EU to tax carbon in imports

[swansont]

“what makes this fee revolutionary is that it will apply to emissions that don’t happen on European soil. The EU already puts a price on many of the emissions created by European firms; now, through the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, the bloc will charge companies that import the targeted products — cement, aluminum, electricity, fertilizer, hydrogen, iron and steel — into the EU, no matter where in the world those products are made.”

https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2024/big-boost-europe-carbon-neutral-goals-cbam

This removes incentives to move carbon-intensive industry out of the EU, since that won’t sidestep tariffs any longer. The tariff accounting includes the electricity used for production, so there’s an incentive for business exporting to the EU to use green energy

[npts2020]

I think this is a great idea. IMO the US ought to require that all products and services bought or sold in this country follow US law from exploration to discovery, extraction, refinement, fabrication, assembly, transport, storage and sale. However, it seems the longer it takes to do this, the less effective it will be as the US loses its former stranglehold on world trade. How different would the world be today if this had been done  60 or 70 years ago?

[exchemist]

On 2/28/2024 at 10:38 PM, swansont said:

“what makes this fee revolutionary is that it will apply to emissions that don’t happen on European soil. The EU already puts a price on many of the emissions created by European firms; now, through the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, the bloc will charge companies that import the targeted products — cement, aluminum, electricity, fertilizer, hydrogen, iron and steel — into the EU, no matter where in the world those products are made.”

https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2024/big-boost-europe-carbon-neutral-goals-cbam

This removes incentives to move carbon-intensive industry out of the EU, since that won’t sidestep tariffs any longer. The tariff accounting includes the electricity used for production, so there’s an incentive for business exporting to the EU to use green energy

Sounds good in principle but I can't help wondering how the industries affected are going to calculate the numbers to submit on imported goods, and how the EU will be able to check they are genuine. 

[Ken Fabian]

To be serious about zero emissions we need these kinds of mechanisms in place in the world's major trading economies. Preferably pricing at rates like we really mean it, that ramp up predictably over time, like we mean it and without rafts of exemptions and exceptions, like we really mean it.

But anything tariff related gets bent by geo-political concerns and I fear that anti-China sentiment will be used expressly to impede global growth of RE and EV's, in ongoing efforts to save fossil fuels from global warming.

[Sensei]

On 2/28/2024 at 11:38 PM, swansont said:

This removes incentives to move carbon-intensive industry out of the EU, since that won’t sidestep tariffs any longer. The tariff accounting includes the electricity used for production, so there’s an incentive for business exporting to the EU to use green energy

I assume that the words outside the quotation marks (i.e. what I quoted) are your own thoughts and are expressed freely, without a gun put to the back of your head?

 

 

The idea that you can solve a problem with taxes or duties is quite naive..

 

 

Did not you (and friends) condemned ex-POTUS for his attempt to taxation/duties on Chinese stuff just a few years ago.. ?

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

I assume that the words outside the quotation marks (i.e. what I quoted) are your own thoughts and are expressed freely, without a gun put to the back of your head?

 

 

The idea that you can solve a problem with taxes or duties is quite naive..

Did I claim that this solves a problem?

 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Did not you (and friends) condemned ex-POTUS for his attempt to taxation/duties on Chinese stuff just a few years ago.. ?

Did I? Please provide a quote. And explain how this is pertinent.

 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

The idea that you can solve a problem with taxes or duties is quite naive

Yes, if anyone had assumed that taxes would solve the problem. The problem is large, diverse and difficult to tackle. Taxation is one way government has of making the benign alternative more attractive to business than the toxic alternative. Licensing and permits are another and subsidies are a third. Regulations and penalties are yet another. These are the tools available to government. 

Consumers can do their part by choosing the benign alternative when they buy something. Citizens can vote intelligently. (They can, they just don't always want to.) Businesses can do their part as well.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

 

The idea that you can solve a problem with taxes or duties is quite naive..

 

Not saying it doesn't need to be done at least somewhat accurately and fairly, or that politics won't get in the way...

But throw me in the naive camp even though it will be hard to achieve.

Governments need to set and enforce the rules of the game or corporations will feel entitled, and in fact obligated by shareholders, to choose a path for "winning" that won't take environmental factors into account, lest they diminish in favour of others that play the game better.

Plus Governments need revenue. Might be a hard sell with increased costs of certain "cherished" goods and services but what better place to raise at least some of it?

You get what you pay for...or forget to outlaw or tax, and enforce.

Edited March 2 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

The idea that you can solve a problem with taxes or duties is quite naive..

The idea that taxes can't solve a problem is demonstrably stupid, who payed NASA to go to the moon; and what was cut that stopped regular visit's?

When are we (by which I mean people like you) going to realise that cutting taxes to promote growth is beyond naive, it's fucking insane; it's like the funnel of acceptance, that's taught to salespeople/banker's, "the magical cornucopia of plenty, where money is edible..."

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The idea that taxes can't solve a problem is demonstrably stupid, who payed NASA to go to the moon; and what was cut that stopped regular visit's?

When are we (by which I mean people like you) going to realise that cutting taxes to promote growth is beyond naive, it's fucking insane; it's like the funnel of acceptance, that's taught to salespeople/banker's, "the magical cornucopia of plenty, where money is edible..."

Maybe not quite as readily demonstrably incorrect, but cutting taxes, especially when they are excessive, can lead to growth. The key is to do it in a way that hurts people the least, and leads to the type of growth you want in the areas you want.

Subsidies obviously can lead to growth, so if a cut in taxes does the same thing in the same area for the same entities, that should lead to the same growth, and probably more efficiently and effectively.

[Sensei]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Did I claim that this solves a problem?

Does it need to be claimed? The problem is global warming, and the politicians (which you quoted, so I guess you support the idea) came up with the (yet another idiotic) idea of making even bigger problems i.e. taxes and tariffs.

Why is Greta complaining? Her main objection is that politicians only talk about money..

 

I can't imagine who negated my answer, except the real Russian etc. agents and supporters of the gas and coal industry, because I am the biggest fan of the fight against global warming..

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, if anyone had assumed that taxes would solve the problem. The problem is large, diverse and difficult to tackle. Taxation is one way government has of making the benign alternative more attractive to business than the toxic alternative. Licensing and permits are another and subsidies are a third. Regulations and penalties are yet another. These are the tools available to government. 

It's like the 2008-2009 crisis, they solved it in the worst possible way.. That's why people all over the world are against the "Green Deal", because it is simply a fraud.. CO₂ certificate emissions? A fucking joke from the global warming..

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Does it need to be claimed?

If you post what did, then yes. Otherwise there’s no point in quoting me and detailing that what I posted was not coerced.

 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

The problem is global warming, and the politicians (which you quoted, so I guess you support the idea)

Posting a news item is not necessarily an endorsement, and providing a quote so that one need not go to the link for details is an expected compliance with the rules.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

came up with the (yet another idiotic) idea of making even bigger problems i.e. taxes and tariffs.

Feel free to start up a thread detailing how to solve global warming without taxes and tariffs. Just being a naysayer is easy.

[npts2020]

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

That's why people all over the world are against the "Green Deal", because it is simply a fraud.. CO₂ certificate emissions? A fucking joke from the global warming

Not sure what "Green Deal" you are talking about but the original platform for a Green New Deal as proposed by the Green Party in 2006 says nothing about CO2 certificate emissions or anything of the ilk. I would be interested in knowing what part(s) of it you feel are "a fraud", other than the fact that any action on it will have been put off for nearly 2 decades already. Here is a text of the document. https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

[Peterkin]

Nothing we do now can possibly solve the problem. It could have been solved c. 40 years ago, given the international will.

Of course, there was nothing international, except talk and more talk, between people who flew to various places in jet planes. Of course, no resolution resulted and no meaningful action was taken.

Now, it's simply too late: we're screwed.

Governments can't be expected to admit that.

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

Does it need to be claimed? The problem is global warming, and the politicians (which you quoted, so I guess you support the idea) came up with the (yet another idiotic) idea of making even bigger problems i.e. taxes and tariffs.

Why is Greta complaining? Her main objection is that politicians only talk about money..

 

I can't imagine who negated my answer, except the real Russian etc. agents and supporters of the gas and coal industry, because I am the biggest fan of the fight against global warming..

It's like the 2008-2009 crisis, they solved it in the worst possible way.. That's why people all over the world are against the "Green Deal", because it is simply a fraud.. CO₂ certificate emissions? A fucking joke from the global warming..

 

 

Me for a start. What did you mean by suggesting he might (rhetorically) have a gun to the back of his head? What a needlessly aggressive and uninformative remark. 

And then you made a further ridiculous statement about it being naïve to think taxes and tariffs can "solve" problems. Nobody suggests they "solve" anything of course. Alternatively, to deny that taxes and tariffs can play a role, by modifying the behaviour of commercial enterprises, if that is what you meant to say, would be equally absurd.

In this case there is a particularly strong case for taxes and tariffs, since one of the great problems in addressing climate change is the lack of any direct market-based feedback between the products (and their pricing) available to consumers and the resulting costs down the road for us all due to climate change. 

So, all in all, a fairly poor post from you, I thought. 

  

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe not quite as readily demonstrably incorrect, but cutting taxes, especially when they are excessive, can lead to growth. The key is to do it in a way that hurts people the least, and leads to the type of growth you want in the areas you want.

But they aren't excessive, especially now, after decades of the same mantra; it has become a cliché, because people want to believe that any extra cash in our pockets will help us, in some way; growth is not just a math/cash problem.

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing we do now can possibly solve the problem. It could have been solved c. 40 years ago, given the international will.

Of course, there was nothing international, except talk and more talk, between people who flew to various places in jet planes. Of course, no resolution resulted and no meaningful action was taken.

Now, it's simply too late: we're screwed.

Governments can't be expected to admit that.

Of course not, they think they can survive it, for a number of reason's but mostly, bc they won't be around to see it; politics 101, don't be around when the miden hits the windmill...😇

Edited March 3 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course not, they think they can survive it, for a number of reason's but mostly, bc they won't be around to see it;

The megarich expect to survive it and stick around and ride out the worst of it in luxury bunkers. What they think they'll eat or who they think will serve and protect them remains an open question. 

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The megarich expect to survive it and stick around and ride out the worst of it in luxury bunkers.

I dare say they'll  expect it, till the day they can't, then luxury takes on a whole new meaning...

[TheVat]

43 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The megarich expect to survive it and stick around and ride out the worst of it in luxury bunkers. What they think they'll eat or who they think will serve and protect them remains an open question. 

 

I live not far from the ones mentioned in South Dakota.  The old munitions storage site was nicknamed Igloo.  The information provided has a significant error:

Quote

Vivos xPoint is located just south of Edgemont, South Dakota. The now-retired Black Hills Army Base was built by the Army Corps of Engineers as a fortress to store munitions from 1942 to 1967. Vivos now owns the property and the bunkers. It’s advertising the site as: Strategically and centrally located in one of the safest areas of North America, at a high and dry altitude of 3,800+/- feet, well inland from all large bodies of water; and, 100+/- miles from the nearest known military nuclear targets. 
 

Nope.  My geodesic calculator shows the distance from "Vivos xPoint" to Ellsworth AFB (a key nuclear target) is around 70 miles.

If you buy, be sure to ask for the ICBMs Landing Nearby Discount!

[Peterkin]

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

My geodesic calculator shows the distance from "Vivos xPoint" to Ellsworth AFB (a key nuclear target) is around 70 miles.

Is that 30 +/- miles truly significant in terms of billionnaire safety? Their bodyguard will eat them before the missiles land. 

[TheVat]

Bodyguards try to stay fit and avoid rich foods, I've heard.