Ballot papers arrived

[wolfsong]

I'm surprised that the Green Party is against the EU as it seems to me to be the best way to get a green agenda implemented across the biggest trading partner in the world

You got to remember though that the EU is a synonym of Bureaucracy, each EMP has one minute to voice his opinion on a subject, and the framework is a relic of the 70's french system, not to mention the people, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing for one.
For true ecological devellopment, you could either go for the 'united in diversity' idea, held by the EU, or the 'the system's so heavy that we might as-well go it alone' idea. I'm not saying that this is the Green Party's agenda, but its logical.

[ajs88]

You've described the framework of the EU and the type of system that it is and two different view points, but I don't quite understand what it is that your saying or suggesting as logical. I presume that you think of the EU as to bureaucratic to bring 'true ecological development' and that we should go it alone.

I think that it is important to work towards our own green goals as individuals, as local areas and as a country without waiting to see what everyone else does or agrees. However it is absolutely vital to the worlds health that we have a worldwide approach. However most world wide conferences are for short amounts of time, are attended by headline hungry heads of state, share many topics and pledges rather then laws are made.

The EU is more then a one off conference. It has an elected parliament with proportional representation that could potentially elect many green minded MEPs, it can make and implement laws that heads of states can't because they are objectionable to special interests/newspapers, it has real worldwide power by being the biggest trading partner in the world and it has not given away veto votes to America and China a la UN.

For these reasons I think that the EU could be a powerful force against climate change and a very good starting point for a worldwide approach to climate change.

[Brij]

I'm surprised that the Green Party is against the EU as it seems to me to be the best way to get a green agenda implemented across the biggest trading partner in the world. If the EU refused to allow non-green goods into the European market, America and China would have to change there manufacturing ways or lose serious amounts of money. If the regulations for goods made within the EU and goods imported into the EU were the same then it would be fair and equal, no distortion of the market or tariffs etc. But would make real change! This could also be used to implement a universal carbon tax for example.

I've just done an exam on this, so I'm afraid you'll have to indulge me a little

I totally agree in principle, but there are a few things I'd like to reply to, this is not a criticism in any way, just a response (put into pretty colours to make it nicer to read)...

1. The EU already has a green agenda. It is insufficient. The fact is, the EU is interested in a single market - that is its main raison d'être. So the green agenda is in place to 'level the playing field' - basically so that companies can't prefer one country over another because it has laxer green laws. The green agenda of the EU is mainly in the form of an energy trading scheme, which works as 'cap and trade'. It is rubbish (in my opinion, lol!) because it is so poorly implemented. 90 percent + of the carbon permits are given away free anyway, and the 'cap' was set too high in the first phase (we are now in the second, I believe the third is set for 2010, but don't quote me on that!) - massive windfalls for companies and very little effect on the environment. In fact, since the quotas were set according to current usage, the main villains in fact produced more carbon than normal during the period before the scheme started!

2. Member countries of the EU would not agree to stopping non-green goods from the US and China (for example) into the market. It would restrict the imported goods far too much, and unfortunately there are few places that will produce the goods we need in a green way. It would not just be a problem for the exporters, the EU would suffer far too much... And if anyone were to take a really strong stand on it, I reckon it'd be good ol' Blighty! We don't want to upset them and get kicked out of Nato or anything. Though since Obama put Steven Chu onto energy, and he seems quite serious about preventing climate change, I think that China and India will be the ones left on the centre-stage when it comes to eco-villainry.

3. If regulations for EU and non-EU goods were the same, not only would we stop getting cheap goods (yes, I think that would be a good thing, but the majority of people don't, and we do live in a democracy) but we would also find alot of countries leaving the EU. It's a prestige thing. With fewer members wanting to come in (why would they bother? They have to pay alot to meet EU standards, probably easier to just pay import/export duty) the EU would lose political clout - and on issues such as the environment, human rights and suchlike, we do need as much force as possible.

4. A carbon tax would undermine the current cap-and-trade. Even if the cap-and-trade failed, a carbon tax might discourage industry from producing carbon, but it would not set a limit - which is what I believe we need if we are to significantly reduce carbon. The tax would just be passed on to the consumer and then the company would be able to keep making as much carbon as it likes.

Of course, If I were Dictator of the World, I'd get it all sorted out in no time, but, y'know, that might take a bit of work yet...

[ajs88]

That really is the clearest synopsis of the issue that I have found, thank you. I have read about the failing of the current cap and trade system and thus hoped that a straight carbon tax would be a better alternative, but your right it does lack a limit although it would encourage consumers to pick goods with lower carbon. Would you say that Britain does not have an effectual cap and trade system of its own due to the existence of the EU or that there would not be one at all if the EU hadn't brought one in?

[wolfsong]

Brij, i bow to you, very well put.
One thing is that Europe is not homogeneous, the rich western countries are more willing to put in supposed 'green bills' outlining industry, in the knowledge that the few industries still left will conform, because they are already most of the way there. The countries in the east have more difficulty, so therefore any EU guidelines have to circumnavigate measures that would cause their heckles to rise (if that's the right terminology ), and therefore in effect any real measures worth taking.
As you say we live in a democracy, and therefore matters of the environment take a while because the different countries have to be assessed and then guidelines introduced that are realistic, unlike the Kyoto style agreement which was obviously never going to work.
But from dictatorship comes disillusionment, a good example of this was Charles de Gaulle's authoritarian reign at the start of the Vth republic: "the people were bored" (see 1968). Entirely effective, boring for the populous.
Anyway, as Voltaire wrote in Candide 'let us cultivate our garden' (all translations are my own, so i know there may be misquotes )

[Brij]

Is that aimed at me, ajs88? If so, I'm flattered! Considering I didn't go to a single lecture this semester (the guy had an awful voice - and all the notes were online), I really hope I did nail that exam!

I actually don't know much about British politics compared with the politics of the EU - I am just one exam away from finishing my bachelors in 'Contemporary Europe', so that's why, but I'd take a stab in the dark and say because of the EU.

Basically the target of green political motions in contemporary society is business & industry. They are essentially the ones that get penalised. So if the UK instigated more efficient measures - such as a workable cap-and-trade scheme, alot of business would just move to another EU member state (if they have a foothold in the UK, they have a foothold in the EU). And I'm not sure but I'd take a gamble that part of the agreement which allows the UK membership means that they have effectively ceded the autonomy to make such decisions to the EU itself.

A green tax would be good, but chances are that non-green imports would still be able to undercut the greener products. This would mean that the end consumer wouldn't have save any money by going for the greener option. The difficult bit is making the tax big enough to provide a real incentive to business, yet without forcing production costs up so high that the business/industry becomes unworkable. This is the trouble with cap-and-trade - permits are bought in an auction system, so price fluctuations have undermined the whole system.

An alternative could be a bastardisation of cap-and-share, which means that there are still a limited number of permits, but the price is fixed. Unused permits could be treated as credit at the end of a fixed period, and either be straightforwardly refunded (which would benefit bigger enterprises able to buy up more than they would need) or used as support for failing industries (my personally preferred option).

The trouble is that this cap-and-trade thing is still only in stage 2 of 3 - chances are it will be a long time before anyone would think of abandoning it, and so nothing more effective is likely in the next decade or so... and emissions continue!

PS Just as I was writing this, wolfsong's comment pops up! Thank you, very flattered!

[gdb]

as I see it, the world needs us all

i. to govern ourselves as individuals in a responsible way within laws defined by..
ii. .. a local authority (councils) which governs itself in a responsible way within laws defined by..
iii. .. a national authority (parliament) which governs itself in a responsible way within laws defined by..
iv. .. a continent wide authority (the EU) which ...... within laws defined by..
v. a world authority.


and that's why i support - broadly - the EU.

as the misshapen child of stage iv.

sure it's got lots of faults - as have local and national governments - but we need to work and put those faults right. not throw the baby out with the bath water.

and that's where i disagree with the Green party. who are opposed to the EU. i wish they would change that policy.

[gdb]

oh, and brij, good luck with the finals!!

[Brij]

Lol! If we would only govern ourselves as responsible individuals, we wouldn't be in such a mess!

Thanks - only one exam left now - 15 hours and I'm free to jump on a train and go celebrate with my family and lots of wine!

[invisiblepiper]

I feel a bit like you my lovey horse,
Its a bit of a feminist thing really, I think women died so I can vote so I am bl**dy gonna use it!
.

I went to the same school as Emmeline Pankhurst (not at the same time )
Seems voting is a no brainer - but a no vote option on the ballot is becoming a more and more sound idea I must admit.

[wolfsong]

lol, i feel this is all going to far...
just vote green guys