Even as the World Trade Organization seems to be laying cover for “climate change” legislation and its trade distorting effects here and across its membership, others are not so sanguine.

Sound arguments can be made regarding the need for reform of U.S. energy policy and lessening our dependence on foreign resources.  However, solutions do not lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive.  Nor should we be encouraging further protectionist biases in U.S. trade policy.

These principles should be readily apparent—especially during a recession.  Yet, measures contained in the U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act, recently passed by the U.S. House, aim to penalize importers of frequently-traded energy-intensive products by mandating the purchase of certain “emissions allowances”—border measure that effectively amount to a tariff.

The bill’s underlying policy objectives specifically target large developing-country “greenhouse gas” emitters like China, Brazil and India, since most developed countries already have binding emissions reduction commitments, or are expected to adopt such measures soon.  Even if not specifically named, the targets of this policy are more clearly understood when considering the fact that the legislation excludes exports from the least-developed countries and nations accounting for less than 0.5 percent of global emissions, generally speaking.

While House legislators clearly aim to pressure China, Brazil and India to take stronger action on emissions, the proposal for collecting the emissions tariffs would be an attractive mechanism for protectionist trade practices in the guise of defending the environment.  The threat has already provoked our trading partner targets of such legislation.  China, for example, recently blasted the proposal as a breach of WTO rules and the spirit of Kyoto Protocol principles that developed countries should endure most of the burden in reducing global carbon emissions.

Do such protests matter?  The WTO may not wish for the trade rules it enforces to be used as a means for repudiating laws designed to address “climate change,” but it has also noted that “challenges” of this sort require multilateral cooperation.

If the United States recklessly enacts “climate change” legislation and adopts the House’s current “emissions allowances” tariffs, it will be taking a unilateral trade action without appropriate multilateral consultations and agreement.  This likely would spark large-scale trade disputes or even a trade war with some of our largest trading partners.  Aside from the fact that such a measure is bad economic policy, even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agrees that “climate change” plans will have no effect on the environment without including countries like China.