AS CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS PRETEND TO BE PROGRESSIVE REMEMBER TPP WILL NEGATE ALL US LABOR AND JUSTICE LAWS INCLUDING ENVIRONMENT. (Sorry, dont have time to format) The TPP & the Environment The Trans - Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive new international trade pact being pushed by the U.S. government at the behes t of transnational corporations . If it continues on i ts current course , the TPP will accelerate “rip - and - ship” resource extraction throughout the Pacific Rim, encourage unhealthy global consumption patterns and significantly limit the steps that communities can take to address climate change an d other pressing environmental concerns. The TPP is already being negotiated between the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam — but it is also specifically intended a s a “docking agreement” that other Pacific Rim countries would join over time, with Japan, Korea, China and others already expressing some interest . Corporations pushing the Trans - Pacific Partnership include a who’s who list o f Big Oil, Big Ag and Wall Street power brokers. The TPP has been questioned — if not outright opposed — by environmental, consumer, indigenous, family farm, labor and other social justice groups on four continents. Providing Corporations wi th New Tools to Challenge Environmental Protections Leaked documents show that U.S. trade negotiators are pushing hard for the TPP to include so - called “investor - state” provisions that would grant transnational co rporations the power to challenge virtually any environmental law, regulation or court decision that negatively affects their expectation of profits as a “regulatory taking” through international tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems. Consum er safety rules, banking regulations and a host of other public interest policies would also be subject to attack. Within the World Trade Organization (WTO), portions of the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act have alread y been successfully rolled back under similar “trade” provisions that grant this type of power to foreign governments. The TPP would go beyond the WTO by giving individual corporations the power to challenge democratic policymaking through a tribunal system that takes precedent over domestic courts and legislatures. (Meanwhile, of course, these tribunals remain completely inaccessible and unaccountable to local businesses and ordinary citizens.) Right now a number of smaller Free Trade Ag reements and Bilateral Investment Treaties already grant corporations these special rights in certain countries — and those so - called “rights” are being used by transnational corporations to attack clean air rules in Peru, anti - mining laws in El Salvador a nd a court decision against the oil giant Chevron in Ecuador, among many other cases. That said, corporations have thus far primarily (although not exclusively) use “investor - state” to attack the laws, regulations and court decisions of developing countri es. By extending this system throughout the Pacific Rim, the TPP would not only put the environmental protections of additional developing countries at risk, but could also extend these powers to corporations based in capital - exporting nation s such as Japan, increasing the likelihood that more federal and state - based environmental rules will be challenged in the United States. Further Heading Off the Precautionary Principle If like past agreements, the TPP ’ s sanitary and phytos anitary chapter will also require that countries can only enact “scientifically justifiable” food safety regulations. While crafted in the name of increased trade, the clear effect of such a provision is to make it harder for countries use of pesticides, food additives or genetically - modified organisms based on the precautionary principle. Beyond just food safety regulations, however, a leaked draft of the U.S. proposal for a so - called “regulatory coherence” chapter would also impose a st ructure and set of procedures for domestic decisions on almost all forms of regulation. While some elements of the draft text are conducive to well - informed policymaking, allowing a “trade” agreement to dictate how countries must structure their regulator y agencies creates a substantial bias in favor of light - handed regulation — a problem not just for consumer safety and the environment, but areas such as financial regulations. Encouraging More “Rip and Ship” Resource Extraction A variety of provisions of Trans - Pacific Partnership , including “investor - state,” quota prohibitions and more, are likely to encourage the increased export of raw materials throughout the Pacific Rim. That spells more logging, drilling and mining in some of the most biodiverse ecosystem s left on Earth. Not only that, but the pact is expected to explicitly ban requirements that raw materials (such as logs) be first converted into “value added” products (such as boards) that support and incentivize sustainable, local economies. Expandin g Pollution Offshore and Enabling Unhealthy Consumption Patterns at Home One of the reasons manufacturers are pushing for the Trans - Pacific Partnership is to seek out “low cost labor alternatives” to Chinese sweatshops in countries like Vietnam. In addition to ch eap labor, however, many developing countries also offer manufacturers cheap energy and lax environmental enforcement. As such, the carbon footprint and other environmental impacts associated with producing a good overseas is often much higher than it wou ld be producing the same good in the United States. While typically not as high as the production - related emissions, the pollution associated with then also shipping a finished product across the Pacific Ocean to reach the U.S. market is by no means incon sequential. Access to lax environmental enforcement, cheap energy and sweatshop labor overseas also effectively subsidizes the production of certain consumer products — including, particularly, consumer electronics — thus enabling the sale of short lifecyc le products that contribute massively to e - waste. The throw - away culture that is encouraged in the United States would be a considerably less popular lifestyle option if manufacturers couldn’t as easily avoid commonsense labor and environmental rules by s imply moving their production abroad. Keeping the Public in the Dark For years , the Trans - Pacific Partnership negotiations have taken place behind closed doors. Since negotiations began in 2008, none of the negotiating documents have been offici a lly released for public review (although some have been leaked). In th e United States, approximately 6 00 corporate lobbyists have been named as official advisors, granting them steady access to the negotiating texts, as well as the negotiators. Most en vironmental groups, journalists and those whose lives will be affected by the negotiators’ decisions have no right to see the texts until the negotiations have concluded — at which point, it is more - or - less impossible to change them. An international “Rel ease the Texts” campaign has, thus far, not been answered
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 03:15:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015