Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:59:16.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Going it alone on climate change A new challenge to WTO subsidies disciplines: are subsidies in support of emissions reductions schemes permissible under the WTO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2012

LAUREN HENSCHKE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the specific ways in which the provision of emissions permits by governments in carbon trading schemes, interacts with, and challenges, the disciplines on subsidies in the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. It will argue that the case of emissions permits gives rise to two key challenges. First, it highlights the need for a resolution on the issue of the characterization of intangible goods under the SCM Agreement, and the importance this has for the calculation of benefit and hence the correct application of SCM disciplines. Secondly, when applied to emissions permits, the SCM Agreement produces a result that heavily favours the complaining Member at the expense of ‘distributive justice’. This is compounded by the current lack of directly applicable exceptions for subsidies directed at legitimate public policy goals. Fundamentally, this will affect the potential cost and continuing viability of national emissions trading schemes and further challenge the environmental credentials of the WTO.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 27 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Lauren Henschke 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamantopoulos, K., Croce, R., and Melin, Y. (2010), ‘The Increased Interaction between Competition and Trade’, The European Antitrust Review, available at www.globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/19/sections/67/chapters/741/trade/ (last accessed 12 January 2010).Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2007), ‘Is Action Against US-Exports for Failure to Sign Kyoto Protocol Legal?’, World Trade Review, 6(2): 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2010), ‘The Copenhagen Climate Change Accord’, American Society of International Law Insights, 14(3), available at: www.asil.org/insights100212.cfm (last accessed 5 April 2010).Google Scholar
Gagné, G. and Roch, F. (2008), ‘The US–Canada Softwood lumber dispute and the WTO definition of Subsidy’, World Trade Review, 2(3): 547–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, A. (2006), ‘Trade Rules and Climate Change Subsidies’, World Trade Review, 5(3): 377–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howse, R. and Eliason, A. L. (2009), ‘Domestic and International Strategies to Address Climate Change: an Overview of the WTO Legal Issues’, in Cottier, T., Nartova, O., and Bigdeli, S. Z. (eds.), International Trade Regulation and Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howse, R. (2009), Subsidies to Address Climate Change: Legal Issues: Draft For Discussion, August 2009, available at: www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/bali_2_copenhagen_subsidies_legal.pdf (last accessed 15 February 2010).Google Scholar
Jowit, J. and Webb, T. (2010), ‘Industries Hoarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions Permits’, The Guardian, 11 March 2010, available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/11/industries-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ (last accessed 12 March 2010).Google Scholar
Parker, Richard W. (1998), Designs for Domestic Carbon Emissions Trading: Comments on WTO Aspects, Washington DC: The H. John Heinz Centre for Science, Economics and the Environment.Google Scholar
Robinson, J., Barton, J., Dodwell, C., Heydon, M., and Milton, L. (2006), Climate Change Law: Emissions Trading in the EU and the UK, London: Cameron May.Google Scholar
Saric, M. G. (2005), ‘Softwood Lumber IV: “As it pertains to countervailing Duties”, WTO – Report of the Appellate Body’, 19 January 2004, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber From Canada’ Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 3: 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A. O. (2003), ‘The Economics of WTO Rules on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’, Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 186, University of Chicago Law School, available at: www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_176-200/186.aos.subsidies.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2010).Google Scholar
Tamiotti, L. and Kulacoglu, V. (2009), ‘National Climate Change Mitigation Measures and their Implications for the Multilateral Trading System: Key Findings of the WTO/ENEP Report on Climate Change’, Journal of World Trade, 43(5): 1115–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veel, P.-E. (2009), ‘Carbon Tariffs and the WTO: An Evaluation of Feasible Policies’, Journal of International Economic Law, 12(3): 749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, T. (2010), ‘Trade Row Looms as Adviser Calls for Carbon Tax on China’, The Guardian Newspaper, #1 March 2010, available at: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/01/carbon-tax-trade-china/print (last accessed 5 March 2010).Google Scholar