Commerce et Changement Climatique

The document presents diverse perspectives on how trade affects climate change, arguing that while the transport sector is a major emitter, trade can support climate goals through environmental goods and technical standards. However, it warns that the EU's 'Global Europe' strategy and rigid intellectual property rights may undermine climate policies in developing nations. It calls for the WTO to formally recognize the primacy of climate regimes over trade rules to ensure that environmental measures are not blocked by trade disputes.

• The transport sector is a significant driver of climate change, accounting for one-third of total greenhouse gas emissions.
• Simplistic 'food miles' labeling can be misleading because it ignores the total carbon footprint of production; for example, Kenyan roses produce 80% less CO2 than Dutch roses due to natural heat, and New Zealand lamb generates approximately 70% less CO2 than lamb produced and transported within the UK.
• The liberalization of 'environmental goods and services' (BSE)—including renewable technologies like solar cells and wind turbines—could lower costs and facilitate the export of green technologies, provided there is a clear, evolving definition of these goods.
• The EU's 'Global Europe' strategy is criticized for prioritizing market access and deregulation over climate goals, potentially discouraging national governments from implementing environmental subsidies or export restrictions on climate-impacting products like illegally logged wood.
• Rigid intellectual property rights (IPR) are identified as a barrier to the transfer of low-carbon technologies to developing countries; the document suggests negotiating 'TRIPS-plus' or removing IPR for climate-friendly technologies.
• There is significant legal uncertainty regarding whether WTO rules allow for carbon footprint labeling or 'border tax adjustments' to compensate for carbon taxes, though the WTO does provide general exceptions for environmental protection.
• The document argues that WTO dispute settlement bodies should be required to consider international climate regimes when interpreting trade law, citing the US-Shrimp case as a positive example and the EC-Biotech case as a failure of this approach.

APA

Martin, D., Bernasconi, N., Raman, M., & Poppe, C. (2008). Commerce et Changement Climatique. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TRADE_Climate_FR_Jul08.pdf

Chicago

Martin, David, Nathalie Bernasconi, Meena Raman, and Charly Poppe. Commerce et Changement Climatique. Center for International Environmental Law, 2008. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TRADE_Climate_FR_Jul08.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Martin |first1=David |last2=Bernasconi |first2=Nathalie |last3=Raman |first3=Meena |last4=Poppe |first4=Charly |title=Commerce et Changement Climatique |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=2008 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TRADE_Climate_FR_Jul08.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{martin2008commerce, author = {Martin, David and Bernasconi, Nathalie and Raman, Meena and Poppe, Charly}, title = {{Commerce et Changement Climatique}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2008}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TRADE_Climate_FR_Jul08.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }