French protectionists have no shame...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That would be every single country which signed that terriblely flawed and unworkable treaty.

I call bull****.

[Dinner]

Please show which countries are on track to meet or surpass their Kyoto goals. Then realize that the Kyoto goals were horriblely mangaled from the start to be massive cheats for certain players.

The year 1990 wasn't choosen by accident. Germany and Russia pushed for it because it allowed them to take credit for closing the old money losing communist industries. The problem is those industries mostly closed in 1991-1993 and the treaty wasn't signed until 1999 or 2000. That bar was rigged to be a fraud and they still can't meet that bar.

[notyoueither]

So you are admitting that some countries have made their Kyoto targets, or had made them before the treaty was even signed?

[Dinner]

No. I'm saying the starting year was choosen to rig the results and to make things easier for some countries, however, they are still totally unable to meet even those minimumal goals.

[Drogue]

Re: French protectionists have no shame...

Countries that refuse to join international efforts to cut greenhouse emissions – such as the US and China – should face a European carbon tax on their imports

Finally someone realises that if political pressure isn't going to get action on climate change, economic measures may be needed. As long as US pollution affects Europe, gaining reparations in the form of import duty seems quite sensible.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No. I'm saying the starting year was choosen to rig the results and to make things easier for some countries, however, they are still totally unable to meet even those minimumal goals.

First part, yes. Several EU countries got a very good deal.

Second part, bull****. GB and some other countries are already at or past their targets.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

continues to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (has met Kyoto Protocol target of a 12.5% reduction from 1990 levels and intends to meet the legally binding target and move toward a domestic goal of a 20% cut in emissions by 2010); by 2005 the government aims to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste disposed of in landfill sites to 85% of 1998 levels and to recycle or compost at least 25% of household waste, increasing to 33% by 2015; between 1998-99 and 1999-2000, household recycling increased from 8.8% to 10.3%

Do you ever know what you are talking about before you go off?

[Drogue]

I should add, I do realise de Villepin is doing this purely for protectionist reasons, but I think he's stumbled upon a great idea. I'm all for actions being tied to other actions - like the UK giving up its rebate if the CAP is scrapped, or economic sanctions against countries that defy international law or for environmental reasons.

Originally posted by Pekka
This is high and mighty road, protectionism at best. They are actually arguing protectionism with environmental issues? Great. What's next? Protectionism with .... human rights?

We already have that, it's called economic sanctions. People abuse human rights, and the international community says it's now illegal to trade with them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This really is nothing more then protectionist garbage especially since not a single Kyoto signatory will make their goals and most are actually far worse off even after they cheated and rigged the start datas. File a WTO case against them.

Why should they care what the WTO says if the US doesn't?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, WTO would strike this down.

At least it gives us leverage against the US failing to comply with WTO rulings as well.

Originally posted by Spiffor
OTOH, I fully support taxing miles for any product that is produced locally

This I have two issues with, both based on the practicalities. Firstly, are you intending to work out the miles travelled for each and every good? And secondly, what do you consider the same good? Would you tax apples if they are produced locally, or would they have to be the same variety of apples? Would you tax Bordeaux wine that's drunk in the South of France, because they produce a different type of wine? Any definitions would be arbitrary, and the tracing of every single good would be an administration nightmare.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Just Republican stupidity really.

not a single democrat stood to be counted for Kyoto. the senate vote was 95-0. by the way Bush didn't "unsign" it. The treaty can be submitted for ratification at any time.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Drive those nails into the economic coffins of developing countries!

Actually, the local agriculture would boom if importing from the developed countries became too expensive. People could feed themselves. Anyway, such import taxes should also count for reasonably developed countries such as Brazil, China, India to the US. Not most African countries of course.

[Pekka]

Drogue, yeah but it's BS because we still do business. We choose who we don't like, and THEN call human rights abuse on them. It doesn't work the other way around, unless it's too clear to avoid.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Maniac

Actually, the local agriculture would boom if importing from the developed countries became too expensive. People could feed themselves. Anyway, such import taxes should also count for reasonably developed countries such as Brazil, China, India to the US. Not most African countries of course.

Well, you are right. Giving the developing economies an argument for erecting trade barriers would be good for their short term prospects.

And we do need more trade suppressing ideas to deal with other developed economies who do things we don't like, such as work harder or smarter.

Smoot-Hawley!

Good times.

[Maniac]

Why don't you volunteer to emigrate to China and work in some low wage long hour no social security polluting factory if you think their system is sooooo much better?

[Pekka]

Brilliant counter. End of debate.