Obama: Greenhouse Gases OK For China To Spew

[MannyGoldstein]

Here we go again with this "free" trade uber alles crap:

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate.html?_r=1&hp

Obama Warns Against Trade Penalties in Energy Bill

"WASHINGTON — A day after strongly praising energy legislation passed by the House, President Obama on Sunday spoke out against a provision in the bill that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept global-warming pollution limits.

So if China spews greenhouse gases we doubly lose:

1. Domestic manufacturing is at an even larger disadvantage to China because the Chinese don't have expensive limits to contend with. So more manufacturing will move to China.

2. And, we get even more greenhouse gases as more manufacturing moves to pollution-limit-free China.

Yee-ha!

Given the tepidity of the limits in this bill, it's beginning to sound like this legislation was written as a favor to our low-cost trading partners and the bankers who serve them, with a side order of throwing a teeny morsel to the Left. I don't *want* to think that, but it has a distinct odor to it.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Punish the Americans - reward the polluters

“At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade,” Mr. Obama said, “I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there.”

He said that certain energy-intensive American industries, such as steel, aluminum, paper and glass, had legitimate concerns about low-cost competitors in developing nations. But he warned that trade sanctions that are based on the extent to which other countries curb carbon dioxide emissions might be illegal and counterproductive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate.html?_r=2&hp

WTF: China ALREADY screws America with a 20 -40% tarrif on American made goods entering their country. Now Obama warns the US against protectionist measures.

WTF: Obama is afraid it will cost the Chinese some jobs - WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT ALL THE AMERICANS ABOUT TO LOSE THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF THIS BILL

Mr Obama - get a clue - you need to fire some of your advisors

[Deja Q]

10. Harsh, but your subject line really hits a chord.

Especially when you mention tariffs; everybody working together and the rest of it -- why the double standards...

[FreakinDJ]

17. So far China and India have REFUSED to lower their tarrifs

while America has extended a 2% tarrif in good faith.

I can't even say "On going trade negotiations" since China and India broke off negotiations in early 2007.

And we have all heard Mr Obama state many times over raising tarrifs are not the answer, so I don't see any chance of that happening. The end result will be Multinational Corps screwing over the American worker yet again

[Deja Q]

19. Holy SHIT.

If that's true, especially the "ongoing negotiations" since those two isolationist countries broke things off in 2007 (sounds like isolationism to me if they're not going to talk with other world leaders)...

[FreakinDJ]

28. They broke off negotiations in 2008

And mean while China and Idia still charge 20 - 40% tarrifs on American made goods

Tariffs: WTO talks collapse after India and China clash with America over farm products· Stalemate 'has cost world $130bn in tariff savings'
· Mandelson under pressure from Sarkozy to reject deal

Last-ditch talks to salvage a deal in the seven-year Doha round of global trade negotiations broke down dramatically in Geneva last night, after India, China and the US fell out over measures to protect poor farmers.

As recriminations began, the head of World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, warned that the wrangling among the organisation's leading members had allowed a package worth more than $130bn (£65bn) a year in tariff savings to "slip through their fingers".

Clinching a deal would have provided a powerful vote of confidence in globalisation from the WTO's 153 members, in the face of the world economic slowdown. But after nine gruelling days, Lamy was forced to accept that the US, China and India were still too far apart for a deal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/wto.india

The WTO Negotiations: Status and Prospect

The recent WTO ministerial meeting that started on July 21, 2008 was officially ended on July 30, 2008 without concluding an agreement. The meeting broke down when a group of seven key WTO members (namely, the US, EU, Japan, Australia, China, India, and Brazil) failed to reach an agreement on a compromise proposal drafted by the Director General (DG) of the WTO.

The particular issue that caused the impasse and ultimately the collapse of the talks was the so-called special safeguard mechanisms (SSMs) – a safety-net provision that would allow developing countries to raise tariffs to counter import surges. There is an agreement that such a measure would be available to developing countries. The contention arose with respect to the level of import surges that would justify a safeguard measure and the extent to which import tariffs would be raised to counter the surge

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/psc12295

France's agriculture minister said Wednesday that "big emerging countries'' were to blame for the collapse of World Trade Organization talks on opening up the global economy.

The president of a leading French farmers' union, meanwhile, hailed the outcome of the talks. "It's reason that won out,'' Jean-Michel Lemetayer of the FNSEA union said.

Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier said on France's RTL radio that China, India and Brazil thwarted a "balanced accord'' at the talks in Geneva by "blocking imports and wanting to export to us.''

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2008/07/31/92362.htm

[flpoljunkie]

57. Krugman disagrees with Obama on this, as well.

June 29, 2009, 9:07 AM

Climate, trade, Obama

I think the president has this wrong:

President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.

And I also think the report gives a false impression of what this is about, making it seem as if it’s nothing but dirty politics:

The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the night before the vote Friday, that requires the president, starting in 2020, to impose a “border adjustment” — or tariff — on certain goods from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions. The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit permission from Congress.

The provision was added to secure the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because of fears of job losses in heavy industry.

The truth is that there’s perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments related to cap-and-trade. The way to think about it is in terms of a well-established theory — the theory of non-economic objectives in trade policy — that owes its origins to Jagdish Bhagwati, who certainly can’t be accused of being a protectionist. The essential idea is that if you have a non-economic objective, such as self-sufficiency in food production, you should choose policy instruments to align incentives with that objective; in normal circumstances this leads to consumer or producer intervention, rarely to tariffs.

But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.

And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax — a tax on consumers — which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.

And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.

What’s happening here, I think, is that people are relying on what Paul Samuelson called an economic “shibboleth” — they’re relying on some slogan rather than thinking through the underlying economics. In this case the shibboleth is “free trade good, protection bad”, when what the economics really says is that incentives should reflect the marginal cost of greenhouse gases in all goods, wherever produced — which in this case happens to imply border adjustments.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/climate-trade-obama/

[cliffordu]

2. I don't buy anything new made in china. Period.

[Deja Q]

6. Maybe if we all stopped buying from them until quality and emissions controls are put in?

Or would that be deemed a penalty too? :crazy:

Best of luck to convince everybody to do that too...

[madmax]

21. It's hard to do but,

I try my best. Wanted to buy my little dog a toy not made in China so check out baby toys. ALL of them are were made in China. I tied a knot in an old sweat sock. Voila! His toy and I recycled.

Seriously, we don't make jack shit in country expect for burgers and fried chicken.

[cliffordu]

30. And financial "instruments" don't forget them...

[invictus]

43. "we don't make jack shit in country expect for burgers and fried chicken."

Isn't "free trade" great? :(

[FreakinDJ]

46. Same thing happened in Argentina

when they embraced the whole Free Trade / Globalization bunch of Bullshit

[cliffordu]

27. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything;

I don't own a car, either.

Your mileage may vary.

[Umbral]

3. Not so much a 'morsel' as a slap on the face.

What I don't get are all the people that think that this somehow constitutes 'Winning'. Winning what?

[jefferson_dem]

11. Boehner?

That you?

[high density]

4. How about we worry about our own energy problems in the energy bill

and pass a trade bill to deal with our suckfest relationship with China and these other shithole countries that are driving down worldwide wages.

[Deja Q]

8. Once their wages come up then it won't be a problem any longer.

Or, if nothing else, they too will be discarded for something cheaper and then we'll get to listen to them whine. :)

I sure as bleep don't know...

[Deja Q]

5. Let's see what happens.

But, yeah, I think it's pretty weak.

Such energy bills have to be worldwide. The US is trying to do its part, so there must be a good reason why we'll let other countries not do their part. It's certainly not in their best interests either.

It's a tightrope to be walking on...

There may be ways other or better than tariffs. I'd love to know what they are.

But this is the same President who wants EVERYBODY to work together. That would add weight to the "no protectionism" argument, but it certainly detracts from global climate and energy issues. So why make exceptions?

Or, rather, instead of penalties, what other options are there and how are they enforced?

[Buzz Clik]

7. This should be fun. I'm posting this after reading only the title.

I predict that the title is bullshit.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Check Back And Let Us Know If By Deed, It's Other Than The Truth n/t

[Buzz Clik]

13. Yeah, as if you didn't know how this would turn out. See post #12

[Buzz Clik]

12. My prediction (that the title of the OP is bullshit) was pretty much dead on.

As it turns out, Obama didn't say that excessive emissions of CO₂ were ok, simply that such emissions did not warrent trade sacntions. Obama's stance is 100% consistent with the original Kyoto protols and the follow-up agreements set in Montreal.

Why is it necessary to post total crap, particularly when the author knows better than anyone else that it's a lie?

[Teaser]

16. "particularly when the author knows better than anyone else that it's a lie"

If the intent is to mislead, posting obvious lies is perfectly consistent behavior.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Zero Consequences Is Indistinguishable From Approval

Words don't count - actions do.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Not a chance.

The Kyoto Protocols were set up with NO consequences at all, yet clearly approval of not reducing CO₂ was NEVER implicit.

This is just another case of DU hysteria.

[Deja Q]

20. Thank you for posting.

Especially as it's easy to get wound up around here, having posters like you to add in another perspective or context genuinely IS worthwhile.

:thumbsup:

[vaberella]

36. Hi-Five BC---there are people on here wanting to rile others up.

And the others are just as dumb for falling for it. Secondly, I think we have to look at the way the nation works and realize they are a sovereign entity.

[ecstatic]

58. posted in wrong place nt

[villager]

14. Sure, what the hell, they live on a *different Earth* than we do...

Oh wait...

[villager]

15. and yet, despite being almost entirely environmentally inconsequential, the Senate still won't pass

the thing, and the middling "Democrats" will cave, and cave again, to make it even more of a sop to lunatic rightwing polluters (many of whom, it turns out, are their political benefactors....)

[beachmom]

23. I think it is more that this sort of provision should not be in a cap & trade bill.

[invictus]

24. Manny, you hit it right on the nail with this comment.

"Given the tepidity of the limits in this bill, it's beginning to sound like this legislation was written as a favor to our low-cost trading partners and the bankers who serve them, with a side order of throwing a teeny morsel to the Left."

[babylonsister]

25. Oh jeeze. So now Obama can determine what gases China can

or can't spew? And he should piss them off over something he has no control over? :eyes: Sure.

[Lasher]

26. This is where I have a problem with greenhouse gas control.

Every week to 10 days China turns up another new coal-fired plant that's big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. India is right behind them. In the US we brought just one new coal-fired plant online this year, and its technology provides much cleaner operation than those in China or India.

We're hurting ourselves for nothing as long as we just do our part while others keep turning up these plants hand over fist. We all share the same atmosphere.

Edit to furnish link: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

[FreakinDJ]

29. No such thing as "Free Trade"

Last I checked China and India still have 20 - 40% tarrifs on American made goods

[Lasher]

34. Got a link to support that?

Not calling you a liar, I just want more scoop on that.

[FreakinDJ]

38. China charges 25% tariffs on imported auto parts

WTO Rules Against China's Auto Parts Tariffs
Posted by: Frederik Balfour on December 16

Chinese auto industry pride was high on December 15 when upstart car maker BYD Auto stole the march on GM, Toyota and Nissan by launching the first mass produced plug-in hybrid car. But that euphoria was short lasted: late in the day news broke that the World Trade Organization had ruled against China, upholding a decision that it had illegally imposed discriminatory tariffs on imported auto parts. Currently China charges 25% tariffs on imported auto parts used in cars which do not source 40% of their components locally. China must no apply the standard 10% tariff to all parts, regardless of what portion of the final product they comprise. The ruling should prove a boost for the likes of foreign luxury car makers such as BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz which don’t sell enough cars in China to make it worthwhile for suppliers to produce for them. It will also help foreign carmakers to introduce more models into the China market if they can source parts from outside the country that are already made for other markets.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/eyeonasia/archives/2008/12/wto_rules_again.html

China and India even impose tarrifs on each other

India announces tariffs on Chinese aluminum: trade war fears on the rise
In January, New Delhi banned Chinese toys for six months, for safety reasons. Annual trade between the two countries amounts to 51.8 billion dollars, but is increasing rapidly.

Hong Kong (AsiaNews/Agencies) - India is announcing new import tariffs on Chinese aluminum, and says that it is studying similar measures for other products. There is a growing risk of a trade war between the two Asian giants.

G. K. Pillai, India's commerce secretary, explained yesterday his concern over the sharp rise in imports of cheap Chinese goods, saying that "you can't export to an extent, which can kill my domestic industry . . . China is a non-market economy," with an elevated production capacity.

The new tax will go into effect within one or two weeks. According to the Indian media, Chinese aluminum imports more than doubled in the fiscal year 2007-2008, reaching 252.89 million dollars, while in the first quarter of this fiscal year, they totaled 82.74 million.

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14540

[Lasher]

42. OK, thanks for that.

Very interesting, and good ammo to expose the 'free' trade scams that are killing the US middle class.

[FreakinDJ]

44. Here is a better link

There are even more duty taxes on other items - as much as 50%

http://www.china-tax.net./business/content07-3a1.html

Automobiles was the BIG Reduction - down to 25% from 50%

[Lasher]

48. It's almost like people are conspiring to make worldwide standards of living the same.

But without doing anything to encourage more equitable distribution of wealth within countries like the US. That would be tyranny.

[HamdenRice]

50. You've misstated the meaning of that provision. They do not impose a 25% tariff

universally. All that means is that each car needs to have 40% of the parts sourced in China and if you meet that quota, then the tariff is a standard 10%. The 25% tariff is a penalty imposed for not using at least a 40% minority of parts from China.

[FreakinDJ]

52. I don't think so

For a car to have 40% of the parts made domestically it would be made domestic ly. Thus the term "imported"

Additionally what agreements does the USA and China currently employ toward tariffs?

[and-justice-for-all]

31. You can not make them do anything....

you just have persuade them that it is in their best interest to make the changes.

[salguine]

32. I'm firmly convinced that we, as a species, are fucked. I'd bet that 90% of the

Earth's present human population will be gone by 2100.

[phleshdef]

33. Yea lets start shit with China and try to control what they do when we are at peace with them.

What a splendid fucking idea. Hell, North Korea is all ready threatening to annihilate us with nukes. We might as well piss off their nearest most powerful neighbor while we are at it.

I think we should work with China to curb global warming issues. I'm just glad my President is a whole lot more thoughtful and adult about the way to do it than the OP.

[babylonsister]

39. Amen! nt

[vaberella]

35. How much praise did Obama get for not getting in Iran?! Look at China the same way.

They are a fuckin' sovereign nation and unfortunately how do we sanction another member of the UN and SC. All we should be doing is negotiating and talking to them. We started this mess considering they were behind the developmental pool for a while, but we have to show them there are other ways to stay developed, compete without aiding the destruction of the world as we know it.

[karynnj]

56. This is not the same thing

China is currently the largest polluter. There is no global warming solution that does not include China. Your point that they are a developing nation, was addressed at both Bali and Poznan. The goals for developing nations are structured differently than those for developed nations. That was a key difference from Kyoto which did not include them at all -- something that a Senate billed passed 4 moths before the treaty was completed listed as needed for them to pass it.

The fact is that China has committed $200 million for clean energy this year. Kerry addressed this issue in response to Inhofe in teh senate last week. Here is a post with the links - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8498168 (the third Kerry link also has the transcript.)

[quidam56]

37. See the new and improved clean, green, hybrid coal industry at work in Wise County, Virginia

http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

Appalachia is loosing it's environment and heritage to blow up the mountains, destroying lakes, rivers and streams to ship the coal to China to power it's Empire. The trade off is we can buy cheap toxic crap made in China and get their green house gas pollution, look at LA.

[Simplyaverage]

40. Not fair

if you ask me. All countries should be treated in a similar way regarding these resolutions.

[debbierlus]

41. Seeing as how they own us, that's not a very surprising statement

We sold ourselves to China.

They have the money. They have the power.

[FreakinDJ]

45. They drove up the price of oil with subsidies

The Chinese and Indian governments subsidized oil in their country 25 and 30% respectively. The tax proceeds from VAT taxes paid on goods shipped to the United States

So basically we are paying for our own economic demise

[bertman]

47. "I don't *want* to think that, but it has a distinct odor to it." Yes, a distinct odor indeed.

As in a steaming dog turd that is pasted all over the bottom of your sneaker.

With all this international jockeying to see who has to do the LEAST to save the oxygen-breathing species on Terra, it's going to be one hell of a place to live for our kids and grandkids.

Repeat after me "Short-term profit is more important than long-term vision."

[rockymountaindem]

49. I'm beginning to wonder if having this fail in the Senate wouldn't be a bad thing

If we're going to put a burden on US manufacturers without protecting them from being undercut (or being turned to outsourcing) by foreign competition without any restrictions at all, then yes, I can see why some people would be upset at this bill.

The fact that we won't stand up to China on trade, and that our "free trade" policy is essentially unilateral economic disarmament, really angers me.

[vincna]

51. Thank you for posting this

It's about time we started to defend our own manufacturing capability and stopped giving China and India a free pass when it comes to protecting the environment. Does anyone remember when the Bejing Olympics started and China had to shut down basic industry so the pollution spewing into the atmosphere wouldn't be so obvious to the world? Our manufacturing plants spend the money it takes to use Best Available Control Technologies (BACT for those who know a bit about air permitting). Can someone tell me what passes for BACT at a Chinese power plant? Mechanical separators (literally taking the rocks out of the exhaust) and nothing else? Our plants have NOx controls, use scrubbers or burn compliance coal, have baghouses and/or precipitators and are starting to implement controls for mercury. Are the Chinese doing anything?

Let's talk about wages and the Chinese standard of living. How do Chinese wgaes and benefits stack up against what is paid in America? Would we tolerate our workers being paid at Chinese levels?

I routinely spend extra money to buy goods made in the USA, when I can find them, and when I can't, I'll buy anything that isn't Chinese. I have zero respect for that country and how it treats its people and the environment. It's hard to believe that our president would accept a deal that does not hold the Chinese to the same standards that we propose to impose on American manufacturers. Only a moron would do that.

With our own domestic needs being as great as they are and the desire to provide health care for the uninsured, we are going to need to produce things besides hamburgers, fried chicken and bullshit, i.e. products that the rest of the world will actually buy. It's time we took the gloves off and looked out for the American worker.

[Life Long Dem]

53. The economy right now is the problem.

Unless you are a conservative or Rush Limbaugh who wants Obama's stimulus plan to fail, Why would the President make trade cuts now in a depressed economy?

[karynnj]

55. this is not making trade cuts - it would add a "tax" to products

imported from countries not participating or complying with international efforts to deal with global warming. This is the provision that works against the Republican criticism that the US complying raises our costs and not the costs of our competitors. To get the bill through the Senate, many need to know that everyone else in on board.

[karynnj]

54. I disagree with Obama's position, as trade penalties are an excellent way

to eliminate the economic incentive not to participate. I hope the Senate will ignore President Obama's opinion here and keep those penalties in the bill. But, China may not be one of the countries that will not participate. We NEED China to participate.

There was a discussion on the floor of the Senate last week, where in addition to his usual nonsense on global warming, Inhofe argued that China and the rest of the world would not follow. Senator Kerry countered that by arguing that China has enacted higher fuel standards and has budgeted $200 million vs our $80 million on clean energy this this. He has worked hard over the last several years to engage the Chinese on this issue - and at Bali, he helped find a compromise that includes developing nations, recognizing that they must be treated differently.

I have the links to Kerry's speech in this thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8498168

[ecstatic]

59. exactly WHAT should Pres. Obama do? Declare war? They own

a LARGE portion of our debt FFS. They could single-handedly collapse our economy thanks to our debt and companies like Walmart.

Also, did anyone crack down on us when we were ignoring environmental rules? The point is--it would be nice if we could tell everyone what to do... but we can't. We're already in enough shit as it is.

[ItNerd4life]

60. I like the way you phrased it.

Succint and to the point.