Trump Threatens Retaliation on Proposed EU Carbon Taxes


Carbon taxes are a top priority on EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Expect a big conflict with Trump.

The EU and Trump declared a truce over digital taxes but now the US Threatens Retaliation Against the EU Over Proposed Carbon Tax.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Wilbur Ross compared the EU’s plans for a carbon tax to moves by several European countries to impose a digital services tax, which has angered US officials and caused Washington to threaten tariffs on EU products.

“Depending on what form the carbon tax takes, we will react to it - but if it is in its essence protectionist, like the digital taxes, we will react,” Mr Ross said.

Ms von der Leyen outlined last week how her flagship green deal programme would need to involve some carbon border regulations or taxes to ensure that the benefits of the programme were not offset by carbon embedded in imports. “There is no point in only reducing greenhouse gas emissions at home, if we increase the import of CO2 from abroad,” Ms von der Leyen said. “It is not only a climate issue; it is also an issue of fairness towards our businesses and our workers. We will protect them from unfair competition.”

During the Davos meetings, Steven Mnuchin, the US Treasury secretary, sparred with Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank president, over ways to tackle climate change. Mr Mnuchin described a carbon tax as “a tax on hard working people.”

Not Just France

Trump and French president Emmanuel Macron were able to reach an agreement to postpone digital taxes but this issue is not up to France.


In the name of "fairness" the EU will impose taxes and demand everyone else pay them too.

This is yet another example of why the UK did well to escape the clutches of EU bureaucrats.

In this case however, the EU proposes to act like Trump: Enforce sanctions on the whole world via its own idiocy, all in the name of its own definition of "fairness".

Zero Tolerance for Carbon Leakage

How this will work is of course a mystery. And it imposes the harshest penalties on countries that do not yet have much infrastructure or industry, especially in Africa.

Bloomberg discussed the concept back in December with its report Wait Until Donald Trump Hears About the Carbon Border Tax.

“If necessary, if there is carbon leakage, we will have to think about a carbon border tax,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told the United Nations climate summit in Madrid this week.

Wrong Conclusion

Unfortunately, the article concluded: "Europe shouldn’t let itself be dissuaded. Plenty of smart people think carbon border taxes are necessary, including Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, both former heads of the Federal Reserve. As the birthplace of the industrial revolution, the continent has a unique responsibility to curb planet-heating carbon emissions, including those embedded in goods consumed here but produced elsewhere."

Zero Tolerance is the New Fair

Yeah, right.

The US benefited, then China benefitted, now Africa cannot. It's all totally "fair" to demand zero new emissions.

Think about Africa for a second. Let's force African nations who want to industrialize to use wind and solar despite the enormous costs of doing so.

Heaven forbid emerging countries resort to natural gas or the EU will tariff the hell out of them.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (32)
No. 1-5

Some problems are local problems which require local solutions.

Some local problems, if not solved properly, become global problems. Then they require global solutions. Sadly, global solutions typically require global cooperation.

Occasionally, nations stop their bickering, and beggar-thy-neighbour attitudes, and cooperate to solve a global problem.

When the problem is immediate, and “in-your-face” like a virus, you get less bickering and more cooperation.

When the problem is long-term, and more easily left for future generations, like global warming, you get less cooperation and more bickering.

That is why the world will not do much about global warming for several decades. It is a problem that is progressing too slowly to be “in-your-face”.

In order to solve many of these problems, the world looks to its scientists to develop the solutions.

The funny part is that when the problem is immediate, the world turns to its scientists and say, “What are you doing? Why haven’t you fixed this yet? Come on scientists! Develop a vaccine! Develop a cure! Hurry up!”

When the problem is longer term and slower moving, you sometimes get comments like this instead; “The thousands of scientists all over the world are part of some giant conspiracy that is promoting a fraud called global warming, and it’s been going on for decades!”

So sad. But that’s why the world is not going to do anything significant to solve this problem.


President Warren will sign off on the largest tax increase in US history to avoid collapse of the federal government in 2021.The belief that you can borrow ( print) your way out of any fiscal problem will get real in a hurry when those govt checks stop,slowly then all of a sudden!


And what % of these bs taxes will go to cleaning up the environment?


Staggering stupidity and on a cosmic scale. If you were a space traveler, just arrived in the local system, and tuned in to sample the "intelligent life form's" dialogue, you'd find us furiously debating how to control an atmospheric trace gas that's moved from 0.25% to 0.4%, with no evidence of negative impact on us, while studiously ignoring the blatantly obvious need to globally organize and prepare to deal with our budding pandemic.

I'm more than ever convinced that I have an answer to the Fermi Paradox: Why would they bother?


I've noticed how often stories will mention a certain year range, like stating it has been the coldest since 1947, or the least amount of ice since 1965 or something.

Then you wonder why the specific date range?

And I recalled a small piece of science history when a comment was made how it has gotten hotter since 1850.

Anybody want to guess when the official end of the 'Little Ice Age' was?

Global Economics