Bush call for action on global warming

SYDNEY, Australia - President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao, leaders of two of the world's worst polluting nations, called Thursday for greater international cooperation in tackling climate change without stifling economic growth.

Bush also was to push for expanded trade with Pacific Rim nations and appeal for help in getting stalled global trade talks going again. He was laying out his views on the environment, energy security and the economic costs of terrorism in a speech to business leaders from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

Climate change was high on the agenda of the U.S. and Chinese presidents in a 90-minute meeting and aides said it would be an important aspect of Bush's speech. The president also was to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, among heads of state here for the annual meeting of the 21-nation economic gathering.

Bush has been criticized by environmentalists and others for his opposition to the 1997 Kyoto treaty against global warming, and China has long been slammed for the huge amounts of greenhouse gases its power plants and industries pump into the atmosphere. The fact that neither China nor India, another major global polluter, were covered by Kyoto was one reason Bush has opposed it.

"We believe that the issue of climate change bears on the welfare of the whole humanity and sustainable development of the whole world," Hu told reporters after his meeting with Bush. "And this issue should be appropriately tackled through stronger international cooperation."

Climate control has been designated a top agenda item for this year's APEC meeting.

"We talked about climate change and our desire to work together on climate change," Bush said.

Aides said the president would give a more detailed account of his climate change proposals in his speech to APEC business leaders.

One of them is a proposal to eliminate tariffs on environmental and clean-energy technologies. In his talks with Hu, Bush invited the Chinese leader to consider doing the same, said Dan Price, a presidential economic adviser on the National Security Council.

"President Bush raised the issue of climate change, and both sides welcomed the attention of APEC to climate, and they confirmed the importance of addressing this pressing problem cooperatively and responsibly, and in a manner that did not stall or stunt economic growth," Price said.

Hu had suggested the United Nations should be the one to spearhead climate control efforts. Price said that wasn't necessarily contradictory with the Bush approach.

The U.S. and Chinese leaders also talked about North Korea, Iran and Chinese product safety. Hu "was quite articulate about product safety, and I appreciated his comments," Bush said. White House aides later said Hu expressed a willingness to step up Chinese efforts to ensure the safety of products and to crack down on efforts to ship tainted foods.

Bush said he accepted Hu's invitation to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics. And the two leaders talked about establishing a "hot line" like the longtime one between Washington and Moscow to alert each other to possible military situations that might seem threatening or be ambiguous.

Both leaders expressed opposition to efforts within Taiwan to seek U.N. membership. The U.S. has opposed steps toward independence for the self-governing island, which Beijing considers a renegade province, preferring to adhere to its "One China" policy even as it continues to sell military supplies to Taiwan.

Bush has called for greater reliance on technology to combat global warming. Although early in his first term, he had insisted that the science of what causes global warming was not yet settled, more recently he has been less questioning of a link between human activity and higher global temperatures, and supportive of programs to tackle the problem.

Earlier this week, Bush said it was an "urban legend that is preposterous" for critics to suggest that his opposition to the Kyoto treaty showed a lack of environmental awareness or concern about climate change.

Bush was also having lunch with South East Asian leaders and meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and Putin.

In his speech, the president was also issuing an appeal to Asia-Pacific business leaders for their help in getting stalled global trade liberalization talks restarted.

The trade talks known as the Doha round have stumbled since their inception in Qatar's capital in 2001, largely because of wrangling between rich and poor countries over eliminating barriers to farm trade and, more recently, manufacturing trade.

Here's what they report President Bush said:

Aides said the president would give a more detailed account of his climate change proposals in his speech to APEC business leaders.

He attended an APEC meeting....which is to be expected.

APEC set Climate Change as a major theme, so he must address it somehow. He chose to suggest some ephemeral cooperation, and insist that whatever they do not stall or stunt economic growth...a good thing. Under the umbrella of "climate change", we often discuss China's pollution...though I have no idea if he did so here. At times of the year, more than 10% of California air pollution is from China's noxious clouds; and up to 50% at times for Oregon. While CO2 has a trivial and very indirect effect, the brown clouds around China seem to have a direct warming effect....due to being actually brown.

He suggested reciprical removing of tariffs on certain technologies...also a good thing. If you want to complain he didn't go far enough, fine.

At least in this article, he didn't say much else that amounted to a hill of beans. Cooperate and be responsible without stifling growth, and reduce tarrifs. Maybe there'll be more objectionable stuff in the speech to the business leaders, but this is pretty innocuous.

So what you're saying is that you have no idea what Fast-Track authorization is.

False.

As Congresspedia conveniently denotes it's last incarnation, which lapsed at the end of June:

The Trade Act of 2002, also called the U.S. Trade Promotion Authority Act, granted the president of the United States the authority to negotiate trade deals with other countries and forced Congress to only vote up or down (yes or no) on the agreement, without amendments or a filibuster. This authority is sometimes called "fast track authority," since it is thought to streamline approval of trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or Fast Track Negotiating Authority can be given to the president by Congress in accordance with the Trade Act of 1974. It was implemented between 1974 and 1994, and was again established in 2002 under the Trade Act of 2002.[2] With TPA, upon deciding to enter a trade agreement, the administration and Congress agree on guidelines prior to negotiations. Then, after the president has completed negotiations and signed a trade agreement, the measure is guaranteed an up-or-down vote without amendments or a filibuster. This helps ensure a timely passage of trade agreements and helps assure trade partners that the negotiated agreements will not be altered in Congress.[3]
Since 1975, the TPA has been an integral part of each of the last five presidential administrations. The first TPA expired in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, and was not renewed until 2002 under President George W. Bush. The TPA agreed to in 2002 could have been terminated on June 30, 2005 following the president's 2005 report on its effectiveness up to that point, but it was not.[4] The TPA was then set to expire on July 1, 2007, unless extended by Congress.[5]
Procedure
If the president transmits a trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate (or their designees) must introduce the bill submitted by the president on the first day on which their chamber is in session. Senators and representatives may not amend the president’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), it must originate in the House, and after the Senate receives the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. On the House and Senate floors, each chamber can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. Thus the entire congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

Thus, with the lapse of his authority, he can't submit anything without the adequate review, or the right to amend which Congress has, and probably unconstitutionally abdicated in the 1974 Fast Track act. His normal authority doesn't give the right to enter into agreements that are time-specific absent Fast Track. He has no authority to guarantee an up or down vote, at any time, or condition-free. He is forced to be subservient to the People's House. The imperial trade bureaucracy is forced to make a case for their work-product. And the President, when explicitly circumscribed in his trade negotiating conduct, is thereby limited.

What Bush did here was clearly try to continue as if nothing had happened. But he no longer has any Congressional authorization. And his "powers" are not as broad in this particular as you imagine, since the Treaty power is pretty clearly in the Congressional court. He has no approval from that body at this point.

As a political reality, with the adverse partisan climate, the previously-rail-roaded trade agreements are now subject to review those hostile chairman as well, and instead of allowing consideration of any new trade proposals, more likely is the possible withdrawal from the President's previous junk by Congressional legislation, with possible override of Presidential vetoes. NAFTA and the WTO itself are opposed by a large number of Conservatives and surprisingly some democrats as well.

But even if they can't muster the override on those....they can demolish them by simply refusing to renew any funding for the necessary components to these deals, from the Commerce Dept or WTO or "Panels". All of which need to be funded. Which can be banned. Since they are not treaties, that is all it would take. Just a 50% majority.

This degree of political courage may not happen with this congress, but it well could in the next with the impending recession.

The Trade Act of 2002, also called the U.S. Trade Promotion Authority Act, granted the president of the United States the authority to negotiate trade deals with other countries and forced Congress to only vote up or down (yes or no) on the agreement, without amendments or a filibuster.

You highlighted the wrong half of the sentence. The Executive Branch has the authority to enter into negotiations. It is in fact the ONLY branch that has that authority. That comes from the Constitution. What Fast Track does/did is the OTHER half of that sentence.

Whatever the Executive negotiates has to be approved by the Legislative (Senate, if it is viewed as being equivalent to a Treaty), or it is meaningless. Traditionally, this involves either a lot of Legislative kibbitzing, or after it is submitted, it involves changes - this assuming it doesn't just plain get bogged down under filibusters, or even just endlessly delayed. Anything which changes goes back to the Executive Branch to renegotiate with the foreign entity. If that entity approves THAT form, it becomes an agreement, but usually not. This back and forth takes a lot of time...and usually drags for years or decades. Even without the back and forth AFYTER the negotiations, the Legislative has also traditionally insisted on constantly being consulted during the process of negotiations, which also greatly bogs down the process.

What the Fast-Track does, is it is basically a promise by Congress to "only vote up or down (yes or no) on the agreement, without amendments or a filibuster." The Executive has the authority to negotiate with or without Fast-Track.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.