Thanks to @DavidKleimann for responding. His response raises 2 questions. 1) The EU is "unilaterally" imposing a CBM that does not give credit to US producers for the implied price of carbon from complying with regulations. Why does the US then bear the blame if it responds?

https://twitter.com/DavidKleimann/status/1423363820555231232

This seems to confuse the Trump 232s, where the US acted on its own, w/ the CBM situation, where the EU is the first mover. Moreover, I imagine one reason the EU has not recognized the implied price of carbon in its CBAM is to give it something to negotiate with.

A few thoughts in response to @DavidKleimann's take on Senator @ChrisCoons & @RepScottPeters' carbon border bill. Thread-

https://twitter.com/DavidKleimann/status/1422626252742184960

His main beef seems to be that the bill will mean no explicit carbon price in the US. But as @toddtucker and I argue in @trade_review, achieving our climate goals on the necessary timetable means accepting a diversity of approaches to decarbonization. cambridge.org/core/journals/…

An important thread. As @JGodiasMurphy explains, for technical reasons CBP is not likely able to collect tariffs on Mex imports next week, or possibly even this month. This fact underscores the constitutional problems with these tariffs. 1/

https://twitter.com/JGodiasMurphy/status/1136616856549306368

@JGodiasMurphy S. 1704 of IEEPA makes it a crime to willfully violate, attempt to violate, or aid & abet a violation of any presidential order, reg, etc. made under IEEPA. In other words, when POTUS declares an emergency and then acts under IEEPA, he creates crimes. 2/