Todd Tucker of the Roosevelt Institute is not happy with yesterday's WTO panel ruling against various U.S. states' local content requirements in the renewable energy sector. I responded on the Cato blog here, but I want to add a bit more in response to some of his tweets today. And just to warn everyone, I'm going to be a bit flippant about it. (Todd is a friend, and I hope he doesn't take this too personally. Guess I'll find out!)
Here's what he said on twitter:
Yesterday's WTO decision against 7 US states' renewable energy programs offers both challenges and opportunities to the Green New Deal. My latest in @washingtonpost @monkeycageblog washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/…
One way I've floated to get around this impasse: 1. Fill the WTO's judicial vacancies with environmental lawyers. 2. Suspend current WTO rules for 10 years. 3. Create a different set of rules for nations that enact a Green New Deal... papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
4. Eliminate tariffs between those countries. 6. Embargo countries that don't. 7. Have a repurposed Green WTO enforce the new rules, granting standing to citizens to flag noncompliance. 8. Eventually, noncompliance leads to trade penalties.
Let me go through his suggestions one by one.
Fill the WTO's judicial vacancies with environmental lawyers.
Sounds great! I would love to get some environmental lawyers over there to strike down local content requirements that violate WTO rules and undermine environmental protection.
Suspend current WTO rules for 10 years.
No thank you.
Create a different set of rules for nations that enact a Green New Deal
Let's come back to this when Todd figures out a plan for the Democrats to win the U.S. Senate and the Green New Deal has a chance (although probably a pretty small one even then).
Eliminate tariffs between those countries.
I like this one. Can't we just make this the centerpiece and put the rest of it aside?
Embargo countries that don't.
Oh, man, we were doing so well. Why did Todd have to go and ruin things?
Have a repurposed Green WTO enforce the new rules, granting standing to citizens to flag noncompliance.
Todd's long-standing critique of ISDS morphed into ISDS-envy, and now he wants to use the concept for non-economic issues.
Eventually, noncompliance leads to trade penalties
I'll abandon the flippancy here, and just note that if some countries want other countries to do more to protect the environment, there are probably positive measures (e.g. financial aid) that would help more than trade penalties.
