Beware of the oversimplified claims about how to deal with China, climate change
In this corner we have Sen. Cathy Giessel and Rep. Zack Fields joining the promotional parade of oversimplistic claims about how to deal with China, ignoring what the cost would be to consumers.
And in this corner we have Rep. George Rauscher attacking the very idea of studying how much carbon dioxide is released in creating steel, plastics and other products, ignoring the real costs to consumers and the impact of climate change.
It wouldn’t hurt our elected officials to confess in advance that the problems they discuss are far more complicated than they let on. (Every column should have a disclaimer to that effect at the end, including this one.)
This piece in Roll Call hints at the underlying complexity and some of the political crosscurrents. The U.S. and China have “one of the world’s most important and complex bilateral relationships,” as the Council on Foreign Relations puts it.
The column that Giessel and Fields co-signed in the Anchorage Daily News endorses a “foreign pollution fee, which would levy a fee on imports based on the amount of pollution emitted to produce them.”
A foreign pollution fee may be a good idea, I don’t know. I’m certain that the issue is not as straightforward as our legislators argue.
“There are few issues in politics with such broad, overlapping benefits as sending a clear message to China that it can no longer pollute with impunity. A foreign pollution fee is our ace in the hole, and with as much to gain as we do, Alaska should help lead the charge,” Giessel and Fields say.
Missing from the alleged ace in the hole is a recognition of the depth of the economic relationship between the U.S. and China. Both sides have cards they can play. Only Canada and Mexico are larger trading partners with the U.S. than China.
Americans bought about $540 billion worth of goods and services from China last year, while U.S. exports topped $150 billion. There is a high degree of interdependence in those numbers on everything from electronic gadgets to agricultural products.
Against this backdrop, the political tensions between the two nations are steadily increasing.
A few questions for Giessel and Fields: What would the foreign pollution fee mean to U.S. consumers? What would it mean to the U.S. economy? What would China do in response?
Thinking about this simply in terms of how great it would be to lower the relative cost of Alaska resource development, which is a theme of their column, is dangerously myopic.
Similar questions can be put to Rauscher, who put his name atop this column, which reads like the work of an oil and gas industry PR department, moaning and groaning about studying carbon emissions.
Rauscher attacks Murkowski for putting her name on a bill to analyze global emissions, saying it will punish consumers with a tax. He neglects to mention climate change and what that means to this generation and all those that follow.
Giessel and Fields support Murkowski for the same bill, saying it’s a way “to study the carbon advantage key U.S. industries, including domestic oil and gas production, have over key trading partners. This is an important first step. We also believe Sen. Dan Sullivan is uniquely suited to lead on a foreign pollution fee due to his strong track record of opposing the Chinese Communist Party’s malign influence.”
To the contrary, Sullivan’s “strong track record” is one in which he is at the front of the oversimplification parade. His solution to everything is to spend billions more on the military.
It makes no sense to ignore the level of trade with China, the cost of living, the threat of armed conflict, climate change and the other complicating factors that defy every easy solution peddled by politicians.
Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.