US taking advantage of Kyoto

mkpdavies · 08-01-2005, 12:56 PM

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mlewis/050107

Quote:

. The European Union (EU) had hoped to use Kyoto to negate the competitive advantage U.S. firms derive from lower taxes, affordable energy, and a more productive workforce (see my Sensible Sense of Congress Resolution on Climate Change, pp. 19-20). Instead, because the United States has not ratified the treaty, Kyoto will make energy-intensive U.S. firms even more competitive vis-à-vis their European counterparts. And the deeper the emission cuts that the EU implements, the more global output will tend to shift from Europe to the United States. Thus, Kyoto and its successor agreements are bound to collapse unless the U.N., the World Trade Organization (WTO), or some other body administers "carbon tariffs" to offset the lower production costs of firms in the United States and other nations that do not limit access to carbon-based energy. This partly explains why, in the just-completed round of Kyoto negotiations in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Friends of the Earth-Europe urged the EU to slap import taxes on energy-intensive U.S. products.

Splendid, so EU countries are going to lose even more money and business to countries such as the USA. Thats the bottom line with Kyoto, either the USA have to be on board, or the whole project is not only a waste of time, but will damage those who cling onto it.

We have already questioned whether global warming is all it is cracked out to be, here on this forum. If the EU can't get the USA on board, then it is going to do itself real economic damage by going it alone! Is this a price we are happy to pay, given the science is not proven? If the the global warming advocates are right, then the USA and others will keep doing it anyway and screw us all, but if they are wrong then we will suffer for giving our companies a disadvantage.

Neither result sounds good to me. So what should we do?

gimlet · 08-01-2005, 01:47 PM

I'm sure our manifesto will have a mature and reasoned view on this!

C_steam · 08-01-2005, 05:10 PM

If the issue is 'competition' then the issue is to reduce the burden on those companies which are big energy users. This can be done in a number of ways. Since it can be readily argued (correctly, IMHO) that 'manufacturing' (which in this context includes farming, but can be ignored for this debate) is the only industry segment that really adds value, i.e it is a wealth creator, we could reduce business tax, or alleviate climate change levy.

The latter is my favoured option as essentially the climate change levy is just another excuse to tax, since IPPC provides the means to authorise and control.

Lafayette · 09-01-2005, 01:42 AM

That's the main reason the US never signed on to Kyoto. Had it done so, companies would have just moved to countries that weren't so restrictive, rather than stick around and worry about "being up to code." It would just be economic suicide, which considering the current state of the economy, wouldn't take too much to accomplish.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-01-2005, 01:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
gimlet Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Shropshire Posts: 836	I'm sure our manifesto will have a mature and reasoned view on this!

08-01-2005, 05:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,805	If the issue is 'competition' then the issue is to reduce the burden on those companies which are big energy users. This can be done in a number of ways. Since it can be readily argued (correctly, IMHO) that 'manufacturing' (which in this context includes farming, but can be ignored for this debate) is the only industry segment that really adds value, i.e it is a wealth creator, we could reduce business tax, or alleviate climate change levy. The latter is my favoured option as essentially the climate change levy is just another excuse to tax, since IPPC provides the means to authorise and control.

09-01-2005, 01:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
Lafayette Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	That's the main reason the US never signed on to Kyoto. Had it done so, companies would have just moved to countries that weren't so restrictive, rather than stick around and worry about "being up to code." It would just be economic suicide, which considering the current state of the economy, wouldn't take too much to accomplish.