Wikileaks has just published a draft of the enviromental chapter of the TPP: It's bad.

[cali]

The Obama administration could be selling out environmental protections in order to cement a complex international trade deal, according to new documents revealed on Wednesday by WikiLeaks. Today, the whistle-blowing organization published the Environment Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a bilateral agreement that has been in the works since 2010 — confirming critics' fears that the plan will be bad news for the planet

<snip>

Now, WikiLeaks has unveiled the proposed environmental chapter, and says the Obama Administration's environmental demands are weak:

When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in 'environmental' goods and the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears to function as a public relations exercise.

The Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program director Ilana Solomon told The New York Times that the draft deal, if confirmed, would undo environmental protections enacted by the U.S. Solomon said, "it rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are."

<snip>

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/01/obama-trades-environment-trade-deal/357026/

[cali]

1. kick, kick, kick and I will keep kicking it

this is truly appalling and it's proof of the corporate influence on this President as well as his willingness to accede to those powers.

[sabrina 1]

91. It is truly appalling and it certainly shows why it all had to be so 'secret'

even from Members of Congress.

Just thoroughly disgusting. From the Bush gang we expected this kind of thing, and we foolishly thought that we belonged to the party that could stop them.

[SamKnause]

2. Keep up the good work cali

K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cali]

3. thank you Sam. This is by far and away the most urgent issue

here's another good piece on this from Slate:

<snip>

As of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that pollution controls could vary depending on a country’s “domestic circumstances and capabilities.”

In addition, the draft does not contain clear requirements for a ban on shark finning, which is the practice of capturing sharks and cutting off their fins — commonly used in shark-fin soup — and throwing back the sharks to die. The dish is a delicacy in many of the Asian negotiating countries. At this point the draft says that the countries “may include” bans “as appropriate” on such practices.

…“Bilateral negotiations are a very different thing,” said Jennifer Haverkamp, the former head of the United States trade representative’s environmental office. “Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for this, it’s a real uphill battle to get others to agree if they don’t like it.”


<snip>

The World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have released their own analysis of the leaked documents, which they say fail meet the standard set by Congress back in 2007, when a bipartisan agreement to include an environmental provision in all American free-trade deals was reached.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/leaked_tpp_documents_administration_may_give_up_key_environmental_protections/

[SamKnause]

8. Reply

Definitely one of the top 3 urgent issues facing this country.

It seems every decision made is bad for the citizens of this country and the countries we influence around the globe.

I am so sick of all the destructive, corrupt, greedy bullshit !!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Just think when they successfully destroy net neutrality, and raise the prices so the majority of Americans can't afford the internet, there will be no news, or leaks that make the light of day.

[BelgianMadCow]

116. seconded n/t

[lunasun]

4. THANK YOU Wikileaks

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/an-8-year-old-girls-lung-cancer-is-blamed-on-air-pollution/?_r=0

[cali]

7. Indeed. Big, big thanks to Wikileaks.

[grahamhgreen]

120. Once again doing the heroic heavy lifting for We the People:-)

[jwirr]

5. Selling out on the environment in order to sell out labor. Somehow that does not sound like the

kind of Democratic presidents we have had in the past.

[LiberalArkie]

55. Well, it does sound like the ones after Carter.

[cali]

6. Joint analysis of leaked chapter by Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and

the World Wildlife Fund:

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/TPP_Enviro_Analysis.pdf?docID=14842

[bobduca]

9. Kick

Where are all the wikileaks-hating pro-nsa posters?

Do they really have no comment on this release of secret negotiations?

[cali]

11. the people I want to see comment are the members of the BOF

but they don't. they have no defense for this kind of perfidy on the part of the President, so they just make themselves scarce.

[MisterP]

69. you'd think with their North Korean-level capacity for cognitive dissonance they'd have no problems

maybe the philosophy is "wait long enough and the problem will disappear/get subsumed into the flag-waving of '16": that was the Hapsburgs' way, and it *almost* worked

too bad our party doesn't have vast acres of Tokay grapes

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Obama has to know this is a huge mistake.

Please, Barack, pull that trump card out soon!

[cali]

13. I don't get it.

How can he push this?

[Baitball Blogger]

20. All I can tell you cali, is that the man has a knack for turning things around

when you least expect it.

I pray that this is going to be one of those instances.

How can he not take into consideration the unknown consequences that we are going to deal with in the future because of Fukushima, for instance? To give up sovereignty now could just make things worse.

Unless...this treaty is a shell for another purpose? Who knows anymore.

[G_j]

12. K&R!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Savannahmann]

14. Nobody cares

Because it doesn't do a thing to tie Christie to the George Washington Bridge closing. Now, if we could just find the smoking gun on that, the crowd here would cheer and dance on the graves of the extinct species and mix the melted glaciers into a big bowl for the celebratory spiked fruit punch.

There is only one thing that Democrats can hope saves them, and that is the Republican Party being slightly more corrupt and abusive than they are. Some people call this a race to the bottom. That's not true, it's a race to one step up from the bottom and shouting that the ones below you are the really bad ones, because they're at the bottom.

I have to wonder, why do we even bother anymore? We have sunk to a level I would have laughed at as unimaginable a generation ago if someone had predicted it.

That's why the DEA negotiating with Cartel story doesn't matter. Christie isn't involved with the DEA. We must stop Christie, because he's liable to get the nomination if we don't, and he is/was more popular than Hillary, and that can't be allowed. That's why nobody cares about the NSA tweaking chips on computers doesn't matter, Christie isn't in the NSA. As far as Net Neutrality matters, it only matters as much as we can use it to blast Christie.

Want to see everyone come out against the TPP? Get Christie to say he's in favor of it. If you can get that soundbite, then you have something that everyone here would spend every waking minute trying to stop it. Otherwise, the majority just don't care.

Depressing isn't it?

[cali]

15. I was just thinking along the same sad lines

Du just keeps getting more superficial and trashier.

[840high]

17. Beyond depressing.

[ProSense]

19. But

"Because it doesn't do a thing to tie Christie to the George Washington Bridge closing."

...the king of coal and Keystone is interesting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024333473

The anti-Obama candidate:

Montana's Democratic governor slams ‘jackasses’ in DC for Keystone delay

By Ben Geman

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is expressing frustration with the debate in Washington over the Keystone XL pipeline, which he strongly supports.

“Ninety per cent of these jackasses that are complaining about the Keystone pipeline in Washington, D.C., one year ago wouldn't have even known where the Keystone was. While we were doing the heavy lifting here in Montana and in South Dakota and in Kansas and Oklahoma ... in Washington, D.C. ... all these great defenders had never heard of Keystone before,” Schweitzer said in an interview published Thursday.

- more -

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/212439-montana-gov-slams-anti-keystone-jackasses-in-dc

Murkowski pushes Obama on Keystone XL, crude-export ban

By Laura Barron-Lopez

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) wants President Obama to get on board with her push for lifting the U.S. ban on crude exports and approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

In a letter sent to Obama on Tuesday, Murkowski called on the president to take executive action.

"While I believe you retain the executive authority necessary to lift the ban on crude exports, if you need legislative support from the Congress in order to do so, you will always have a willing partner from Alaska," Murkowski wrote in the letter on Tuesday.

Last week, she released a white paper on the benefits associated with expanding the country's energy trade, with a specific look at crude exports.

- more -

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/195424-murkowski-pushes-obama-on-keystone-xl-crude-export-ban

What’s next in the Christie probe: Head of N.J. Assembly committee talks to Salon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024334220

[cali]

23. which has nothing to do with this vital issue.

[ProSense]

26. The environment isn't the "vital issue"? n/t

[cali]

27. we're talking about the TPP and it's impact on the environment.

and not just within the U.S.

You seem utterly clueless. why not inform yourself, pro? Read some of my links- for instance, read the assessment of the chapter in question that the Sierra Club and NRDC did.

Your post is just political game playing and positioning- as always.

[sabrina 1]

104. The environment is A vital issue. And these releases show that

apparently it is not a vital issue to those pushing this POS 'Trade Agreement' through Congress. THAT is what this OP is about.

[TiberiusB]

109. The TPP and Keystone

You have to wonder if the TPP will "force" approval of the pipeline, thus taking the heat off the Obama administration and Congress. It looks to be the perfect catch all excuse for forcing through a raft of destructive legislation.

[NuclearDem]

30. Wow!

"Well, yeah, TPP, but here's Brian Schweitzer saying something about Obama."

[cali]

32. +1. good response. pretty weird response.

[ProSense]

34. Astute! n/t

[cali]

37. a good summation of your post- alas.

[ronnie624]

126. I won't put that person on ignore,

because her ridiculous posts often elicit a therapeutic chuckle. Why anyone would reply to them in a serious manner, is puzzling.

[bobduca]

130. We are all supposed to pretend they are a serious poster

and not the PR amateur cos-play that it is.

[hatrack]

119. The Schweitzer article is nearly 2 years old, and he's no longer governor

Other than that, wow, Murkowski supports Keystone. Shocking.

[jsr]

28. +1.

[Maedhros]

33. There are a large contingent of Democratic voters

who don't really care about economic justice, war violence, corruption or environmental issues - unless those things can be used as a club to attack Republicans.

[raouldukelives]

95. They do care about them. To the extent they profit from them.

They are beholden to those interests continuing to be exploited for their own personal gain. Whether it be from investments in Wall St or because they are employed by them. Either way, they continue on a daily basis to place their own short term profits against the needs of the least among us and the health of our natural world.
I can't really blame them, it is a free country. No one is forcing them to develop a sense of social justice or concern for the next generation or wildlife. I only wish they would register for the party they pay homage to every day instead of pretending liberal sensibilities while weakening our own party form within.

[frylock]

58. nailed it

[Mojorabbit]

73. + a gazillion. nt

[sabrina 1]

106. You summed it up. But in the real world, away from political forums, where

people in general are less and less concerned about party politics. It's like night and day to the way it was about eight years ago. Back then there was a clear divide in the country based on party politics, even among families. I am so grateful that I did not stop talking to members of my family, as many people did, over politicians. They are not worth it as we learn every day.

Democrats supporting and endorsing Republicans like Christie, while we are lectured about who WE should support. I guess they want us to put them in power so they can decide, rather than we little people, what is best for the country, WHO is best for the country. I have never seen people more angry AND more in agreement across party lines about the state of our government.

Republicans I used to be unable to speak to without getting angry, are now not so willing to defend their party and more reasonable regarding issues. And Dems who formerly would not listen to one bad word about their party, have given up in many cases and are not willing to defend things they simply cannot defend anymore.

Maybe there's a silver lining somewhere? But for now it is difficult to find as we are having the same old DLCers pushed down our throats as if doing the same thing over and over again is going to get a different result. It isn't and now we know it. So I keep asking, what do we do about it?

[grahamhgreen]

121. I care :-)

[840high]

16. kick

[cinnabonbon]

21. Kicked and recced.

This is too important to ignore.

[pampango]

22. "The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions,

particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties. But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. "

Apparently the Obama administration has not been pushing hard for "tough environmental provisions" and "sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations". The problem is that most or all of the other countries are resisting Obama on this.

I hope that the administration is putting similar pressure in the area of labor rights. They will probably run into a lot of resistance here too.

Obama's concept all along has been for a 'high standards' trade agreement - something like what the EU has for its internal trade (without the open immigration, of course). It looks like impossible. He should abandon this, unfortunately allowing the rules of the WTO and existing 'free trade' agreements to remain in force, rather than compromise and water down the kind of agreement he was looking for.

[cali]

25. The U.S. gave in to Peru etc.

they didn't push hard. they succumbed in order to get this deal through.

[pampango]

29. Your post was that the US "could be selling out environmental protections in order to cement" a deal

Nowhere does it say that the US has already given in, just that there is a danger that it might. And I don't see where it says that the administration has not pushed hard for a tough environmental provision, just that it is facing almost united opposition to it. (I suppose the 'national sovereignty' folks in those countries don't want an international organization ruling that they have violated an environmental law and will be punished for it. Which is something that I imagine the tea party folks here would agree with.)

[cali]

31. the draft was written on November 24th- the last day of the last talks

pretty clear that the U.S.T.R. will give in to just about anything in order to ink this "trade" deal. that's been clear for a time now. I just finished reading the SC/NRDC/WWF analysis.

This is the end of the draft process, not the beginning.

[pampango]

35. "pretty clear that the USTR will give in to just about anything in order to ink this "trade" deal"

"pretty clear" is in the eye of the beholder. The administration was not willing to accept the draft 'as is' in order to get the proposed agreement finished by its end-of-the-year deadline. I will give them credit for that.

The opposition of the other countries to tough/enforceable environmental provisions undoubtedly goes back to the beginning of these negotiations. The fact that the Obama administration has continued to support them apparently throughout the years' long negotiations is an indication that they have been serious about them.

Is there a danger that the administration will cave? While I appreciate the fact that Obama has apparently kept tough environmental provisions under discussion when others wanted the to go away, but I agree that there is a danger that they will cave in the face of this opposition. I certainly hope not. I would hope that there is also the possibility that publicly embarrassing countries that oppose them will have some effect on those countries and perhaps get them to change their opposition.

[cali]

36. no, it's in the evidence and the analysis from organizations like

the Sierra Club, NRDC, EFF and many other trusted actors. It's also about the history of this misbegotten "trade" deal; the overly secret nature of the process, the choice of advisors, etc.

[pampango]

38. Why are tough environmental provisions still part of the draft agreement if every other country

opposes them? One would think they would have been removed long ago unless someone was insisting that they be retained in the face of the opposition from all these other countries.

[cali]

40. those provisions are window dressing. they are meaningless.

within the context of the chapter as written which provides for NO enforcement.

it laughable, disgusting, cynical and horrid

<snip>

"The Parties recognize that each Party retains the right to exercise discretion and to make decisions regarding: (a) investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory, and compliance matters;"

Language such as this makes the entire chapter on the environment worthless and unenforceable. That soft language starts in the general commitments section of the document and continues throughout it. So while the rest of the chapter goes on to haphazardly address issues such as poaching, invasive alien species, and ethical fishing, the pledges are worthless because each member nation retains the right to simply ignore the promises it will make by signing the TPP.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-new-leaks-show-trans-pacific-partnership-a-failure-for-citizens/article/366055#ixzz2qUQqhDdU

[pampango]

43. I would agree that allowing member countries to use national sovereignty to resist compliance is bad

"When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-new-leaks-show-trans-pacific-partnership-a-failure-for-citizens/article/366055#ixzz2qUQqhDdU

Again the "absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures" is a win for the 'national sovereignty' folks who don't want foreigners or international organizations telling what to do. If this analysis of the draft is accurate, the environmental section will be essentially worthless.

From other sources it sounds like the Obama administration was a lone holdout for tougher provisions but that it was not successful. At least Obama did not feel the need to agree with provisions as they are in order to finish the negotiations by December 31 as they had hoped.

It will be sad, for me at least, if the good idea of including labor rights, environmental standards and other progressive goals in a trade agreement will have been so screwed up. From what I have read it seems that Obama may have been more ready for this than are most of the other countries in this negotiation. We will be left with the WTO and our various 'free trade' agreements governing our trade.

[cali]

47. this is a bad deal in so very many ways. This is just the latest installment confirming that

and Obama and his admin have been responsible for some very bad aspects of it

He should back out of it. I know he won't, but I surely question why he pushed so hard for it; why he didn't have anything other than corporate input, why he named such corporate pigs to the USTR.

fuck it.

[pampango]

53. I agree that he should back out of it if the labor and environmental parts are not strong and

enforceable. I think he might back out or a little more face-saving way would be to just continue negotiations interminably like have happened in the WTO in recent years.

I think I know why he pushed it so hard. He views it as a positive way to put pressure on China. Romney wanted to label China a currency manipulator the first day he was in office (thankfully that never happened) and many on the right want the US to play real 'hard ball' with China.

Obama chose a different path of creating a 'high standards' agreement that would exclude China (at least until it reforms its labor and environmental laws) but include most other Pacific Asian and North/South American countries. Unfortunately it looks like the rest of the countries do not share his goals.

[cali]

54. I would LOVE to see him find a face saving way to back out of this

but I just don't see how that's possible at this time- and I'm unconvinced that he doesn't support the corporate boons reflected in it.

[bvar22]

94. Can you defend THIS?

Here are some actual quotes from the draft released by WikiLeaks:

Article SS.8: Corporate Social Responsibility

Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or jurisdiction, to adopt voluntarily, into their policies and practices, principles of corporate social responsibility related to the environment, consistent with internationally recognized standards and guidelines that have been endorsed or are supported by that Party.


Article SS.9: Voluntary Mechanisms to Enhance Environmental Performance

The Parties recognize that flexible, voluntary mechanisms, such as voluntary auditing and reporting, market-based incentives, voluntary sharing of information and expertise, and public-private partnerships, can contribute to the achievement and maintenance of high levels of environmental protection and complement domestic regulatory measures. The Parties further recognize that such mechanisms should be designed in a manner that maximizes their environmental benefits and avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade.

http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/

Are you really going to defend "voluntary" self-oversight for the Corporations involved in the TPP agreement?

Lets see what happens when Corporations are allowed to VOLUNTARILY enforce their OWN Environmental Regulations:
[font size=3]"Chemical Leak Into West Virginia River Far Larger Than Previously Estimated" [/font]


Voluntary Corporate Responsibility?
Enough to gag a fucking maggot,
and so is defending the indefensible.




Thank You, WikiLeaks,
and ALL the other Whistle Blowers who have had the courage to expose The Truth.

[bobduca]

105. ...

[pampango]

117. No. As I have often posted, environmental standards should not be voluntary. National sovereigty

should take a back seat to issues like the environment, labor/human rights and some other issues. There should be an international organization enforcing tough environmental laws - and countries must not be able to hide behind 'national sovereignty' (foreigners can't tell us what to do) to continue polluting.

Obama may have fought hard for tough environmental standards but, if he has lost this battle, the agreement is worthless.

[bvar22]

122. "Obama MAY have fought hard" ??!! LOL

Just guessing again?
Or is that just some leftover "hope" from 2008.

What evidence do you have that he "fought hard"?

[pampango]

123. Hey, I'm just quoting the report released by Wikileaks.

The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties.

But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.

The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: “While the chair sought to accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for some parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by other parties.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration-is-seen-as-retreating-on-environment-in-talks-on-pacific-trade.html

[joshcryer]

113. They don't share the goals for one reason.

Environmental standards are bullshit for the developing world. They hate that developed countries went through their shitty environmental phases and are not expected to be clean, which is costly. It's no surprise that almost all of Latin America (save Mexico) was against the Rio summit and how in reality literally nothing will be done about climate change in the near future.

Renewable energy intellectual property, which the developed world owns most of.

Obama's goal to go renewable would be grand if he would put in fairness exceptions for those developing countries to get the intellectual property rights.

But that will never happen. So it is a double edged sword here. If you look at it solely as the US going clean, that's cool, but if you look at the geopolitical dynamics, the US isn't being totally fair here. And that's why countries are against it.

[NealK]

107. +1000

[joshcryer]

112. Bullshit, they are an intellectual property protection.

The US is at the forefront of renewable technologies and the US wants to shore them up. TPP would be a poison pill to developing countries. Either they are dirty, or they use US intellectual property to become clean. It would 100% be enforced every damn time that some intellectual property agreement on renewables came up. The developing world would be forced to pay a steep development cost to get those technologies. So they'll be forced to buy our fossil fuels.

And guess what? The US will have a shitload of coal to export in the coming years.

It is absolutely a real thing, but it is not window dressing, so much deceit. The US has outsourced its pollution for so long now it wants to continue selling fossil fuels and remain 'clean.'

[Divernan]

44. Obama's only stalling in hopes of getting approval for fast track authority.

Then there will be a new draft which caves to the max to satisfy every corporate desire.

[cali]

45. It's difficult to look at the evidence and not come to that conclusion

and it's not a conclusion I'm happy to arrive at.

[pampango]

50. So this draft is for show only (even though it was secret and only revealed by Wikileaks) and

he will totally cave in after he gets fast track authority. He is good at 10-D chess. He fakes us out with tough provisions in 'secret' documents - knowing perhaps that they will be revealed one day. Perhaps he is even in bed with Wikileaks.

As for fast track, I imagine that is tricky for him. He knows that Democrats want to be sure that strong provisions on labor rights and the environment are in the agreement and will be reluctant to give him fast track for that reason. Conversely republicans, particularly in the tea party-influenced House will want to be sure that there are no provisions on labor rights and the environment in the agreement, so they will resist fast track.

I can see that Obama might hope that enough Democrats will trust him with fast track, because he knows that House republicans will not trust him (to put it mildly). Without fast track, the House will surely want to delete any liberal provisions such as those dealing with labor and the environment.

I think I understand why Obama wanted to do the TPP, but I think there is not a snowball-in-Texas' chance that this will ever pass.

[joshcryer]

111. pampango, the US has a LOT to gain by pressing for enviromental standards.

Because the US will not give up intellectual property rights and the US is going to be energy self-sufficient by about 2050 or so. Basically the US is taking this position because, not in spite of, the US is doing really well on environmental technology creation.

[dickthegrouch]

24. West Virginia gave us a fresh view

of what happens when environmental regs are weak and unenforceable.

We cannot let corporate amerika win this.

[Zorra]

39. What a surprise. nt

[dorkzilla]

41. Sickening

I'm so sad and disappointed that "my" president is letting this happen. So fucking depressing and it feels as though no one is for Mother Earth anymore, as if those of us that do because we're a bunch of granola crunching touchy-feely hippies who
are too busy hugging trees to give a fuck.

And I no longer feel that telling my representatives how I feel does squat because I'm not a multinational corporate head.

[Divernan]

42. Obama proposal rolls back environmental protections; hits new low in selling out!

WikiLeaks has unveiled the proposed environmental chapter, and says the Obama Administration's environmental demands are weak:

When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in 'environmental' goods and the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears to function as a public relations exercise.

The Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program director Ilana Solomon told The New York Times that the draft deal, if confirmed, would undo environmental protections enacted by the U.S. Solomon said, "it rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are.

"

[WillyT]

46. K & R !!!

[daleanime]

48. Kick....

sick to my stomach.

[cali]

49. I hear you. well, thanks for posting in this thread

What makes me sick is DU endlessly posting breathlessly about stupid outrageous things that teabaggers say and ignoring the vital issues.

[daleanime]

52. I hear ya.....

as much as I'm enjoying 'bridge-gate', we need to be paying more attention to the TPP, and W. Virgina, and voting rights, and unemployment benefits, and etc...


I guess we better get some world class multitasking skills.

Hummmnnn..... Need a simile for grim determination.

[historylovr]

51. K & R

[silverweb]

56. K&R

[xiamiam]

57. k and r..

[laundry_queen]

59. *sigh* K&R nt

[bunnies]

60. This is fucking disgusting.

And it pisses me off to no end that I voted for the man in charge of this bullshit. Gawd damn corporations are the only things any of these gawd damn politicians care about.

[pampango]

65. "And it pisses me off to no end that I voted for the man in charge of this bullshit."

It matters not that it looks like Obama has been pushing for stronger environmental standards than the other countries are willing to accept? It's still all his fault? He is still "the man in charge of this bullshit"?

The report (released by Wikileaks) indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties.

But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.

The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration-is-seen-as-retreating-on-environment-in-talks-on-pacific-trade.html

[bunnies]

68. Damn right he's still the man in charge.

Screw the TPP. Pull us out. Pretend to care about the planet and the people who live here at least HALF as much as he cares about the corporations. Problem solved.

[pampango]

71. He's the man in charge of the US. He's not in charge of Australia or Canada or any of the others.

Pretend to care about the planet and the people who live here at least HALF as much as he cares about the corporations.

He's the one pushing for tough environmental standards and the leaders of the other countries are resisting that, presumably on behalf of their corporations.

BTW, I agree with you that we should pull out of it, regardless of whose fault lax environmental standards are. International negotiations are the way to get labor, environmental and other liberal standards into international law, but sometimes it does not work. I don't blame him for trying but it did not work.

[bunnies]

76. I get that he pushed...

and perhaps he's the only one who did. But, for the life of me, I cant understand how he can put his name on this thing. Threaten to walk and then see what happens... just don't give in and move on. Ya know?

[pampango]

79. "Threaten to walk and then see what happens... just don't give in and move on." Great idea!

And he put his name on it because the whole idea of the TPP was his strategy for dealing with China and its terrible labor and environmental record. Perhaps he should have used 'cowboy diplomacy' and just unilaterally taken action rather than trying to get a bunch of countries together in a long negotiation. But I think he has always said that international negotiation is better than unilateral action. It just has not worked here.

[bunnies]

81. Do you know that this "thing", the tpp...

Allows corporations from other countries to ignore states environmental laws? And if the state puts up a fight, the corporation can sue, at the taxpayers expense. I find it hard to believe that this stemmed from concern over any environmental issue whatsoever. Its horrible on the environment. Horrible.

[pampango]

82. It does not do anything yet. There is not a final, much less agreed to, draft of it.

If it "allows corporations from other countries to ignore states environmental laws" then it is not what I think Obama was aiming for based on the information released. I don't expect Obama to win every battle he engages in, but he should have the wisdom to walk away from a bad deal.

[bunnies]

83. the wisdom to walk away is exactly what he needs.

We are in total agreement on that. For sure.

[cali]

74. you're hanging on to that like it's a life raft

look, even if the admin wasn't caving on this, the list of problems- many of them occasioned by the admin- with the TPP, is a very long one.

[pampango]

77. Indeed I am. And I must say it is a damn good life raft. The OP is about the environmental chapter

of the TPP. From the report released by Wikileaks the Obama administration has been pushing hard for a tough environmental standard. I haven't seen anything posted that would contradict this.

The fact that they may not carry the day is very disappointing but sometimes you don't get what you want in a negotiation. When that happens you back away.

[cali]

78. it doesn't seem as if the admin has rejected the draft

and looking at what the admin has done vis a vis this chapter, without looking at it in context, is an exercise lacking in logic.

[pampango]

80. They may not have rejected it. I don't know. But they have not accepted it either as far as we know.

I understand that there are many chapters in the agreement. Some may be good. Some may be bad. I don't expect every chapter to meet my standard. (There would be few international agreements ever signed if we used that standard. ) But the chapters on the environment and labor rights are important to me. I'm sure that other chapters are more important to others.

[Berlum]

61. the occult TPP is fab for Corporations, toxic for human beings

Thanks to wikileaks for giving us a freaking clue about the OCCULT machinations of corporations against the human beings.

[El_Johns]

62. KR

[magical thyme]

63. K&R. thank dog for Wiki.

[cali]

64. for sure. now if only the MSM would stop fucking hiding this and the TPIP

yeah, it's good that the NYT did a story about it, but they're just about as complicit as the rest of the fucks.

[City Lights]

66. We are so fucked.

[whatchamacallit]

67. The deranged Assange/WL haters should be along soon to spew bile

at WL for the crime of enlightenment.

[cali]

70. nah, they largely stay out of threads about the TPP

because they know it's indefensible and most Assage detractors are BOG.

[rhett o rick]

118. You know them by their absence. They will not speak to the TPP. Conservatives the lot,

and Conservative Dems will be the death of the middle class.

[The2ndWheel]

72. Sounds like every other trade deal

Progress has to come at the cost of something. We can't escape that.

[cali]

75. actually, it's worse than NAFTA or CAFTA

[The2ndWheel]

86. And every international agreement is increasingly non-binding

The cost to the environment of doing business is going up. The people in charge aren't going to handcuff themselves. Human progress has always come at the cost of the environment. We've covered the planet, and just don't have anywhere to move to anymore. We're now stuck where we are, digging the hole deeper. We mask it with technological advances, but that buys only so much time, and ultimately makes the issue more complicated.

As long as we have numerous governments all acting in their own interest, this is what you get. Then if there was one global super-government that had one message and one direction, that opens up a whole different can of worms.

[Jefferson23]

84. Thank God for Wikileaks...this is just fucking nuts how irresponsible it is. No one

should support such a thing. So frustrating.

Don’t Let Them Trade Away Our Internet Freedoms: Speak Out Against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement!
https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8229

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-trans-pacific

http://www.citizen.org/tppaction


K&R

cali...thanks for posting.

[Norrin Radd]

87. kr

[blkmusclmachine]

88. TPP is TERRIBLE for the planet & 99% of its people; & that's why they're hiding it from public view!

[Enthusiast]

89. Tell your friends, family and acquaintances that the TPP is a job killing agreement.

We can start a meme too.

No one is exempt from a meme. Now, repeat after me, "The TPP is a job killing agreement."

[Titonwan]

90. K&R

Once this is done- it's done.

[bvar22]

92. Some direct quotes from the draft agreement released by WikiLeaks:

[font size=3]VOLUNTARY is the key word.[/font

Article SS.8: Corporate Social Responsibility

Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or jurisdiction, to adopt voluntarily, into their policies and practices, principles of corporate social responsibility related to the environment, consistent with internationally recognized standards and guidelines that have been endorsed or are supported by that Party.


Article SS.9: Voluntary Mechanisms to Enhance Environmental Performance

The Parties recognize that flexible, voluntary mechanisms, such as voluntary auditing and reporting, market-based incentives, voluntary sharing of information and expertise, and public-private partnerships, can contribute to the achievement and maintenance of high levels of environmental protection and complement domestic regulatory measures. The Parties further recognize that such mechanisms should be designed in a manner that maximizes their environmental benefits and avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade.

http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/

Lets see what happens when Corporations are allowed to VOLUNTARILY enforce their OWN Environmental Regulations:
[font size=3]Chemical Leak Into West Virginia River Far Larger Than Previously Estimated [/font]


Voluntary Corporate Responsibility?
Enough to gag a fucking maggot.


This is much, MUCH worse than I had imagined.
This REALLY is the "One Ring that Binds Them",
and it is NOW being forged in the furnaces of the REAL evil doers.


Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html


Thank You, WikiLeaks,
and ALL the other Whistle Blowers who have had the courage to expose The Truth.

[bobduca]

108. resistance to voluntary adoption is futile

[joshcryer]

115. It is when the west owns renewable energy intellectual property.

It's weasel language and it's meant to make it perfectly clear that those who don't meet the environmental standards are doing so "voluntarily." Not that they're being forced to not recognize those standards because the west refuses to share the technology!

[joshcryer]

114. HAHA! That's totally superceded by the Intellectual Property Chapter.

In other words all it is saying is that those who "choose" to deal with environmental standards are doing so "voluntarily."

Except the intellectual property chapter makes it compulsory.

So get your facts straight, bvar22.

Guess who owns the lions share of renewable energy intellectual property?

[bvar22]

124. What "facts" don't I have straight?

I posted direct quotes from the draft agreement released by WikiLeaks concerning Environmental regulations.

Now, let us get OUR facts straight.
Where is the documentation for YOUR claims?
or are you just making stuff up again?

[joshcryer]

127. the IP chapter is on that page

it will absolutely NOT be 'voluntary' to use renewable technologies, countries will be FORCED to pay the USA for it

that is why MOST countries are against the IP provisions

you are spreading a highly misleading right wing enabling meme that countries enacting environmental standards would not be beholden to the USA if they did so under the TPP because it's 'voluntary'

[bvar22]

128. Bullshit.

The two issues are independent.
Why are you papering DU with your speculative bullshit and trying so HARD to discredit the VOLUNTARY
Environmental monitoring and compliance.

Again, I posted DIRECT QUOTES from the released draft.
What have YOU posted to support YOUR diversionary speculations,
and claims that I am spreading "right wing enabling memes"?

If you would like to post a thread about the IP Provisions,
be my guest.

[joshcryer]

129. countries will be BEHOLDEN under TPP

They CAN'T implement environmental standards without being beholden to the west

How is that IN ANY WAY VOLUNTARY?

Why do you TRUST the TPP to be truthful on this issue?

The TPP is LYING when it claims it is voluntary and you perpetuate that LIE

they are NOT independent issues because TPP forces countries to comply with the IP provisions, I don't know why you defend the TPP on this issue

[dipsydoodle]

93. Odd that Wikileaks couldn't spell Environment

[adirondacker]

102. Damn English and their silent consonants.

[dchill]

96. K & R.

[cantbeserious]

97. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

These interests will always be served before those of the people.

[steve2470]

98. k&r nt

[Dustlawyer]

99. This just makes me sick! We are acting like there is no tomorrow, and because of that

there will be no tomorrow. We are Stewards of this earth for the future generations. We should be looking to radically change our behaviors to live a cleaner life. Instead we propagate and grow, always grow, expand, but don't change a thing! As if we had inexhaustible resources! Our oceans become more acidic and polluted with fish stocks on the verge of collapse. There is nowhere else to go when we screw this up. Why he'll, even the rich will suffer!

[wildbilln864]

100. K & fucking r! n/t

[niyad]

101. k and r--and happy birthday to wiki online

[marmar]

103. k/r

[anti partisan]

110. K&R. This is what's important, not that loser from Jersey.

[Hun Joro]

125. Kick