EU leaders meeting on Russian occupation. Carbon taxes!

[patslatt]

When the EU leaders meet on Monday in Brussels to discuss a response to Russia's failure to withdraw from Georgia excluding South Ossetia,should they do nothing except for diplomatic protests? That would show no resolve in the face of Russia's aggression.

[color=#0000FF]In my opinion,the perfect-and conveniently unprovocative-response would be the threat of introducing carbon taxes.[/color] The EU could legitimately claim that this was an overdue measure to curb global warming, but with a side benefit of showing EU displeasure towards the Russian occupation. Russia could hardly consider provocative EU carbon taxes that would affect all carbon based energy consumption from whatever source,unlike possible discriminatory direct quotas or tariffs on oil and gas imports from Russia. Nevertheless,given that the EU depends on Russia for about 25% of its energy,a carbon tax would hit Russia hard in its pocket by reducing EU energy demand which would also tend to reduce global energy prices.

Some EU countries dependent on internationally traded energy intensive industries such as chemicals and steel production (Luxembourg?) should be allowed to apply lower carbon taxes than others.

To prevent global warming,carbon taxes should become EU policy by a certain future date,say in seven years at the most. The degree of taxation and the timing of its introduction would depend on Russia by default. If Russia failed to withdraw from Georgia, the tax would start in a few months. If Russia withdrew after the taxes were introduced, the taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible.

To offset the dampening effect of carbon taxes on consumer demand in the weak EU economies,permanent offsetting tax cuts should be made in other areas.

[myksav]

When the EU leaders meet on Monday in Brussels to discuss a response to Russia's failure to withdraw from Georgia excluding South Ossetia,should they do nothing except for diplomatic protests? That would show no resolve in the face of Russia's aggression.

In my opinion,the perfect-and conveniently unprovocative-response would be the threat of introducing carbon taxes. The EU could legitimately claim that this was an overdue measure to curb global warming, but with a side benefit of showing EU displeasure towards the Russian occupation. Russia could hardly consider provocative EU carbon taxes that would affect all carbon based energy consumption from whatever source,unlike possible discriminatory direct quotas or tariffs on oil and gas imports from Russia. Nevertheless,given that the EU depends on Russia for about 25% of its energy,a carbon tax would hit Russia hard in its pocket by reducing EU energy demand which would also tend to reduce global energy prices.

Some EU countries dependent on internationally traded energy intensive industries such as chemicals and steel production (Luxembourg?) should be allowed to apply lower carbon taxes than others.

To prevent global warming,carbon taxes should become EU policy by a certain future date,say in seven years at the most. The degree of taxation and the timing of its introduction would depend on Russia by default. If Russia failed to withdraw from Georgia, the tax would start in a few months. If Russia withdrew after the taxes were introduced, the taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible.

To offset the dampening effect of carbon taxes on consumer demand in the weak EU economies,permanent offsetting tax cuts should be made in other areas.

Vaguely amusing.
Just who would be paying these carbon taxes? Anyone who uses fossil fuel. Like, food transport. Oops, the price of food has sky-rocketed. Sorry, eat less. Heating oil. Oops, wrap up warmly now, do ya hear?
What else happens? Oh yes, Russia says, "hey China, we got some spare gas, you want some more?"

In what areas would these "permanent offsetting tax cuts" be?
"taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible" Now, how often does that happen? And what about those "permanent offsetting tax cuts" you mentioned? How permanent is permanent?

[patslatt]

When the EU leaders meet on Monday in Brussels to discuss a response to Russia's failure to withdraw from Georgia excluding South Ossetia,should they do nothing except for diplomatic protests? That would show no resolve in the face of Russia's aggression.

In my opinion,the perfect-and conveniently unprovocative-response would be the threat of introducing carbon taxes. The EU could legitimately claim that this was an overdue measure to curb global warming, but with a side benefit of showing EU displeasure towards the Russian occupation. Russia could hardly consider provocative EU carbon taxes that would affect all carbon based energy consumption from whatever source,unlike possible discriminatory direct quotas or tariffs on oil and gas imports from Russia. Nevertheless,given that the EU depends on Russia for about 25% of its energy,a carbon tax would hit Russia hard in its pocket by reducing EU energy demand which would also tend to reduce global energy prices.

Some EU countries dependent on internationally traded energy intensive industries such as chemicals and steel production (Luxembourg?) should be allowed to apply lower carbon taxes than others.

To prevent global warming,carbon taxes should become EU policy by a certain future date,say in seven years at the most. The degree of taxation and the timing of its introduction would depend on Russia by default. If Russia failed to withdraw from Georgia, the tax would start in a few months. If Russia withdrew after the taxes were introduced, the taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible.

To offset the dampening effect of carbon taxes on consumer demand in the weak EU economies,permanent offsetting tax cuts should be made in other areas.

Vaguely amusing.
Just who would be paying these carbon taxes? Anyone who uses fossil fuel. Like, food transport. Oops, the price of food has sky-rocketed. Sorry, eat less. Heating oil. Oops, wrap up warmly now, do ya hear?
What else happens? Oh yes, Russia says, "hey China, we got some spare gas, you want some more?"

In what areas would these "permanent offsetting tax cuts" be?
"taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible" Now, how often does that happen? And what about those "permanent offsetting tax cuts" you mentioned? How permanent is permanent?

You are easily amused.

The offsetting tax cuts would be decided by the individual EU governments and could include cuts in VAT,income tax and payroll taxes. The latter are too high in most EU countries and cause high hidden unemployment.

[FutureTaoiseach]

They will do nothing because they are too divided and dependent on Russian oil and gas (25% and 40% of respectively of EU supplies come from that country). I think McCain will take a harder line. His plan for an alliance of democracies is especially appealing in this regard - especially if it leaves out the Euroweenies like France, Germany and Italy which favour appeasement. We are witnessing - with the exception of most of Eastern Europe and the UK - a return to the 1930's policy of Appeasement which has been discredited by history. If you give in to a dictator's designs of the territory of internationally-recognised sovereign-states, then they take it as a sign of weakness and believe they can get away with trying it again and again, as with the Annexation of the Sudetenland, Austria and the rest of Czechoslovakia. And no I won't stop making these comparisons, since I am talking about the period before WW2 not the Holocaust. Comparisons with the Appeasement policy of the 1930's are entirely reasonable and inoffensive. People who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. We have to ween ourselves off our addiction to Russian oil and gas. We need closer energy ties with Norway.

[Pauli]

They will do nothing because they are too divided and dependent on Russian oil and gas (25% and 40% of respectively of EU supplies come from that country). I think McCain will take a harder line. His plan for an alliance of democracies is especially appealing in this regard - especially if it leaves out the Euroweenies like France, Germany and Italy which favour appeasement. We are witnessing - with the exception of most of Eastern Europe and the UK - a return to the 1930's policy of Appeasement which has been discredited by history. If you give in to a dictator's designs of the territory of internationally-recognised sovereign-states, then they take it as a sign of weakness and believe they can get away with trying it again and again, as with the Annexation of the Sudetenland, Austria and the rest of Czechoslovakia. And no I won't stop making these comparisons, since I am talking about the period before WW2 not the Holocaust. Comparisons with the Appeasement policy of the 1930's are entirely reasonable and inoffensive. People who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. We have to ween ourselves off our addiction to Russian oil and gas. We need closer energy ties with Norway.

You are comparing the Russian government to the Nazis. That is nonsense. It is quite clear that Putin was responding to Bush/Cheney aggression in Georgia. Saakashvili is a Bush/Cheney stooge. Nothing more. He gambled and failed. He was and remains an idiot. It is not in the interest of the EU to piss Russia off. Why should the EU do that? To appease Cheney and Bush? Bollocks to that!

[myksav]

When the EU leaders meet on Monday in Brussels to discuss a response to Russia's failure to withdraw from Georgia excluding South Ossetia,should they do nothing except for diplomatic protests? That would show no resolve in the face of Russia's aggression.

In my opinion,the perfect-and conveniently unprovocative-response would be the threat of introducing carbon taxes. The EU could legitimately claim that this was an overdue measure to curb global warming, but with a side benefit of showing EU displeasure towards the Russian occupation. Russia could hardly consider provocative EU carbon taxes that would affect all carbon based energy consumption from whatever source,unlike possible discriminatory direct quotas or tariffs on oil and gas imports from Russia. Nevertheless,given that the EU depends on Russia for about 25% of its energy,a carbon tax would hit Russia hard in its pocket by reducing EU energy demand which would also tend to reduce global energy prices.

Some EU countries dependent on internationally traded energy intensive industries such as chemicals and steel production (Luxembourg?) should be allowed to apply lower carbon taxes than others.

To prevent global warming,carbon taxes should become EU policy by a certain future date,say in seven years at the most. The degree of taxation and the timing of its introduction would depend on Russia by default. If Russia failed to withdraw from Georgia, the tax would start in a few months. If Russia withdrew after the taxes were introduced, the taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible.

To offset the dampening effect of carbon taxes on consumer demand in the weak EU economies,permanent offsetting tax cuts should be made in other areas.

Vaguely amusing.
Just who would be paying these carbon taxes? Anyone who uses fossil fuel. Like, food transport. Oops, the price of food has sky-rocketed. Sorry, eat less. Heating oil. Oops, wrap up warmly now, do ya hear?
What else happens? Oh yes, Russia says, "hey China, we got some spare gas, you want some more?"

In what areas would these "permanent offsetting tax cuts" be?
"taxes would be rescinded as soon as feasible" Now, how often does that happen? And what about those "permanent offsetting tax cuts" you mentioned? How permanent is permanent?

You are easily amused.

The offsetting tax cuts would be decided by the individual EU governments and could include cuts in VAT,income tax and payroll taxes. The latter are too high in most EU countries and cause high hidden unemployment.

Easily amused? In some things, yes. By your ideas on this, only vaguely.

Ok, so the EU goes with this carbon tax to 'punish' Russia and make them withdraw totally from Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The EU would then have a nice carbon tax in place and the "offsetting tax cuts" not quite in place, or maybe the EU works fast and sets up both at the exact same time. After some time, a few months say, Russia withdraws from the area in response to this carbon tax on EU citizens. Hurray.

What happens next? You say this carbon tax would then be rescinded. Nice. What about those tax-cuts? Do they also get rescinded? Back to taxing at income source rather than at the "pumps", I presume. That would be popular. Specially among those who are able to easily drop their fuel use and gain massive benefit from lower income tax.

Who gets hit hardest by carbon tax? High income earners? Nope, they benefit from lower income tax. The low income earners? Pretty much. Their taxes, if they are in the tax bracket to start with, get little if any benefit from tax cuts yet pay more in carbon tax. How about pensioners? No income tax there, so no benefit from lower income tax and more costs on just living. And they vote.

Would your imagined carbon tax only aplied to gas? Or all fossil fuels? If only to gas, then the only ones effected are those dependent on gas as an energy source. Industry, power generation, homes with gas heating. Electricity increases in price, effecting everyone, product prices go up, effecting everyone who buys those products. Home heating, only the gas users.

Putting that carbon tax on all fossil fuels would effect everyone as end-users. It would also effect all suppliers of fossil fuel, not just the Russians. Annoy everyone to get at the Russians. You could target this tax so it didn't effect anyone but Russia, however, that would just hand Russia a fine PR/propaganda tool. Particularly for internal consumption in Russia. All the likes of Putin would have to do is point to the EU and say 'look, there's the cause of our problems', and the Russians have an external foe to focus on. The unbought excess is then sold to China, 'solving the problem' and the Russian leaders get an boost in popularity.
End result, the encumbent Russian leadership gains in Russia.

[FutureTaoiseach]

It seems the need for closer ties to Norway is becoming clearer:

Energy-hungry Europe warms to Norway

By Paul Henley
BBC News, Stavanger, Norway

Amid frantic newspaper headlines about the possibility of a new Cold War, more and more governments around Europe are talking about their need for "energy security".

What most of them actually mean is that they are not sure whether or not to trust the Russians.

Norway remains one of only two major fossil fuel exporters in Europe
There are only two big exporters of fossil fuels in Europe: Russia and Norway, so the choice - for countries without energy reserves of their own or fast depleting them - is limited.

And, undiplomatic as it is to admit it, the Norwegians stand to do very well out of the current politicial situation.

Officially, a healthy and productive competition exists between the two countries who share a border well above the Arctic Circle.

"We are also partners," says Norway's Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, "because both Russia and Norway have an interest in the development of the European oil and gas market.

"And we welcome them into the market, because the market will be bigger if there are several suppliers."

Mr Stoltenberg was speaking at the opening of an international conference about offshore energy in Stavanger, southern Norway.

Transparency

And, alongside the reassurances to his Russian neighbours, he did hint at his country's trump card, when asked why the rest of Europe should take Norway as its energy supplier of choice.

Norway offers a reliable energy supply and a stable democracy

"We are a reliable supplier. And we have proved that over many years. And we have a very transparent, open energy sector."

The head of the conference, ONS Director Kjell Ursin-Smith, was prepared to go even further.

"The situation is very interesting for Norway, of course. We are looked upon as a stable nation, whereas Russia still has a tainted reputation in that respect. So I think we will try to prove that we are a stable producer of oil and gas for Europe."

The proof of the UK's commitment to Norway as a gas provider of the future is a massive new pipeline - the biggest engineering project of its kind in the world - known as Ormen Lange.

The pipeline, whose name means "giant serpent" in old Norse will stretch from the Norwegian North Sea fields to Easington on the East Yorkshire coast.

Further afield

Some 745 miles of steel tubing have been painstaking laid up and down the canyons of the seabed, designed to deliver about 20% of the UK's domestic gas needs for the next 50 years. It came on stream late last year.

The Ukraine issue sent a shiver down the European energy spine and Georgia is a recent episode which will focus a lot of minds.

Malcolm Wicks, UK energy minister

The days when Britain could rely on its own reserves to be self-sufficient in oil and gas are long gone - with a current annual depletion rate of about 8% a year - so there is no choice but to look abroad.

Britain has always made a virtue of its lack of political interference in the energy market, preferring to make deciding on a supplier a matter of pure economics and stress the need for "diversity of supply".

But things might be changing.

"We're aware of what's going on now", says the UK Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks.

He still stresses the need to source from more than one country, more than one route.

High stakes

But, he adds, referring to the incident in 2006 when Russia turned off gas supplies to its neighbour in order to force higher prices: "The Ukraine issue sent a shiver down the European energy spine and Georgia is a recent episode which will focus a lot of minds.

"I think we have to be - how can I put it? - streetwise, when it comes to issues around energy security. Norway is a great partner to have. It's a very sophisticated democracy with a great record when it comes to human rights. So the new pipeline is a good piece of democratic politics."

The proportion of its energy western Europe has to import is likely to rise to about 70% in the coming decades, so the market is guaranteed and the stakes are high.

It remains to be seen whether the big two suppliers - Norway and Russia - will clash or co-operate when it comes to developing what is a potential El Dorado of the North - vast swathes of Arctic territory, largely in the Barents Sea, which new technology is opening up to oil and gas exploitation for the first time.

The disputes have already begun as to who owns what territory. Vast amounts of money are to be made.

Norway has known great wealth for nearly 40 years now, mostly thanks to its fossil fuel resources.

Russia, with an average per capita income still about a tenth the size of that of its tiny Scandinavian neighbour, has not.

And in these days of 'new' Russia rediscovering its confidence, reasserting its power in the world, observers of geo-politics can almost certainly expect fireworks.

[LTGuy]

We are witnessing - with the exception of most of Eastern Europe and the UK - a return to the 1930's policy of Appeasement which has been discredited by history. If you give in to a dictator's designs of the territory of internationally-recognised sovereign-states, then they take it as a sign of weakness and believe they can get away with trying it again and again

Yes, you are right, we see unmistakable and disgraceful appeasement of US nowadays.
First they bombed Serbia, even the Chinese embassy (in diplomatic language=declaration of war) and got away with this - check
Then they invaded Afghanistan, the world did not say a word - check
After that they invaded Iraq on a pretext which turned out to be GROSS LIES and HOT AIR - again mute voices - check
And finally, on the carved up piece of Serbia they build a military base, and declare it independent - check.
Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, exterritorial renditions, trials without access to lawyers and court, torture, waterboarding ...

How many wars and war crimes US has to commit to finally test the limits of appeasement? Do they have to invade Iran and cause a WW3 to get a risposte?

[Vega1447]

They will do nothing because they are too divided and dependent on Russian oil and gas (25% and 40% of respectively of EU supplies come from that country). I think McCain will take a harder line. His plan for an alliance of democracies is especially appealing in this regard - especially if it leaves out the Euroweenies like France, Germany and Italy which favour appeasement.

"Euroweenies"! Someone has been listening to too much US shock-jock talk-radio..

The *beginning* of the whole drama is very unclear.

Sakashvillii has not explained clearly *why* he attacked S Ossetia when he did. I've seen it suggested that Georgian villages S of S Ossetia were being shelled and that this was the casus belli.

BUT even if this is true:
Sakashvillii has made no effort (that I have seen at least) to stand this story up
If it was true then bringing in international observers etc would have been *much* smarter (I know OSCE were/are there but they seem to be staying stumm. http://www.osce.org/georgia/)
Sakashvillii cannot have expected the Russians would "stand idly by" if he attacked S Ossetia.
Sakashvillii cannot have expected that Russia would not win if Russia did respond.


The "official" Georgian version of the events earlier in the month are just a collection of press statements
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id= ... &limit=120

Does anyone have a link to an official Georgian narrative of the events of August?

[patslatt]

We are witnessing - with the exception of most of Eastern Europe and the UK - a return to the 1930's policy of Appeasement which has been discredited by history. If you give in to a dictator's designs of the territory of internationally-recognised sovereign-states, then they take it as a sign of weakness and believe they can get away with trying it again and again

Yes, you are right, we see unmistakable and disgraceful appeasement of US nowadays.
First they bombed Serbia, even the Chinese embassy (in diplomatic language=declaration of war) and got away with this - check
Then they invaded Afghanistan, the world did not say a word - check
After that they invaded Iraq on a pretext which turned out to be GROSS LIES and HOT AIR - again mute voices - check
And finally, on the carved up piece of Serbia they build a military base, and declare it independent - check.
Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, exterritorial renditions, trials without access to lawyers and court, torture, waterboarding ...

How many wars and war crimes US has to commit to finally test the limits of appeasement? Do they have to invade Iran and cause a WW3 to get a risposte?

Your type of lefty Russophile apologist tried to undermine the Western world's resolve to stand up to the Soviets all through the Cold War. Few of your type apologised publicly when the collapse of the Soviet Union exposed it as a primitive and brutal system.

As for US aggression, Clinton was very reluctant to become involved in Serbia but was begged to act by Europe which felt that large scale, Serbian mass murder and ethnic cleansing was too extreme to be ignored.

Afghanistan's blind mullah leader harboured the plotters of 9/11,refusing to give them up-definitely a justification for war.

It is a legalistic argument whether Saddam's continued flouting of UN resolutions justified invasion. And the US invasion had the backing of a very large coalition,unlike Russia's attack on Georgia which even the Russian friendly CIS countries have failed to endorse. That said,the US should have been content to keep up the sanctions and the air cover of northern Iraq instead of invading.