<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Markey&#8217;s Ban on Petroleum Exports Not Legal under Trade Treaties (Updated Feb. 15, 2012)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/</link>
	<description>Climate Change News &#38; Analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 07:59:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sen. Wyden&#8217;s Anti-Keystone Amendment Goes Down in Flames</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68735</link>
		<dc:creator>Sen. Wyden&#8217;s Anti-Keystone Amendment Goes Down in Flames</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] in both the House and Senate for expeditious approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.As this blog has argued previously, proposals like Wyden&#8217;s to ban exports of U.S. petroleum products would violate U.S. treaty [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in both the House and Senate for expeditious approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.As this blog has argued previously, proposals like Wyden&#8217;s to ban exports of U.S. petroleum products would violate U.S. treaty [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Markey&#8217;s Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68391</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Markey&#8217;s Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?Obama’s Budget Renews “Sharing is Caring” EconomicsMarkey&#8217;s Ban on Petroleum Exports Not Legal under Trade Treaties (Updated Feb. 15, 2012)Hell, that&#8217;s just one month&#8217;s work for Sierra Club&#8230;Update on Job Losses, [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?Obama’s Budget Renews “Sharing is Caring” EconomicsMarkey&#8217;s Ban on Petroleum Exports Not Legal under Trade Treaties (Updated Feb. 15, 2012)Hell, that&#8217;s just one month&#8217;s work for Sierra Club&#8230;Update on Job Losses, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marlo Lewis</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68322</link>
		<dc:creator>Marlo Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scott, thank you for this information. It means that Markey&#039;s proposal -- which is a targeted export ban -- would violate GATT even if it were expanded so as not violate the national treatment principle.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, thank you for this information. It means that Markey&#8217;s proposal &#8212; which is a targeted export ban &#8212; would violate GATT even if it were expanded so as not violate the national treatment principle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Lincicome</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68241</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Lincicome</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Only if Congress were to ban all petroleum product exports, including those made from oil produced in the USA, would Markey’s amendment not flout U.S. treaty obligations.&quot;

Actually, no, that export ban would violate GATT Article XI (http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm#articleXI), which prohibits &quot;prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures...&quot; on imports or exports.  The US could theoretically impose a really high export duty to discourage exportation, but it could not impose an outright ban without running afoul of Article XI.   That&#039;s not what Markey&#039;s amendment does, of course.  

I seriously doubt, however, that Markey has considered - or cares about - any of this.  Political hacks rarely do.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Only if Congress were to ban all petroleum product exports, including those made from oil produced in the USA, would Markey’s amendment not flout U.S. treaty obligations.&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually, no, that export ban would violate GATT Article XI (<a href="http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm#articleXI" rel="nofollow">http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm#articleXI</a>), which prohibits &#8220;prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures&#8230;&#8221; on imports or exports.  The US could theoretically impose a really high export duty to discourage exportation, but it could not impose an outright ban without running afoul of Article XI.   That&#8217;s not what Markey&#8217;s amendment does, of course.  </p>
<p>I seriously doubt, however, that Markey has considered &#8211; or cares about &#8211; any of this.  Political hacks rarely do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 12/22 queries in 0.016 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 279/308 objects using disk: basic

 Served from: www.globalwarming.org @ 2013-05-15 08:12:37 by W3 Total Cache --