A proposed new provision in the US Customs Bill has potentially severe implications for climate action both in the United States and internationally.
The proposed language would amend the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act (TPA), better known as “fast track,” by including a US negotiating objective “to ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to US law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change.”
A Congressional conference committee will soon decide whether to accept the proposed language in the Customs Bill, a decision which will have a significant impact on existing and future barriers to climate action.
This week, CIEL released a new policy brief that details why the proposed provision is unacceptable and should be rejected by the conferees. Specifically, if adopted it would:
- Make it more difficult to ensure climate mitigation efforts by the United States and our global partners are not undermined by new or existing trade agreements;
- Complicate global climate negotiations by increasing uncertainty about what measures US negotiators can and cannot negotiate on; and
- Foreclose an array of necessary and potentially powerful tools to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and deliver on global political commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
There is a close and undeniable interaction between international trade agreements and climate action. This interaction is evident in many recent World Trade Organization cases where climate mitigation efforts have been recurring targets of trade measures and trade arguments. Even when a formal case isn’t brought, the threat of trade action is frequently invoked against much needed climate measures in the US and abroad. Indeed, the ongoing use of trade agreements to undermine legitimate protections for human health and the environment is a key reason why hundreds of environmental groups, including CIEL, fought to stop Fast Track and strongly oppose the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
The wording of the climate provision could prevent US negotiators from developing explicit carve-outs to better protect those measures from trade-related attacks. Ironically, it would also undermine the stated objectives of US and European negotiators to use TTIP to strengthen cooperation on trade and climate change and to promote low-carbon technologies and energy efficiency.
Just as seriously, the Customs Bill climate provision would inject further uncertainty into ongoing negotiations in the UNFCCC, raising new barriers to reaching an ambitious and effective agreement in Paris in December. This year, the President pledged that he would “not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts.” However, the current language of the TPA climate provision will do just that by limiting the United States’ capacity to respond to global warming now and in the future.
The resulting uncertainty regarding US negotiating authority also threatens the United States’ ability to fulfill other political agreements, such as the 2014 US-China commitment encouraging trade in clean energy technologies, and vital commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. In this respect, the United States has made joint commitments at both the G20 and G7 summits to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” as such subsidies “undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.” Trade agreements offer a potentially powerful avenue for countries to hold each other accountable for their subsidy phase-out commitments. The climate provision in the Customs Bill would close the door on doing so.
Environmental groups oppose this damaging provision and are calling for its removal from the final bill. NGOs aren’t alone in that opposition. Twelve democratic senators sent an open letter to the conference committee on July 17 urging it to “exclude” the language on climate change.
Global climate change poses the greatest environmental challenge humankind has ever faced. The window for responding to that challenge is closing rapidly; and doing so demands immediate and dramatic action both domestically and internationally. The Customs Bill climate provision would raise new and very real barriers to effective climate action at a time when barriers should be coming down. And the provision needs to come out.
Originally posted on July 24, 2015.