You are on page 1of 116

Europe Trade DA

DDI 2008

Europe Trade DA
Europe Trade DA.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1NC............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1NC............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1NC............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1nc................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Unique -EU-US Climate Relations............................................................................................................................................. 11
Unique -EU-US Climate Relations............................................................................................................................................. 12
Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade ..................................................................................................................................13
Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade...................................................................................................................................14
Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade...................................................................................................................................15
Unique - EU Expects US Climate Action................................................................................................................................... 16
Unique - EU Expects US Climate Action................................................................................................................................... 17
Unique - EU Expects US Climate Action................................................................................................................................... 18
Unique - EU Liberalizing Trade - Climate..................................................................................................................................19
Unique - EU Liberalizing Trade - Climate..................................................................................................................................20
Unique: AT: No Regulations ......................................................................................................................................................21
Unique: AT: Incentives Now...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Unique: AT: Incentives Now ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Unique: AT: Incentives Now...................................................................................................................................................... 24
Unique - AT: BioFuel Subsides ................................................................................................................................................. 25
AT: Iraq killed US-EU trade....................................................................................................................................................... 26
Links............................................................................................................................................................................................27
Extension - Generic Link ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
Extension - general Links............................................................................................................................................................29
Extension - general Links............................................................................................................................................................30
Link-- environmental policy........................................................................................................................................................31
Link – environmental policy....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Link--environmental policy.........................................................................................................................................................33
Link --Incentives......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Link -- Incentives........................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Link-- incentives......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Link – incentives ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37
1

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Link - incentives..........................................................................................................................................................................38
Link Incentives............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Link—Incentives......................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Link--Subsidies........................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Link—Domestic Policy...............................................................................................................................................................42
Link-must be 0 emissions............................................................................................................................................................43
Link—policy not Kyoto.............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Link – policy not Kyoto............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Link – policy not Kyoto............................................................................................................................................................. 46
Link – policy not Kyoto............................................................................................................................................................. 47
Link – policy not Kyoto............................................................................................................................................................. 49
Link – policy not Kyoto............................................................................................................................................................. 50
Link – policy not Kyoto............................................................................................................................................................. 51
Link - technology....................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap............................................................................................................ 53
Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap............................................................................................................ 54
Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap............................................................................................................ 55
Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap............................................................................................................ 56
Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap............................................................................................................ 57
Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap............................................................................................................ 58
Internal Links - Carbon Tarrifs/Relations................................................................................................................................... 59
Carbon Tariffs = Trade War........................................................................................................................................................60
Carbon Tariffs= Trade War .......................................................................................................................................................61
Carbon Tariffs =Trade War ........................................................................................................................................................62
Trade Key to US-EU Relations .................................................................................................................................................. 63
Trade Key to US-Eu Relations ...................................................................................................................................................64
Trade Key to US-Eu Relations ...................................................................................................................................................65
Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
US-EU Free Trade - Extensions..................................................................................................................................................67
US-EU Trade Economy -Module ...............................................................................................................................................68
US-EU Trade Economy - Extensions .........................................................................................................................................69
US-EU Relations Democracy Module........................................................................................................................................ 70
US-EU Relations Democracy Extensions .................................................................................................................................. 71
US-EU Solves Iran Prolif Module.............................................................................................................................................. 72
US-EU Coop on Iran Prolif Now................................................................................................................................................ 73

2

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

US-EU Cooperation on Prolif Now............................................................................................................................................ 74
US-Eu Key to Iran Prolif.............................................................................................................................................................75
US-EU Solves Peace Process Module ....................................................................................................................................... 76
US-EU Solves Peace Process - Extension..................................................................................................................................77
US-EU Relations - Heg Module..................................................................................................................................................78
US-EU Relations -Heg Extensions............................................................................................................................................. 79
US-EU Relations -Heg Extensions............................................................................................................................................. 80
US-EU Bioterror Module ........................................................................................................................................................... 81
US-EU Bioterror - Extensions.....................................................................................................................................................82
US-EU Relations Solves War - General .................................................................................................................................... 83
US-EU Relations Solves War - General..................................................................................................................................... 84
US-EU Trade Solves LL............................................................................................................................................................. 85
US-EU key to Indo-Pak...............................................................................................................................................................86
US-EU key to Central Asian stability......................................................................................................................................... 87
US-EU key to Disease.................................................................................................................................................................88
US-EU key to Bird Flu................................................................................................................................................................89
US-EU  NMD..........................................................................................................................................................................90
US-EU  NMD..........................................................................................................................................................................91
US-EU Relations - Turns Case - Climate....................................................................................................................................92
US-EU Relations - Turns Case - Climate....................................................................................................................................93
US-EU Relations - Turns Case - Climate....................................................................................................................................94
Afff.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
US-EU can’t solve terrorism/prolif............................................................................................................................................. 96
US-EU alliance fails....................................................................................................................................................................97
Won’t Cause US-EU trade conflicts .......................................................................................................................................... 98
No US-EU Cooperation on Middle East .................................................................................................................................... 99
US-EU relations low - climate.................................................................................................................................................. 100
AT: “Value Gap” hurts counterterrrorism ................................................................................................................................101
No Obama Change.................................................................................................................................................................... 102
No Obama/McCain Kyoto Agreement......................................................................................................................................103
Aff: Depending on McCain/Obama ......................................................................................................................................... 104
Aff: Depending on McCain/Obama.......................................................................................................................................... 105
Won’t Cut W/O Dev Countries................................................................................................................................................. 106
Non-Unique: France Taxes Imports.......................................................................................................................................... 107
No Bush Change .......................................................................................................................................................................108

3

................................................................................................................................................................................116 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Aff-Eu already mad.........112 Aff – No link........109 Bush Can’t Influence................................................. 115 Perception – world climate policy.................................110 Bush Can’t Influence.................................................................................................................................................................................. 113 Aff – no link................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................111 Bush Can’t Influence................Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations Won’t Fail........................................................................

and could ultimately derail . There is the possibility to help drive the world towards an international agreement that seriously tackles the issue of global warming. The EU is holding off on trade barriers because they believe the Us will increase c02 regulations Stephen Boucher. First. the most important thing is for Europe to engage Americans actively on the climate issue. an unprecedented opportunity has arisen to form a transatlantic alliance to lead efforts to fight global warming.45 These tasks will fall primarily to the French administration under its presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008.Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change. EU policy-makers should. in the second half of 2009. and to the Swedish presidency. Former Advisor on European Affairs for the Belgian Deputy PM . This could happen with the current dilution of goals indicated by the fact that the EU had committed to a reduction by 25.notre- europe. • Monitor closely US efforts and debates and engage in discussions over precise mechanisms in order to address competitiveness concerns jointly. http://www.40% in Bali. Efforts should be focused on finding common legislative ground. Climate change could now be seen as a common cause for the EU and the USA. Making contact with the staff of all three candidates would be wise. This will require resisting national industry lobbying on a number of dimensions. Until the future tells us who becomes the next US President. This sends the wrong signal.Prof. 4/4/’8 [Clinton. European policy makers should also consider enforcing the 30% emissions reduction target by 2020 even before an international agreement is reached. legislative proposals seeking to address climate change happen to be under discussion in parallel on both sides of the Atlantic and may come to fruition in 2009. They should continue carrying out negotiations with the Bush administration while remembering that a more climate-ambitious administration will be coming soon. more specifically: •Maintain high standards. this will help them stick to the more demanding plans they have backed. the best thing the EU can do in 2008 is therefore to put its own house in order. has talked of an insufficient goal of 50% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. one should be wary of letting the current US administration’s recalcitrance push Europe to make counter-proposals that are too bold. This is the stated reason of the Byrd-Hagel resolution opposing the Kyoto treaty in 1997. as it did in Bali. A weakening of EU resolve has also been noticed concerning auctioning rules.or at least stymie and delay .US climate policy action. or the US policy arena collectively. unlike for the French and Swedish governments.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 1NC A. considered insufficient. rather than an issue that pits both sides of the Atlantic against each other. this will help him go higher than the 65% reduction goal by 2050 he has announced.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-ClimateChange-en. as seen above. In light of these objectives. the Czech government has nevertheless indicated informally to its French partners that it will not hinder France’s efforts to conclude legislative negotiations on the Commission’s proposals by the end of 2008. for the first time. as the Czech government has clearly indicated that climate change will not be a priority. McCain . Therefore. the United States may possibly go further than the EU on a number of aspects. Informal diplomacy. to foster common thinking and support. If McCain is elected. Also. especially for the functioning of carbon markets. while there are real similarities between US and EU plans.4 Encourage common thinking on China. the European Union. A careful balance needs to be found between proposing anything too radical. The EU environment commissioner.3 Initiate discussion on mechanisms Two striking observations can be made regarding the current situation. and vice versa. However. so as to increase the likelihood that the US outcome can work with the EU regime. the United States. The American mainstream is fast becoming aware of the climate problem. Whether with each campaign individually. India and other major emitters The critical issue moving forward is treatment of BRICs and differentiated responsibility. This would mean reaching a preliminary agreement between the Council and the Parliament by the end of 2008 and sticking as closely as possible to the Commission’s proposal. Europe has a vital and important role to play in facilitating these difficult discussions. with the promising trends described above. @ Science Po in Paris. On the other hand. At present. and the world would benefit from a closer alignment of climate policies across the Atlantic. and at least not go lower. 3. to European Commission officials. as mentioned above. The opportunity is thus ripe for Europe to engage the United States in climate policy deliberations and for EU discussions to benefit from US plans. no matter who the President-elect is. • Encourage common thinking on China and India. This goal was in fact endorsed at the June 2007 G8 meeting in Heiligendamm. Pursuing informal channels of diplomacy is also in order. Obama. Emphatic talk about the EU’s leadership should not hide this. at this formative stage. Despite Czech President Vaclav Klaus’ skepticism regarding climate change. it should not provide ammunition for those in the USA seeking to lower long-term objectives nor weaken future US legislation. EU policymakers would therefore be well advised to follow closely discussions and legislative progress on climate change in the USA. and could benefit from learning of Europe’s experience in tackling the issue. Second. 3. addressing this issue is essential for ensuring US action. and vice versa. 3. with the help of relevant EU and US think tanks and officials would not be time wasted. it is crucial that both US and EU policies trend towards harmonization and integration. and preparing for quick movement in January 2009.2 Maintain high standards If the EU wishes to play an active role. Engaging private sector stakeholders across the two sides of the Atlantic is also important. the EU and the future US President will agree that the best way to tackle global warming while limiting the impact on their 5 . while keeping the pressure on.pdf] What EU governments and institutions can do in the forthcoming months in relation to US plans for climate change can only be modest in the context of an electoral campaign. Also. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected. Therefore.

Rightly so. There will be no Congress backing if the BRICs are not seriously committed. indicating that it may become more flexible on the issue. This could lead to the creation before the end of 2009 of a transatlantic consensus helping shape a successor treaty to the Kyoto treaty. they did not appear to be ready to agreeing to any mandatory restrictions in the near future. they should not talk unwisely of “border adjustments”47 and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbon pricing. possibly. EU Commission President Barroso said that this issue would only be reviewed in 2010 in the light of international negotiations. EU government should adhere to this discipline. it could bolster efforts by those in the USA who have similar goals. this paper suggests that there is in fact a unique opportunity lying ahead to join forces with the forthcoming US administration. as opposed to a form of beauty contest some seem to believe the EU is engaged in with the United States. where import tariffs have been requested by a number of business interest groups. As Europe wrestles with the difficulty of being leader and worries about the impact on its economy. However. Most importantly. its best hope today is to prepare to join forces with the next US administration. They should also be governed by the notion that convergence is desirable. the current bill moving through Senate requires “comparable” action from developing countries. no matter who wins the November election. For those in Europe who assume that a Democrat as President of the USA would be more inclined to join forces with Europe to lead the global fight against climate change. This is a crucial period in US climate policy formulation and Europe has a rare and fleeting opportunity to help inform US climate policy development. reportable and verifiable” emissions cuts. it would seem that China is ready to play a more constructive role. with Europe’s own lack of ambition EU policy makers today should be governed by an exceptional sense of urgency. However. Their priority remains economic development. China and other emerging countries agreed for the first time in Bali to try to make “measurable. setting bold long term emissions targets and encouraging cooperation with developing countries.46 However. This requires bringing in developing countries. it also argues that the resolve of any of the three could be dampened if faced with resistance.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 1NC competitiveness is by involving as many countries as possible under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. 6 . Conclusion Europe should already start looking beyond the Bush Administration and begin to engage alternative and emerging policy leaders. This is true also for the USA. Both the EU and the USA should therefore seek jointly to make use of these positive signals for a global climate treaty. Or. If Europe adopts clear legislation. while engaging in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind. Considering the outcome of the December UNFCCC Bali meeting. if necessary starting from relatively limited emission cuts.

has made these commitments." Blair.." Angela Merkel told the newsmagazine Der Spiegel. Merkel announced over the weekend that the U. "very welcome .time." Still. in fact. The German environment minister warned of a possible "trojan horse" designed to sidestep an agreement in Heiligendamm and "torpedo the international climate protection process. negotiators declared. http://www. President's proposals of May 31 were." Defenders of the Bush plan contend that it would actually help the U. Bush announced his own climate change inititiative. agreed that "it is good that the U. 6-4-07.S. that have been reluctant to sign on to a more top-down approach. We need clear aims and we have to be able to check if the contracting partners stick to the goals.S.S. "America increasingly wants to use new technologies and in this way test how much carbon dioxide emissions can be decreased. at least for now. The biggest worry in Europe is that the Bush Administration approach of stressing technology and voluntary targets will weaken the global effort under U." She added: "I encourage [President Bush] to be courageous and lead the way with concrete climate protection goals. which calls on the leaders of the 15 leading producers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term voluntary emission-reduction goals.N." while adding.N. given our fundamental opposition to the German position. Bush on global warming.S.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 1NC The Plan Will be Percieved as a Trojan Horse to Block US Cap and Trade - Ensuring EU Backlash Time Magazine. "We need to make sure that we keep these targets within the U. that the German draft "crossed multiple 'red lines'" and that "there is only so far we can go. 7 . speaking afterward. if they are channeled into the framework of [U. But they point to President Bush's recent acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a reality as a sign of progress — and sufficient reason for avoiding a head-on collision.com/time/world/article/0.1628024. and to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of the 1990 level before 2050. Europe vs.html [Barber] The targets require taking steps to ensure that average temperatures on the planet increase by no more than 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century. at least for now. And tempers appear to be cooling as the G8 summit draws near. process by bringing in countries such as China and India. U. raised concern in Europe that Bush was trying to make an end-run around the existing United Nations process for addressing climate change. treaty negotiations].N. staff writer Andrew Purvis. No European leaders are going to suffer politically for standing up to the Bush Administration on global warming. added: "What we need now is a worldwide climate change regime. President George W. Though there's a chance the Europeans could water down the communique by agreeing to remove concrete targets.N. notably short on specfics. auspices to set mandatory targets. The proposal." Then." Sigmar Gabriel. and direct our efforts accordingly. the German Environment Minister. along with the U. and the Europeans are unlikely to resolve differences when their leaders meet this week.. Administration on global warming.00. But when the German draft was circulated two weeks ago in Washington." Underlying the increasingly testy exchange are fundamental differences over how the climate crisis is to be addressed. agreement. the U. in a document leaked shortly afterwards. on May 31.. which includes the Kyoto agreement. Merkel insisted last weekend that she would not do so. But they point to President Bush's recent acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a reality as a sign of progress — and sufficient reason for avoiding a head-on collision.S.8599. "We Europeans find it more compelling to agree on goals on an international level.

asp? type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjc] The Commission's threat of climate-related trade sanctions aimed at putting EU and third country producers on a level footing appears mainly targeted at convincing governments in Washington and Beijing to adhere to a global deal on climate change. the US appears to have won British support. WTO law also states that countries may deviate from these rules if it is for the protection of animal. as the WTO has no clear provisions on the subject. On the other." But business leaders fear that imposing "climate tariffs" could provoke trade retaliation. the EU executive has confirmed that it will not decide on the introduction of any such measures before 2011. plant or human health or for the conservation of natural resources. saying they would create a level-playing field for business: "It makes more likely an emissions trading scheme on a worldwide basis. insisted French Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development Jean-Louis Borloo . he said the EU should promote the clean development mechanism – a scheme which allows European companies to invest in carbon-reduction projects in the developing world. http://www.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 1nc EU Climate Trade Sanctions Spills Over to Collapse the WTO Euractiv '8 [January 28. France. The United States has warned it would "vigorously" resist any move to introduce a tax on American products based on its position in. US Trade Representative Susan Schwab accused the EU of using the climate as an excuse for protectionism. According to the Financial Times.and they do exist . Legal experts remain divided on whether the EU's proposed measures would be compatible with international trade regulations. Ujal Singh Bhatia. "We are against any measures which might look like trade barriers […] There is always the danger that the protectionists in Europe . the dispute settlement mechanism in [the] WTO would face serious challenges and create divisions along North-South lines." As an alternative. a senior policy adviser at BusinessEurope. the others might do the same.org/plugins/DocSearch/details." Furthermore. Last week . shifts to countries with no carbon disciplines at all. is continuing to push for protection against unfair international competition to avoid massive delocalisation of EU companies. however. border adjustment measures could be considered to contravene WTO rules prohibiting discrimination between countries or between "like products". if manufacturers in China know they are not going to gain entry. and indeed pollution. Indeed. warned against the risk of retaliation and litigation from the EU's trade partners if it goes ahead with trade restrictive measures. British Liberal MEP Chris Davies welcomed the idea of tariffs. He said: "Unilateral measures at this stage would create contentiousness and lead to charges of protectionism […] If the countries imposing such measures invoke Gatt provisions to justify them." British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told the BBC. Folker Franz. the mere fact that the EU is considering such action has already caused outrage among its trade partners. On the one hand. the European employers' organisation .could use this as a kind of secret weapon to bring about protectionism. The establishment of a border adjustment mechanism is a "fundamental element" of the package and France will work "very closely" with the European Commission between now and 2011 on proposals to set up the scheme. 8 .wbcsd. India's ambassador to the WTO ." However. EU Warned of Trade War Over Climate Measures. the US would be "vigorous in resisting calls for any form of trade protectionism as a response to climate change. said: "If you impose import measures on others." A spokesman from the US Mission to the EU told EurActiv that while the US was encouraged to see that the EU's new climate package does not introduce any trade-restrictive action on imports. However. Positions Commission President José Manuel Barroso said: "There would be no point in pushing EU companies to cut emissions if the only result is that production.

the father of the nuclear disarmament movement. both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. and their economies are built on exports to other countries. As long as nations are trading peacefully. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity. like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. ln] For decades. the threat of hostility diminishes. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade.000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. That's why bringing China. In a way. and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. but also to forestall conflict with other nations. That's just plain wrong. it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. many people have good jobs at Qualcomm. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together. into the WTO is so important.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 1NC Nuclear Extinction Copley News ’99 [12/1. Actually. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell. many of the 100. labor or paranoia about global government. It's U. and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. they have a major disincentive to wage war. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity. a budding superpower. First of all. They should be celebrating it. most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists. our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. In San Diego. Commentary. whether the cause is environmental. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. They're special-interest activists. many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. companies that make high-tech goods. In Seattle. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade.S. But they're not. Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. 9 .

Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Uniqueness 10 .

Graffy.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/104981. eliminate barriers to transatlantic trade. http://www.-EU Summit consider joint efforts in clean energy technologies that will help us address our shared concerns about energy security and climate change. by 2015. also has partners. which specifies a national mandatory fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. In short. Colleen P. The Transatlantic Economic Council and the Methane to Markets Partnership are two examples of U. Let’s remember that the transatlantic market today makes up nearly 55 percent of global GDP and about 40 percent of world trade. and was signed by President Bush. and a Vehicle Fuel Economy Mandate. 11 . unnecessary differences in our regulatory approaches have made our companies less competitive. the Transatlantic Economic Council is recommending that the June 2008 U. under the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration. Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. The TEC was created in April 2007.state. when I am posed the question: “Does America have friends in Europe with regard to trade and climate change?” I would say not only does the U. Gaffy. The U. working together. renewable and alternative energy sources and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Chancellor Merkel and European Commission President Barroso during the U. However. President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in December 2007. Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope believe that if we could align our economies better. in some cases. which is an international effort to promote methane recovery and its use as a clean source of energy. EISA was in response to the President’s "Twenty in Ten" challenge in last year's State of the Union Address to improve vehicle fuel economy and increase alternative fuels. Climate Change and Soft Power--Does America Have Friends in Europe?. Trade.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique -EU-US Climate Relations US-EU relations are strong even in the areas of trade and climate change. we are trying to do exactly that. Gaffy. Climate Change and Soft Power--Does America Have Friends in Europe?. 5/13/08. Trade.-EU cooperation. the U. Graffy. economic and environmental benefits.-EU Summit in Washington. or planting 55 million acres of trees. we could generate $10 billion in saved costs and potential growth for the transatlantic economy. and strengthen support for open investment regimes. In the area of the environment. annual reductions in methane emissions that would be the equivalent of removing 33 million cars from the roadways for one year.S. http://www.S. The goal of the TEC is to promote regulatory cooperation.S. As many of you know. Before I describe others. has made domestically on energy security. 5/13/08. So if we can either prevent or use methane emissions.htm [SD] So. EISA also phases out the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2014.S. The act includes some significant measures.S.htm [SD] Another example of our multilateral cooperation with the EU is the Methane to Markets Partnership. by creating the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC). Methane accounts for 16 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions that come from human activities. That mandate alone would save billions of gallons of fuel and increase efficiency by 40 percent. It remains in the atmosphere for up to 15 years and is also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. we can achieve significant energy. it might be helpful to know about the commitments the U. sets new mandatory efficiency standards for appliances. And so. it is trying to reduce barriers to trade and investment.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. advance capital market liberalization. and requires all federal buildings to reduce their energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015 and to be carbon-neutral by 2030.S. DC. raised consumer costs. Bush implements many climate change policies to keep US-EU relations strong Colleen P. reduced consumer choice and slowed job creation.state. which met for the second time today in Brussels. have friends. has the potential to deliver. This Partnership. Both the United States and Europe believe in strong and effective regulation to protect our citizens and the environment. So there is a strong incentive to work together as friends and partners. including a Renewable Fuels Mandate that will increase the use of renewable fuels by 500 percent.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/104981. which began in 2004.

http://www. and working with the private sector and the United Kingdom's Wave Hub to harness the power of the ocean. Trade Representative Susan C.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique -EU-US Climate Relations US-EU relations promote multilateral cooperation Colleen P. Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. 12 . The result is that for the first time ever there will be a Major Economies Meeting (MEM) at the time of the G-8 Summit where MEM countries will be represented at the leader level. has endorsed more than 25 new renewable energy projects. China. and France just hosted the latest meeting in Paris in April. Graffy. including working with Sweden to advance biofuel and clean vehicle technologies. U. such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). And of course we have the agreement reached under the Montreal Protocol to speed the phase-out of hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that deplete the ozone layer. The APP. the President launched the Major Economies Process (MEP) as a way to support and accelerate the UN process. I hope it is the message that the United States is actively engaged and working with other countries in a multilateral way to find solutions to these energy issues that the whole world is facing. 5/13/08. Schwab announced that the United States and the European Union had submitted a proposal—in the WTO—to increase global trade in environmental goods and services. but we also work together multilaterally. Canada. There are also other international partnerships and initiatives. Korea and India. civil society and private sector leaders from around the world to advance the development and commercialization of renewable energy And let’s not forget the World Trade Organization (WTO).gov/p/eur/rls/rm/104981. Japan. which includes Australia. We believe that when you gather around a single table the 17 economies that represent 80 percent of the world’s economy and 80 percent of the world’s emissions.htm [SD] Not only do the U. The EU and several European countries participate in the MEP. the U. Last September. Climate Change and Soft Power--Does America Have Friends in Europe?. European countries also played an important role at the recent Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC).S. Last year. In addition. and EU cooperate closely bilaterally. Gaffy. you can make a significant contribution to the UN talks.state.S. This initiative places priority on technologies that are directly linked to addressing climate change and energy security.S. which brought together government officials. Trade.S. and EU also proposed to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental technologies and services in the Doha Round. If you leave today with only one message from my remarks. is forming several other international partnerships to pursue clean and renewable energy. The U.

Both Candidates Cap and Trade EU expects similar strategies from US presidential candidates to decrease emissions Stephen Boucher.” The percentage of auctioning is higher.20 As summarized in Table 1 below. if we are to reach the strategic objective of limiting the global average temperature increase to not more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Clinton’s precise plans. http://www. For the US. or McCain’s boldness in sponsoring legislation in Congress to suggest that one or the other is a better candidate for fighting climate change. considering his party’s stance.Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change. One can also find fault with each candidate.notre-europe. 4/2008. where US proposals allow for overly generous use of reduction projects outside the USA. U. A crucial assessment was made by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). but not the McCain- Lieberman Bill. Albeit with shades of green.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher- ClimateChange-en. UCS argues that the Sanders-Boxer Bill achieves that. it appears overall that all three current US presidential hopefuls have relatively good credentials to fight climate change—especially if compared with former Republican candidates— and collaborate with the EU to negotiate a successor treaty to the Kyoto Treaty. and one should not exclude his willingness to agree to a higher target if elected President. Recalling that a minimum of 80% below 2000 levels is required from the United States to limit the global temperature increase to 2°C. Obama. McCain . McCain has not sufficiently strengthened his proposals. Another question is whether Europe’s plans will measure up with the United States’. McCain .pdf [SD] One might consider Obama’s environmental record. Clinton. Obama. about 80%.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher- ClimateChange-en. both in terms of industries and gases is also potentially greater. 13 .”22 Yet.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . For the EU. And coverage. consultant in the energy policy field. if not more. http://www. 4/2008. Official EU statements have suggested that “significant emission reductions of 60%-80% compared to 1990 will be necessary by 2050.S. A notable exception is the issue of flexibility. plans endorsed by US presidential candidates are on par with EU plans on several key dimensions of emissions trading.19 Notwithstanding this assessment. First. it represents about half its economy from 2013. presidential candidates are expected to fight climate change Stephen Boucher. In his defense. the long-term targets in US legislative proposals (between 65% for McCain and 80% for Clinton and Obama) are at least as ambitious as the EU’s. Clinton.pdf [SD] How do US plans compare with the EU’s? The short answer is: favorably. consultant in the energy policy field.notre-europe.Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change. EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas also recently spoke of the need for global emissions to “be cut by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. this would probably be politically suicide at this stage.

but at least the fact that oil is now more realistically priced to reflect its relative scarcity will spur the long-delayed advance of alternative energy technologies. Patrick Wintour.guardian. both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to dealing with climate change.climatechange [SD] There is also an acceptance that there must be interim targets for emissions reductions. 14 . Encouragingly. represents progress. rich and poor alike.irishtimes.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . in the sphere of international climate change diplomacy. political editor for The Guardian.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0711/1215677267262. and an agreement that a new body may be needed to guide this process through the UN. and both are committed to changing US policy. and Obama appears to have a more progressive view on biofuels. and McCain favours a 60% cut. In private he points out that he has spoken to both McCain and Obama about climate change. committed themselves to negotiate a comprehensive global agreement on global warming in Copenhagen at the end of next year. including the introduction of a "cap and trade" regime aimed at cutting emissions in the US. This.uk/world/2008/jul/08/g8. Crucial talks to advance this goal will be held in the Polish city of Poznan this December. The Irish Times. presumably for 2020. But Gordon Brown. 7/8/08. EU leaders expect McCain and Obama to participate in international cap and trade. http://www. Clouds part slowly in climate change diplomacy. "Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they've had problems but it is still the right thing to do. The EU has already unilaterally targeted a 20% interim cut by 2020. G8 and climate change. Both favour an international cap and trade mechanism to achieve this.Both Candidates Cap and Trade Obama and McCain are committed to cap and trade. http://www. Copenhagen has always been seen as the ultimate destination for these talks. and sets the course for further talks through the UN leading to an agreement at Copenhagen at the end of next year on a precise deal designed to replace the Kyoto agreement that expires in 2012.co. like every other European leader. delegates from more than 180 countries. has been waiting politely for George Bush to leave the international stage and allow either John McCain or Barack Obama to embrace deep carbon cuts by 2050. Obama favours an 80% cut in emissions by 2050 using a baseline of 1990. based on an international cap and trade scheme. McCain is probably more pro-nuclear of the two. by which time George W Bush will be on the way out and the US will have a new president-elect. Whether this commitment will survive in an era of recession and rising oil prices is a moot point. 7/11/08." McCain has said.html [SD] At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali last December.

All were acts of courage undertaken in a time of Republican majority. contrary to President George Bush’s desire and despite party pressure.notre-europe. which called for a cap-and-trade system similar to Europe’s. McCain . Clinton.Both Candidates Cap and Trade McCain will push for cap-and-trade regardless of political rewards Stephen Boucher. when they offered little political reward. “These aren’t chopped liver.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . but the two congressmen reintroduced it in 2005. consultant in the energy policy field. http://www. He has also voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “The issue of climate change is one of the most important issues facing our nation and the world today. 4/2008. Other Republican hopefuls. such as Mitt Romney. he can be credited for taking a bold step: co-authoring the first-ever Congress bill on climate change.“2 On the positive side. As suggested by political commentator and senior staff writer at Grist. Obama. In 2003. and again in 2007. only grudgingly acknowledged human influence on the climate and were very critical of McCain’s stance.pdf [SD] For John McCain. McCain is definitely good news for Europe and climate change.Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change. as previously mentioned.” Relative to other Republican candidates. he and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the “Climate Stewardship Act”.org David Roberts. It was defeated that same year.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher- ClimateChange-en. 15 .

the president's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. Bush is methodically promoting his issues. Price said the G-8 acknowledged that it alone cannot effectively address climate change — that contributions from all major economies are required — a position Bush has argued repeatedly. her European counterpart. Even so.The United States warned the European Union yesterday against using climate change as a pretext for protectionism. making protectionist measures unnecessary." said Dan Price. seemingly ready to accept incremental progress rather than pursuing eye-catching breakthroughs. EU officials were not expected to propose such a measure tomorrow but were expected to keep alive the possibility of a so-called border tax to keep European industries competitive. Bush. 16 . http://ap. EU officials hope to be able to avoid the issue. as Bush predicted back in September. Instead. Bush scored a small victory in getting the other big-polluting major economy nations to agree to attend a meeting Wednesday on the sidelines of a summit. January 22. . 7/8/08. "We have been dismayed at a variety of suggestions where we have seen the climate and the environment being used as an excuse to close markets. Japan (AP) — President Bush and other world leaders made gradual progress Tuesday on climate change. "This represents substantial progress from last year.com/article/ALeqM5iDhfdxlthyulzNbmR8KGjPKvNzaAD91PO3D00 [SD] TOYAKO. whether the heads of state at Wednesday's session will "finalize" a long-term goal for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. which did not sign the Kyoto climate treaty. http://www.' The pointed comments by the US trade representative.new climate proposals will be used as an excuse for protectionism James Kanter and Stephen Castle. where we have seen the climate and the environment being used.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/01/22/us_warns_eu_on_using_climate_change_as_pretext/ BRUSSELS . came just two days before the European Commission introduced its proposals for cutting EU emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. 'We have been dismayed . International Herald Tribune. G-8 make progress on climate change. Climate change. The EU pledge to protect European industry by 2011 at the latest will be aimed at assuaging powerful lobby groups from sectors like steel and aluminum manufacturing. however. The G-8 endorsed cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050 and called for emitters to set midterm reduction targets. which say they are facing higher costs than their overseas competitors because of the EU's determination to lead the world in climate protection. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called for a carbon tax on imports to ensure that European companies that need to comply with tough environmental rules are not undercut by foreign competitors whose governments are not capping carbon emissions.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . 2008.boston. With his popularity low at home and fewer than 200 days left in office. but finalizing a long-term global agreement on what to do about the fevered planet remains elusive. after talks in Brussels." Schwab said after discussions with Peter Mandelson. EU officials hope that other developed countries like the United States. is just one on a long list of global issues — from Iran's nuclear weapons program to missile defense — that Bush is trying to push forward at the Group of Eight summit.EU Expects US Climate Action Europe is withholding boarder taxes because they expect that the United States will cap emission. .google. G-8 Predicts Bush to advocate climate control Associated Press. will join an international treaty by the end of the decade. the focus of this year's meeting of industrialized nations. The White House quickly hailed the G-8 declaration as a validation of Bush's approach. Price also said the declaration struck here Tuesday reflects the sense the development and deployment of clean technologies in developing nations is crucial — another thing that Bush has been pushing. not least because any European border tax could be challenged at the World Trade Organization. It's unclear. Susan Schwab. setting the stage for trans-Atlantic tension over a new package of EU measures to combat global warming. The president long has insisted that major emerging economies like China and India be included in any global plan to cut emissions.

EU Expects US Climate Action EU wants the US to curb emissions regardless of other country’s policies. we must have the ongoing international climate negotiations on a post-2012 agreement in mind. As Boucher notes. McCain – Europe’s opportunity to shape a presidency. McCain – Europe’s opportunity to shape a presidency. advance technology innovation and cooperation. http://www. staff writers.pdf [SD] In order to assess “What Europe should do now”. scale up adaptation and address the cross-cutting issue of finance.e3g. where agreement was reached on laying out a plan for negotiations that could produce a climate treaty by 2009.org/images/uploads/Reaction_E3G_Notre_Europe_Policy_Paper_34_US___EU_Climate_Chan ge. James Kanter and Stephen Castle. US warns EU on using climate change as pretext. at the Bali meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (and its Kyoto Protocol). ministers launched a new round of negotiations scheduled to be completed in Copenhagen in December 2009.pdf The Bali Action Plan has. are far away from the 25 to 40% range currently under negotiation. 5/20/08. including the persistently thorny problem of convincing the United States to take action even if fast- developing countries like China. Indonesia. left open a space for the US’ level of ambition to be negotiated under the UNFCCC to which it is a party. which insists on developments getting higher priority than emissions curbs. Obama.e3g. Europe wants countries to curb emissions AND shift financial focus Jennifer L Morgan. Director at Climate and Energy Security for Third Generation Environmentalism. fail to make similar pledges. while quite ambitious in the longer-term. 5/20/08.org/images/uploads/Reaction_E3G_Notre_Europe_Policy_Paper_34_US___EU_Climate_Chan ge. But the Bali Action Plan faces high hurdles. Europe will be in a far stronger position for this negotiation if it is able to complete its own legislative process on its target of 20% below 1990 by 2020 by the end of 2008 under the French Presidency.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique .boston. in a sense. Director at Climate and Energy Security for Third Generation Environmentalism. This question of comparability is nicely treated in Boucher’s analysis as it is quite clear that current US legislative proposals. strengthen carbon markets. 17 . http://www. International Herald Tribune. As Boucher notes. Clinton. Clinton. Europe must therefore engage the US Senate and the three candidates sooner rather than later to begin defining what a comparable effort might be. http://www. The core elements of these negotiations include what actions developed and developing countries will take to curb their emissions. Europe needs an engaged US government in order to be successful Jennifer L Morgan.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/01/22/us_warns_eu_on_using_climate_change_as_pre text/ [SD] EU officials say they are optimistic about a global climate accord after the recent meeting of nearly 200 nations in Bali. 1/22/08. and noted that the commitment of the United States should be “comparable” with other industrialised countries. Obama.

China).e3g.EU Expects US Climate Action Europe wants countries to cap emissions or they will permit energy incentive exports. For example. Such amity is important. The "Toxic Texan" with his "cowboy diplomacy" seems to many over here a distant memory.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . next year the European Commission should decide to remove high tariffs on Chinese compact fluorescent lightbulbs so that European consumers can purchase cheap low carbon goods." the paper said. ln] Even the tone has changed. This is a marked change from the characterizations that had become so familiar. McCain – Europe’s opportunity to shape a presidency. It preserves the all- important united front between Europe and the United States on the tricky question of how much pressure to put on Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. his aides suggested. and would signal the way forward for a more positive and proactive engagement from US business interests.pdf [SD] Recently. http://www. Europe's ire softens.org/images/uploads/Reaction_E3G_Notre_Europe_Policy_Paper_34_US___EU_Climate_Chan ge. That. 18 . ln] Even the protesters mostly stayed away ." "His humor is self-deprecating. Jennifer L Morgan. Bush is Percieved as Moving Towards Europe on Climate Chicago Tribune 6/15/’8 [With Bush near exit. Climate Progress Preserving US-EU Co-operation Plain Dealer 6/17/’8 [Bush's farewell tour. the Lieberman/Warner bill poses a more explicit threat to emerging economies (i. Director at Climate and Energy Security for Third Generation Environmentalism. more conciliatory than it once was.e. In an interview with the Times of London. And on his last trip to Europe. make it harder to get a deal at Copenhagen and help only a handful of industries (energy intensive goods account for just 3% of US imports from China). Clinton. It would antagonise developing countries. While Europe is waiting to see the outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations before implementing any protective measures for energy-intensive industries. Bush comes across as being constructive: a man to do business with. Bush also ascribed his smooth sailing through the capitals of Europe to America's progress on climate change policy. 5/20/08. his emphasis on a multilateral approach to Iran and his commitment. There is still however a distinct difference in approach. The bill sets out that these countries should take on a national cap by a certain date or accept an emissions permit levy on energy-intensive exports to the US. Far more effective would be for Europe to continue its more positive engagement with China to bring together the world’s largest single market with the world’s most dynamic economy in the pursuit of a combined transition to a low carbon economy. Bush might just have achieved something that had hitherto eluded him. the president was applauded for adopting language "much less jarring. however belated.but not for the reason the president claimed: that they've lost interest because Iraq is going so well. He looks like a statesman. to engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Really making such low carbon markets function would create massive first-mover benefits for both economies. voices on both sides of the Atlantic have increasingly started to call for the use of trade sanctions as a tool to protect energy- intensive industries and/or workers. This provision ignores the responsibility of the US and other developed countries to cut their emissions further and faster than developing countries. has led to a new amity between his administration and old Europe. and Chinese producers can see the benefit of producing them. Obama. With his newfound support for climate-change policy.

Global Europe is fundamentally a pro-deregulation and market-opening approach. the current trading system and the push for liberalisation is a “driver” of climate change. this should be acknowledged. Since then. including growth of exports and imports. export restrictions on ‘climate-sensitive’ products such as illegal timber.EU Liberalizing Trade . Let us face it: policy-making is rarely coherent. is making its come- back. With its push for eliminating ‘non-tariff barriers’ and particularly export taxes. 19 . ultimately. to more environmental consciousness and. to environmental policies. It has also been argued that the liberalisation of energy resources will bring more energy security more efficiency. the EU (comparing to other governments) has committed itself to strong and binding GHG reductions targets. promotes a model of development based on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption dependent on a fossil fuel-based economy. The EU is a frontrunner in global climate negotiations. What are these contradictions? “Global Europe” is the new framework for the EU’s trade policy. and its emphasis on the ‘free market’.foeeurope. This is not only jeopardizing climate policies but also undermining the ‘development space’ of poor countries. While scarce resources are used to feed the greed of a few rich. the old theory that trade liberalisation leads to growth which leads to increased welfare and in turn. In the same vein. setting a positive trend for other nations and giving positive market signals. the rich have emitted so much of greenhouse gases (GHG) already to feed their irrational wants that the poor who are least responsible for climate change have to pay the price in terms of climate catastrophes. the EU is threatening to undermine or chill any domestic legislation. Friends of the Earth Europe. both on competitiveness and moral grounds. Friends of the Earth Malaysia & Chair . we would like to emphasize that in Friends of the Earth’s view. and the necessary stimulus for the development of the renewable energy market. the poor majority is denied a decent standard of living. So let us leave theory and the good thoughts about “mutual supportiveness” aside for a moment. Strong pressures have also been made for the liberalisation of agrofuels as a means for cutting carbon emissions from transport (although this idea has suffered from major setbacks in the last months). and Trade Programme Coordinator. etc. and talk about the real crunching issues. In the last few years. By the same token. and there are a number of potential or existing tensions and conflicts between climate and trade policies. where nature has no limits and pollution costs are externalised. energy efficiency standards. the EU Trade Commissioner ruled out the proposal as “bad politics” and much of the climate & trade debate has been focussed on the “mutual supportiveness” of the trade and climate regimes.).pdf [SD] The “trade & climate change” debate started in Europe in 2006 when some very different stakeholders argued for the establishment of a “Kyoto tariff” at the EU border. 1/2008 Climate Change and International Trade: The Need for a Paradigm Shift. It has been emphasized how the liberalisation of “environmental goods and services” and “green technologies” could play a role in climate mitigation and adaptation. measure or standard that intends to mitigate or prevent climate change (for instance: subsidies to renewable energy programmes. Yet many other EU policies are undermining these efforts. and the deregulation of markets. Trade and Climate: Tensions and Conflicts To begin with. The dominant trading system. The model is premised on unfettered growth and consumption." http://www.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . Secretary General.org/publications/2008/trade_climate_jan08_en. although it has proven to be fallacious and factually wrong3.Climate The EU Is Support Trade Relations By Liberalizing Climate Barriers Meena Raman and Charly Poppe.Friends of the Earth International. The Global Europe strategy is placing “competitiveness” and market access above all other concerns.

A spokesperson for the European Commission's secretary of environment.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_121679. And both the United Kingdom and Germany recently announced plans to expand their commitment to renewable energy. The European Commission is considering a carbon tariff on goods from countries where greenhouse gas emission policies do not match European standards. thereby creating a continental cap on carbon dioxide emissions.EU Liberalizing Trade .Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . Both former president Jacques Chirac and current president Nicolas Sarkozy have warned that overly strict emissions regulations could hobble the competitiveness of European countries. well beyond the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. A package of climate policy proposals is due to be published by the commission later this month." 20 . Some EU officials have publicly opposed the proposed tariff. The proposed tariff is one facet of a larger debate on emissions control policies that will govern Europe after current regulations expire in 2012. Sarkozy urged European leaders to "examine the option of taxing products imported from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol.htm? chan=search [SD] Brussels considers a policy to charge companies that import goods into Europe for the CO2 they emitted during production European Union leaders strive to portray themselves as being on the front line of global efforts to combat climate change.Climate EU is considering carbon taxes now Business Week. confirmed that the tariff is under discussion but declined to comment further. in particular. http://www. it seemed. was to lead by example. Their strategy. is a supporter of the potential tariff. The tariff system would force companies that import products into Europe to buy EU carbon emissions permits through the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) -. France. reached by SPIEGEL ONLINE.the ETS already obliges European firms to buy and sell excess carbon dioxide emissions. 1/8/08. But they appear to be considering less subtle tactics. In October. They boast that the EU has agreed to cut emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.businessweek. EU Ponders Carbon Tariff on Imports. European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson told Reuters that such a scheme would be hard to implement and could lead to trade disputes.

whether it will be a direct tax. is Determening its Approach to C02 Regulations .2008 Will be the Determening Year Fox News 5/14/’7 [Bush Orders Regulations to Cut Carbon Emissions in Response to High Court Ruling.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique: AT: No Regulations We Control the Uniqueness Trend . and he made a point of telling the Washington meeting that he has accepted a mandatory renewable fuel standard for vehicles.Bush’s Moves Have been Towards Regulation MSNBC ‘7 [Oct 4. Arvizu later told The Associated Press the United States "is headed in a different direction than we were a few years ago. Bush reiterated his view that each nation should set targets for itself and decide how it will combat global warming without hindering economic growth. Since taking control of Congress in January. chairman of the biofuel conference and research director of Climate Solutions based in Seattle. While the regulations he called for can be implemented by the executive branch." he said. "He's picking up the vibe" in Washington. EPA by using Bush's "20 in 10" plan to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent by 2017 as a starting point. our environment cleaner and our nation more secure for generations to come.S. But he has urged against anything other than a voluntary approach to curbing emissions. The 20 in 10 plan focuses on reducing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — the average fuel economy standards for autos and light trucks — as well as reducing gasoline consumption by boosting alternative fuel consumption to 35 billion gallons by 2017. India and other high- polluting.00. Bush has said that he recognized the serious environmental problems created by such emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases. "So there ought to be a pretty good bipartisan basis for passing such legislation. official: CO2 regulation likely. developing nations. It is very clear to me that there will be carbon management.S.msn. "With good legislation. we could save up to 8. addressing reporters in the Rose Garden." Bush said.com/story/0. carbon cap-and-trade or some other instrument. Arvizu did not say he was speaking for the administration." Last month in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the EPA. his position is not as rigid as it once was. "Whether EPA will lead the fight against global warming or lead us to a hotter planet remains to be seen.com/id/21135556/] The United States is moving toward the regulation of carbon emissions. while Bush remained in favor of voluntary targets." 21 .html] President Bush on Monday ordered his cabinet members to begin drafting rules that will comply with recent a Supreme Court decision combating greenhouse gases as well as meet his call to begin replacing gasoline with alternative fuels. "It's time for this administration to join with the mainstream of American businesses and support a cap on carbon." In his speech to the Washington conference. director of the National Renewable Energy Lab. http://www. Democrats have held a number of hearings exploring the consequences of climate change and have been pressuring the administration to say when it will comply with the high court's ruling and decide whether to regulate carbon dioxide. "The position of this administration is beginning to evolve. Transportation and Agriculture departments to work with White House staff and Congress to develop regulations that will meet the needs of the ruling in Massachusetts v. "There will be carbon regulation of some sort. Bush added that Congress could make even more of a difference.S. even though the Bush administration adheres to a voluntary approach to controlling the primary gas blamed for climate change. U. "I am neutral as to which kind of carbon management regulation there will be.foxnews." Bush said. But some of his listeners thought it was significant that he spoke after the Washington meeting that brought the United States together with leading industrial nations which have embraced stringent mandatory controls and with developing countries like India. energy official said Thursday. Bush said he ordered his cabinet members to finish the process by the end of 2008.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year by 2017 and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks." White House press secretary Tony Snow said earlier Monday. said Patrick Mazza. a U. speaking a week after he briefed President Bush's global warming conference in Washington. "We're taking action by taking the first step towards rules that will make our economy stronger. which the administration had fought. The White House is hoping for a bipartisan accord to make way for broader. saying regulations could undercut economic activity. We'll continue to work it. The court also said the reasons the administration had given for declining to regulate greenhouse gases are insufficient." He said executives of utility companies and U." said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. U. oil giants — two lobbies that had resisted regulation — now want predictable and transparent carbon policies. The president also says he will accept no global deal on greenhouse gases without the participation of China. China and Brazil which are totally unregulated.S.272078. and that the agency must regulate carbon dioxide. "This is a proposal that seems to give both parties what they say they want in terms of pursuing energy independence and at the same time pursuing a cleaner environment. the leading gas linked to global warming. But Arvizu said that. more effective changes." said Dan Arvizu. if it finds that it endangers public health.2933." Arvizu told an international conference on the next generation of biofuels. The environmental group Environmental Defense said the effort "will fall far short of fixing the climate problem" without mandatory caps on carbon emissions.msnbc. "Certainly my reference point has changed dramatically. Bush said he signed an executive order Monday directing the EPA and the Energy. http://www.

to determine how to best invest money in carbon-reducing technologies. "clean" power generation. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) noted that "historically. but at what cost?" the source asks." That language is absent from the final." In his written testimony." arguing that. he then argued that certain countries were going to go ahead with coal plants "with or without our support. the coal-fired projects would be supported where they are least cost." he would recommend the fund be the first program to be axed. oil. hydropower below ten megawatts. "Recognizing that coal is forecast to remain an important component of global energy use for the next 30-50 years. June 9 "scoping" document. and geothermal energy supply technologies. Meanwhile. At the June 5 hearing." frequently benefited corporate interests through projects of dubious environmental merit. Frank said concerns about the World Bank's environmental record were "well grounded in history" and "not paranoia. such as the "Clean Development Mechanism. which is required to authorize World Bank-related funding. McCormick maintained that the fund was "not meant to finance the development of new technologies. there might be greater [emissions] savings if you went to wind or solar. promoting efficiency improvements. The World Bank would also consider funding integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal plants that have the capacity to add CCS "at a future time. and we think there may be cases that do in fact justify the deployment of the cleanest available coal technology possible." as well as commercial-scale demonstration projects of CCS technology. arguing the fund would subsidize the construction of coal plants and other projects in the developing world that could undermine efforts to mitigate climate change." the official notes." He suggested that he would likely support authorizing the clean technology fund for no more than a one year "trial period. Another $8 billion is expected to be contributed by other developed nations. a statement of principles for a prospective clean technology fund distributed by Friends of the Earth calls for investing in "the full range of existing solar. However. rather than market forces. with officials for some electric utilities suggesting it could be as much 40 years away. "It's sort of like politicians deciding. Rep. the very best way to develop ethanol is to subsidize farmers and prohibit people from raising hemp. but rather the deployment of existing technologies. Ron Paul (R-TX) questioned where Congress would find the money for a $2 billion technology fund amid rising deficits. and financing new." but that he didn't expect them to make up a "significant portion" of the fund's investments. at best. the proposed technology fund seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world by retrofitting existing energy infrastructure. and. Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder criticized the lack of clarity regarding what technologies would qualify as either "clean" or "lowcarbon" under the fund.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique: AT: Incentives Now New “Funding Alternatives” to Carbon Regulations Will Be Blocked EnergyWashington Week 6/18/’8 [Environmentalists Blast Pending Bush Request For Clean-Energy Fund." while funds "should not be used to make conventional high emission projects marginally or incrementally cleaner." A senior official with the World Bank's environmental department says the technology fund will likely include significant investments in coal as part of a "diverse and balanced portfolio" that meets the energy needs of developing countries. but it cannot be considered part of the solution for the climate crisis. the group argues. A World Bank document from April laying out the scope of the fund states. But a "fact sheet" released by Friends of the Earth and the environmental group Oil Change International charges that the fund could actually fuel global warming rather than mitigate it. the subcommittee's ranking Republican." Later in the hearing. though all projects would need to be desired by the host countries and lead to "significant greenhouse gas reductions. The Bush administration has pledged $2 billion over the first three years of the fund and is currently requesting that Congress appropriate $400 million for fiscal year 2009." The money should also be distributed through the United Nations and not the World Bank so as to provide developing countries more say in how funds are dispersed. if faced with a "budget crunch. World Bank: Climate Profiteer." "Yes. including Britain and Japan. The criticisms might deal a heavy blow to what could be one of the Bush administration's final initiatives for a technology-based response to climate change as an alternative to emission-reduction mandates. more than a decade away from commercial availability. ln] Environmentalists are criticizing a Bush administration proposal to create a $10 billion international "Clean Technology Fund" to be administered by the World Bank. hemp is so much better" from an environmental perspective. gas or nuclear projects." including funds "to prepare for 'carbon capture and storage. wind. and inquired as to whether the fund would end up financing "super-critical coal plants. Blackwelder suggested "there should be a certification requirement to ensure that none of the funds have been used for coal." 22 . Announced by President Bush last September. though that document nonetheless endorses "adopting best available coal technologies with substantial improvements in energy efficiency and readiness for implementation of carbon capture and storage. said Paul. well. "Obviously. in questioning State Department Under Secretary for International Affairs David McCormick. also noted the concerns of some environmentalists regarding the lack of a "clean technology" definition. Most analysts estimate that CCS is." In response.' a technology which doesn't even exist yet. "Using public money for coal and CCS may boost companies that make coal plant equipment. the World Bank has not been seen as an institution friendly to environmental concerns. you know. there will be a strong preference for the most cost-effective interventions." In contrast. charging that the Bank's climate change programs. Blackwelder also singled out the World Bank's willingness to fund projects aimed at promoting carbon capture and storage (CCS) "readiness. McCormick said coal projects "would be considered." In March. as well as the wisdom of expecting the World Bank." before adding that. the groups argue "The 'Slightly Less Dirty' Technology Fund" could "potentially be used to fund massive coal projects that are only somewhat less polluting than the dirtiest existing projects." At a June 5 hearing on the fund held by the House Financial Services Committee's monetary policy and technology subcommittee. In fact. The fund requires approval from both the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee. the Institute for Policy Studies issued a report. Subcommittee Chairman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL).

or virtually level funding in most other cases. and U. U. however. 2003. http://www. Climate change and Environmental policy. the Department of Energy has released four guidance documents for Climate Change Technology Program activities: Results of a Technical Review of the U. Since just nine OECD countries account for 95 percent of the world’s investments in energy research and development (Dooley et al.eoearth. The knowledge and shared understanding built through cooperation in scientific research. development and demonstration is the area of climate policy where the potential for cooperation with the United States currently looks best. Dooley and Runci 1999). 1998). The plan included five major research goals and dozens of specific research targets as well as 23 written synthesis and assessment products with deadlines. negotiations involving all UN members may not be the most effective approach.S. technology research. where countries commit to specific levels of funding for collaborative research and development on cleaner energy technologies (Barret 2003). Five reports currently serve as guidance documents for CCSP and CCTP activities. Climate Change Technology Program: Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning (August 2005). Congress Pushing to Cut Climate Tech CRS ‘7 [February 8. and whether reduced funding in some cases. From the mid 1980s to the late 1990s – the very period that the global warming problem was taken up by political bodies – spending on energy R&D was in fact considerably reduced (Dooley et al.uio. might be deemed necessary or sufficient to accomplish the work of the CCSP and the CCTP. governments worldwide spend remarkably little money on energy research and development. @ Center for International Climate and Environmental Research. United States participation in future climate agreements. It is. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences conducted an independent review of the CCSP Strategic Plan and in April 2004 published its overall assessment in a 51-page report. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan Public Review Draft (January 2006). To complement the CCSP Strategic Plan.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique: AT: Incentives Now Reduction in R&D subsidies Andreas Tjernshaugen . versus how much is attributable to the reclassification of ongoing research and technology programs.S. Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Final U. ‘5 [CICERO Policy Note 2005:01. The Administration released a Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan on July 24. Climate Change Technology Program: Technology Options for the Near and Long Term (September 2005). The obvious answer is science and technology. One proposed remedy is to negotiate a “R&D protocol” to the UNFCCC. 23 . Congressional Research Service. As discussed in section 1 above.org/article/Global_Climate_Change:_Major_Scientific_and_Policy_Issues] Two issues of concern to Congress are the extent to which spending for the CCRI and CCTP represents new money. monitoring and assessment of climate change is a crucial foundation for climate policy and should be given a high priority. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan.cicero. http://www. Given the discrepancy between projected energy supply and demand and what would be needed to keep global warming in check. not clear that such a formal agreement is necessary to promote R&D spending.pdf] Fifth. the Kyoto parties should consider in which climate-relevant fields other than actual emissions regulation they might usefully cooperate with the Americans on the short term. Both the United States and European countries could usefully increase their efforts in this field.no/media/3312.S.S. Climate Change Technology Program’s R&D Portfolio (May 2006). Release by the CCTP of the completed final Strategic Plan on Climate Change Technology is expected late in 2006. 1998.

like natural gas and coal.1 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 10 years of operation. said in a report Wednesday Congress' failure to create a stable tax policy for renewable energy has resulted in a pogo-stick-like pattern of capacity expansion and retraction. 24 . Steve Taub. 31. 6/18/’8 [GE seeks renewable energy support. when it was unclear if Congress would renew it. but Taub said in his report there is a net revenue gain from taxes on the projects' income and suppliers to the projects and payroll taxes that makes up for the tax credit. It is indexed to inflation. GE executives and spokespeople said the technology still needs subsidies to compete against established energy technologies. so owners of wind farms receive a tax credit of 2. a senior vice president of GE Energy Financial Services. ln] General Electric Co. Despite making billions on wind turbine and wind farm deals. The PTC was first instituted in 1992 to help encourage renewable energy sources and reduce pollution. But it has been available every year since 2005. executives and spokespeople said Wednesday another congressional failure to extend a tax credit for renewable energy projects could put billions of dollars worth of future wind farms in jeopardy. The federal production tax credit (PTC) for solar. 2001 and 2003. Taub's report showed when the production tax credit granted to wind projects was in effect capacity climbed in 1999 before dropping 90 percent in 2000. @ Connecticut Post Online. A concern among some in Congress is the need to generate revenue.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique: AT: Incentives Now Congress Cutting Renewable Incentives Rob Varon. wind and other renewable power projects is set to expire on Dec. The PTC has lapsed three times since its inception: 1999.

@ Fox News. as well as the EU. Biodiesel Subsidies.AT: BioFuel Subsides Biofuel Subsides Irrelevent . The biodiesel tax credits are in place until the end of 2008.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Unique . where its fuel is sold below market rates. A typical tanker-load of about 9 million gallons of biodiesel requires just 9. “Taxpayer information is confidential. taxpayers are being bilked to the tune of millions of dollars by a biofuel subsidy that helps to lower gas prices in Europe. Lawmakers have estimated its cost to Americans at tens — or even hundreds — of millions each year.com/story/0. grants income tax and excise tax credits for biodiesel used in the U. As a result.S. “In 2007 this subsidy cost the American taxpayer $300 million. That means each tanker-load that makes the dash nets importers about $9 million dollars in tax credits from the IRS. And while Congress and the National Biodiesel Board say they know the loophole is being exploited — as America is exporting much more biofuel than it's producing — they’ve been unable to identify the guilty companies. But every gallon in the shipment garners a buck.” It stems from an existing $1 subsidy for every gallon of biodiesel fuel blended with regular diesel in the United States. and exported to the EU. putting European manufacturers at a disadvantage.000 gallons of American diesel to make it qualify for the subsidy.” “We really haven’t found out the names of the companies who are profiting from it.S. The ship then makes a “dash” for Europe. “I think the bad actors are the members of Congress who are allowing this to happen. 6/13/8 ['Splash and Dash' Biofuel Scam Costs Americans Millions. and he's leading the charge to close the apparent loophole. so we can’t have access to it. Congress Will Cut the Biofuel Subsidies in Question William LaJeunesse.S. “Ultimately when you dig down it gets to the point that you would have to have access to IRS information. ln] The U.369495.00.Cutting Them Inside U. Trade 5/13/’8 [EU Decides To Launch Investigation Into U. and it’s projected to cost the American taxpayers $600 million next year.” said Manning Feraci. but the extension was removed in the final version.S. vice president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board. An early version of the newly enacted farm bill included an extension of this sunset. http://www. where it’s blended with just a “splash” of regular diesel. which he says harms energy independence. which has already passed measures 25 . John Shadegg.” Shadegg told FOX News.” Shadegg wants to end “splash and dash” by eliminating the subsidy for any biodiesel exported from the United States.foxnews. Shadegg is pushing his bill in the House. Lawmakers Say.2933.” said Rep. The scam — as Shadegg and others call it — is known as “splash and dash.S.html] A lawmaker says U.S. U. The EU grants tax credits to all biodiesel used in the EU but does not grant credits to exports.S. R-Ariz. • Click here to view video. biodiesel used in the EU can receive credits from the U. Here’s how it works: Biodiesel is produced abroad using South American sugar cane or Asian palm oil and shipped to the United States.

transatlantic foreign policy rifts did not spill over into the economic realm or trigger economic backlash of any significance. “No other commercial artery in the world is as integrated and fused together by foreign investment. Rather. the Wing-Tat Lee Chair of International Law at Loyola University Chicago. As they conclude.cfm/SSRN_ID953958_code347008. transatlantic trade and foreign direct investment have actually flourished in recent years. despite the concerns. the bulk of the evidence presented in this volume points to the continuity in the transatlantic economic relationship and the resilience of the transatlantic economic marketplace in a period of political turmoil. 2006.” 26 .pdf? abstractid=953958&mirid=5 We highlight three primary findings that emerge from the chapters. a fact lost on many pundits. notwithstanding the bitter conflict over Iraq. http://papers. The Future of Transatlantic Economic Relations: Continuity Amid Discord. Introduction: The Future of Transatlantic Economic Relations: Continuity Amid Discord.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery. and Mark Pollack. First. As Joseph Quinlan and Daniel Hamilton show in chapter 2. parliamentarians and policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 AT: Iraq killed US-EU trade Political problems like Iraq haven’t affected trade Gregory Shaffer.

Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Links 27 .

be supplemented by other market friendly policies and mechanisms. Bush has left open the possibility that he does not support any binding target for U. The warning came as the economic downturn focused European leaders on the impact on industry of their groundbreaking agreement last year to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. when a conference on global warming will take place in Copenhagen. Beyond Kyoto: a Plan to Bridge the U. Nitze President. Mr.Generic Link The Affs Perception That the US is Moving From Cap and Trade Collapse Relations William A. Bush were to propose such an alternative. Failure to make enormous emission cuts now guarantees sanctions to protect industry Seattle pi.S. summer 2001.S. and a common approach for encouraging deployment of environmentally friendly technologies. China http://seattlepi. and maintain a level playing field among established and new energy supply technologies and investments in energy efficiency. Gemstar Group.-EU Gap. If the administration did formally adopt such a position. appropriate measures can be taken" to protect European industry. greenhouse gas emissions and proposes to rely solely on business-as-usual technological change and voluntary programs. 28 ..html [adit] European Union leaders threatened the United States and China with trade sanctions Friday if the world's two biggest polluters don't commit to ambitious cuts in greenhouse gases by next year. 3/14/08. they say European companies will need protection from unfair competition from heavily polluting rivals in China and the United States -.S. market-based policies for achieving these goals.S. it would isolate the United States in the climate change issue and place a significant strain on its overall relationship with the European Union.the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide. Otherwise. Agreement on more far-reaching environmental goals is the element that poses the greatest challenge to the Bush administration.com/national/355174_eusummit15.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Extension . In a declaration issued after a two-day summit. By rejecting the Kyoto Protocol without proposing an alternative. EU leaders urge trade sanctions on U. If Mr. The proposed system should include all greenhouse gases so as to reduce its overall cost. EU leaders want similar commitments from other major economies by next year. [adit] A U.nwsource. Denmark. the United States and Europe could close the gap between them by agreeing on a combination of more far-reaching environmental goals. the 27 EU leaders warned: "If international negotiations fail. alternative to Kyoto should be built around a domestic "cap and trade" proposal that combines a more realistic and politically acceptable short-term emissions reduction target with a commitment to achieve more far-reaching reductions in the longer term. European affairs.

Japan. An unnamed US government representative said the EU had decided to go ahead with the plan “despite strong objections raised by the US” (Financial Times.1 International and Domestic Disputes The first international trade-climate dispute has already begun. Liechtenstein. at least informally . 2007). allows exceptions to national treatment on the grounds of protection of “human. 3. 2006d. since the signatories do include for instance major trading countries . (For more on the case. 2006d. in part. Rather.China. the US Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. it also noted that “government procurement program specifications are more likely to qualify for GPA exceptions if governments demonstrate their intent to engage multilaterally” (NFTC. On the basis of a Supreme Court decision that requires the EPA to consider carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as air pollutants.php?item_id=1673. its provisions are irrelevant to most countries. 2007. 17). As a result. there are already disputes involving both industries because of their greenhouse gas emissions – an international aviation dispute that has entered onto the agenda of US-EU relations and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). p. Yet.namely the US government’s objections to the EU plan to cover aviation in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). These two sets of issues – concerning disputes and concerning their positions outside the multilateral regimes – are considered in turn. As for other countries. or plant life….ceps. It is important to note that this is not a formal dispute brought within the context of the WTO dispute settlement process. One concerning aviation was filed by the states of California. Financial Times. there will no doubt be a legal battle” (ICTSD Bridges. the application of the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme to the aviation industry would not come into force until 2010. Second. A key issue is whether provisions such as those requiring US government agencies to purchase ‘low greenhouse gas emitting’ vehicles and to take into account energy efficiency standards in their purchasing decisions could violate WTO non-discrimination principles or constitute disguised protectionism. 2007). therefore. and a representative of the US airline industry association have been vocal about the issue. the EU and Japan.general Links The Aff Creates The Perception that the US is Shifting Towards Voluntary Incentives. Singapore. the cities of New York and Washington. 2007a. this comment followed a meeting of the ICAO in October 2007. the US Ambassador to the EU. First. 8 US. at the 2007 meeting 42 countries represented by the EU and the European Civil Aviation Conference formally stated a ‘reservation’ to indicate that they would go ahead with the plan to include aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. In particular Article XXIII of the GPA. like Article XX of the GATT. in particular - there could be GPA-related issues that arise. A statement by the US Ambassador to the EU. 2007). 3. Norway. long after a new US administration is in office. 1944). and several environmental organisations. At issue. 2007b. http://shop.eu/downfree. DC and Associate Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). the petition asks the EPA to apply 29 . since only 12 countries plus the EU are signatories to the GPA.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Extension . Sectoral Issues: International Aviation and Maritime Shipping The international aviation and maritime shipping industries present quite different kinds of issues for the joint climate-trade agenda – for two reasons.] Issues have arisen about whether provisions in the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007 are compatible with the WTO plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). I don’t see how it’s going to get resolved politically” (International Herald Tribune. However. It sounds like a lawsuit to me. A representative of the Air Transport Association of America similarly observed “If [the Europeans] persist. 2011 or possibly even later. Israel. Iceland. Eurarchiv. US Mission to the EU. China. see Council on Foreign Relations. was particularly direct: “We don’t think Europe has the authority to do it…. with international flights into and out of the EU possibly not included until a year after the initiation of the system for flights within the EU. Korea. New Mexico. Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Two separate but closelyrelated petitions were filed with the US national government’s EPA in October 2007. and Pennsylvania. 2007. Connecticut. and Switzerland. Among the key issues. There are several reasons to believe there would not be such problems. animal. 2006. There have also been legal cases within the US concerning the greenhouse gas emissions of both the international aviation industry and maritime shipping industry. This would mean transatlantic flights involving the US would not be included until 2011 or 2012. in September 2007. 2006a. the basis of the US objection is the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation of 1944. Whether it can be resolved politically remains to be seen. is Article 15 which includes the following provision: “No fees. 14-17). Canada. The meeting reversed a 2004 resolution that had supported regional emissions trading schemes. and domestic legal actions within the US that target both the international aviation and maritime shipping industries. 2006b. the two industries have always been outside the multilateral climate regime and the multilateral trade regime. Washington. a regional air quality district in California. Boyden Gray. June '8 [The Trade and Climate Change Joint Agenda CEPS Working Document No. which established the system of bi-lateral agreements that regulate airline services and which is administered by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). dues or other charges shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of transit over or entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a contracting State or persons or property thereon” (Chicago Convention. Brewer. THE TRADE AND CLIMATE CHANGE JOINT AGENDA | 7 While the Office of the US Trade Representative has not made a formal public statement on the issue. Hong Kong. and how they can be or should be brought into either or both of the two multilateral regimes. DC. when. van der Grijp and Oosterhuis (2006) examines a variety of issues about the intersection of climate-trade issues in relation to the GPA. are whether. also see ICTSD Bridges. pp. 295/June 2008. Ensuring European Tarrifs on the US Thomas L. to which the US is a signatory (NFTC. An extensive analysis by Van Asselt. 2007).The Europeans are confident of their legal authority and people on the other side are equally confident of their position. Importantly. 2007.” The conclusion of the NFTC was that the provisions of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act “do not appear to be in violation” of the GPA.

one of the most contentious concerns the possible use of offsetting border measures to reduce free rider. and EurActiv. In recent years. they have also been outside the multilateral trade regime. Efforts to address the technical problems and formulate industry emission targets were referred to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Since before the UNFCCC entered into force. BREWER of the world total for the combination of the two industries places them ahead of all but 5 national economies. 2007). however.regulations that would reduce emissions through greater fuel efficiency. In the EU. in the national government and thus UNFCCC greenhouse gas reporting systems. In addition. There have also been concerns that such a tariff might be challenged in a WTO dispute settlement case. 2007d). However. technical problems with measuring their emissions and allocating them between domestic and international trips.” 12 The European Commission’s reaction to these measures was initially to oppose them on the grounds that they risked exacerbating trade relations with the US. The focus of discussion. The increasing interest in global sector-specific agreements as part of the post-2012 multilateral climate regime could facilitate inclusion of both industries in the new climate regime.10 4. improved aircraft designs. international competition in both industries is still relatively constrained by national and international trade policies (again outside the WTO in both industries). as production increases in countries that are not party to the climate regime. especially in the airline industry. together with political obstacles. 2007). before leaving office in 2007. prevented the industries’ emissions from being included in Kyoto Protocol targets. aviation emissions have accounted for about 2% of total world GHG emissions and international maritime shipping has accounted for about 3%. For instance. in short. A similar petition concerning international maritime shipping was filed at the same time (ICTSD. the regime can be undermined by the ‘leakage’ of emissions. including those of foreign airlines. In the US. there has been concern about the increasing contributions of GHGs of the two industries. but rather are reported separately as international emissions that are not associated with any particular country. has shifted away from tariffs to importers’ purchases of emission credits. Norway. However.intensive industries (ICTSD. 2007. Although the privatisation and deregulation policies of many governments and the renegotiation of international agreements. China. and international agreements that have limited competition among carriers. firms may fear that their international competitive position is being undermined by lower energy prices in non-participating countries. The emphasis in the public discussions within the EU was initially on the possible imposition of offsetting tariffs. national protectionist policies such as those that prevent ‘cabotage’ within countries by foreign firms. From 1990 to 2004. though the European Parliament’s resolution (2005/2049) uses the generic term “border adjustment measures. The underlying problem in the terminology of political economy is that there can be ‘free riders’ on international agreements. carbon leakage and international competitiveness problems.9 However. and India). Norway. Further. 3. 2008a). including perhaps voluntary global industry agreements . In November 2007 – in advance of the Bali climate change conference – the issue was again the subject of attention within the Commission and Parliament. Further. EU Enterprise Commissioner Günter Verheugen suggested that the Commission was more favourably inclined to address the issue through sectoral agreements. 2007b). particularly at a time when trade relations were already strained and when transatlantic relations more generally were unusually conflicted over a broad range of issues. 4). and in fact in recent years the emissions of the two industries have been increasing as fast as or faster than any other sectors. 2007. have reduced the subsidy and protection programmes. there was a specific and salient resurgence of interest. Bridges BioRes. 2008a). and the outcome of such a case would inevitably be uncertain. Carbon Leakage. That effort has included an international workshop on the issue just prior to the Bali conference (IISD. 2007c. The two industries have not only been outside the multilateral climate regime. there have been concerns that such a measure would undermine support in the US among those political and business circles that have been hoping for increased EU-US cooperation on climate change issues. and cleaner fuels. that land or take off from airports in the US . as is the possibility of granting all allowances free to energy. 2007. these issues have become salient in regard to emerging economy countries (especially Brazil. and President Sarkozy subsequently expressed interest in the idea soon after his election. p. 2007.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Extension . efforts outside the UNFCCC framework and outside the two industry-based international organisations have been gaining momentum (IISD. the bunker fuels used for aviation and shipping are not included as national emissions. Many of the technical problems have since been solved. Moreover. just before and after the release of the Commission’s proposals for the extension of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) on 23 January 2008. 30 . is that any given country can benefit from uch an agreement without incurring the costs of participating in it. The possibility of such action is left open for future consideration. Government trade policies and industry practices have been considered within the context of the ICAO and IMO.2 Coverage of the Multilateral Climate and Trade Regimes Perhaps most importantly for the place of the international aviation and maritime shipping industries in the future climate change regime is the decision by the government of Norway to take a leadership role in an effort to include both industries in a the post-2012 climate regime.000 individual aircraft and 400 different types of engines” and “knows the exact split between domestic and international aviation emissions” (IISD. The problem. international aviation emissions increased by 34% and international maritime emissions increased by 43%.general Links regulations to all planes. The 5% 8 | THOMAS L. and International Competitiveness Concerns Among the climate-trade issues that have emerged to date. in this case multilateral climate change agreements. Financial Times.a position that has been supported by at least some industry and environmental organisations (see especially. French President Chirac and Prime Minister de Villepin suggested again that such measures be undertaken. International trade in both of their services has been subject to a combination of national subsidies. and among industry and environmental groups. As the perception has grown that efforts to establish industry emission targets and other tangible evidence of progress in the addressing the problem have not materialised. Offsetting Border Measures that Address Free Rider. the government of Switzerland has reported that it has a “database with information on 16. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso explicitly mentioned the possibility in a speech (European Commission. the issues have arisen from time to time during the past several years in regard to US non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol.

PEW center for global climate change. climate policies will affect economic competitiveness—both among countries undertaking climate efforts. But it may also be a sign of a constriction underneath the surface. p. Fernando Tudela. 253). Article 2. synergistic. The good news is that opportunities exist for making the trade and climate regimes more comple-mentary and. Both uses of trade measures could be challenged in the WTO. Either approach is likely to invite challenge in the WTO. and between those countries that undertake significant action and those that do not. The claim that prospective climate measures are a WTO violation may also inhibit consideration of policies and measures at the national level. By raising the cost of energy and energy-intensive goods. including effects on internationaltrade. reportedly. 16–17). governments may seek to compensate Trade and climate Potential conflicts and synergies Trade and climate Potential conflicts and synergies for the costs of domestic climate action by imposing comparable costs on imported products or by reducing costs on exported products. Jonathan Pershing. Thomas C. P. than actually launched.environmental policy Adaptation of new environmental policy causes Europe to raise tariffs Joseph E.”3Venezuela has told a WTO committee that measures taken to implement the Protocol could run afoul of trade rules and raise trade concerns (WTO 2002. Laurence Tubiana. potential conflicts appear on the horizon. Apart from efforts to address competitiveness. (John Ashton. particularly where energy products are concerned. due to different mitigation costs. par a.1Moreover.could facilitate a uniform approach to energy/GHG taxation. Heller. Saudi Arabia has cited “a number of areas in which countries pursuing environmental objectives (such as climate change policy) may contravene their WTO obligations and seek to protect their domestic interests” (Saudi Arabia 2002. Aldy et al. The climate regime. Worries about infringing trade rules. Although no climate-related dispute has yet reached the WTO.pdf [Barber] Just as trade policy will have climate effects. have led to a “chilling effect” in some environmental negotiations in which prospective treaty measures are taken off the table because of concerns that such measures might violate the WTO.S. advancing the international effort against climate change. Shukla. Richard Baron. at a minimum. Some analysts have also suggested that the evolving climate regime employ trade sanctions to hold parties to their commitments. Elliot Diringer. and particularly..g. particularly by Europeans (e.2Another potential source of tension would be the use of trade measures to induce other countries to participate in a climate regime or to enforce compliance among those that do participate. Xueman Wang). 57).R.3 of the Kyoto Protocol states that the parties shall strive to implement policies and measures in such a way as to minimize adverse effects.org/docUploads/Trade%20and%20Climate. To protect vulnerable sectors. for instance. In an acknowledgement of these possibilities. That no dispute has bubbled up may suggest that trade action —either unilateral or within the WTO—is more easily threatened. the European Parliament called for new initiatives “within supranational structures (in particular the World Trade Organisation)… designed to prevent countries which do not ratify the Kyoto Protocol from obtaining unfair competitive advantages. climate policy will have significant implications for trade relations and for the trade regime (Gibbs 2003. work independently andtogether to anticipate and avoid conflicts between their mandates. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. The two regimes could. potentially. Legrain 2002. The idea that governments participating in the Kyoto Protocol should act together to impose trade measures against the United States (in view of its decision not to join the Protocol) is a recurrent image in writings about the climate regime.pewclimate. 198). pp. Beyond Kyoto.para. 02. the Protocol authorizes the parties to take further action to promote implementation of this provision. Steve Charnovitz. perhaps for political advantage. national policies to reduce GHG emissions may also come into conflict with trade rules to the extent they affect domestic and imported products differently. Daniel Bodansky. the application of taxes toAdvancing the international effort 142 31 . Following the U. http://www.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link-.

SO2 regime. only the tradable-quantity and the price-like regimes have any hope of being reasonably efficient. companies. Foreign policy in focus think tank. Nations are now beginning to consider the structure of climate-change policies for the period after 2008-2012. which covers almost half of Europe's CO2 emissions. Under a tradable quantity approach. states. or taxes as a method of coordinating policies among countries. such as the U.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – environmental policy Alternative energy policies lead to economic consequences from the EU William D. the Protocol threatens to be seen as a monument to institutional overreach. Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University. Are there in fact alternatives to the scheme of tradable emissions permit embodied in the Protocol? The fact is that alterative approaches have not had a serious hearing among natural scientists or among policymakers. fees. http://www. 32 . the Kyoto Protocol is widely seen as somewhere between troubled and terminal. A radically different approach is to use harmonized prices. Of these.S. the Protocol covered only 30% of global emissions. the use of harmonized price-type measures has extensive international experience in fiscal and trade policies. Notwithstanding this apparent success. This approach has no international experience in the environmental area. What are some alternatives? 1 For global public goods. models indicate that it will have little impact on global temperature change. Nordhaus.fpif. there are three potential approaches: command-and-control regulation. quantity-oriented market approaches.or price-based regimes. 3-27-06. Moreover. This is the approach taken under the Kyoto Protocol. The limits are partially or wholly transferable among countries. while the hard enforcement mechanism in the ETS accounts for about 8% of global emissions. an agreement proceeds by setting limits on emissions by different countries. cities. such as with the harmonization of taxes in the EU and harmonized tariffs in international trade.S. and even universities are adopting their own climate-change policies. the first binding international agreement to control the emissions of greenhouse gases has come into effect in the Kyoto Protocol. and tax.org/fpiftxt/3167 [Barber] After more than a decade of negotiations and planning under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Unless there is a dramatic breakthrough or a new design. After Kyoto: Alternative mechanisms to control global warming. The institutional framework of the Protocol has taken hold solidly in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Some countries. On the other hand. although it has modest experience nationally in such areas as the U. Even if the current Protocol is extended. The major blow came when the United States withdrew from the Treaty in 2001. The first budget period of 2008-2012 is at hand. This approach has very limited international experience under existing protocols such as the CFC mechanisms and somewhat broader experience under national trading regimes.. tax on ozone-depleting chemicals. By 2002. the scientific evidence on greenhouse warming strengthens steadily as observational evidence of warming accumulates. Early troubles came with the failure to include the major developing countries along with lack of an agreed-upon mechanism to include new countries and extend the agreement to new periods.

" said Giles Merritt.nytimes. "They are big powerful companies in the U. Companies.. American companies can ill afford such losses in a big market that is about to become bigger: after 10 nations join the European Union next year.S.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link--environmental policy EU wont compromise on alternative energy policy New York Times. the chief lobbyist here for Procter & Gamble. who runs Friends of Europe. Defiance of EU emissions policy kills relations New York Times.S. "If you go on the offensive in Europe it backfires and you lose on all fronts. a research group that receives money from the European Union. 4/20/03. In all three cases. pharmaceuticals and pollutants that contribute to global warming.com/gst/fullpage.nytimes. who lobbies on behalf of Hewlett-Packard here. being an American company in Europe is a liability these days." said Erik Jonnaert.html? res=9900E0D9143AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63 [adit] The European Union. doesn't mean they are going to be treated better in Brussels." said Michelle O'Neill. 4/20/03.com/gst/fullpage.S. which includes 15 member countries from Portugal to Finland and Ireland to Greece.S. the rule makers here will represent more than a half-billion consumers 33 . Europe Gets Tougher On U.html? res=9900E0D9143AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63 [adit] In Washington. Companies. "I don't think that Europeans are in the mood — or will be in the mood for some time to come — to swallow what the Americans tell them about the way things are going to go. it has come as a shock. http://query. If anything. http://query. Europe Gets Tougher On U. in light of the corporate accounting scandals and what many Europeans see as the Bush administration's high-handed and unilateralist policies on the environment and Iraq. Some American business practices are regarded with deep suspicion here. where there is a long history of state intervention in the economy and where senior government officials are usually more highly regarded than are corporate executives. but just because they are big powerful companies in the U. For American companies that are accustomed to getting their way in Washington. corporate lobbying has weakened or killed legislation aimed at regulating tobacco. the affected industries spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and advertising. is adopting environmental and consumer protection legislation that will go further in regulating corporate behavior than almost anything the United States government has enacted in decades. all to persuade lawmakers that regulation restricted the free market and would hurt American business. Such tactics would not play well in Europe.

However.The Kyoto Protocol allows private entities to participate in CDM projects and thereby earn an additional return on projects that reduce GHG emissions or enhance sinks through the generation of certified emission reduction (CER) credits.S. Implications for US Companies of Kyoto's Entry into Force With the United States. Under the Marrakech Accords.In general. A Kyoto party that imposed a carbon tax as part of its domestic implementation might argue that a border tax adjust- ment was needed to compensate for the fact that non-parties such as the United States do not have a similar tax.Incentives 34 .S.S.S.S. a U. firms could compete for emission reduction projects in other developed countries.S. As a result. company could undertake a CDM project in con- junction with a host developing country.pdf [Barber] Kyoto will create an international market in GHG emission reductions from which private firms could potentially profit. Joint implementation .Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link --Incentives Unfair advantages lead to EU imposition of tariffs on the US Pew Center Global Climate Chainge.S. companies from acting as financial intermedi- aries or brokers in facilitating emissions trades. U. firms could not directly receive the emission reduction credits generated from such projects. 02 January. independent research group.S. the CDM rules adopted in Marrakech do not specifically require that “operating entities” (firms or other entities that provide services such as review of baselines and verification of emissions reductions) be entities of Kyoto Protocol parties. since the rules allow developing countries to undertake unilateral CDM projects – that is. The emissions trading rules adopted in Marrakech would not prevent U. and emissions. This paper does not address in detail whether a World Trade Oranization panel would be likely to uphold attempts to use Kyoto as a basis to justify trade measures against countries without comparable emission targets. but would not produce economic gains for regulated entities (unless the required emission reductions could be achieved through no regrets measures). emissions trading would allow regulated companies to reduce their costs of compliance. U." http://www.S. In general.pewclimate. CDM .Conceivably Kyoto parties could try to use the Kyoto Protocol as a justification for imposing trade measures against non-parties. such measures would be problematic under the GATT and would not address the fact that non- Annex B parties and large seller nations such as Russia would all enjoy similar advantages. Measures against U. In addition. CDM projects that do not involve the participation of an Annex B party. U. Emissions trading . Annex B parties might argue that trade restrictions on goods from countries without comparable emission targets are necessary in order to make their own climate policies effective by preventing leakage (that is. such a tax adjustment would need to apply in a non-discriminatory manner to all countries that don’t impose similar taxes. However. companies will be able to participate in the CDM despite U.org/docUploads/Kyoto-USBusiness. non-participation in Kyoto. firms could potentially serve as operating entities under the CDM. from Annex B parties to countries without targets). they could receive their monetary equivalent. the migration of produc- tion. Thus. Exporters Trade sanctions . the GATT allows countries to impose border tax adjustments. However. Although the U.Despite U. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Link -. non-participation in Kyoto. the existing WTO jurisprudence makes it quite diffi- cult for a country to impose trade restrictions against goods on the grounds that those goods are produced in a man- ner that harms the environment.

and too susceptible to rent-seeking influence in Washington. Steven F. The difference will have to be split in some arbitrary manner that will surely introduce economic distortions in the marketplace. 35 . The European Parliament has already stated its view that the EU should launch an initiative in the WTO to prevent non-parties from gaining unfair competitive advantages. Green. The problem of politically adjusting competing interests will be compounded on the international scale. Multiply this problem across sectors and industries and it becomes evident that a GHG emissions-trading system is going to be highly complex and unwieldy..Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 (PEW) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Moreover. Taxes http://www. any restrictions would arguably need to be applied against all countries without emission targets (including developing countries). Hayward.aei. Climate Change: Caps vs. The forest products industry. Kevin A. The auto industry will want credits for GHG innovations. Environmental policy outlook. while industries and businesses of all kinds will lobby for credits for reducing mobile source emissions from changes to their auto and truck fleets. but the manufacturing sector that uses these wood products as a raw material will want credit for sequestering carbon.e. Hassett. There are going to be winners and losers in this allocation process.26286/pub_detail. for example. will reasonably want credits for creating carbon sinks in the trees it plants and harvests. Boeing versus Airbus) and the European Union's agricultural subsidies and trade barriers are examples of the kinds of conflicts that will be endemic to any international emissions-trading scheme. 6-1-07. Government incentives have international trade implications with the EU Kenneth P. not just non-parties such as the United States.asp [Barber] Establishing allowances and accounting systems for GHG emissions across industries is going to be vastly more difficult and highly politicized.org/publications/pubID. so the threat of trade measures against the United States is more than merely hypothetical. The long- running diplomatic conflicts that can be observed over purported subsidies for aircraft (i. AIE (American Enterprise institute for public policy research) online publications.

although compliance has been achieved without resorting to them. The tax could even vary with the ratio of exports to domestic production. say. 2001. If one country refused to comply with that approach. we describe how a sanction system could potentially work. The logic of the appellate body’s argument could easily be extended to allowing nations to impose trade sanctions on rogue countries that do not obey international climate norms. The danger with this approach. and Joseph E. and although trade sanctions are often ineffective when imposed by a single country against another. it is unclear what happens when two international treaties come into conflict. so that the total carbon tax collections collected from the country by foreign governments would be a fixed multiple of what the country would have collected itself. This interpretation would preclude taxes based on energy or greenhouse gas inputs.. In the shrimp- turtle case. Peter R. Indeed.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link-.sbgo.incentives U..g. Regardless of whether WTO regulations allow such trade sanctions. In the following paragraphs. The recent shrimp-turtle case. however. shrimp caught outside the United States in a manner that incidentally killed sea turtles). Stiglitz. In particular. Thus. a tax against the rogue nation’s exports equal to.e.104/search?q=cache:COMuvbVKm-8J:www. not complying with warming standards leads to sanctions and tariffs which leads to global trade wars Aldy. they do not forbid them: they only allow retaliation against countries that impose sanctions outside the WTO rules. the other nations could impose a punitive carbon tax -.i. The traditional interpretation of WTO rules is that they do not allow discrimination on the basis of process and production methods. three times the carbon tax that would have had to have been paid in the first place. Joseph E. the countries of the world could impose sanctions against a rogue nation. The easiest context for seeing how an international compliance regime would work is if the global agreement involved common measures (e.. October http://209. Trade sanctions were part of the backdrop to the Montreal Protocol to protect the stratospheric ozone layer. A question remains about how such trade sanctions can be squared with World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. The hardest questions are posed by potential WTO restrictions.com/Papers/Aldy-Orszag- Stiglitz_5. knowing that the rogue nation may be entitled under the WTO rules to retaliate. the appellate body found that Article XX of the GATT 1994 in principle allowed countries to impose trade sanctions on the basis of environmental concerns outside their borders (in this case. is that excessive reliance on trade sanctions may undermine the general WTO framework and threaten global trade.S.215. a carbon tax). Such retaliation may not be undertaken in any case.” Pew Center on Global Climate Change. since it would only serve to reinforce opposition to the rogue nation. and how it could respond to a situation in which WTO obligations were found to be inconsistent with climate treaty obligations. raises interesting questions about the traditional interpretation of WTO rules. they can be effective in some limited situations. Indeed. Such a system could change the political economy of the underlying agreement.pdf+climate+change:+an+agenda+for+global+collective+action&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us [Barber] The major economic sanctions are associated with trade. the rest of the world could simply impose a compensating tax on the relevant nation’s exports.85. Orszag. any such “trade war” could increase public sentiment for compliance with global norms. Climate Change: An Agenda for Global Collective Action. 36 . since the interests who previously opposed the imposition of a carbon tax domestically would have less incentive to continue such opposition. had it imposed the carbon tax. Paper Prepared for the Conference on “The Timing of Climate Change Policies. however.

can substantially reduce these costs.1 to 0. including losses of 1 to 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States and other OECD countries and 4 to 9 percent in Russia and most developing countries.S. December 03’.1 to 0. a comprehensive approach covering all GHGs and sinks and full international emissions trading could in concert reduce the costs by 90 percent or more. Under the international law of treaty adoption by consent. A National Academy of Sciences report requested by the White House in 2001concluded that rising GHG emissions from human activities are already causing Earth's atmosphere to warm and that the rate and extent of warming will increase significantly during this century.3 percent of GDP.pdf+United+States+and+Kyoto+and+voluntary+and+climate+and+regulation+and+europ e&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us [Barber] The extensive literature on climate science and policy shows that climate change is a serious risk that warrants sensible global regulatory action despite its many uncertainties.4 to 0. particularly for the United States. Practical climate change policy. and member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). But the Kyoto Protocol would reduce global emissions only enough to avoid a fraction of these future losses. Smart regulatory design. as currently structured. the EU will compensate with trade barriers. http://209. Indeed. STEWART AND WIENER CONTINUED ON NEXT PAAGE 37 . about equal to the estimated benefits. Wiener.85. the Bush administration has rejected the protocol and proposed voluntary measures aimed at reducing U. Perhaps for this reason. Adding the risk of abrupt climate change and the ancillary benefits of reduction of other pollutants might make the benefits slightly greater than the costs for the United States and would make the benefits significantly greater than the costs globally. Because the damages from climate change and the costs and benefits of climate protection will vary significantly across countries. amounting to a benefit of 0. however.9 percent of GDP elsewhere.S. which is forecast to gain about 2 percent of GDP. some uncertainties. perhaps 10 percent. would probably yield expected benefits less than its expected costs. Several economic models put the cost of meeting the Kyoto targets through wholly domestic measures to reduce CO emissions at 1 to 3 percent of GDP in the United States and other industrialized countries. clearly exceeding the benefits. As detailed below. Stewart and Johnathan B. GHG emissions intensity (emissions per unit of economic output). favor more. not costly crash measures. Turns to voluntary climate measures. but also to each country that participates. action. not less.gov.uk/media/7/9/Climate_paris_1. except China. These studies also show that the impact of greater or more rapid warming will worsen worldwide over time.215. but not necessarily reducing total emissions. China. Recent studies indicate that some initial warming and carbon fertilization may help agriculture in some areas. including Russia. Richard B. designing a regime to attract participation by all major emitters will be quite a feat. Several studies suggest that the Kyoto Protocol.hm- treasury. These estimates do not include the possibility of abrupt changes in ocean currents or other earth systems. however.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – incentives If the U. but will likely have adverse effects in poorer areas. But climate change calls for prudent preventive approaches.104/search? q=cache:79sojU_DGWwJ:www. be prudent insurance against the risks of climate change if appropriate regulatory policies are followed. to 0. Limiting the growth of GHG emissions can.2 percent of GDP in the United States and other industrialized countries and 0. such as the risk of abrupt climate shifts. a climate policy regime must yield net benefits not only to the world as a whole.

incentives STEWART AND WIENER CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Although staying out of Kyoto could give U. legal. If the United States joined a well- designed climate regime.S. but is now standing aside while others move first. nonparticipation in any climate regime would also deprive U.S. and many U. goods to compensate for the lower cost of embedded GHG emissions in U. U. as well as those with operations abroad in industrialized countries that ratify Kyoto. If the United States stays out of international climate policy. the United States championed international emissions trading and the comprehensive approach for the past 12 years.S.S. indeed. Denmark. and the EU is creating a Europe-wide trading system. These opportunities for U. production. this is already starting to happen. business are likely to be foreclosed or sharply restricted if the United States remains on the sidelines. and insurance industries could help run emissions trading markets. also limited to CO emissions. Britain. industry a competitive advantage over companies in other industrialized countries that are subject to Kyoto's regulatory burdens. consulting. not New York.S. These European CO2 emissions trading systems may become the models for the global trading system. companies could become allowance sellers by achieving low-cost GHG emission reductions and enhancing sinks. such "carbon trade wars" could seriously damage global prosperity. particularly in Europe. domestic emissions limitations. 38 . businesses subject to eventual U.S.S. Ironically.S. U. firms in the financial.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link . London. and Norway are already launching their own domestic CO emissions trading systems.S. Worse. will be unable to enjoy the compliance cost savings provided by international emissions trading. accounting.S. businesses of valuable commercial opportunities and impose significant business risks. restricting the coverage of other gases and sinks and leaving the United States at a disadvantage if it decides to join later. many U. parties to the Kyoto Protocol. may attempt to impose countervailing duties against imports of U. will become the center of global emissions trading.

2/16/02 Bush Climate Plan Gets Cold Shoulder.' " said Belgium's energy minister.S. said it was not "extremely happy" with the Bush plan." Environment Minister Hiroshi Oki said. arguing it would harm the U. The United States generates roughly one quarter of the world's man-made greenhouse gases. Many scientists say gas emissions -. the rise in the atmosphere's temperature. Bush offered incentives to companies that voluntarily slow the rise in heat-trapping gas emissions blamed for global warming. economy. Japan." he said. said Bush's policy could lead the United States to break a long-standing commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Olivier Deleuze.particularly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels -." The United States remains a party to the 1992 climate change pact that President Bush's father signed at the Rio Earth Summit." The European Union's environment commissioner. will be able to meet its commitments under the [1992] U.N. said Bush's plan was "disappointing" because it was voluntary and failed to set targets for cuts by the world's biggest polluter. "It's really shocking. Alternative to Kyoto Protocol Bashed on Eve of Asia Tour. lexis [adit] President Bush's plan for combating global warming received a frosty response around the world today. . .S. "It seems that President Bush's proposals will not lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but allow a significant increase. Deleuze led the European Union delegation at talks last year that secured support from most of the rest of the world to push on with the Kyoto treaty without the United States.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link Incentives Voluntary non target based Kyoto alternatives will be bashed by Europe The Washington Post. "It's a policy that's not very moral. The convention commits developed countries to try to stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels. which was announced Thursday. of the Green party. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Germany's environment minister. host of the Kyoto talks. "It's obvious that this plan won't achieve the 7 percent reduction target which the United States had agreed to in Kyoto. which set mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases. . I feel. 39 . "This raises the question whether the U. It's a bit like saying: 'Wealth is for us today in 2002 and we will leave the problems for our children or for people in Africa or Asia. Margot Wallstrom. The Bush administration withdrew from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. with Belgium questioning the morality of a plan that would allow U. greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise. risking massive climate changes that could lead to disastrous floods and droughts." Deleuze told Belgian television channel RTBF of Bush's plan. "We must not slam the door for a return of the United States under the Kyoto Protocol's regime. Juergen Trittin." she said.S. "We must not let the country with the biggest emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide escape responsibility for protecting the global climate.

3 lexis [adit] "The White House spent a year criticizing the Kyoto Protocol. and mercury by 2018. observers say. It's a sign that. where the government has been anxious to see the US take some steps on greenhouse emissions. 11. and particle pollution. the administration is now open to domestic criticism. propose mandatory cuts on another emissions issue largely unrelated to climate: a 70 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides." says Dr. the administration's impact on nitrogen oxides is expected to have a negligible effect in the battle against climate change. These are the three worst air pollutants. sulfur dioxide. "This is clearly going to be seen as more of the go-it-alone approach by the US. saying it didn't do anything to solve the problem in the long term. His first stop will be Tokyo. some of which would require congressional approval. The timing of Bush's announcement is thought to have been influenced by the president's departure tomorrow on a five-day trip to Asia. again Internationally. but Kete says. Nor do observers expect developed countries in Europe or Asia to see this as a viable alternative to the Kyoto accords. regional haze. Christian Science Monitor p.U relations--they are perceived as isolationist Francine Kiefer and Peter Spotts Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor. since it still disregards past US commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions. acid rain. Nitrogen oxides also contribute to global warming.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link—Incentives Incentive based reductions jacks U. however. the response to the Bush plan may not be enthusiastic either. environmental groups were emailing reporters with blistering appraisals.S-E. Kete. 2/15/02 Bush opts for incentive-based CO2 cuts. four months after the terrorist attacks of Sept." says Donald Goldberg of the Center for International Environmental Law. 40 . Europeans unhappy." The White House does. and contribute to smog. Even before the administration released its proposal. "This plan doesn't solve anything either.

"We want really to get a fair trade and want this unfair subsidy to stop. Biofuel boondoggle: US subsidy aids Europe's drivers. the US importer resells the biodiesel. who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press. "It's bad for taxpayers and it ought to be fixed now. European manufacturers are worried about all US biodiesel imports – not just the splash-and-dash variety – because the subsidized fuel is flooding their markets.htm [adit] The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit – a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons." European officials are also unhappy about the practice. taking advantage of European fuel-tax credits that. in effect. "The US products get subsidies in the US. "This [splash-and-dash] is something our people are aware of and that's on their radar screen." says Mr. keep biodiesel prices above US prices. Mr. Such "touch and go" maneuvers could quickly become a much larger problem. "It's one of the issues that's driving closer scrutiny. But efforts to fix the problem only began taking shape in Congress this spring after European biodiesel manufacturers complained in March about the subsidized imports and the US biodiesel industry also complained a month later. The next day the tanker can set sail – dash – for Europe. cutting into their domestic biodiesel business and lowering prices. and in Europe. Garofalo in a phone interview." says Baize." The industry is calling for trade sanctions against the US. Baize calculates. http://www. 6/8/08. "Splash-and-dash is something Congress never intended. 41 . in a March 19 letter to the European Trade Commissioner." Signs of splash-and-dash began to show up last fall. a double subsidy. warned Raffaello Garofalo. There.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link--Subsidies Increased Subsidies ensure EU sanctions Christian science monitor. secretary general of the European Biodiesel Board.csmonitor." says a staff aide on the House Ways and Means Committee.com/2007/0608/p02s01-usec.

shortly after the Asia-Pacific grouping holds its first meeting in Adelaide." she said. http://news. which for many years has been the leading pro-Kyoto force.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4724877. 42 . is unlikely to agree. There is concern in environmental circles that the United States and Australia will present the new pact as evidence that a "son-of- Kyoto"-style treaty is not needed.stm [adit] The European Commission's environment spokeswoman Barbara Helferrich told the BBC News website that Europe remained committed to further legally binding reductions in emissions. "If it is simply technology and clean coal. "We welcome any initiative that can combat climate change.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link—Domestic Policy Domestic initiatives kill EU relations BBC.bbc. Europe. but on what scale and what basis is yet to be decided. 6/28/05 EU pushes binding climate deal.co." The designated forum for making those decisions is the next round of United Nations climate negotiations. but this has to be seen in a global context. "There will have to be binding global agreements. it is no substitute for agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and we do not expect it to have a real impact on climate change. which opens in Montreal in November .

2/15/02. Mr.mercury. no other country has chosen to abandon it. Japan has so far remained committed to the Kyoto pact. Meunier added. Europeans Give Bush Plan on Climate Change a Tepid Reception. slow but not halt the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. many environmentalists and political commentators in Europe said that Mr. the new Japanese environment minister. said that although it was hard to judge the new plan before knowing its details. Bush's call for mandatory restrictions on three power plant pollutants -. the European Union gave a tepid welcome today to President Bush's new proposals to tackle climate change. too late. Bush called its targets arbitrary. In Brussels. it showed that the United States sought change "at no cost and in a way that would not in any way challenge the American lifestyle and especially its consumption. As Mr." "A wonderful policy. added his voice to criticism of the plan as not enough. he said that "our joint efforts" must not be halted by disagreement on that point. would rely on tax credits to coax big business to pollute less." Echoing the concerns of most other specialists reacting today.S-E. Bush's plan was far too little. The voluntary measures in the plan Mr.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link-must be 0 emissions Zero-emission alternatives are the only way to maintain U.6 billion in tax credits over the next five years to encourage companies and individuals to limit those emissions. [adit] Saying that any action taken to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases was at least a step in the right direction. Bush unveiled today would. which is awaiting ratification. SUZANNE DALEY. It would use $4. the widely accepted treaty that would require emissions cuts by 2010 to well below their 1990 levels." He asserted that while the plan was a step in the right direction. Some green groups said they were suspicious of the timing of the White House announcement. But. "You may have countries that say. The most outspoken reaction came from France. a European Commission spokeswoman. if followed. He hailed Mr. Nonetheless." Mr.as "a great air pollution policy. said. why should we who are poorer do anything?" The Bush administration's rejection of the protocol last March caused an outcry in Europe and came to be seen here as another example of America's refusal to limit its options in almost any sphere. director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a member of the government's advisory council. He said Britain had proved "that you can cut emissions and still have a healthy economy. which are strictly voluntary. but it has made no secret of the fact that it will have difficulty meeting its targets. The Bush plan might "destabilize" support for the Kyoto pact. Schellnhuber added." The expert. As word of the proposals began to filter out. "We worry that without sanctions it just won't work. The Bush proposals.U relations New York Times. made a point of citing a second American plan announced today. its schedule too costly to meet and its terms unfair. In Britain." Mr." "It lacks credibility. "But the wrong target 43 . Bush is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Chris Hewett of the Institute for Public Policy Research. When he rejected the treaty. where the head of an intergovernmental task force on global warming calling the proposals "window dressing. Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen. In Germany. Mr. Hiroshi Oki. Meunier put it. Meunier evoked the Kyoto Protocol. one that affects emissions but not global warming. The only real praise for the Bush administration had nothing to do with the environmental proposal. Philippe Meunier. said it would be best for the United States to return to the the protocol." adding that there was no "inextricable link" between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth. just days before Mr. sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides -. and would not improve his image abroad as a servant of the oil industry. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. lexis." She said that the European Union still hoped the United States would return to the Kyoto pact. "the total volunteerism approach makes us worry. "We feel that the multilateral approach is the best way to face up to this tremendous challenge.

The decision was a bitter disappointment to environmentalists who believe that CO2 is a major factor in global warming and was described by one Democratic member of the House. that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emission reductions for carbon dioxide. He's caved in to the coal industry's medieval view of the science.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link—policy not Kyoto Deviation from Kyoto sets Bush on a collision course with Europe Irish Times. and that includes CO 2". against the advice of his director of the Environmental Protection Agency. The decision." During the election Mr Bush even criticised his opponent. Washington Correspondent. Talks on implementation of the Kyoto protocol on emission limits were postponed last month at US request after its negotiators said they needed more time to prepare. That had given rise to hope that the US. "George Bush was very clear during the course of the campaign that he believes in a multi-pollutant strategy. Bargaining broke down in November at The Hague. Its final adoption would require the US and three dozen other industrialised countries to cut combined emissions by 2012 to 5 per cent below their 1990 levels. where the EU rejected a US compromise position. Bush abandons pledge on carbon dioxide. . Mr David Doniger. the main obstacle to binding commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions. Mr Bush and Vice-President Bill Cheney are both former oil executives as are several senior members of the Cabinet. He's snuffed out the spark of what we had hoped would be a progressive environmental policy. Mr Henry Waxman. Ms Christine Todd-Whitman. won by him on promises that coal would be made a priority by his Administration. And Mr Waxman pointed the finger firmly at the influence of coal and oil lobbies on a White House. would be more forthcoming." he said. 44 . 3/15/01. lexis [adit] In a dramatic about-face that reflects the important influence of the energy industry in the White House. Mr Bush has made repeated play of the need for the US to become more self-sufficient in energy production by such controversial means as drilling in the Alaskan National Wilderness Park. "He has also been very clear that the science is good on global warming. and Mr Bush will have been reminded that he owes the coal producers of West Virginia. Internationally Mr Bush's decision will be viewed with dismay. Mr Bush claimed that "new" evidence from the Energy Department showed that curbs on CO2 emissions would lead to a move away from coal to gas and result in higher energy costs. "I do not believe . said: "Bush has turned his back on the consensus of the science which shows that global warming is an alarming problem." he told them. in a letter to four Republican senators. she told CNN's Crossfire. Mr Al Gore. "You just can't deal with global warming unless you deal with power plants. senior lawyer for the Natural Re sources Defence Council. President Bush has abandoned an explicit campaign pledge to set limits to CO2 emissions. . But on Tuesday." he claimed. Only days ago Ms Todd-Whitman was assuring the country that Mr Bush would keep his election promise. "In Texas we have done better with mandatory reductions and I believe the nation can do better. PATRICK SMYTH. for proposing voluntary emission curbs. sets the new administration on a collision course with Europe in the Kyoto climate-change talks. as a "breathtaking betrayal". The US produces a fourth of the world's emissions with 5 per cent of the world's population. For energy interests the policy on CO 2 jarred with that. The Kyoto Protocol has been signed by more than 100 countries but has not been ratified by any industrialised nation.

” 3 But some European politicians have suggested more aggressive action. Since then. EU Enterprise and Industry Commissioner Günter Verhheugen backed de Villepin’s proposal.215. although the probability of such action is low at the present time. the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) produced an earlier version of this paper. to undertake actions to penalize American and other non-Annex 1 firms for alleged competitive advantages resulting from their non-adherence to Kyoto. WTO rules sand procedures and their implication for the Kyoto Protocol. the notion of trade action in the form of a carbon tax against non-Kyoto compliant countries was highly speculative in nature and supported mainly by NGOs such as Greenpeace International and Friends of the Earth Europe.S. In 2002. Could the country affected use WTO rules to overrule the trade measures? The EU wants WTO Members to agree that this should not be allowed to happen.104/search? q=cache:mr_7GUxZIywJ:www. the official EU position was outlined in a policy statement posted on its website: “The EU also wants to clarify that measures taken to tackle environmental problems under Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs).” 2 The possibility of a clash over climate change commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and WTO rules arises because of the U. politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have talked more openly about carbon taxes. and the amount of. then French Prime Minister Dominque de Ville pin stated. Deal. In November 2006.” That same year. saying that if Europe remained alone in cutting emissions. the subsidy.uscib. Timothy E. it may adjust taxes at the border to mitigate (the) competitiveness effects of cheaper imports not subject to a similar level of the carbon in the country of origin. At the time. and perhaps others. senior VP for the US council for international business. Strong resentment over this action. problems could arise if a country imposed a trade measure for environmental purposes on another WTO Member that had not signed the MEA. in the specifications in tenders. in establishing energy efficiency standards. Measure(s) of this sort may well raise complex questions with respect to the WTO consistency and the conditions under which border taxes can be adjusted to accommodate a loss of international competitiveness. and in specifying condition(s) for participating in government procurement bids. there was a risk that companies could shift their production to countries where standards were more lax.pdf+The+World+Trade+Organization%27s+view: +emissions+reduction+in+a+free+trade+world+Arthur+Appleton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us [Barber] “In order to meet their Kyoto emission targets with minimum adverse effects on their economy. http://209.85. Jan 08. Such differential treatment could occur in governing eligibility for. “Europe has to use all its weight to stand up to environmental dumping”. particularly in Europe. such as the Kyoto Protocol on Climate change. For example. could lead the EU. in a letter to EU Commission President Barroso. in the determination of the category of ecolabled products and the procedures of establishing ecolabels. it is highly likely that Annex 1 governments with differentiated legal and political systems might pursue these policies in such a way as to unfairly favor domestic producers over foreign ones.org/docs/wto_and_kyoto_2008. In (the) case where a country unilaterally imposes a carbon tax. He added that border tax adjustments for developed countries that have not implemented Kyoto could balance out such effects 45 .S. At the time.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – policy not Kyoto Incentives violate the Kyoto protocol leads to European sanctions on the U. adding that France would urge its European partners to study “the principle of a carbon tax on the import of industrial products from countries which refuse to commit themselves to the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. decision to abandon Kyoto. are not contrary to WTO rules.

publics. some have been especially persistent. the political sensitivity of these disagreements is likely to increase.U. The disagreement over the Kyoto Protocol on climate change is only the most visible example of transatlantic conflict over the environment.S. Indeed. Moreover. +regulatory+cooperation+on+food+safety+and+environment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us#35 [Barber] Both the United States and the European Union (including the member states) have adopted many laws and regulations designed to protect their environments. http://209.acus. Given the importance of environmental protection to both the European and U. 2002._EU_Regulatory_Cooperation_Food_Safety_Environment.S. most with primarily domestic orientations and agendas.215.104/search?q=cache:3FHUXrIZMIAJ:www.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – policy not Kyoto Increased disagreement on environment policy leads to increased tension between the U. These cases proved to be particularly complex because of the multitude of actors involved.–EU Regulatory Cooperation on Food Safety and the Environment. Other. Aaron and C. while the United States and the EU often agree in their assessment of the risk.U. Although disagreements to date have been limited in both number and scope. Finally. electronic waste recycling.chairmen of the Atlantic Council. Boyden Gray. However.S.pdf+Risk+and+reward+U. persistent organic pollutants. Risk and Reward: U. these regulatory issues have a significant international dimension. as the standards and practices that develop out of the two dominant markets will inevitably affect those adopted by multilateral standard-setting bodies and international corporations. and the E.+E. lower profile cases — over hushkits for airplanes.S. co.org/docs/0211- Risk_Reward_U.85. they sometimes use incompatible mechanisms to manage that risk and approach implementation and enforcement very differently 46 . David L. they have been in the forefront internationally in developing such rules. November. leading to greater transatlantic tensions in the future. the different regulatory approaches behind these rules have led to disputes. and ozone-depleting substances — have also generated serious tensions.S. and because of the impact of continually changing technologies.

while US prices will remain unaffected by the current climate policies of the Bush administration. the Netherlands. Current trends in European energy and climate policies are expected to result in further increases in the price of energy. by environmental taxation. all of which have some form of energy taxation (see Table 1). Incentives continue to violate the Kyoto Protocol Europe will target the US Biermann. For instance. Sweden and the UK. and the few industrialized countries that are unwilling to do so. in particular between the USA and Europe. don’t exist in S.215. and they are likely to continue to do so.org/images/doc/BiermannReplaceWP5. 2003. Regarding electricity prices for industry. Price increases in Europe may be brought about. Such political pressure. Energy prices in the USA are already substantially lower than in most countries with sizeable energy taxes. Denmark. different schemes of energy or carbon taxes have been introduced in Austria. Up until now. This price gap between the USA and other industrialized countries is more remarkable given that countries with energy tax regimes already grant numerous exemptions for energy-intensive industries. Although such tax exemptions for energy-intensive or export-oriented industries can eliminate competitive disadvantages or reduce the burden below a threshold of concern.Q.S. Germany. exemptions also give rise to significant problems. Most prominent is the partial or full exemption from the tax and the granting of reduced tax rates. This in turn might jeopardize. Slovenia. prices in the USA are lower by as much as one-third. Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Without the United States. Institute for Environmental policies.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – policy not Kyoto Taxation penalities on U. in particular from industry. No.104/search?q=cache:SAXsYzk0- bUJ:www. may obstruct European environmental policies and become a threat for climate protection strategies and the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. A number of different options are available for European governments to offset real or perceived impacts of energy taxes on competition. Belgium. or at least complicate. are also planning to significantly reduce the number of exemptions Such price differentials created or reinforced by environmental taxation have triggered strong political pressure against European governments and the European Commission in the past. in particular. Japan. Without such exemptions. Norway. Some countries. Italy. This situation has a likely consequence: energy prices. http://209. the price of heavy fuel oil for industry in the USA is about one-fifth lower than the average price in a sample of nine other OECD countries. such as Germany.pdf+Implementing+the+Kyoto+Protocol+Without+the+United+States. +The+Strategic+Role+of+Energy+Tax+Adjustments&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us [Barber] The entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on 16 February 2005 has highlighted the political divide between the coalition of industrialized countries that support the Kyoto treaty and plan to implement stringent climate policies. Finland. Global Governance Working Paper. will continue to develop in different directions. the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in those countries that have ratified it. Frank and Rainer Brohm. The Strategic role of Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border.85. price effects of domestic energy taxation would be higher. January. 47 . 5.glogov.

Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE… 48 .

by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities as enshrined in Article 3:1 of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. and it might prove to be important information for climate negotiators in both Europe and the USA. such advantages seem justified. possible environmental leakage effects to developing countries can be addressed through existing mechanisms. Instead. if not required.makers would deem such measures as being necessary to protect (possibly more stringent) European climate policies from competition by non-European industrialized countries. border tax adjustments might be implemented – if justifiable under world trade law. on the one hand. certain advantages for developing countries through the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol are probably justified given the historic overuse of the atmosphere in the course of Northern industrialization and the persistent higher per-capita emissions in the North. We draw this distinction on both fairness and legal grounds. while other policies to address carbon leakage. on this question). we are interested in the question of whether such border tax adjustments would be allowable under world trade law if. and developing countries. On fairness grounds. Border tax adjustments should be avoided. at some time in the future. on the other. nor do we expect such adjustments to be enacted soon. There are at present no such border adjustment schemes on energy taxes in place. since its interpretation must take into account widely ratified multilateral treaties concluded by WTO parties in related domains (see Biermann. It is important to note that we draw a distinction between border tax adjustments vis-à-vis non. we therefore analyze an alternative measure that could offset competitive burdens on the global marketplace without watering down the environmental objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions: the adjustment of energy taxes at the border. European decision. On legal grounds. as well as in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. such as the Global Environment Facility that has been created to reimburse the agreed incremental costs of developing countries in implementing the climate convention and a few other agreements.2001. These legal documents influence the interpretation of world trade law. This information about a hypothetical future situation is highly relevant for the present development of policies.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – policy not Kyoto (BIERMANN) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE… In this article. however. Thus. as will be analysed in the remainder of this article – against industrialized countries that gain trade advantages through persistently lower energy prices owing to insufficient implementation of climate policies. In addition. such as financial and technological 49 . against developing countries.European industrialized countries.

the issue is not likely to go away.pdf+Committee+on+Trade+and+Environment+ Special+Session.S. It includes Title V. by rule.” which requires reviews every five years of “whether each of the five largest trading partners”2of the US has taken “comparable action” to limit GHG emissions (section 501(2)(B)(i)).org/page/ictsd/projects/Bali_Climate_Equity_and_Global_Trade_Dec07. However. In addition. equity. as compared with the tariff proposal in Europe. United States Similar issues appeared in 2007 on the agenda in the US in the context of the introduction of climate change bills in the Congress. after taking into account the level of economic development of the foreign country” (section 502(a)(2)). 17 . it is a combination of international competitiveness and climate change free-rider concerns that have put the issue on the active agenda in the US Congress. there were concerns that such measures would undermine support in the US for increased EU-US cooperation on climate change issues. http://209. US importers of “covered” GHG-intensive goods from countries that have been found not to have taken comparable actions must purchase “international reserve allowances” (i. which is commonly know as the Bingaman Bill or Bingaman-Specter bill after its sponsors. particularly at a time when trade relations were already strained and trans-Atlantic relations more generally were unusually conflicted over a broad range of issues.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – policy not Kyoto EU already perceives U. +Subsidies+and+Incentives+in+OECD+Countries+and+their+Economic+and+Trade+Implications+on+Developing+Countries. incentives force tariffs and trade barriers.S.The Commission’s reaction has been to oppose such measures on the grounds that they risked exacerbating tensions in trade relations with the US.07.”1One US legislative proposal of special interest that was under consideration in September 2007 was Senate Bill S. As of the beginning of September 2007. requirements. because it could more clearly be considered an environmental measure that would qualify as an exception under GATT Article XX(g). and the U. In particular. in combination. there were concerns that such a tariff might be challenged in a WTO dispute settlement case. the cost of production of which in the United States is affected by this Act” (section 502(a)(5)). +in+particular+developing+oil+producing+and+exporting+countries&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us [Barber] European UnionThe European Parliament has passed resolutions calling upon the European Commission to consider the possibility of imposing offsetting tariffs on imports from countries that are not parties to the Kyoto Protocol. However. Such a measure could be less vulnerable than a tariff to challenge in the WTO. comparable in effect to the action taken by the United States to limit greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to this Act. as a greenhouse gas intensive good that is closely related to goods. European Trade Commissioner Mandelson responded. whatever the outcome of votes in the two houses on these bills and any Presidential action that might ensue. Climate.104/search?q=cache:ib7dSBKtwx8J:www.trade- environment. and other measures adopted by a foreign country that are determined by the President to be. However. and Global trade. before leaving office in 2007.3These and many other technicalities of the bill are of course subject to revision in Congressional deliberations and in any negotiations that may occur between members of Congress and the President CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE… 50 .85. as economically advantaged. and the outcome of such a case would inevitably be uncertain. As in the EU. that this would not be helpful. the issue is quiescent at least in public. it is clear that there is much political support for some kind of border measure provision in climate legislation that includes a mandatory cap-and-trade system. GHG emission credits) to be issued by the US government.e. the prospects for the many climate bills under consideration in the House and Senate were uncertain. which allows measures “relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources. Finally. For now. A “covered good” is one “that the President identifies. Dec. International The E. since it is of continuing concern to the European cement industry and other greenhouse gas-intensive industries. “Comparable action” is definedas “greenhouse gas regulatory programs. “Periodic Review and International Leadership. the proposal in the US is to require US importers in some circumstances to purchase GHG emission allowances. French President Chirac and Prime Minister deVillepin suggested again that such measures be undertaken. There is a key difference in the form of the measure that is on the agenda in the US.215.+Energy+Taxation. ICTSD (International centre for trade and sustainable development).U. however.

the bill would require negotiations with countries before the import measures were implemented. Though not entirely out of question. while any US national cap-and-trade system is still years from being operational if at all. the proposal was first vetted jointly by one of the country’s largest electricity producers. signed and entering into effect in 2009 or 2010. it is significant that quite specific and extensive language already has been formulated and is under active consideration in the Congress. Furthermore. Now that the concept has become part of the climate change dialogue in Washington as well as in Brussels. Further.Perhaps more important than the legal technicalities or procedural issues at this point. On the one hand. with a widespread expectation that at least some of the proposed climate legislation would progress to votes by the end of the year. particularly in regard to challenges in the WTO.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link – policy not Kyoto ( ICTSD) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE However. on the other hand. as noted above. may make it more appealing to require GHG allowance purchases rather than to impose a tariff. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. is the political support already expressed for the concept of border measures on imports from countries deemed by the US government to be deficient in terms of actions to mitigate climate change in the future. it would be natural for a trans-Atlantic dialogue.Scenarios for the Future As this article was being finalised in early September 2007. the international competitiveness concerns in the EU are more advanced than in the US because the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme is already in operation. Indeed. the debate in the US will tend to legitimise any similar measures by the EU. whether explicitly and officially endorsed or not. there has already been movement towards the establishment of offsetting tariffs. and one of the largest labor unions. and with much domestic political appeal. It is also noteworthy that there would be much flexibility in how the provisions of the bill would be applied to particular circumstances.It is also likely that pressures to put in place some kind of import measures in the EU will grow as the debate and legislative process in the US progress. the US Congress was returning from a late summer recess. certain features of the possible US measures. Ironically. The precise form that such a measure would take in the EU. In short. the issue is now a significant item on the climate policy agenda in the US. It has subsequently been endorsed by other major business and labour organisations. to expand as ideas for the post- 2012 agenda become increasingly tangible and detailed 51 . is uncertain. however. the prospects were not promising for passage of such measures and acceptance by the President by the end of 2007. American Electric Power. A third possibility that could emerge from present circumstances is that the EU and US would join together in an effort to develop border-measure provisions to be included in the post-2012 climate regime. A more likely scenario is that there will be such legislation passed.

the CO2 constraint placed on individual industrial plants have so far been too low to give enough incentives for breakthrough technologies.1% by 2010. explains CEPS's Christian Egenhofer because it was seen as trying to postpone the issue for the long term and wait for another 50 years.euractiv." In the EU. http://www. they are exporting. 5-27-05. this is not an issue." he says. The Commission says the scheme also has a "market pull" component in the sense that it makes low carbon technologies more competitive compared to the more polluting ones. There are of course renewable sources of energy which are being pushed by the EU with the aim of increasing its share of electricity production to 22. With their long-term research programme and massive investments. the approach has been to "push" new technologies by putting a cap on industry's CO2 emissions and setting up a market for individual plants to buy or sell the CO2 emission allowances they were granted. if you put subsidies into coal. "But obviously. Renewables are of course important.technology U.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Link . Focus to technology p/o Europe EurActiv. but you do not get the breakthrough technologies in this way. Egenhofer agrees this could partly explain the US attitude but he believes there is merit in developing technologies. it does not get you there." 52 . "If you look at the targets that need to be achieved under the UNFCCC. Egenhofer believes the US "has got something right there". he adds. saying EU countries are still subsidising coal to the tune of 20 billion euros a year. But they will not play a big role. but their cost needs to be brought down and "the only way of doing this is by getting them onto the market" thanks to appropriate support. you really need breakthrough technologies. then you will need breakthrough technologies by 2050.com." comments Egenhofer.com/en/sustainability/heroes-vs- villains-eu-us-policies-climate-change/article-140082 [Barber] America's focus on technology has gone down badly in Europe. Heroes or Villains EU and US policy on climate change. They do not develop on their own. "In that sense. In the EU. because they come at a too high a cost. "In the US. And you don't get these without putting money into research and collaboration projects. the renewables will become competitive later.S. Egenhofer points out. "You get a lot of improvement of existing technologies the EU way by increasing the price of carbon which pushes technology improvements. Egenhofer continues. even in 20 to 30 years.

Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap 53 .Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Internal Link .

bears the legal responsibility for global environmental problems.S. the U. resistance to the precautionary principle is rooted in the concern that it might serve as the pretext for other countries to restrict the import of U.S. on the other hand.Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap U. has worked hard to contain the influence of these two principles and has constantly denied their status as customary international law (Brunnée 2004. law. was also adamantly opposed to language on targets and timetables for reducing fossil fuel consumption. policy in the U.S. felt that these partnerships could harness the billions of private dollars that circulate the globe and far outweigh public development assistance (Brunnée 2004. p.springerlink. Critics of this approach.com/content/24vp586k31766450/fulltext.html [Barber] The U. Chasek.S. including Norway and members of the G–77 (see Rosendal and Najam. 54 . 635).S. p. Rather than relying on negotiated agreements. the U. In the end. The U.S. http://www.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Internal Link . The long-standing U. Manhattan College. and that any action taken by developing countries must be financially and technically supported by developed countries (Brunnée 2004. made concerted efforts to promote the Type II outcomes—voluntary public-private partnerships—in Johannesburg. 9-19-07.S. voluntary measures are perceived by European countries as moving away from Global Climate change policy Pamela S. had been reluctant to include these principles in the Rio Declaration and worked hard to limit their scope. argued forcefully that private sector engagement was the best way to promote implementation of sustainable development agreements. the U.S. Since Rio. felt that the partnerships initiative was a way of masking the failure of governments to agree on meaningful action and enable governments to abdicate responsibility to sustainable development. meant that there was no accountability and that these partnerships may result in all talk and no action. politics. Reluctance to embrace the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is derived from concern that this could imply that the U.S. Finally.S. 629). The U.). Others argued that the lack of any international review process for the Type II outcomes (this was resisted by the U. pp.N environmental arena: powerful laggard or constructive leader?” International environmental agreements. such as climate change.S. “U. this volume). and economics.S. The U.S. 629–630). was also wary of expansion of scope of two principles contained in the Rio Declaration—the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (Principle 7) and the precautionary ‘approach’ (Principle 15).S. was successful in thwarting European attempts to set a goal of having 15% of countries’ energy provided by renewable sources by 2015 (Speth 2003). the U.. goods.

%20Suzanne [Barber] The Bush proposals. Bush's plan was far too little. Meunier put it. said that although it was hard to judge the new plan before knowing its details. too late. and would not improve his image abroad as a servant of the oil industry. the widely accepted treaty that would require emissions cuts by 2010 to well below their 1990 levels. Meunier evoked the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush plan might ''destabilize'' support for the Kyoto pact. Meunier added. which is awaiting ratification. Mr. ''We worry that without sanctions it just won't work. ''the total volunteerism approach makes us worry. why should we who are poorer do anything?'' The Bush administration's rejection of the protocol last March caused an outcry in Europe and came to be seen here as another example of America's refusal to limit its options in almost any sphere. ''You may have countries that say.'' The expert. As Mr. Europeans give Bush plan on climate change a tepid reception.'' Mr.Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap Europe perceives Voluntary Incentives as a continuation of rejection of the Kyoto protocol Suzanne Daley. The most outspoken reaction came from France. it showed that the United States sought change ''at no cost and in a way that would not in any way challenge the American lifestyle and especially its consumption.'' He asserted that while the plan was a step in the right direction.'' Echoing the concerns of most other specialists reacting today.html?res=9A07EFD6153FF936A25751C0A9649C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times %20Topics/People/D/Daley. New York times.com/gst/fullpage. 55 . Mr.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Internal Link . Philippe Meunier. where the head of an intergovernmental task force on global warming calling the proposals ''window dressing. many environmentalists and political commentators in Europe said that Mr. http://query. When he rejected the treaty.nytimes.'' ''It lacks credibility. its schedule too costly to meet and its terms unfair. which are strictly voluntary. Bush called its targets arbitrary. As word of the proposals began to filter out. 2-25-02. would rely on tax credits to coax big business to pollute less.

said: "This is not an alternative to Kyoto but a travesty of it. which involved encouraging American companies to comply with regulations to slow the increase in pollution of the skies. But the Bush administration's forecast rate of growth in GDP over the next decade is 38 per cent. the Climate Change Convention. First. head of climate change policy at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Internal Link .uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1384984/Bush-puts-US-on-'new-path'- after-no-to-Kyoto. The plan is aimed at cutting greenhouse gas "intensity" . The protocol was endorsed by Bill Clinton when he was president.by 18 per cent over 10 years. meaning that emissions will rise by 14 per cent. Environmentalists in Britain said the Bush plan would mean a rise in emissions over the next decade. http://www.co. calls for countries to return to 1990 levels by 2010. The Bush White House rejected it on two grounds.emissions per unit of gross domestic product . Second. It is aptly named the 'global warming plan' because that is precisely what it will lead to. 2/15/02. the administration objected that the protocol did not apply to such major polluting nations as China and India and would give them an unfair competitive advantage.html [Barber] PRESIDENT BUSH announced last night a "new environmental path for America". requires signatories to put in place policies and measures with the aim of returning to their 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. to which America remains a party. Mr Bush outlined a voluntary scheme for reducing the rate of growth in America's greenhouse gas emissions that "will benefit the entire world". Mr Bush expressed scepticism about the science that linked greenhouse gases to climate change and refused to risk thousands of American jobs by imposing restrictions costing companies hundreds of millions of pounds. "It is positive that the US administration is realising that there needs to be something done about climate change.telegraph. The treaty signed by Mr Bush's father in 1992. Environment Editor. 56 ." The 1997 Kyoto protocol. John Lanchbery. which Britain and 178 other countries have signed. His proposals. were condemned by his critics. instead of the cut required by the Kyoto treaty. both linked to American jobs. his alternative to the Kyoto protocol he summarily rejected last year." But the European Union gave a cautious welcome. to the dismay and anger of European nations and other allies. but not ratified.Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap Bush’s environmental policies are perceived by Europe and further movement against the Kyoto protocol Ben Fenton in Washington and Charles Clover. but we feel that the multilateral approach is the best way to face up to this tremendous challenge. but not ratified by the Senate.

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap

Voluntary targets are perceived as undermining Kyoto
The Gazette, SHELDON ALBERTS, CanWest Washington Correspondent, 9/29/07, Bush warms up to climate change, sort of; 'We
take this issue seriously'. President seeks goals for slashing carbon emissions, but rejects mandatory cuts, lexis [adit]
U.S. President George W. Bush urged the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters yesterday to agree on goals for slashing carbon
emissions, but rejected mandatory cuts as potentially devastating to global economic growth. Addressing a White House-sponsored
conference on energy and climate change, Bush said the U.S. agrees "there is a problem" with global warming but said each country
must decide on its own how best to meet reduction targets. The U.S. will press rich countries to contribute to a new "international
clean technology fund" aimed at help developing nations pay for cleaner technologies key to reducing emissions. "Our guiding
principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not
undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people," Bush told delegates to the two-
day conference, which attracted officials from 16 countries, including Canada. "Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of
tools and technology to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective." In the past, Bush has questioned the
science linking human activity to global warming. But in his speech, he cited a report this year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change that concluded global temperatures are rising and that they are caused largely by human activities. "Our
understanding of climate change has come a long way," Bush said. "The United States will do our part. We take this issue seriously."
The U.S., though, has come under fire from European countries for continuing to resist mandatory greenhouse gas limits. The Bush
administration refused to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, partly because major developing countries like
China and India were not required to cut emissions. Any new international consensus for voluntary emissions cuts must include both
China and India, he said. "By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to
doing something about it," Bush said. Bush's insistence on voluntary targets has been viewed by some environmentalists as an attempt
to undermine the United Nations efforts to negotiate new mandatory standards after Kyoto. But the Bush denies the U.S. is charting its
own course. He said his government will convene its own meeting of major polluters by the summer of 2008 to "finalize" emission
targets and methods for measuring progress.

57

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap
Voluntary incentives are criticized by European leaders as ineffective and
unilateral
Peter N. Spotts and Mariah Blake, starr writer and contributor to the Christian Science Monitor, President , 6-4-07, Bush’s new global
warming plan greeted with skepticism at this week’s world summit in Germany. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p02s01-
wogi.htm [Barber]

Under Mr. Bush's plan, the United States would gather leaders of 15 developed and developing nations that are the leading
emitters of heat-trapping gases and the largest consumers of energy. Their objective: Develop a long-term emissions-reduction
goal that, according to administration officials, is "aspirational" rather than binding. Countries would then develop their own
sets of internal programs to achieve the overall goal.
Bush unveiled the plan on the eve of this year's Group of 8 summit, set to start Wednesday in Heiligendamm, Germany.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will chair the meeting, has put out drafts of a final communiqué that commit G-8
members to doing their "fair share" to reach specific emissions goals by 2050.
Her effort is driven in no small part by three recent reports on global warming, its effects, and strategies for reducing emissions
of greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel. The reports, which aim to inform policymakers as they
craft ways to reduce human influence on climate, were issued earlier this year by the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC).
During the run-up to the G-8 meeting, the Bush administration has come under intense criticism from environmental groups
and some European officials. The White House rejected the wording of large sections of the draft's climate provisions. It
argued that the offending elements run counter to Bush's policy on dealing with global warming.
For example, Washington's proposed changes to the draft G-8 document virtually wipe out any reference to various emissions-
reduction goals by 2050 or an objective of trying to hold global average temperature increases to about 2 degrees C. These are
based on IPCC projections of possible emissions trends and approaches that could avoid what the UN agreements refer to as
"dangerous human-made influence on climate."
It would now appear that the White House may have been trying to adjust the draft communiqué text in ways that brought it
into closer conformity with the plan Washington was preparing to announce. The White House has long rejected mandatory
targets and timetables.
Fewer friends in US's corner
Either way, some analysts say, the Bush plan is merely trying to defuse the barrage of criticism aimed its way.
"This is a transparent effort to divert attention from the president's refusal to accept any emissions-reductions proposals at [the]
G-8 summit," says Philip Clapp, head of the National Environmental Trust in Washington. "The White House is just trying to
hide the fact that the president is completely isolated among the G-8 leaders by calling vaguely for some agreement next year,
right before he leaves office."
As if to underscore that isolation, long-time Bush ally on climate, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, announced over the
weekend that his country would set an emissions target next year and set up a carbon-trading system by 2012 to help achieve it.
Both approaches have been anathema to the White House.
Others suggest the White House is attempting an end-run around any United Nations-based process for dealing with climate.
Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister, said Friday that the G-8 should not allow the Bush plan to become "a
Trojan horse to get past Heiligendamm and basically torpedo the international climate-protection process."
Some, though, say Washington's approach in the end may help prod a ponderous UN process. While setting an "aspirational"
goal might seem out of touch with calls for binding commitments, environmental treaties often set a broad goal, which is
turned into action through each country's process of ratification and enacting enabling legislation, said James Connaughton,
head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, at a May 31 press briefing. Citing fisheries agreements as an
example, he noted that, "You agree on goals in the international process [and] you implement them through national strategies
that include binding measures."

58

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Internal Links - Carbon Tarrifs/Relations

59

countries that have no carbon taxes in place. January 28 2008.nationalpost.com/related/links/story. Sanctions risk global trade wars between major powers Financial Post March 25 2008." 60 . Carbon Tariff War? http://www. warns in a letter to the Financial Times that EU-initiated carbon trade barriers "could provoke a global trade war between the EU on the one hand and countries such as the United States. "appropriate measures" can be taken by the EU.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Carbon Tariffs = Trade War Climate Tarrifs Ensure Retaliation and Trade wars Euractiv. Indeed. However. If steel arrives from China or America. the mere fact that the EU is considering such action has already caused outrage among its trade partners. EU warned of trade war over climate measures. http://www. then Europe should tax the steel. a Swedish MP and economics professor. the final summit statement said.com/en/trade/eu-warned-trade-war-climate-measures/article-169878 The Commission's threat of climate-related trade sanctions aimed at putting EU and third country producers on a level footing appears mainly targeted at convincing governments in Washington and Beijing to adhere to a global deal on climate change. US Trade Representative Susan Schwab accused the EU of using the climate as an excuse for protectionism. Hamilton. India and Brazil on the other. The United States has warned it would "vigorously" resist any move to introduce a tax on American products based on its position in climate change negotiations. Last week.euractiv.html? id=397658 A European Union summit agreement two weeks ago to slash carbon emissions by 2020 ended with a veiled threat. The phrase "appropriate measures" hasn't been defined yet. China. the EU executive has confirmed that it will not decide on the introduction of any such measures before 2011. but French President Nicolas Sarkozy thinks Europe should impose a carbon tariff on goods imported into Europe. Carl B. If the rest of the world doesn't match Europe's carbon tax and control regimes. European governments love a good excuse to build trade barriers.

EU – U.S. Ironically. steel. May 2.uk/2/hi/europe/7201835.stm He said foreign firms should be forced to purchase the same EU carbon allowances European firms would have to buy. Labour MP.S. Linda McAvan. BBC news. production…" The U. Congress looked into closing down this abominable practice in the 2007 energy bill but “somehow” the loophole in the biodiesel subsidy left it in place.and the commission president said he very much hoped it would not be used. Barroso trade threat on climate. it’s the NUCLEAR BOMB of climate negotiations Roger Harrabin. He said his preferred option was for a comprehensive global treaty on emissions. June 01. UK:"My fear is that by the time we get something done. 2008. the U. If Congress doesn’t close the loophole soon.S. 2008. BIOFUEL TRADE WAR?. Environment analyst and write for BBC News. EU has been supporting sanctions on the US for awhile.com/2008/06/eu-us-biofuel-trade-war. the American plan is taking shape even before the United States takes any action to reduce its own emissions. chemicals. cement.S. 2008. violation of international law." Threats to trade risk relations collapse. http://news. Congress is moving to create a system of trade sanctions that would levy heavy taxes on imports from other major greenhouse gas emitters. and threatening a major trade war. The threat of trade measures is the nuclear bomb of climate negotiations .co.uk/2/hi/europe/7201835. They say it is unfair for Europe's firms to bear a financial risk because of the EU's leadership on a global issue. biodiesel imports if “splash and dash” is not discontinued. Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate Change? http://www.policyinnovations.bbc.org/ideas/commentary/data/000051 After the inconclusive end of the UN led Bali talks on the global environment.blogspot. inviting charges of hypocrisy.bbc. http://newenergynews. BBC news.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Carbon Tariffs= Trade War EU sanctions cause trade wars New Energy News. In response.S. thereby leveling the industrial playing field.stm The idea of climate trade sanctions against nations such as the United States has long been promoted by the French. it risks starting a trade war with the EU. and pulp and paper—that any new climate treaty would put them at a big disadvantage against their fast-growing competitors in China. glass. 61 . http://news. January 22. they wont hesitate Roger Harrabin. the European industry will be out of business. The situation is urgent for the European biodiesel industry. Unnamed EU diplomat: "The Commission is in contact with the United States to clarify certain details regarding U.html The EC is threatening to put a duty on U. which in some cases allows countries to impose charges on environmental grounds Trade sanctions threaten major trade wars Robert Collier. and European industries—especially iron. January 22. worry has grown among U. Barroso trade threat on climate. although public statements remain muted. 2008.co. They believe the right measures would be acceptable to the WTO. Environment analyst and write for BBC News.S.

generating a vicious cycle of retaliation and response. and E. which in 1994 became the World Trade Organization (WTO). including Canada. could easily escalate to trade wars. November 13th.This is what happened during the 1930s. This was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If the global trading system fails.U. that many nations. ‘3 (World trade wars are on the horizon and it's a time for Canadian leadership. the world faces the risk of a major recession. worked to create a new trade regime to lower trade barriers and establish a procedure for dealing with trade disputes. p. 62 . they inevitably escalate. after The Second World War. from the war in Iraq to the Kyoto agreement on climate change.S. Factiva) The world is closer to trade wars than it has been for many years. Once launched. Toronto Star. The trigger for such a trade war this time could come from an increasingly protectionist United States and a European Union that finds itself at odds with the United States on many issues. or GATT.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Carbon Tariffs =Trade War Trade disputes between the U. This is bad news because trade wars are highly destructive to jobs and growth. making the Great Depression much worse. It was why.

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Trade Key to US-EU Relations

EU and US trade key to relations. – Trade relations heavily influence political relations.

European Policy Center 26 July 2002 “EU-US Economic Disputes: There is More to Trade than Goods
and Services” http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-us-economic-disputes-trade-goods-services/article-
116971)

Regardless of which path is pursued, the key to regaining stability in transatlantic trade relations is an increased understanding
between the two societies. Stu Eizenstat and Hugo Paemen in their piece in the Financial Times London, of July 25th, 2002
suggested several steps to reach this objective, including a one-year suspension of the filing of new WTO cases and the
drafting of a common economic goal and work programme to achieve it. This alone, however, is not enough. Congress and the
European Parliament, as respective legislative bodies, should intensify information sharing and try to achieve a further
harmonization of legal standards and trade laws. At the same time Europeans must double their efforts to explain the
precautionary principle to the US so that the deep concerns at the heart of the new philosophical trade disputes are recognized
and taken seriously by their transatlantic partner. Finally, both powers must realize that trade and politics no longer are easily
separated. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Trade today is the only area in which the EU and the US deal as equals. But if
Americans and Europeans can keep in mind the benefits reaped from multilateral economic cooperation and transfer the
lessons learned here into the political sphere, the basis for a new transatlantic relationship might well be laid.

[ ] US-EU trade relations lead to political partnership and relations.

European Policy Center 26 July 2002 ( “EU-US Economic Disputes: There is More to Trade than Goods and
Services” http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-us-economic-disputes-trade-goods-services/article-116971)
The EU-US trade relationship is of great importance in today's global economic system. Not only do bilateral economic
relations between these two economic giants make up over 40% of world trade, but their trade relationship also greatly
influences political cooperation between the two unions. As Leon Brittan, former EU commissioner for trade recently wrote,
there is a loose linkage between economic and political cooperation and partnership. If serious strains arise on one side of the
relationship, there is always a risk that the other will suffer. The US-EU trade relationship draws wider circles, however, and
also serves an important signalling effect to the world trading system as a whole. Indeed, it is difficult to move the global trade
agenda forward when the EU and US pull on opposite strands.There is currently a long list of US-EU trade disputes ranging
from unresolved issues, such as the EU refusal to allow imports of hormone treated beef (despite a contrary WTO ruling), to
those disputes that are only just about to erupt, such as the potential row over the imposition of tariffs on US steel imports.
Most recently, the EU has won a case against the US for its Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Law, which bestows special tax
breaks on US companies in the exporting business. The EU was granted the right to impose sanctions worth up to $4 billion -
the largest award in WTO history. For the status and a brief summary of the 11 currently active bilateral US-EU cases in the
WTO please refer to the Annex below. Even though EU-US trade accounts for less than 22% of EU trade, it comprises over
47% of the EU's WTO disputes. By contrast, the EU currently has not a single WTO dispute with its preferential partners in
Europe and Africa, although 32% of its trade takes place with these countries. These numbers point out that, even though the
EU and US try to settle their trade disagreements in various informal and formal bilateral settings, they still depend heavily on
the WTO dispute resolution mechanism to solve their most contentious problems.

63

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Trade Key to US-Eu Relations

Transatlantic trade disputes spillover
Jan Bohanes, Associate Attorney at the International Trade and Dispute Resolution Group, 2005 Review: Transatlantic
Economic Disputes: The EU, the US, and the WTO, Journal of Economic Law,
The United States (US) and the European Communities (EC) are among the world’s most developed economic entities and
together account for some 40 percent of both global GDP and trade. Indeed, it is almost trite to refer to the importance
the US and the EC – and their bilateral relationship – have within the World Trade Organization (WTO). From the
perspective of the global economic and trading system, the significance of the economic relations between these two economic
giants, and of the economic disputes arising between them, can hardly be overestimated. It may be true that only two percent of
EC–US trade and investments are affected by allegedly WTOinconsistent trade restrictions; nevertheless, EC–US economic
disputes often surpass disputes between other nations by virtue of the sheer trade volume at stake or their political
dimensions. Furthermore, these disputes often reflect some of the thorniest questions of trade policy – taxation policy and
health measures (hormones, genetically modified organisms), to name only two. Moreover, the EC and US have, over the past
ten years, been the two most frequent litigators before the WTO, such that disputes pitting the EC and the US against each
other have led to the clarification of significant aspects, in terms of substance and volume, of both procedural and substantive
WTO law. In sum, EC–US economic relations and economic disputes represent an area of study of great importance in
international economic affairs. And this important area of study has been enriched by an edited volume whose quality is on a
par with the importance of the subject matter it addresses.

[ ] Free trade without barriers key to EU US relations.
U.S. Department of State April 30, 2007 ( “U.S., EU Agree To Reduce Regulatory and Trade Barriers”
http://useu.usmission.gov/Article.asp?ID=74174DC1-203C-48EA-87F6-C58557DEB56A)

The United States and the European Union (EU) have agreed to expand economic ties by cutting barriers to trade and investment and
liberalizing restrictions on air travel. Joint commitments on a broad range of economic and security issues were signed April 30 during
the annual U.S.-EU summit in Washington.President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President
Jose Manuel Barroso signed the trans-Atlantic economic partnership plan under which the two trading partners will establish a
framework for business integration by streamlining regulatory standards that are often different between the trans-Atlantic partners. “It
is a commitment to eliminating barriers to trade. It is recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the better
off our people become,” Bush said at a joint press conference with the European leaders after their meeting. As part of the framework,
the United States and EU will set up the "Trans-Atlantic Economic Council" to push regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas,
including intellectual property, financial services and the automotive industry. Merkel, whose country holds the rotating EU and G8
presidency, said the agreement is a “significant step forward” for trade partners that exchange more than $2 billion in goods and
services across the Atlantic every day. In addition to the United States and Germany, the G8 includes the United Kingdom, France,
Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia. Barroso said the agreement will help fight protectionism and isolationism by getting rid of “artificial
barriers to trade and investment” through the “harmonization of standards.” In addition, all three leaders stressed their commitment to
bringing the long-stalled Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations to a successful outcome. "I'm under no
illusions as to how hard it will be to achieve the objective, but the first thing is there must be a firm commitment by the leadership to
get a deal," Bush said.

64

Europe Trade DA
DDI 2008

Trade Key to US-Eu Relations

Trans-atlantic economic relations are key to US-European relations

Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and director
of the Center on Congress at Indiana University, 6/30/08, Treading carefully in trans-
Atlantic, relationshttp://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080630/OPINION12/806300312/1002/opinion [SD]
It's the world's largest economic bloc with a GDP of $16 trillion, and its once-lethargic economies are growing faster than America's
with lower budget deficits. The Euro continues to appreciate against the dollar, unemployment is falling, and the EU is reducing its
dependence on foreign energy.
Despite longtime U.S. support for European integration, there are real differences over: Iraq, the broader Middle East, the death
penalty, and climate change, among others. But keeping trans-Atlantic relations in good order is a strategic interest of the highest
importance for both partners.
Germany and France are among Iran's four largest import-partners. While the U.S. should engage Iran directly for diplomatic non-
proliferation efforts to succeed, transatlantic coordination is essential.

US-European relations are based on interests and trade.

Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and director
of the Center on Congress at Indiana University, 6/30/08, Treading carefully in trans-
Atlantic, relationshttp://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080630/OPINION12/806300312/1002/opinion [SD]
Turkey's increasingly dynamic economy, its vibrant democracy, and its growing clout in foreign affairs illustrate its tremendous value
as an ally. The U.S. would welcome Turkey's further integration into the EU, but many Europeans express reluctance or outright
opposition.
Despite these challenges, the future of U.S.-European relations is not bleak. Our alliance is rooted in common values, interests, and
strong economic ties, including the world's largest bilateral trade relationship, measuring roughly $3 trillion in goods and services.
The foundations of our alliance are unshakeable, and the opportunities for its leaders are great.

65

Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Impacts 66 .

and gas consumers. Finally. Third. Despite the billions of dollars already invested on both sides. business leaders say that the EU's 450 million affluent consumers still form the largest pool of purchasing power in the world. the United States and Europe urgently need to consider joint energy and environmental strategies to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and curtail greenhouse gas emissions. William. Profits earned by U.7 billion.S. affiliates in Europe soared to a record $77 billion. Four big challenges remain. Thus. They also say that economic self-interest should be enough to persuade both Democrats and Republicans in the United States to want to protect the Atlantic partnership--all the more so because the combined Economic power of the United States and Europe would give them enormous leverage to deal with major global challenges. Issue 1. while the media reported that Americans were pouring Bordeaux wine down the drain to protest Paris' position on the war in Iraq. Business Source Complete These transatlantic investments have proved very profitable.S. Jan/Feb2005. they must 67 .Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Free Trade .S. 00157120. U. Foreign Affairs. and U. technology firms. The first is managing the Western world's worsening jobs crisis (which is partly caused by outsourcing to cheap-wage places such as China and India) without resorting to the kind of draconian protectionist measures that provoked the Great Depression. they must promptly conclude the Doha Round of global trade negotiations by agreeing to cut much of their $300 billion in farm export subsidies. as the world's major oil. By: Drozdiak. Jan/Feb 2005. Second.S. Vol. the full potential of the U. investments in Europe jumped by 30 percent to $87 billion.4 billion and $l. In 2003. corporate America saw its investment inflows and profits from France surge to the highest levels in nearly a decade: $2. predict that half of their global revenues will come from Europe in 2005. which harm producers in developing countries and exacerbate the disparity between rich and poor nations. Large U. The North Atlantic Drift. such as Microsoft and Intel.-European economic relationship is not yet realized. Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels.S. coal. respectively.Extensions US-EU relations are key to trade and the world economy WILLIAM DROZDIAK. 84. EBSCO.

Russia.. Summer. Total FDI stocks held in each others countries reach approximately €1. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's. 11-07. The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression.US trade disputes collapse the global economy European Commission.7 billion every day.htm In 2006 the EU and the US combined economies accounted for nearly 60 % of global GDP. 1992. The EU and the US are each other's main trading partners. The transatlantic relationship also defines the shape of the global economy as a whole as either the EU or the US is also the largest trade and investment partner for almost all other countries in the global economy.will open their eyes to their folly. we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North.europa. 33 % of world trade in goods and 42 % of world trade in services. 30.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Trade Economy -Module European. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy.89 trillion. They are also the largest players in global trade. rich against poor. The overall "transatlantic workforce" is estimated at 12 to 14 million people. The EU and the US are each other's main trading partners and account for the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. China. 68 . The two economies are interdependent to a high degree. Nuclear War Walter Russell Mead. of which roughly half are Americans who owe their jobs directly or indirectly to EU companies. p. Close to a quarter of all EU-US trade consists of transactions within firms based on their investments on either side of the Atlantic. New Perspectives Quarterly. http://ec.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/usa/index_en. Trade flows across the Atlantic amount to around €1. or even shrinks? In that case.

Europe and America have the biggest trade and investment relationship in the world -.accounting for half the planet's wealth and forming the cornerstone of the world's most powerful military alliance.S. EU and U.amounting to over $1 billion a day -. Europe Correspondent for United Press International. Together.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Trade Economy . 69 . leaders know that a breakdown in relations between the two sides would be disastrous for the international economy and global stability. NATO. 9/7/2002 (United Press International)) Despite their differences.Extensions Collapse of relations destroys the global economy (Gareth Harding.

edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1. Through continued dialogue and cooperation the EU and US also work together to promote global peace. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous. and openness. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. property rights. stability and prosperity throughout the world. Together the EU and US are committed to the challenge of alleviating poverty and disease and provide almost 80% of global development assistance. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. and enduring trading partnerships. freedom. On a global level. civil liberties. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.US trade relations key . [December. Precisely because.8 trillion a year. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens.si. chemical. open. investment links are even more substantial. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. Each partner creates jobs for about 6 million workers on each side of the Atlantic. The impact is human survival and global war Larry Diamond. and EU-US trade accounts for almost 40% of world trade. But the EU-US economic partnership goes way beyond pure trade matters: it is supported by a number of institutionalized dialogues and regulatory cooperation between the partners. appears increasingly endangered. democratic ones. Exercising that power and responsibility effectively inevitably means working together. Democratic countries form more reliable. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. the EU and US are major powers and as such have a global responsibility. Europe and the US can only succeed in advancing these values if they act together. they respect competition.org/eu/index. within their own borders.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations Democracy Module EU . 70 . and the rule of law. http://wwics. totaling over $1.relations promote peace and democracy. In that respect the EU and US are jointly promoting democracy. Nuclear. popular sovereignty. 1995. stability and democracy. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. The very source of life on Earth. accountability.php? option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=7&id=29&Itemid=59) Bilateral trade between the EU and US amounts to over $1 billion a day. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment.eurunion. European Union February 2005 ("EU / US Relations" http://www. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. Afghanistan or the Balkans. with its provisions for legality. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. the global ecosystem. Promoting Democracy in the 1990s. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Whether it is in the Middle East.htm] This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades.

The spread of democratic and economic freedoms that together we have done so much to secure and engender. US-EU cooperation key to democratic reforms in the Middle East Richard Youngs.fpc. senior researcher at the 'Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior' (FRIDE) in Madrid. Secretary of State. And the hope for realizing that great potential still rests to a great degree on strong and enduring partnerships between Europe and the United States. 13 Certainly. This gives the EU leverage to negotiate forms of cooperation that boost its own aims and approaches to reform. and lecturer at the University of Warwick. that could be brought about through the US and EU pressing regimes to sit down with a range of opposition and civil society organisations to design national reform projects. given the extreme lack of coherence between different donors’ projects. when the US moved to push the Algerian regime towards reform. http://www. we are much closer to that vision. the US proposal to pool and commonly plan political aid initiatives was not without merit. 2003 Thanks in great measure to the concerted efforts of Americans and Europeans.pdf At the very least. 2004.S. 71 . tighter trans-Atlantic cooperation would make it more difficult for Middle Eastern regimes to play the EU and US off against each other.uk/fsblob/352. cooperation need not completely suppress areas of particular national expertise. it can be readily acknowledged that some things may be better done by the Europeans. One trans-Atlantic group of experts has advocated a ‘common trans-Atlantic benchmark’ for offering solidarity to democracy activists.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations Democracy Extensions US-EU relations key to democracy promotion Colin Powell. much closer that world we dream of today. A common trans-Atlantic reform agenda should be able to combine the benefits of a united front with space for diversity in European and US priorities on the ground. former U.org. As within the EU itself. others by the US. consider global financial reforms to avert a dollar crisis and take account of the growing importance of the euro. Mubarak’s regime could confidently rebuff these efforts by pointing to continued unconditional US support. efforts that have gone on for the past half century. American policy-makers have frequently acknowledged that the US ‘carries more baggage’ in the Middle East and consequently has greater need of a more multilateral effort. conversely. This has on occasions worked to the detriment of both the EU and US: when the EU started to raise reform issues with the Egyptian government in the mid-1990s. Trans-Atlantic Cooperation on Middle East Reform: A European Mis- judgment?. have opened unprecedented opportunities to help better the lives of millions on every continent. For all the EU’s defensiveness over being emasculated by intensified US involvement. the latter was able to cite continued French backing.

Saudi Arabia could not tolerate the political. So might Turkey. http://www. EBSCO. At the same time. Jan/Feb2005. Vol.S. Council on Foreign Relations. is that you would go from a Middle East with one nuclear weapons state. to one with three. So that's really the great threat. Iraq—long-term foe of Iran—might consider that it needs to balance Iranian power. The Bush administration was skeptical about Iran's proclamation that its nuclear activities were only peaceful. iranian nuclearization causes nuclear war by a regional nuclear arms race Joseph Cirincione (Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress). Consulting Editor. Israel. but we do know that the Saudis bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear program. 2006. would actually be legal under the Non- Proliferation Treaty. The North Atlantic Drift. They used to have a nuclear program in the 1960s. Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels. William.S. 00157120. My great fear is that the Saudis might take a nuclear shortcut. just the way the United States stations nuclear weapons in Europe. including enhanced trade possibilities and assured nuclear fuel supplies. which Saudi Arabia is a member of. April 4. and invite Pakistan to station some of its nuclear weapons on Saudi territory. or five nuclear weapons states with the remaining political. Interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman. And that's the great danger—that other countries in the region would start exploring their nuclear options. Washington should allow its allies in Europe to take the lead in exploring new policy initiatives in regions where they enjoy greater influence or historical connections.cfr. threats for wider sanctions has raised hopes that Iran will finally abide by its latest agreement to suspend all uranium-enrichment activities. would almost certainly trigger EU support for the UN sanctions that the United States is advocating. and diplomatic power that a nuclear weapon would give Iran. 72 . but it encouraged Europe to make a last-ditch effort to persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build nuclear weapons. and European assets are complementary. action the international legitimacy that the Bush administration's strong-arm unilateralism has tarnished. Foreign Affairs. Egypt might also react. This. military. in fact. Jan/Feb 2005. they might decide that they have to beat the Iranian challenge in their own way. 84.org/publication/10331/ They want to deter a United States or possibly Israeli attack. presenting a unified front would restore to U. In fact. Concerted diplomacy would help fulfill Europe's ambitions of playing a more assertive role in world affairs while encouraging it to work more closely in partnership with the United States. and ethnic conflicts unresolved. Issue 1.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Solves Iran Prolif Module US-EU Cooperation key to stop Iranian prolif WILLIAM DROZDIAK. four. and they want the prestige that such a weapon would give them for their regional ambitions. economic. the combination of European diplomacy and U. And it's exactly for those reasons that other countries in the region would react. Consider Iran. Europe's penchant for offering diplomatic incentives should be combined with America's tendency to threaten military force. European diplomats say Iran's refusal to accept Europe's best offer. for example. We don't know if this is true. Indeed.S. That's a recipe for nuclear war. Business Source Complete U. if there's a unified government of Iraq within five years. By: Drozdiak. There are already stories that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with the Pakistanis on nuclear research.

Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Coop on Iran Prolif Now US and EU cooperating on Iranian Prolif now Robert J. Both the Americans and Europeans fully appreciate that a country has gone most of the distance toward nuclear weapons once it has the ability to enrich uranium or produce plutonium. First. A Transatlantic Strategy on Iran’s Nuclear Program. Bush and Democratic presiden. Einhorn. kick out inspectors. former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. Washington Quarterly. 73 . they have repeatedly expressed strong opposition to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.1162/wash.mitpressjournals. they appear to have converged on two crucial matters. Both President George W. transatlantic agreement seems to have formed that persuading Iran to give up its own fissile material production capability. or to build nuclear weapons as soon as possible—is essential. regardless of Iran’s true motivation for seeking it—whether to produce reactor fuel indigenously.27.21 Although views may differ across the Atlantic on whether Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons or only a nuclear weapons option.2004. and proceed to turn previously safeguarded nuclear material into bombs.org/doi/pdf/10.” Although Europeans avoid such categorical formulations. to give itself a future nuclear option.) have called such a development “unacceptable. they further recognize that putting Iran’s capability under the IAEA’s verification is not an adequate solution. Second. 2004. http://www. Because a determined proliferator could at any time withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).tial candidate Senator John Kerry (Mass. the consensus seems to be that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the stability of the Middle East and for the future of the global nonproliferation regime.4.

the United States and Europe have taken very different approaches. pragmatic reaction to align Europe’s policies more closely with the United States to help repair transatlantic relations as well as relations within Europe after the Iraq rupture. the European position is shifting toward that of Washington. The tougher EU stance appears. Washington Quarterly. policy circles. France. particularly German.g. to have paid off as the foreign ministers of Great Britain. however. 74 . Europe is now focusing less on broadening international arms control regimes and more on improving the implementation of existing treaties. the EU is now pursuing an approach to proliferation that more actively addresses countries of concern (e. Iran. Consequently. WMD is creeping toward the top of the European agenda.. 5 As a result. 6 Most critical. marking a dramatic departure from the previous European. position than was previously the case.S. signaling that Europe is willing to employ economic levers to address the proliferation problem. The war in Iraq and the diplomatic dispute prior to it provided a catalyst for Europe to place proliferation higher on its agenda and reexamine its policies to combat this threat.S. Although Europeans may not be as inclined to conflate the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with that of terrorism. European states have favored policies of engagement and have been reluctant to link their economic and political relations with Tehran’s proliferation activity. the EU issued a new policy to confront WMD at the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki in late June 2003 that included considering coercive measures if diplomatic efforts to stem proliferation in certain problem states failed. Now. This shift reflected a general. and Germany brokered a deal in late October 2003 whereby Iran agreed to cooperate with the IAEA. Thus. While the United States has preferred policies of containment. and major European states such as France and Germany recognized that a united Europe was necessary for the projection of European power externally. like the United States. Since the Iraq war. In mid-June 2003. the foreign ministers of the EU’s member states released a statement critical of Iran’s nuclear program and demanded that Iran accept more aggressive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Cooperation on Prolif Now US-EU cooperation currently solving prolif Dalia Dassa Kaye. Perhaps the best example of growing convergence on the threat of proliferation is the case of Iran. or in reaction to increasingly unambiguous intelligence suggesting that Iran is actively seeking a nuclear weapons program. aversion to the use of force in such scenarios. Their motivations for doing so are unclear. Winter 03/04. The French. common concerns about proliferation partly explain the initial U. Although Europeans are still strong believers in international regimes. Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East.S. they increasingly recognize the implementation and compliance problems of accords such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). and suspend all uranium enrichment and processing activities. and Libya) rather than relying solely on existing international agreements to do the job. political scientist and a member of the research staff in the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND. a desire to maintain its nuclear status by limiting the number of nuclear powers. economic sanctions.-European agreement on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 calling for the disarmament of Iraq in the fall of 2002. the EU for the first time specifically linked the trade and cooperation agreement it is negotiating with Tehran to the nuclear issue. Clearly. European concern about the proliferation of unconventional weapons and the missile systems able to deliver them is growing. European governments were confronted with substantial evidence of significant Iranian efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. North Korea. as is the tendency in current U. Europeans did not want to be marginalized and divided as they were in Iraq. the resultant EU policy toward Iran is closer to the U. for now. however. sign the Additional Protocol. have actively supported this tougher position toward Iran. Moreover. particularly those regarding nuclear weapons. and the threat of force. Traditionally. whether a desire to mend fences with the United States and within Europe. in contrast to their stance on Iraq. Even prior to the war in Iraq.

Thus far. At the same time. and opposed efforts to take the issue to New York if Tehran abides by the October 2003 deal. They see the reinforcement of the European presence in the GCC and the Gulf in general as a reassurance and a necessary balancing. The United States has branded Iran a member of the “axis of evil”. It is. European sticks have usually taken the form of deferred carrots. Thus the EU is called upon to play a security role.1162/wash.2004. They promised to enhance high-technology trade with Iran. beneficial to both the United States and the regional countries. including Russia’s construction of a power reactor at Bushehr. they simply threaten to take away future gains. However this was due less to weaknesses in the European diplomatic platform than to the changes that cropped up in Iran’s international and domestic conditions.27. the United States cannot hope to coerce Iran either.mitpressjournals. the EU-3 initiative did not succeed. on the other hand.21 Both the United States and Europe have critical roles to play in framing the choice for Iran. former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. Vice-President at the International Affairs Institute-IAI in Rome. independently of transatlantic rifts. In a transatlantic perspective. and developing – wherever possible – its political initiative in the same way it did with the EU-3 negotiations with Iran. high time for the Europeans to set out a policy towards Iraq.4. The EU 3. Einhorn. Washington Quarterly. Such actions do not hurt Iran. and broken off even limited bilateral contacts with Iran. setting out a substantive and consistent strategy towards the region. what it seems to suggest is that Europe can play a security role in the Gulf precisely by developing and strengthening its own initiative. US-EU cooperation to stop Iranian prolif Roberto Aliboni.iai. autonomous reinforcement of the European and EU role in the region will be more helpful than participation in the inherently limited ICI operations. A Transatlantic Strategy on Iran’s Nuclear Program. including in the civil nuclear area. If European diplomacy proved unable to come to terms with the radicals now in power at Teheran. for a number of evident reasons: Iraq is overstretching American forces. 11-26-2005. what is worth noting here is that the EU cooperative approach makes sense and may well evolve into a platform for joint transatlantic action. the EU-3 initiative towards Iran shows that Europe can play a security role based on its own principles and objectives. and the UN Security Council ’ s constellation is not necessarily in favour of the West. Iraq ’ s weakness and the role the Shiites play in the country are objectively reinforcing Teheran. 75 .Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-Eu Key to Iran Prolif US-EU cooperation to stop Iranian prolif Robert J. True.pdf On the other hand. http://www. such as the EU’s postponement of further talks with Iran on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement until the nuclear issue is resolved. At the end of the day. in fact. While these conditions have brought about – as tactical as it may be – a transatlantic rapprochement tilting towards European “ dialogue ” rather than US coercion. http://www. in particular. urged the IAEA board to find Iran in noncompliance with the NPT and to send the matter to the Security Council. Finally. Europe should take note that a new regime is emerging in Iraq which deserves support. opposed all nuclear cooperation with Iran. 2004. have preferred carrots to sticks.it/pdf/DocIAI/iai0532. in terms of more and bolder initiatives in the region. EUROPE ’ S ROLE IN THE GULF: A TRANSATLANTIC PERSPECTIVE. These countries are rather disappointed and concerned by the US' performance in the Gulf and its consequences. If this mixed picture is taken into consideration. the Bush administration has played the bad cop and the Europeans have played the good cop. a more autonomous European role is what the GCC countries.org/doi/pdf/10. expect and desire. all it has to do is to be more assertive and confident in renewing and enhancing its links with the GCC.

Business Source Complete A more activist role for Europe could also have beneficial effects on efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed. EBSCO. p. Michael J. Jews and Arabs have engaged in continuous low-level conflict punctuated by seven major wars (Rowley and Taylor 2006a. “Israel and Palestine: the slow road to peace or the fast track to mutual annihilation?” p. Prof. 76 . Rowley. employing game theory within a public choice perspective. 2006b). given the proper incentives. Peace Process Necessary to Solve Largest War Ever Charles K. 00157120. we outline alternative scenarios for the Israel–Palestine land settlement problem as they have played themselves out during three time-periods. Foreign Affairs. perhaps of the most destructive kind that the world so far has ever experienced. of Econ @ GMU. nor is it necessarily a prisoners’ dilemma. After all. Issue 1. Our basic hypothesis is that the Israel–Palestine game is not necessarily zero-sum. Rather it takes the form of a hawk–dove game in which peace-peace solutions are feasible. 8] Since May 14. Yet a more activist EU role that offered trade and aid incentives to Israel could help bring the two sides back to the negotiating table. The North Atlantic Drift. 34). This seemingly intractable conflict between Israelis and Arabs over the future of the Holy Land lies at the root of instability throughout the Middle East. Webb. ‘7 [Public Choice 132. the probability that this continuing friction may culminate in the elimination of the entire Middle East as a habitable region for generations to come cannot be ignored. whether the Holy Land is on the slow road to peace or the fast track to mutual annihilation. 1948. Jan/Feb 2005. @ Regulatory Economics Group. when the British Mandate expired and David Ben Gurion declared the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. In a world where weapons of mass destruction are becoming ever more accessible. The United States has long been seen as the only outside power capable of extracting key concessions from Israel--including the dismantling of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank--while Europe has been relegated to giving humanitarian aid and financial support to the Palestinians. By: Drozdiak. specifically. 84.We attempt to identify the key determinants of the ultimate outcome of the current conflict. William. Shughart suggests that much of the instability can be attributed to the haphazard way in which boundaries were drawn after the end of the FirstWorldWar (Shughart 2006. the hawk–dove game may also result in war–war.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Solves Peace Process Module US-EU relations key to Middle-East Peace Process WILLIAM DROZDIAK. Jan/Feb2005. Vol. Of course. Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels. In this commentary. despite close security ties to the United States. Israel still regards the EU as its most important economic partner.

efforts to promote reform of thePalestinian Authority (PA) and to establish a Palestinian prime minister to counterbalance Arafat’s authority. but the EU supported U. even if the United States is still the pivotal player. The United States and Europe continue to disagree on the question of engaging Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (agreement among EU member states on this question is unanimous).S.Extension The US and EU are cooperating on the Middle East Peace Process now Dalia Dassa Kaye. positions on Palestinian reform. political scientist and a member of the research staff in the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND. The Europeans have finally obtained a political. even while regional developments (most notably continued terrorism and settlement activity) undermine the Quartet’s road map. the EU. not just a peace process (although many Europeans would like the United States to specify the contours of a final-status agreement. Washington Quarterly. mutual concern about the negative effects of continued bloodshed on the wider Middle East provides another basis for transatlantic agreement. the common U. the development of the Quartet is notable. and European fear of continued violence and its potential to destabilize the broader region provides a strong incentive for transatlantic cooperation in this ongoing conflict. not just economic.S. as occurred in the Clinton administration).S.-European effort to produce a peace plan. Despite continued policy differences on the Arab-Israeli peace process. Considering the historical rifts across the Atlantic on peace process issues. Both sides have moved closer to the other’s positions: the United States now supports a peace outcome (a two- state solution).Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Solves Peace Process . the UN.S. and Russia) in the summer of 2002 and its subsequent road map for Middle East peace. while Europe has actively moved toward U. Despite growing frustration that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have implemented the road map—and European concern that the United States did not invest heavily enough in the effort—the road map constitutes the first joint U. place at the peace process table while the gap appears to be narrowing between the two sides’ visions of a final settlement to the Arab- Israeli conflict. Thus. Even before the Iraq war. 77 . Winter 03/04. The Quartet has also served to coordinate European positions. Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East. helping to avoid the inclination for unilateral initiatives from major European powers that have tended to erode Washington’s confidence in a European partner in the past. The United States and Europe have never before coordinated so closely on the Middle East peace process. the deteriorating situation on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories in the aftermath of the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000 and the unwillingness of the United States fully to engage in the peacemaking process between Arabs and Israelis at the start of the Bush administration led to the formation of the Middle East Quartet (comprising the United States.

with all of its power and potential. a broad array of relatively common values and institutions of incalculable worth bind the United States and Europe together.org/doi/pdf/10.S. and European economies. with the power to control and influence rarely having a clear locus on one side of the Atlantic or the other. and some Americans believe the United States can divide European states from one another or simply ignore them. such as nuclear proliferation. are and will continue to be based more on fantasy than analysis or understanding. security. Europe still depends on U. “Europe’s Leverage” http://www. ambitions and aspirations. travel. On balance. power. and leadership to be fully assured of its own independence. transatlantic [End Page 91] economic interdependence is now so much a fact of life that the concept is no longer even questioned. free markets. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. including trade in goods and services. including a global nuclear exchange. At the same time. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. especially those of the European Union. the U. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. must now be valued in the trillions of dollars.mitpressjournals. ambassador to NATO. however. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. Second. and the rule of law. Much of what the United States seeks to do elsewhere in the world will depend on its ability to gain the support and active engagement of European power—and European powers—politically. Meanwhile. are now so intermingled that both sides would suffer grievous injury if either tried to lessen their level of entanglement with one another significantly. The United States in particular. must grasp this notion and act according to its logic. cross-ownership. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. 78 . U.S.1162/016366003322596945?cookieSet=1 The destinies of the United States and Europe are now intertwined in such critical ways as to be inseparable. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. a senior fellow at RAND.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations .democracy. First. certainly neither side is able to claim decisive predominance. Nothing has happened to lessen the importance of the continent of Europe as the most important landmass—economically and politically—to be kept free of a hegemonic power at odds with U. These attitudes and actions. interests.S. investment. and objectives (the stuff of three world wars in the twentieth century). and China can create a bloc to balance U. Russia. Global nuclear exchange Zalmay Khalilzad ’95 (Washington Quarterly.S. and militarily. influence. Policies. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself.S. Hunter.Heg Module US-EU relations key to heg – interdependence Robert E. engagement. Some Europeans believe that Europe. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. 2003. Washington Quarterly. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. and practices of states on each side of the Atlantic must be measured against this reality. Indeed. and low-level conflicts. Finally. economically. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. U.S. long-term prosperity.S. power. former U. programs. The panoply of economic interaction between the United States and the EU. ln) Under the third option. values. creating an interpenetration of influence unrivaled among any other set of major powers. and finance. and in some places even domestic tranquility.

In recent years.4 At a time when the United States is already regarded by much of the world as an overbearing ‘hyperpower’. former director of Russian affairs in the National Security Council. albeit still important role. Such a posture is also unlikely to be popular at home. then tomorrow.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations -Heg Extensions US-EU cooperation key to heg – burdensharing and support Ivo H. and James M. In either case. as the new division of labour suggests. Daalder. This is not only in the case of so-called humanitarian interventions. Despite Europe’s internal weaknesses and divisions. it has become very clear that the American public will support the use of US military forces overseas only if other countries share the burden. insisting on a division of labour that assigns Washington the main international security role to the exclusion of others is unlikely to be popular among its allies. former director for European Affairs on the National Security Council. international legitimacy of action and a commitment by other nations to share the costs will be a political prerequisite for gaining public support. but also when it involves the defence of such vital national interests as the world’s supply of crude oil. Europe combines actual economic strength with potential military and diplomatic capacity to be America’s strategic partner. 79 . to exercise American power ‘without arrogance and to pursue its interests without hectoring and bluster’. American interests are best served by developing a genuine partnership with a Europe that is both capable and willing to share the burdens of maintaining and strengthening international security. Goldgeier. Survival. of handling its own affairs in ways that do not require US participation. repeatedly emphasised by the incoming team. no part of the world offers the United States a better prospect for becoming a strong partner in taking on global challenges and opportunities. “Putting Europe First” There are also fundamental political problems with such an approach. if not today. 2001. And rather than assigning Europe a limited. The unilateralism implied by assigning primary responsibility for global security and stability to the United States without support from or regard for the perspective of regional allies and other countries is hardly consistent with the desire.

European diplomats say Iran's refusal to accept Europe's best offer. Anticipating that future missions will require street patrols rather than blazing firepower. in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.000 European soldiers in the NATO peacekeeping contingent in Afghanistan. where the EU will soon take control of all international peacekeeping. William.S. Concerted diplomacy would help fulfill Europe's ambitions of playing a more assertive role in world affairs while encouraging it to work more closely in partnership with the United States. despite close security ties to the United States. By: Drozdiak. including Albania. a new 5. critics say. 84. and European assets are complementary. threats for wider sanctions has raised hopes that Iran will finally abide by its latest agreement to suspend all uranium-enrichment activities. 00157120. and reducing overstretch WILLIAM DROZDIAK. Indeed. After all.000 European forces who have assumed command of peacekeeping contingents in nearly all of the region's hot spots. American troops are outnumbered by the 30. the European allies have adapted their military forces to the post-Cold War environment better than American critics usually admit. Diplomatic burden-sharing would relieve the United States of carrying the lion's share of responsibilities for regional peacekeeping.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations -Heg Extensions US-EU cooperation allows for burden-sharing. for example. Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels. several key projects have been launched to rectify Europe's military shortcomings and equip it with a long-range air transport fleet. Indeed. The 25 EU states have 1. The $175 billion combined annual defense budget of EU members may seem paltry against the United States' nearly $500 billion budget for the current fiscal year. In the Balkans. presenting a unified front would restore to U. Europe's penchant for offering diplomatic incentives should be combined with America's tendency to threaten military force. with about 400. Yet a more activist EU role that offered trade and aid incentives to Israel could help bring the two sides back to the negotiating table.4 million men and women in its armed forces.000-strong EU police force has been established for peacekeeping duties abroad. but it exceeds the military budgets of China. Business Source Complete U. In the Balkans. that figure is expected to reach 200. an autonomous satellite reconnaissance system. EBSCO.000 can be sent abroad. Washington should allow its allies in Europe to take the lead in exploring new policy initiatives in regions where they enjoy greater influence or historical connections.S. At the same time. new precision-guided weapons. It would also help disprove the reputation for "free riding" that Europeans have earned. action the international legitimacy that the Bush administration's strong-arm unilateralism has tarnished. Three such missions were conducted under the EU flag in 2003. And there could be more shifting of duties. There are now 19. Vol. Bosnia. Jan/Feb 2005. this kind of recalibration is already underway. but it encouraged Europe to make a last-ditch effort to persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build nuclear weapons. Consider Iran.000 troops from 15 European NATO countries in Iraq and 7. Japan.9 million in their armed forces. Bosnia. and although today only about 50. The United States has long been seen as the only outside power capable of extracting key concessions from Israel--including the dismantling of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank--while Europe has been relegated to giving humanitarian aid and financial support to the Palestinians. The North Atlantic Drift. A more activist role for Europe could also have beneficial effects on efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians. the combination of European diplomacy and U. and hundreds of light transport helicopters.000 troops available for foreign deployment.000 over the next decade. The United States has about 1. would almost certainly trigger EU support for the UN sanctions that the United States is advocating. and Russia combined. Issue 1. 80 . Kosovo. Jan/Feb2005. The Bush administration was skeptical about Iran's proclamation that its nuclear activities were only peaceful. Israel still regards the EU as its most important economic partner.S. Moreover. and Macedonia. including enhanced trade possibilities and assured nuclear fuel supplies. by sometimes shirking difficult military missions knowing that the United States would pick up the slack. and Macedonia. Foreign Affairs.

Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. Texas A&M University. while cautioning that the probability of effective use is much lower than for nuclear weapons. Steinbrunner (1997) argues the consequences of their use are almost unlimited. pound for pound. Cerami. the recently announced International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Infuenza—are beginning to gain prominence. a variety of approaches could complement and reinforce each other. is frightening (Mauroni 2003.S. The Future of Transatlantic Security Relations Atlantic Storm showed that even experienced international leaders. Use Means Extinction . Retired U. What is needed is a multilayered. in cases of asymmetric capabilities. Preparation is essential: international leaders cannot be expected to develop the requisite response systems in the midst of a crisis. The nations of the Atlantic Community should lead this effort and include as many partners as possible. Chilcoat. Also similarly to chemical weapons. As with chemical weapons. the Office of Technology Assessment also noted that the distribution of 100kg of anthrax in the air over a city could kill up to three million people (BBC 1998). when faced with an unfolding epidemic and the resulting uncertainty.Outweigh Nux Michael Horowitz. 81 . Joseph R.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Bioterror Module Transatlantic efforts key to contain bioterrorism and epidemics Richard A. comprehensive effort that seeks to render nations essentially immune to mass lethality and other destabilizing effects of the epidemics that would be caused by the most serious biosecurity threats. 52).19] Though biological weapons are difficult to deliver. The Office of Technology Assessment. the enormous magnitude may instantly make the use of biological weapons a credible threat. The possibility of mass disease in the homeland or among troops deployed abroad.S. the European Commission’s Heath Security Committee. would have limited options and stark choices. The core challenge in addressing bioterrorism (as also is true for naturally occurring epidemics) is to control and minimize the devastation of disease. PhD in Poli Sci @ Harvard. Transatlantic and international initiatives to enhance biosecurity—the Global Health Security Action Group. In an oft-repeated statement on the risk of biological warfare. Army Colonel and Director of the Public Service Leadership Program for the Bush School of Government and Public Service. it is the fear of the impact of biological weapons. concluded in 1993 that. “Does Proliferation Matter? Assessing the Empirical Impact of Biological. and Patrick B Baetjer Research Assistant to the Arleigh A. This alternative view of chemical and biological weapons leads to the following hypothesis. While no single tool holds the key to success. XV). even more than a rational cost-benefit analysis that makes them important for international politics.” p.‘5 [Prepared for the Midlwest Political Sciene Association Annual Meeting. Commandant of the U. while defensive measures can mitigate the terminal impact of use. United States policy makers certainly take the threat seriously. Given the new possibilities for genetic manipulations made possible by modern science. The exercise made clear that there is much that can be done to improve overall biosecurity for both intentional and natural epidemics—a critical lesson given the growing possibility of an avian infuenza pandemic. biological weapons might be more devastating for human populations than nuclear weapons (OTA 1993. given the conditions that exist today. Burke Chair in Strategy 5-12-2006. thereby diminishing any reward that could result from pursuit of an intentional attack and the incentive for staging one. biological weapons could threaten the future of human civilization. Even though the probability of effective use is low. but much more work is needed. the threat to use biological weapons could be especially credible. Chemical and Nuclear Weapons on International Security.

The common threat.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/56614. international cooperation is absolutely critical to any effective strategy for national and global preparedness. A great challenge of the 21st century is to prevent the deliberate use of disease as a weapon from killing millions. Virtually everything we do to defend against bioterrorism improving disease surveillance and detection systems. was greatly facilitated by existing bioterrorism preparedness measures. for example. The great security opportunity of this new century is to eliminate massively lethal epidemics of infectious disease by ensuring that biodefense humanity’s timeless struggle to prevent and defeat disease is far more potent than the inevitable attempts to create and use bioweapons. The essential pillars I have described hreat awareness. political scientist and a member of the research staff in the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND. destabilizing economies and disrupting societies. and response. and security threats posed by disease and the need for strong links between health.S. and between domestic and international actions. political.-European working groups now meet regularly to coordinate and improve law enforcement measures to contain the movement of terrorists and limit their sources of funding. Awareness of this fortunate synergy of efforts is not new.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Bioterror . containment. economic. there is an additional and very compelling argument for sustained and enhanced international collaboration on these efforts." Both naturally-occurring outbreaks and bioterrorism point the way toward a clear recognition of the complexity of the health. Biodefense. have the added benefit of simultaneously strengthening global health protection overall. 2005 Remarks at NATO Conference on Elements of Combating WMD Terrorism Warsaw. After September 11. and Europe is currently in the process of drafting a treaty on extradition with the United States despite ongoing concerns about the U.S. response and recovery.S.S. a CIA-sponsored panel of experts concluded that "the early containment of SARS in the U. facilitating international laboratory cooperation. Poland. 2001. As the growing concerns about avian and pandemic influenza make clear. Bilateral U. and Health Security September 14. is likely to bind the United States and Europe in common cause for many years to come.Extensions International cooperation solves bioterrrorism Marc L.htm Combating Bioterrorism Benefits Global Health Even if nations do not see completely eye to eye on the importance of combating bioterrorism. According to a 2002 Chicago Council on Foreign Relations/German Marshall Fund poll as well as the Transatlantic Trends 2003 poll. Washington Quarterly. and security sectors. 2001. operation to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as strengthened intelligence gathering and sharing in the transatlantic community. Ostfield . prevention. death penalty. The common threat of international terrorism. surveillance and detection. Winter 03/04. enhancing cross-border communication. for example benefit all of us in the event of a naturally-occurring outbreak or a bioterror attack.4 82 . Americans and Europeans rank international terrorism as the most serious threat to national security. agriculture. the member nations of the European Union moved uncharacteristically quickly to harmonize their extradition procedures. After the SARS outbreak in 2003. Coordination on terrorism now Dalia Dassa Kaye. prevention and protection. particularly the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack. “Intersectoral and International Cooperation on Combating Bioterrorism” http://www. particularly after September 11. has produced some robust transatlantic cooperation. This opinion helps explain the widespread European support for the U. and developing mechanisms for international sharing of medical countermeasures.state. Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East. Senior Advisor on Bioterrorism. even if approaches to the threat are likely to differ.

editor of The National Interest. US-EU relations prevents war John O'Sullivan. both the United States and Europe will be worse off. March 2004. the world will be much the better for it.General US/EU relations prevent global conflict.Council on Foreign Relations) Rebuilding the Atlantic Alliance" Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct l/n Meeting in Washington in the spring of 1999. Transatlantic strategic cooperation is one reason why the second half of the twentieth century was so much better than the first. this is already happening as China accepts liberal economic rules at home in order to enter institutions such as the G7 and the World Trade Organization. 83 . and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder are up to the task remains to be seen. There is little doubt that if leaders of the caliber of Truman and his European counterparts existed today. is clear: if today's leaders fail to achieve such progress. both the United States and Europe are likely to be drawn in to deal with it. Whether President Bush. Senior Fellow .. The report's starting point -. Jacques Chirac.-European relations are extremely important -. A united Western alliance would shape world institutions in line with values and practices rooted in liberty and democracy and coax rising powers such as India and China into going along with this international status quo for the foreseeable future. By contrast.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations Solves War .is undeniable. Asmus 2003 (Ronald D. It is clearly desirable for both sides of the Atlantic to coalesce in meeting the challenges of this new era. If the United States and Europe can agree on a common strategy to meet the challenges of the new era.that U. September 11 has opened eyes in both the United States and Europe to those problems and may have heralded the beginning of a dangerous century. Progress may very well require regime change on one or both sides of the Atlantic. Their ability to do so successfully will be much greater if they find a way to rebuild their alliance around a common framework and strategy. however. they would be setting a new strategic direction and rebuilding the alliance to meet precisely these challenges.S. Indeed. If major instability erupts in either the region lying between Europe and Russia or in the greater Middle East. a disunited West would tempt such powers to play off Europe and America against each other and foster a global jockeying for power not unlike the maneuvering between a half-dozen great powers that led to 1914. NATO leaders pledged to recast the transatlantic relationship to make sure it is as good at dealing with the problems of the next 50 years as it was in dealing with those of the last. One thing.

as Germany's governing elites recognized during the Cold War. Europe would go from benign bipolarity to unbalanced multipolarity. The kind of trouble that might lie ahead for Europe can be illustrated by considering how particular German measures aimed at enhancing its security might nevertheless lead to instability. would undoubtedly view such behavior by Germany with alarm and take measures to protect itself—for example. upon American withdrawal. Without the American military on its territory. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. these neighbors would probably contemplate using force to prevent Germany from going nuclear. which would likely lead to a serious security competition between them for control of central Europe. Italy.General Relations solve European balancing and nuclear war Mearsheimer 2001 (John J. by increasing its defense spending and establishing closer relations with Russia. intense security competition among the great powers would likely ensue because. "The Future of the American Pacifier". Of course. R.. and the result could be a major crisis. The United Kingdom. 84 . Foreign Affairs. Germany would probably increase the size of its army and certainly would be more inclined to try to dominate central Europe. France. Germany would likely move to acquire its own nuclear arsenal. troops. they would all become great powers. such a forecast might appear far-fetched. Looking at Europe today. Ebsco) Without the American pacifier. but also because it would be the best way to escape potential coercion by its three nuclear-armed neighbors. During the proliferation process.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations Solves War . but that is because few are prepared to consider how radically the European security environment will be transformed by the withdrawal of U. the most dangerous kind of power structure.. This would be the case both because nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent. And Germany would probably become a potential hegemon and thus the main source of worry. thereby triggering the familiar dynamics of great-power competition. If the United States removed its security umbrella from over western Europe. Indeed. In effect. would perceive these actions as hostile and respond with measures of its own. Russia would have the same fear in reverse. furthermore. suspicions among them are certain to grow. Europe is not guaranteed to remain peaceful. Sept/Oct. Germany. and Germany would have to build up their own military forces and provide for their own security. France. making Europe multipolar and raising the ever-present possibility that they might fight among themselves. of course. Once the major European powers are forced to provide for their awn defense. Why? Because Germany would fear Russian control of that critically important buffer zone between them.S. meanwhile. however.

and John Lis. the reality is that ors NATO have a future in out of area missions? Will the European Union's plans for an independent military force be a threat to the transatlantic relationship? Should the EU have a planning cell within NATO or not? Will the American space program collide with Europe's evolving space policy? Will China be able to buy arms from the Europeans over the objections of the U. July-August 2003.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Trade Solves LL US-EU trade relations are crucial to prevent terrorism. Ongoing cooperation on intelligence and law enforcement is indispensable to successful counterterrorism. including human rights. prolif.protecting core cooperation in European and nonmilitary matters. sometimes. if we are in a war. to be sure. We can fight a high-tech war against them. former director of the assembly's Defense and Security Committee in Brussels. The success of the Doha Round of global trade negotiations -. only bolstering the case of a few who advocate that the United States obstruct efforts to form a united Europe. Yet. or NATO. US-EU relations solve terrorism. The transatlantic partnership remains the most important diplomatic relationship in the world. using all the means of modern technology. Washington Quarterly. The existential question is whether we are engaged in a clash of civilizations. from satellites to track cell phones to cyberspace policing to shut down Web sites. 2003.1162/016366003322596972 On both sides. or in a war against a particularly vicious and potent form of terrorism.could contribute greatly to long-term global security. and democracy Doug Bereuter. president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. the EU. lexis DECENT DIPLOMACY The easiest way to overcome the recent troubles would be for the United States and Europe to manage controversial high-stakes issues delicately while continuing to work together on other subjects that matter to both sides. strategy of trying to weaken or divide international organizations like the UN. we do have the power to pre-empt that capacity. trade. power. What emerged from the Wilton Park discussions is that while terrorists on one level operate in a highly globalized environment in cyberspace. Today this lowest-common-denominator policy should still unite nearly all Western leaders. If we in the West are not to hang separately. 85 . while disagreeing about "out of area" intervention and. as historian Samuel Huntington famously has described it. An expanded NATO is now widely recognized as a force for democracy and stability. Together. as would any deliberate U. disease and economic collapse Andrew Moravcsik. Professor of Government and Director of the European Union Program at Harvard University. and so the allies have much to protect. The question is how far are we prepared — if at all — to impinge on the civil liberties that make our civilization what it is in order to save it. the United States and Europe account for 70 percent of world trade. But with the backdrop of the global war on terror. Winter 03/04. This is how the Western alliance has functioned for most of its history -.S. environmental destruction. Broadening the Transatlantic Relationship.S.org/doi/pdf/10. Western governments have unanimously authorized a dozen humanitarian interventions over the last ten years. nuclear strategy. surely we should cooperate.which promises much for the developing world -. Failure to cauterize and contain disputes such as that over Iraq threatens all of this cooperation. it does indeed feel — as one participant noted after the session "The Global War on Terror: Transatlantic Challenges and Transatlantic Cooperation" — as though we are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. some have concluded from the recent dispute that Europe should define itself in opposition to the United States to constrain U." Foreign Affairs. "Striking a New Transatlantic Bargain. disease control. http://www.S. and financial regulation. government? All of these are relevant and important questions.mitpressjournals. They work together on many other issues. environmental policy.

otherwise. http://www. He was addressing the Kashmir Conference organized by the International Council of Human Rights in Brussels. Britain and other democratic states. guaranteed by United Nations Security Council resolutions and prominently championed by the United States. He said. Kashmir issue involves the life and future of 13 million people of the land.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU key to Indo-Pak US-EU cooperation solves conflicts over Kashmir News Network International. Because of its impact on relations between India and Pakistan. 10-9-2003. He also urged them to facilitate negotiations on Kashmir because bilateral talks in past have failed to produce any results. He said. He maintained that due to Indian obduracy and world apathy.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20031009a. 86 . US. Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai has urged the United States and European Union to help resolve the lingering Kashmir issue. He urged the United States and the European Union to support Kashmiris get their birth right. which can be ascertained through free and impartial plebiscite. the issue remained unresolved so far.html Executive Director of Kashmiri American Council. KMS reported. it directly effects the peace and stability of the South Asian sub-continent.jammu- kashmir. Kashmir issue can be resolved only in accordance with the will of the people. he said. EU Urged To Facilitate Negotiations On Kashmir. the dispute was not insoluble.

The EU’s European Neighborhood Policy and NATO’s Partnership for Peace promote the values we share in common with Europe. and humanitarian and human development. and EU member states. including by conducting a joint diplomatic mission to Minsk in the Spring of 2004 to send a clear and united message on democratization. and more effective government institutions. * The U.-EU Cooperation on Reform in Eurasia. and EU assistance efforts have provided much-needed training. the United States and European Union work together to support democratic and economic transition. U. and by enacting travel restrictions on those officials implicated in election malfeasance and human rights violations. The U. the EU and United States have coordinated at an unprecedented level. and build deeper connections between the nations of the South Caucasus and the more established democracies of the West. illicit narcotics. European Commission. In Moldova. respect for human rights and key economic reforms include: * In Georgia. weapons of mass destruction. the U. We also cooperate in the effort to combat trade in opium and heroin from Afghanistan—a serious threat to peace and stability and a growing public health concern in the region.S.-EU cooperation in promoting democratization. and Azerbaijan and cooperate to facilitate international efforts to achieve peaceful political settlements to the conflicts over Transnistria.S.S. U. and Nagorno-Karabakh.S. http://www. increased regional trade. and Georgia to further integrate into the Euro-Atlantic family. which contributed to the Ukrainian people’s rejection of electoral fraud and to the historic repeat vote on December 26." We continue to work together to support the aspirations of Armenia. free media. Azerbaijan. and EU recognize the challenge to security and stability of the South Caucasus and Black Sea regions posed by the unresolved conflicts in the area of Eurasia. we also coordinated travel restrictions against the leadership of the Transnistrian separatists. protection of human rights. and are promoting a free and fair campaign and parliamentary election on March 6. working with the United Nations agencies. South Ossetia. In Belarus. Recent successful examples of U.state. Georgia.S. * In Central Asia. We coordinate our policy messages and our assistance programs in order to maximize their impact. promoting good governance/rule of law. closely coordinate our assistance programs to boost Central Asian states’ capabilities to meet this threat. We support the territorial integrity of Moldova. 87 . * In Ukraine. We share a common goal in combating threats to regional stability and the transition process: crime and corruption. equipment.htm The United States and the European Union (EU) share a common goal of promoting successful transitions to democracy and market-based economies in Eurasia. Abkhazia.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU key to Central Asian stability US-EU cooperation key to Central Asian stability Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. and trafficking of persons. we joined forces to promote free and fair local and presidential elections in 2004. 2-17-2005.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/42562.S. physical infrastructure. and EU have worked closely together to support a smooth transition for that country's new leadership in the wake of the "Revolution of the Roses..

primarily through NATO. America's failure to stabilise Iraq. a senior fellow at RAND. education. but they are not. promotion of human rights. 2003. that is. In confronting the challenges of stabilisation. the full range of issues that cluster under the rubrics of development and environment. are part of this canon. and interests and capabilities in a wide range of third areas. and even Afghanistan. how Europe relates to the United States. Director. Western security. they should also be looking for ways to build on the obvious and ineluctable intertwining of their respective economies.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU key to Disease US-EU cooperation key to solve disease pandemics Robert E. and the unwanted immigration. if the immediate prospects for transatlantic defence cooperation are bleak. especially health. nation. broadly understood. Hunter. the greatest potential for agreement and reinforcement of action in the transatlantic world falls in the area of advance effort. when contrasted with the Alliance's greater successes in the Balkans. support for terrorism. the mutual harnessing and rationalizing to common ends of the military power on the two sides of the Atlantic.S. shared leadership of the global economy. reconstruction and nation-building. and the rule of law as well as other aspects of society. Health is not alone. former U.org/doi/pdf/10. there is no alternative to collective action. Indeed. of trying to prevent the emergence of threats in common to the United States and Europe. crime and terrorism that these conditions breed continue to compel attention. ambassador to NATO. has underscored the limits of unilateralism.1162/016366003322596945?cookieSet=1 More generally. development. Preventing communicable diseases from coming to a nation’s shores. Lack of cooperation makes diseases inevitable James Dobbins. the continued fragmentation of nation states. The United States and the European states should be looking for means to augment traditional political- military security cooperation. and institution building. International Security and Defense Policy Center. If the United States cannot count on European support to defend South Korea or Taiwan. as broadly understood. Washington Quarterly. however. less well understood is the value of promoting health in countries where its absence can help produce conflict. Ingenta Connect Yet. especially in a world of easy and frequent travel.mitpressjournals. and how seriously the United States should take Europe. 88 . the arguments in favour of a common approach remain compelling. 2005 “New directions for transatlantic security cooperation” Survival Global Politics and Strategy. Across much of the globe. “Europe’s Leverage” http://www. the increase in ungoverned space. and social and economic breakdown—potential security as well as humanitarian concerns that can operate beyond the borders of the immediately affected country or region. democracy. Even though that cooperation continues to be important to both sides. neither is that support essential. faces a wide range of actual and potential challenges where nonmilitary instruments are important. disease. Strategic Partnership to Shape the Future These points may seem far afield from the original discussion of what power and influence Europe can wield. is one such case.

and the threat of infectious diseases such as avian influenza. Madelin stated. http://www. including issues related to nutrition and physical activity.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU key to Bird Flu Multilateral efforts are key to solve bird flu UN. 2-1-2006. Public health officials on both sides of the Atlantic could benefit from increased communication as they work to respond to these challenges. offers a platform on which transatlantic cooperation can be strengthened. now face many of the same public health challenges. including HIV/AIDS.europeaninstitute. Malaria and Tuberculosis.pdf We reiterate our support for multilateral efforts to improve prevention and combat global health threats such as the spread of pandemics. Health and Consumer Protection. We will further increase regional and global cooperation between states. The European Institute conducted a special discussion with Robert Madelin.. to which input by the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza is welcome.-EU Summit Declaration: Promoting Peace. 89 . 6-2006. US-EU cooperation key to contain bird flu pandemics EuropeanInstitute. U.S. Mr. We will further improve coordination of our response to natural disasters that have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Madelin noted that the leadership and processes established at the recent Beijing conference will maximize the chances that when the pandemic happens. and its impact both on lives and on livelihoods minimized. Senior Manager for Government and Trade Affairs of The Iams Company/P&G Pet Health and Nutrition. Director-General for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission. Each issue. served as Chair of the Forum. He also stressed the importance of regulation in the emerging field of nanotechnology. to "talk to each other before we know what we think. the need for coordinated public responses to the spread of avian influenza. On the avian flu and the threat of a pandemic flu.S. European Health and Consumer Protection Policies: Toward Cooperation with the U. With obesity rates in Europe approaching those in the U. vaccines will be produced in critical mass as fast as possible.S. http://www. Mr. Reynolds. on Nutrition and the Avian Flu." John B.org/democracyfund/Docs/EU-US_Summit_Delcaration_June2006. both could do more to share best practices to promote appropriate life skills in populations where obesity can be a greater health risk than cigarette smoking. international organizations and civil society in mitigating and preparing for a pandemic.org/content. and the need for government regulators in this area to keep pace with scientific advances.php?section=biotech Europe and the U. Human Rights and Democracy Worldwide. and the emerging risks and promises of nanotechnology.org. who addressed health problems caused by obesity. As part of its Forum on Biotechnology. We agree that priority should be given to promoting effective control measures in animal health as a means to reduce outbreaks of H5N1 in birds.S. and other communicable diseases like SARS and Hepatitis.un.org.

and Americans have a better appreciation of the need to move deliberately and fully consider the potential international implications of a deployment.pdf Intensive allied discussions of the missile defence issue over the past year have helped to narrow some of the big gaps that have divided the alliance on this issue. which would also need Europeans to supply bases. however. 90 . Gordon. http://www. Bush. As a result of these discussions. Iraq and North Korea that would persuade Americans that they are not needed — the more likely scenario is that Europeans and Americans continue to disagree on the net assessment of the need for national missile defence over the next several years. but won’t work without US-EU cooperation Philip H. Europeans have a better understanding of the reality of the growing ballistic-missile threat (and the options for dealing with it). Missile Defence and the Atlantic Alliance. NMD may simply fail to work if the United States does not get cooperation from Europe.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2001/02defense_gordon/2001survival. how should they proceed? Most essential is for all allies — and in particular the Americans — to realise that it is highly desirable. former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU  NMD NMDs are inevitable. that Americans and Europeans act in concert. the transatlantic gaps remain large. ports. As the previous sections make clear. or airfields. if not imperative. This is also true for any eventual boost-phase systems.brookings. or alternatively very positive developments in Iran. 2-2001. In this context. At the most basic level. given the current US need for radars in the UK and Greenland. While it is possible that a set of external developments — the emergence of a clear and realistic missile and WMD threat that would persuade Europeans of the need for active defences.

former director for European Affairs on the National Security Council. And they fear that the United States and Europe are fated to economic warfare as trade disputes spiral out of control. but that still leaves the president to decide what kind of system to deploy and how to deal with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. at worst -.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU  NMD Concessions to EU will exchange with full-scale NMDs David Malone. and the Kyoto Protocol on global warming evidences selfish unilateralism. and Ramesh Thakur. Foreign Affairs. and about a scenario in which America can defend itself but not its allies from missile attacks. Survival."genocidal. Daalder. However. the United States and Europe are converging culturally. at the very least.’° But even if the technology remains uncertain. May 2001. economically. it will not wish to alienate close allies on more than one or two issues at a time and may soon find itself engaged in give-and-take with them. BLINKEN. the International Criminal Court (ICC). Moscow or Beijing can stop. and given the state of the existing technology. Lexis This distaste for American values is matched by concern that the United States acts like a bull in the global china shop. president of the International Peace Academy in New York. To these Europeans. Their eventual consent can also be exchanged against concessions from Washington on related or different issues. causing a strategic split with Europe over matters such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and national missile defense (NMD). allies and foes now need to consider their own strategies.that the United States and Europe are growing apart.japantimes. NMD is not something the allies. Rice has called the ABM Treaty a ‘relic’ of the Cold War and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed it as ‘ancient history’. among other measures. has been nervous about being left out of a deployment decision. about the consequences for multilateral efforts to stem weapons proliferation. President Clinton deferred a decision on deploying NMD to his successor. preventing NMDs ANTONY J. but also key European allies and Canada. Its top priority appears to be the further development and eventual deployment of a national missile defense system. idea that has long unsettled not only Russia and China. It could well decide. which means that. 2001. US and EU are diverging over issues like climate change.co. Nevertheless. Its fixation with "states of concern" (formerly known as "rogues") is at best naive. by which time a state like North Korea or Iraq could possess the capability to conduct a small- scale missile attack. strategically. Trade NMD for the CTBT. America's reluctance to join the global land-mines ban. and James M.S. far from diverging. former director of Russian affairs in the National Security Council. about Russia’s adverse reaction. http://search.jp/cgi-bin/eo20010311a2. a U.html There can be little doubt that the Bush administration does not incline naturally toward multilateral diplomacy and a treaty- based international security system.and reflected by their American counterparts -. vice rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo. meanwhile. 2-11-2001. 91 . there is also a more practical need to garner some European support for an American missile defence programme: a serious system will require upgrading radars in Greenland and the United Kingdom. US-EU cooperation allows for NMDs Ivo H. its ultimate scope and its detailed aims." Europeans are skeptical of American support for European integration. would be self-defeating. the Bush administration will have to decide the issue early in its tenure in order to be in a position to deploy even a limited system by 2006—07. But a closer look shows that. they could well influence the context within which NMD will be developed. that ratification of the CTBT had become useful to reassure allies and foes alike. Top officials have suggested that the administration will decide to proceed with deployment. This false crisis makes it more difficult to deal with those differences that do exist and reap the potential of a partnership that can benefit Americans and Europeans far into the future.in the case of sanctions against Iraq -. former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs.’2 In addition to avoiding a serious rift in the alliance. U. “Putting Europe First” Never comfortable with the idea of deploying defences against ballistic missile attacks. and with some effort. The False Crisis Over the Atlantic. Regardless of their views on NMD.S. Goldgeier. officials in Copenhagen and London will have to back the effort. the "values gap" and the "strategic split" form the core of a newly fashionable argument advanced by European elites -. especially in defense.” Much of Europe. Together. which bars the deployment of any system he might favour. Indefinitely stamping their feet on an issue that may be nonnegotiable in essence but negotiable in specifics and at the margins.

must engage the developing countries. outlines five characteristics of a future climate regime that would win the support of a wide variety of policymakers.Turns Case . a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. and positions into a post--Kyoto Protocol framework. need not focus on all countries. such as Sir Nicholas Stern. Others. regardless of which presidential candidate wins the next election. especially those in the United States: it must defer to domestic interests. with the hope of putting it at the top of the transatlantic agenda within the first 100 days in office. The two sides of the Atlantic must also jointly examine the economic implications of a failure to act.S. Europeans will need to focus on short.and medium-term strategies. and must stress evaluating action after the fact. Americans might be warming up to the idea of caps. experiences. 92 . Despite such achievements. force posturing. Ultimately.S. must include technology development. continue to dissuade the skeptics. director of the CSIS Europe Program. Climate change will have major ramifications for migration. 30 On the other side of the Atlantic. Any viable solution to the challenge of climate change rests on the ability of Europe and the United States to combine their strengths. Europeans and Americans should work to increase the tempo of their dialogue.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations . Because that appears unlikely in the remaining months of the Bush administration. Most American skeptics argue that the United States will risk economic damage by cutting its carbon emissions. In the medium term.S. In the coming months. particularly if Europeans have hopes of shrinking the pool of U. its overarching thesis merits more discussion and research. government. Americans need to find ways to capitalize on the momentum that is starting to build on this issue. William Pizer. foreign policy. president on this issue. Political elites are increasingly promoting a hybrid approach that will draw on technological advances and some international regulation. 2008. but binding international limits are unlikely to attract the support of the U. l/n Both sides of the Atlantic appear to be moving away from their disparate steadfast convictions on the best means to address climate change. Europeans will need to accept that the most viable post-Kyoto Protocol regime in the eyes of Americans will probably be the one that resembles the protocol the least. the United States will eventually need to agree to some form of emissions caps. Europeans should be preparing to engage the next U. The sooner national governments treat climate change as a national security issue. Europe and the United States have much more to do in and out of government to tackle the problem. bring in new communities. 31 Although Stern's report has been criticized for its methodology (using an incorrect discount rate in its calculations). First and foremost. failed states. To date. the faster it will receive the intellectual and financial resources it merits. particularly if others do not follow suit.Climate US-EU cooperation is key to successful climate change policies – now is the key time Julianne Smith. Winter 2007-2008.S. a handful of studies have worked to bridge the gap between the national security and climate change communities so that global warming receives the same attention that other global challenges receive." make the exact opposite point. and federal resource allocation. “The Transatlantic Climate Change Challenge” The Washington Quarterly. author of the infamous "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. that the economic costs of acting on global warming are far lower than the cost of inaction. skeptics. One of the unique ways to do this is to pull non-climate change communities into the debate to make this challenge a key component of U. especially if they have hopes of launching a major effort for an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol in any form. and capitalize on the fact that public opinion is primed for action.

Two important areas of cooperation could be the research and development of necessary technologies and outreach to the developing world. "This issue would be politically very divisive. Vice President Al Gore. China and other major polluters could face consequences if they do not sign up to an international agreement on fighting global warming by next year. Pachauri responded to a warning by the European Union that the United States.S.com/articles/ap/2008/03/26/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Climate-Change. Rajendra Pachauri. 93 . climate scientist warned Wednesday. This collaboration could be based upon a set of principles created by analysts during this dialogue. and the EU have much to gain from cooperation. Transatlantic Cooperation for Clean Air: Summary of a Conference. the development and commercialization of new technology is central for both the U. the chief U.Climate Turns Case.iht.acus. Recognizing that climate change and air quality must be dealt with as part of a larger set of issues will allow for more collaboration.N. http://www. which shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former U. you'd create a lot of political problems if certain groups of countries were to take these actions. and the EU.php] BRUSSELS. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.N.S. It is agreed that the U. and EU should coordinate efforts to engage developing energy consuming nations. http://www. The U.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations ." Pachauri told journalists at the European Parliament.Turns Case . where he met members of the assembly's group on climate change.S. Turns Case IHT 3/26/'8 [UN climate change scientist: Tariffs on goods from big polluters spell trouble.destroys cooperation which is key to solve Atlantic Council '7 [Feb 5-6.pdf] Despite differences in the focus of past policies. said applying import tariffs on goods from countries that do not comply with low carbon technologies needs to be avoided.org/docs/0702-Transatlantic_Cooperation_for_Clean_Air. chair of the U.S. Belgium: Unilateral sanctions against major polluters by countries applying stricter environmental standards would create serious political problems.

bine changes in the emission caps with new commitments to other actions directly tied to the other key milestones. expanding the definition of what counts as emission reductions. building on the current structures may be less disruptive than attempting to begin again with a clean slate. but any necessary.Climate US-EU relations are key to prevent climate change Robert Lempert.mate change policy remain largely in the future. including an international consensus on long-term goals and on an initial process for modifying climate policy over time. 2001. and an initial infrastructure for the monitoring necessary to support any action on cli. derail much of the progress made to date in responding to climate change. There are certainly entrenched ideologies and economic interests on all sides of the issue.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations . through some combi. THE INTERNATIONAL SPECTATOR VOLUME XXXVI. serious economic dislocations due to cli. Lack of US-EU cooperation undermines climate change prevention efforts Robert Lempert. 2.nation of weakening or delaying the target. there appears to be little consensus on climate change policy. US and others can be reduced if negotiators com. Thus.Turns Case . No. robust climate policy. june. but balancing them as only one component of a well-balanced. the EU and US may be able to create a framework that will allow them. by retaining emissions con. Senior Scientist at RAND. and the rest of the world. No. THE INTERNATIONAL SPECTATOR VOLUME XXXVI. and make it more difficult to fashion an effective re.mate change. Finding Transatlantic Common Ground on Climate Change? Whether to retain. The Bush administration’s emerging cli. But the substance of the differences between the EU. june.sponse in the future. The existing treaty language is cer. 94 . an acceptance of the principles of binding emissions reduction targets and the use of market-based mechanisms for meeting them. to agree on the key near-term actions needed to prepare effectively for a wide range of plausible climate-change futures. 2. Thus. Failure to converge on climate policy could put an endur.trols. Finding Transatlantic Common Ground on Climate Change? At present.tainly sufficiently broad to accommodate a wide range of possible interpretations and revisions. any conceivable climate change agreement will include significant modifications to the emissions caps.mate action plan will not. 2001. The Framework Conventional and Protocol have achieved a number of important successes to date. Most Europeans favour the Kyoto framework. Senior Scientist at RAND. Given US opposition.ing strain on US-EU relations. or some variant of the safety valve. modify or replace the Kyoto framework looms as a central diplomatic problem because the Protocol has become a focus of opposition for many and a symbol of hard won progress for others.

Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Afff 95 .

96 . has now been compounded by the threat of proliferation of such weapons of mass destruction into the hands of non-state terrorist groups. To face this prospective ‘hyper terrorism. the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by states of concern. Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique (French for “Foundation for Strategic Research”) 2004 US-European relations: from lapsed alliance to new partnership? Third. a widely recognized and accepted threat. Director. ex-post repression is insufficient as a policy and the Atlantic Alliance as a locus for counter-terrorism action is inadequate.’ deterrence is largely irrelevant.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU can’t solve terrorism/prolif US-EU alliance can’t stop terrorism and prolif Francois Heisbourg.

Transatlantic military alliance is dead James Dobbins. in other words. What counts now is mission performance. Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique (French for “Foundation for Strategic Research”) 2004 US-European relations: from lapsed alliance to new partnership? Second. International Security and Defense Policy Center. The 20th century understandings between old ‘friends’ confronted and united by a recognized common threat no longer hold good in the context of an ever-increasing variety of perceived threats. existential. Director. Americans are still doing nearly all the fighting and dying. which will tend to vary greatly according to the overlap or opposition of interests. On Iran.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU alliance fails US-EU alliance irrelevant – short term coalitions solve Francois Heisbourg. and even there. Europe is acting as much as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran as it is the former’s ally. being prepared to take action against whomever or whatever is the perceived threat of the day. threat from the Soviet Union by a discontinuous and shifting set of threats and challenges and the willingness or the ability to participate in the accomplishment of any given mission. Ingenta Connect It says a great deal about the state of the Western alliance that the United States cannot count upon substantial European support in any of the actual or potential major conflicts that preoccupy American defence planners. This is the direct result of the replacement of the permanent. except perhaps as a supplier of arms. 97 . or participate meaningfully in the defence of Taiwan or South Korea. 2005 “New directions for transatlantic security cooperation” Survival Global Politics and Strategy. NATO is playing only a modest role helping to train Iraqi forces. the existence and unity of multilateral alliances is no longer dependent simply on longstanding bilateral agreements. Europe aspires to no security role. Only in Afghanistan is there transatlantic unity of purpose. The participants involved in Iraq are not identical to those involved in Africa contingencies or in the war against terrorism with a global reach. Director. whether big or small. There is no prospect that Europe would countenance military action against Iran. In Iraq. As regards China. the ‘mission makes the coalition’ to use the blunt formula publicized by Donald Rumsfeld at NATO shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

Thus. Issue 1. In the battle between Airbus and Boeing. the fact that both companies employ thousands of workers on both sides of the Atlantic creates a formidable lobby that seeks compromise to maintain jobs and healthy competition. bioengineered foods. But business so pervades the transatlantic relationship that powerful interestsin Europe and the United States will push for the peaceful resolution of these matters. Jan/Feb2005. and cloning. Europe and the United States will occasionally be divided over trade issues. Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels. despite a few unavoidable differences. Vol. EBSCO. not apart. 00157120. for example. 98 . William. By: Drozdiak. Foreign Affairs. The North Atlantic Drift. 84. strains might even be intensified by the enlarged EU's growing willingness to confront Washington over aircraft subsidies. the forces of globalization and competitive markets are driving Americans and Europeans closer together. Business Source Complete To be sure. Jan/Feb 2005.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Won’t Cause US-EU trade conflicts Businesses prevent trade conflicts between the US and EU WILLIAM DROZDIAK. antitrust rules.

Yet. Although the tragedy of 9/11 initially created a deep sense of transatlantic community. the terrorist threat and the war on terrorism have established themselves where the Soviet threat and the Cold War used to stand.-led campaign in Afghanistan and antiterrorism coordination based in law enforcement. have proved ephemeral. Winter 03/04. nor has it been the case historically. differences in strategic culture and historical experience cause the United States and Europe to view the region through distinct lenses. deeper U.-European cooperation after September 11. The September 11 attacks only bolstered this historically and culturally rooted gap across the Atlantic.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 No US-EU Cooperation on Middle East No US-EU cooperation on the Middle East now Dalia Dassa Kaye. Washington Quarterly. hopes for greater. this is not yet the case for Europe.1 Notwithstanding common strategic interests.”2 For the United States. As noted by one analyst of transatlantic relations. political scientist and a member of the research staff in the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND. Apart from European support for the U. prioritize. 99 .S. our responses to it have had a polarizing rather than unifying effect on transatlantic relations. one would think that Europe and the United States are bound to cooperate in the Middle East. the secure flow of oil. and political and economic reform. cooperation is not inevitable. 2001. “Where the cold war against communism in Middle Europe brought America and Europe together. leading them to perceive. and approach threats differently. Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East. Given their common strategic interests in regional stability. the ‘war against terrorism’ in the Middle East is pulling them apart.S.

-European Union Relations and the 2007 Summit. European leaders have made curbing global climate change an integral objective of EU energy security policy.S. In light of the differences on global climate change regulation. damaging relations and climate change efforts Ahearn et al. they are reportedly disappointed by perceived U. based on fostering technological innovation as opposed to binding regulation. The United States is not party to the Kyoto Protocol. is proving more effective in curbing global warming. approach.S.climate Currently.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22645. analysts note that past efforts — such as a 2006 pledge creating an annual strategic review of U. and a U. U. Clean Energy and Sustainable Development. Kyoto Protocol is set to expire.S.-EU energy cooperation.. http://www. energy efficiency.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU relations low . they advocate transatlantic cooperation to promote alternative and clean energy technology. reluctance to pursue binding international emissions targets and a global carbon trading system. Building on this agreement. and for an international market-based carbon emissions credit trading system. when the U. U. a U. U. argue that the U. instead. and European leaders sought to downplay differences over carbon emissions targets and carbon trading. European officials are reportedly seeking U. biofuels.S. 100 .S.S.S. the United States and EU used the April 2007 summit to launch initiatives jointly promoting technological advances in clean coal and carbon capture and storage.-EU Energy CEO Forum — yielded little if any tangible progress. In March 2007.S. expressing confidence that their decisions to promote clean and renewable energy sources represent a step forward in transatlantic cooperation both to increase energy security and curb climate change.N. and methane recovery. 2007.S. among other areas. EU members established binding targets for the use of renewable energy and biofuels and committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. 4 At the April 2007 summit.-EU High Level Dialogue on Climate Change. pointing out that from 2000-2004 carbon dioxide emissions increased at a faster rate in the EU than in the United States. Specialist in International Trade and Finance. Although European officials agree with the United States that these technologies should help improve transatlantic energy security and mitigate the negative effects of climate change. However. support for an international treaty regulating greenhouse gas emissions after 2012.fas.pdf Energy Security and Climate Change. the US and EU disagree on climate change. officials appear reluctant to commit to global regulation.S. officials. and U.

it has not seriously jeopardized day-to-day transatlantic counterterrorism cooperation. Although they have agreed to exchange general analytic information on terrorism and crime via Europol. but progress is likely to be slow. Foreign Affairs. and many of the problems it raises can be finessed. Divergent data-protection standards also impede intelligence sharing. 2003.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 AT: “Value Gap” hurts counterterrrorism Ideology irrelevant to US-EU cooperation on terrorism Jonathan Stevenson. Differences over the death penalty do complicate extradition of suspects from Europe to the United States. How Europe and America Defend Themselves. an impending agreement on sharing personal data relating to terrorist suspects foundered in November 2002 due to concerns over civil liberties and legal liability. Editor of Strategic Survey and Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Lexis As for the "values gap" between Europe and the United States. Washington and Brussels are committed to reaching general accord on these issues. 101 .

Washington Times. there will be huge expectations in Europe that a new. and Barack Obama is a phenom. Bush that many in Europe are wishing for." said Reginald Dale. Obama presidency could dismay anti-Bush Europe. a Europe scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "They're liable to be somewhat disappointed. President Bush is still a pariah. staff writer.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 No Obama Change Obama won’t change policies to strengthen trans-Atlantic relations Jon Ward. recent events indicate the Democrat from Illinois.com/news/2008/jun/09/obama-presidency- could-dismay-anti-bush-europe/?page=1 [SD] To many in Europe. "Once President Bush is out of the White House. 6/9/08. and then the fundamental interests may not have changed that much. But as Mr." he said. rosy dawn of peace and love is appearing over the Atlantic. Obama. the little known fact is that his administration has done much to repair the trans-Atlantic relationship in his second term. because America is still going to look after its own interests.washtimes. 102 . if elected president. Bush heads to the continent Monday for a weeklong goodbye tour. http://www. As for Mr. might not be the drastic contrast with Mr.

Both Mr.. Jon Ward. said that Europe sees an "opportunity to engage successfully" on climate change under the next administration. which the Bush administration has resisted. Obama and his Republican opponent. The US isn’t going to change emission policies." 103 .a global agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol . Obama has been more vague. which has been that China and India must be part of any deal. Washington Times.washtimes. Mr. Obama presidency could dismay anti-Bush Europe. http://www." said Dan Price.S.the next U. Obama presidency could dismay anti-Bush Europe. 6/9/08. staff writer. the EU ambassador to the U. John McCain of Arizona.washtimes. McCain has clearly stated that China and India must bring their emerging economies into any global agreement. Mr. Washington Times.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 No Obama/McCain Kyoto Agreement Neither McCain nor Obama will endorse the Kyoto agreement Jon Ward. John Bruton.com/news/2008/jun/09/obama-presidency-could-dismay-anti-bush-europe/?page=1 "There has occasionally been voiced the misimpression that a future administration will take a significantly different attitude towards climate than this administration. Sen. have said they will endorse a "cap-and-trade" system here in the United States. said that expecting China and India to sign on to a post-Kyoto agreement "before you've done anything yourself is ludicrous. 6/9/08. An Obama spokesman said that the senator would "push aggressively" for China and India to participate.S. http://www. staff writer. deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.com/news/2008/jun/09/obama-presidency-could-dismay-anti-bush-europe/?page=1 [SD] David Pumphrey. But on the question that matters most to Europe . "We have tried to explain that it is highly unlikely that any future administration would be prepared to sign a new climate treaty that did not include binding commitments from the major emerging economies to address their own emissions. president may not depart from Mr. a former senior official at the Department of Energy in the Bush administration. while also setting up a global energy forum made up of the world's largest developed and developing emitters. Bush's position." he said during an interview with a small group of reporters.

GDP $1. emissions.courant. $3. McCain would keep the G8 a democratic club by ejecting Russia.15 billion. http://www.15 trillion) is hopelessly obsolete. Does Obama himself believe such a league would advance American global leadership — or merely complicate it? • Climate Change: Both candidates endorse a "cap and trade" system to reduce U. some of the most creative thinking about world order is occurring across the Atlantic. Here are several questions they need to answer: • The G8: Any global steering committee that includes Canada (population 33 million.33 billion. Global Groups Are So Last Century. Two senior Obama advisers. Before we hire either as an architect or general contractor. their blueprints for world order are vague. adding India and Brazil. gentler" foreign policy. military and financial costs. How do the candidates propose to strike such multilateral bargains? 104 .story [SD] As the Bush administration straggles to the finish line.N. authorization to use armed force? And how would they overhaul the council's membership to reflect the tremendous power shifts since 1945? • NATO: The trans-Atlantic alliance celebrates its 60th birthday next April in a mid-life crisis.4 trillion) and Italy (58 million.S. and excluding China. Where does Obama stand? • The Security Council: In 2004. Beyond asking allies to pull their own weight. Security Council's blessing carries steep diplomatic.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarypatrick0713. Under what conditions would either candidate seek U. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has proposed a sweeping overhaul of international institutions to bring global governance into line with 21st-century realities. It is time for the two U. John McCain and Barack Obama both promise a "kinder.S. Tony Lake and Ivo Daalder. $2. its posture toward Russia. agree.07 trillion) but excludes China (1. senior fellow and director of the Program on Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations.N. how do the candidates plan to make NATO relevant to today's security threats — and avoid the emergence of a "two-tier" alliance? • A Concert of Democracies? McCain advocates a league of democratic states to compete with the United Nations as a source of international legitimacy. which can be salvaged and which need to be demolished.artjul13. presidential candidates to engage this debate.25 trillion) and India (1.0.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Aff: Depending on McCain/Obama It All Depends on McCain and Obama Stewart Patrick.4545268. But avoiding global catastrophe will require a successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit and cooperation among a narrower coalition of major emitters. Bush invoked John Kerry's notion of a "global test" as a cudgel to beat the Democratic nominee. And yet Iraq shows that acting without the U. internally divided over its mission in Afghanistan. 7/13/08. George W. Beyond this shift in tone. $1. we need some straight talk about which international institutions are worth preserving. and its relations with the European Union.

and other developed countries to reduce emissions while developing giants such as China and India are given a freer rein to pollute even as they vigorously compete with America around the world. But the move fell far short of demands by some developing countries and environmentalists pushing for deeper cuts by 2050 and a firm signal from wealthy countries on what they are willing to do on the much tougher midterm goal of cutting emissions by 2020.bloomberg. a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. the most the summit can do is set up a framework for pollution-cutting agreements that replace Kyoto when it expires in 2012.S. Clout at Final G-8 Summit. it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions. a long-term goal must have a base year. South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Bloomberg 7/3/08. with Bush complaining that it puts too much of a burden on the U. European leaders will ``be trying to pin Bush further down on the nature of commitments that the United States might undertake to reduce emissions in the shorter term. Bush's Dollar Drop Maps Loss of U. "As it is expressed in the G-8 statement.S. and both major candidates to succeed him have said they are willing to go further in cutting back American emissions. the long-term goal is an empty slogan.victoriaadvocate.'' 105 ." G-8 members expect McCain or Obama to commit the US to lowering emissions James G.S. Neuger. ``Most of Bush's partners are looking to the next president. out of the Kyoto climate-protection protocol in a move that met international condemnation in 2001. http://www. http://www. "To be meaningful and credible.'' Dale said.html# [SD] The United States has never ratified the Kyoto treaty.S. edging the U. The G-8 statement solidified a pledge made at the last summit in Germany a year ago to seriously consider such a long-term target. Bush will leave office next January." said Marthinus van Schalkwyk. With the countdown under way to the presidency of Barack Obama or John McCain.com/944/story/275746. 7/9/08. AP staff writers.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Aff: Depending on McCain/Obama Both candidates are more serious to cut emissions TOM RAUM and JOSEPH COLEMAN. Developing economies don't back G-8 climate goal. said Reginald Dale.com/apps/news? pid=20601085&sid=aH0_cYGS8Avc&refer=europe [SD] Bush took a baby step at last year's G-8 by acknowledging the need to do something about global warming. away from the laissez-faire approach that he championed after pulling the U.

S. G8: Bush Pressured To Commit To Emissions Reductions. Both China and India have refused to commit to a fixed target to curb emissions unless rich nations. the EU source said. do so as well. then we are in a much better position for discussions with our Chinese partners and others. The so-called Major Economies Meeting will bring leaders from large nations such as China." European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the meeting would be a success if there was agreement on a clear-cut 50 percent reduction by 2050.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Won’t Cut W/O Dev Countries Bush won’t cut emissions unless developing nations do—even under pressure. President George W. redOrbit News. like the U." said a EU source.com/news/display/?id=1466522 [SD] With climate change at the top of the agenda for the G8 nations meeting on the Japanese island of Hokkaido this week." Barroso said. about half of that alone coming from the United States. speaking on condition of anonymity.redorbit. which lasts from Monday until Wednesday. Brazil and Australia together to discuss climate change with G8 leaders. difficult progress but progress. the European Union and environmental groups are putting pressure on the Bush administration today in hopes of getting the U. to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century and back the need for rich countries to set 2020 goals as well. "So far we have seen progress. 106 . including emissions trading as "the way to go and I think that is quite useful and it has been signed up by all the G8 members. This year's G8 meeting would be considered a failure by Brussels if there was no agreement to cut emissions by 50 percent by 2050. REDORBIT NEWS. Both countries’ economies produce about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.. India. The G8 emits about 40 percent of mankind's greenhouse gas pollution. "If we agree among ourselves (in the G8).S. Green groups fear that the summit. Bush has refused to back any fixed numerical targets to cut emissions unless developing nations agree to binding commitments to curb their carbon pollution. adding that there was already common ground on other issues such as use of market mechanisms. will end without a firm commitment to slash emissions by 2050. 7/7/08.

setting the stage for trans-Atlantic tension over a new package of EU measures to combat global warming. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called for a carbon tax on imports to ensure that European companies that need to comply with tough environmental rules are not undercut by foreign competitors whose governments are not capping carbon emissions. staff writers. her European counterpart.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/01/22/us_warns_eu_on_using_climate_change_as_pre text/ [SD] BRUSSELS . Susan Schwab.The United States warned the European Union yesterday against using climate change as a pretext for protectionism. 107 . "We have been dismayed at a variety of suggestions where we have seen the climate and the environment being used as an excuse to close markets. 1/22/08.boston.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Non-Unique: France Taxes Imports France is currently placing carbon taxes on importers who are not capping carbon emissions." Schwab said after discussions with Peter Mandelson. came just two days before the European Commission introduced its proposals for cutting EU emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. The pointed comments by the US trade representative. US warns EU on using climate change as pretext. after talks in Brussels. http://www. International Herald Tribune. James Kanter and Stephen Castle.

"I don't find the outcome very significant. But environmentalists and the U. 7/9/08." 108 . De Boer said the summit's vague pledge to work toward slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 mentioned no baseline. who called the G-8 statement an "empty slogan.N." Yvo de Boer. He praised China's President Hu Jintao for acknowledging that developing countries must act on climate change even if Beijing rejects specific national targets. did not appear to be legally binding and was open to vastly different interpretations. saying Wednesday "significant progress" was made. a long-term goal must have a base year. http://ap.google. who head the United Nations-led global negotiations to forge a new climate change treaty.com/article/ALeqM5iDhfdxlthyulzNbmR8KGjPKvNzaAD91QDSP80 [SD] TOYAKO. Environmentalists also argued the goal of cutting greenhouse gases by 50 percent did not go far enough and amounted to political window-dressing.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 No Bush Change UN criticizes Bush’s attempt to make progress on climate change Associated Press. "To be meaningful and credible." said Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Japan (AP) — President Bush hailed the move by G-8 leaders to coalesce behind a strategy for a global climate-change accord.'s top climate official disputed his claims. it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions. told The Associated Press in telephone interview from his home in the Netherlands. Bush: ‘Significant progress’ on climate change. South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

The bond between the U. the leaders of the United States of America and the European Union. and we continue to demonstrate global leadership and effective transatlantic cooperation in the face of the most pressing challenges of our day: Promoting international peace.S. as symbolic of our endeavour to realize a free. freedom and prosperity around the globe. and strengthened by broad and sustainable market-based economic growth.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2394258&title=June_2008_US- EU_Summit. and fighting the most crippling infectious diseases. The process of unifying Europe is one of the outstanding historical legacies of our partnership over the past half century. human rights. democracy. and the fact that it is being hosted by Slovenia in its role as Presidency of the Council of the EU. met today in Brdo. Fostering an open. 7/15/08. competitive and innovative transatlantic economy. the rule of law and human rights.istockanalyst. Slovenia to further strengthen our strategic partnership. international criminal justice. the plan can’t break the relationship. 109 . the rule of law and good governance. Encouraging the world's fast-growing economic powers to assume their responsibilities in the global rules-based system. stability. helping developing nations lift themselves out of poverty. persons. balanced and ambitious agreement in the WTO Doha Round that creates new market access and strengthens growth in both developed and developing nations. services and capital. Fighting the scourge of terrorism while protecting the fundamental freedoms on which our democratic societies are built. Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly. We stand stronger when we stand together especially in meeting new global challenges. promoting energy security and efficiency. and EU is firmly anchored in our common values and increasingly serves as a platform from which we can act in partnership to meet the most serious global challenges and to advance our shared values. http://www. while working together towards a prompt. democratic and united Europe.html [SD] We.S. Working together in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction. democracy. The strategic partnership between the U. and the EU has proven its resilience through times of difficulty. An effective response to these challenges requires transatlantic unity of purpose and effective multilateral approaches. through free movement of goods. We seek a world based on international law.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 US-EU Relations Won’t Fail The EU and the US depend on each other. We view this Summit. Combating climate change. US-EU Summit Declaration.

It all felt like Bush's grand farewell to America's best allies in Europe. The president had a full agenda. President Bush's visit did not spark much interest among the European public. Bush Returns from Europe without Understand the Old Continent’s Postion on Iran. visiting research fellow at AEI. Over the next half century.pubID. Ida Garibaldi. no matter what the international community would say about it. The conviction that America is a benevolent hegemon which should defend its position of supremacy doesn't belong only to the Bush administration. As noted by the European and American press alike.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Bush Can’t Influence Europe cares about the future. build a united front to face the threat of a nuclear Iran and encourage a stronger European commitment in Afghanistan. We heard statements on the importance of the transatlantic alliance. But after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 110 . He also briefly visited Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. The 9/11 terrorist attacks have changed America's perception of its role in the international system and vis a vis its European allies. or if necessary tackle it later on with the cooperation of a less unilateral American president.28179/pub_detail.asp [SD] There was little more than the window dressing of a farewell tour in President Bush's trip to Europe earlier this month. Ida Garibaldi. which began on June 9. The lame duck doesn't have much more to offer: the European allies are now focused on the future. An administration less influenced by the neoconservatives will pay more attention to public diplomacy and cultivate better its allies.asp [SD] Bush lost his credibility with the war in Iraq. this trip was largely ignored by the European left. There were pronouncements over the need for better cooperation on climate change.aei. Barack Obama and John McCain both accept the possibility to militarily attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. The visit. Bush Returns from Europe without Understand the Old Continent’s Postion on Iran. It is a pity. http://www. Most significantly. becoming a semi irrelevant actor on the political scene of his country. As a result. American security will be the first priority of any American president even by use of a preemptive strike. In stark contrast with his previous trips to Europe. This element coupled with the entrenched European indecision in facing the Iranian issue undermined the results of a trip that otherwise could have had a very positive effect on the transatlantic alliance. It is shared across the American political spectrum. Europeans who believe a change in the White House will bring about a radical change in American foreign policy is bound to be disappointed. Slovenia. an enterprise that was poorly explained and badly executed. visiting research fellow at AEI.org/publications/filter. France.28179/pub_detail.org/publications/filter. 6/17/08. Iraq and Afghanistan. But something was missing. the United States will be able to take and implement decisions without the consent of the international community and outside the multilateral system that Europe would like to build. Bush has no influence in Europe and Obama/McCain won’t change future policies either. Italy. he failed to come away with a clear idea of where Europe stands on Iran.all. http://www.all. The concerns and disagreements over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 seemed finally behind us. At the end of his second mandate an American president progressively loses his political influence. he has not been able to stand up to Iran with the resolution that he would have liked. However. but it is not surprising. hoping to dodge the issue. Bush has no more influence.aei.pubID. The economic relationship between the United States and Europe was wholly acknowledged. Indeed. 6/17/08. Bush participated in the annual EU-US summit in Brdo. The allies even managed to find common ground on stricter sanctions for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program. even in Germany--were nobody is denied a good rally. and the United Kingdom. and met with the leaders of Germany. was meant to strengthen the transatlantic alliance. Europe stood aside.

In the May issue of Current History magazine. First. Bush first antagonized much of the continent with his unilateral invasion of Iraq. especially the amount dedicated to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases in Africa. That’s all I can up with. and what Finan calls the Administration’s “smite them” doctrine. To them. The results are most apparent in the Middle East. belief in the infallibility of America’s military might. Only then will the Arab governments and elites feel that the damage has been undone. In Europe. let us quickly get out of the way the positive things he has done. He has substantially increased foreign aid. where the Bush Administration’s legacy will be the hardest to mend. 111 . Bush is “one of the worst U. his religious beliefs. Russia’s pique is not surprising. such as abstinence-only programs and the purchase of brand-name drugs. supposedly to protect against incoming missiles from Iran. Washington’s overweening arrogance and free-market zealotry has not endeared it in Latin America. the system seems to be aimed as much against Russia as Iran. 7/3/08. That is why it has very few true friends in the area. the Arab world is waiting for the new Administration in January 2009 to completely redo the record of the Bush crowd in the region—from Iraq and Iran to Israel/Palestine and Lebanon. Bush’s policies have created multiple disasters. who came to power in a dubious election. and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. http://www. save Mexican President Felipe Calderon. (The aid has been tied to the Bush Administration’s pet projects.org/mag/wxap070308 [SD] With President Bush attending his last G8 summit in Japan.S. managing editor of The Progressive.progressive.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Bush Can’t Influence EVERYONE wants Bush to leave –especially Europe Amitabh Pal. it’s been one catastrophe after another. Books Editor William Finan has listed five qualities of the Bush Administration that got it into its global mess: unmitigated triumphalism. whose government is cozy with brutal death squads. Presidents they have known in their long years in power. The combination of these elements has brewed a deadly cocktail. it is a good time to assess the foreign policy legacy of his Administration —and what a legacy! From the Middle East to Latin America to Europe to South Asia. since. As Bassma Kodmani asserts in Current History. Otherwise. And he’s now busy annoying Russia with his installation of the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Bush's Legacy and the Damage Done. Bush’s supreme self- righteousness. but still…) And the Bush Administration has sobered up and negotiated (if in a tardy manner) with North Korea over its nuclear program.” Kodmani says. as George Lewis and Theodore Postol point out in the May/June issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

6/27/08. According to the survey. However. In almost every country.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Bush Can’t Influence US has a terrible approval rating and only improvement relies on Bush leaving. although an overwhelming number of voters in other parts of the world (only virtually) voted for John Kerry. it should be borne in mind that the survey was conducted before the crisis between Seoul and Washington over the free trade agreement. This rate is 34 per cent in Spain. only 31 per cent of the population are happy with the US. South Africa. India. There are more people who prefer Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to the Republican candidate John McCain. With its growing influence in the world comes more responsibilities.com/opinion/columns/world/10224106. Public opinions take into consideration the growth of China into an economic and military power. European security and French international policy. In Germany. Nigeria. even in official US allied countries such as Turkey and Pakistan. which are the historic US allies. Bush. China and the US are considered the main contributors to climate change and global warming. And almost everywhere. But we have to keep in mind that in 2004. published or edited more than 40 books dealing with international relations. http://www. But. In a third of the countries in which the study has been done. The good news is the US image is getting better. Lebanon. In the Muslim world. negative opinions are dominant. The bad news is the change is largely due to Bush's departure from the White House by the end of this year. This is the conclusion the Pew Research Centre has arrived at after it conducted polls in 24 countries to ascertain world opinion on the United States. nuclear deterrence and disarmament. Even in European countries. But for the first time since American forces landed in Iraq. Poland.gulfnews. the popularity of the US hit the nadir. and 42 per cent in France. American voters re-elected Bush. Pascal Boniface. director of IRIS. The survey found that only in eight countries did the US enjoy a good reputation. 19 per cent of Jordanians and Pakistanis. Tanzania and South Korea. it is improving slightly in 10 countries. and 12 per cent of Turks support the US. Obama is twice as popular as the Republican candidate.html [SD] There is good news and bad news for the US President George W. US is still an unpopular country. people consider the US more as an enemy than as a friend. Only 22 per cent of Egyptians. according to the polls. 112 . the public opinion indicates the upcoming election of a new president is the best thing that could happen to the US. which was largely rejected by South Korea. two-thirds of those surveyed believe that Bush's departure will lead to a better US diplomacy. Beijing seems to disregard these responsibilities. Five years after the invasion of Iraq. the unpopularity ratings of the US are still high compared to the beginning of the 21st century. Gulf News. They are United Kingdom.

S. Hungary. benefit from this advantage. p. 2002. First. however. or impose a high tax to offset the subsidy that those goods currently receive (Stiglitz. This implies that the border tax adjustments would have to apply not only to goods produced in the United States (as intended) but also to goods produced in other WTO member countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol but that do not impose a carbon tax (or similar) in their domestic economies (Bodansky.. One might therefore reasonably expect the United States to be prepared to make significant sacrifices to avoid such restrictions. as suggested by Stiglitz. p.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Aff – No link No Link: EU would lose more than they would gain if they implemented a tax on the U. linking cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade would likely entail damage either to the climate regime (by causing tension between Kyoto countries with binding and effective emissions limitation commitments and other Kyoto parties). and Romania).S. 347). 2-26-08.S. According to WTO regulations. would likely not be credible. East European countries such as Bulgaria. In particular. As Stiglitz (2006) reminds us. Thus. the United States would likely reengage if the Kyoto countries (threaten to) prohibit the importation of U. http://mail. subsidies are not allowed by the WTO except in specific situations and sectors. Producers in the fossil-fuel-intensive industries. to reengage in the Kyoto process. If this expectation is correct. and Brazil). for the Kyoto countries to use such linkage they would have to impose trade restrictions that would probably be impermissible under WTO regulations (Bodansky. the border tax adjustments would also have to apply to goods produced in parties to the Kyoto Protocol that have not made binding emissions reduction commitments (i. adopt border tax adjustments to compensate for the advantages enjoyed by companies in countries that do not impose a carbon tax (or similar). linking cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade. In conclusion. However. and the United States in particular. RSS (review of policy research). such as agriculture.S. goods produced using energy-intensive technologies. Trade restrictions imposed by the Kyoto countries on the import of U. India. goods produced using energy-intensive technologies could do tremendous harm to the U. especially. economy. pp.8 Making the trade restrictions nondiscriminatory is thus likely to meet fierce opposition from such countries. According to Stiglitz.. such border tax adjustments must apply in a non-discriminatory manner to all WTO member countries that do not impose a carbon tax (or similar) (Bodansky. its importers of U. 2). 6–7). developing countries such as China. one might expect that the United States would prefer to cooperate on both climate change and trade rather than to refuse to cooperate on climate change and therefore be subjected to trade restrictions. Hence. 2002). then linking cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade. To be permissible under WTO regulations. a Kyoto country that uses a carbon tax to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol can. in principle.com/mail/?hl=en&tab=wm#inbox/11b3bdceac6e4718 [Barber] The potential for successfully linking cooperation on climate change to cooperation on international trade has been explored mainly in terms of trade restrictions with a main focus on "trade in goods that are directly linked to the environmental problem" (Barrett. would satisfy Davis's requirement of complementarity. and to Kyoto countries that do not have effective emissions limitation targets (i. Poland. that a threat by the Kyoto countries to link cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade.S. or to the trade regime (by violating WTO regulations requiring that trade restrictions be used in a nondiscriminatory way). Such firms therefore have a commercial advantage amounting to an indirect subsidy. We argue.e. 2006. 2002). goods produced using emissions-intensive technology will face a tax payable on the goods imported. firms operating in a country that does not participate in the climate regime do not pay the full cost of the damage they cause to the environment. however.google.7 If it does impose such border tax adjustments.e. 1997. It is therefore unlikely that the Kyoto countries would in fact be prepared to implement such border tax adjustments as a response to United States' failure to cooperate on climate change 113 . Stiglitz proposes that the existing trade framework could be used to compel nonparticipating industrialized countries in general.

nothing the president said today substantially reduces industry's deep problem of climate regulation uncertainty. http://www. who co-chairs the Climate Change practice at Chadbourne & Parke and who helped create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the northeast US. 114 . but offers no concrete plans. 4-17-08. "The most important decisions in the international global-warming negotiations will be made once President Bush leaves office. an energy and global warming expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington." David Sandalow. "Unfortunately.htm [Barber] Initial reaction to the speech's text brought some negative comments from legislators and policy analysts who said it will not bring about significant changes to legislation now under discussion." John Cahill.smartplanet.com/news/people/10001060/bush-sets-goal-to-stop-us-greenhouse-gas-growth-but-offers-no-concrete- plans. told Bloomberg. said that Bush's speech did not get the country closer to federal regulations.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Aff – no link All actions taken under Bush administration don’t matter to the EU Martin LaMonica. "President Bush's announcement will be soon forgotten." Cahill said. Bush sets goals to stop US green house gas growth.

nytimes. Bush said. Mexico. "The president has made a disappointing speech that does not match up to the global challenge. China.com/en/climate-change/eu-leaders-slam-white-house-climate-plan/article-171732 [adit] "These objectives are backed by a combination of new market-based regulations. Brazil. Italy. said he hoped to turn the tables on President Bush.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Aff-Eu already mad Europe is already pissed at the U." Many Europeans are still angry at the Bush administration for its rejection of the Kyoto protocol. Indonesia and South Africa. new government incentives. an agreement created to curb global warming. But the plans were widely criticised.com/gst/fullpage.S. which currently holds the rotating EU Presidency. And Andrej Kranjc. Moreira da Silva is shepherding legislation on emissions trading. notably by European delegates. the United States ambassador to the European Union. Mr. a member of the European Parliament from Portugal. Germany. Australia. "Sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realised and every chance of hurting [the US] economy" should be avoided. Japan.S for poor regulations now EurActiv 5/18/08. Europe Gets Tougher On U.S New York Times. South Korea. Jorge Moreira da Silva. too late' compared with the EU's commitment to slash GHG emissions by 20% by 2020.html? res=9900E0D9143AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63 [adit] The Bush administration regularly weighs in against European regulations that it sees as hurting business. during a 17-18 April meeting of major emitters in Paris." he added. which is widely seen as 'too little. http://www. a market-based incentives plan that the European Union is considering even though the United States has not yet signed on to the agreement. Russia. the UK. saying the plans "will not contribute to the effective tackling of climate change". France. The meeting is being attended by delegates from the US. Europe criticizes the U. The Bush administration is opposed to EU-style emissions reductions commitments. 115 . Rockwell A. called for "smart regulation" that "meets society's objectives without strangling innovation and growth. India.euractiv. http://query. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas also reacted critically. expressed his "disappointment" with the 2025 target. at a 17 April press conference in Paris. Germany's Environment Minister. and new funding for technology research. Canada. environment secretary for Slovenia." said Sigmar Gabriel. 4/20/03. Schnabel. Companies.

Instead. participation The U. debate on climate policy has been highly focused on economic competitiveness. the U. With no binding reductions targets and little real funding.S.. In the late 1990’s a group of major economic interests launched the “Global Climate Information Project”. remains crucial for the effectiveness of any climate regime with 20% of world emissions. government has favored technological solutions. China.S. policy has focused on “voluntary measures” to be taken by major polluters. May 08. The “Asia –Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate” (AP-6) includes Australia. The President declared in March 2001 that the U.org/EE_Hald- Mortensen. economy.S. the Danish government hopes that the “major economies” initiative will relay a coordinated perception of the climate problem into the UNFCCC process The Bush Administration has also initiated a climate diplomacy initiative vis-à-vis the Asian economies.pdf+perception+and+Bush+and+environment+and+policy+and+EUROPE+and+voluntary. rejected the Kyoto Protocol This rejection was a major disappointment for Europeans who saw the U.S. U. but contains no binding reduction targets The AP-6’s absence of reduction targets led commentator. as a “rogue state” in global environmental politics The U. would accept no agreement that did not subject major developing countries to reductions. economy” The U. Not only the Bush administration.S. this rationale for voluntary defection was echoed again by President George W. when the Senate enacted the Byrd-Hagel Act. stating that the U. because the AP6 is very optimistic about technological transformation The approach favors diffusion of policy learning.104/search?q=cache:lvYHvFwmQbUJ:www. and the influential columnist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. In 2001.S. the “Major Economies” initiative aims to diffuse new technologies. As a host nation. Anja Köhne from the World Wildlife Fund Europe to call the partnership a “smoke screen”. +incentives&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us [Barber] After 1997. as backing away from world climate policy Christian Hald-Mortensen. Japan. The purest form of this type of policy is a “Manhattan Project on Climate Change” 116 .S. Danish Institute of International Studies. and represents half the world’s emissions and population. and spread fear regarding Kyoto’s economic impact Such concern was codified into law. including major population centers such as China and India. the Europeans and Americans diverged on the Kyoto Protocol. government has pursued two major unilateral diplomatic initiatives among the top emitters outside of the UN process. “Translantic Climate Policy: Towards a Copenhagen protocol in 2009. and the EU gained importance globally because the U. as well as climatologist Michael Oppenheimer has discussed techno-optimist solutions to climate policy. but was feared to be a decoy. defected “because (the Kyoto protocol) exempts 80% of the world. Dr. Republic of South Korea and the U.215.S. invested $3 billion annually in climate technology such as carbon capturing and sequestration. or that would hurt the U.Europe Trade DA DDI 2008 Perception – world climate policy Because of climate policy Europe views the U.85. and technology development grants distributed by the federal government.S. The Bush administration has spent 37 billion$ since 2001 on climate science and observation. from compliance. India.S. Rudy Guiliani.S. and from 2003 to 2006. the U. and would cause serious harm to the U. but also presidential contenders Hillary Clinton. Bush. the State Department lauds the fact that China is learning from the U.S.S.S. Energy Star Program to produce more efficient energy appliances Internally.uaces. nuclear power and biofuels. The partnership addresses technology cooperation and the reduction of the energy intensity of their economies. What undergirds the Bush Administration’s domestic policy initiatives as well as its two major climate diplomacy initiatives is the absence of binding reduction targets.S. http://209. and because China have made their participation conditional on U.S.