NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

Just to protect ecoomic interests ? Not because polluting is a crime against humanity ?
How silly.

Especially now that the Pope has officially declared polluting to be a Sin - that should carry weight in the USA.

good, the us and china should adopt higher standards.

This, from the article, seems more likely:

Exemptions instead?
As an alternative, Germany wants an agreement within Europe that would exempt heavily polluting industries such as steel and cement from the cuts demanded by the EU plan, which are estimated to cost industry $78 billion.

Also note that the title contained a question mark, meaning there hasn't been a threat and MSNBC is covering its ass.

This, from the article, seems more likely

While it seems more likely, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of the carbon-cutting targets if they exempted the greatest polluters?

78 billion! Haha! Thats hilarious! Europe is totally fisting itself in the ass. I hope the rest of the world does the sensible thing and laughs at Europe for being so stupid.

Especially now that the Pope has officially declared polluting to be a Sin - that should carry weight in the USA.

Lol, you apparently don't realize that Catholics aren't exactly trusted in the US, either.

78 billion! Haha! Thats hilarious! Europe is totally fisting itself in the ass. I hope the rest of the world does the sensible thing and laughs at Europe for being so stupid.

lol, imagine the size of that fist?! Where would the ass of Europe be? France?

Good stuff! Let's ban their awful cars as well.

While it seems more likely, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of the carbon-cutting targets if they exempted the greatest polluters?The carbon cutting is quite strict, and the heaviest polluting industries won't necessarily get away at all. This initiative is focussed on industries that are already pushing the limits of carbon-cutting.

Just to protect ecoomic interests ? Not because polluting is a crime against humanity ?
How silly.

Especially now that the Pope has officially declared polluting to be a Sin - that should carry weight in the USA.

When was the last time the the US changed policy for the Pope?

When was the last time the the US changed policy for the Pope?

It's an election year :p
But that sentence was not intended to be taken seriously.

Come to think of it this would help Boeing with that airforce tanker deal. Sanctions would only anger the US into bitch slapping Europe with even steeper sanctions and I also wonder how this would play out with the WTO?

I hope that Europe actually does make said threat and follows through. Its about damn time that someone does to the US what we do to everyone else (threaten sanctions if we dont get our way).

Good show. This should give the US and China some incentives to be responsible.

Is it not noteworthy that they are trying to do this as a means of dictating other country's internal policies.

Something else I'm thinking. By adopting sanctions, would not the Europeans be banning themselves from the combined American/Chinese markets which, when combined, are bigger than the European market?

Is it not noteworthy that they are trying to do this as a means of dictating other country's internal policies.

Pollution tends to have very little respect for borders.

I hope that Europe actually does make said threat and follows through. Its about damn time that someone does to the US what we do to everyone else (threaten sanctions if we dont get our way).

Actually US does use sanctions to influence other nation's internal policies. But not always.

Perhaps Europe is learning new stuff from US. There are hints that China is learning to do this too, as far as its relations with its neighbors.

Is it not noteworthy that they are trying to do this as a means of dictating other country's internal policies.Not relevant, seeing as atmospheric pollution is not an internal problem.

Pollution tends to have very little respect for borders.

Nope it does not. That is what creates the conflict in cases like these.

Lol, you apparently don't realize that Catholics aren't exactly trusted in the US, either.

Depends where you go. For instance the city of boston massachusetts has not elected a non catholic mayor in over 200 years and most of the state reps/senators have catholic heritage. Thats just new england in general for ya though.

Something else I'm thinking. By adopting sanctions, would not the Europeans be banning themselves from the combined American/Chinese markets which, when combined, are bigger than the European market?Then again, banning themselves from the American and Chinese markets will avoid ruinous sales to countries with the dollar or with currencies pegged to the dollar, and could be beneficial to the Europeans in the long run. Though I doubt that's what the sanctions would look like. Punitive tariffs on the relevant exports are more likely.

I think this is seriously going to hurt our economy in the US that is already suffering!
It's like Europe is doing this because since the US is having problems right now and China's economy is growing they want to put a tap on it! :sniper:

i've been drinking a bit of coffee to much but i'll say:

BOM.. err wait, NUKE USA!!! mother earth herself will thanks us all...

I think this is seriously going to hurt our economy in the US that is already suffering!

All your own doing.

It's like Europe is doing this because since the US is having problems right now and China's economy is growing they want to put a tap on it! :sniper:

Actually people have been calling for pollution reduction for several decades. The USA had plenty of time to adjust.

Something else I'm thinking. By adopting sanctions, would not the Europeans be banning themselves from the combined American/Chinese markets which, when combined, are bigger than the European market?


I think this would end up bad for the Europeans. The US and China would respond with sanctions of their own. They both have the economic weight to throw around. Europe should know that if you hit a pair of tigers with a stick you will get a response.

All your own doing.



Actually people have been calling for pollution reduction for several decades. The USA had plenty of time to adjust.


Kyoto Treaty anyone?

People in glass houses should be very wary of throwing stones.

Considering the apparently high level of Chinese nationalism at the moment,
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23644788/ )

I don't think the Chinese are going to like Europe is trying to do. They're going to piss off, not just the regime in Beijing, but the majority of the nation's 2 billion plus population which if I'm correct outnumber Europes. Not to mention America's. In fact USA and Europe together still don't approach China in term of population.

Considering the apparently high level of Chinese nationalism at the moment,
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23644788/ )

I don't think the Chinese are going to like Europe is trying to do. They're going to piss off, not just the regime in Beijing, but the majority of the nation's 2 billion plus population which if I'm correct outnumber Europes. Not to mention America's. In fact USA and Europe together still don't approach China in term of population.


China can get pissed all it wants. The US and Europe are the reason their economy is going anywhere.

If they do anything to either group, all it takes is for a market to close and their economy is f-u-c-k-e-d.

Considering the apparently high level of Chinese nationalism at the moment,
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23644788/ )

I don't think the Chinese are going to like Europe is trying to do. They're going to piss off, not just the regime in Beijing, but the majority of the nation's 2 billion plus population which if I'm correct outnumber Europes. Not to mention America's. In fact USA and Europe together still don't approach China in term of population.

Bit of an exaggeration there. T'is approx 1.3 billion as of last July

China can get pissed all it wants. The US and Europe are the reason their economy is going anywhere.

If they do anything to either group, all it takes is for a market to close and their economy is f-u-c-k-e-d.

China owes much to the west. Funny how they don't act like it sometimes.

good, the us and china should adopt higher standards.

Indeed we should but not because of the threat of economic sancations from Europe. By doing this all Europe is doing is pushing the US closer to China economically. If we can't get it from Europe and niether cna China we will ahve to get what we need from each other. Therefore pushing them together. It is bad economically and politically on Europe's part. Whoever thought this up should be removed from office for idiotic solutions to the problem. They should have threatened the US and China with closer economic ties if they clean their acts up.

There are enough pollution problems in Europe itself, which the EU can´t manage themselves. Just look at the air quality in London, Ruhr area, sour rains, poor water quality of rivers, chemicals and oil dumped in the Rhine river. The EU should first solve a lot of domestic pollution and waste-crises ( just look at Naples area in Italy, The EU has still not demanded Italy to solve the problems there ) instead of threatening other countries. Touch of hypocrisy there.

Bit of an exaggeration there. T'is approx 1.3 billion as of last July

I knew it was over 1 billion but not sure if it passed the 2 bill mark yet.

There are enough pollution problems in Europe itself, which the EU can´t manage themselves. Just look at the air quality in London, Ruhr area, sour rains, poor water quality of rivers, chemicals and oil dumped in the Rhine river. The EU should first solve a lot of domestic pollution and waste-crises ( just look at Naples area in Italy, The EU has still not demanded Italy to solve the problems there ) instead of threatening other countries. Touch of hypocrisy there.

Eeehm - the EU is saying it IS going to tackle those problems. It wants the USA to do the same at the same time or it will be forced to add huge import fines to US products. After all, expecting a company that has to invest a few billion in clean production methods to compete with one who can just dump whatever they want whereever they want is a tad bit unfair. Especially if the goal is to reduce pollution - not to have the USA to produce twice as much.

Where is the hypocrisy ? True, the EU could also have chosen for subsidizing all those environmentally friendly companies to let them remain competative... but why should they ? Pollution is a global problem. It is not a "right".

lol, imagine the size of that fist?! Where would the ass of Europe be? France?

Well, yes, but more specifically:

http://www.transerial.com/disneyland-paris-eurodisney1.gif

Comments? Opinions?

They'll buy out the poorer nations and break unity that way, so any talk of "sanctions" is just talk.

good, this new E.U that can kick arse and take names intrigues me

Indeed we should but not because of the threat of economic sancations from Europe.

well we tried being nice in case you missed something

Just look at the air quality in London,

er...no smog and the Salmon are back for the first time in 200 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/6495303.stm)

Rock on europe, show give those Yanks the what-for!

Great, so now the EU assumes it has the authority to tell me what to do now, and not just the Federal government. Hopefully they will be ignored so that they don't get the idea that they can freely dictate what controls they want over industry.

I hope that Europe actually does make said threat and follows through. Its about damn time that someone does to the US what we do to everyone else (threaten sanctions if we dont get our way).

If they want to hurt their own economy....

Kyoto Treaty anyone?

Um...we never ratified it :D

Great, so now the EU assumes it has the authority to tell me what to do now, and not just the Federal government.

you seem to have somehow missed all those U.N human rights treaties

and really its nothing more than the E.U making sure it stays competitive with no real risk of the US doing anything about it

If they want to hurt their own economy....

what is the US planning on doing exactly? I mean if you impose sanctions the E.U has a very real chance of becoming a legitimate political entity by using the US as a bogeyman (along with having a big steamer on the economy at a vulnerable time)

course its not like you didn't see this coming is it?

Hopefully they will be ignored so that they don't get the idea that they can freely dictate what controls they want over industry.

Isn't that what the us love to do? be it economically, politically, whatever...

*snip*

Considering the fact that the US is cleaning up its own mess, we are doing it in such a way as to not fully disrupt our own economy. Afterall...enviro-friendly cars are beginning to roll of the construction line as it is.

And on top of that, it appears it is not worth mentioning on the CNN world page.

I think the European Union made a smart decision,it will not only benefit European nations,but also the Earth in general.

I think the European Union made a smart decision,it will not only benefit European nations,but also the Earth in general.

So where is India on the list?

For crying out loud EU, you couldn't just keep your mouths shut for about a year? Obama or Clinton will win the election, and start taking larger strides towards what needs to be done.

Of course, I forgot that the U.S. is a hive-mind of pollution advocates who want no progress to be made on the issue. :rolleyes:

If the EU does not threaten the same sanctions against Russia, India, Japan, and Canada, it will be nothing but hypocritical BS, and justly ignored.

you seem to have somehow missed all those U.N human rights treaties

and really its nothing more than the E.U making sure it stays competitive with no real risk of the US doing anything about it



what is the US planning on doing exactly? I mean if you impose sanctions the E.U has a very real chance of becoming a legitimate political entity by using the US as a bogeyman (along with having a big steamer on the economy at a vulnerable time)

course its not like you didn't see this coming is it?

Right. Half of the Human Rights Treaties were proposed by the US. Human Rights argument is a two way street between US and Europe.
US took human rights from UK (via immigration pre US). Rest of Europe got humans rights idea from US (via US diplomacy and alliances). So we took it from them and then gave it back to them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

Good

Ahh, I can just imagine the conversation that took place before this one.

(Imagine, if you will, a bunch of EU leaders gathered in a pub in, say, Germany.)
"Dude, dude, I've got an idea!"
"What? Whassat? You wanftbouit?"
"Quiet, Stanislav. Dudes, listen, I am TOTALY going to threaten the US and China with sanctions tommorow morning!"
"DUDE! You wont!"
"I WILL!"
"DUDE! Thats awesome! Youre awesome! This drink is awesome!"
"Dude, thats not-"
"STOPTALKINABOUMAHWIFE!"
"Dammit Stanislav!"

you seem to have somehow missed all those U.N human rights treaties

Yes, there is the UN too, but thankfully they are more-or-less toothless and thus do not have much power to boss me around. However, the threat of sanctions from the EU is more likely to do me and others harm.

and really its nothing more than the E.U making sure it stays competitive with no real risk of the US doing anything about it

They have no right to be competitive, especially not through force by expropriating rights to exchange and contract. Quite simply, I find their belief that they have the right to make such an interference and harm me rather menacing and as such oppose it vociferously.

we are doing it in such a way as to not fully disrupt our own economy.

yes, Europe is clearly an economic hell hole at this point

oh why oh why did they have to set strict regulations on pollution?

Afterall...enviro-friendly cars are beginning to roll of the construction line as it is.

at the same time Europe is penalizing car makers who produce excessive pollution, but then again this is little to do with just the car industry

And on top of that, it appears it is not worth mentioning on the CNN world page.

nor BBC nor anyone really, its the EU in action:p

US took human rights from UK (via immigration pre US). Rest of Europe got humans rights idea from US (via US diplomacy and alliances). So we took it from them and then gave it back to them.

wha...what?

Yes, there is the UN too, but thankfully they are more-or-less toothless and thus do not have much power to boss me around. However, the threat of sanctions from the EU is more likely to do me and others harm.

the E.U doesn't play with jerks, its not like where about to start bombing you or anything we just won't play

They have no right to be competitive, especially not through force by expropriating rights to exchange and contract. Quite simply, I find their belief that they have the right to make such an interference and harm me rather menacing and as such oppose it vociferously.

tough love the EU doesn't like pollution so naturally you can either conform or trade somewhere else

It actually sounds like they're really reaching for a way to offset the appreciation of the Euro and the pressure that the yuan and dollar place on their exporters. After all, they stand to lose from a weaker dollar and a stronger Euro rather than gain, especially with their continued reliance on exports as a major sector of the Eurozone's economy.

It's entirely suspect, considering that Brazil, India and Russia aren't even mentioned; not coincidentally, the Eurozone imports a lot of commodities from Russia and has comparatively little influence in the Indian and Brazilian markets.

the E.U doesn't play with jerks, its not like where about to start bombing you or anything we just won't play

Actually, you will just prevent those who want to play from doing so at gunpoint. The 'we' on whose behalf you speak of is an abstraction with no connection to reality.

tough love the EU doesn't like pollution so naturally you can either conform or trade somewhere else

If I make something that someone in Europe wants to buy, no EU politician has a right to step in and block our transaction. Quite frankly, the cretins in Washington telling me what I can and can't do irritate me enough; I most certainly do not want some people on the other side of the world getting the impression that they are my master, too.

Isn't that what the us love to do? be it economically, politically, whatever...

It is what the Feds like to do, yes, which is why I vociferously oppose them too. But the Federal government's evils do not excuse the evils of others.

Great, so now the EU assumes it has the authority to tell me what to do now, and not just the Federal government. Hopefully they will be ignored so that they don't get the idea that they can freely dictate what controls they want over industry.

Amen. Since when does the EU have authority over the practices in countries on other continents. i am not saying that pollution isn't bad. it is and it needs to be curbed but they have no right to tell others how to run their lives. It may be a European world but only because of their colonial explotation of others. Now they want to tell others how to run their industries to make things fairer for themselves. They no longer wiled the power they used to. Fighting amongst themselves in World Wars I and II ended that. They should just settle for the fact that power has passed to the nations of the Far East and the United States. I don't care if people call me a moron or a nationalist freak. I am a realist. Europe has toface the truth. The world is changing from a European world to something new and they no longer have as much power. they need to deal with that reality before it bites them in the butt.

Just to protect ecoomic interests ? Not because polluting is a crime against humanity ?
How silly.
It's an all-American reason though. Economics is the only thing besides fear that can work Americans.

Amen. Since when does the EU have authority over the practices in countries on other continents. i am not saying that pollution isn't bad. it is and it needs to be curbed but they have no right to tell others how to run their lives. It may be a European world but only because of their colonial explotation of others. Now they want to tell others how to run their industries to make things fairer for themselves. They no longer wiled the power they used to. Fighting amongst themselves in World Wars I and II ended that. They should just settle for the fact that power has passed to the nations of the Far East and the United States. I don't care if people call me a moron or a nationalist freak. I am a realist. Europe has toface the truth. The world is changing from a European world to something new and they no longer have as much power. they need to deal with that reality before it bites them in the butt.

Well, if you were to look at history, you'd realise the EU is the answer to WWI and WWII, as well as increased competition. Where before, they would each set up sanctions against each other all the time, the EU was a step towards a Europe with fewer borders.

They're not telling other people how to run their lives though. They're telling them that if they won't conform to certain standards, then there's no point in trading with them, since obviously any goods they buy will be 'tainted'. Would you honestly buy products from a sweatshop, for example?

When it comes to pollution prevention, the EU countries ON AVERAGE have tighter regulations that are enforced better than most States in the US - and didn't someone sue the State of California when they wanted to put tighter regulations on?

As for China... I feel the word for "ecological solutions" would be something like "laughing at you, fool". >_>

They're not telling other people how to run their lives though.

They ARE, however, telling exactly that to the countries that make up the union. Less nitpickety directives would make for a more effective coalition, IMHO.

(I live in EU, I'm allowed to complain. :p)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

Yar!
Man the cannons!
Open fire!
ha har!
Oh no there's two of them, one on each of our bows captain!
Blast them both to join the ancestors in valhalla!
yar
wonder what UN says about this?

They ARE, however, telling exactly that to the countries that make up the union. Less nitpickety directives would make for a more effective coalition, IMHO.

(I live in EU, I'm allowed to complain. :p)

The countries that make up the union agree to it, plus you get a vote for the EU parliament, so you've got at least two methods of real complaining :p

The countries that make up the union agree to it, plus you get a vote for the EU parliament, so you've got at least two methods of real complaining :p

But what happens when Germany tries to secede from the Union over environmental regulations? I see a civil war coming.

Just to protect ecoomic interests ? Not because polluting is a crime against humanity ?
How silly.


merely couching it in language they understand i think.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

*snorts* *burst out laughing* *walks away laughing*

China owes much to the west. Funny how they don't act like it sometimes.

The US owes much more to Europe ie its existence. Liking all the apreciation we're getting.

Good for the EU I say. It may all end up like the three superstates in 1984 but good for them.

The European Union can't tell us what to do. We're not in that little cult. LOL

And I read more in that thing.. lol, France threatening the U.S.? ROFL LMAO LOL ROFLCOPTER

The European Union can't tell us what to do. We're not in that little cult. LOL

You are trading with it though. And your pollution tends to ignore your borders.
If the EU is seriously going to deal with pollution, it only makes sense to impair trading with economic powers that do not.

Aside from which _ I believe a case can be made for saying that the rest of the world owns the USA. So start working for me, you horrible little debtor :p

1) Not to be taken seriously. It's just some overenthusiastic PR-savvy eurocrats getting their 12 minutes of fame. There are no sanctions coming.

2) I love the way threads like this spawn n00bs.

3) The point of unilateral action on something bad isn't to then go and say: "look, we're suffering, now you suffer too!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

Psshh... Europe wouldn't back such a sanction if it came down to it... just like they wouldn't back actual action in Iraq, N. Korea, or Iran.

Aside from which _ I believe a case can be made for saying that the rest of the world owns the USA. So start working for me, you horrible little debtor :p

WWII....

You fail.

But what happens when Germany tries to secede from the Union over environmental regulations? I see a civil war coming.Now that's just fucking stupid.

WWII....

You fail.

WWII was over 50 years ago. The USA being in debt is now.

WWII was over 50 years ago. The USA being in debt is now.

The countries we saved are still around.

Their debt is still around.

Or do you prefer the idea that America should've just taken over Europe and N Africa, and much of Japan after WWII?

Didn't think so, in which case, they still owe us for their existence.

The countries we saved are still around.

Their debt is still around.No it's not. Germany's paid back what it owed from the Marshall plan, and I imagine other countries have done the same.

The countries we saved are still around.

Their debt is still around.

Their moral debt is, yes.
Shall we convert it to dollars ?

Didn't think so, in which case, they still owe us for their existence.

Welll... if we go further back in history I also notice some things the USA owes the rest of the world for. Its existence for instance ;)
How far back will we take history, and how are we going to tally up all the debts - moral and financial ?

No it's not. Germany's paid back what it owed from the Marshall plan, and I imagine other countries have done the same.

Not the debt I was referring to.

WWII....
The only sense I can make of this is that you think the ability of the US government to use violence against others somehow changes ownership relations, in which case I'd have to call you some version of an ebil commie.

Otherwise, the US owes the outside world a lot of money. And since debt holders of an entity are generally said to have first claims on any cash flows of this entity (before equity holders, that is in this case US citizens), he makes a valid point. Essentially, more than $12 trillion worth of USA is owned by foreigners.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

Hmmm...a couple of things immediately come to mind....One...who made the EU the pollution police of the world? Just curious. Two...who is fooled by this that it sounds like it is pollution police, when it is really the economy police?

I mean come on, they put themselves in a corner creating their own disadvantage by enacting such strict pollution standards for themselves. Now their industry feels cheated and the answer is to penalize the US and China for it?
Tsk, tsk. *yawn*

Not the debt I was referring to.There is no other debt that even remotely implies ownership.

I mean come on, they put themselves in a corner creating their own disadvantage by enacting such strict pollution standards for themselves. Now their industry feels cheated and the answer is to penalize the US and China for it?
Tsk, tsk. *yawn*

Why tsktsk ? It is the only reasonable position.

Unless you can provide an alternative ?

Hmmm...a couple of things immediately come to mind....One...who made the EU the pollution police of the world? Just curious. The EU is merely enacting things that pertain to its territory. No "world" and no "police" involved whatsoever.
Two...who is fooled by this that it sounds like it is pollution police, when it is really the economy police? Not relevant, see above.
I mean come on, they put themselves in a corner creating their own disadvantage by enacting such strict pollution standards for themselves. Now their industry feels cheated and the answer is to penalize the US and China for it?
Tsk, tsk. *yawn*Not the US and China as a whole, just the products and services that don't meet European quality standards.

No it's not. Germany's paid back what it owed from the Marshall plan, and I imagine other countries have done the same.

Yeah, but did they ever pay for the WWI bill we stuck them with at Versailles?

The only sense I can make of this is that you think the ability of the US government to use violence against others somehow changes ownership relations, in which case I'd have to call you some version of an ebil commie.

Otherwise, the US owes the outside world a lot of money. And since debt holders of an entity are generally said to have first claims on any cash flows of this entity (before equity holders, that is in this case US citizens), he makes a valid point. Essentially, more than $12 trillion worth of USA is owned by foreigners.

Incidentally, aren't there a few countries that owe the U.S. some money?

The EU is merely enacting things that pertain to its territory. No "world" and no "police" involved whatsoever.
Not relevant, see above.
Not the US and China as a whole, just the products and services that don't meet European quality standards.

I see. I have no problem if the EU doesn't want to purchase from us. It is a way for them to prop their industry that is suffering. We have basically done the same here in times.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't a lot of posturing. It will be interesting to see who needs who more in reality.

Yeah, but did they ever pay for the WWI bill we stuck them with at Versailles?Doesn't pertain to WWII as mentioned by Teutoniker, and should be finished by 2010. Also, Germany was not required to pay until it was reunified, but West Germany still payed reparations none-the-less.

I see. I have no problem if the EU doesn't want to purchase from us. It is a way for them to prop their industry that is suffering. We have basically done the same here in times.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't a lot of posturing. It will be interesting to see who needs who more in reality.We'll see. The EU has been cutting dependence on the US for trade quite a lot since the oil crisis, which is why the dollar becoming so worthless hasn't had quite the negative impact on exports as expected.

The countries that make up the union agree to it, plus you get a vote for the EU parliament, so you've got at least two methods of real complaining :p

If those methods actually had any effect, there'd probably be a directive against it. Plus I was too young to vote when my country voted for the membership. It was a close call even then.

They say that if the vote was taken now, we'd probably secede from it, since people only hear about the negative effects (yeay for media engorging on negative sides of everything) of the union. My personal opinion: EU is pretty good for the large, Mid-European countries. The smaller ones should leave the rest well enough alone and get rid of the fattened bureaucracy it has caused.

Incidentally, aren't there a few countries that owe the U.S. some money?

Oh definately. The net debt of the USA is less than it seems - but it still is a debt.

WWII was over 50 years ago.

You sure about that? Whenever USA and Europe come up as adversaries, WW2 is readily inhumed from its grave.

The countries we saved are still around.

Their debt is still around.

Nuh-uh. Germany paid, my country paid - most of the losing side countries actually paid up. If you want to talk about debt, how about USA not paying its UN fees for what, decades? How about USA never paying the reparations assigned to it - at least not without forcing good trade deals or such into place.

Plus there was no help from the USA to my country, so don't generalize.

countries with the dollar or with currencies pegged to the dollar

More and more countries are moving or considering to move over to using euro as the currency to compare theirs with, due to the record-low price of the USD currently.

More of yuan/dollar/euro here: http://www.einnews.com/china/newsfeed-yuan

And here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2007-11-23-dollar-fri_N.htm

China can get pissed all it wants. The US and Europe are the reason their economy is going anywhere.

If they do anything to either group, all it takes is for a market to close and their economy is f-u-c-k-e-d.

Actually the Asia is forming its own economy, led by China and India. Japan is considered to be part of the West, as is to most sides involved, the South Korea.

China owes much to the west. Funny how they don't act like it sometimes.

The West oves much, much more to China. It's funny how people don't act like it sometimes.

By doing this all Europe is doing is pushing the US closer to China economically.

Well they already are becoming closer ecologically, so you just need to switch a couple of letters and there you have it.

Great, so now the EU assumes it has the authority to tell me what to do now, and not just the Federal government.

...like the USA is doing in Iraq, perchance? Or several Mid and South American countries? Or trying to do with the damn world in general?

Um...we never ratified it :D

Hence the current problems.

Afterall...enviro-friendly cars are beginning to roll of the construction line as it is.

Their production is far from enviro-friendly. But really, all US needs to do to cut a lot of unnecessary pollution is to bring up the gasoline prices. Even the "record high" following Katrina was barely a third of what we pay over here. Would urge people switching over to better cars better than any "ecological street cred".

Half of the Human Rights Treaties were proposed by the US.

And all of them are currently ignored by the US government when it suits them.

Since when does the EU have authority over the practices in countries on other continents.

*snip*

but they have no right to tell others how to run their lives. It may be a European world but only because of their colonial explotation of others. Now they want to tell others how to run their industries to make things fairer for themselves. They no longer wield the power they used to.

*snip*

They should just settle for the fact that power has passed to the nations of the Far East and the US.

*snip*

Europe has toface the truth. The world is changing from a European world to something new and they no longer have as much power. they need to deal with that reality before it bites them in the butt.

Change each 'Europe' to 'USA' and the US to EU and there you have it. Couldn't have put it better myself. LOL.

But what happens when Germany tries to secede from the Union over environmental regulations? I see a civil war coming.

Civil war? In which country? Unlike USA, EU is made up of independent countries that form a coalition, not a federal state.

america threatens america. its about time europe and asia stopped getting screwed over by superpower hedgemony. its bad enough it picks on places it can use its army to back its mafia.

its about time europe and asia started being able to and actually do, rebuild their real transportation alternatives instead of being coerced into america's worship of the automobile its trying to force on everyone else.

china's come from behind position is one that makes understandable cutting it a little slack. but only a little, considering its own forign policies are nearly as messed up as america's. in some ways perhapse worse.

but for america itself, there's no excuse at all, and international sanctions would be entirely appropriate.

=^^=
.../\...

Eeehm - the EU is saying it IS going to tackle those problems. It wants the USA to do the same at the same time or it will be forced to add huge import fines to US products. After all, expecting a company that has to invest a few billion in clean production methods to compete with one who can just dump whatever they want whereever they want is a tad bit unfair. Especially if the goal is to reduce pollution - not to have the USA to produce twice as much.

Where is the hypocrisy ? True, the EU could also have chosen for subsidizing all those environmentally friendly companies to let them remain competative... but why should they ? Pollution is a global problem. It is not a "right".

The aim is good, but the hypocrisy is the EU demanding other countries to take more measures, whereas they don't dare to force Italy to solve it's problems around Naples. And Italy is part of the EU...

The aim is good, but the hypocrisy is the EU demanding other countries to take more measures, whereas they don't dare to force Italy to solve it's problems around Naples. And Italy is part of the EU...The issue at hand is carbon dioxide emissions, not waste management. What you're saying is not logical.

Incidentally, aren't there a few countries that owe the U.S. some money?
There are, but the amount is much less. The US is a net debtor and has been for some time.

The aim is good, but the hypocrisy is the EU demanding other countries to take more measures, whereas they don't dare to force Italy to solve it's problems around Naples. And Italy is part of the EU...

As I understand it, the EU is simply going to hold all companies to the same standard. European or not. They will start with focusing on CO2 emissions instead of wastedumping, but the waste dumping will probably be addressed. And then the US companies will again be required to comply with European rules if they want to sell their stuff in Europe.

To me this seems both fair and wise.

The aim is good, but the hypocrisy is the EU demanding other countries to take more measures, whereas they don't dare to force Italy to solve it's problems around Naples. And Italy is part of the EU...

Waste doesn't cause global warming in other countries, it's a national problem, not international. And it's not hypocritical if the EU forces their own companies to follow the same standards.

Their production is far from enviro-friendly. But really, all US needs to do to cut a lot of unnecessary pollution is to bring up the gasoline prices.

And that will royally screw me because I have a travel heavy job as an official. Gas prices keeps going up and up and I may not be able to do that which means I will lose money. Thanks but no thanks.

Hence the current problems.

Excuse us for looking after our economy. Besides that Kyoto was a class A fucking joke.

Excuse us for looking after our economy. No.
Besides that Kyoto was a class A fucking joke.Indeed, it wasn't near strict enough.

Waste doesn't cause global warming in other countries, it's a national problem, not international. And it's not hypocritical if the EU forces their own companies to follow the same standards.It does, but that mainly depends on the type of waste and isn't the primary concern of waste management.

No.

So you would rather have a major economy in the fucking toilet?

Indeed, it wasn't near strict enough.

No it excluded to many nations for it to be effective.

So you would rather have a major economy in the fucking toilet?Prove that the US economy would have tanked. Europe has surprisingly enough fared rather well despite keeping in line with Kyoto.
No it excluded to many nations for it to be effective.And it didn't demand enough in the first place.

No it excluded to many nations for it to be effective.

Even if all countries on the planet participated Kyoto would still be ineffective. It was and is a silly political treaty, more intended to make a statement of intent than to be actually useful.

...like the USA is doing in Iraq, perchance? Or several Mid and South American countries? Or trying to do with the damn world in general?

Who ever said I liked the Federal government? This ad hominem tu quoque of "the US does harm, so the EU should be able to do harm too" is quite simply non-sensical; both are adversarial to my interests, and I do not want the latter to get the impression that it, too, is my master.

Who ever said I liked the Federal government? This ad hominem tu quoque of "the US does harm, so the EU should be able to do harm too" is quite simply non-sensical; both are adversarial to my interests, and I do not want the latter to get the impression that it, too, is my master.How exactly would penalizing imported steel or cars make you a slave to the European Union?

How exactly would penalizing imported steel or cars make you a slave to the European Union?

Because it violates my freedom of contract and exchange, and impoverishes me (imports must be matched by exports, after all, and that means that European goods will become more costly for me and there will be fewer job opportunities and lower wages.) Not to mention that this would set a precedent for the EU if it believes that it can impose whatever economic controls it wants to on the US.

Because it violates my freedom of contract and exchange, and impoverishes me (imports must be matched by exports, after all, and that means that European goods will become more costly for me and there will be fewer job opportunities and lower wages.) Not to mention that this would set a precedent for the EU if it believes that it can impose whatever economic controls it wants to on the US.

Eeehm - it remains a simple matter of supply and demand.
Europe is warning you in advance it will only want clean products in the future. Up to you if you wish to be a supplier or not.

Unless of course you believe Europe should be forced to accept US products ?

Because it violates my freedom of contract and exchange, and impoverishes me (imports must be matched by exports, after all, and that means that European goods will become more costly for me and there will be fewer job opportunities and lower wages.) Last I heard, there was no right to cheap products.
Not to mention that this would set a precedent for the EU if it believes that it can impose whatever economic controls it wants to on the US.And?

The anti-US crowd can jump for joy all they want, but the fact of the matter is that the WTO will not allow such sanctions.

The anti-US crowd can jump for joy all they want, but the fact of the matter is that the WTO will not allow such sanctions.

Why not ? (serious question). US companies that comply to European standards will be free to trade.
US companies that have been ignoring the signs of the past 20 years.. well.. maybe they should have planned ahead a tiny bit ?

Come to think of it this would help Boeing with that airforce tanker deal. Sanctions would only anger the US into bitch slapping Europe with even steeper sanctions and I also wonder how this would play out with the WTO?


USA is much more dpendent on europe then europe is dependent on USA
so that would be like shooting yourself in the foot.

Pollution is a global problem. It is not a "right".

I couldn't agree more. Deliberate pollution and environmental destruction should be considered crimes against humanity, if you ask me.

USA is much more dpendent on europe then europe is dependent on USA
so that would be like shooting yourself in the foot.I'd like to see some support for that, actually...

Last I heard, there was no right to cheap products.

There is a right to be able to trade as one wishes without some goons telling you that you cannot, and being that one prefers more goods over less this would violate my right to exchange for inexpensive goods that I am willing to trade for.

And?

And I don't want to have to deal with degenerates in both Washington and Brussels, so I sure as hell don't want the EU to get the impression that they have the right to legislate what my rights aren't.

Eeehm - it remains a simple matter of supply and demand.
Europe is warning you in advance it will only want clean products in the future. Up to you if you wish to be a supplier or not.

Unless of course you believe Europe should be forced to accept US products ?

'Europe' is not telling me that it will only want clean products; a bunch of guys with guns are saying that they will block transactions between myself and a willing partner in Europe by way of force. They quite frankly have no right to do so.

Why not ? (serious question). US companies that comply to European standards will be free to trade.
US companies that have been ignoring the signs of the past 20 years.. well.. maybe they should have planned ahead a tiny bit ?

While US companies should reduce emissions and the government should force a more active role, the WTO will still not like this. These sanctions will trigger a major trade war.

When the US has a major trading deficit with its partners, Europe will actually have more to lose than the US does. China will buy more US goods and less European goods as a result of this. Europe cannot afford to lose the world's largest trading market.

There is a right to be able to trade as one wishes without some goons telling you that you cannot, and being that one prefers more goods over less this would violate my right to exchange for inexpensive goods that I am willing to trade for.You are mistaken.
And I don't want to have to deal with degenerates in both Washington and Brussels, so I sure as hell don't want the EU to get the impression that they have the right to legislate what my rights aren't.Pertaining to EU territory (and by extension what enters it), the EU sure as hell has the right to legislate your rights.

Because it violates my freedom of contract and exchange, and impoverishes me (imports must be matched by exports, after all, and that means that European goods will become more costly for me and there will be fewer job opportunities and lower wages.) Not to mention that this would set a precedent for the EU if it believes that it can impose whatever economic controls it wants to on the US.

All prices violate your freedom of contract and exchange if you can't afford them. It is the supplier who gets to chose the price and terms- you merely agree to them, and fulfill your part of the bargain.

No-one ever said that there would be a freedom from poverty.

'Europe' is not telling me that it will only want clean products; a bunch of guys with guns are saying that they will block transactions between myself and a willing partner in Europe by way of force. They quite frankly have no right to do so.

Well, the alternative is that they arrest your willing tradingpartner after the exchange has been made and they are trying to distribute it on the European market.
While that is nice for you - you are getting paid - the amount of recipients will soon dry up. We are not talking about easily hidden goods here after all.

Well well well...

" Fucking Europeans wanting to reduce pollution ! They have no right to do this ! They have no right to do this to me, proud US citizen ! I want to fuck the world and kill my childrens in the name of the Holy Market, and they have no right to stop me from doing this !!! "

Seriously guys, some of you got REAL issues.

I hope that, for once, EU will do as we said...

You speak of free market ?

Do you only know how protectionnist the US economy is ?
How much money your government throw to your farmers every years ?
Or should we speak of the massive protectionnism about importations ? Just look at all those guys who are saying that the Pentagon as no right to choose the cheapest, best, fastest, largest, more effective tanker, because it's not made by a corrupt US-military contractor ?
The weight laws about cars, making them burning twice more gaz just in a desperate attempt to stop Japanese and Europeans cars to be sold ?

And, most of all, the US-government is trying to destroy every hope of a political EU since more than thirty years ( remember the threats against Poland, Slovaqia, Greece, or your own president saying that WE must integrate Turkey... )

What is more important, making money or doing what we can to let a viable Earth for our childrens ?

You are mistaken.

No, I am not. The EU has no right to violate anyone's freedom of contract.

Pertaining to EU territory (and by extension what enters it), the EU sure as hell has the right to legislate your rights.

No, it doesn't. Neither does the Federal government concerning what goes into the United States, hence why I despise both organizations. They have no right to tell people what rights aren't theirs, especially considering that they do so for the benefit of the politically-connected.

All prices violate your freedom of contract and exchange if you can't afford them.

That is quite frankly absurd. If the right to freedom of contract and exchange meant that you should be able to get whatever you want, that would be a violation of the right of freedom and exchange of the original owner of the good to decide to who and where it goes. The only valid way to define freedom of contract and exchange is in term of property titles; i.e., that one of the freedoms that I have in my car, to which I have a title to, is the freedom to transfer it. There cannot, however, be an obligation for another person to take my car as payment regardless of what they give me in turn, as that is an expropriation of their property title.

It is the supplier who gets to chose the price and terms- you merely agree to them, and fulfill your part of the bargain.

Untrue; exchange is a mutual agreement, as both parties supply something to the other (one can supply a medium of exchange), and without the consent of either there can be no transaction. The EU would violate this in preventing a mutually agreed upon title transfer by use of force; it is not a supplier at all but a coercer.

No-one ever said that there would be a freedom from poverty.

I most certainly never did say that. I said that I oppose the EU's coercive blocking of legitimate title transfers, which has negative effects on my well-being.

Well, the alternative is that they arrest your willing tradingpartner after the exchange has been made and they are trying to distribute it on the European market.
While that is nice for you - you are getting paid - the amount of recipients will soon dry up. We are not talking about easily hidden goods here after all.

Which has negative effects for me, as I lose future returns on my investments, and, as freedom rises and falls together, this would encourage more interventions on the part of the EU that would further violate my partner and my freedom to future exchanges. The EU would not harm just my partner, but myself as well.

No, I am not. The EU has no right to violate anyone's freedom of contract.

So so you oppose ANY form of control in this by the government ?
If A wants to sell B a small nuke, A and B should be allowed to do so and any other view is oppressive ?

Intruiging. Tell us more.

As an American, I am thrilled by the idea of our country being bitch-slapped by the European Union (figuratively speaking, of course - though I would be willing to have a physical bitch-slap given to our current president.) America is getting quite out of control, and there is no reason that the rest of the world should stand by and allow us to screw things up for everyone. We've only got one Earth, and nobody here seems to give a flying fuck about the condition of the planet. If trade sanctions are the only way that America will get in line and take care of pollution, so be it.

The only disgusting thing is that we are having to be told to do the right thing by a foreign government. It would have been nice if our own government had started taking measures earlier - instead of rolling over to big business political contributers. Yet another conservative legacy for the US of A.

Vendee - you sound like a petulant teenager who is railing against his parents (YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME). You need to take a step back and look at the reason that sanctions are being threatened. America is being pathetically lax in environmental standards, and we are doing it so that corporations can lower the bottom line. I'm sure that even you can see how that would create an unfair trade advantage, never mind the fact that we are creating heavily polluted regions in our own country. It is obvious that when you are trying to trade with your hypothetical business partner, you aren't considering the damage that is being done to the world that you are sharing with everyone who isn't involved in your business transaction.

So so you oppose ANY form of control in this by the government ?
If A wants to sell B a small nuke, A and B should be allowed to do so and any other view is oppressive ?

Intruiging. Tell us more.

No, I do not think that government has the right to prevent A and B from their transaction, just as I do not think the government has the right to prevent A hiring B as a prostitute or A buying crack cocaine from B.

However, that being said, I would not want B whoring herself out or selling crack on my property, and neither would a great deal many other people. Infinitely moreso for purchasing a nuclear weapon, and in fact I would support non-aggressive monitoring of two such people to ensure that they do not violate other people's rights. Quite frankly, I am more worried about government possession of nuclear weapons, who can afford them through externalization of costs and the fact that, as monopolist on jurisdiction (i.e. an organization that has competitors barred from entry through force), it is in their interest to bully other nations using nuclear weapons to push them into their fold. Private individuals, however, lack such a way to externalize the high costs of nuclear armament considering that there are far more cost effective and less dubious methods of self-defense, and lacking the legitimacy of a state would not enjoy coercive privileges sustained by legitimacy but more likely a level of ostracism exponentially higher than that of a crackhead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union is demanding that the US and China adopt European anti pollution standards or face economic sanctions.
They are claiming that loose laws in the US and China are giving the two nations' industries an unfair advantage over European companies and that Europe is preparing punitive actions against the two so as to protect European industries.

Comments? Opinions?

Let 'em impose trade sanctions. I'll save my laugh for when they try to actually enforce those sanctions.

Actually, you will just prevent those who want to play from doing so at gunpoint.

not really because America shipping will not be bombed or anything it will just be seized and sent back

The 'we' on whose behalf you speak of is an abstraction with no connection to reality.

elected government much? (and considering current E.U opinions on the environment a supported one)

If I make something that someone in Europe wants to buy, no EU politician has a right to step in and block our transaction.

actually they do, you see the community suffers when people buy some of your products

infringing on other people and all that jazz

Quite frankly, the cretins in Washington telling me what I can and can't do irritate me enough; I most certainly do not want some people on the other side of the world getting the impression that they are my master, too.

oh noez the community is looking after its best interests *panics*

and no this proposal wouldn't affect your precious rights to build a coal powered glue factory this affects E.U citizens rights to buy it

Fighting amongst themselves in World Wars I and II ended that.

hands up who didn't see this being mentioned?

1) Not to be taken seriously. It's just some overenthusiastic PR-savvy eurocrats getting their 12 minutes of fame. There are no sanctions coming.

yeah, but think of the support this will generate from the E.U public (presuming it gets reported)

2) I love the way threads like this spawn n00bs.

but if we didn't have these threads how ever will we remember certain wars and the obvious debt we must have to a nation that was surprised attacked 3 years into a global conflict?

Let 'em impose trade sanctions. I'll save my laugh for when they try to actually enforce those sanctions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3518527.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3518527.stm

I couldn't tell from the article. Did the U.S. pay up?

I couldn't tell from the article. Did the U.S. pay up?

pay up?

the US did what it was told yes

No, I am not. The EU has no right to violate anyone's freedom of contract.



No, it doesn't. Neither does the Federal government concerning what goes into the United States, hence why I despise both organizations. They have no right to tell people what rights aren't theirs, especially considering that they do so for the benefit of the politically-connected.Yeah, we're done here.

pay up?

the US did what it was told yes

Then I laugh at my own government for being stupid and putting themselves in a position to be sanctioned by a foreign entity for a ninety-year old law. ;)

Then I laugh at my own government for being stupid and putting themselves in a position to be sanctioned by a foreign entity for a ninety-year old law. ;)

well it was hardly a dead law now was it :p

well it was hardly a dead law now was it :p

LOL. I seem to remember Nintendo getting in trouble for dumping product back in the early 90's, but maybe my memory is really faulty.

Meh, it was an idiotic law anyway because of its disproportionate penalties. But 90 years should have been enough time to set it right. We didn't, so shame on us.

We'll see. The EU has been cutting dependence on the US for trade quite a lot since the oil crisis, which is why the dollar becoming so worthless hasn't had quite the negative impact on exports as expected.

The US has been a net debtor since at least the early 80's. Thanks to Reagan.

The US dollar is now worthless becuase of bad economic decisions on the part of the Bush administration. Namely, giving almost 1 trillion dollars in tax cuts to the superrich and to multinational corporations who didn't need them.

That was money that should have been used for education and for small business loans for low income and middle class Americans.

You sure about that? Whenever USA and Europe come up as adversaries, WW2 is readily inhumed from its grave.



Nuh-uh. Germany paid, my country paid - most of the losing side countries actually paid up. If you want to talk about debt, how about USA not paying its UN fees for what, decades? How about USA never paying the reparations assigned to it - at least not without forcing good trade deals or such into place.

Plus there was no help from the USA to my country, so don't generalize.

Which country is that?

The US was never assigned reparations and doesn't owe any reparations. As per UN, the US basically owns the UN. How can you owe yourself?

Come to think of it this would help Boeing with that airforce tanker deal.

I don't think that Boeing would get the deal either, especially when considering that Boeing tried to fudge the specifications to get a 747 chosen :p.

Prove that the US economy would have tanked. Europe has surprisingly enough fared rather well despite keeping in line with Kyoto.
And it didn't demand enough in the first place.

Actually, despite ratifying Kyoto, Europe has actually been breaking its committment to the treaty. None of the EU countries are the point where they promised they would be when their nations signed and ratified Kyoto back in the early 90's.

Some EU nations are heavy contributers to the atmospheric increase in CO2. The current EU legislation is meant to address that shortcoming. But it comes at a huge economic cost. The EU is trying to level the field by forcing the US and China to impose the same costs on their people.

The anti-US crowd can jump for joy all they want, but the fact of the matter is that the WTO will not allow such sanctions.

It might. If the EU were to design them in a way that blocked only products made with polluting processes but allow similar US products that were not made via polluting processes. The WTO is there to prevent a total blockage of US toys. But the EU still has the right to enforce trade regulations to protect the health and safety of its people, as the US does and has been doing.

Example: US doesn't allow oranges from Chile during the 80's because Chile was using a highly toxic chemical as a pesticide linked to childhood leukemia. Or when the US bans Japanese apples because they are infested with an exotic parasite that would otherwise spread to the US apple crop.
Such rules have been upheld. As have provisions where countries ban shoes made in child sweatshops or with forced prison labor.

Actually, despite ratifying Kyoto, Europe has actually been breaking its committment to the treaty. None of the EU countries are the point where they promised they would be when their nations signed and ratified Kyoto back in the early 90's.Source it.

How far back will we take history, and how are we going to tally up all the debts - moral and financial ?

That's it, we all owe sub-saharan Africa!
Perhaps reducing the corruption in the area would be a good first step...

The EU can't really expect their plan to go through. They rely on Chinese and American products. Its not like any country other than an EU nation is going to follow the sanction. The EU doesn't even have its peoples full support on this because they know its a bad idea. The EU is trying to make a name for iself in any category possible.

The EU can't really expect their plan to go through. They rely on Chinese and American products. It's my understanding that most of the EU trade occurs within the EU. However, I'm willing to be swayed by evidence to the contrary that supports your point.

well it was hardly a dead law now was it :p

Actually the law should have been undone by the simple fact of the ratification of the free trade treaties we signed with Europe. When laws conflict with other laws or treaties, the precedent is that the most recently passed is the one that prevails.

As per UN, the US basically owns the UN. How can you owe yourself?

when did that happen?

The EU is trying to level the field by forcing the US and China to impose the same costs on their people.

how? all the E.U is planning on doing is blocking polluting imports which is in its rights to do so

forcing would involve EU BGs which though no doubt creating a good NS shouting match would be rather against the softly pedophile-esque style

Actually the law should have been undone by the simple fact of the ratification of the free trade treaties we signed with Europe. When laws conflict with other laws or treaties, the precedent is that the most recently passed is the one that prevails.

Under the US Constitution, treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The anti-US crowd can jump for joy all they want, but the fact of the matter is that the WTO will not allow such sanctions.

WTO upheld France's decision to ban asbestos importing when Canada tried to get the WTO to rescind the ban, I don't see why the E.U couldn't limit products made with excessive amounts of carbon dioxide.

Actually the law should have been undone by the simple fact of the ratification of the free trade treaties we signed with Europe. When laws conflict with other laws or treaties, the precedent is that the most recently passed is the one that prevails.

which is exactly how the US was willing to act before the WTO and the E.U finally gave it a bitch slap

the idea that the US would suddenly stop after deciding to go ahead against an E.U case anyway is telling

Source it.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA537EuropeKyoto206.html

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/KyotoEurope.htm

http://www.myheritage.org/Issues/MythBusters/GlobalWarmingKyotoEurope.asp

http://www.european-enterprise.org/items/whatwedo/policynotes/01_policy_note.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4297

sources

1) not one of those is something I would describe as credible but whatever
2) its not 2010 sugar :p


E.U was above its intended level however there is a reason this was breaking news 5 years ago

my source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/efe/19/print_article_2101_en.htm

Under the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, the 15 old Member States are together committed to cutting their emissions of the gases that cause global warming by 8%, based on 1990 levels, by 2012. Most of the new Member States have individual 8% reduction targets, with the exception of Poland and Hungary, which have to reduce their emissions by 6%, and Cyprus and Malta, which have no targets as yet.

Early in 2004, the Commission warned that cuts already achieved in the EU-15 by 1999 were being eroded, and that these countries needed to adopt new measures to improve their performance. In most of the new Member States, emissions were already lower, and by 2002 had fallen by some 33% compared with base year levels (1990 or earlier), partly through the restructuring of heavy industry.

Most recent Commission estimates show that, if they keep their pledges to implement additional domestic policies and measures, the EU-15 will be able to cut emissions by 7.7% by 2010, which is the year used for projections as it is the mid-term of the first Kyoto commitment period 2008-2012. Credits from investment in emission reduction projects around the world under the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms will bring the EU's total emission reduction to at least 8.6% – and this figure only takes account of the plans of six EU-15 countries since the other plans had not been evaluated in time for the progress report.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA537EuropeKyoto206.htmlOutdated.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/KyotoEurope.htmThis is primarily about how the restrictions are hurting the economy, and it's not particularly accurate. For instance, the electricity prices are currently being driven up by far more other factors.
http://www.myheritage.org/Issues/MythBusters/GlobalWarmingKyotoEurope.asp:rolleyes:
http://www.european-enterprise.org/items/whatwedo/policynotes/01_policy_note.pdfOutdated as well.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4297You know that about a year ago, UVa students started a petition to get him kicked out of the university for intellectual dishonesty? And that he's funded by the coal industry?
Not reliable in the least.

Under the US Constitution, treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Unless they are that pesky Geneva Convention

Plus there was no help from the USA to my country, so don't generalize.

And what country would that be?

USA is much more dpendent on europe then europe is dependent on USA

Keep telling yourself that.

When the US has a major trading deficit with its partners, Europe will actually have more to lose than the US does. China will buy more US goods and less European goods as a result of this. Europe cannot afford to lose the world's largest trading market.

Bingo...

...should such sanctions actually be enacted, you'll see American purchases of European products drop like a rock. I imagine there would be a similar reaction in China.

Nationalism might be "dead" in Europe, but Europe would be wise to remember that it is far from such in most other corners of the globe. The Average Joe, from Shanghai to Dallas, will not see this as an effort to curb pollution, they'll see it as an attack on their nation's prosperity.

European products are, by and large, too expensive for people in developing countries. If you're looking to kill your export market, this would be a great first step.




Well well well...

" Fucking Europeans wanting to reduce pollution ! They have no right to do this ! They have no right to do this to me, proud US citizen ! I want to fuck the world and kill my childrens in the name of the Holy Market, and they have no right to stop me from doing this !!! "

As an American, I am thrilled by the idea of our country being bitch-slapped by the European Union (figuratively speaking, of course - though I would be willing to have a physical bitch-slap given to our current president.) America is getting quite out of control, and there is no reason that the rest of the world should stand by and allow us to screw things up for everyone. We've only got one Earth, and nobody here seems to give a flying fuck about the condition of the planet. If trade sanctions are the only way that America will get in line and take care of pollution, so be it.

Ahem...

Of course, I forgot that the U.S. is a hive-mind of pollution advocates who want no progress to be made on the issue. :rolleyes:

Thanks for proving my point.

If you continue to insist that we're the sole cause of this problem, your arguments will soon lose all credibility.

Nationalism might be "dead" in Europe.

I challange the validity of that statement.

I challange the validity of that statement.

What part of "might be 'dead'" did you find invalid?

What part of "might be 'dead'" did you find invalid?

I missed the "might". My bad.

No, I do not think that government has the right to prevent A and B from their transaction, just as I do not think the government has the right to prevent A hiring B as a prostitute or A buying crack cocaine from B. .

Hmm. Is this system actually implemented anywhere on the planet ? I am curious as how well it would work in practice.

If you continue to insist that we're the sole cause of this problem, your arguments will soon lose all credibility.

With less than 5% of the world total population, doesn't USA produce more than 30% of the total pollution in the world ?

Aren't your country the one who tried so heavily to get the whole world consuming like you ?

Don't you remember that you are the country who create the very idea of designed degenerative goods, more than 50 years ago, now ?

Aren't the US hedge funds the ones who dictate the idea that a company who is not making at least 10% profits per year must be destroyed ?

Just some questions, passing by...

And, most of all, USA being still the center of the world economy, anything we can create in your economy and social mind would benefits for the world, if we just try to challenge China before getting you on a more reasonnable ground, no one would listen.

Reducing pollution cames with a huge cost, if one country decide to impose expensive anti-pollution policies, if they don't make the same restrictions about foreign products they import, they would just screw their economy, because the law of profit is more powerful than the idea of acting for the good of mankind.

With less than 5% of the world total population, doesn't USA produce more than 30% of the total pollution in the world ?

Aren't your country the one who tried so heavily to get the whole world consuming like you ?

Don't you remember that you are the country who create the very idea of designed degenerative goods, more than 50 years ago, now ?

Aren't the US hedge funds the ones who dictate the idea that a company who is not making at least 10% profits per year must be destroyed ?

Just some questions, passing by...

And, most of all, USA being still the center of the world economy, anything we can create in your economy and social mind would benefits for the world, if we just try to challenge China before getting you on a more reasonnable ground, no one would listen.

Reducing pollution cames with a huge cost, if one country decide to impose expensive anti-pollution policies, if they don't make the same restrictions about foreign products they import, they would just screw their economy, because the law of profit is more powerful than the idea of acting for the good of mankind.

Yeah but which is better (or more usefull to the human race for that fact), living without money or being dead but holding a fistfull of dollars in your cold bony hands?....

Hmm. Is this system actually implemented anywhere on the planet ? I am curious as how well it would work in practice.

Nowadays, the closest approximation is arbitration and mediation between businesses on the international scene and domestically that actively attempt to get around the arbitrary decrees of government and settle issues fairly with mutual benefit to both parties, instead of one party cheating the other by running to the state's overly expensive and clogged-up courts to get what it wants by force. One may have an image of how a system works from the various law systems based upon reciprocity instead of authoritarian coercion, such as Ireland's tuaths, the godi of medieval Iceland, the hundreds of Anglo-Saxon England, the Law Merchant, the colonial system of Pennsylvania and others, mining camps, wagon trains, and land clubs in the American West, and ethnic communities in American cities, which depend not upon brute force and decree but mutual exchange and benefit.

not really because America shipping will not be bombed or anything it will just be seized and sent back

You will have to seize it from someone, and that person in Europe will be put at gunpoint to surrender his belongings. Even if I am not directly harmed, I would find treatment of my trading partner unacceptable.

elected government much? (and considering current E.U opinions on the environment a supported one)

Elected governments are an obscene joke, as they depend on the idea that law is just by virtue of how many people think it is so, which harms those who disagree and often harms the believers since their opinions are shaped by those closest to the political system and thus stand to benefit the most. Thus, I couldn't care less what the European Union, or the US Federal government, or any other elected government has to say about anything.

actually they do, you see the community suffers when people buy some of your products

infringing on other people and all that jazz

No, they actually don't have a right to interfere. Seeing as how I have not trespassed on what they have title to, it is absolutely none of their business what I do with a trading partner.

oh noez the community is looking after its best interests *panics*

and no this proposal wouldn't affect your precious rights to build a coal powered glue factory this affects E.U citizens rights to buy it

Seeing as how it isn't a matter of others' titles but those involved in the actual exchange, much like if people were selling crack or prostituting themselves, it is none of their business. And it does affect my rights concerning the coal powered glue factory, seeing as how the EU would be repeatedly blocking my exchanges through force.

You will have to seize it from someone, and that person in Europe will be put at gunpoint to surrender his belongings. Even if I am not directly harmed, I would find treatment of my trading partner unacceptable.

when someone is illegally intruding on E.U property guns can be pointed and hostile items confiscated

wooo its as though I live in an airport!

Elected governments are an obscene joke, as they depend on the idea that law is just by virtue of how many people think it is so

needs of many out way needs of few

course your welcome to have it the other way :)

often harms the believers since their opinions are shaped by those closest to the political system and thus stand to benefit the most.

hmmm people paying attention to those who are close to the political system...your right the crazy guy at the back of the bus is way more cool

Thus, I couldn't care less what the European Union, or the US Federal government, or any other elected government has to say about anything.

you sure seem to :p

it is absolutely none of their business what I do with a trading partner.

it is on E.U soil but you can go be stubborn somewhere else if it pleases you :)

Seeing as how it isn't a matter of others' titles but those involved in the actual exchange, much like if people were selling crack or prostituting themselves, it is none of their business.

no its more in line with someone smoking in a bar and suddenly the barman choosing to put up no smoking signs because he's sick of it

really pollution is everyone business

seeing as how the EU would be repeatedly blocking my exchanges through force.

well thats what you get for breaking the law and deciding to trade in the E.U regardless of any bans we have in place

I'm sure America and China are going to take a lot of notice of what Europe says. Seriously, the EU needs to learn that you can't throw your weight around if you don't gain that weight in the first place.

Source it.
It's true though. Many, if not most, EU countries were for many years not on track to reach their Kyoto targets.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/europe-falling-behind-in-kyoto-carbon-targets/2007/06/15/1181414548676.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6244465.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42437000/gif/_42437615_actual_projected_3_416.gif

Now they think they can get there if they adopt all the various schemes put forward in Brussels, but only then.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011929.shtml
http://www.prismwebcastnews.com/pwn/?p=868

Meanwhile, Australia, which wasn't a part of Kyoto until a few months ago nonetheless managed to stick around the target set if they had signed.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23356662-2702,00.html

So basically, signing the treaty and actually doing something are two different things.

when someone is illegally intruding on E.U property guns can be pointed and hostile items confiscated

wooo its as though I live in an airport!

Except I do not recognize the legitimacy of the EU, which is a compulsory monopolist, or the idea that one can trespass upon their ill-gotten gains.

needs of many out way needs of few

course your welcome to have it the other way :)

'Needs' are subjective, and the majority has no right to decree what the rights of the minority are; they may only protect what titles they hold. In fact, the majority often supports rights-abrogations because they are manipulated by political sycophants who are out for their own good at the expense of everyone on the periphery (like the delegates at the Constitutional Convention.)

hmmm people paying attention to those who are close to the political system...your right the crazy guy at the back of the bus is way more cool

I am referring to the fact that politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats, interest groups, etc. have a greater marginal product from actions in government and thus have greater incentives for information and action, whereas people who are not direct beneficiaries and thus have less marginal product tend to be more ignorant and irrational. As an illustration, Joe Blow the voter won't be getting much from casting his lonely vote into a box, but Jack Smith the politician has a great deal of control over the usufruct of the common pool of the nation and thus can gain a great deal through being rewarded by interest groups. Thus, Jack Smith will have little reason not to trick Joe in order to get what he wants, and Joe will have little incentive to watch what he is doing because the benefits of his little ballot are minimal at best.

you sure seem to :p

In the sense that I do not care what their justifications are, I will not allow them to strong-arm me. I do, however, care about the strong-arming.

it is on E.U soil but you can go be stubborn somewhere else if it pleases you :)

Except I do not accept the legitimacy of any monopoly on jurisdiction, so they have no right to tell me to be stubborn somewhere else.

no its more in line with someone smoking in a bar and suddenly the barman choosing to put up no smoking signs because he's sick of it

Yes, but the barman is not a compulsory monopolist of jurisdiction; he (presumably) got his bar because of first occupancy, or improvement, or contract, and not because he and his gang of bullies stole everyone else's money 'for their own good', burnt down all the competing bars and built their own. (Or, as concerning the EU, made a coalition of people who had burnt down all other bars and who owned the only legally permitted one in their area.) I would be perfectly fine with someone who is a leaseholder of a town or other settlement putting a restrictive covenant barring carbon emissions, so long as the title is legit and they gain the consent of the citizens (i.e. didn't unilaterally change the lease contract to his whims), but that is again because he is not a monopolist on jurisdiction.

really pollution is everyone business

Concerning uses of legal force, it is only the business of the one who has been physically aggressed against, and only if they choose so. Just the same as someone who says they should be able to sue all the cars who ever passed in front of their house because they have developed lung cancer should have his case thrown out because there is a lack of direct causality (there are all sorts of factors that could have caused his cancer), so too should there be no use of force against those merely because they have emitted CO2. (One could produce CO2, and not cause global devastation. Or one could not produce CO2, and global devastation would still happen. Or any mix inbetween.)

well thats what you get for breaking the law and deciding to trade in the E.U regardless of any bans we have in place

Again, I do not recognize the EU as legitimate due to their position as a monopoly on jurisdiction, and ergo would not accept the legitimacy of these bans.

lol Europe lol



I couldn't agree more. Deliberate pollution and environmental destruction should be considered crimes against humanity, if you ask me.
roflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmao x100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

lol Europe lol

roflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmao x100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

What exactly is so funny ?

Say Europe would say to China: "we will no longer buy any product that has been made with childlabour" - would you find that funny and unreasonable then ?

If not, why do you think this funny ? After all, little Chinese children being abused doesn't really harm Europe. CO2 emissions and pollution from USA and China however do - unless the USA is willing to install a borderpatrol of magic pixies that keeps it all inside its own territory ?

With less than 5% of the world total population, doesn't USA produce more than 30% of the total pollution in the world?

While a source on what I bolded would be nice, I'm not about to deny that the U.S. is one of the most significant contributers to the problem.

But you'll notice what I said...If you continue to insist that we're the sole cause of this problem, your arguments will soon lose all credibility.

We're not the only nation on Earth causing problems, and we're also doing more than nearly any other nation outside of Europe in trying to turn things around. To say otherwise is disingenuous, and does nothing to bolster your position.

Aren't your country the one who tried so heavily to get the whole world consuming like you ?

While this point is a little vague, I'll point out that most nations were happy to go along with the concept without any coercion on our part...and that many were already of that mindset before the U.S. became the world's dominant economic power.

Don't you remember that you are the country who create the very idea of designed degenerative goods, more than 50 years ago, now?

Granted...yet we're reversing the trend. Progress on environmental issues in the U.S. is occuring from the bottom up, through the actions of individuals, not from the top down, via economic and governmental policy. As a result, progress is slower, yet it's still leaps and bounds beyond what other significant contibuters such as Russia, China, India, and Brazil are doing.

But we're not making progress fast enough for Europe apprently, so they'll sanction the U.S. while we're in the midst of an economic slowdown, which will certainly not aid in reducing use of these cheap disposable products...it is more likely to encourage further use of such products, especially if you drive the U.S. and Chinese economies even closer together by sanctioning both.

There are two ways to look at these sanctions. One is that they are a means to protect the environment, the other is as a means to protect the European economy. I've yet to see an argument in this thread that sufficiently counters the assertrion that these sanctions would do netiher, and quite likely reverse gains already made.

Aren't the US hedge funds the ones who dictate the idea that a company who is not making at least 10% profits per year must be destroyed?

Explain General Motors then, amongst others.

Just some questions, passing by...

And, most of all, USA being still the center of the world economy, anything we can create in your economy and social mind would benefits for the world, if we just try to challenge China before getting you on a more reasonnable ground, no one would listen.

And again...we're right near the top of the list of nations doing something about it. I already stated how sanctions like those proposed could easily backfire due to the attitudes of people in the U.S. and China, so why do something that in all likelihood will reverse progress?

Reducing pollution cames with a huge cost, if one country decide to impose expensive anti-pollution policies, if they don't make the same restrictions about foreign products they import, they would just screw their economy.

Or, they could acknowledge that we're making progress on the issue and accept the economic disparity as part of the overall cost, rather than impose sanctions simply because they didn't plan ahead properly.

because the law of profit is more powerful than the idea of acting for the good of mankind.

You'll get no argument from me there, but sanctions will do little to nothing to change that mindset.

It's true though. Many, if not most, EU countries were for many years not on track to reach their Kyoto targets.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/europe-falling-behind-in-kyoto-carbon-targets/2007/06/15/1181414548676.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6244465.stmTrue. Though, as the article shows, there's a gap between individual blocs in the EU. One problem is that the emissions trading scheme has been watered down by handing out too many free certificates to the polluting companies, reducing the price of pollution and thereby removing much of the incentive for actually cutting emission rates.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42437000/gif/_42437615_actual_projected_3_416.gif
Also outdated.
Now they think they can get there if they adopt all the various schemes put forward in Brussels, but only then.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011929.shtml
http://www.prismwebcastnews.com/pwn/?p=868We'll see. Truth remains, most of the individual countries that do call for emission reduction are the ones that are on track or have achieved their targets already.
Meanwhile, Australia, which wasn't a part of Kyoto until a few months ago nonetheless managed to stick around the target set if they had signed.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23356662-2702,00.html

So basically, signing the treaty and actually doing something are two different things.More evidence that the "It will hurt business" crowd was crying wolf.

Except I do not recognize the legitimacy of the EU, which is a compulsory monopolist, or the idea that one can trespass upon their ill-gotten gains.Yeah, but your recognition is largely irrelevant. Or do you have a seat in the UNSC?

Delator,

For GM, I think that it's the kind of " tree hiding the forest ", some companies are far too powerful symbols.
What would be the reaction of the average US citizen if he suddently heard that one of the company who litteraly create the world you are now living is going to get scrapped ?

Honestly, such huge national symbols are not relevant, let's focus on all the little " profitable but not enough " societies who are forced by their owner to fire thousands of jobs, when they are not sliced and sold piece by piece.

The rest of the Occidental world was clearly liberal ( on an economic perspective ) but it wasn't the neo-liberalism we see today, who doesn't create anything and get absolutly no picture on the long range, thinking only of the immediate profits.
Their's the difference.

In fact before World War II no country in the world could imagine what the productive of the post-war USA would be...this is what I point out when shouting against US-economic politics.

Nowhere in my thread I was saying that all pollution in the world is your fault, but the "American Way of Life" is indeed an insanity.

I don't think we have much time left to " advance slowly "

Even if we accelerate the process, their would still be changes in the Earth climate we could no more stop for the moment.

I'm not saying we are going to destroy Earth, note, just that, us, Occidentals, would be the first screwed by a global warming or cooling.

Yeah, but your recognition is largely irrelevant. Or do you have a seat in the UNSC?

The EU doesn't have a seat on the UNSC either.

The EU doesn't have a seat on the UNSC either.Yup. It has two. But that's beside the point, as I'm primarily concerned with Venndee's legitimacy in deeming things legitimate or not.

The EU doesn't have a seat on the UNSC either.

Good point :]

But on the other hand EU own two permanent security council seats and 27 seats overall...doesn't remember how much non-permanent seats at the UNSC we have actually...Germany is, no ?

Yup. It has two. But that's beside the point, as I'm primarily concerned with Venndee's legitimacy in deeming things legitimate or not.

Technically yes but the EU as a whole has none.

Technically yes but the EU as a whole has none.

Yes you're perfectly right, but I can't resist...technically, Israël has none, too :D

Yes you're perfectly right, but I can't resist...technically, Israël has none, too :D

Well Israel is in the United Nations while the EU isn't so there :p

Well Israel is in the United Nations while the EU isn't so there :pNot the point really. It's been recognized as official by the UN, and not only because they're both members of the Middle Eastern Quartett.

My fault Laerod, couldn't resist the idea of making a reminder of who is the UNSC seat of Israël ;]

And...hey, you're right, the UE is a member of the Quartet...

Considering the apparently high level of Chinese nationalism at the moment,
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23644788/ )

I don't think the Chinese are going to like Europe is trying to do. They're going to piss off, not just the regime in Beijing, but the majority of the nation's 2 billion plus population which if I'm correct outnumber Europes. Not to mention America's. In fact USA and Europe together still don't approach China in term of population.

:confused:
The population of China is 1,321,851,888 (July 2007 est.), not 2 billion plus.

Yeah, but your recognition is largely irrelevant. Or do you have a seat in the UNSC?

No, I do not have a seat in the UNSC, but seeing as how they're nothing more than a bunch of cutthroats in suits that is no problem. The EU is attempting no more than an expropriation and as such I vehemently oppose this violation of rights of contract and exchange.

Europe hasn't the testicular fortutude to do anything worth while. Sure they'll moan and scream, but action? No.