Trans-Pacific Partnership
Insofar as we here at 2GreenEnergy tend to view the world through the lens of energy and the environment, the principal reason we call for the rejection of the TPP is that it will guarantee big polluters immunity from prosecution, and render the citizens of the world powerless to do anything to stop them.
Anyone interested in a broader perspective should check this out, an article that lays out how the TPP is a violation of international law and the transparency it demands on all stakeholders; it’s extremely well-written.
Trade Agreements are as old as nation states. There is nothing odd or sinister about the TPP. Trade agreements are always negotiated and concluded with a degree of secrecy or the process would be subject to endless interference from extraneous parties.
Critic’s of the TPP can’t have it both ways. Either the individual rights of nation states are to be unfettered and not bound by international treaties, including the dictates of UN resolutions, or globalization by treaty obligation is legitimate.
The TPP is a trade agreement, no more. no less.
Opponents of the TPP are people and organizations believe they should have a stake in the agreement and interfere with the negotiations of participants. These opponents argue a confused raft of considerations, mostly irrelevant and confused.
The agreement contains such clauses as anti-tax avoidance, ensuring IP against counter-feinting and IP theft etc. The difference in this treaty is that national governments would become responsible for economic damage cause by lax or complicit local law enforcement.
In fact the TPP is actually helps cheaper medicine by reducing patent protection from 12 years to 8 !
Opponents of the TPP argue that encouraging local law enforcement is somehow wrong, or immoral.
Opponents also argue that the TTP only helps corporate profits, not labour or other organizations. Trade agreements are about trade. The reason only corporations (private or public) are involved along with governments, is because they’re the only participants involved in trade !
It’s the task of governments to represent the interests of other concerned parties peripherally affected by a trade agreement. Trade agreements can’t be a substitute for local legislatures.
I don’t particularly like the TPP because I doubt the economic benefits and fear the TPP becoming as unwieldy and complex as the EU, but I don’t dispute the right of the participants to propose such an agreement.
Nor do I see any evidence the TPP will encourage “pollution” ! In fact most of the fears expressed by TPP opponents appear completely unfounded. (especially on environmental grounds).
Craig, perhaps you see something I don’t, maybe you could elaborate your concerns with specific examples of how the TPP (and which clause) would encourage pollution ?
If you Google “TPP pollution” you’ll get 462,000 responses, including http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3658901/the-tpp-could-be-bad-for-the-climate/ and http://www.alternet.org/world/5-reasons-transpacific-partnership-fast-track-must-be-stopped. Here’s a very detailed and balanced piece from the Brookings Institution that explores the subject to its depths: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/09/trans-pacific-partnership-meltzer/meltzer-tpp-environment-chapter_version-2.pdf. Admittedly, it sees both positives and negatives on the subject, but the positives strike me as bizarre and extremely unlike to happen. I’ll be interested in your take on this once you’ve looked through some of this.
In terms of our rights to participate in such an agreement, the very first things you’ll notice about it are a) only a few people of Earth are privy to its exact content, and b) from the US perspective, it bypasses our (admittedly lame but constitutionally ordained) Congress. We tend to make a big deal out of the Constitution here.
Craig,
You are quite right, the first of your two references appears to be a typical leftist ill-informed opinion piece relying upon conspiracy theories and ludicrous assumptions.
The second reference, Joshua P.Meltzer’s analysis, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, is a far more authoritative and balanced piece, and I thank you for the reference, although I have have been following Joshua Meltzer’s analysis of the TPP for some years.
The US constitution provides for the President to be the sole sole authority empowered to negotiate (trade) treaties. Congress is only authorized to ratify the result. Congress can suggest modifications or inclusions to the President.
The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to negotiate with treaty participants. Nor is Congress entitled to be privy to negotiations.
The framers of the US Constitution understood the need for the President to conduct treaty negotiations in confidence and often in secrecy.
If the Congress decides to forgo the process of debate and recommending amendments, and proceed straight to ratification, that is within the Constitutional power granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Nothing “Unconstitutional is happening here !
The point you seem to be missing, the TPP is just “trade” agreement. All trade agreements must contain terms and conditions that are acceptable to each of the participants. No “trade” agreement could be concluded if one participant simply dictated an array of irrelevant demands to satisfy the political or ideological demands of domestic interest groups.
The TPP is about trade. It’s not intended to be a panacea for a vast raft of extraneous concerns.
The US President is obviously convinced that the TPP is beneficial for strategic economic interests of the US, allies, and the US sphere of influence. That’s a matter between the US President and Congress. Ultimately, they must answer to the electorate. Just as each of the participating nations must answer to their governing structures.
Demands by US (or Western) interest groups that the US should dictate all the terms and conditions to the participants, is arrogant and counter-productive.
The level of misunderstanding of the conditions of the nature of trade agreements are astonishing. No corporation can avoid the laws of participating nations, or seek redress for restrictions or economic harm created by local laws unless specified in the agreement.
Example:1)
No tobacco company could avoid Australia’s plain packaging laws or local taxes on tobacco products by claiming that Brunei doesn’t have plain packaging. However, a cigarette company could seek redress if Australia sought to impose a tariff or restriction on imported cigarettes to protect the domestic local cigarette industry.
Example 2 . All participating nations must respect variances in local laws regarding safety, health and consumer and quality laws. Again those laws can’t be framed to provide advantage for local industry unless specifically exempted.
For instance, Australia can’t insist that all imported vehicles have platypus hide seat covers !
Example 3) Counterfeit and copying. IP ranging from Films to fashion, will become the responsibility of national governments to suppress or pay compensation. Thus the seller of “fake” or illegally copied films, won’t be a local hero supllying a bargain, but a drain on the taxpayer.
All trade agreements contain swings and roundabout. Trade agreements are by their nature examples in the art of compromise.
This “trade” agreement, is about trade. The agreement contains nothing positive, or negative regarding the environment. That’s not it’s purpose ! Trade agreement are about liberalizing trade by removing some tariffs restrictions and red-tape.
Wisely the framers of the TPP have built in a mechanism to allow modifications and amendments. These provisions are designed to allow minor alterations to cope with changing technology and evolving economies.
You write: This “trade” agreement, is about trade. The agreement contains nothing positive, or negative regarding the environment. That’s not it’s purpose!
I know that’s not its purpose, but it’s clearly one of its effects, albeit perhaps unintended.
Craig,
I’m not sure that you’ve made out a case that liberalizing trade between certain nations, will produce any additional detrimental effect on the environment.
The fact that the TPP doesn’t set out to address environmental issues doesn’t inherently mean the TPP will be either advantageous or detrimental, it just means it’s not a suitable instrument to pursue such goals.
Environmental issues would be more effectively addressed by separate and specific treaties. Attempting to derail a strategic trade treaty by imposing extraneous and irrelevant considerations, seems an ineffective and counter-productive method of improving environmental objectives.
Linking environmental issues with other agenda’s must inevitably lead to a lessening of credibility, create more opposition, and only serve to dilute focus.
That’s the problem of trying to interpret every issue through an ideological prism.
I could imagine situations where there might be two diametrically opposed lawsuits both with some element of merit under TPP or the atlantic equivalent!
On the one hand an alliance of fossil fuel companis claiming that tightening environmental regulations iinterfere with their business by reducing the size and profitability of their market and so sue Government.
On the other, an alliance of clean energy companies might possibly sue Government for interfering with their business by failing to make fossil fuel companies pay the true cost of their activities under the polluter pays principle!
By some estimates, e.g a 2011 Harvard study,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-cooper/harvard-study-coal-costs-_b_831755.html
the hidden costs to the US economy of coal fired power generation in health impacts, environmental damage and climate change are estimated at between $330 and $500 billion per annum. I can only imagine the corresponding costs in China with 5 times the population and far more severe pollution levels!
Imagine how much more investment there would be in wind, solar, geothermal power, local CHP, energy efficiency and other clean technologies if coal mines and coal fired power stations had to internalise $330 to $500 billion in environmental costs annually, and the cost of coal fired electricity were as a result around $0.30 per kWh wholesale!
Exactly right. If I had a dollar for every post I’ve written on this exact subject (internalizing coal’s externalities) I could retire (not that I want to do that).
Gary,
I think you misunderstand the nature of “trade” agreements. These agreements are designed to liberalize trade. No company can claim economic disadvantage from local environmental laws, unless those laws are designed to advantage local industries against importers.
If a TPP participant decides to tax Coal as a commodity to allow for “externalities” as long as the local law treats importers and the local industry equally, there is no case to answer.
For instance if Brunei forbids the importation of alcohol while also banning local production, that’s permitted under the TPP. The US can subsidize and favour the Solar industry against coal production, as long as it treats importers and local industries equally.
It’s a just a “trade” agreement. The US can still label meat “produced in USA” as long as it doesn’t restrict the sale of NZ Lamb unfairly.
The issues you raise are not the subject of the TPP.