That is the question that the NYT should have been asking in an article that reported President Obama's opposition to taxing imported items from countries that have not taken steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The point of his cap and trade program is to make items that require large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions more expensive, thereby discouraging their consumption.
If goods can just be imported from countries that have no tax on GHG, then the point of cap and trade is undermined, as goods that require large amounts of fossil fuels will just be produced abroad. It is understandable that importers and other special interest would be opposed to measures that prohibit this sort of evasion, but that has absolutely nothing to do with "free trade."
The NYT completely misrepresents the issue by implying that this is somehow a debate over principles of free trade. It is a debate of whether special interests will be allowed to import goods to undermine the limits set by a cap and trade bill for GHG emissions.
Unlike many news organizations, the Prospect has remained staunchly committed to keeping our journalism free and accessible to all. We believe that independent journalism is crucial for a functioning democracy—but quality reporting comes at a cost. From Trump’s threat to the free press to Musk’s influence on our democracy, there is too much at stake in 2025 to stop now.
We’re behind on our goal to raise $75,000 to continue delivering the hard-hitting investigative journalism you’ve come to expect from us. Your support helps us maintain our independence and dig deeper into the stories that matter most.
We need you to make a year-end contribution today. Any amount helps secure our future and ensure we can continue holding power to account.
