AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Chirac to US: Sign Kyoto or be taxed
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Story

Quote:PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.
.....

Wow.
mv Wrote:Story

Quote:PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.
.....

Wow.

Yeah, what Hubris.
Well I guess O'Reilly is still leading the boycott of France. If the French insist on playing this game we'll tax them for not respecting individual liberty. In fact the next time a regional bully rises and they need our help I say we tax them for it and only consider helping them.
mv Wrote:Story

Quote:PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.
.....

Wow.
--------------------
Well. Signing of the Kyoto Protocol is not the only way of handling emissions of greenhouse gases. The US has its own policy and there is no proof that that is any better or worse than if the US had signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Remember that ethanol for replacement of gasoline in automobiles is much more favored in the US than in France with the new policy launched by Bush recently.

The Kyoto Treaty is more of a paper tiger. There is no proof that it really helps against global warming. For example, US emissions of methane have decreased quite some thanks to measures ordered by the EPA at old coal mines and landfills. What are they doing in Europe? Expanding the thirst for Russian natural gas by building new pipelines that will send Russian natural gas into Europe and replace coal in power stations. But the end effect will be increased emissions of methane in Russian arctic areas where the drilling for natural gas (methane) takes place. According to the IPCC, methane is 62 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas measured 20 years after the release to the atmosphere....

/track_snake
It's not a new idea by Chirac, article from last November:
Quote:Irish EU delegate Avril Doyle said the European Commission was considering a punitive tariff on imports from countries guilty of gross environmental irresponsibility. The measure would specifically target Australia and the United States.

An expert committee or "High Level Group (HLG) on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment" created by the EU nine months ago is looking into the issue, according to Doyle. The committee members include EU Industry Commissar Günter Verheugen and German Economic Minister Michael Glos.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,15...68,00.html
The point is guys...global warming is good. Plant lots of trees! We may need to burn them to stave off the next ice age D
Bean
Quote:The Kyoto Treaty is more of a paper tiger. There is no proof that it really helps against global warming. For example, US emissions of methane have decreased quite some thanks to measures ordered by the EPA at old coal mines and landfills. What are they doing in Europe? Expanding the thirst for Russian natural gas by building new pipelines that will send Russian natural gas into Europe and replace coal in power stations. But the end effect will be increased emissions of methane in Russian arctic areas where the drilling for natural gas (methane) takes place. According to the IPCC, methane is 62 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas measured 20 years after the release to the atmosphere....
track_snake,
well, that's actually sad, but let's not forget that the USA is the country that produces more natural gas than Russia, part of it in cool Alaska. Any reason to assume their methan does not damage the climate? Natural gas produces less pollution than coal, and we are shutting down our last coal-mines. In effect, it's a good thing and reduces other pollution too, such as sulfur or dusts. 62 times more powerful after twenty years in the atmosphere, who would have tought that?
The average American uses two or three times more energy than an European or Japanese, there is potential to save something.
I remember times when you opposed ethanol, arguing that planting the crops (and destroying natural environments for it) does more damage than good. The problem is obviously solved. By what, if I may ask?
stroll Wrote:It's not a new idea by Chirac, article from last November:
Quote:Irish EU delegate Avril Doyle said the European Commission was considering a punitive tariff on imports from countries guilty of gross environmental irresponsibility. The measure would specifically target Australia and the United States.

An expert committee or "High Level Group (HLG) on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment" created by the EU nine months ago is looking into the issue, according to Doyle. The committee members include EU Industry Commissar Günter Verheugen and German Economic Minister Michael Glos.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,15...68,00.html

And raising tarriffs for that purpose would be further idiocy on the part of the nations doing such. We went through that, starting in 1929, with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It caused the Crash On Wall Street, AND the following world depression. Tariff wars only hurt EVERYONE, and tend to punish the instigator the worst.

Stupid move.
quadrat Wrote:
Quote:The Kyoto Treaty is more of a paper tiger. There is no proof that it really helps against global warming. For example, US emissions of methane have decreased quite some thanks to measures ordered by the EPA at old coal mines and landfills. What are they doing in Europe? Expanding the thirst for Russian natural gas by building new pipelines that will send Russian natural gas into Europe and replace coal in power stations. But the end effect will be increased emissions of methane in Russian arctic areas where the drilling for natural gas (methane) takes place. According to the IPCC, methane is 62 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas measured 20 years after the release to the atmosphere....
track_snake,
well, that's actually sad, but let's not forget that the USA is the country that produces more natural gas than Russia, part of it in cool Alaska. Any reason to assume their methan does not damage the climate? Natural gas produces less pollution than coal, and we are shutting down our last coal-mines. In effect, it's a good thing and reduces other pollution too, such as sulfur or dusts. 62 times more powerful after twenty years in the atmosphere, who would have tought that?
The average American uses two or three times more energy than an European or Japanese, there is potential to save something.
I remember times when you opposed ethanol, arguing that planting the crops (and destroying natural environments for it) does more damage than good. The problem is obviously solved. By what, if I may ask?
-------------------
Yes, US is also producing natural gas. But the Russian pipelines and drilling methods are causing more methan to leak because they use outdated technology.

Of course there is a potential to save energy in the US, I do not doubt that. But I wanted to point to the fact that Germany is putting much energy in getting this Russian natural gas and that might be less good from an environmental viewpoint.

Correct that I doubt the sense in devastating the rainforests of Brazil in order to increase sugar cane plantations for ethanol production.

To solve the problem? Use nuclear power instead of coal or natural gas. Use ethanol made from corn in the midwest instead of imported ethanol from Brazil. And increase public transportation by rail in major cities.

/track_snake
Like france, Chirac is both delusional and impotent. To tax the U.S. for carbon emissions would be to sign europe's economic death warrant.
Yankeecat Wrote:Like france, Chirac is both delusional and impotent. To tax the U.S. for carbon emissions would be to sign europe's economic death warrant.

I agree, but most likely for entirely different reasons.
Quote:Yes, US is also producing natural gas. But the Russian pipelines and drilling methods are causing more methan to leak because they use outdated technology.
track_snake,
I doubt that. When I lived in the Ural 20 years ago, we build one of the pipelines to Europe and our technology was better than the American one at this time already, mostly Japanese stuff. Caterpillar could not compete with Komatsu. Watched a documentary about the technology the use now, welding robots and such, that's cutting edge. The requirements to technology are tougher in Siberia than in Alaska, due to the hostile climate.
I'm not sure Russia has more Pipeline-kms than the USA either.
I know a Texan living here, who worked for years with Haliburton on Sakhalin (he went now to India). It's not only the Russians who explore their fields, anyway.

Oops, an environmental effort that went sour. Sh*t happens.
Quote:Just a few years ago, politicians and environmental groups in the Netherlands were thrilled by the early and rapid adoption of “sustainable energy,” achieved in part by coaxing electrical plants to use biofuel — in particular, palm oil from Southeast Asia. Enlarge This Image
Spurred by government subsidies, energy companies became so enthusiastic that they designed generators that ran exclusively on the oil, which in theory would be cleaner than fossil fuels like coal because it is derived from plants.
But last year, when scientists studied practices at palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, this green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare.
Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there.
Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Considering these emissions, Indonesia had quickly become the world’s third-leading producer of carbon emissions that scientists believe are responsible for global warming, ranked after the United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both in the Netherlands.
“It was shocking and totally smashed all the good reasons we initially went into palm oil,” said Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands, a conservation group.
The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.
As a result, politicians in many countries are rethinking the billions of dollars in subsidies that have indiscriminately supported the spread of all of these supposedly eco-friendly fuels for vehicles and factories. The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which demands that all member states aim to have 5.75 percent of transportation run by biofuel in 2010, is now under review.
“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.”
He added, “It’s important to take a life-cycle view,” and not to “just see what the effects are here in Europe.”
In the Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has provoked soul-searching, and helped prompt the government to suspend palm oil subsidies. The Netherlands, a leader in green energy, is now leading the effort to distinguish which biofuels are truly environmentally sound.
The government, environmental groups and some of the Netherlands’ “green energy” companies are trying to develop programs to trace the origins of imported palm oil, to certify which operations produce the oil in a responsible manner.
Krista van Velzen, a member of Parliament, said the Netherlands should pay compensation to Indonesia for the damage that palm oil has caused. “We can’t only think: does it pollute the Netherlands?”
In the United States and Brazil most biofuel is ethanol (made from corn in the United States and sugar in Brazil), used to power vehicles made to run on gasoline. In Europe it is mostly local rapeseed and sunflower oil, used to make diesel fuel.
In a small number of instances, plant oil is used in place of diesel fuel, without further refinement. But as many European countries push for more green energy, they are increasingly importing plant oils from the tropics, since there is simply not enough plant matter for fuel production at home.
More from New York Times, registration required.