Timmy elsewhereJanuary 7, 2016 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere6 CommentsTranscanada Should Sue The US Under NAFTA For The Keystone XL Refusal. And Win Too The EU’s method of dealing with climate change always was insane Slightly weirdly that second one has been tweeted out by the Grantham Institute….. previousThis is interestingnextMemo from the booze addled 6 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Andrew M January 7, 2016 at 11:55 am I read that first one as “Transsexual should sue the US under NAFTA”. Now that would be a quality piece of Guardian/CiF clickbait. CayleyGraph January 7, 2016 at 4:38 pm They probably needed to distract from the fact that they’re running short of hams to grant. jgh January 7, 2016 at 9:53 pm The first article reminds me how annoyed I am that our current UK government is destroying inward investment by showing it cares nothing for the rule of law and cancels/rewrites contracts that it doesn’t like. Liberal Yank January 8, 2016 at 12:21 am The first article did a very good job of making it clear why Keystone even has a case to bring. In my opinion the Keystone mess was bound to lead to problems. The fight that I could support environment groups in is whether or not to reverse the ban on petroleum exports. Keystone has simply led to a court case that could presumably cost taxpayers $5 billion only to score a few political points. The second article clearly illustrates the problem of doing something just to do something. While I personally don’t like the idea of a carbon tax it is the least bad option I’ve seen. My major concern about a carbon tax is how does that get applied to imported goods? If it is implemented like previous US environmental laws I can see more outsourcing as manufacturers chase lower energy cost. dcardno January 8, 2016 at 1:51 am Environmentalists (and other progressive groups) are opposed to international trade agreements (see first linked story – response by McKibben, Friends of the Earth, etc) precisely because they prohibit arbitrary and high-handed government actions, and generally reduce the likelihood of stupid government policy. Since advocating for arbitrary government actions and stupid policy is their raison d’etre you can see that there is bound to be a conflict. Liberal Yank January 8, 2016 at 2:13 am I like to think of myself as a non-fringe environmentalist. This means that when problems pop up like acid rain, soot and ground level ozone become bad I agree with laws that reduce these. My big issue with free trade agreements is that if the country we sign the treaty with has less stringent or non-existent environmental laws then business will simply export the pollution to other countries. If the only reason for my cheap shiny tat is that another country is using older, more polluting tech to create it then there should be a tariff in place to balance the cost savings. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.