F737NG wrote:

Oh dear, perhaps instead of trying to prove someone wrong, you would do better to read what's actually happening.
OP didn't say anything about 'Argentinian rainforests', instead said:

increasing the market for South American beef. This will cause much more rainforest being hewn down to provide farmland

which when reading this quote,

The single biggest reason to fell trees, according to official figures, is to create new pastures for cattle, and during our visit we saw countless herds grazing on land that used to be rainforest.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490

validates the original premise.

Huh? Are "Argentinian rainforests" not "South American rainforests"? Until the oceans rise... Argentina is still a part of South America on my map...

alfa164 wrote:

F737NG wrote:

Oh dear, perhaps instead of trying to prove someone wrong, you would do better to read what's actually happening.
OP didn't say anything about 'Argentinian rainforests', instead said:

increasing the market for South American beef. This will cause much more rainforest being hewn down to provide farmland

which when reading this quote,

The single biggest reason to fell trees, according to official figures, is to create new pastures for cattle, and during our visit we saw countless herds grazing on land that used to be rainforest.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490

validates the original premise.

Huh? Are "Argentinian rainforests" not "South American rainforests"? Until the oceans rise... Argentina is still a part of South America on my map...

Its also missing the bit about this trade deal being the strongest, because effectively legally binding, agreement to enforce REDD commitments on a global scale.....

best regards
Thomas

Just as an aside, France also has amazon rainforest, and it isn't being significantly cut down. There is one controversial gold mine project in the works, that is looking like it might be cancelled.

JJJ wrote:

Has there ever been a trade deal environmentalists won't oppose?

Probably not, but at least they're being consistent, unlike the EU.

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Has there ever been a trade deal environmentalists won't oppose?

Probably not, but at least they're being consistent, unlike the EU.

so you truly dislike the EU.

Dutchy wrote:

so you truly dislike the EU.

Nope, but I'm getting more and more disillusioned by the project. I'm no longer optimistic about it. But that could change . . .

Braybuddy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

so you truly dislike the EU.

Nope, but I'm getting more and more disillusioned by the project. I'm no longer optimistic about it. But that could change . . .

The EU has values, but also is pragmatic about things. They know they cannot change the world, but can do some good in it.

Well I have to say Macrone just made some good points with me.

aviationaware wrote:

Well I have to say Macrone just made some good points with me.

I suppose you are referring to French President Macron's one-to-one with Brasil's President Bolsanero, in which the French made it clear they would reject any deals with countries that withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement as Bolsanero has previously threatened to; indeed, it was reportedly only after a meeting between the two men to discuss environmental concerns that the deal was unblocked.

The agreement also upholds the precautionary principle, which gives EU authorities the right to act to ban products to protect human health or the environment even if the scientific evidence isn’t conclusive. That won’t give much hope to U.S. negotiators hoping to persuade the EU to accepts its lighter-touch approach instead.

For Brexiters, the new deal is a reminder that it will be chilly outside the EU’s big trade tent. They had argued breezily that they could just roll over the EU’s existing trade deals and then quickly strike their own more advantageous agreements. Those assumptions are looking shaky. Out of some 40 trade pacts to convert, only a handful have been rolled over for the U.K. and then often only partially; this one will not not even available for rolling over as the U.K. is set to leave the block before it takes effect.
For all the talk of Global Britain, it’s Global Europe that is making the headlines.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... isn-t-dead

A side note, but something I think relevant. NAFTA was coincident with Mexico rising to become a middle class country (though a lot of problems). Most of us think that NAFTA contributed. The proposed changes actually have a few more labor protections conditions than before. Providing favorable trading conditions to poorer countries is probably the best foreign aid rich countries can do. Along with conditions that improve labor and environmental values over time.

sabenapilot wrote:

For Brexiters, the new deal is a reminder that it will be chilly outside the EU’s big trade tent. They had argued breezily that they could just roll over the EU’s existing trade deals and then quickly strike their own more advantageous agreements. Those assumptions are looking shaky. Out of some 40 trade pacts to convert, only a handful have been rolled over for the U.K. and then often only partially; this one will not not even available for rolling over as the U.K. is set to leave the block before it takes effect.
For all the talk of Global Britain, it’s Global Europe that is making the headlines.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... isn-t-dead

No, it isn't. It is a reminder of the inefficacy of the European Union. This has taken a whole 20 years to negotiate and now Ireland is threatening to vote against it over Beef. It is absolutely laughable and nothing to celebrate. The EU is useless and, lest we forget, they just had their bluff called by Switzerland in negotiations there.

Bilateral trade deals are far more effective and easier to negotiate, since they do not need to take into account the whims of 27 countries. It means that better, bespoke terms can be negotiated - to the benefit of both parties.

KLDC10 wrote:

Bilateral trade deals are far more effective and easier to negotiate, since they do not need to take into account the whims of 27 countries. .

Just the whims of all WTO member countries....

Best regards
Thomas

KLDC10 wrote:

Bilateral trade deals are far more effective and easier to negotiate, since they do not need to take into account the whims of 27 countries. It means that better, bespoke terms can be negotiated - to the benefit of both parties.

I'm sure Mercosur is very eager to cut the United Kingdom a far better deal as soon as it comes knocking at its door... especially Argentina will just love the idea, I'm sure.

sabenapilot wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Bilateral trade deals are far more effective and easier to negotiate, since they do not need to take into account the whims of 27 countries. It means that better, bespoke terms can be negotiated - to the benefit of both parties.

I'm sure Mercosur is very eager to cut the United Kingdom a far better deal as soon as it comes knocking at its door... especially Argentina will just love the idea, I'm sure.

Britain's relationship with Argentina improved significantly in the wake of the Falklands War until De Kirchner came to power in Argentina and set things back a decade. Macri is a far more rational, level-headed individual than his predecessor and relations have been improving once again as his tenure has continued.

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Bilateral trade deals are far more effective and easier to negotiate, since they do not need to take into account the whims of 27 countries. It means that better, bespoke terms can be negotiated - to the benefit of both parties.

I'm sure Mercosur is very eager to cut the United Kingdom a far better deal as soon as it comes knocking at its door... especially Argentina will just love the idea, I'm sure.

Britain's relationship with Argentina improved significantly in the wake of the Falklands War until De Kirchner came to power in Argentina and set things back a decade. Macri is a far more rational, level-headed individual than his predecessor and relations have been improving once again as his tenure has continued.

Except that in most of the trade deals, if not all of them, there is a term which states that the EU must have the most favorable deal and countries can't make a better deal than that. So, no, the UK will not get a better deal than with the EU, even if Argentina and the UK were BFF's.

Dutchy wrote:

Except that in most of the trade deals, if not all of them, there is a term which states that the EU must have the most favorable deal and countries can't make a better deal than that. So, no, the UK will not get a better deal than with the EU, even if Argentina and the UK were BFF's.

"Better" is entirely subjective. A bilateral trade deal between, for the sake of argument, Canada and the United Kingdom, would probably be more restricted in scope than the EU/Canada Free Trade Agreement, but it could still be more beneficial to the UK than the existing EU/Canada deal by focussing in specific areas which matter to the United Kingdom and Canada, instead of requiring a trade deal broad enough to satisfy each member state of the European Union. Thereby, the UK could get a deal which better matches its trade interests, but the EU's could cover more areas.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Except that in most of the trade deals, if not all of them, there is a term which states that the EU must have the most favorable deal and countries can't make a better deal than that. So, no, the UK will not get a better deal than with the EU, even if Argentina and the UK were BFF's.

"Better" is entirely subjective. A bilateral trade deal between, for the sake of argument, Canada and the United Kingdom, would probably be more restricted in scope than the EU/Canada Free Trade Agreement, but it could still be more beneficial to the UK than the existing EU/Canada deal by focussing in specific areas which matter to the United Kingdom and Canada, instead of requiring a trade deal broad enough to satisfy each member state of the European Union. Thereby, the UK could get a deal which better matches its trade interests, but the EU's could cover more areas.

Sure, continue to believe in fairytales, it is kind of cute, although for a grown-up...........

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, continue to believe in fairytales, it is kind of cute, although for a grown-up...........

You don't have a better argument than that? I don't even understand why you're so furious about Brexit that you have spent months on this forum fulminating about our decision to leave. Don't you have anything better to do all day over there in Holland?

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, continue to believe in fairytales, it is kind of cute, although for a grown-up...........

You don't have a better argument than that? I don't even understand why you're so furious about Brexit that you have spent months on this forum fulminating about our decision to leave. Don't you have anything better to do all day over there in Holland?

It is a stupid decision which effects my country negatively. But just started a new business today, so yes, I have much nicer things to do.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Except that in most of the trade deals, if not all of them, there is a term which states that the EU must have the most favorable deal and countries can't make a better deal than that. So, no, the UK will not get a better deal than with the EU, even if Argentina and the UK were BFF's.

"Better" is entirely subjective. A bilateral trade deal between, for the sake of argument, Canada and the United Kingdom, would probably be more restricted in scope than the EU/Canada Free Trade Agreement, but it could still be more beneficial to the UK than the existing EU/Canada deal by focussing in specific areas which matter to the United Kingdom and Canada, instead of requiring a trade deal broad enough to satisfy each member state of the European Union. Thereby, the UK could get a deal which better matches its trade interests, but the EU's could cover more areas.

You'd have a point if trade deals could come into force without every single member state agreeing and if the WTO didn't exist. Most favoured nation status applies to all bilateral trade agreements, but not with regards to the conditions within trading blocks.

Hence Canada would have to improve conditions of trade with the EU member states, and that means the EU, to a point where they all consider it just as beneficial as the deal the UK got. At the same time conditions between Canada and the EU, forming an FTA, allow conditions better, and hence a bigger win-win, than WTO MFN.

Beat regards
Thomas

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Has there ever been a trade deal environmentalists won't oppose?

Probably not, but at least they're being consistent, unlike the EU.

The EU receives flak from free marketers for being too protectionist, and from greenies/anti globalists for being too open (and from the British press for both of them, in alternating weeks).

The truth is the EU is not a commie welfare protectionist state, nor a cutthroat free market advocate. It lies somewhere in the middle depending on where the winds of realpolitik blow.

It would be quite disingenuous to think it could work any other way.

If countries on both sides of a trade agreement make and consume a product, the idea is to align/lower/eliminate tariffs, but also to align rules/regulations. So if the UK wants to continue to trade with the EU, it will stay aligned with the EU. When negotiating with other countries, that alignment will be a big part of the new trade deal. If the other country has already a deal with the EU, then the UK will propose to have a FTA on that basis, and there will be no problem with being aligned that way. The other country might say, however, "you're only the UK, I want to sell you stuff the EU doesn't accept". If the other country has no deal with the EU, it might be worse. A deal might not even be on the cards, if that country is already trying to get a deal with the EU.

It's going a bit off topic with Brexit related FTA but I think this blog suits well with the latest posts!
https://ecipe.org/blog/isolation-or-int ... ta-brexit/

Grizzly410 wrote:

It's going a bit off topic with Brexit related FTA but I think this blog suits well with the latest posts!
https://ecipe.org/blog/isolation-or-int ... ta-brexit/

that is a pretty good piece...

JJJ wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Has there ever been a trade deal environmentalists won't oppose?

Probably not, but at least they're being consistent, unlike the EU.

The EU receives flak from free marketers for being too protectionist, and from greenies/anti globalists for being too open (and from the British press for both of them, in alternating weeks).

and all that why in fact EU FTAs strengthen environmental protections and do a good job leveling playing fields....

Simply: "Free marketers" don´t want any labor or environmental protections to get in the way of their profits, they can be safely ignored, Greens have always fallen in "fundies" and "realos", the former die out pretty quickly when they actually have power and the more realistic folks take over ... and i am yet to meet an anti-globalist that puts his foot where his mouth is and stays away of imported stuff.....

from Grizzly410 excellent link:

Equally fundamentally, the EU realises that their social market model imposes costs, and therefore wishes to ensure that those getting privileged access should not do so by undercutting the market whether in terms of product quality or labour and environmental regulations.

I am beginning to think there is a lot of jealousy at play. If i set up shop in the EU, i have free trade agreements in place that allow me to essentially freely trade with 93 (!) other countries, and 29 more where an FTA is in various stages between negotiating and being in force.... 122 countries with harmonized standards, IP protections, labor and environmental agreements as essentially one big trading block pivoting around the EU.

best regards
Thomas

JJJ wrote:

The truth is the EU is not a commie welfare protectionist state, nor a cutthroat free market advocate. It lies somewhere in the middle depending on where the winds of realpolitik blow.

It would be quite disingenuous to think it could work any other way.

Which could also be termed hypocritcial in terms of climate change.

tommy1808 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

It's going a bit off topic with Brexit related FTA but I think this blog suits well with the latest posts!
https://ecipe.org/blog/isolation-or-int ... ta-brexit/

that is a pretty good piece...

Reading the background of the author you can be sure he actually knows what is talking about...

David Henig wrote:

As such, simply saying we will have a UK-EU FTA cannot be the answer to the question that has not been resolved since referendum, of the nature of our future EU relationship. It is further can-kicking, and the question must be asked of those advocating an FTA, what are you prepared to concede in an FTA?

For me the key is right there (leaving aside the Irish border!!), what is UK prepared to concede for a preferential access to the EU market ? We know what EU wants just to start the discussion (WA content), the next quote is a given too (block US regulatory for food in Europe), and there will be much, much more.
Seeing they can't even agree on the WA their own government found OK, unless there is a wake up call (revoke or at least remain in the SM), they are in this mess for decades.

David Henig wrote:

It is well known that the US and EU are in a competition over global regulatory influence, and the EU is winning. It is very difficult to see in this circumstance the EU giving preferential access to the UK while allowing us to go into the US regulatory sphere for food and drink.

With the Mercosur, EU basically accepted putting stress on its agricultural sector in exchange of better access for industrial products + at the same time spreading its regulatory influence onto the american continent, which would be a big political win for EU. (Protection of standards, Geographic Protection)
IMO environmental aspects are there to appease the greens and lefties, just like better access for wine is a bonus to help pass the deal to the French who could lose a lot on beef/poultry.

Grizzly410 wrote:

David Henig wrote:

As such, simply saying we will have a UK-EU FTA cannot be the answer to the question that has not been resolved since referendum, of the nature of our future EU relationship.
It is further can-kicking, and the question must be asked of those advocating an FTA, what are you prepared to concede in an FTA?

For me the key is right there (leaving aside the Irish border!!), what is UK prepared to concede for a preferential access to the EU market ? We know what the EU wants just to start the discussion (WA content), the next quote is a given too (block US regulatory for food in Europe), and there will be much, much more.
Seeing they can't even agree on the WA their own government found OK, unless there is a wake up call (revoke or at least remain in the SM), they are in this mess for decades.

Which is what I and others have been saying for a long time too, in several Brexit posts.

All those Brexiteers who think they just have to remain strong for a few more months so they can 'hard Brexit' first and then once out everything will return to normal quickly and they will be signing up to a super easy FTA with the EU as a third country soon after, are dead wrong: the real political problems only start then for the UK.

The relationship with Europe is going to remain the issue dominating domestic politics for years and years to come, because all the same questions are going to pop up again and again and again.

If you can't live with the WA, then a FTA with the EU is an illusion because the WA pretty much is the lower limit of what kind of 'freedom' the UK will ever be allowed to enjoy while having a (future) FTA with the EU in place…

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The truth is the EU is not a commie welfare protectionist state, nor a cutthroat free market advocate. It lies somewhere in the middle depending on where the winds of realpolitik blow.

It would be quite disingenuous to think it could work any other way.

Which could also be termed hypocritcial in terms of climate change.

Governments have a duty to their citizens wrt climate change. They also have a duty to keep the economy competitive in the face of ever challenging conditions.

It's a delicate balance to get right.

From what I can find the EU eats about 5,5-6 millions tons of beef, and the trade agreement is for a quota of 100 000 tons of beef.

JJJ wrote:

It's a delicate balance to get right.

So promoting environmental measures at home, and not giving a damn about them in Brazil is balanced?

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

It's a delicate balance to get right.

So promoting environmental measures at home, and not giving a damn about them in Brazil is balanced?

Since the trade deal is contingent on them a) keeping the Paris accords and hence b) fulfilling their REDD+ commitments the statement is still so blatantly wrong as the first time you brought it up.
So far there is no binding commitment to those, with the deal there is.That is an improvement regardless of how you twist and turn it. Probably why you willfully ignore it.

best regards
Thomas

Anyway the agreement is just as preliminary stage. The process thru parliaments should need several years, more than enough time to fine tune the details.

Braybuddy wrote:

I'm still trying to take this in. We're being told that after Brexit border controls will have to be introduced to protect EU standards. How exactly is the EU going to monitor food standards and implement traceablity across most of the South American continent?

Will be very hard. Do what I do buy local. May cost a bit more although often not that much and you can see where its from.

OA260 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

I'm still trying to take this in. We're being told that after Brexit border controls will have to be introduced to protect EU standards. How exactly is the EU going to monitor food standards and implement traceablity across most of the South American continent?

Will be very hard. Do what I do buy local. May cost a bit more although often not that much and you can see where its from.

however, the correct answer is "the same way they do now", as those products are already available in the EU. Just more pricey.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Since the trade deal is contingent on them a) keeping the Paris accords and hence b) fulfilling their REDD+ commitments the statement is still so blatantly wrong as the first time you brought it up.
So far there is no binding commitment to those, with the deal there is.That is an improvement regardless of how you twist and turn it. Probably why you willfully ignore it.

You have great faith in Bolsonaro. But it's good to see you support the extreme right as well as the left. At least you're being objective.

Free Trade Agreements are thousands of pages long for a reason, faith isn't involved.

Braybuddy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Since the trade deal is contingent on them a) keeping the Paris accords and hence b) fulfilling their REDD+ commitments the statement is still so blatantly wrong as the first time you brought it up.
So far there is no binding commitment to those, with the deal there is.That is an improvement regardless of how you twist and turn it. Probably why you willfully ignore it.

You have great faith in Bolsonaro. .

i have faith in his cattle farmers taring and feathering him if the EU puts the tariff wall up again because Numnuts chops too much wood. Automatic, entirely legal, sanctions are probably the most effective tools to force compliance for anything between nation states. And a million times better than the current situation: taking him by his word.

They also seem to have a proper working legal system unlike the UK, where the Prime Minister somehow successfully can obstruct justice and prevent an investigation into 8 Million pound pored into the leave campaign without any clue where the money came from.....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So your argument is not to make any trade deals at all because it can't be bullet proof?

I really don't see the point in enforcing such high standards here, while importing meat which may, or may not, have been produced to the same standard. A little hypocritical, don't you think?

you seem to be under the impression that there is no South American Beef available in Europe...... the standards are already enforced.

best regards
Thomas

We get South America beef in Norway, I find it a bit hit and miss, I’d say about 30% of the beef I’ve bought has turned, when you open the package it’s rotten, so stopped buying it. When it's not rotten its ok, but I prefer to buy fresh Norwegian beef sourced from local farms.

sabenapilot wrote:

I suppose you are referring to French President Macron's one-to-one with Brasil's President Bolsanero, in which the French made it clear they would reject any deals with countries that withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement as Bolsanero has previously threatened to;

I thought that one was rather amusing. Wouldn't a more useful metric be those countries actually achieving their (self-made) goals and promises rather than those who just signed the piece of paper?

For example, Brazil, 7th largest emission producer in the world, "In Brazil, deforestation rates have increased since 2012 after years of decline. And President-elect Jair Bolsanaro, who takes office in January, has vowed to roll back safeguards in the Amazon rain forest in order to promote ranching and logging." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... track.html

And this, more current, "Last month, the Amazon rainforest in Brazil lost trees at the fastest rate in 10 years. And experts blame activity by illegal loggers, who are helped by the easing of environmental protections under President Jair Bolsonaro." https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/a ... 47317.html

So as we look at the aftermath of Paris Climate Agreement, it appears more and more clear that it is more about the optics for certain Europeans than actual substance. It really was sham.

mham001 wrote:

So as we look at the aftermath of Paris Climate Agreement, it appears more and more clear that it is more about the optics for certain Europeans than actual substance. It really was sham.

so that is why the treaty is contingent on the Mercosur countries keeping their Paris commitments and hence their REDD+ commitments to enjoy the preference under the trade deal.......

Care to elaborate why the Paris agreement isn´t legally binding and doesn´t have enforcement mechanisms? Was it because no one wanted that, or was it because it was clear, Kerry said so many times, that such a deal would never make it through the Republican Senate majority...... the EU and most others wanted a binding treaty.

Kiwirob wrote:

We get South America beef in Norway, I find it a bit hit and miss, I’d say about 30% of the beef I’ve bought has turned, when you open the package it’s rotten, so stopped buying it. When it's not rotten its ok, but I prefer to buy fresh Norwegian beef sourced from local farms.

I think all long-traveled meat has that hit and miss "quality", and a tariff barrier makes it worse, as only surplus (=cheap, cheap, cheap) is marketable. You don´t often get corn fed US beef here either, it is almost always a disappointment.....
Meat sold as rotten on any large scale would usually quickly be addressed, and since our noses are incredibly sensitive to the smell of rott, we detect it long before meat actually goes rotten, as our nose is designed to detect what is safe to consume unprocessed. Really rotten meat doesn´t just smell rotten, it makes you wanne puke in an instant ...

best regards
Thomas

Funny you should mention puking, the last packet I took back to the supermarket, the girl stuck her head in the bag, took a sniff and puked over the checkout. That was the last time I bough South American beef.

I prefer grass feed to grain feed beef. I also don’t like the US style feedlots, it’s not a nice life for a cow. Happy cows make better meat IMO.

Kiwirob wrote:

Funny you should mention puking, the last packet I took back to the supermarket, the girl stuck her head in the bag, took a sniff and puked over the checkout. That was the last time I bough South American beef.

yup, that is the reaction you should expect.

I prefer grass feed to grain feed beef. I also don’t like the US style feedlots, it’s not a nice life for a cow. Happy cows make better meat IMO.

Yeah.. a good nice piece of dry aged free range beef is hard to beat. I also like a lot what the Japanese do with beef. ... heck, a Pepper Lunch "fast food" steak is better than much of the stuff you get here....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

i have faith in his cattle farmers taring and feathering him if the EU puts the tariff wall up again because Numnuts chops too much wood. Automatic, entirely legal, sanctions are probably the most effective tools to force compliance for anything between nation states. And a million times better than the current situation: taking him by his word.

Given that Brazil has run rings around EU inspectors in the past, why would you think they wouldn't do it again? You can sign up to all the agreements you like, but implementing them is another thing entirely.

Your faith in EU institutions and trust in South American presidents knows no bounds.

It is rather fun to see so hell bent on that FTA and that you ignore the FTA with Vietnam, the chinese backyard

Braybuddy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

i have faith in his cattle farmers taring and feathering him if the EU puts the tariff wall up again because Numnuts chops too much wood. Automatic, entirely legal, sanctions are probably the most effective tools to force compliance for anything between nation states. And a million times better than the current situation: taking him by his word.

Given that Brazil has run rings around EU inspectors in the past, why would you think they wouldn't do it again?

This time there is something on the line beyond a single shipment being destroyed?

You can sign up to all the agreements you like, but implementing them is another thing entirely.

So better don't even try? Back to caves then I guess...

Your faith in EU institutions and trust in South American presidents knows no bounds.

Its actually faith in capitalism....

Best regards
Thomas

mham001 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

I suppose you are referring to French President Macron's one-to-one with Brasil's President Bolsanero, in which the French made it clear they would reject any deals with countries that withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement as Bolsanero has previously threatened to;

I thought that one was rather amusing. Wouldn't a more useful metric be those countries actually achieving their (self-made) goals and promises rather than those who just signed the piece of paper?

For example, Brazil, 7th largest emission producer in the world, "In Brazil, deforestation rates have increased since 2012 after years of decline. And President-elect Jair Bolsanaro, who takes office in January, has vowed to roll back safeguards in the Amazon rain forest in order to promote ranching and logging." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... track.html

And this, more current, "Last month, the Amazon rainforest in Brazil lost trees at the fastest rate in 10 years. And experts blame activity by illegal loggers, who are helped by the easing of environmental protections under President Jair Bolsonaro." https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/a ... 47317.html

So as we look at the aftermath of Paris Climate Agreement, it appears more and more clear that it is more about the optics for certain Europeans than actual substance. It really was sham.

What has been happening is the economic crisis that started in 2011-ish continues, and just about every number continues to get worse, including deforestation. This isn't caused by Bolsonaro but rather by failed economic policies implemented between the early 2000s and 2016.

And Bolsonaro isn't against protecting the Amazon, pretty much nobody in Brazil is, but he is against people who say nothing can be done there. He's against a radicalism that has become entrenched through past administrations who outsourced environmental programs to Non-governmental organizations. These NGO guys are very vocal anti-Bolsonaro for his attack on their beliefs. That said, it's also true that Bolsonaro has not been clear about his approach to conservation and almost only talks about the moderation component. His environmental minister has a history of pragmatism, which isn't helping with the radicals even though he also has a history of results.

The deforestation numbers from the past almost decade demonstrate those policies to be a failure. Short-term results are nothing to be proud of, what matters is sustainable.

Kiwirob wrote:

Funny you should mention puking, the last packet I took back to the supermarket, the girl stuck her head in the bag, took a sniff and puked over the checkout. That was the last time I bough South American beef.

I prefer grass feed to grain feed beef. I also don’t like the US style feedlots, it’s not a nice life for a cow. Happy cows make better meat IMO.

Almost all Brazilian meat is pasture raised. It's just how it's done there. I assume the same is true in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

tommy1808 wrote:

mham001 wrote:

So as we look at the aftermath of Paris Climate Agreement, it appears more and more clear that it is more about the optics for certain Europeans than actual substance. It really was sham.

so that is why the treaty is contingent on the Mercosur countries keeping their Paris commitments and hence their REDD+ commitments to enjoy the preference under the trade deal.......

And the pure lunacy behind such statements is remarkable. The only countries currently meeting those targets are a few insignificant island-states. Brazil is not even close. Neither is Argentina. Nor is either expected to reach those goals by analysts. And will they have until 2030 to prove they failed? https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/brazil/

tommy1808 wrote:

Care to elaborate why the Paris agreement isn´t legally binding and doesn´t have enforcement mechanisms? Was it because no one wanted that, or was it because it was clear, Kerry said so many times, that such a deal would never make it through the Republican Senate majority...... the EU and most others wanted a binding treaty.

Haha. The US Senate is not the only body in the world that would object to 'enforcement mechanisms' by some bureaucrats in Brussels or Paris. Just the methods you use to explain the goals is mind numbing. What is it with this xx% more/less than xxxx year, why not just state the damned target? it does give the appearance of smoke and mirrors.

PPVRA wrote:

What has been happening is the economic crisis that started in 2011-ish continues, and just about every number continues to get worse, including deforestation. This isn't caused by Bolsonaro but rather by failed economic policies implemented between the early 2000s and 2016.

I'm not meaning to pick on Brazil, they are just the biggest target. Your point about the severity of the recession is notable, emissions will only rise when it does improve. But rest assured that European politicians will happily import the results of yours. I wonder if they count cow emissions?

tommy1808 wrote:

So better don't even try? Back to caves then I guess...

Oh it will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

Anyway, I guess that the EU will be fine without UK and US advice