Canberra bureaucracy capacity aside, trade impact difficult to remedy

Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Gillard's caught in Rudd's carbon trap”, 8/03/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Julia-Gillard-Tony-Abbott-carbon-Kevin-Rudd-pd20110307-EQ89B?OpenDocument&src=rot

Adjustment to trade including both exports and imports is very complex and easy said than done.

For example, Robert Gottliebsen says that "Until the US and China start taxing carbon, if our tax is to work then it must be confined to Australia. Exports should be free of tax and imports should be taxed."

China and the US are different in terms of either climate change actions or the per capita level of emissions. How to take account the Chinese ambitious actions to reduce its emission intensity through direct actions and administrative orders and regulations? The effects of Chinese government emissions control policy can be more taxing than Australia's proposed explicit carbon tax! And how to take account the differences between China and the US when they have different measures to tackle climate change?

Further, how to deal with the differences in per capita emissions between countries and have international equity in terms of emissions rights? Do we need to pay for our much higher per capita emissions to developing countries that have lower emissions per capita?

These are very complex issues to consider and to implement in terms of border trade policy to deal with climate change and emissions policies.

Until they are carefully thought through, it will remain as difficult as bordering impossibility, even though trade impacts are a legitimate issue to argue by the affected parties and special interest groups alike.