Aaron Cosbey
@aaroncosbey.bsky.social
climate and energy policy, trade and investment policy, and all the stuff in between
if i can't dance, i don't want to be part of your revolution
if i can't dance, i don't want to be part of your revolution
Republican lawmakers' smokescreen:
"The smoke you're choking on definitely has nothing to do with climate change.
The real culprit is criminally negligent foreign forest managers."
bit.ly/45tXeKj
"The smoke you're choking on definitely has nothing to do with climate change.
The real culprit is criminally negligent foreign forest managers."
bit.ly/45tXeKj
More Republican lawmakers demand legal action over Canadian wildfire smoke
The Republican lawmakers called for an investigation of Canada's wildfire management practices and for potential remedies under international law, saying Canada must face "real consequences."
bit.ly
August 11, 2025 at 1:12 PM
Republican lawmakers' smokescreen:
"The smoke you're choking on definitely has nothing to do with climate change.
The real culprit is criminally negligent foreign forest managers."
bit.ly/45tXeKj
"The smoke you're choking on definitely has nothing to do with climate change.
The real culprit is criminally negligent foreign forest managers."
bit.ly/45tXeKj
More Republican lawmakers demand legal action over Canadian wildfire smoke
The Republican lawmakers called for an investigation of Canada's wildfire management practices and for potential remedies under international law, saying Canada must face "real consequences."
bit.ly
August 11, 2025 at 1:12 PM
I used to believe that the increasing frequency of climate disasters would create a constituency for climate policy ambition.
Not if so many people believe that climate-related disasters are globalist plots.
Not if so many people believe that climate-related disasters are globalist plots.
July 24, 2025 at 3:17 PM
I used to believe that the increasing frequency of climate disasters would create a constituency for climate policy ambition.
Not if so many people believe that climate-related disasters are globalist plots.
Not if so many people believe that climate-related disasters are globalist plots.
1 - We’ll get busy improving your voters’ vacations, right after we deal with the misery of 10s of thousands of CAD wildfire evacuees.
2 - We’ll improve forest management (already doing it), and you stop pretending arson is the issue, and instead stop emitting so much goddamned greenhouse gas.
2 - We’ll improve forest management (already doing it), and you stop pretending arson is the issue, and instead stop emitting so much goddamned greenhouse gas.
July 10, 2025 at 4:18 PM
1 - We’ll get busy improving your voters’ vacations, right after we deal with the misery of 10s of thousands of CAD wildfire evacuees.
2 - We’ll improve forest management (already doing it), and you stop pretending arson is the issue, and instead stop emitting so much goddamned greenhouse gas.
2 - We’ll improve forest management (already doing it), and you stop pretending arson is the issue, and instead stop emitting so much goddamned greenhouse gas.
The key is that any subsidy that encourages exports is a prohibited subsidy, and I guess you can see why they would agree to that. Free allocation, granted to all production, does not favour or encourage exports.
July 5, 2025 at 8:55 PM
The key is that any subsidy that encourages exports is a prohibited subsidy, and I guess you can see why they would agree to that. Free allocation, granted to all production, does not favour or encourage exports.
The first man through a minefield makes it more feasible for those that follow, even if he blows up in the attempt
Less glib: EU will argue that their solution is legal. Followers can parrot the argument. By the time WTO rules one way or the other, the policy will have solved short term problem.
Less glib: EU will argue that their solution is legal. Followers can parrot the argument. By the time WTO rules one way or the other, the policy will have solved short term problem.
July 5, 2025 at 3:46 AM
The first man through a minefield makes it more feasible for those that follow, even if he blows up in the attempt
Less glib: EU will argue that their solution is legal. Followers can parrot the argument. By the time WTO rules one way or the other, the policy will have solved short term problem.
Less glib: EU will argue that their solution is legal. Followers can parrot the argument. By the time WTO rules one way or the other, the policy will have solved short term problem.
Because it's almost certainly WTO-illegal, and that's a bridge the EU has up until now refused to cross.
July 5, 2025 at 3:38 AM
Because it's almost certainly WTO-illegal, and that's a bridge the EU has up until now refused to cross.
oops - sorry - details by *2025*
July 5, 2025 at 1:40 AM
oops - sorry - details by *2025*
BCA levels playing field between domestic goods paying a carbon price and imported goods. But only in domestic markets. A producer exporting a significant % of production will be hooped, sending commodities burdened by a C-price into global markets. CAD producers export a high % of their production.
July 5, 2025 at 1:14 AM
BCA levels playing field between domestic goods paying a carbon price and imported goods. But only in domestic markets. A producer exporting a significant % of production will be hooped, sending commodities burdened by a C-price into global markets. CAD producers export a high % of their production.
This opens the door for other countries considering BCA (e.g., UK, Norway, Australia, Canada) to follow suit.
I’ve argued the main reason Canada can’t do a BCA is hesitation to implement a potentially WTO-illegal export adjustment (Canada’s export percentages being much higher than the EU’s).
I’ve argued the main reason Canada can’t do a BCA is hesitation to implement a potentially WTO-illegal export adjustment (Canada’s export percentages being much higher than the EU’s).
July 4, 2025 at 6:55 PM
This opens the door for other countries considering BCA (e.g., UK, Norway, Australia, Canada) to follow suit.
I’ve argued the main reason Canada can’t do a BCA is hesitation to implement a potentially WTO-illegal export adjustment (Canada’s export percentages being much higher than the EU’s).
I’ve argued the main reason Canada can’t do a BCA is hesitation to implement a potentially WTO-illegal export adjustment (Canada’s export percentages being much higher than the EU’s).
Details by end of 2050. Per the proposal, will be:
• Quickly adopted
• Proportional to phase out of free allocation
• Contingent on progress on decarbonization (?)
• WTO legal
On that last point, let’s see: many argue it’s not possible. (3/4)
• Quickly adopted
• Proportional to phase out of free allocation
• Contingent on progress on decarbonization (?)
• WTO legal
On that last point, let’s see: many argue it’s not possible. (3/4)
July 4, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Details by end of 2050. Per the proposal, will be:
• Quickly adopted
• Proportional to phase out of free allocation
• Contingent on progress on decarbonization (?)
• WTO legal
On that last point, let’s see: many argue it’s not possible. (3/4)
• Quickly adopted
• Proportional to phase out of free allocation
• Contingent on progress on decarbonization (?)
• WTO legal
On that last point, let’s see: many argue it’s not possible. (3/4)
This was inevitable. Those industries are under pressure from high feedstock/fuel prices, global over-supply. Losing their export markets (which they would if no export adjustment) would be a death knell for many, would be a major source of carbon leakage. (2/4)
July 4, 2025 at 6:55 PM
This was inevitable. Those industries are under pressure from high feedstock/fuel prices, global over-supply. Losing their export markets (which they would if no export adjustment) would be a death knell for many, would be a major source of carbon leakage. (2/4)