Gap Widens in Climate Change Policies Between U.S. and Europe
In the latest example of the widening gap in climate change policies between the U.S. and Europe, the Government of Norway last week announced the world’s largest new tax on carbon emissions, stating in explicit terms its desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate against global warming—just two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation which, to the extreme opposite, explicitly bans the regulation of greenhouse gas.
On Oct. 8, the Government of Norway announced that it would nearly double the carbon tax rate for its offshore oil and gas production in 2013, setting one of the highest carbon tax rates in the world. The announcement is part of a comprehensive “Climate Agreement” provision within the national budget plan for 2013. The budget will:
- increase funding for climate research
- increase funding for sustainable technology development
- increase energy use requirements in building regulations
- increase funding for public transport
- increase funding to prevent deforestation
- increase funding to assist developing countries to exploit renewable sources “instead of using fossil energy sources”
- prioritize public transport, including increased funding for footpaths and cycle paths
- increase CO2 taxes for passenger vehicles, along with incentives for public transport, in order to “reduce private automobile use”
Full details of the Norwegian budget can be viewed here.
By contrast, on Sept. 21, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 3409, called "the worst environmental bill in history,” which proactively seeks to prevent greenhouse gas reduction and any measures to mitigate against climate change. The bill is explicit:
- it bans the U.S. EPA from ‘taking any action to address climate change”
- it bans CO2 emission regulations from power plants
- it bans CO2 emission regulations from cars
- it eliminates the EPA’s authority to regulate coal mining waste
This is in addition to other recent votes in Congress which:
- overturn the EPA’s scientific findings that climate change endangers human health
- eliminate language that acknowledges global scientific concerns about climate change
- eliminate climate change education programs administered by the National Science Foundation.
- eliminate funding for U.S. EPA’s greenhouse gas registry
- approve the Keystone “Tar Sands” Pipeline (Nebraska version) with exemptions from environmental concerns
- refuse to pay the EU-wide ‘airline carbon emission tax’ on carbon emissions
- ban the U.S. from providing funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- prevent the U.S. from participating in climate negotiations
The Norwegian carbon tax is the latest in an international trend to set national tax rates on carbon, due to the inability to achieve an internationally binding global tax. By 2013, 33 nations will have some form of national carbon taxes in place. (Note: Some ‘sub-national jurisdictions’—taking matters into their own hands as national governments dither—have set their own carbon taxes, including British Columbia and California).
The opposite approaches to climate change policies between Europe and the U.S.—which means, by scientific definition, how these bodies choose to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels—must take into account the enormous influence of the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. Congress. One of the leading proponents of banning the EPA from regulating fossil fuel emissions, for example, is Senator James Inhofe (Oklahoma)—the recipient of more than $500,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industries. The fossil fuel sector (Koch Industries, Murray Energy, et. al.) is his single largest industrial financier.
In total, the fossil fuel industries—whose profit margins are directly threatened by increased greenhouse gas regulations—have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to U.S. Congressional campaigns, the vast majority (75 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics) going to Republican lawmakers who are, in turn, at the forefront of banning greenhouse gas emission regulations.
- “Preventing dangerous climate change is a strategic priority for the European Union.”
- “Europe is working hard to cut its greenhouse gas emissions substantially while encouraging other nations and regions to do likewise.”
- “Reining in climate change carries a cost, but doing nothing would be far more expensive in the long run.”
- “The scientific evidence shows that the world must stop the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020″
In striking contrast, the U.S. House Republicans voted, in March 2011, to eliminate language which stated, simply, that “global warming exists" in a proposed bill.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, during the Presidential debates watched by millions, have both proclaimed support for increased fossil fuel production—while the phrases “greenhouse gas” or “climate change” weren’t uttered—one time—by either candidate.
It’s almost as if Europe and the U.S. live on two different planets, governed by two different laws of science.
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE for more related news on this topic.
Don Lieber is a writer whose works and investigative research have been published by the United Nations, The Associated Press, The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, E-The Environmental Magazine and others. He contributes political and environmental writing regularly to several blogs, including PlanetSave.com. He lives in New York.
This article was originally published on planetsave.com.
By Pamela Davis-Kean
With in-person instruction becoming the exception rather than the norm, 54% of parents with school-age children expressed concern that their children could fall behind academically, according to a poll conducted over the summer of 2020. Initial projections from the Northwest Evaluation Association, which conducts research and creates commonly used standardized tests, suggest that these fears are well-grounded, especially for children from low-income families.
- How Other Countries Reopened Schools During the Pandemic ... ›
- Young People Are Primary Coronavirus Spreaders, WHO Warns ... ›
- How Families Can Boost Kids' Mental Health During the Pandemic ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The pandemic has affected everyone, but mental health experts warn that youth and teens are suffering disproportionately and that depression and suicide rates are increasing.
- How Families Can Boost Kids' Mental Health During the Pandemic ... ›
- How to Deal With Cabin Fever - EcoWatch ›
- 'Quarantine Fatigue' Is Real. Here's How to Cope - EcoWatch ›
Yet another former Trump administration staffer has come out with an endorsement for former Vice President Joe Biden, this time in response to President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
- Trump Denies CDC Director's 2021 Timeline for Coronavirus Vaccine ›
- Trump Orders Hospitals to Stop Sending COVID-19 Data to CDC ... ›
- Two White House Staffers Test Positive for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin to Disband Coronavirus Task Force - EcoWatch ›
- Pence Offers 'Prayers' as Hurricane Laura Hits Gulf Coast While ›
Every September for the past 11 years, non-profit the Climate Group has hosted Climate Week NYC, a chance for business, government, activist and community leaders to come together and discuss solutions to the climate crisis.
- Covering the 2020 Elections as a Climate Story - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Delays 2020 Earth Overshoot Day by Three Weeks ... ›
By Elliot Douglas
The coronavirus pandemic has altered economic priorities for governments around the world. But as wildfires tear up the west coast of the United States and Europe reels after one of its hottest summers on record, tackling climate change remains at the forefront of economic policy.
- German Business Leaders Call for Climate Action With COVID-19 ... ›
- Climate Activists Protest Germany's New Datteln 4 Coal Power Plant ... ›