Nicholas Stern: U.S. Trade Boycott Could Result If It Doesn't Address Climate Change And Reduce Carbon Emissions

Just 10 days ahead of international leaders convening in Cancun, Mexico for the UN climate change conference, British economist Nicholas Stern warned Friday that the U.S. could face a boycott on its products from other countries if it doesn't adequately reduce carbon emissions, AFP reports.

Stern told The Times, "The US will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and 10 years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty."

Author of the British government's 2006 report on the economics of climate change, Stern is also a member of a high-level advisory group that recently issued a report to the UN stating bank financing, carbon permit auctions, and new carbon and transportation taxes are necessary to raise enough money -- $100 billion a year by 2020, committed to in last year's Copenhagen accord -- to effectively reduce emissions and mitigate the damages climate change will have on developing nations.

"A modest price on emissions, in the range of $20-25 per tonne of CO2 would push incentives in the right direction and raise substantial revenues," Stern told the Guardian.

Climate legislation progress has effectively come to a halt in the U.S. after a failed attempt this summer to pass a bill that would cap greenhouse gases. The bill faced staunch opposition from many Republican senators, despite having passed the House in 2009. With the latest GOP victories in November's elections, there is little chance that measures addressing climate change will succeed in the next two years, although many states are moving forward with their own agendas.

According to Bloomberg, at a press conference on Wednesday, the Obama administration's climate negotiator Todd Stern said that despite his doubts about there being any "enormous leaps forward" in Cancun, he still thinks "real and concrete steps" are possible.

Comments

[algalsolution]

01:49 PM on 11/29/2010

Our planet will be running out of fossil fuel within 10-20 years. As it does there will be more wars and hardship. The fuel we use today came from ancient green algae. We need to grow more now. Certain strains of green algae can reproduce every 24 hours and can contain 50% oil. It can not be cultivated in open ponds, because of cross contamination. www.algalsolution.com in conjunction with www.solarpriceindex.co.uk have patented a solar powered bioreactor that will save the planet.

[Lance Manling]

03:54 PM on 11/27/2010

Perhaps we should boycott the UN. We can kick them out of NY and they can put their "HQ" in some other country. I bet that land is worth some bucks if you develop it.

[Lance Manling]

03:56 PM on 11/27/2010

We can perhaps put in the third world country known as FRANCE.

[ObjectiveRealist]

11:46 PM on 11/26/2010

GOOD!

Stick it to the United States, world. I want my country to be prosperous in my lifetime. I just want the world to be inhabitable for my grandchildren much more.

[Lance Manling]

03:17 PM on 11/27/2010

Man, you are really self-righteous. It must suck to be you.

[ObjectiveRealist]

03:37 PM on 11/27/2010

Occasionally, but only when I encounter tro||s, like you.

[Dave Harpe]

08:08 PM on 11/24/2010

What about China? They are burning massive amounts of coal, and it's increasing. They are even starting to liquefy it to burn in their cars, a process which produces twice as much CO2 as gasoline. They are also starting to eat a lot of meat, which produces methane. The USA is not the only culprit here.

[g-moi]

04:00 PM on 11/24/2010

I have to agree with him. I think we should be punished. We use more resources per capita than any other country.

[Lance Manling]

03:19 PM on 11/27/2010

That is because we are American capitalist pig-dogs.

[m1jones]

10:59 PM on 11/23/2010

This is great news. If other nations refuse to import our exports, we can have a retaliatory tariff on their exports into the US, and use it to save American jobs - something which none of our esteemed leaders, from either major political party, have had the spherical fortitudes to do.

[ObjectiveRealist]

01:00 PM on 11/25/2010

That would have worked a lot better 20 years ago. Now, I shudder to think how long it could take for semiconductor production to be sufficient just to meet our own domestic demand for electronic gadgets. The effort would likely be comical enough for several reality shows that would undoubtedly be very popular in Japan, Korea, China and India but you know they'd just pirate the files and distribute them over our Internet, which we invented and built -- and then our Republican Senators globalised, outsourced and offshored it like the bunch of id!ots they are.

[Lance Manling]

03:20 PM on 11/27/2010

Trade barriers have always worked great in the past.

[ObjectiveRealist]

03:40 PM on 11/27/2010

Actually, some have been very effective. You have heard of apartheid, right? Trade barriers don't deserve all the credit for ending it, but they helped. So, yes, _appropriate_ trade barriers for the problem we are trying to solve _can_ work great.

[Debbie McPherson]

07:22 PM on 11/23/2010

Here is the hang up - there is a long list of rich guys who have bought up land in the rain forests and Paruquay and other pristine lands for the purpose of making out like inside traders on the Cap & Trade deal.  After reading this I can't help but wonder if Stein is in on it.
 
The idea is they will "trade" their pristine land/air credits to the polluters for a big price. This new practice will be factored into untility bills for everyone - and the guess has been made that an average workign class family will then see untility bills higher than their rent or mortgage payments and the rich will once again have run a huge scam to rip off the masses for the few.
 
I haven't verified this but among those who bought up pristine air/land include none other than the  Bush family, WWFI and maybe even Gore himself. The have a real axe to grind wanting Cap & Trade.
 
Not that I am not all for cleaning up our air - but as we have seen before we must be careful who's bandwagon we jump on because   the rich are greedy, conniving liars when it comes to an opportunity to exploit anything - and this is a big one!

[m1jones]

10:20 PM on 11/25/2010

Debbie, The people I have read about buying tremendous acreage have done so to save the natural ecology of the forests - people like Doug Tomkins in Chile. They have encountered tremendous problems - political and economic - in trying to save forests but the successful ones have found ways for local people to earn a living and grow food without clearing the forests. These are major problems requiring enormous amounts of time and labor. I am not a fan of cap and trade because I think it is too complicated. I think we need a better system of giving true value to healthy air, fresh water, land, and natural ecology. The private market or tax breaks could encourage land preservation without such a complicated system which is inherently subject to manipulation and cheating. But to oppose cap and trade because it might benefit people who are preserving forests and nature makes no sense. We must preserve our forests and land to save the earth. It's that simple. The oxygen we breath is creating by trees, And thus far, we are on the planet which has a breathable atmosphere. We need to preserve this. Anyone who does so deserves our gratitude and a fair economic return. Thus far, only rich people have been able to buy large tracts of land and preserve and protect them. Suggesting they do this to make money is inaccurate and a bad rap.

[cbelk]

02:13 PM on 11/23/2010

Nobody likes change least of all the companies that are established and want buss. as ussual. until pollaticians quit getting checks from corps nothing will change.

[Twenty-Something]

04:43 PM on 11/22/2010

I'm no expert, but I don't really understand this. What do we really make and export here in America anymore? Moreover isn't China the world's biggest exporter? They may be inventing and making green technology, but don't use it themselves.

[Lance Manling]

03:20 PM on 11/27/2010

When is this green technology suppose to be ready to export?

[Madison Lib]

01:23 PM on 11/22/2010

Gotta wonder why struggling economies in the world market are pis*sed at our pigheaded approach to carbon emissions. We just asked S. Korea to RELAX their emission standards on autos that we import to them. Imagine that.

[Lance Manling]

01:16 PM on 11/22/2010

We should invade the EU and remind them who is in charge.

[Counterglow]

12:09 PM on 11/23/2010

Given your "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan against a few savages with pop guns, I wouldn't say that too loudly.

[MamaJoe]

07:52 PM on 11/23/2010

What.... all of them?

EU is the European Union which country were you thinking of starting with first

[Lance Manling]

08:17 PM on 11/23/2010

How about France. They are pretty snooty.

[MInchau]

09:52 AM on 11/22/2010

I love being an American. I'm proud of our history, but on pollution we are a disaster. I wouldn't blame the world one bit for this. I don't however, think we're the only guilty party. We have been the worst to date, but China doesn't seem to have a good record on this and that will probably only get worse.

[Madison Lib]

01:16 PM on 11/22/2010

China used dirty coal to fuel their rapidly expanding economy. Now they are leading the world in green technology and will be selling it back to us in spades because we weren't smart enough to beat them to the punch on this. It's kind of like the space race from the Soviet point-of-view.....they lost. In this scenario, we are the Soviets.

[Debbie McPherson]

07:37 PM on 11/23/2010

Madison
 
you are over estimating how much of China has gone green - recent pictures show that the pollution hangs in the air every where there thicker than LA
 
the sad part is once again they are taking over the manufacturing of "green"  windmills and solar panels - we should be doing that here but the US Govt would rather subsidize their corporate buddies to take advantage of cheap labor there.
 
Americans just can't win when they have a govt that works against them 24/7 - giving subsidies to multnational  corps. to go there and employ people.
 
 

[MeatShield]

10:16 AM on 12/17/2010

America's not using pixie sticks to fuel the economy, we're using mostly coal too. And to forestall any objection, there is no such thing as clean coal, it's a myth by the energy industry to keep America on it. At the moment nuclear energy is the golden child of energy, because it produces a steady supply of energy regardless of whether it's sunny or windy, but this is information that will never be made publicly available. Solar is great and all, but only produces when it's sunny. Coal is the one of the most inefficient sources of energy there is, and certainly one of the worst, and America is one of the biggest global contributors to global pollution, and thanks to our stalwart government we're doing absolutely nothing about it. And now it's going to bite us the ass, we have no-one to blame but ourselves and our elected officials. Thanks guys.

[Genep34]

09:37 AM on 11/22/2010

good for him - i hope they do that.

[Luke McIntosh]

04:38 AM on 11/22/2010

Well that's one way to make people wake up. Hope it doesn't come to that, but unless people actually wake up and make changes (i.e. force thier congressmen to vote right), then that could be the future. Of course, no one will know though because it's not being told to the nation via other news sources.

[logicanada]

12:53 AM on 11/22/2010

Many US corporations are registered offshore.

[Luke McIntosh]

04:37 AM on 11/22/2010

Does matter, if their production is here it would affect them.