Students of the game will recall that the EU “High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment” was the body — cleverly named, but designed to minimize, or else lash out at the world in retaliation for, Europe’s self-inflicted wounds — that originally called for border adjustments to counter the unfair competitive advantage of products form the US and China where they don’t punitively tax energy. Such an oversight is apparently an impermissible subsidy.

They have weighed in again, although they seemed to have learned after, I can only presume, all of the attention over that pathetic cry for help, and have buried that thinking in generous helpings of ‘crat-speak seasoned with Eurogobbledygook. When specific to any degree, they typically opt for “standards” and “labeling” and the like instead of climate protectionism, though there is the occasionally less-opaque offering such as “Fiscal and financial incentives both positive and negative could stimulate more sustainable purchasing decisions, in line with state aid rules” (emphasis in original, presumably for American readers to “insert theatrical continental accent here”), but generally they are saying nothing at all, and therefore possibly everything. You see, they clearly feel strongly about, e.g., providing third world employment through ship-breaking, but I can’t tell whether they’re for it or against it. (Educated Hint: Go with your Spidey-senses on that one.)

I’m going to ice my head then look for a Eurocrat to slug. After reading it, you’ll understand.