How Europe’s new carbon tax on imported goods will change global trade

The new regulation arrives on New Year's Day.

See full article...

 

[DRJlaw]

the hypocrisy here. a number of you in favor of this have posts elsewhere complaining about tariffs

Does that same number argue that the President of the United States can simply impose a tax(/tariff), change it seemingly daily depending upon his mood, and dole it out to various favored constituencies, all without any sort of legislative action or approval?

Because that's the complaining about tariffs that I see going on. No hypocrisy necessary.

Don't pretend that there's any sort of equivalence here. Trump lost his delegation-of-tariffs arguments in every court that's ruled on this to date.

 

[DRJlaw]

For eliminating unlimited growth, you have to reduce population first. And for do so, you need three methods:

1- Reducing the population by promoting the use of contraceptives.
2- Reducing the population by implementing China-style, one-child policies.
3- Reducing the population by force, by any means necessary.

Oh, there's a few more. Educating women, placing them in control of their reproductive rights, and providing them the same ability to control their lives, careers, and property as conservatives seek for men.

Don't believe me? Then why is MAGA freaking out about below-replacement-level fertility and Elon Musk scaremongering that low birth rates will end (white) civilization?

 

[DRJlaw]

The point was that my grandfather was happy with little convenience. Luxury made him unhappy. I will cherish that memory, despite all the damage he did to the trees.

Your grandfather was happy with little convenience, and luxury made him unhappy? I call bullshit. Bullshit from someone who writes that "I drive to a big city every day... in my shiny audi" and has as a second car a "(new) Ford Focus... (with) heated seats as a luxury option" and "invests under the guide of (an) accountant." Don't forget the "Google streamer connected to the TV as my Samsung TV does not support android apps".

That last one is especially rich given your current message: "I see a gigantic progress over the last decades." What a difference a fortnight makes.

Less is more. Shoot me.

To the majority of this planet that have far less than you, more is more, and this faux asceticism bullshit is insulting. Providing people with more while not trashing their environment and rains, water sources, and farms would be a better start than telling them to aspire to live like this likely fictional grandfather as billionaires ensure that all such asceticism will go for naught. But thank you for shrinking competition for the resources that they'll continue to consume and enabling that extra couple of flights on a private jet before the consequences really set in.

Relax, it is just a comment on the internet.

But it's not. It's a hard sell that you've been pushing for days, yet don't live yourself. Which rightly causes your marks to question whether you believe it at all, or are just servicing the rich by spreading the message of the noble and ought-to-be-happy poor.

I would like to add that the responses towards my original comment are... ridiculously out of proportion

(/s) Yeah,

 

[DRJlaw]

First: No amount of solar panels helps you through the night.

Well of course not. You have to hook them up to something that does the thing that you need done. Like a light so that you can see. Or a battery so that you can store that energy to use in the night. Centuries old technologies that miraculously allow solar panels to help you through the night.

Second: Most houses / properties don’t have the area for it. (I have panels all over my roof. These days, in the afternoon, they produce about 150 W. Got an extra 20 roofs for me ? )

You've got 2 square meters of roof but need 3kW of power? What do you do, live in a commercial oven?

But it surely doesn’t make sense to install panels which you need only 50 h a year.

Who's only needed 50 h per year, and why is your chosen example significant enough to discuss? Representative of some population, you think? Really?

 

[DRJlaw]

Well this box of M3 screws is 35% from Vietnam steel stock, 28% from Sri Lanka stock and 47% from 3 different mills in china's stock. That would be nuts, Not sure most companies could do enough investigation to honestly report that in something like a washing machine.

Yes, it would be, but you assume that certain leaders are not pro-squirrel:
I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to increase the tariff rate for imports of steel articles and derivative steel articles, and aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles, from 25 percent ad valorem to 50 percent ad valorem effective as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 4, 2025. I have also determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify the way in which the tariff measures described in Executive Order 14289 of April 29, 2025 (Addressing Certain Tariffs on Imported Articles), apply to steel articles and derivative steel articles, and aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles, to ensure the effectiveness of the tariff changes described in this proclamation and the alignment of policy priorities between this proclamation and Executive Order 14289. I have further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of May 8, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminum articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom.

Edit: fixed link. I'd love to know what keeps eating my Ctrl-C key combo.

 

[DRJlaw]

you claim trump's tariffs are "arbitrary" while the eu's are "objective."
objective according to whom? brussels bureaucrats who haven't built a globally relevant tech company in 30 years?

What happened to ASML? For a company that's not globally relevant, people sure are debating global controls over their products, and be critical suppliers to other globally relevant tech companies like TSMC and Intel.

Where's the US company that's doing what they do better than they do it?

 

[DRJlaw]

ASML is a weird example to use for there being a lack of a us equivalent because they license fundamental aspects of their EUV technology from the US Department of Energy...

Lame ass excuses. The U.S. government is doling out exclusive licenses to ASML, or there are no U.S. companies that can compete with ASML, you're saying? Maybe you can come up with some excuses for SAP and Spotify and Infineon. Unlikely, but just keep trying.

 

[DRJlaw]

The post you are responding to is arguing that once you’ve installed enough solar+batteries to satisfy your needs most of the time, it becomes relatively expensive to add additional system capacity that’s only necessary on a handful of your highest demand days. And this is true.

Is it though? The post that I was responding to didn't think that batteries existed, BTW. And I don't know what panels "you need only 50 h a year" is intended to mean, but between battery storage and load shedding (hello California and Texas power grids too!) one can manage to survive a 'handful' of highest demand days.

If you have to provision a house to be truly off-grid, it’s much more expensive than provisioning a house to have net zero average demand or even provisioning it such that it draws from the grid only rarely.

Well, of course. Your post-above-the-above-the-post-above the post acknowledged that provisioning a house to be only solar was a special case. Your water is going to be much more expensive than provisioning a house next to a 500 GPM fire hydrant for fire protection. Your propane is going to be a lot more expensive that a house hooked up to a municipal gas line that can run your furnace, water heater, oven, and all the rest of it at the same time (latent heat of vaporization in winter is a treat). You'll pay for the privileges of living off grid regardless, because economies of capacity and scale in delivery do, in fact, exist. A modern grid-tied house gets provisioned for 50kW, even if it won't use nearly that much capacity day to day, because scaling down to "your needs most of the time" saves comparatively little.

Stop trying to sanewash a comment that began with "First: No amount of solar panels helps you through the night." While your comments have been evenhanded, that one by Eng_wkzm wasn't even close, and you do a disservice by pretending that it was.

 

[DRJlaw]

I want to know what car you drive, what smartphone you have. How high you put the heating, etc. If you don't, consider yourself ignored.

Why? I'm not the one repeatedly touting "less is more" and "you do not need all that stuff" and "living it." I'm touting internalizing externalities to make the invoice price of things actually reflect their costs, to me and those people on the other side of the world that have to deal with the consequences of industry, not merely one's individual consumptive decisions.

There's no reason for me play a fools game of who wears the most gaudy hair shirt. You win the false argument by default, despite self-evidently not living remotely like this ascetic grandfather that you claim to revere. Here's your certificate, and Elon will personally consume all the resources that you think that you've saved on his next jaunt to a Young Republicans Talk-like-a-Brownshirt convention.

"Cheap labor and expensive goods" is a garbage take on how to improve the life of the average person. Especially since you seem eager to assume the position of arbiter of what people 'need.' Central heating is a "luxury" that would make the worthy unhappy"? No, we won't be placing you in that role.

No worries, I am just a small person far away. Being ignored by me will not harm you at all.

You're right, it won't harm me at all. You seem to believe that I'm seeking a reaction from you, rather than rebutting this nonsense in front of an audience of others. I'll merely continue to do the latter, while you tie your metaphorical arm behind your metaphorical back by ignoring it.

Edit: about the accountant... he is a good investment. Returns more money than he costs. He did lecture us about having too much money on the bank account. So we were forced to buy a few apartments. I hate it as taking care of these buildings takes more time than I want. Also, more money incoming. Tax the rich for god's sake. (emphasis added)

One of the few sensible things that you've posted under this article. Notice how you're not writing "less income is more" and "I gave away those apartments, what apartments did you give away?" You're demanding a systemic change that actually has a shot at improving the condition of people who must exchange labor for goods, rather than simply rolling them into an underclass so that "repairing things becomes interesting again."

"Be happy with little convenience" is cargo cult sustainability and deeply problematic sociology. Of the many problems that we face, treating convenience as something to avoided by individual choice addresses none. Making it even more difficult to for basic labor to obtain 'things' addresses none. Yes, solutions like a carbon tax have second-, third-, and greater order effects that appear similar, but the purpose is not some rose-tinted view of nobly having little while shuffling back and forth from the woodpile to feed grandpappy's <50% AFUE Franklin stove.

BTW: Forced to buy apartments, that was good one. You're certainly a noble member of the global top 1%.

 

[DRJlaw]

Denial of how these policies harm people doesn’t make the externalities go away no matter how much we wish they do. ... If the reason for environmentalism is to help people, why hurt them with bad policies?

Wait, you're suddenly concerned about policy externalities but not pollution externalities? What's the policy harm and the externality, and what's your response to "(EU revenues from certificate sales) are expected to support vulnerable households in many European countries"? How would payments like the Canada Carbon Rebate "hurt them with bad policies"?

You're trying to blame environmental policies for problems that are at their root share-of-productivity and wealth inequality problems to be addressed through taxation and social benefits, whether directly such as by carbon tax credits or indirectly by simply not operating in an environmental, labor, and taxation regulation-free utopia.

 

[DRJlaw]

So far the regulations example carbon taxes on Volkswagen have had the effect is subsiding their competitors leading to the company in part having to downsize and shut factories in Europe. The carbon regulations have thus far pushed to de industrialize Europe and contribute to their economic woes.

And the regulation that you now decry eliminates that subsidy by charging based on where the products end up, not where they're made. No more 'outsourcing' to the U.S. (snicker), Korea, Mexico, China, and the like.

I say give people more skin in the game, let them choose what they believe is best for their finances, environment and children.

So, take the classical and neoclassical economic policies of the last 200+ years and do them even harder, because you'll surely get a markedly different result.

Whom, the best and brightest will flee to lower tax, better prosperity locals.

Like, where, the United States? No they won't. We're booting you lot out in a bout of xenophobia. And those that may remain will still get to pay the carbon tax because, get this, a little more than a week from now it applies to their sales into the EU too.

 

[DRJlaw]

EU is run by unelected modern day royalty. Fuck em.

Wrong.

 

[DRJlaw]

How about heating older house? Even with most of it fixed for good isolation0, it needs about 30kWh for heating by heat pump. And for example to day I got about 1,2kWh which is fairly good given Central European winter. (Could have been worse like zero because of "grey winter")

Translating to U.S. terminology for the audience, your home needs 13 TONS of heat pump capacity?! That is easily 2x the largest set up I have ever seen for an American McMansion (5000+ sqft).

 

[DRJlaw]

They said 30 kWhrs (per day), not 30 kW. So that's only an average of 1.25 kW * 24 hrs / day.

My house has a 4 ton heat pump (ie, 48,000 BTU / hr), and when it runs, it pulls up to 28 amps on a 208V circuit, which is just shy of 6 kW. Well, technically my house has 3x of those 4 ton heat pumps, but I unplugged all but one of them, and that's easily twice as much capacity as we need on the very coldest days (the prior owner got very badly upsold by the installer). Our biggest draw of 2025 was in February, when we used 3124 kWhrs, of which probably 500 or more came from circuits other than the heat pump. So we are below 30 kWhr on average, but probably exceed that on some of the coldest days. It's not a particularly large house, but it's old and leaky.

Yep, glossed over the h in the units.

 

[DRJlaw]

(If you need the exact definition of “brine” and “slush”, you're missing the point. )

Some may be, but not in the science is cool way that one would hope.