The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes international trade as an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction, and an important means to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

“Removing barriers to trade in green goods and services could add further momentum to the clean energy transformation unfolding right before us. Adam Wolff, Deputy Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO)”

International trade has a critical role to play in environmental protection and the effort to mitigate climate change. According to Adam Wolff, trade policies are powerful tools to increase resource efficiency, scale-up investment in clean and resilient infrastructure, and accelerate climate-friendly innovation. They also unlock the USD 26 trillion in market opportunities that would result from bold climate action by 2030.

The WTO indicates that renewable energy, solar photovoltaic and wind power have become the cheapest sources of electricity in many markets. In addition, new renewable power capacity has outpaced new fossil fuel power capacity for the past seven years. In 2019 alone, renewables accounted for nearly three quarters of new power capacity globally. Furthermore, employment in this sector, which reached 11 million jobs worldwide in 2018, is expected to quadruple by 2050, while jobs in energy efficiency and related areas could grow by another 40 million.

According to the International Trade Centre (ITC), global concern about environmental issues is also driving a growing market for sustainably sourced natural resource based products. Conscious consumers are demanding more evidence of production supporting “fair” and “ethical” practices in the value chain and, globally, this market is worth around USD 50 billion. The certified natural resource based product market is driving reductions in poverty as production is often labour intensive and premium prices reach smallholder producers who make up the bulk of the rural poor. The trade is also generating environmental benefits like carbon sequestration in soils and timber, forest preservation, decreased pesticide use and net biodiversity gains.

In wildlife, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. There are several appendixes listing different species and their trade regulations.

The Role of Geneva

World Trade Organization (WTO)

Through its goals, rules, institutions and forward-looking agenda, the World Trade Organization (WTO) provides an important means of advancing international environmental goals. The Trade and Environment Committee (CTE) of the WTO is the standing forum dedicated to dialogue between governments on the impact of trade policies on the environment, and of environment policies on trade. Under the Doha Development Agenda, the regular committee is also looking at the effects of environmental measures on market access, the intellectual property agreement and biodiversity, and labeling for environmental purposes. In this context, a series of Ministerial Statements on environmental issues – specifically on trade and environmental sustainability, plastic pollution and fossil fuel subsidies – were launched in December 2021.

In June 2022, the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC12) marked a important milestone, as governments recognized the important role of multilateral trade to address environmental challenges. Members also adopted an unprecedented agreement on fisheries subsidies after more than twenty years of negotiations.

For the Agreement to enter into force, two-thirds of WTO members must formally accept the amendment Protocol to insert the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement, by depositing an “instrument of acceptance” with the WTO. As of December 2023, twenty-nine WTO members formally submitted their acceptance of the agreement: Albania, Australia, Belize, Botswana, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, European Union, Fiji Gabon, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Macao (China), New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Singapore, Switzerland, The Gambia, Ukraine, United Arabs Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States.

Information for members bodog online casino on how to accept the Protocol of Ammendment can be found on the WTO website.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Because the trade in wild animals and plants crosses borders between countries, the effort to regulate it requires international cooperation to safeguard certain species from over-exploitation. CITES accords varying degrees of protection to more than 37,000 species of animals and plants, whether they are traded as live specimens, fur coats or dried herbs. In addition, CITES has been among the conservation agreements with the largest membership, with 183 Parties.

International Trade Centre (ITC)

Established in 1964, the International Trade Centre (ITC) is the joint agency of the WTO and the UN and is the only development agency that is fully dedicated to supporting the internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Trade and Environment Programme (TEP) of ITC strengthens the capacity of SMEs in developing countries to compete in environmental markets and to overcome barriers that might result from environment-related standards. The programme also addresses challenges relating to climate resilience and biodiversity loss. ITC provides analysis and support in different global value chains including agri-food, natural products, fibres and leathers.

ITC’s Trade for Sustainable Development (T4SD) is a partnership-based programme which helps businesses, regardless of their position in the value chain, chart their path to more sustainable trade by better understanding the sustainability initiatives landscape and to connect with business partners. T4SD’s new platform, Sustainability Map, also integrates the already well-established tools such as Standards Map and SustainabilityXchange to the new interconnected modules.

ITC also works to boost Fairtrade and environmental exports of developing countries, including exports of cultural, ethnic and organic products. ITC supports biodiversity, enables exporters to adapt to climate change and targets increased use of green technologies.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is a permanent intergovernmental body established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1964. UNCTAD’s work on harnessing international trade in promoting sustained growth and inclusive development includes as a key aspect, support to developing countries in taking advantages of emerging opportunities for trade associated with the protection, promotion and preservation of the environment and sustainable development objectives generally, while minimizing potential adverse impacts. This work is carried out by the Trade, Environment, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Branch of the Division on International Trade and Commodities.

Since its launch by UNCTAD in 1996, the BioTrade Initiative has been promoting sustainable BioTrade in support of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. UNCTAD is currently implementing the Global BioTrade Programme: Linking trade, biodiversity and sustainable development with the support of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO. The objective of this four-year programme is to provide key stakeholders with the ability to size and capitalize on trade opportunities from linking biodiversity and sustainable development, thereby advancing the implementation of the SDGs, as well as the Aichi Targets and the Post Aichi framework.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) major aim is to promote pan-European economic integration, including on aspects related to trade and sustainable development. UNECE initiatives at this nexus include support to the garment and footwear sector to improve traceability and sustainability, harnessing trade and economic cooperation for circular economy, and implementation of the sustainable trade and circular economy principles in SPECA countries.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

The Resources and Markets Branch of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) works to accelerate the transition to resource-efficient and sustainable economies. It engages with governments in their transition to inclusive green economies, fosters partnerships with business and industry for cleaner production and green investments, influences consumer information and choice for sustainable lifestyles, and strengthens and communicates the knowledge and scientific base for resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production.

The Economic and Trade Policy Unit conducts research and provides capacity building support and advisory services to enable the transition to inclusive and green economies. The unit analyzes the roles of fiscal, trade, and industrial policies in enabling an economic transformation.

One of the work streams bodog online casino of the unit is the Environment and Trade Hub, serving as the overarching delivery mechanism for UNEP’s work on trade. Through research, capacity building and policy advisory services, the Hub provides tailored support to countries seeking to leverage trade and investment as vehicles for achieving the SDGs and their Paris Agreement commitments.

Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs (TESS)

The Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs (TESS) is a partnership of the Graduate Institute and UNEP, which core mission is to promote multilateral dialogue and action on trade policies that address urgent global environmental crises and advance progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It aims to catalyse policy action across the trade, environment and sustainable development communities through a versatile, needs-driven and outcome-focused toolbox of activities. Mandated to “connect, inform, analyse and empower”, the work of TESS will combine public-facing events and policy briefs; expert and stakeholder roundtables; and off-the-record consultations key to supporting international policymaking processes.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an independent think tank based in Canada and Geneva working to create a world where people and the planet thrive. Its experts offer practical guidance to help authorities choose the right system of electricity generation, reduce consumption of fossil-based transport fuels, and implement international climate change commitments. The IISD Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) is widely recognized as a world-class leader in the quantification, evaluation, and reform of subsidies.

Geneva Trade Platform

The Geneva Trade Platform is a not-for-profit organization based at the Graduate Institute’s Centre for Trade and Economic Integration. The platform is a hub, designed to bring people, ideas, and resources together to address global challenges through better informed, better supported and more inclusive trade policy.

Negotiations

WTO

At the Doha Ministerial Conference in 2001, negotiations on fisheries subsidies at the WTO were launched with a mandate to clarify and improve existing WTO rules. The adoption of the SDGs in 2015 and of a negotiating mandate in 2017 gave renewed urgency to the discussions, and left the WTO with the task of securing an agreement by 2020 on disciplines to eliminate subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to prohibit subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, with special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries. After more than twenty years of negotiations, WTO members reached an landmark agreement at MC12 in Geneva in June 2022. Member States are now discussing to initiate a second round of negotiations to further discipline harmful fisheries subsidies.

CITES

Animal and Plants Committee

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Plants Committee convened in Geneva for its 26th meeting (CITES AC26), from 5 to 9 June 2023. Items on the agenda included a strategic approach on CITES and Forests, preparation for the implementation of upcoming projects, and advancing the Review of Significant Trade (RST). It is to be noted that the listings of plant species in CITES Appendices have been steadily increasing in recent years and, in particular, those of tree species including those considered commercially important. Today, the number of plant species whose international trade is regulated by CITES is more than 34,000, of which 800 are tree species.

CITES Animals Committee convened in Geneva for its 32nd meeting (CITES AC32) from 19 to 23 June 2023. Issues on the agenda included review under both the Review of Significant Trade Resolution (for the review of wild species which may be subject to unsustainable levels of international trade and recommendations) and the Captive Breeding Resolution (for the review of trade in animal specimens reported as produced in captivity). Members and observers are reviewing emerging operational matters of the committees, alignment between the CITES Strategic Vision 2021-2030 and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, sustainability criteria, known as non-detriment findings (NDFs), and the scientific aspects of the IPBES report on the Assessment of the Sustainable Use of Wild Species.

Standing Committee

The 77th meeting of the Standing Committee will take place from 6 – 10 November 2023 in Geneva.

Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS)
Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway have agreed to start negotiations on an ambitious, binding agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability. The countries recognize that climate change is a major problem, and are seeking to use trade rules in support of climate action. They will consider trade policy measures such as eliminating tariffs on environmental goods, establishing new commitments for environmental services, reductions in fossil-fuel subsidies, and certification/eco-labelling schemes.

Harmful Subsidies

According to the IISD, bodog poker review governments around the world spend at least a trillion dollars a year on subsidies to exploit the world’s natural resources.

Fisheries

Through the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), bodog poker review governments around the world have agreed that conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas and marine resources is essential for sustainable development. In particular, target 14.6 acknowledges the detrimental effect of harmful subsidies and the need to eliminate them to achieve a sustainable blue economy. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 33% of the world’s fish resources are overfished and 60% are being fished to their biologically sustainable limit. According to UNCTAD, fishing subsidies are estimated to be as high as $35 billion worldwide, of which $20 billion directly contributes to overfishing. Fisheries subsidies are the main driver of the overcapacity of industrial fishing fleets and thereby overfishing – removing these harmful subsidies has become a bare-faced necessity.

“By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies. Sustainable Development Goal 14.6”

The WTO was identified as the implementing agency to fulfill this target, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developing countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations. After more than twenty years of negotiations, WTO members reached an agreement at MC12 in Geneva in June 2022. Under this new treaty, subsidies for vessels and operators engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing are prohibited. The agreement further bans support for fishing in overfished stocks and for fishing in unregulated high seas. Provisions on special and differential treatment are provided to allow flexibility for developing countries.

Fossil Fuel

IISD notes that the evidence is crystal clear that fossil fuel subsidies are environmentally harmful and undermine efforts to tackle climate change. Despite this, support for fossil fuels costs governments USD 300–600 billion every year—depending on fuel prices on the world markets—an amount that could otherwise be spent on global priorities such as health, education, social protection, and a just transition to a clean energy future. As countries struggle to support their economies in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, it’s more important than ever to align climate ambitions with economic priorities. Governments have the opportunity to look closely at fossil fuel subsidy reform and fuel taxation as effective tools for a green recovery as they work to maintain climate commitments while generating revenue to support pressing social needs.

On 15 December 2021, the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform launched a ministerial statement, calling for the rationalization and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, while taking into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries.

Plastic Pollution

International trade flows are central to the production, consumption and disposal of plastic products. Across the life cycle of plastics, international trade is a vehicle for the spread of plastics across borders, whether as virgin plastic, embedded in products or as waste. According the UNCTAD, trade in plastics accounts for $1 trillion USD each year, which corresponds to about 5% of the total value of merchandise trade. Consequently, trade policy can play an important role in tackling the plastic pollution crisis. he challenges associated with plastic trade go are immense, with plastics being traded globally as fossil feedstock, primary material, manufactured products, and waste. The World Trade Organization has started to discuss the role of trade policy to address plastic pollution through an informal dialogue (IDP) launched in November 2020.

Plastic waste trade also posed specific challenges, especially for importing developing economies where infrastructure to manage waste in an environmentally sound manner may be lacking. In 2019, Parties to the Basel Convention adopted the Plastic Amendments, which regulate transboundary flows of plastic waste since its entry into force in 2021. The Basel Convention also promotes environmentally sound management of plastic waste through the Plastic Waste Partnership.

Coalition of Trade Ministers on Climate

A new Coalition of Trade Ministers on Climate, which aims to put climate action at the heart of trade and trade policies, was launched on 19 January 2023, in the margins of the WEF Annual Meeting 2023. The four co-leaders – trade ministers from Ecuador, the European Union, Kenya, and New Zealand – held the Coalition’s first inter-governmental meeting in Davos, along with ministers from many other countries, which was followed by a roundtable of stakeholders from international bodog poker review organisations, academia, business, and NGOs.

With more than 50 ministers who have joined the coalition, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan have also offered their support.

The Coalition seeks to provide high-level leadership and guidance to boost inclusive international cooperation on the nexus of climate, trade, and sustainable development. Emphasizing the urgent need for climate change mitigation and adaptation, the Coalition aims to drive cooperation among trade ministers in the global response to climate change, including by engaging nationally and internationally with fellow ministers working on climate, environment, finance, and development, among others.

To read the full blog post as it appears on Geneva Environment Network, click here.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_known as non-detriment appeared first on bodog.

If the meetings in Glasgow have made one thing clear, though, it’s that voluntary international commitments are only as strong as the will of their members to realize a net-zero future. As a new report by the Washington Post this week highlighted, there are significant discrepancies in the methodology countries are using to report emissions to the UNFCCC, resulting in gross under-reporting. These discrepancies further undermine the credibility of the pledges being made, which have already come under criticism by the scientific community for being insufficient to meet the climate challenge.

Moreover, the agreements reached in Glasgow—like the UNFCCC itself—are limited in their ability to hold countries accountable for achieving their goals. If the world is going to meet the objectives laid out in the UNFCCC, the U.S. and its allies need to use every tool available to reduce their own carbon emissions while encouraging—with carrots or sticks—their global partners to do the same.

Trade policy is a tool that can complement UNFCCC efforts to reduce global carbon emissions—but it must be deployed strategically. Of course, trade policy has always overlapped with environmental policy, even if that overlap wasn’t always made explicit in trade agreements. As the free flow of goods across international borders has increased in the past half century, so, too, has the carbon emissions created by that exchange. In recent years, U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) have included environmental provisions designed to offset this increase and address the downstream environmental impacts of freer trade, including provisions to combat illegal logging, promote forest conservation, improve air quality monitoring, harmonize energy performance standards, and liberalize environmental goods tariffs.

To date, however, trade policy has been underutilized as a tool to contribute to an overall global reduction in carbon emissions. With climate now at the forefront of America’s domestic and foreign policy, it’s time to take a fresh look at how trade policy could be used to address the climate crisis.

In reality, trade policy presents a range of tools to help drive better environmental outcomes within and across borders. For example, countries can incentivize the uptake of environmental goods and technologies by lowering or eliminating tariffs on those goods and technologies, thereby making those technologies cost-competitive with dirtier alternatives and more affordable for developing nations. Nations with high environmental standards can also use trade policy to level the economic playing field between themselves and their competitor nations, whose lower environmental standards and lower costs of compliance give their domestic industries a competitive advantage. For instance, adjusting the price of imported goods at the border based on their carbon content—a tool known as a “carbon border adjustment mechanism” or CBAM—not only creates a fairer competitive environment for producers in the U.S. and other countries with similarly high environmental standards, but removes the economic incentives Bodog Poker to engage in environmental arbitrage by retaining lower standards, spurring a net-zero ‘race to the top’ among trade partners.

These are only a few of the numerous ways that trade policy can be used to complement the UNFCCC efforts that are already underway while simultaneously holding countries accountable for meeting their commitments. In the coming weeks, Silverado will be continuing this series of climate-related blog posts by examining some fundamental questions about trade policy’s role in addressing the climate crisis. These questions include:

• What should the objectives of a worker and climate-centric U.S. trade policy be, and what pitfalls should it avoid?
• What trade tools are available to the U.S. and its allies to realize their goals— including a carbon club, carbon border adjustment mechanisms, trade liberalization measures in environmental goods and technologies, preferences,  and trade capacity building? What are the pros and cons of each option?
• What is the most effective approach: unilateral, bilateral, plurilateral, multilateral, or some combination thereof?
• What role should the World Trade Organization (WTO) play in advancing a climate-centric trade policy?
• Do the existing legal frameworks provide countries with the flexibility that they need to use trade as a tool for combating climate change?

There are no simple answers to these questions, but now is the time for the U.S. to invest its intellectual and political resources into answering them. If we wait too long, we risk missing the window for capturing the power of trade to further global environmental objectives and win first place in the global race for a net-zero economy.

To read the full commentary from the Silverado Policy Accelerator, please click here.

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_one major appeared first on bodog.

Domestic jobs and manufacturing have been a recurring theme for the Biden administration, as part of an agenda to “rebuild the middle class.” In its review of critical supply chains, the administration floated a proposal to offer higher rebates for electric vehicles produced with high labor standards in the United States (p. 137) and suggested a push for the Department of Energy to boost “bodog online casino domestic manufacturing requirements for grants, cooperative agreements and R&D contracts” (p. 145); it tasked the U.S. Export-Import Bank “to support the establishment and/or expansion of U.S. manufacturing facilities and infrastructure projects in the United States that would support U.S. exports” (p. 14); and it hinted at several other measures to support local jobs and domestic manufacturing.

The proposed Build Back Better Act offers higher credits to electric vehicles assembled in the United States. There is a baseline credit, depending on the battery capacity and the year the vehicle was placed into the service, for up to $7,500. But there are two more credits: a $4,500 credit “if the final assembly of the vehicle is at a facility in the United States which operates under a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement,” and a $500 credit “if the vehicle model is assembled by a manufacturer which utilizes no less than 50% domestic content in component parts of such vehicles and such vehicles are powered by battery cells which are manufactured within the United States.” So 40 percent of the maximum proposed credit for electric vehicles is linked to the location and labor practices of production.

There is a similar provision for renewable energy projects under the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit covering wind, solar, geothermal, and several other technologies. All these investments enjoy a baseline and a bonus credit “for projects which meet certain prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements the facility meets. Both of these credits are raised if the facility meets the thresholds for domestic content (defined as: “if not less than 55% of the total cost of the components of such product is attributable to components which are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States”). Here too, there is a clear effort to incentivize bodog online casino domestic manufacturing of components for renewable energy.

In the past, such measures have run afoul of WTO rules. One of the first cases, in 2010, that the United States brought against China related to low-carbon energy challenged China’s wind power equipment fund, which offered higher subsidies to projects with domestic components. In 2013, the United States challenged India at the WTO for a similar provision in India’s “National Solar Mission.” Other countries have brought similar cases and generally prevailed. Treating domestic and foreign suppliers evenly is one of the foundations of the WTO, and domestic content provisions have often been found to violate WTO rules.

Adding domestic content provisions to the Build Back Better Act could well spark a new round of trade conflicts. This will happen at a moment when the trade-climate agenda is already under strain. The European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is also likely to be litigated. And the United States is opening a new front in trade tensions with China as it begins to seize solar products tied to forced labor. If anything, we can expect the trade-energy-climate nexus to become thicker and more complicated.

The provisions in the Build Back Better Act expose an inherent and growing tension in climate politics: bodog poker review governments around the world are using the promise of job creation as a basis for upping their ambition. Without measures to ensure that some benefits accrue visibly at home, rather than abroad, how are voters to support policies that might raise costs and lower competitiveness? For the past 15 years, the world has benefited immensely from global supply chains for solar, wind, and batteries, which helped bring down costs. Without global supply chains, costs will not fall as fast; with global supply chains, the domestic push for higher ambition might be tempered as benefits accrue overseas.

The point here is not that the Biden administration and Congress should not advance and favor bodog online casino domestic manufacturing— they should. In this case, they could advance alternate approaches, like subsidizing investment in domestic plant and equipment, to achieve a similar end without sparking a trade dispute. The more important task is for the Biden administration to offer a coherent theory for balancing the need for domestic jobs and manufacturing with a WTO system that is designed to clamp down on such practices. The administration has often said that the trade agenda must align with the imperative of climate change, but so far, it has nothing concrete on how to reconcile the two.

Nikos Tsafos is James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy and Geopolitics with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

To read the full commentary from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, please click here.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_theme for the appeared first on bodog.

This week’s comment is on a project that I thought would be fairly simple, which asked two questions: What happened to the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) negotiations, and how can we restart them? As with many things in life, it may look simple, but it hasn’t turned out that way. We are not finished yet, this as an interim comment, but what we have learned so far demonstrates some sad truths about the trading system that we should have been able to avoid.

The first question—why it tanked in 2016—is easier to answer than the second one, although there is not one single story everyone agrees with. The proximate cause was bicycles. The Chinese wanted them on the list of items subject to duty elimination, and the European Union did not. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. China arrived at the last round of EGA talks at the end of 2016 with a substantially revised list of items along with other demands, all of which were regarded as poison pills by Western negotiators. The view from the other countries was that China had decided it did not want an agreement and rather adroitly constructed a set of demands guaranteed to achieve that outcome.

Why China decided that is a mystery. It had been a reluctant participant from the beginning of EGA negotiations, even though it would probably have been one of the biggest beneficiaries had the agreement been concluded, depending on the final list of items included. At the same time, China, like everybody else, had domestic industries insisting on protection. It also had to deal with the result of the 2016 U.S. election, which may have persuaded officials that anything they negotiated with the Obama administration would at best have to be redone with Trump and at worst would be tossed into the trash can, never to be seen again.

But there was a larger issue as well, which is common to trade negotiations: domestic political pressures from industries that do not want to be exposed to more competition. These are often referred to, somewhat unfortunately, as iron rice bowls—pockets of protection that particular industries have obtained over time and which they do not want to give up. China was not the only guilty party—it was the European Union, after all, that resisted including bicycles because of pressures from its own companies. This suggests that the underlying problem was a familiar one—the inability of countries to move beyond their self-interest and do something for the greater good.

The EGA talks, however, were a bit different from a normal trade negotiation. In the latter, nations recognize they need to give something up in order to get something they want, and the trick is to find a balance of concessions that gives everybody enough to justify agreeing to the final text. The EGA negotiations were about a global commons problem. Countries were all being asked to make collective concessions in the interest of global climate mitigation. It was not simply about market access. Unfortunately, countries were not willing to get beyond the market access question—what will be good for me—and focus on the greater good. So, while we can blame the Chinese for sticking the knife in at the end, it may well have been a failure of imagination on all sides that made the biggest difference.

So, how to restart? We begin with the hope that the issue has taken on greater urgency in the past five years. The damage climate change is wreaking is much more obvious and the need to act promptly more compelling. An EGA is not the biggest thing that needs to happen, but it would be a useful small step forward, as well as evidence the World Trade Organization (WTO) remains capable of making agreements, something that is badly needed.

Second, we hope for a return of U.S. leadership. It disappeared during the Trump administration, but climate is a priority for the new team, and one would think EGA would be a priority. Apparently, however, one would be wrong. Administration officials have missed many opportunities to express support for it, and it is increasingly obvious there is no interest at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in pursuing it. The administration remains allergic to any trade agreements, even those that advance its other priorities, the United States has its own iron rice bowls that do not support anything that will provide more competition, and there is a reluctance to do anything where China would be an obvious beneficiary. Organized labor seems not supportive, and, surprisingly, neither are environmental nongovernmental organizations.

This is a mistake on all their parts. This is an agreement where U.S. leadership could get it across the finish line and where doing so would be good for the environment, good for the WTO, and good for our tarnished global image. If we cannot put our parochial concerns aside in the interest of the global commons on a small issue like this one, how will we do it on the big ones, and how can we expect anybody else to do the same?

William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

To read the full commentary from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, please click here.

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_support anything that appeared first on bodog.

The unprecedented policy support from EU institutions and member state governments throughout the pandemic has helped to cushion the worst impacts on employment and income. This, coupled with the rapid adaptation of firms and households to a ‘new normal,’ has helped to keep national economies afloat and societies running. Unemployment has remained in check and household incomes have been relatively stable thanks to a raft of firm support and social protection measures. Salary subsidies, generous leave allowances and debt holidays extended since early 2020 are just a few of the interventions that would, prior to the pandemic, have been unthinkable in the scale that we saw in 2020, blurring the lines between the public and private sectors.   

While the economic fallout could have been much worse absent the sizeable government support, it is also fair to say member states are not yet out of the woods. Despite government efforts, the threat of poverty is still very real for a segment of people living in the EU. Our recent report, entitled Inclusive Growth at a Crossroads​, found that a further three to five million people are ‘at risk of poverty’ in the EU27 countries today than before the crisis. Europe is in its steepest recession since World War II, with output across the EU shrinking by more than six percent in 2020.

Green shoots of recovery are beginning to emerge as governments reopen national economies. EU member states must now ensure careful and efficient implementation of economic recovery plans that support inclusion, protect the vulnerable and foster economic growth to bounce back.   

Beyond the far-reaching fiscal strategies, monetary policy programs have complemented efforts as central banks have worked to ensure favorable financing conditions and ample liquidity in the banking system. While this has kept debt servicing costs at bay, it has still come at a cost. Notably, debt-to-GDP increased by 13 percentage points on average in 2020 across the EU27 – a steeper increase than during the global financial crisis of 2008.

At the human level, the realities of the pandemic have been highly unequal, and in a way not seen in previous financial crises. Sectors of the economy that are typically less sensitive to business cycles – like entertainment, the arts and accommodation – were severely affected as social distancing limited human interaction. Meanwhile, sectors that are typically more procyclical, such as industry and construction, were less affected despite an economic contraction.

Within the EU27, there is evidence of rising inequality in multiple areas that will need to be proactively addressed by strengthening service delivery and tailored labor market programs to reduce potential scarring. For example, in the labor market, low-wage workers, the self-employed, young people, and those on non-standard contracts were more likely to experience lasting disruptions to their work. This threatens to echo through future generations as the disruptions to schooling could exacerbate existing inequalities by limiting opportunities and suppressing the incomes of tomorrow’s workforce. Parents in poorer households are more likely to report that their children have experienced difficulties with the transition to online schooling. Proactive support to children at risk of early dropout and those whose learning has been most compromised will be needed as the new school year sets in.

Since the turn of the year, the vaccination rollout in the EU27 countries has provided a cause for optimism and improving the prospects for recovery. Supportive monetary and sustainable fiscal policies will still be required to carefully balance the support targeted to those that need it most. The EU’s recovery plan is an opportunity, aimed at putting the member states on a more sustainable path. This would include repairing the damage from the COVID-19 crisis, while promoting and accelerating the green and digital transitions.

Countries are now at a crossroads as they deal with the aftermath of a difficult eighteen months. And while the pandemic challenge is not yet over, there are glimmers of hope that allow populations to look forward to gradual reopening with cautious optimism. As pressures related to the pandemic ease, countries have the opportunity to pivot towards more sustainable growth with a renewed focus on fostering resilience and cohesion.​

Gallina A. Vincelette is the World Bank’s Country Director for the European Union (EU), based in Brussels, Belgium. She is responsible for guiding the Bank’s operational and knowledge engagement with client countries and the EU institutions.

Reena Badiani-Magnusson is a Senior Economist at the World Bank. She has worked on social protection, human development and poverty issues over the past 9 years at the World Bank in several countries across Europe and Central Asia, East Asia and the Pacific and Africa. Reena holds a PhD from the Department of Economics at Yale University. She additionally holds a Masters in Environmental Economics from the MPSE in Toulouse University. 

To read the full commentary from World Bank Blogs, please click here. 

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_in previous financial appeared first on bodog.

From the production of renewable agricultural feedstocks to the many circular end-of-life options for the materials themselves, the plant-based products industry is bringing the circular economy closer to reality. Looking more specifically at economic benefits, the infographic below describes a few metrics that show how plant-based products are driving economic growth, particularly in rural areas:

Growing the Feedstock

American agriculture has the capacity to grow a wide array of potential feedstock crops required to sustain a robust plant-based materials industry without impacting domestic food supply or hampering America’s trading role as the world’s breadbasket. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, farming directly employs 2.6 million Americans and exports over 20 percent of production. The plant-based products industry represents a wide range of uses and applications for American crops that can both increase and maintain existing demand for Americancommodities and value-added products both domestic and abroad.

Manufacturing of Plant-Based Materials

The emergence or expansion of plant-based product manufacturing facilities immediately stimulates local economies and connects these communities to the global supply chain through the innovative materials created at these facilities. In fact, the plant-based products industry contributes over $57 billion to the U.S. economy through exports and supports another 550,000 global trade-related jobs. In terms of direct domestic employment, currently the U.S. biorefining, biobased chemicals, and biobased plastic bottles and packaging industries employ over 15,000 people. As noted in the infographic, these are well-paying, skilled jobs. As consumer demand for more sustainable alternatives to traditional materials and packaging continues to increase around the world, the expansion of plant-based materials manufacturing to meet this demand would create more economic opportunities for producers and increase international competitiveness of U.S. bioeconomy sector moving forward.

End of Life and Conversion of Plant-Based Materials into Manufacturing Feedstock

Plant-based alternatives offer a wide suite of circular end-of-life management options, ranging from recyclability to compostability, with each option possessing its own opportunity for job creation. Composting is a particularly advantageous end-of-life option for many plant-based materials. The Institute for Local Self Reliance has estimated that for every 1 million tons of organic material composted, and its subsequent use, almost 1,400 new full-time jobs could potentially be supported.

America is not alone in its desire to seek out better waste management options. A thriving domestic plant-based materials industry provides countries around the world with opportunities to import these critical materials for transitioning to a better waste management future.

Conclusion

Growing a robust plant-based products industry presents a chance to create economic opportunity throughout America. Not only in the immediate term, but in the long term as the U.S. industry seeks out new ways to compete more effectively in a rapidly-evolving international market of advanced materials. From preserving the livelihoods of the farmers who grow agricultural feedstocks, supporting climate changes solutions, to the manufacturing of the materials themselves and the practical benefits of a wide range of end-of-life options, plant-based materials contribute positively to the shift towards a more circular global economy.

Jessica Bowman serves as the Plant Based Products Council’s (PBPC) Executive Director. In her position, she leads PBPC’s efforts in advocating for using more renewable, plant-based materials and ensuring they become part of the circular bioeconomy.

Jessica joins PBPC from the American Chemistry Council, where she served as Executive Director of the FluoroCouncil, and previously as Senior Director of Environmental Affairs for the Airports Council International – North America. She holds a J.D. with a concentration in environmental law from University of Maryland School of Law and a B.S. in GeoEnvironmental Engineering from Penn State University.

To read additional commentary from the Plant Based Products Council (PBPC), please click here. 

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_plant-based materials appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_World Trade Organization appeared first on bodog.

Climate change presents huge risks to the functioning of the world’s economies.

This matters to the IMF because climate change presents huge risks to the functioning of the world’s economies. The right climate policies can address these risks and also bring tremendous opportunities for transformative investments, economic growth, and green jobs—so much so that our Board recently approved proposals to include climate change in our regular country economic surveillance and our financial stability assessment program.

At the heart of our policy discussions with member countries is carbon pricing—now widely accepted as the most important policy tool to achieve the drastic cuts to emissions we need. By making polluting energy sources more expensive than clean sources, carbon pricing provides incentives to improve energy efficiency and to re-direct innovation efforts towards green technologies. Carbon pricing needs to be supported by a broader package of measures to enhance its effectiveness and acceptability including public investment in clean technology networks (like grid upgrades to accommodate renewables) and measures to assist vulnerable households, workers, and regions. Nonetheless, at the global level, additional measures equivalent to a carbon price of $75 per ton or more are required by 2030.

Ahead of the United Nations’ 26th annual climate change conference (COP26) in November—the most important climate conference since Paris 2015—we see promising signs of growing climate ambition. Many countries have stated new climate objectives—60 countries have already pledged to be emissions-neutral by midcentury and some, including the European Union and United States, have offered stronger near-term pledges. Importantly, carbon pricing schemes are proliferating—more than 60 have been implemented globally, including key initiatives this year in China and Germany.

Yet stronger and more coordinated action in the decade ahead is critical.

While some countries are moving ahead aggressively, ambition varies country-by-country such that four-fifthsof global emissions remain unpriced and the global average emissions price is only $3 per ton. As a knock-on effect, some countries and regions with high or rising carbon prices are considering placing charges on the carbon content of imports from places without similar schemes. From a global climate perspective, however, such border carbon adjustments are insufficient instruments as carbon embodied in trade flows is typically less than 10 percent of countries’ total emissions.

In part, the slower progress reflects how hard it can be for countries to unilaterally scale up mitigation policies to meet their Paris Agreement commitments—not least because of concerns about how it may affect their competitiveness and worries that others may not match their policy actions. The near-universal country participation in the Paris Agreement, so critical for its legitimacy, does not make for easy negotiation.

So how do we get carbon pricing to where it needs to be within ten years? A new paper from IMF staff, still under discussion with the IMF Board and membership, proposes the creation of an international carbon price floor arrangement that complements the Paris Agreement and is:

1. Launched by the largest emitters. The chart shows, that China, India, the US and the EU will account for nearly two-thirds of projected global CO2emissions in 2030 (if no new mitigation actions are taken). Including the full G20 takes this to 85 percent. Once launched, the scheme could gradually expand to encompass other countries.

2. Anchored on a minimum carbon price. This is an efficient, concrete, and easily understood policy instrument. Simultaneous action among large emitters to scale up carbon pricing would deliver collective action against climate change while decisively addressing competitiveness concerns. The focus on a minimum carbon price parallels the current discussion on a minimum for the tax rate in international corporate taxation. More broadly, international harmonization through tax rate floors has a long tradition in Europe.

3. Designed pragmatically. The arrangement needs to be equitable, flexible and account for the differentiated responsibilities of countries given, among other factors, historical emissions and development levels. One way to do this is to have, say, two or three different price levels in the agreement that vary according to accepted measures of a country’s development. The arrangement could also accommodate countries where carbon pricing is not currently feasible for domestic political reasons, so long as they achieve equivalent emissions reductions through other policy instruments.

An illustrative example shows that reinforcing Paris Agreement pledges with a three-tier price floor among just six participants (Canada, China, European Union, India, United Kingdom, United States) with prices of $75, $50, and $25 for advanced, high, and low-income emerging markets, respectively and in addition to current policies, could help achieve a 23 percent reduction in global emissions below baseline by 2030. This is enough to bring emissions in line with keeping global warming below 2°C.

The application of carbon pricing across Canadian provinces gives a good prototype for how a price floor could translate to the international level. The federal government requires provinces and territories to implement a minimum carbon price rising progressively from CAN$10 per ton in 2018 to CAN$50 in 2022 and CAN$170 in 2030. Jurisdictions are free to meet this requirement through carbon taxes or emissions trading systems.

At the international level, a well-designed carbon price floor agreement would yield benefits to individual countries as well as to the collective. All participants would be better off from stabilizing the global climate system, and countries would enjoy domestic environmental benefits from curbing fossil fuel combustion—most importantly, fewer deaths from local air pollution.

There is no time to waste in putting in place such an arrangement. Imagine us in 2030. Let us make sure that we will not look back at 2021 just to regret the missed opportunity for effective action. Let us instead look back with pride at global progress towards keeping global warming below the 2oC threshold. We need coordinated action now—and it should be centered on an international carbon price floor.

Vitor Gaspar, a Portuguese national, is Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department. Prior to joining the IMF, he held a variety of senior policy positions in Banco de Portugal, including most recently as Special Adviser. He served as Minister of State and Finance of Portugal during 2011–2013. He was head of the European Commission’s Bureau of European Policy Advisers during 2007–2010, and director-general of research at the European Central Bank from 1998 to 2004. Mr. Gaspar holds a PhD and a post-doctoral agregado in Economics from Universidade Nova de Lisboa. He has also studied at Universidade Católica Portuguesa.

Ian Parry is Principal Environmental Fiscal Policy Expert in the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, specializing in fiscal analysis of climate change, environment, and energy issues. Before joining the Fund in 2010, Ian held the Allen V. Kneese Chair in Environmental Economics at Resources for the Future.

To read the full commentary from the International Monetary Fund, please click here.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_in line appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_that we’ve seen in the appeared first on bodog.

Currently, companies disclose climate risks in securities filings only if they deem such risks material according to the SEC’s 2010 guidance. Even if companies choose to issue climate disclosures, they face no federal obligation to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Act would change that by requiring companies to submit interactive, electronic reports disclosing their direct and indirect GHG emissions as well as the input parameters and assumptions (e.g., discount rates and time horizons) used to support those figures. These requirements include identification of the total amount of fossil-fuel-related assets owned and managed and the total cost of emissions, which companies must calculate pursuant to the federal government’s social cost of carbon figures. The Act’s emissions reporting requirements are similar, but not identical, to those proposed recently in California, raising possible preemption concerns if both pieces of legislation pass (or, at the very least, the potential for duplicative disclosure requirements). Like the proposed California rules, the Act would require the SEC to publish a report each year on its website that compiles companies’ disclosures.

Not only would the Act require disclosure of emissions, but it would also force companies to quantify the financial impact of climate risks on their bottom line, describe their overarching climate strategies and detail board-level oversight of climate risks and opportunities. Eschewing the current, principles-based disclosure regime, companies would need to account for different scenarios, including one where global temperatures rise to more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and another in which they do not. Additionally, the Act would require companies to identify specific steps taken to address climate risks—including both physical risks and those resulting from the political, legal and economic transition to a climate-resilient society—and indicate how their strategies have evolved over time. Any qualitative disclosures would be required to rely on quantitative analyses; a requirement intended to address, at least partially, so-called “greenwashing” concerns.

The requirements outlined above would apply to all public companies, but the Act also provides more fulsome disclosure obligations for companies engaged “in the commercial development of fossil fuels,” including: (1) an estimate of total and disaggregated amounts of direct and indirect GHG emissions attributable to combustion, flaring, process emissions, directly vented emissions, fugitive emission/leaks and land use changes; (2) the sensitivity of reserve levels to future price scenarios (informed by the government’s social cost of carbon estimates); (3) the percentage of companies’ reserves developed under different scenarios; (4) a forecast for development prospects under different scenarios; (5) potential GHG emissions embedded in proved and probable reserves; and (6) methodologies used for detecting and mitigating fugitive methane emissions. The final category requires a number of very specific disclosures of particular relevance to the oil and gas sector, such as data or information concerning the frequency of leak checks, processes and technology to detect leaks, the percentage of assets covered by disclosed methodologies, reduction goals for methane leaks, the amount of water withdrawn from freshwater sources to support operations and the percentage of water from regions of waste stress or wastewater management challenges.

To further the goal of providing complete climate-related information to investors, the Act directs the SEC to promulgate disclosure standards that foster comparisons both within and across industries, coupled with a mechanism to track how companies mitigate their exposure to climate risks over time. While the Act leaves it to the SEC to promulgate specific standards applicable to the finance, insurance, transportation, electric power and mining sectors, it defaults to disclosure pursuant to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in the event the Commission fails to issue standards within two years of the Act’s enactment. This default provision suggests that the SEC likely would look closely at the well-recognized TCFD standards in promulgating any standards.

The bill now moves to the House floor, where Speaker Pelosi will determine whether the bill will be wrapped into a broader climate package or proceed to a floor vote on its own. The Senate Banking Committee has not yet considered Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) Senate counterpart. Undoubtedly controversial, the bill may not survive both houses of Congress. However, its failure to become legislation will not doom mandatory climate disclosure requirements, as the SEC is in the process of reviewing its 2010 guidance and considering potential climate and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure rules. While the Commission might wait for Congress to act in order to increase the likelihood that its regulations survive judicial review, we expect it will be prepared to publish updated guidance or proposed rules promptly in absence of congressional action. SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s public statements all but confirm that the Commission is poised to move forward with new disclosure rules, as he recently characterized climate risk and human capital disclosure rules as one of his “top priorities” and “an early focus” of his tenure.

To read the original commentary post from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, please visit here

Lucas F. Torres advises public energy companies and their underwriters in capital-raising transactions, in particular, in the electric and gas utility space.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_Lyman, Cynthia Perez appeared first on bodog.