Does the WTO allow carbon cap-and-trade “tariffs”?

I’m afraid that or something similar is the only way the European Union and the United Nations will get a breakthrough on post-Kyoto global warming efforts, as essentially demanded by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The sensible EU position, opposed by the U.S., Japan and Canada:

The European Union wants a reference by industrialised countries that a cut of 25-40 percent in their emissions by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, will be a guideline for the post-2012 haggle.

The United States, Japan, Canada and others however are against that.

“We want to be sure that the text that we have before us is going to be neutral — it will leave all options on the table and, again, will not prejudge outcomes, which should be something that comes at the end of the two-year process,” said US negotiator Harlan Watson.

For “prejudge outcomes,” read, “not force the U.S. to take serious action.”

Also still on the table: how much and what sort of help developed nations should offer developing ones.

That said, there is one big problem with the Kyoto framework — its lumping of all but the most prosperous nations into one “developing nations” grab bag. China, India and Brazil may not be the U.S. or E.U. member states, but, they’re not Zimbabwe, Bolivia, or Myanmar in terms of development, either. I think a post-Kyoto round does need to two-tier “developing” nations.