China is set to become the world's biggest polluter.  

****** 

Why Coal Is to Get Additional Attention
By NEIL KING JR. in Washington and SPENCER SWARTZ in London
November 8, 2007; Page A4, Wall Street Journal

The International Energy Agency painted a tough energy outlook for coming years, with tightening oil supplies and a surge in global-warming emissions as China and India burn more coal to power their booming economies.

The industrialized world's energy watchdog also predicted fast-growing China will displace the U.S. as both the world's biggest polluter this year and the largest energy consumer by 2010, based on current trends. (read more).

The steel pipe makers achieved a victory against a flood of subsidized Chinese imports.  The U.S. Department of Commerce will apply a 16.59% countervailing duty against the imports, which is the average subsidy found in the case.

Chinese pipe subject to the petition surged from 10,000 tons in 2002 to more than 750,000 tons in 2007, the American tube companies said. The increase has resulted in 500 lost jobs — about 25 percent of the industry segment’s total work force, companies said.

The duty, known as countervailing because it’s intended to offset government subsidies, will require importers to post bonds in the amount calculated by the commerce department, the tube companies said.

We could have managed the dollar, to maintain its "reserve currency" status.  But we may have lost it. Running up the largest trade deficits in human history do not inspire dollar confidence in currency markets.  

China bought dollars with its trade surplus, but is now "diversifying".  That means selling dollars.  Selling dollars means lower values for the dollar.

Losing reserve currency status has a domino effect in reducing American influence in the world.  

If we pursued balanced trade every year, we would not be in this position.  U.S. jobs, manufacturers and farmers would be growing in strength each year.  It was a tried and true strategy, but was abandoned. This year may be looked back on as the turning point for the dollar's loss of primacy.

The Peru FTA is predicted to pass the House.  Pelosi has thrown in with Rangel and Bush.  Labor groups have been marginalized, to some extent, because they wanted labor protections in new agreements, and Rangel says they got what they wanted.  Also, labor may want to keep its powder dry for future agreements with countries that have economies bigger than that of Hartford, CT.

But the labor protections are probably worse than current trade law.  And the Peru deal is just CAFTA warmed over.  Peru can still impose its 19% value added tax on our exports to them, even as we reduce our tariffs.

Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post questions why we are rushing into this agreeement.   The New York Times Editorial Board, as usual, naively states every new trade deal is good and Peru is no exception:

It would be a folly for the United States to turn its back on trade.

Their rhetoric seems to work.  Set up a straw man argument and knock it down.  Too bad it avoids the real issues and harms our country. 

None of our core trade problems are addressed in the Peru deal.  We need to figure out how to solve these problems, and then insert the solutions in new trade deals.