There is a general consensus among scientists that the climate change threat is significant, and in the view of some people this threat can even be described as ‘existential.’ Some governments have been taking this threat seriously over the past couple decades; in the United States, the degree of seriousness has varied by administration. The previous president said it was a hoax, but President Biden believes climate change is real and needs to be addressed. He hopes to make the United States a leader in efforts to address it. Any effort to address climate change must include both domestic and international components. The domestic component involves some combination of taxes, regulations, and subsidies. And the international component means coordinating with others and adopting international agreements, as well as ensuring that domestic measures work well in tandem with the actions of other governments. It is this last issue that the piece by Tim Meyer and Todd Tucker focuses on. When governments take domestic measures against carbon emissions, they worry about ‘carbon leakage’. As Meyer and Tucker explain it: ‘companies can shift their production to countries without meaningful domestic decarbonization measures and then export their products back into countries with tough decarbonization rules, thus evading efforts to address climate change’. The result is that carbon emissions will not be reduced or the reduction will be significantly lower (although the precise scope of any such leakage is unclear and could use a stronger evidentiary basis). To address this concern, Meyer and Tucker propose what they refer to as ‘A Pragmatic Approach to Carbon Border Measures’. They offer this proposal in conjunction with a policy proposal for a ‘Green Steel Deal’, which sets out their ideas for an ‘international climate club’ that decarbonizes the steel industry, and would involve a border tax of 25% on products from any country that does not join the club. In this response piece, I offer a critique of various aspects of their proposals, with a focus on the carbon border measures but also making reference to the Green Steel Deal. In my view, the United States could lead the way in this policy area. However, an approach based on the carbon border measures suggested by Meyer and Tucker may backfire and have a much more limited impact than is needed to deal with the climate crisis. I group my key concerns into the following categories:

中文翻译：

---

美国如何带头减少碳排放

科学家们普遍认为气候变化的威胁是巨大的，在一些人看来，这种威胁甚至可以被描述为“存在的”。在过去的几十年里，一些政府一直在认真对待这一威胁。在美国，严重程度因政府而异。前任总统说这是一个骗局，但拜登总统认为气候变化是真实的，需要解决。他希望使美国成为解决这一问题的领导者。任何应对气候变化的努力都必须包括国内和国际两方面的内容。国内部分涉及税收、法规和补贴的某种组合。国际部分意味着与他人协调并通过国际协议，以及确保国内措施与其他政府的行动配合良好。Tim Meyer 和 Todd Tucker 的文章关注的是最后一个问题。当政府在国内采取措施控制碳排放时，他们担心“碳泄漏”。正如迈耶和塔克所解释的那样：“公司可以将生产转移到没有有意义的国内脱碳措施的国家，然后将其产品出口回脱碳规则严格的国家，从而逃避应对气候变化的努力”。结果是碳排放量不会减少或减少量将大大降低（尽管任何此类泄漏的确切范围尚不清楚，并且可以使用更有力的证据基础）。为了解决这个问题，Meyer 和 Tucker 提出了他们所谓的“碳边界措施的务实方法”。他们将这一提议与“绿色钢铁协议”的政策提议结合起来，提出了他们对钢铁行业脱碳的“国际气候俱乐部”的想法，并将涉及对来自任何国家的产品征收 25% 的边境税即不加入俱乐部。在这篇回应文章中，我对他们提案的各个方面提出了批评，重点是碳边界措施，但也提到了绿色钢铁协议。在我看来，美国可以在这个政策领域处于领先地位。然而，基于 Meyer 和 Tucker 建议的碳边界措施的方法可能会适得其反，其影响比应对气候危机所需的影响要有限得多。