity venture capital (VC) funding in 2021 — ahead of several larger economies, including Japan, Germany, France and India.5 Yet, despite this public and private investment in Canadian cybersecurity firms, experts continue to emphasize the country’s struggle to commercialize research innovations, and to grow and scale new companies into national and global champions. Unable to secure investment and find customers in Canada, cybersecurity entrepreneurs are often moving their operations and intellectual property (IP) outside of the country. As one person stated to the Ontario Expert Panel on Intellectual Property, “Canada is the world’s open source factory for ideas. We create it, but let others commercialize it.”6 Evidence from Canada and international peers suggests that building a dynamic and sustainable cybersecurity innovation ecosystem in Canada will be vital to addressing the country’s domestic cybersecurity threats, supporting entrepreneurs to grow successful cyber companies, and positioning the country as a leading cyber actor in the global digital economy. Yet, today, the Canadian cyber innovation ecosystem remains underdeveloped and fragmented, lagging behind those in peer countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. These are limiting opportunities for growth among a burgeoning community of Canadian cyber startups, whose successes are key in meeting both national security and economic goals. Why is that and what can be done? This paper seeks to examine this question by assessing the state of cybersecurity innovation in Canada; exploring cyber innovation approaches and models in other jurisdictions; and identifying an actionable set of opportunities to be taken by players within Canada’s cyber innovation ecosystem to accelerate commercialization.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced $12 million for six new research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that will develop innovative cybersecurity technology to help ensure energy delivery systems are designed, installed, operated, and maintained to survive and recover quickly from cyberattacks. Protecting the security and resiliency of America’s power grid is crucial to DOE’s goal of providing cleaner and cheaper power to Americans while advancing President Biden’s goal of a 100% clean electrical grid by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“Investing in cutting-edge cyber security technology keeps us at the forefront of global innovation and protects America’s power grid in the face of increasing cyber threats from abroad,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. “This funding will bolster our commitment to a secure and resilient clean energy future by fortifying American electricity systems and building a stronger grid.”

While the study of technological innovation historically has been motivated by a focus on economic development and competitiveness in a market economy, the links between innovation and the attainment of environmental quality goals has become a subject of growing interest. This paper has discussed the critical role of technology innovation in addressing the problem of global climate change—arguably the most pressing environmental challenge we presently face.

As elaborated in this paper, technological change on a massive scale will be needed over the coming decades to achieve the international goal of stabilizing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) at levels that avoid dangerous impacts. This will require replacing current GHG-intensive technologies—especially energy technologies based on fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal)—with newer technologies that emit fewer or no greenhouse gases. In many cases this will require advanced technologies that have not yet been developed or adopted on a significant commercial scale, or which have not yet been invented.

Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years. Over the last four years, my organization, Environmental Progress, has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists to prevent carbon emissions from rising. So far, we’ve helped prevent emissions increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.

I also care about getting the facts and science right and have in recent months corrected inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage of fires in the Amazon and fires in California, both of which have been improperly presented as resulting primarily from climate change.

No global problem has ever been more exaggerated than climate change. As it has gone from being an obscure scientific question to a theme in popular culture, we’ve lost all sense of perspective.

Here are the facts: in Europe, emissions in 2020 were 26% below 1990 levels. In the United States, emissions in 2020 were 22% below 2005 levels. Emissions are likely to start declining, too, in developing nations, including China and India, within the next decade. Most nations’ emissions will be bigger this year than last, due to post-Covid economic growth. But global emissions are still likely to peak within the next decade.