Pollution Penalties for the US? - EUROPE LOOKS AT CLIMATE CHANGE

[stroller]

EU climate policy is gearing up to confront the US. Imports from countries that refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol could be subject to punitive tariff duties -- a new measure intended to pressure the Bush Administration. A climate tax on flights may also be introduced.
Europe Looks at Climate Change: Pollution Penalties for the US? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

[Marmite the Dog]

That makes sense at long last. I just hope they go through with it.

[Wallalai]

The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces 25% of all carbon dioxide emission. By comparaison, Britain emits 3%- about the same as India which has 15 times as many people.

Source: BBC News | AMERICAS | Q&A: The US and climate change

US corporations ave the right to pollute the entire planet. The people and the environment don't matter.

Source: America the Unbeautiful


And I would be curious to know the amount of pollution produced by the successive wars in the Middle-East where US and Israël were involved in the recent past.

[man with no head]

Is the EU going apply the same standards to India or China, or, is this just some opportunity to be anti-American? I doubt such a thing will withstand WTO scrutiny.

[friscofrankie]

a new measure intended to pressure the Bush Administration.

SO it looks like George has another War on terrorism nominee think it'll fly back home? Jesus this fuckin guy has put our country back 25 fuckin years or more.

[Little Chuchok]

Deborah Coddington: Against the tide of chic climate change gloom

Email this storyPrint this story Sunday December 17, 2006
By Deborah Coddington




Here's a bit of Christmas cheer. Planet Earth is not, contrary to Nicholas Stern, Al Gore and acolytes, ending in a boil-up.


According to a book about to be published in Europe later this month, the world is richer, healthier and environmentally better off than ever before.


According to the latest Spectator - which hails the book's author Indur Goklany as an "acclaimed American economist" who served as the US delegate to the United Nations' intergovernmental panel on climate change - The Improving State of the World will provoke "intense controversy".


In this country it will be dismissed as rubbish, especially by those on the extreme left, for whom global warming is a fantastic opportunity to attack wealth and happiness. Climate change is suddenly everyone's New Best Friend, including - Gawd help us - the National Party.
Global warming is the new threat we must "battle", according to the Labour Government. Oh, that must mean all those other battles are over - the war on terror, Asian bird flu, Sars, not to mention racism and oppression against minorities.


But back to Goklany's statistics, for which we can be grateful.
The world's poor, he reckons, now enjoy the most dramatic rise in their standard of living. And, telling us something many of us already know, as countries have abandoned communism, state control and/or poverty, they have become more environmentally clean and their people more healthy.


Here's some statistics: in poor countries, the daily intake of calories per person has increased by 38 per cent since the 1960s to an average of 2666 calories per day, and those countries' populations have increased by 83 per cent in the same period.


There was a 75 per cent decrease in global food prices (in real terms) in the second half of the 20th century, attributable largely to improved agricultural productivity and free trade.
In prosperous countries, the price of essential foodstuffs like flour, bacon and potatoes has dropped by a massive 82 to 92 per cent in the past century, and Goklany notes that similar trends are now evident in developing countries.


In the late 1970s, the number of people subsisting on the equivalent of $1 a day was 16 per cent of the world's population; today it's down to 6 per cent. Now only one fifth of the world lives in absolute poverty.


Which, of course, is no comfort to those hundreds of millions in places like North Korea and sub-Saharan Africa, starving to death as I write. And while we should not simply shrug our shoulders and pretend these dreadful situations don't exist, it doesn't mean we should be so depressingly despondent and pessimistic.


This book, from the previews I have seen, should be required reading for every New Zealand politician over their Christmas break, as they compete to be the most environmentally sanctimonious, and scramble for votes in the process.


You may choose not to believe it, but in 2006 the demand for oil from rich countries actually declined, despite the fact their economies continued to grow.


Climate change, Goklany argues, "might exacerbate existing problems, such as malaria, coastal flooding and habitat loss" but this doesn't justify the "heavy-handed interventionism" advocated in Sir Nicholas Stern's report which trips so easily from the lips of New Zealand MPs at National Radio's microphones.


What they fail to mention is that Stern is head of the British Labour Government's Economic Service and was commissioned by Gordon Brown to write his report on climate change. When the report was released, recommending the setting of carbon emissions targets and a credit purchase system for businesses which exceed them, Brown was reportedly furious.
Goklany argues that it may be cheaper to adapt to higher temperatures than try to stop them.

New Zealand has just suffered the ideal winter for politicians who want to make us all poorer so they can save the planet. Slips, floods, icebergs - we've seen it all. But was it fair to blame global warming? The icebergs took seven years to reach the Dunedin coast.
Old farming codgers remember worse flooding, even in summer. I, for one, was known in our district as the flood baby. Born in February 1953, central Hawke's Bay roads were washed out by rain so a tractor, using a dog chain, towed my mother's car up and over steep farmland to get her to the maternity hospital in time for my birth.

And speaking of babies, Goklany's book says infant mortality is now down to 57 per 1000, vastly improved since the days before industrialisation when at least 200 out of every 1000 children died within 12 months of birth.

But will this make us happy? Absolutely not. It's chic, right now, to be uber-environmentalist. Green is the new black. And black is New Zealand's national colour.

[man with no head]

The great advance in agriculture and the ability to raise caloric intake is because of oil. Without oil there would be no fuel for the machines or the pumps nor the base to make the fertilizers or pesticides that make the growing of so much food possible (not to mention getting it to market far away from the source).

Not only are big American vehicles a threat to the environment but also threaten higher food prices as the price of fuel goes up due to overconsumption and waste. The American fat ass who keeps burning up a gallon of gas to drive himself 5 miles is more of a threat to the average world citizen over the long run than the worst terrorist scum imaginable.

I passed by a house last night that had 5 SUVs out front. Disgusting.

I believe taxing the United States is the wrong approach. I think we should have the balls to make those who buy the wasteful vehicles pay an annual war/environmental tax of 50% per year if such people want to continue to own such vehicles.

[Little Chuchok]

You could start by taxing carparks.Might make people start to look at trains/buses etc.

[man with no head]

Then what does one do when there's no bus or train to go where one needs to go? That's a big problem with where I live: to go into town takes almost 1-2 hours if I'm on the transit system's schedule. Miss one bus and it's 2 hours. 1 hour if things go well.

The reason why high density housing isn't a priority is that the government is addicted to the tax revenues generated by people owning single family homes. A single high rise containing 500 families won't bring in the same revenue.

Mandating elimination or extremely high taxation of high-consumption vehicles is the best approach.

[Little Chuchok]

Well,you would normally start taxing where public transport is available.Say the cities.Make companies pay.

However, If you miss the train,then tough titties.Same as what would happen to anybody that doesn't own a car.

Then start taxing petrol.The USA is one of the cheapest places to buy gas.

See what happens if the govt stick 25% on the cost of a gallon.Those SUV uses will be running for their Minis.

[stroller]

Deborah Coddington: Against the tide of chic climate change gloom

The review indicates that quality of life for us humans has improved, it doesn't even address climate change and its causes.

[Marmite the Dog]

Deborah Coddington: Against the tide of chic climate change gloom

The review indicates that quality of life for us humans has improved, it doesn't even address climate change and its causes.

That's what I was thinking.

[Begbie]

I think what Chuchok is trying to get across is that in order to improve the lot of a great many poor people around the world we've had to damage the environment. True up to a point but it misses the fact that the biggest polluter is fairly well off already.

[man with no head]

And the biggest polluter is about to be eclipsed by another polluter or two who, under the Kyoto Protocol, are not subject to any reductions in emissions.

Is the EU going to apply the same tax to China and India? Or does it not matter since Europe isn't downwind?

And how does one define improvement of life when we are simply moving people away from farms and into slums? What will happen when the oil runs out and the crops fail because some moron in the USA wants to drive an SUV to work 100 miles each way every day?

The way I see it is this: people who present higher risk than the general pool of insured get higher insurance rates. So, set a medium rate of MPG for a vehicle and those who drive vehicles that present more of a risk to the environment pay not only a high annual tax but also automatic higher pump prices based on the vehicle.