MrMakabar
Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.
The EU has to start to replace NATO. That at least means some shared assets like maybe ballistic missile defense, AWACS and similar assets. Combined procurement would also be a great idea. Something like ESA, but with some common EU funding as well.
Any decent EU military needs a common EU foreign policy. Both of those need treaty changes. Also Macron says a lot about Europe, but when he got the opportunity for action tends to fall short. France was in a great position to lead on Ukraine aid, but did not perform that amazingly.
EDIT: EU ammo purchases for Ukraine have been launched and some EU military organizational work as well, such as EU missions in Mali, the Red Sea and some other places. Also some good cooperation such as Germany and Netherlands integrating their armies.
The EU is a massive car exporter and the car industry in Europe is not doing that great right now. That is due to European companies producing EVs in China and then bringing them into the EU. So the EU trying to force them to keep car factories open is just logical. Hence the probe and the targetted tariffs, based on the subsidies they recieve from the Chinese government.
Also, the tarrifs I’m complaining about aren’t Carbon-related, nor imposed by China(where on earth did you even get that absurd idea?), but they would stack in an awful manner.
The article you post under is literally called: “China Confronts Europe Over Climate-Based Trade Restrictions”. Also I have no idea, where I wrote anything about China imposing tariffs. Just that those are not fixed, but flexible based on certain criteria.
- That is cumulative emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&time=1990..latest&country=USA~CHN
A lot of high income countries did not have their industrial revolution less then a century ago. That was a bit post WW1, so it was mainly Western Europe besides the Iberian peninsula, US, Canada and Australia, which were industrialized a century ago. Japan did really start to grow in 1960, as did Spain and Italy. South Korea went up in the 1980s. Many already have had peak per capita emissions some time ago. Then you have problems like South Africa and Russia, which both have high emissions, but are not that rich. Russias per capita emissions are above those of the EU since 1951 for example. Time is also a problem, as in countries have falling emissions and others have increased, so that needs to be included. Also technology changed. Things like solar, wind turbines, electric cars, even electric trains, nuclear power plants and so forth are well developed technologies today. That was not the case a century ago. Besides that global climate change and knowledge of human impacts of it, are relativly recent, it only started being a somewhat discussed political point in the 70s.
Point is, that it is complex and there honestly should be a formular to determine each countries contribution and that should include new emissions. Depending on how it is calculated that can absolutly include China.