Bush team tries "signing statement" strategy after Bali accord

The Bush administration is attempting a "signing statement" after the Bali agreement. The Telegraph reports

The White House has declared it has "serious concerns" about a historic deal to negotiate a new climate change treaty struck in Bali.

After a sleepless night and a day of high drama in Bali, the United States agreed to a compromise with the European Union to avoid mentioning any target figures for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

But the country, which reneged on the Kyoto Protocol six years ago, has since issued a statement questioning the role of developing countries involved in the deal.

The White House, while recognising that there were positive conclusions from the conference, said the "United States does have serious concerns about other aspects of the decision as we begin the negotiations.

"The negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone," it said.

"We must give sufficient emphasis to the important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play in a global effort to address climate change."

Signing statements are, of course, one of the extra-legal measures this administration has taken to legislation the president actually signs. Signing statements have no standing in law, and are simply an assertion, a fig leaf to cover the policy of doing what it wants no matter what.

The international community may not recognize the ploy, but it ought to be concerned, since it is emblematic of the absence of integrity in force in Washington. Negotiate a deal, then walk away with a statement of what you will do. Dishonest? Yes. And in full view of the world.

How to create a market for planetary survival

Public policy can establish markets for specific products and unlock the economics of innovation

The market in environmental poisons is booming. Oil is over $80 a barrel.

Approximately zero dollars of that eighty finances mitigation of or adaptation to the direct results of using that oil.

Why no accounting? The cost of the rapid deterioration of the planet as a habitation for people must have some dollar value. This is a puzzle free market apologists don't like. Global warming, they say, is something called an "externality." External to what? Long after the plastic toy is discarded, the gasoline burned and the automobile crushed to scrap, these greenhouse gases will continue to entertain us.

The environmental effects and their costs are external only to the purchase-sale transaction. This transaction is effective extent of the market into the real world. This market failure has driven governments to construct the highly imperfect remedies of carbon trading and carbon taxes, clumsy attempts to have the price include at least a fraction of the cost. It hasn't worked.

The right way to make a market for planetary survival was outlined recently by Dr. Jonathan "Jack" Frost of British fuel cell developer Johnson-Matthey. He spoke at a recent Tyndall Center conference on environmental finance.

In a completely unassuming manner, in twenty minutes of presentation and ten minutes of Q&A, Frost nailed the principles of an economics of innovation to the wall and pointed to it as the way to engage industry in innovation rather than obstruction.

The illustration that convinces is the historic clearing of the smog from the atmosphere, which was sponsored by California's emission-reduction mandates. Cut emissions by half? Technically impossible at any by the most ludicrous price. Can't be done. Then came the catalytic converter. A catalyst on a consumer device was almost unthinkable. But the catalytic converter, a subsequent modification to it, and other technology now leave emissions at .001 (one one-thousandth) of their former level. Normalizing for all factors, its cost in the price of a new car is zero.

Better to listen to the podcast with this link. (The Tyndall Center has a link to a videocast.)

Public policy acting for the public good can create the purchase-sale condition for products of all kinds, not just the power plants and vehicles. The major problem is not the politics. It doesn't cost a fraction of the subsidy programs currently favored. The problem is identifying what we want and enforcing it while being sensitive or at least aware of the supply chains of an industry.

We're getting it together to put up a more extensive discussion of the economics of innovation as outlined by Frost on the web site (demandside.net). Dr. Frost kindly provided some links to research when we prodded him after the conference. None of it is as cogent as the Tyndall presentation.

Payback for Arctic Refuge filibuster?

Ted Stevens, I'm coming to your state on this one. The minute they could no longer use it as a bargaining chip, Republicans in Congress cut badly needed help for low-income households to heat their homes this winter. The director of CBPP Robert Greenstein called it:

"Even though there is bipartisan support in Congress for providing LIHEAP [Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program] funds, congressional leaders stripped those funds out of the defense bill the minute they could no longer use them to help get ANWR enacted."

While a small piece of the LIHEAP money was attached to Arctic drilling, $2 billion was not. Both were stripped.

The Republican leadership may be delivering payback. They sure lined up to blow smoke over cutting vital assistance just before Christmas. Senator Rick Santorum's office said, "Democrats stripped out the $2 billion in LIHEAP money because it would have been funded by revenues from oil drilling in ANWR." Does this guy have any credibility left?

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)was quoted as saying ANWR drilling was the source of funds for the entire utility assistance. Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the only way Congress could have found extra money was through a new revenue source. What is it called when people who know better make statements that are not true?

A spokesman for Dennis Hastert attacked Senate Democrats for delaying passage of a separate piece of legislation — the budget reconciliation bill that would cut Medicaid, student loans, child support enforcement, and other programs — by procedural means which forces another vote in the House. The Hastert spokesman, Ron Bonjean, said this action would delay the provision of money to help low-income families pay their heating bills. Bogus. The only money for heating assistance contained in the budget reconciliation bill is funding for 2007.

The Republicans blocked LIHEAP from other bills, preferring to use it as a sweetener, first for the budget reconciliation bill then, when that passed the House floor, moving the money to the defense appropriation bill with ANWR. Two weeks ago Bush & Co. rejected attempts to update food stamp benefits to reflect higher heating bills and hence less money for food, claiming the adjustment was unnecessary because more LIHEAP funds were on the way. Sure, George.

Now Congress has left town with no action. Worse, because of the 1% across-the-board cut in discretionary funding, there will actually be LESS MONEY IN THE LIHEAP FUND, PRECISELY WHEN HEATING BILLS ARE SPIKING.

These people are running the country!

See the whole sick thing at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Budgetary "martial law" means we still don't know how bad it is

Oil drilling in ANWR is only the most obvious threat from the budget bills rammed through by House Republican leadership early this morning, but it may not be the worst. Because the passage of the defense appropriations and budget-cut reconciliation bill was done under the "martial law rule," much of the fine print has yet to be read. This rule allows the leadership to force a vote without waiting until the next legislative day. The one-day procedure is designed for legislators to have an opportunity to look at what they are voting on. Didn't happen this time.

The martial law rule was invoked just before midnight Sunday. At 1:12 a.m. the 774-page conference report was filed in the House. At 5:43 a.m., after less than 40 minutes of debate, the House began its vote. Consequently we really don't know what was passed.

Major media accounts focused on the ANWR drilling in the defense appropriations bill. Was it proper to attach this unrelated and controversial measure to a defense bill in time of war? [Insert your answer here.]

It may be the phrase "unnoticed at the time of its passage" that will end up hurting most, because those words may apply to land mines packaged in the secrecy of the Republican caucus.

What we do know of the reconciliation bill is Scrooge-like cuts at the low end contrast with some Santa-sized giveaways to corporations at the upper end. Look for increases in Medicaid co-payments and premiums along with simultaneous reductions in some benefits. Watch the Senate-proposed increases in rebates from pharmaceutical companies disappear. (The Senate expected $10.5 billion in increased rebates from the drug manufacturers so beloved of Republican campaign finance managers. The "compromise" was $720 million.)

Other measures trumpeted as "fiscal discipline and limited government" by Mike Pence, R-Ind., include cuts in child support enforcement, new costs on student loans, slower SSI payouts, major cost increases to states for child care, and reductions in foster care benefits to some grandparents.

The fiscal discipline in continuing the enormous budget deficits and in granting ridiculous tax bonuses to the rich in time of war is similar to the personal discipline of a drunk in Las Vegas. We only wonder what the Republicans forgot to mention as they delivered their little present in the middle of the night.

Congratulations to Rep. Brian Baird for pegging it correctly, in part:

“The people’s elected representatives deserve time to read and debate legislation that will have such an enormous impact on our national defense and domestic programs,” said Congressman Baird. “It is a shame, a disgrace, and an embarrassment that these critically important bills were brought up in the dead of the night, laden with unrelated provisions, and passed by sheep-like Members who had but the slightest idea what was in them.”


Also see the CBPP discussion.