Protectionism and the fight against climate change
|
Version 0 of 1. You rather spoiled your commendable editorial (19 January) on making America great again by going green, when you dismissed the idea of protectionist carbon tariffs on those US exports made artificially cheap by being produced using subsidised fossil fuels. This could be an important transitional step to shifting a world economy already falling out of love with globalisation towards one shaped by green “progressive protectionism”. At its heart would be an emphasis on protecting and rebuilding sustainable local economies. This would offer a far more secure future for the majority than the socially and environmentally destructive form of global economic warfare inherent in international competitiveness and export-led growth. Prioritising the domestic would allow massive funding for a long-term, climate-healing “jobs in every community” approach of making all buildings and transport systems energy efficient and powered by decentralised renewables. It would also see off rightwing populists by providing long-term employment for those parts of the “left behind” that can’t be reached by any other form of economic activity. The threat of carbon tariffs on relevant US exports could well be a useful tool towards pushing Trump to shift his promised increase in infrastructure investment into one that would be a nationwide, decentralised job generator that also helped tackle climate change.Colin Hines(Author, Progressive Protectionism) London • Thank you for your G2 special on climate change (19 January). Chris Goodall (Look on the bright side, page 4) argues that cheaper renewables may mean that “the end of the fossil-fuel era is already in sight”. This is too optimistic: large amounts of fossil fuel are still very cheap to extract, and will be competitive even with much lower prices for green energy. This will be part of the reason why the leading scientists quoted by Andrew Simms (Another degree closer to disaster, page 8) are saying that we are not going to keep the global temperature rise below two degrees. We have to accept that the changes in personal lifestyle which you rightly advocate (The heat is on, ) and the developments in green energy are not going to be enough. We also need to invest in technology to remove carbon dioxide (carbon scrubbing) and to artificially lower global temperatures (geoengineering).Richard MountfordHildenborough, Kent • Trump’s tweet (‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive’, G2 front page, 19 January) may not identify the subtle distinction between causation and cause and effect, but there is a justified underlying observation. By our own consumer choices we support economies that show no concern for their climate pollution or human sweatshops.Christopher CoombeLondon • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |