What do you think of Europeans demanding more from American on carbon regulation?

Question

The Waxman Markey carbon cap and trade bill passed the House of Reporesentatives by a fairly slim margin (219-212) and will have a difficult road through the Senate. Yet many European nations are already demanding more action from America.

Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish minister for the environment, told journalists on Friday in Brussels that passage of the Waxman-Markey bill would be significant, but added that American emissions reduction targets still risked falling far short of what would be needed to reach a global deal at United Nations negotiations in December in Copenhagen.

“We expect more, we demand more,” he said of the European position toward wealthy countries — including the United States — and emissions reduction. “We need the right global targets and objectives for the long term in line with science,” he said, adding that such targets were needed to apply “the right pressure to make sure we have sufficient emissions reductions,” he said.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0…

European countries have already established more stringent goals in reducing CO2 emissions and expect the USA to follow suit. Yet we haven't even been able to pass any carbon regulation legislation yet. What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

-The US definitely has a lot of room for improvement with regard to heavy emitting industries. The energy efficiency of the US infrastructure is much lower. The amount of GDP per unit of GHG emissions in the US is half of the EU and not even 1/3 of Sweden. Do not even think about comparing on a per capita basis Sweden and Texas.

Compared energy efficiencies can be found here: http://www.reeep.org/file_upload/5272_tm…

- The US has moreover much cheaper options to abate emissions (see Mc Kinsey studies etc.) due to its large potential for renewable resources

- The US has over 2x the amount of emissions per capita of most western European countries for a GDP per capita no longer higher.

- The US does no longer have a large heavy industry sector. The heavy industry sector is dominated by European, Japanese, Indian and Chinese companies: Cement - Steel - Glass - Chemicals.
For the aluminium sector, companies relocate anyway where cheap electricity is to be found and regardless of the climate effort, it is neither in Europe, nor in the US or China.


Many studies on the "so called" carbon leakage and relocation have been published. A good one for the US is from the Pew Center:
http://www.pewclimate.org/international/…

International distortions can be avoided through "sectoral agreements", but how would republicans even know about them if they reject any policy instrument to regulate emissions?

Source(s):

Like it or not, the development in most developing countries is done by imitating the US and this includes unsustainable oversized infrastructures. Like it or not the US is a trendsetter and even if its development pattern is not sustainable, it will spread around the world. It is there that "leading by example" is so important.

By the way, the reason why China was able to do little was due to the excuse provided by the lack of action from a country with much more advanced technologies, much wealthier and with much more resources.



EDIT to JS: The US has a much larger territory. True the US has longer distances to commute but the bioresources in between are a square function from the distance => The US has much larger opportunities to abate in the transportation sector. It costs on average $200 on the vehicle price tag for $2000 gas savings over the lifetime of a vehicle.
Already mid-sized non hybrid vehicles achieve 50 MPG. By reaching this level of energy efficiency the US would almost be a net oil exporter.

The several oil fired power plants in the US could be switched to CCGT plants using the newly found unconventional gas resources at an efficiency of 60%.

Replacing domestic oil heating with NG or pellets would come at a very low net cost (you don't expect gas to stay long term under $100 per barrel, do you?)

Replacing outdated refrigerators yields an IRR of 25% (try getting even 10% interests from your bank!!!)

CFL bulbs cost over their technical lifetime $1.5 compared to $7 for incandescent bulbs.

Abatements of NOx gases in chemical industries are extremely cheap and reduce emissions from a gas 300x as potent as CO2.

I just have one question: Why are some here focusing on the most expensive emission reduction measures? With 17% abatement, only the cheapest will be implemented at first (by 2020). This is how the market works.

Ok enough for now.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Great answer with lots of detail. Chris B had a good one too.

I can understand why Europe wants us to step up, but at the same time we're lagging behind thanks to the backwards Bush years, and so I think it's understandable that our early goals are lower.

Answer 2

I'm tired of spending billions of dollars to try and "help" something that has a 400% variance. Thomas Jefferson lived almost 100 years ago, yet he could do nothing to prevent AIDS, or Lung cancer. We are not able to help the people in 100 years either. We have more important problems to worry about such as starvation, and many diseases that effect people.

I feel we should have some money invested in the environment to research on how to upkeep it. But I am not for investing all of the money, and resources that we have done.

Answer 3

I think that it is a load of BS. I am not about to jump on the "carbon footprint" bandwagon nor do I believe in Global warming or the fact that we have to power to affect the climate. Let Europe do what it wants to do and leave us alone.

Source(s):

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

Answer 4

I think they should be working on India, China, Brazil, Mexico and all the other "exemptees" before they come whining to us...

EDIT - IF the goal is CO2 reduction, shortly China will produce more than we do, with a very small percentage of our industrial output... but CO2 isn't the real target is it... It's more like wealth redistribution from the nasty dirty USA to anyone the left deems "needy". Marx and Lenin would be proud.

Answer 5

My thoughts are that passing regulations on carbon emissions will condemn the US economy, and give President Obama a lasting mark of shame if he puts this into action.

First of all, there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 is causing any type of global warming. Why harm economies and families to stop a fictitious problem? Humans only produce a small portion of CO2 emissions anyway.

Don't believe me? How about the 31,000 qualified scientists and 9,000 Ph.D.'s at http://www.petitionproject.org/ and http://www.oism.org/pproject/ who agree with this? For starters, that is over four times as many Ph.D.s than "scientists" who agree with the IPCC statements of carbon causing global warming, many of which asked their names to be taken from the list.

In years to come, I fear we will look back at our mistakes for pushing to stop this issue that has nothing to do with us. If this bill passes, not only will the average person be taxed thousands of more dollars a year, we will be making a mistake that we will regret.

I hope some other people feel my concern here, especially at the lack of science these politicians use to push through science-related agendas.

Thanks for letting me share my view on this.

Source(s):

http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glob…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRj…
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO…

...and many more. What are your sources?

Answer 6

Considering most Western European countries, like Germany that is heavy in industry, use about half the energy per capita than we do, the bill doesn't go far enough. Those screaming about it are afraid of change. Scare tactics are what the right-wing is good at.

I lived in Germany for 3 years and never experienced a reduced standard of living.

Answer 7

Considering most Western European countries, like Germany that is heavy in industry, use about half the energy per capita than we do, the bill doesn't go far enough. Those screaming about it are afraid of change. Scare tactics are what the right-wing is good at. quote by Johnnyrocket...

Please do not argue economics, Germany may use half but their economy is a fraction of what the US industrial base is. How can you compare if not using per capita ratios. Yes we use scare tactics alright, we are trying to save this country from socialists.

Answer 8

Starbuck, he clearly did use per capita comparisons. Way to fail at reading.

Additionally, I read about this issue in Sci Am magazine this morning (Earth 3.0). It was in the article on population. While The US is only calling for emission reductions back to its 1990 level (European countries are aiming for 20% under their 1990 levels), when you factor population growth into account (remember that the US is gaining population faster than any of those European countries), the US will need to pull off a 26% reduction when correcting for population while European countries will only be aiming for a 25% reduction when making the same correction. So those claims from the Europeans are a bit unfair. The steps we are trying to take now should be recognized as good first steps forward when one considers how long it took us to do even this much.

Also, any argument that China/India/Brazil/whoever need to commit first is the stupidest load of bunk I've heard. Even forgetting the fact that the US is and almost always has been the biggest emitter, you have to realize that those countries are saying the same of us. Stop being a bunch of passive aggressive babies with these stall tactics. Just admit your unpopular stance of promoting inaction (and thus inevitable disaster). Mutual entrance into international emission control treaties makes perfect sense as a solution for everyone.

Edit: @J S: My only mention of China was in my suggestion that mutually entering an emissions reducing agreement would be the only practical solution to this deadlock. Thus, a refutation of "what if the US reduced and China increased" is so very far from my point.

Answer 9

I couldn't care less what a bunch of European socialists want except it would be nice to deprive them of anything they want..

Answer 10

What do you think of Europeans demanding more from America on carbon regulation? They are in no position to demand anything. If they want to make demands they can try India and China. I certainly am not going to turn down the heat in my home just to satisfy them. Nor am I going to turn of the A/C in summer or take the bus to work or drive a tiny little European style car. They can all go take a flying leap.

Answer 11

This is a diversionary tactic. They don't want the world to start digging into their history as the first big polluters. The word "Smog" (smoke + fog) was first coined there for a reason. Simply put, they started it.

Answer 12

I'm not suprised. What the Europeans ask of us can happen and probabley will happen. But we can't move as fast as they would like us to. I think that is the way it always has been with U.S.-Euro relations. Historically whatever we do is hardly ever good enough. It's easy for them, because they have Socialist run economies and governments. We have a free Capitalist economy and government that makes the world go around. Our trouble is that we have to convince so many people in the public and government that passing such bills are good ideas.

Answer 13

If the Europeans can explain how we're going to afford doing away with our suburbs and our long commutes, and if they can explain why they require nothing from larger emitters sucha s China, I'm all ears.

There is a problem, but it's a GLOGAL one. Selecting scapegoats isn't going to fix the problem.

Even using the entire develoepd world as a scapegoat is pointless, since 80% of the people on this planet live outside of those countries and their emissions are over half of the problem and their emissions are growing at the fastest rate.

Wehn the Europeans explain exactly how their focus on the United States will resolve the global problem, we'll have something productive to talk about. In the meantime any focus on a single country is simply a blame-shifting tactic that will only allow the global problem to grow faster than necessary, and to a much worse degree than is necessary.

Chris B - Your insulting comments look pretty comical to anyone who is capable of some simple math. If the U.S. reduces emissions by 80 by 2050 and China increases their economy and emissions 10% per year for the 40 years until then, and both account for about 25% each of worl emissions today, what will world emissions be... lower or several hundred percent higher? All current global emissions proposals fail to reduce global emissions.

We're screwed no matter which flavor we pick... which one is a fool's argument...designed only to distract us from the fact that the manufacturing in China and the call centers and software development in India is all for the same global corporations that used to help the economies in the developed countries. Isn't it crystal clear that they're calling the shots? Screw every country and person on the planet, those corporate execs are going to party hard on this sinking ship, and dance on the corpses of our descendents as global economies collapse.