You used semantics to turn a very logical argument on its head. The "benefits" are the "economic benefits" of price reduction.
If you think the EU has higher standards than the US, you've got your wires crossed. Now, I'm not too versed in the labor differences, but on the environmental side, say what you will, but we've got the strictest standards there are. You guys don't even have a CERCLA/Superfund analog as far as I can tell.
Quote:
|
Now your argument is in reverse. Would it be fair to make the US pay additional tarrifs to make up for the benefits that the US gains by adopting lower standards? How about an environmental tax on all US steel imports - since the US has refused to implement Kyoto treaty standards? And ditto for Japan?
|
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, only the nations that actually HAVE committments under Kyoto would be eligible to apply such a tarriff.
Oh, and ONLY to the extent it is necessary to make up the fraction of price avoided by not limiting CO2 emissions. Again, my notion is a narrow one.