As a political stunt, I really like this:
U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-09), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and its Subcommittee on Trade, sent a letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross calling on him to initiate an investigation into the threat of carbon pollution. The letter was also signed by Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA-34) and Judy Chu (D-CA-27), both members of the Ways and Means Committee.
“We write to request,” the members state, “an investigation into imports of carbon emissions and the threat they pose to U.S. national security. Climate change is an existential emergency that poses grave threats to our security, public health, and economic prosperity.”
The Pentagon has already concluded that climate change poses “immediate risks” to national security. Major peer-reviewed studies have predicted increasing losses to American infrastructure and property, impeding economic growth and GDP over the next century. These impacts are directly caused by carbon dioxide, mostly due to fossil fuels burned for energy. According to NOAA and the American Meteorological Society, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 405 ppm in 2017, a new record high. Modes of trade and shipping, whether air, maritime, rail or auto transportation, cause carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.
“This threat to our national security must be taken seriously and mitigated using all tools available to us, including trade enforcement. The carbon footprint of trade and shipping of goods been studied in the past. It is conceivable that such carbon pollution could be countered through trade remedies,” the letter continues.
Rep. Pascrell’s letter invokes Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Commerce to conduct investigations “to determine the effects on [US] national security” of imports of an article. This law allows any “interested party” to request Commerce initiate such an investigation to ascertain the effect of specific imports on the national security of the United States.
“Clearly, carbon dioxide emissions are exacerbated by international trade and imports to the United States. This carbon pollution threatens agricultural markets and infrastructure, among other sectors of our economy, which Commerce should investigate with the urgency and gravity that this emergency warrants,” the letter concludes.
According to the law, once a Section 232 investigation is requested in writing, Commerce must “immediately initiate an appropriate investigation to determine the effects on the national security” of the subject imports. After consulting with the Secretary of Defense, other “appropriate officers of the United States,” and the public, if appropriate, Commerce has 270 days from the initiation date to prepare a report advising the President whether the targeted product is being imported “in certain quantities or under such circumstances” to impair U.S. national security, and to provide recommendations for action or inaction based on the findings.
Rep. Pascrell believes climate change is an existential threat to the world and is dedicated to mustering government attention and resources to countering the effects of climate change. He is a cosponsor of H.Res. 109, the Green New Deal, which sets forth an ambitious framework for combating climate change. The Ways and Means Committee’s Trade Subcommittee, on which Pascrell serves, has oversight of our nation’s trade laws, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that governs Section 232 investigations.
But is there any real chance of success? Note that the Section 232 statute refers to "an appropriate investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of the article which is the subject of such request, application, or motion."
I haven't looked up the domestic or international case law, but I think of an “article” as a good or product, i.e., something physical that would be imported through normal customs procedures. Therefore, carbon emissions would not really qualify here, as they are not a physical product that is being imported. They are more like a by-product of production and international trade.
There is room for creative interpretations, but you would need a sympathetic administration to get what you wanted (and the courts would reject an interpretation that went too far). It's a little hard to imagine the Trump administration being creative in the direction of trying to lower carbon emissions.