Protectionism, or 'saving' the planet?

Even as the chances of the US climate bill being passed by the Senate remain bleak, there is some amount of belligerent talk from those quarters. Carbon tariffs on countries that don’t abide by a cap on emissions is one such.

Mooted by the Obama government (even though the president himself has opposed it), it backs the idea that if the US is to clean up its act, it will have to make sure that others do not go scot-free and lure jobs and emissions!

Among its votaries is Nobel Laureate and economist Paul Krugman, who has minced no words to justify carbon tariffs. ‘China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain […] It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it […]’

Another Nobel Laureate has a different view. The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, is the latest to warn against carbon tariffs. AP reports: “This is a dangerous thing, and I think people in Congress must understand this,” said Pachauri. “The United States has always stood for a free market system. … Legislation to move away from that principle is clearly counterproductive.”

Contrast this with Krugman’s stand: ‘They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable. It’s time to save the planet...’

True, China’s economic growth has led to a huge increase in emissions—from factory smokestacks, from coal-fired power plants, from millions of new cars. But disallowing its growth is perhaps not the solution, if you look at the argument which says: the richer a nation becomes, the better it is equipped to tackle emissions. But can the planet wait till then, especially as that would mean even more carbon up there??

Perhaps it is in this connection that the call by Indian prime minister has to be viewed. Let the rich nations pay for the growth of the developing ones.

Manmohan Singh has called on annex 1 countries to provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and categorically said that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it.

Saving the planet, as Krugman puts it, is everyone’s job. But there can be no denying the onus on the rich nations who have had their fill. Are they doing anything about it, despite having the means? Emissions have risen by 17 percent since 1990. How many Americans are willing to ‘compromise on their lifestyles’?