The folks at the Times, who are well paid to worry about this stuff, are agonizing once more about the rise of protectionism. This time they are warning us about the creeping menace of "green protectionism":

But pressures are building on other fronts. Last week, the energy secretary, Steven Chu, said he favored tariffs on Chinese goods if China did not sign on to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — underscoring how the “green economy” could be the next trade battleground.

Which Wonks Anonymous imagines would work something like this: If the United States imposes costs on domestic carbon emissions, either through a carbon tax or the more unwieldy cap and trade system, the costs of production in the US are likely to rise in the short run. Under "free trade" it will be a simple matter for domestic and foreign producers to avoid this cost increase - and continue their carbon emissions unchecked - by producing in China or some other environmental cesspit.

Meaning that the policy has no impact and we live in a steadily warming world. On the other hand business gets to squeeze a little bit more profit out of its antiquated and destructive technologies.

But really a carbon tariff is not about protectionism. It is about imposing the same environmental conditions on Chinese businesses that US businesses will be operating under. The carbon tariff is really about taking some control over the global environment rather than letting the least scrupulous producers dictate global policy.

Meanwhile Wonks Anonymous is wishing that Secretary Chu knew something about banking.