[Committee] Mandelson in Cambridge; Legalities and Practicalities of Carbon Tax

[S.J. Stretton]

Dear all,
Interesting (old) news...
>07.01.2008 "Brussels considering climate tax on imports"
http://euobserver.com/9/25400
"But the carbon tax idea has met opposition from EU trade commissioner
Peter Mandelson who has said it would be hard to implement and could
lead to trade disputes, according to Reuters."

I mention it now because Mandy is coming to Cambridge next Friday,
February 8 (Senate-House at 5.00 p.m)

Are Mandelson's criticisms valid?

The WTO might come down on the side of the EU if the US v Thai turtle
farmers case is anything to go by according to Stiglitz (below).
S




The 2008 Alcuin Lecture will be delivered by

The Rt Hon Peter Mandelson
European Commissioner for Trade
in the Senate-House
at 5.00 p.m. on Friday, February 8

and will be followed by a Reception in the
University Combination Room for those attending

Alcuin Lectures are given on the relationship
between the United Kingdom and European institutions

All are welcome

Senior members of the University attending
should wear gowns

Stiglitz:
http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=ev
There is a simple remedy: other countries should prohibit the
importation of American goods produced using energy intensive
technologies, or, at the very least, impose a high tax on them, to
offset the subsidy that those goods currently are receiving. Actually,
the United States itself has recognized this principle. It prohibited
the importation of Thai shrimp that had been caught in "turtle
unfriendly" nets, nets that caused unnecessary deaths of large numbers
of these endangered species. Though the manner in which the United
States had imposed the restriction was criticized, the WTO sustained
the important principle that global environmental concerns trump
narrow commercial interests, as well they should. But if one can
justify restricting importation of shrimp in order to protect turtles,
certainly one can justify restricting importation of goods produced by
technologies that unnecessarily pollute our atmosphere, in order to
protect the precious global atmosphere upon which we all depend for
our very well-being.

Japan, Europe, and the other signatories of Kyoto should immediately
bring a WTO case charging unfair subsidization. Of course, the Bush
Administration and the oil companies to which it is beholden will be
upset. They may even suggest that this is the beginning of a global
trade war. It is not. It is simply pointing out the obvious: American
firms have long had an unfair trade advantage because of their cheap
energy, but while they get the benefit, the world is paying the price
through global warming. This situation is, or at least should be,
totally unacceptable. Energy tariffs would simply restore balance—and
at the same time provide strong incentives for the United States to do
what it should have been doing all along.

In some ways, the United States should welcome this initiative. It has
often complained that one of the problems with the Kyoto protocol is
that there is no enforcement mechanism. It claims that if it were to
sign, it would feel obliged to meet its commitments, but other
countries would not, and this would put the United States in a
disadvantageous position. With a strong international sanction
mechanism in place, all for which it substitutes; and it is only
differences in these differences that determine the divergent effects
on various countries.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gunnar Möller <gm360 at cam.ac.uk>
>not so new any more, but anyways and interesting newsline
> http://euobserver.com/9/25400
>Gunnar

__________
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The 2008 Alcuin Lecture.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 204800 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zerocarbonnow.org/pipermail/committee_zerocarbonnow.org/attachments/20080128/b4d5360e/attachment-0001.doc