Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2017, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)
"And again, what about the environment? What about the Sierra Club's objections that this was going to lock us and other nations into behaviors that were exploiting and destroying the environment, due to the threat of litigation for changing policies that affected businesses? These are impacts that we can never ever undo. Once arable land is destroyed, or water poisoned, or species eradicated...etc. That's it. "
.. the deal would not have infringed on the rights of states to pass laws for the common good (including the environment). The TPP tried to fix the problems with NAFTA and threat of litigation because of trade infringement. There were a lot of criticisms about the deal prior to the text being made available, and once available, some of the concerns were addressed.
And no trade deal can cover environment concerns perfectly. Realistically we can't expect countries that solely depend on natural resource extraction ( for example) to be as finicky about the environment as we are... We can't make agreements on imagined alternatives. For the benefit of the planet, everyone has to be lifted out of poverty. What you see as "Exploitation" another worker with less options in another country would see it as an opportunity, even if not ideal. With the TPP the union provision was the right direction to prevent shameless exploitation. Was it perfect? No.
We can't have it both ways either - raising living standards in other countries puts them on the path of prosperity. We can't want to improve their lot and still be worried about them benefiting from this wealth and increasing leverage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
