drwater wrote:If we (and the Europeans) slap a carbon content tax on all their exported products until they adopt the international carbon fee, they will see the light in a hurry.
Maybe 30 years ago... Not today. Not to mention all the complications that WTO, etc, would throw into such a one sided response. They'd essentially have carte-blanche to impose any dumb protective or counter tariff or tax they would care too.
Heck, that'd probably play into Xi's hand pretty well, he needs to, and desires to, ween his economy off of exports as a source of growth; but its really hard to (even for China) distort the existing market while staying within the various trade rules; but once you have a counterable, unilateral action to respond to, you can shape that response in whatever way serves your domestic priorities best.
Not dissimilar to sanctions against Russia, which have given Putin a free hand to smush the oligarchs he wanted to smush, weaken the trade he wanted to weaken, and boost the capabilities he wanted to boost. Complete free pass.
Sanctions or tarriffs should never be viewed as an "applied punishment", they are an alteration in trade flow. They disadvantage both sides, both the initiator and target of the sanction; and they all the target of the sanction to make the countering tarriff after the initiators tarriff is fully disclosed. And that counter tarriff will be the most annoying, painful response possible for the initiator to endure. (see Euro ag product ban, for an example)
Other than crippled economies that are dependent on imports for either energy or food calories; sanctions never work to produce the claimed desired outcome; and usually don't even significantly weaken the target.
Who is harmed by sanctions more, Russia which has excess food, excess energy, excess land; or Ukraine who will now be subject to counter sanctions banning all their food imports into Russia which accounts for a substantial percentage of their ability to pay to not freeze to death.
Sanctions to Russia means chocolate bars are more expensive.
Counter sanctions of equivalent magnitude means people in Ukraine may freeze to death.
That's the difference between a crippled economy, and a well functioning economy, between the initiators sanction, and the similar magnitude response. Russia didn't obey, they adjusted their import regs to balance ex-im / exchange rate; basically exchanging luxury chocolate bars for solid, modern industrial and agricultural jobs. And the effect is permanent. Even if European sanctions against Russia came down, they'd never be able to recover those markets, because they can no longer compete on price in their domestic markets.
China is the epitome of a well functioning economy. Your suggestion gives Xi the tool he needs to shift the Chinese economy forcefully without generating protest, and without generating substantial hardship. What it won't do is reduce China's CO2 output. So no, China's response won't be to do what you want them to do in response to your fee; they will do what balances the ex-im equation in the way that is the most painful to the US and Europe; most likely by a tarrif on imports from the EU/US, likely on higher margin ag products like wine, cheese, juice concentrates, beef... Or... imagine an import tariff of $200 per OS seat license? $200 per application package/license. $5/seat on movies. $1/song $3/album. Don't think they couldn't ding us just as hard as we can ding them. The nature of export/import trade guarantees that ANY functional economy can ding you back just as hard, and the responder has a huge advantage over the initiator.