Minnesota is moving to encourage renewable energy by slapping a tariff on coal energy produced in North Dakota, and challenging the global economic order in the process.
And so opens another front in a much larger battle for the legal and policy space to enact common sense public interest regulations and curb the corporate profit crusade. It’s a fight that’s vital to the creation of a economic model that averts climate catastrophe and provides dignified living for workers.
Penalizing unsustainable or unethical products, or supporting sustainable and
ethical ones, is seen by public interest groups across the globe as a key tool for improving labor conditions and environmental standards. But free-market fundamentalists have long insisted that ‘similar’ products, in this case electricity, must be treated ‘similarly’.
Disgracefully, substantial differences in the ways a product is made are purposefully erased for policy-makers so corporations can hunt for cheaper inputs and thus higher profits. A toy made by a toxic-pollution dumping factory vs. a clean factory? Same. Clothes made with slave labor vs. union labor? Same. Energy generated in a way that fuels climate change vs. renewable energy? Its all the same under corporate free-market logic.
Correction: the original post said South Dakota, when it should have been North Dakota – changed above.
But the corporate types have been winning. They’ve gotten their faulty logic inscribed in our global trade pacts like NAFTA and the WTO, which provide harsh penalties for transgressions. In so doing they’ve been able to use the bogeyman of trade sanctions to stifle innovative, quality of life-improving policy tools.
But this hasn’t stopped Minnesota from pushing forward. Joshua Frank at Truthout tells more about Minnesota’s scoffing at the corporate scheme with their plan to tax high-carbon energy crossing state lines from North Dakota:
Currently, the law does not mandate a carbon tariff; it only provides the framework to create such a pricing mechanism if a tax on carbon emissions becomes necessary in the future. Minnesota is currently looking at pricing guidelines for a likely utility rate increase in 2012.
Minnesota is hoping to pressure its neighbor to the west to drop coal and embrace renewable energy sources. North Dakota has ample wind energy potential and has even been called the “Saudi Arabia of Wind.”
Like the climate legislation passed in the House last year, which also would impose penalties on imports with insufficient carbon regulation, this time from other countries, the proposed Minnesota policy rubs up against the same profit-hungry logic by ‘discriminating’ against high-carbon energy.
But, even experts from vastly differing philosophical bents agree that in order to address the climate crisis, this logic is no good. Not only should the government intervene in the market to penalize high-carbon goods to stave off climate catastrophe, but it will have to do so in order to change failed trade rules to do so.
The corporate market fundamentalists won’t go down without a fight, and neither should we. That’s why groups like Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the United Steelworkers union, the Teamsters, and a broad array of other unions and family farm groups are pushing to take back the space to protect workers and our environment with the TRADE Act. It’s a comprehensive blueprint for fixing our failed trade policies and restoring space for democratic policy space needed to trump corporate power. put people back to work, and save the planet.
Whether or not the Minnesota policy is implemented and upheld, the fight is on to take back the policy space necessary to win concrete improvements in production methods and labor conditions. The more we fight to shift the paradigm in favor of a sustainable global economy, the better.
(CrossPosted from EyesOnTrade)
There are some factual errors in this post. I’m responding not to criticize the writer, but to help correct some of the misinformation that is widely available on the Internet.
First, the state that has a beef with Minnesota is North Dakota, not South Dakota. North Dakota mines lignite coal, burns it in mine-mouth power plants, and exports the electricity to other states via transmission lines. North Dakota is threatening to sue Minnesota over Minnesota’s policy.
Second, calling the Minnesota policy a carbon tariff or carbon tax follows the story framing that’s coming out of North Dakota. Most of the media has followed along with that framing. It’s misleading.
Better explanations of Minnesota’s policy can be found below.
http://snurl.com/u8ibn (Minneapolis Star Tribune, good summary of the situation)
http://snurl.com/u8ich (Twin Cities Daily Planet post that includes the actual Minnesota law in question)
Kelly Fuller
Communications Director
Plains Justice
Vermillion, South Dakota
Great post, but one correction: most of Minnesota’s coal electricity comes from NORTH Dakota, as the article you link to states. South Dakota has only a couple coal fired generators, and most of its production comes from Missouri hydro and coal generators in other states. Gotta defend a little of my home state’s honor!
One more correction: we don’t say “eh” in Minnesota! Try “uffda” or “you betcha!”.
My deepest apologies for the older version of the post which confused the Dakotas. As astutely noted, the Minnesota policy in question targets high-carbon energy produced in North Dakota.
As a mid-westerner whose blood boils to hear folks say things like , “Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, it’s all the same…” I’m thus am ashamed to have made such a mistake.
As for the framing of the carbon tax as a tariff vs. a tax, its a great point that Kelly Fuller raises. In the future I’ll try to point out that these are NON-discriminatory rules that are getting challenged and chilleed.
What’s interesting to me are the parallels to the ways common-sense, NON-discriminatory regulations are chilled or struck down due to rules written into NAFTA or the WTO. Those who feel slighted claim scream protectionism, even when it’s clearly not the case.
The Star-Trib article she links to contains a quote at that end “It’s not about North Dakota. It’s about coal.” I agree with this completely. The proposed rule is directed at high-carbon power generally, regardless of its origin. But under the WTO for instance, if the EFFECT is felt disproportionately across a border, that it can be struck down for not being as non-obstructive to ‘trade’ as possible. The mere use of this line of argument, combined with legal posturing and other intimidation, is enough to chill regulations and make policy-makers seek compromised – ie less effective – ways of achieving their aims. And so continues the race to the bottom
Lastly… I do hear folks from Minnesota and northern Wisconsin say plenty of “eh”, dontcha know!
Hey, at least you didn’t combine the two states into simply “Dakota.” People really hate that.