Except for that one practical example from France, which is some artisan glass producer with facilities (judging by the pictures) unaltered since the 1960ties that is temporarily(!) halting production, the article is very nebulous on actual examples of this happening. It also mentions BASF is passing, but they are downsizing because of comparatively low demand for their products in the last decade(!) in Europe and the somewhat higher than usual energy costs are just the final nail in the coffin for them.
Personally I think all of the companies that do struggle right now because of energy prices (and not other reasons like the case for most), would equally struggle if any kind of even slightly serious carbon credits would be introduced. Feel free to disagree on that, but I think those are long overdue and thus I don’t really see a problem with these companies shutting down. Europe as the largest economic block in the world can survive that.
And while you may be correct that the same types of companies would struggle due to carbon credits, the reality of the situation is that deindustrialization leads to loss of sovereignty as it makes countries dependent on other nations for essentials.
Playing games like creating a carbon credit for domestic emissions and then simply moving production to places where there are looser regulations doesn’t help addressing the problem of climate change either. This scheme is simply designed to appease gullible people in Europe who worry about climate change without understanding the first thing about the economy.
Just looking at the list above here I can already see multiple examples of companies struggling that have nothing to do with the somewhat higher energy costs.
As for carbon credits… you have to start somewhere and you can’t control the whole world. And it is better to start in a rich place like Europe that can deal relatively well with the resulting temporary competitiveness problems. Usually these things also drive innovation thus sooner or later you end up more not less competitive.
That’s just flat out false. A rich place like Europe should be focusing on producing things it needs itself using clean energy sources. That’s an actual start. Simply externalizing these costs is literally helping nobody. So far the only innovation I see is in the creative accounting department where Europe makes itself look as if it’s doing some sort of a meaningful transition to clean energy.
You seem to have a very peculiar understanding what actual carbon credits would mean. But we are getting off-topic here and I am tired of discussing with you all the time.
Nah, I have a perfectly realistic understanding of what carbon credits mean in practice and the track record this approach has over many years now. The theme of these discussions is that you make claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and then slink away when pressed on them.
And you always try to change the topic when it becomes clear that you gotten yourself lost in absurd statements. In addition you have some unhealthy obsession with always trying to get the last word in :p
Stop accusing me of what you’re doing here. You’re the one who went on a rant about carbon credits, and I simply corrected the misinformation in your statements. Kind of hilarious that you accuse me of having an obsession with getting in the last word in vapid comment free of any actual content. Maybe try looking in a mirror sometimes.
Except for that one practical example from France, which is some artisan glass producer with facilities (judging by the pictures) unaltered since the 1960ties that is temporarily(!) halting production, the article is very nebulous on actual examples of this happening. It also mentions BASF is passing, but they are downsizing because of comparatively low demand for their products in the last decade(!) in Europe and the somewhat higher than usual energy costs are just the final nail in the coffin for them.
Personally I think all of the companies that do struggle right now because of energy prices (and not other reasons like the case for most), would equally struggle if any kind of even slightly serious carbon credits would be introduced. Feel free to disagree on that, but I think those are long overdue and thus I don’t really see a problem with these companies shutting down. Europe as the largest economic block in the world can survive that.
Here are a few more examples for you.
And while you may be correct that the same types of companies would struggle due to carbon credits, the reality of the situation is that deindustrialization leads to loss of sovereignty as it makes countries dependent on other nations for essentials.
Playing games like creating a carbon credit for domestic emissions and then simply moving production to places where there are looser regulations doesn’t help addressing the problem of climate change either. This scheme is simply designed to appease gullible people in Europe who worry about climate change without understanding the first thing about the economy.
Just looking at the list above here I can already see multiple examples of companies struggling that have nothing to do with the somewhat higher energy costs.
As for carbon credits… you have to start somewhere and you can’t control the whole world. And it is better to start in a rich place like Europe that can deal relatively well with the resulting temporary competitiveness problems. Usually these things also drive innovation thus sooner or later you end up more not less competitive.
That’s just flat out false. A rich place like Europe should be focusing on producing things it needs itself using clean energy sources. That’s an actual start. Simply externalizing these costs is literally helping nobody. So far the only innovation I see is in the creative accounting department where Europe makes itself look as if it’s doing some sort of a meaningful transition to clean energy.
You seem to have a very peculiar understanding what actual carbon credits would mean. But we are getting off-topic here and I am tired of discussing with you all the time.
Nah, I have a perfectly realistic understanding of what carbon credits mean in practice and the track record this approach has over many years now. The theme of these discussions is that you make claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and then slink away when pressed on them.
And you always try to change the topic when it becomes clear that you gotten yourself lost in absurd statements. In addition you have some unhealthy obsession with always trying to get the last word in :p
Stop accusing me of what you’re doing here. You’re the one who went on a rant about carbon credits, and I simply corrected the misinformation in your statements. Kind of hilarious that you accuse me of having an obsession with getting in the last word in vapid comment free of any actual content. Maybe try looking in a mirror sometimes.