The Dish

Krugman insists that the “agreement between China and the United States on carbon emissions is, in fact, a big deal”:

[T]he principle that has just been established is a very important one. Until now, those of us who argued that China could be induced to join an international climate agreement were speculating. Now we have the Chinese saying that they are, indeed, willing to deal — and the opponents of action have to claim that they don’t mean what they say. Needless to say, I don’t expect the usual suspects to concede that a major part of the anti-environmentalist argument has just collapsed. But it has. This was a good week for the planet.

Douthat, on the other hand, downplays the importance of the agreement:

Symbolism and public leadership do matter in international affairs, even if they don’t necessarily matter as much as climate hawks (like other sorts of hawks) persistently believe. But nothing about this widely-hailed bargain as yet invalidates the basic case for skepticism about the quest for a global climate regime, because nothing about China’s actions as yet invalidates the argument that the globe’s diverse group of developing-world actors are only ever likely to act to explicitly cap emissions when it seems to be in their immediate national interest (or when, as in this case, that “cap” may just a description of a trend), and that they are therefore very unlikely to be meaningfully bound by international rules or regulations that in any way directly constrain their ability to emit as their economies seem to require.

Being skeptical of climate change regulations in this sense does not mean believing that no developing nation’s emissions will ever level off or fall, or that no developing nation will ever take steps to limit their emissions. Indeed, the skeptics assume that both will happen, as those nations get richer, technology advances, domestic constituencies for environmentalism develop and so forth. They’re just doubtful about the power of diplomacy and international treaties and carbon regimes to meaningfully accelerate this process (as such regimes have mostly not to date in contexts far more promising than the People’s Republic of China). And with that doubt, in turn, comes a skepticism about the wisdom of having the United States take steps on its own that don’t necessarily pass a domestic cost-benefit test in order to somehow set up a larger process that probably isn’t going to work anyway, and that our rivals will have every incentive to seek to game in order to gain at our expense.

But Ryan Cooper thinks China has good reason to act:

China is very seriously vulnerable to climate change. It could gut the nation, taking the ruling Communist Party down with it. Fifty million or more Chinese citizens could be displaced by rising seas in the coming decades. Drought and desertification, both fueled by climate change, will cause havoc with China’s water supply and farmland, which are both already insecure. Additionally, China’s reliance on filthy coal power is responsible for jaw-dropping environmental problems, causing a reported 670,000 deaths annually, and many times that number of respiratory illnesses.

All this points towards a massive Chinese self-interest in slashing emissions as fast as possible.

Ronald Bailey keeps his expectations low:

Looking at the previously announced energy and climate policies of both the U.S. and China, the new pledges appear to add little to their existing plans to reduce their emissions. The new Obama pledges basically track the reductions that would result from the administration’s plan to boost automobile fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new scheme to cut by 2030 the carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants by 30% below their 2005 level. Xi was no doubt aware that a week earlier an analysis of demographic, urbanization, and industrial trends by Chinese Academy of Social Science had predicted that China’s emissions peak would occur between 2025 and 2040.

Supporters hope that the joint announcement is the prelude to a “great leap forward” to a broad and binding global climate change agreement at Paris in 2015. Perhaps, but the U.S. and China left themselves plenty of room to step back if their pledges become inconvenient.

Ben Adler doesn’t want to “let the enemy be the perfect of the good”:

Senate Republicans have made it impossible for Obama to sign a binding treaty to reduce emissions, because they wouldn’t vote to ratify it. So now that Obama has made a non-binding agreement with the world’s largest carbon polluter, they criticize it for … not being a binding treaty. Speaking on Fox News, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation cynically asked, “How are you going to monitor it? Is there any enforcement? Will the Chinese abide by the agreement?” No sir, there is no enforcement mechanism, because your favored party would never vote for an agreement that contained one. But we can track progress — as China builds wind farms and solar arrays, they won’t be invisible.

And Elizabeth Economy thinks the “real win for U.S. President Barack Obama is keeping China in the tent or, in political science speak, reinforcing Beijing’s commitment to the liberal international order”:

The real takeaway from the Obama-Xi meetings at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit is that China has put itself back in the U.S. game. The entirety of the package—extending visas, establishing rules of the road for maritime and air encounters in the western Pacific, reducing or eliminating tariffs on as many as two hundred information technology goods, and pledging to do more on climate change—is a win for the United States. That doesn’t mean it is not a win for China too; it is. It is just a win that binds China more deeply to U.S.-backed international security, trade, and environmental regimes.

(Photo: US President Barack Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping reach out to shake hands following a bilateral meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on November 12, 2014. By Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Danielle Kurtzleben celebrates new job-quitting numbers:

This is great news because the quits rate is generally taken as a sign of how current workers feel the job market is — if they feel they can easily find a job elsewhere, they are more likely to leave their current work. If the job market looks terrifying, they are more likely to cling to even a job they hate for dear life.

Ben Casselman also praises this development:

Voluntary quits, which don’t include retirements, have been rising steadily for the past two years and are now back — more or less — to normal: September’s figure is almost exactly equal to the average level in the five years leading up to the recession. The rising number of quits is good news for several reasons. It’s a sign of confidence. Quitting your job almost always entails some risk, even if you have a new one lined up, so workers’ increasing willingness to do so suggests they think the job market is getting better. Changing jobs is also an important source of wage growth, particularly for younger workers. And job turnover of all kinds acts as a kind of lubricant in the job market, as employees who leave jobs create opportunities for others.

Job openings are relatively high:

Job openings declined to 4.7 million in September from 4.9 million in August. Job openings in August were the highest since 2001, indicating that this component of the JOLTS report is also near one of the best readings in years.

Michael Strain adds that “the number of job openings is helpful because we can use it to construct a measure of the number of unemployed workers seeking a job for every job opening”:

That ratio is now around two — there are roughly two job seekers for every job opening — down from nearly seven during the darkest days of the Great Recession. So good news on both fronts. But let’s not get too excited: The quits rate is still lower than we would like it to be in a healthier labor market, and the number of job seekers per job opening still higher. The labor market recovery remains unfinished, judged both by these and other measures.

Maya Rhodan passes along the news:

Following an hours-long leadership vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters he expects “Elizabeth Warren to be Elizabeth Warren” in her new role as the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee’s strategic policy adviser. The role, several outlets are reporting, was created specifically for Warren. The addition of Warren brings some star power to the Democrat’s senior ranks, though it’s not clear how much clout will come with the new position.

Jim Newell puts a couple extra nails in the Elizabeth Warren 2016 coffin:

The biggest signal that this sends is that Warren, who has said she’s not running for president about 50 million times but you never know, is … still not running for president. In accepting this leadership position, she’s helping craft the party’s top position and priority, all right, ensuring smooth sailing for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination. You don’t set the groundwork for an outsider campaign against the Democratic establishment by moving further inside the Democratic establishment. Especially right now, when we’re nearing form-an-exploratory-committee season.

Jaime Fuller provides a history of such made-up leadership titles in the House:

It wouldn’t be the first time party leadership has seen the utility of conjuring a leadership position from thin air in order to serve as a bit of political WD-40. It has been a favorite tool in the House in recent years. In 2011, Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were both hoping to be whip after Democrats got demoted to the minority, but Clyburn wasn’t going to get the votes. So, realizing it would be useful — and look good — to have someone with support among liberals and the Congressional Black Caucus in a leadership position, Pelosi offered him the No. 3 position of assistant Democratic leader. Months later, the specifics of what his title meant still seemed confusing.

Russell Berman wonders “whether Warren’s new role will be more than symbolic”:

With the exception of the top spot and a couple of other specific jobs, there’s not a whole lot that members of congressional leadership do besides sit in meetings and help the party hash out policy and strategy. And there’s an argument to be made that Warren is getting short shrift, being given a nominal post at the bottom of the ladder while Reid and other leaders win reelection despite presiding over the loss of at least eight seats and the majority.

Drum’s asks “Am I the only person who thinks this is probably not a great move for Warren? “:

She’s now officially part of the Democratic leadership, which makes her implicitly responsible for party policy and implicitly loyal to the existing leadership. And what is she getting in return? Unless I’m missing something, a made-up leadership position with no actual authority.

Is this a good trade? I’m not so sure.

Roberto A. Ferdman flags research on class disparities – and, by extension, racial disparities – in fast-food marketing:

In a new study, a team of researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Arizona State University found that fast food chains in predominantly black neighborhoods were more than 60 percent more likely to advertise to children than in predominantly white neighborhoods. The researchers also found that fast food restaurants in middle- and low-income areas tended to direct their ads toward children more often than those in high-income neighborhoods, and those in rural communities tended to market their products to kids more often than those in more urban settings

“Fast food restaurants in black neighborhoods have significantly higher odds of using kids’ meal toy displays to market their products to children compared to restaurants in white neighborhoods,” said Punam Ohri-Vachaspati, the lead author of the study. “The associations we observe are troubling because we know that black children are at higher risk for consuming unhealthy diets including fast food, and have higher prevalence of obesity.”

Ferdman ends on a nanny-state note:

Given the public health stakes, it might be time to reconsider whether the industry is capable of regulating itself. “The companies will argue that they can’t control it if some people eat more fast food than others, but at the same time, they’re increasing the disproportionate demand through their marketing,” Harris said. “For that reason regulating marketing in fast food companies is the only way to solve this problem.”

But as a NYT report from last year indicates, companies like McDonald’s are doing just fine regulating themselves:

Under pressure to provide healthier meals, McDonald’s announced on Thursday that it would no longer market some of its less nutritional options to children and said it also planned to include offerings of fruits and vegetables in many of its adult menu combinations. …

This latest move by McDonald’s, which it estimated would cost about $35 million, is one in a series of steps it has taken toward changing its menu to suit contemporary tastes and to try to address health concerns raised for years by nutritionists and other critics about the fat and caloric content of its food. It has added calorie counts to its menu boards in advance of a federal requirement for such labeling that goes into effect next year, and now sells options like egg-white McMuffins and premium wraps, which offer a choice of grilled rather than fried chicken rolled into a flour tortilla with lettuce, tomatoes and cucumbers.

The company also has faced rising competitive pressure from Subway, which has courted women aggressively with marketing promoting its healthier options, as well as from other chains. This week, Burger King unveiled a new way of making fries that reduced fat and calories, and earlier this year, that chain added a turkey burger to its menu. “We’ve been trying to optimize our menu with more fruits and vegetables and giving customers additional choices when they come to McDonald’s,” said Don Thompson, McDonald’s chief executive. He ticked off some of those additions, like smoothies, salads and whole grains in oatmeal.

Other marketing ideas from the company aren’t quite as cool, as Copyranter explains of the above images:

[The WSJ] reported that starting in January, McDonald’s is going to launch a new campaign tagged with the childish na-na-na-na-na na! line “Lovin’ Beats Hatin”. The entire internet immediately hate-shat on it. Then [last] week, McDonald’s said that they are not going to use it (yeah, we’ll see), but they did trademark two other phrases, above bottom, which are, as you can see, even more inane.