Comments on: Markey’s Ban on Petroleum Exports Not Legal under Trade Treaties (Updated Feb. 15, 2012) http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/ Climate Change News & Analysis Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:41:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Sen. Wyden’s Anti-Keystone Amendment Goes Down in Flameshttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68735 Sen. Wyden’s Anti-Keystone Amendment Goes Down in Flames Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:52:52 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68735 [...] in both the House and Senate for expeditious approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.As this blog has argued previously, proposals like Wyden’s to ban exports of U.S. petroleum products would violate U.S. treaty [...] [...] in both the House and Senate for expeditious approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.As this blog has argued previously, proposals like Wyden’s to ban exports of U.S. petroleum products would violate U.S. treaty [...]

]]> By: Will Markey’s Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68391 Will Markey’s Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him? Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:40:39 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68391 [...] Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?Obama’s Budget Renews “Sharing is Caring” EconomicsMarkey’s Ban on Petroleum Exports Not Legal under Trade Treaties (Updated Feb. 15, 2012)Hell, that’s just one month’s work for Sierra Club…Update on Job Losses, [...] [...] Keystone Export Ban Come Back to Bite Him?Obama’s Budget Renews “Sharing is Caring” EconomicsMarkey’s Ban on Petroleum Exports Not Legal under Trade Treaties (Updated Feb. 15, 2012)Hell, that’s just one month’s work for Sierra Club…Update on Job Losses, [...]

]]> By: Marlo Lewishttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68322 Marlo Lewis Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:14:07 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68322 Scott, thank you for this information. It means that Markey's proposal -- which is a targeted export ban -- would violate GATT even if it were expanded so as not violate the national treatment principle. Scott, thank you for this information. It means that Markey’s proposal — which is a targeted export ban — would violate GATT even if it were expanded so as not violate the national treatment principle.

]]> By: Scott Lincicomehttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/10/markeys-ban-on-petroleum-exports-not-legal-under-trade-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-68241 Scott Lincicome Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:28:41 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12931#comment-68241 "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."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 "prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures..." 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's not what Markey's amendment does, of course.I seriously doubt, however, that Markey has considered - or cares about - any of this. Political hacks rarely do. “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.”

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 “prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures…” 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’s not what Markey’s amendment does, of course.

I seriously doubt, however, that Markey has considered – or cares about – any of this. Political hacks rarely do.

]]>