In Forbes. First, there's this:
Those who assume that WTO rulings will be "anti-environment" have evidently not read previous rulings, or not realized their positive implications for global environmental protection.
I think that's right. It is no longer a GATT Tuna/Dolphin world (and hopefully the new WTO Tuna/Dolphin case will prove it).
Then we get to the more complicated part, how to design climate change legislation consistently with WTO rules:
... any unilateral U.S. actions on climate change that included trade restrictions would unquestionably be challenged by one or more of our trading partners in the WTO. So it makes sense also to craft legislation in ways that would survive scrutiny in WTO dispute settlement.
For example, the additional carbon price imposed on domestic products can be imposed also under WTO law on like imported products as an offsetting "border tax adjustment." But any such adjustment will be legal under the WTO only if imposed on products, and not on producers.
Likewise, any discrimination in the legislation will run afoul of WTO law if it discriminates in favor of domestic producers over foreign producers of like products, or if it discriminates in favor of some foreign producers of like products over others.
Furthermore, tax rebates on exported products, emission allowances, and other contributions by government to assist domestic industries affected by new carbon restrictions will need to comply with WTO rules on subsidies.
ADDED: I should clarify the part about the new Tuna/Dolphin case. I haven't looked at the facts and law closely enough to decide what I think the outcome of the case should be. So when I talk about my hope for the case, what I mean is that I hope the panel's findings convince all sides that their views have been taken seriously.
