The Daily: Interviewing the Interviewer, Again

Plus, our annual summer playlist.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story July 16, 2021 As you might have heard on the show, Michael Barbaro and his wife recently had a baby. Over the next few months, Michael won't be working every day, giving you the chance to hear from a broader set of voices on the show. Recently, we introduced you to guest host Astead Herndon. Today, you'll get to meet another one: Sabrina Tavernise, a national correspondent. Then, read on for The Daily's 2021 summer playlist. If you've got a song that you've been grooving to this summer, send it to us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Introducing Sabrina Tavernise Host-to-host banter via Slack.Michael Barbaro Michael Barbaro: So Sabrina, this is all about you, so let me start with a big ol' Daily-style inquiry. Where does the Sabrina Tavernise journalism story start? Don't hold back. I really do mean the beginning. Sabrina Tavernise: Oh wow. Didn't realize this was the idea. Michael: Oh yes. We are going there. So, where did you grow up? Sabrina: A tiny rural community in western Mass., called Granville. It has lots of apples and votes Republican; 1,800 people. Michael: That's small. Sabrina: Yes, too small for a high school. And it is still shrinking. They just closed the primary school, because there aren't enough kids. It's beautiful though. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Michael: It literally sounds like the kind of place Sabrina Tavernise writes about today. Changing. Shrinking. Uncomfortably. Sabrina: Yes, in a way, yes. Michael: GRANVILLE, MASS. — I write about these kind of towns all the time. Sabrina: Hahahahahaahah Michael: So what came next? Sabrina: I had studied Russian in college. I wanted to go to Russia. I sent my résumé to dozens of places in Moscow. None took me. I called the National Audubon Society in Alaska and someone named Bucky told me there was an opening for a translator going to a nature preserve near Magadan. Michael: Magadan, Russia, that is. (I had to Google that). Well, wow. Thanks, Bucky! Sabrina: I spent two months on an uninhabited piece of land strewn with rusty barrels of oil with like 30 high school kids and a few educators. On my way back to Anchorage at the end of the summer, I met someone who was leaving a U.S.A.I.D. funded job in Magadan. A kind of school that taught Russians about capitalism. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT I worked there for two years. My Russian got really good. I sometimes went on a radio program out there. Then in 1997, I moved to Moscow. I had no plans. But I had great Russian. I made a list of the things I liked to do and was good at, and didn't like to do and was bad at. Basically journalism came out on top because I had this instinct to write home about everything that I was seeing. And trying to convey the wonder and the sense of the absurd in everyday Russia. It was the same instinct for being a foreign correspondent. Michael: So, why Russian language and why Russia, of all places? Sabrina: Complete accident. I had to take a language requirement. The wall was falling. I chose Russian. I loved the challenge of trying to figure out: Where is this country headed, based on its distant past (I was reading its history), its current events (I would soon be covering them)? Michael: What kept you there and drew you in? Sabrina: It sounds cheesy, but it is true: The people. Russia is such a weird place. Dark in so many ways, but also utterly fun-loving and throws caution to the wind. Every day might be your last, so let's spend everything right now and have a really good time. A disaster, but a really charming one. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT It was also the place I grew up — spent most of my 20s. Owned my first car. Had my first car stolen! Met my husband. Michael: Caution to wind indeed! So once you find yourself in Russia, having mastered the language and deciding that journalism is the best way to communicate everything you're experiencing and observing, how did you go about finding a reporting gig? What was your big breakthrough in the field? Sabrina: I applied all over and didn't get hired. But there was this new news agency called Bloomberg News. They had one guy in a conference room in a hotel in Moscow called the Olympic Penta. He gave me a short writing test and then basically hired me on the spot. So then it was just me and him working in that conference room. Competing with Reuters staff of 50-60. I remember at the time no one knew what Bloomberg News was. I stood up at a press conference and asked the prime minister, Chernomyrdin, a question, and he told me to identify myself. Then he was like, "Look, I know your name is Bloomberg, but what damned agency are you from?" Michael: It's amazing to think that there was a time when Bloomberg News was a young, struggling upstart. Sabrina: Yes. In Russia, it was totally new. They later hired a bunch of people and got a fancy office. But it started small! I worked there for about 2 years — through a financial crisis, which was really, really hard. Then, The Times was trying to supplement its international business coverage, so it hired stringers in a few places — Moscow, Rio, London, Shanghai. I became the Moscow one. My first big story was the sinking of the Kursk submarine — all of these sailors knocking desperate morse code messages as it sank. Everybody died. Michael: I remember it well. It was a horrible tragedy. I'm also curious how and why you ended up in Iraq. If my memory serves me, you spent time there covering the war. That feels like a big scary decision. Sabrina: Yes good memory! I went to Iraq at the tail end of the invasion — basically as the looting was finishing in the spring of 2003. It was the first time I'd covered anything outside Russia. It was very new for me. And it was the first time I'd ever been in a war. Journalistically, it was hard; I didn't speak Arabic. I eventually found a translator I really bonded with and we spent most of the war together. She was a divorced mother of two from a secular Shiite family. I remember we would go to the main Baghdad morgue every month to get their numbers for body counts. And as the war ramped up, the statistics kept going up and up and up — 1,000 a month, then 2,000 and then 3,000. All these bodies from different cleansings in different parts of the city. It was like watching a society split apart — and America had set it all into motion. Michael: So, once again, you are covering fatalism and tragedy. And all of that lays the groundwork for the Modern Sabrina, who returns to the U.S. and spends years translating this country to Times listeners, telling remarkable stories about unforgettable characters (Abraham Davis) and deep-seated conflicts (abortion) as a national correspondent and, lately, translating the dense but important world of demography — unlocking the data that tells us who we are, what we are up to, what we want, our divisions, our inequities. Basically, whether we are living up to our expectations for ourselves. And it's in this role that Daily listeners really meet you — and love you. Sabrina: Thank you! It was a hard transition from being abroad, but one I eventually managed. Michael: I feel your bio perfectly set you up for this moment when we asked you to help host the show, because you've covered such big and rich and varied subjects around the globe. What's the transition been like from reporter/Daily guest to having hosting responsibilities? Sabrina: Hard! I love audio. Definitely my favorite medium. But I'm not used to actually creating it. So there's a learning curve. But I love it. I still feel like that cartoon T-rex trying. Like I have these really powerful legs from running but I'm being told that the one thing I need to do now is pull-ups and so I'm trying to do pull-ups with these little, undeveloped arms. And no one cares how fast I can run. Michael: I love that metaphor. Hosting is… weird! Sabrina: Hard! Yeah. It is weird. but great! Michael: When I think of the history of the show, I think of so many episodes we made with you that felt like watershed moments for The Daily. Especially the two-part history of Roe v. Wade. It was as if we'd all walked around for years thinking we knew what that case was really about, and then you told us a story that made clear we didn't. So Sabrina, I've now kept you for 45 minutes (!) Any final thoughts? On The Daily? Hosting? The heat? We have to find a way to cover this heat in New York on the show. Sabrina: Hahahaha. Final thoughts: I love the show. I feel honored to be part of it. Talk to Sabrina and Michael on Twitter: @stavernise and @mikiebarb. Presenting Our Annual Summer Playlist Our playlist wouldn't be complete without a couple of bangers by Lil Nas X.Emma Mcintyre/Getty Images for Spotify We're officially midway through the summer. It's been a hot and sticky one, but many are feeling jazzed up like it's 2019 again, releasing pent-up energy after more than a year in lockdown (cue "Hot Girl Summer"). Music has been a refuge for our team throughout the pandemic, so we were excited to put together this year's summer playlist. You can follow the full playlist on Spotify, and below is a taste of what you'll find. (Though some tracks are best for adult ears only.) "Liz" by Remi Wolf: "This song is so fun and soulful, with an irresistible dash of funk grooves to make you move. I love attempting Remi's vocal runs and riffs on this song. My neighbors probably don't, though." — Sydney Harper, a producer "Caribbean" by Astro: "I miss Astro. The group spent a few years making super fun synth tracks about rabbits and dolphins and druids and then they peaced out. They lived in a world of eternal sunshine and summer, and I wish they would come back." — Michael Simon Johnson, a producer "Goosebumps" by Travis Scott (featuring Kendrick Lamar): "This is my 1-year-old daughter's number one. She can't stop herself when it comes on Hot 97; she has to move." — Paige Cowett, an editor "Bodies (Intro)" by Jazmine Sullivan: "I'm suggesting the first song on Jazmine's album "Heaux Tales," but every track on the record is both a banger and a short story. Interspersed are vignettes from conversations with women in Jazmine's life about their relationships and sexuality. Listen in full on a Sunday morning, then put it on repeat." — Stella Tan, a producer "Saana" by Ebo Taylor: "I listen to Ebo Taylor while skateboarding in Prospect Park. His music keeps me in good spirits, even as I fail for the thousandth time at trying to land an ollie." — Dan Powell, a sound designer and composer On The Daily This Week Monday: How Evanston, Ill., became the first American city to approve a reparations program to address historical racism. Tuesday: Allen Weisselberg, Donald Trump's former moneyman, may be key to holding the former president legally accountable for his conduct as a businessman. But will he flip? Wednesday: How much is climate change to blame for the extreme heat in the Pacific Northwest? Thursday: What prompted Cuba's largest protests in 30 years? Friday: We speak to a survivor of one of Canada's residential schools for Indigenous children. That's it for The Daily newsletter. See you next week. Have thoughts about the show? Tell us what you think at thedaily@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox. Love podcasts? Join The New York Times Podcast Club on Facebook. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for The Daily from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Wonking Out: Two cheers for carbon tariffs

Saving the planet is more important than free-trade mysticism. 

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story July 16, 2021 By Paul Krugman Opinion Columnist This time it really is Infrastructure Week. Democrats have agreed on the broad outline of a big public investment program, to be passed through reconciliation on top of a much smaller bipartisan "hard" infrastructure program. As I noted in my column yesterday, big spending has gotten its groove back. But there has been another major policy development: It's Infrastructure Week, but it's also Carbon Tariff Week. The Democratic proposal says in general terms, although without specifics, that we should levy tariffs on imports from countries that don't take sufficient steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions. On the same day, the European Union laid out, in much greater detail, plans to impose a carbon border adjustment mechanism — which I'm afraid everyone will call a carbon tariff, even though CBAM is a great acronym. (See? Bam!) So how should we think about carbon tariffs? From past experience, I know that we'll hear a number of voices denouncing them as a new form of protectionism and/or asserting that they're illegal under international trade law. These voices should be ignored. First, let's talk about priorities, people. Yes, protectionism has costs, but these costs are often exaggerated, and they're trivial compared with the risks of runaway climate change. I mean, the Pacific Northwest — the Pacific Northwest! — has been baking under triple-digit temperatures, and we're going to worry about the interpretation of Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT And some form of international sanctions against countries that don't take steps to limit emissions is essential if we're going to do anything about an existential environmental threat. Developing countries, especially but not only China, are already responsible for most carbon dioxide emissions; even a big effort to decarbonize on the part of the United States and Europe will accomplish little unless it's matched by efforts in other nations. Furthermore, "industry will just move to China" is a favorite argument of domestic opponents of climate action, so the politics of such action depend crucially on having an answer to that claim. Given these considerations, it seems almost trivial to point out that carbon tariffs aren't actually protectionist and should be considered legal under international trade law. But I do think those are points worth making, if only because this happens to be a topic I've thought about and worked on for many years. To understand the law and economics of carbon tariffs, it's helpful to consider the economics and legality of value-added taxes (VATs), a major revenue source in many countries (although not the United States). Trust me, it's a highly relevant comparison. A VAT is, on paper, a tax paid by producers: If a country has a 15 percent VAT, a company that produces, say, furniture must pay a tax equal to 15 percent of its sales — minus the taxes it can show were paid by the companies selling it wood, fabric and so on. The advantage of such a system is that the private sector does a lot of the work of enforcement, since each company has an incentive to make sure that its suppliers pay their fair share. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT But who pays the tax in the end? Normally, all those taxes on producers end up being passed on in higher prices, so that a 15 percent VAT is, in effect, a 15 percent national sales tax. Now, VATs are always accompanied by "border adjustments": Importers must pay the tax on the goods they import, while exporters get a rebate equal to the tax paid on what they export. This makes perfect sense when you think of a VAT as a sales tax. You wouldn't want a situation where shoppers at Walmart pay sales tax only on American-made goods, while Chinese products are exempt. And you also wouldn't want to charge sales tax on U.S. goods being sold to other countries. This point is widely misunderstood. U.S. businesses, in particular, often look at the border adjustments imposed by countries with VATs and see them as tariffs and export subsidies that give their competitors an unfair advantage. They are, however, wrong on the economics. And the World Trade Organization considers VAT-related border adjustments legal, because they are necessary to carry out a domestic policy that, in principle at least, doesn't distort international trade. That is, border adjustments don't tilt the playing field; they actually level it. Subscribe Today New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT So what does all this have to do with carbon tariffs? You can think of national policies designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions as ways to induce a country's residents to take into account the emissions resulting from the production of the goods they consume. This is obviously true if a nation imposes a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system, in which businesses must purchase licenses to pollute. It's also true, although in a harder-to-measure sense, when countries impose regulations like mileage and clean-energy standards. The point is that many climate-change policies can be seen as a form of tax on domestic consumers. And as with a VAT, both the economics and, I believe, the law (I'm not a trade lawyer, although I think I understand this issue) say that border adjustments, in this case a carbon tariff, are appropriate parts of a climate strategy. That is, if a country lacks an adequate climate policy, the price of goods imported from that country should reflect an estimate of the greenhouse gases emitted during their production. What might make carbon tariffs slightly trickier than VAT border adjustments is the likelihood that an important part of climate policy will involve regulations rather than a straight carbon tax. In that case, while a carbon tariff remains clearly justifiable as a way to level the playing field for domestic and foreign producers, setting the appropriate level of the tariff won't be easy — it won't be as simple as charging the same VAT rate on imports as that imposed on domestic products. A fair bit of estimation and imputation will be involved, and there will no doubt be arguments about the numbers. But while getting border adjustments right will be tricky, this trickiness isn't a reason to do nothing. Carbon border adjustments are clearly the right thing to do, and better to do them imperfectly than not at all. So two cheers for carbon tariffs. Wait — why only two cheers? Because carbon tariffs affect only goods that are exported and hence are only a partial solution to the problem of countries that don't do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Consider the case of China, which says that it plans to reduce emissions but is still building a large number of coal-fired power plants. If advanced countries impose carbon tariffs, this will give China an incentive to reduce the carbon dioxide emitted in producing its steel exports. But it won't impose any penalty for carbon emissions from the power plants that supply China's cities with electricity. And those emissions, which aren't related to international trade, are almost surely a bigger threat to the environment than emissions associated with exports. To fully address the problem of international cooperation, then, carbon tariffs that level the playing field wouldn't be enough. We'd have to go beyond that to the threat of sanctions against nations behaving irresponsibly. And that would, I'm afraid, be illegal under current trade law, because it would mean intervening in policies that have traditionally been considered purely domestic. Now, given the threat of climate change, our response should be to revise or ignore trade law. But that would be a big step and won't happen right away. For now, carbon tariffs are what we can reasonably expect to happen. And they should happen as soon as possible. Feedback If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018