The EU intent on destroying the industrial base of Europe
Not that it seems to have recognised it. New legislation on chemicals requires producers to register "all those chemical substances produced or imported above a total quantity of 1 tonne per year. Registration will affect about 30,000 substances. For more hazardous substances, producers will have to submit a substitution plan to replace them with safer alternatives". Source. As Le Monde notes, "these chemicals are present in everyday products such as textiles, paint, electrical apparatus and toys".
I do not suppose that the average industrialist deems it a great idea to use something toxic merely because it is toxic, but rather because it is the most suitable raw material for the task at hand. I suppose we can now look forward to freshly laundered clothes with a new 'grey whiteness', clothes that fall apart or that fail to hold their colour and gadgets that do not work.
That the €440 billion European chemical industry is likely to end up spavined by this legislation is, naturally, not enough for 'green' extremists. Domenique Voynet deplores the idea that "the chemical industry and laisser faire attitudes of national governments were deemed more important than public health", and Greenpeace deplores "the risk of it having only a limited impact".
I do not suppose that the average industrialist deems it a great idea to use something toxic merely because it is toxic, but rather because it is the most suitable raw material for the task at hand. I suppose we can now look forward to freshly laundered clothes with a new 'grey whiteness', clothes that fall apart or that fail to hold their colour and gadgets that do not work.
That the €440 billion European chemical industry is likely to end up spavined by this legislation is, naturally, not enough for 'green' extremists. Domenique Voynet deplores the idea that "the chemical industry and laisser faire attitudes of national governments were deemed more important than public health", and Greenpeace deplores "the risk of it having only a limited impact".
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 12:03 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
A classic case of EU interference. Typically they only look at one side, potential health and safety benefits (all unspecified of course); whilst ignoring any commercial implications.
Why would companies invest in expensive R&D to come up with better/safer/greener products when they face a huge regulatory burden?
Yes and with the cheese factory scandal so fresh. I have come slowly to the view that we are "better of out". Cameron`s repositioning of the Conservatives nestles safely in the long grass and it is a disappointment.
I can see that environmental issues are going to be undermined by the people associated with them and sadly much the same is true of UKIP which takes us back to the Conservative Party.....tricky
Why oh why oh why can people not be more like me !
substances eh?
will that include all the ton of coke and heroin?
i hope they dont outlaw neurofen , i have had a gout attack and have had to rush home rather than risk ending up stuck in a mancunian hotel for a week
You were missed PHITCH .I wondered if you had died in some shoot out in the "London" area perhaps sparked by an ill considered word about general Pinochet.
“ The General will be in my prayers tonight ….”
On drugs (and guns) the Chinese used to have a drugs problem then they rounded up 6000 drugs dealers and shot them in the back of the Head. Now they don`t have a drugs problem (In DT)
25 years ago the Ali Foreman fight (when boxing used to be good ) was in Zaire and there were concerns that the large criminal element would show the country up . The criminal population were rounded up and they got them in a stadium and shot every tenth one. The rest were told to behave themselves which they did .
Muassolini finished the Mafia with the short but determined use of troops and suspension of legal protection
So I was thinking maybe instead of an amnesty for criminals we should have occasional amnesties for the forces of order from all that jurisprudence. Clean the sewers out and then go back to the pretence of justice?
Seems to work
Liberal...
WHAT DID YOU CALL ME !!!
Reckon them's fightin' words, N?
"Muassolini finished the Mafia with the short but determined use of troops and suspension of legal protection" etc.
In other words, Mafiosi with more firepower always win.
is it me or does it seem that only the robbers are armed these days
talking about armed blagging i once read an article about and early twentieth armed robber in manchester , the obber startred shooting at the police who then borrowed revolvers from passersby and were joined by some of the locls who emerged from thei homes/plaes of business with rifles and shotguns. same thing happened at the sydney streeet siege , god days.
Similar things have happened in america , during the University of Austin texas tower massacre , some locals turned up with some heavy forepower to keep the snipers head down while the police stormed the building including a man wih a fully automatic m14
"EU intent on destroying the industrial base of Europe"
My interpretation is somewhat different because many environmental regulations have been proposed by big business as Rothbard and other libertarians have reported. Why would big business be interested in more governmental regulations?
It's a form of protectionism. Whenever a business is not competitive on the international market, they demand governmental protection. Modern mercantilism hides behind more popular forms such as consumer rights, quality standards, health hazards, child labor and environmental protection. It is an attempt to keep foreign competitors from selling their products because they cannot fulfill all the standards, regulations and paperwork.
To my knowledge, most chemical products are nowadays imported from China. The chemical industry in the EU wants to restrict the imports from China and India under the guise of environmental protection. The EU consumers have to pay the higher EU price. It's like paying more taxes for subsidising the chemical industry mostly in Germany.
The environmental regulation of the EU is a subsidy of all Europeans for the German industry similar as the common agricultural policy (CAP)is a subsidy for the French farmers.
Some quotes from the website of the German Ministry for the Environment: "Germany often is the driving force for the development of ambitious European environmental standards."
"The EU Sustainable Development Strategy also boosts the integration of environmental protection into other policy areas." (In other words, all Europeans will be forced to buy German products as long as their own industry is unable to fulfill the high environmental protection standards.)
"The enlargement of the EU is a major opportunity for the environment in Europe. New Member States or accession countries taking over and implementing European environmental legislation and setting up modern environmental administrations will considerably reduce environmental pollution." (In other words, Romania's and Turkey's industry unable to conform to the high environmental standards of the EU will be ruined and taken over by West German industry.)
Did you ever wonder why Germany is export worldmaster? Most of its products are exported into other EU countries. These countries are forced by EU regulations to conform to a high standard of quality which effectively keeps their own industries from the market.
The destruction of Yugoslavia first by favouring separatism and then by Nato bombings was promoted by the foreign secretary Mr. Genscher, the leader of the liberal party which is heavily influenced by German industry. But why? Milosevic didn't want to change the law that the majority shareholder in Yugoslavian companies is the Yugoslavian state. That changed, didn't it. Next, German big business has set its eyes on "conquering" Turkey. They are already building factories in Turkey.
Here's a clue. Whether a "chemical" is dangerous will depend on the dose you're exposed to. All talk of danger without reference to dose is likely to be bogus. Thus "A is a carcinogen" - in what bloody dose, pray?
bearing in mind the Gauls love of homeopahy wil that mean that all water has to be cerified?
" Whether a "chemical" is dangerous will depend on the dose "
Exactly! Modern technology is able to detect chemicals in the irrelevant range of picograms.
Isn't it strange that "dangerous" environmental pollution is constantly increasing and at the same time human life expectancy.
We live in strange times.
Presumably everyone has encountered the dihydrogen monoxide joke?
no doubt zac goldsmith and cameron are already trying to have the wicked stuff banned.from now on we all bathe in and drink champagne just like they do
wouldnt it be fucking funy to catch one of them off gaurd at a public meeting and ask them what they intend to do about the dihydrogen monoxide problem?
I find what you say quite plausible Colin . In my own boring world FSA regulations are immiediately siezed on to protect areas of the market by raising the bar to entry. C is sometimes naieve about the workings of the market (kisses blow up Freidman etc.) underestimating the extent to which units whithin it are actively seeking to subvert its operation .
I would be inerested to know the source of this explanation ..just observation ? Its awfully cogent .
PHITCH - It would be far to early to say.......and so on
N - as I was saying the other day, big business in established sectors of the economy are all in favour of this sort of regulation, as it serves to protect them and keep out 'the barbarians'. They also have the time and energy to devote to lobbying in a way that companies in newer sectors of the economy do not.
Peter,
Congratulations for your 4:51 PM comment. It's one of your best.
The best PHITCH comment I have ever seen appeared on Guido for about ten seconds.
Newmania,
I am glad that you find my explanation useful.
”I would be inerested to know the source of this explanation”
The main source comes from the libertarian economists and their work published at Mises.org. They have articles showing that historically regulations were often promoted by companies. Reading about the EU's excess of regulations, I started to wonder who might benefit most and did some digging. Since France and Germany are the main forces behind EU integration, the question arose what was the interest of these countries.
France is known for the power of its big government and Germany for the political influence of its big business. The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, has an article Big Business and Big Government by Timothy P. Carney about the myth that big business and big government are rivals—that big business wants small government. And he notes ”The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. Most noteworthy expansions of government power are to the liking of, and at the request of, big business.“
This fact suggests that a similar strategy is likely to happen in Europe and I concluded from the actions of the different countries in Brussels that the EU is mainly an alliance of big government in France with big business in Germany. Big business in Germany had already bought the leaders of the German unions by providing them with incomes, sharing of power, prostitutes etc (see, media reports about VW). Hence, why shouldn't they try the same strategy on a larger scale. Furthermore, West German big business has already ruined the East German industry with the help of the conservative government and the unions by imposing the West German standards on the unproductive East German industry. Thus, why shouldn't they try to do the same with other East European countries or with Turkey? The bill for their strategy of conquering new markets is not paied by big business, at least not in the short-term, but by the tax paying population in the form of subsidies for new member states, lower wages for workers resulting from mass immigration of unskilled workers etc.
With regard to Yugoslavia, a Serbian scientist reported on the web about a Yugoslavian law restricting the majority of shareholders to the state and the many deceptions involved in this NATO war supposedly for humanitarian reasons. Several media reported that the German Foreign Secretary, the leader of the German big business party, was the first to recognize Kosovo as an independent state and that France, the US and the UK was against it.
Concerning environmental protection, there are publications on the web showing that several environmental groups "blackmail" businesses for obtaining "donations" and also give "advice" to businesses in regard to environmental regulations. For example: "German newspaper "Die Welt" revealed that the eco-organization "Deutsche Umwelthilfe" (DUH/German Environment Aid) accepted money from big business." (BTW, Jessy Jackson in the US seems to employ a similar strategy according to some reports, accusing businesses of racism until they pay and employ his followers.) Today, the media reported that a Green politician at the Ministry for Environmental Protection in Germany responsible for a campaign against snack food in schools is quitting his governmental post and is going to work for the Mars company.
Well well well I don`t doubt for a second there is a lot in this. You cerainly win "he has done his homework" prize.
tremendous stuff
» Post a Comment