"We continue to hear very little about how we must reform trade rules to achieve our climate goals and a just transition for people," the author writes. (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)
Did Obama's Trade Legacy Just Hammer the Green New Deal?
The path towards achieving climate goals must address the revamping of trade rules
One of core elements of the proposed Green New Deal is a just transition--the creation of fair wage jobs that benefit communities, particularly those currently or formerly dependent on high polluting industries. In early July, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel ruled that renewable energy policies that supported local green jobs in eight U.S. states violate international trade rules. The case is a direct legacy of the Obama administration's aggressive free trade agenda, which routinely ran roughshod over environmental and climate concerns.
The WTO case was brought by India against policies in Washington, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, Massachusetts, Michigan and Delaware. Each state's policies, whether for renewable energy or fuel, included some type of preference or incentives for "local content," meaning that some aspect of the energy or fuel must be produced in that state to gain the preference. These preferences are designed to reward local businesses and ensure that new green markets for say, renewable energy, also benefit businesses in that state.
These types of programs are common throughout the U.S. and in other countries and are viewed as models to be scaled up as part of the more ambitious Green New Deal--which emphasizes both carbon reductions and the creation of fair wage jobs as part of a just transition.
India brought the case in response to an Obama administration WTO challenge to India's solar program in 2013, which was decided in favor of the U.S. in 2016. India's solar program gave preferences to Indian solar panel companies and was touted as a green jobs program and a critical part of the country's Paris climate commitment. The Obama administration argued that India's policy discriminated against U.S. solar panel manufacturers. In its defense, India pointed out that several U.S. states also have local content rules. Following the 2016 WTO ruling against India, former Citigroup executive and then-U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman issued a warning to other governments attempting to support local, green businesses: "This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory `localization' policies."
The Obama administration's case against India's solar program came as the administration was aggressively pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership, another free trade agreement that IATP and environmental groups opposed as a boon for the fossil fuel industry and a blow to addressing climate change.
The new WTO ruling illustrates how disconnected trade rules are from national and local efforts to address climate change--and the urgent need to reform those rules. This wasn't the first time the WTO had ruled against renewable energy, green jobs programs; it made a similar ruling in 2013 against an Ontario, Canada program. There are talks at the WTO about possible changes, including a moratorium on renewable energy related cases but those reforms are a long way off. At the same time, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) deliberately chose not to address conflicts with trade rules as part of the Paris Climate Agreement--a decision that will have to be reconciled in the near future as trade and climate goals clash.
The Trump administration's approach to climate change and trade deals has been consistent with its domestic policy: Pretend it doesn't exist and follow the directions of the fossil fuel industry. Trump's New NAFTA ignores climate change, continues special corporate rights for the fossil fuel industry to pursue Mexico's valuable oil fields and sets up new mechanisms to challenge regulations. There's been a lot of talk about climate change and a Green New Deal as this Presidential election heats up, but we continue to hear very little about how we must reform trade rules to achieve our climate goals and a just transition for people.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
One of core elements of the proposed Green New Deal is a just transition--the creation of fair wage jobs that benefit communities, particularly those currently or formerly dependent on high polluting industries. In early July, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel ruled that renewable energy policies that supported local green jobs in eight U.S. states violate international trade rules. The case is a direct legacy of the Obama administration's aggressive free trade agenda, which routinely ran roughshod over environmental and climate concerns.
The WTO case was brought by India against policies in Washington, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, Massachusetts, Michigan and Delaware. Each state's policies, whether for renewable energy or fuel, included some type of preference or incentives for "local content," meaning that some aspect of the energy or fuel must be produced in that state to gain the preference. These preferences are designed to reward local businesses and ensure that new green markets for say, renewable energy, also benefit businesses in that state.
These types of programs are common throughout the U.S. and in other countries and are viewed as models to be scaled up as part of the more ambitious Green New Deal--which emphasizes both carbon reductions and the creation of fair wage jobs as part of a just transition.
India brought the case in response to an Obama administration WTO challenge to India's solar program in 2013, which was decided in favor of the U.S. in 2016. India's solar program gave preferences to Indian solar panel companies and was touted as a green jobs program and a critical part of the country's Paris climate commitment. The Obama administration argued that India's policy discriminated against U.S. solar panel manufacturers. In its defense, India pointed out that several U.S. states also have local content rules. Following the 2016 WTO ruling against India, former Citigroup executive and then-U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman issued a warning to other governments attempting to support local, green businesses: "This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory `localization' policies."
The Obama administration's case against India's solar program came as the administration was aggressively pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership, another free trade agreement that IATP and environmental groups opposed as a boon for the fossil fuel industry and a blow to addressing climate change.
The new WTO ruling illustrates how disconnected trade rules are from national and local efforts to address climate change--and the urgent need to reform those rules. This wasn't the first time the WTO had ruled against renewable energy, green jobs programs; it made a similar ruling in 2013 against an Ontario, Canada program. There are talks at the WTO about possible changes, including a moratorium on renewable energy related cases but those reforms are a long way off. At the same time, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) deliberately chose not to address conflicts with trade rules as part of the Paris Climate Agreement--a decision that will have to be reconciled in the near future as trade and climate goals clash.
The Trump administration's approach to climate change and trade deals has been consistent with its domestic policy: Pretend it doesn't exist and follow the directions of the fossil fuel industry. Trump's New NAFTA ignores climate change, continues special corporate rights for the fossil fuel industry to pursue Mexico's valuable oil fields and sets up new mechanisms to challenge regulations. There's been a lot of talk about climate change and a Green New Deal as this Presidential election heats up, but we continue to hear very little about how we must reform trade rules to achieve our climate goals and a just transition for people.
One of core elements of the proposed Green New Deal is a just transition--the creation of fair wage jobs that benefit communities, particularly those currently or formerly dependent on high polluting industries. In early July, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel ruled that renewable energy policies that supported local green jobs in eight U.S. states violate international trade rules. The case is a direct legacy of the Obama administration's aggressive free trade agenda, which routinely ran roughshod over environmental and climate concerns.
The WTO case was brought by India against policies in Washington, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, Massachusetts, Michigan and Delaware. Each state's policies, whether for renewable energy or fuel, included some type of preference or incentives for "local content," meaning that some aspect of the energy or fuel must be produced in that state to gain the preference. These preferences are designed to reward local businesses and ensure that new green markets for say, renewable energy, also benefit businesses in that state.
These types of programs are common throughout the U.S. and in other countries and are viewed as models to be scaled up as part of the more ambitious Green New Deal--which emphasizes both carbon reductions and the creation of fair wage jobs as part of a just transition.
India brought the case in response to an Obama administration WTO challenge to India's solar program in 2013, which was decided in favor of the U.S. in 2016. India's solar program gave preferences to Indian solar panel companies and was touted as a green jobs program and a critical part of the country's Paris climate commitment. The Obama administration argued that India's policy discriminated against U.S. solar panel manufacturers. In its defense, India pointed out that several U.S. states also have local content rules. Following the 2016 WTO ruling against India, former Citigroup executive and then-U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman issued a warning to other governments attempting to support local, green businesses: "This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory `localization' policies."
The Obama administration's case against India's solar program came as the administration was aggressively pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership, another free trade agreement that IATP and environmental groups opposed as a boon for the fossil fuel industry and a blow to addressing climate change.
The new WTO ruling illustrates how disconnected trade rules are from national and local efforts to address climate change--and the urgent need to reform those rules. This wasn't the first time the WTO had ruled against renewable energy, green jobs programs; it made a similar ruling in 2013 against an Ontario, Canada program. There are talks at the WTO about possible changes, including a moratorium on renewable energy related cases but those reforms are a long way off. At the same time, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) deliberately chose not to address conflicts with trade rules as part of the Paris Climate Agreement--a decision that will have to be reconciled in the near future as trade and climate goals clash.
The Trump administration's approach to climate change and trade deals has been consistent with its domestic policy: Pretend it doesn't exist and follow the directions of the fossil fuel industry. Trump's New NAFTA ignores climate change, continues special corporate rights for the fossil fuel industry to pursue Mexico's valuable oil fields and sets up new mechanisms to challenge regulations. There's been a lot of talk about climate change and a Green New Deal as this Presidential election heats up, but we continue to hear very little about how we must reform trade rules to achieve our climate goals and a just transition for people.