Sunday, 22 April 2018

EU's Flawed Position on Climate Change Exposed by Trade Policy

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament's representative on Brexit, uploaded this video made by the Economist, in support of liberal policy in the EU. The video claims that populists favour domestic production over imported goods implying that liberals such as Guy do not favour domestic production. This is not true because the EU have for example banned US beef and have had tariffs on other non EU beef products for many years to protect EU farmers. But there is a bigger issue here. Guy is a strong advocate for a global climate policy :  

A global climate policy would require a reduction on emissions from shipping and air travel, which would mean more focus on local production of food and goods. So the liberal EU policy of favouring the importing of goods from thousands of miles away over domestic production would naturally result in a global increase in carbon emissions and indeed in pollutants such as sulpher and nitrogen oxides. 

There are signs that the EU will be lifting more tariffs on non EU trade in response to Trump and the populist movement. Recently, the EU signed a provisional trade deal with Mexico which is 5,000 miles away from Ireland.  Countries like Mexico are not expected to meet it's greenhouse emission reductions targets so importing goods from these countries will also increase the carbon footprint there as well as globally (in the seas).  

EU liberal policy will have the unintended consequence of driving global emissions up, not down negating the actions they take on climate here in Europe. 


  1. Thea real cause of the anti eu populist is a combination of the € and financial policy (printing money etc). They will eventually collapse this failed economic experiment.Of course their belief that something must be done about climate change , which essentially is caused by solar variation and volcanic activity, will worsen this inevitable collapse.

  2. Democracy in a homogeneous society is populism, which begs the question of which elected representatives are deemed populist and who does the deeming? There is generally some legal, religious, cultural or other constraints to limit the degree an elected government can concede the people’s wishes. Of the constraints termed “other” economic ones are an obvious type. Constraints are usually inherited peacefully or through revolution.

    Liberalism is the idea that these constraints can be reduced or abolished. The strong conservative control by enforced moral values in Britain in the late 1800’s and the similar control of the Catholic church in Ireland were artificial constraints and eventually weakened through populism. Those with money, fame or other means to exert power will try to apply it to governments persuading them to act contrary to the wish of the people. Influencing government policy is a craven perk to them. Within government, the advent of junior partners in coalitions can often change policy in a way which would take a lot longer if left to established parties. For those who like to buy political influence, it’s a lot cheaper to buy it from small party.

    There is a limit to the amount of political constraints a society will tolerate before it becomes frustrated and seeks to change them. The decline of religious and moral constraints through the introduction of contraception and divorce left a vacuum which was filled by the great, the good, the rich and the famous, many of whose status was gained through ruthlessness as in the case of Geoarge Soros or the ability to perform on stage or screen or sing such as Robert DeNiro, Bono or by being retired former politician like Mary Robbinson or Tony Blair. These are often refers to as the elites.

    These elites are the deemers of populism. They decide whether a government acts for them or for their electorate. They are a 3rd force whose weapon is a compliant media. To me, liberalism is the development of a kind, equal, effort rewarding society confined to nation states, but sharing common values with neighbours. Once basic human rights are respected, the people can tell their government what. To the elites, it is essential that the people’s right to dictate who governs and what that government can do is not only constrained by them, but it is steered buy them. Voters reject this and change it. They elect Trump and similar politicians in Europe. The EU had a clear choice about which side to chose and chose to side with the elites. Lets see how it works for them.

    A constraint such as described above is very useful until it becomes obsolete. Whether climate change is true or false, it has the potential to act as a powerful constraint in so far as it can constrain economic output through carbon emissions curtailment. It can drive manufacturing from one country to another with the consent of the loser. It can transfer wealth similarly. It can redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor ones and from democratic ones like Britain to totalitarian ones like China. It can produce a multicultural no borders world, in which personal liberty and identity disappears. To do that, they must constrain the ability to get work done and in to-days world, that means the redistribution of the use of fossil fuel. They know very well that there is no effective alternative to fossil fuel. Green energy is just an idle promise to achieve consent from those losers The liberalism described in the main article is not true liberalism and the populism described by the elites is anything but populist. They just try to make it look that way.

    We should chose our government and instruct them. If others want to stand for election, let them at it.

  3. Just in case readers don't know, that picture of the stranded bear was a fake. a computer generated collage. The publishers admitted it. the phrase " the camera does not lie" is no longer true.