in the leaked Environmental draft chapter, corporate compliance enforcement weak

[cali]

Yeah, yeah. It's "old". (November 2013 after 17 rounds of negotiations) It's "only" a draft. It's still revealing.
Oh, and in the draft it's revealed that much of that compliance is voluntary.

Analysis at links
https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/green-groups-leaked-trans-pacific-partnership-environment-chapter-unacceptable
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/15/tpp_environment_chapter_leakedhttps://wikileaks.org/tpp-envirohttps://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/

[cali]

1. in a world where corporations haven't demonstrated much environmental responsibility

how does this make sense? Reading the recently released investment draft chapter and the environmental chapter, we can see how heavily tilted toward corporate rights, the TPP is.

[marym625]

3. It doesn't make sense. It makes money for corporations

[cali]

5. The contrast between the two chapters is stark

[marym625]

39. There's nothing good in this thing.

[daleanime]

6. We have a winner.....

unfortunately you, and the rest of us, win absolutely nothing.

[marym625]

40. The only reason for the entire thing is for corporations to gain

Period.

[neverforget]

2. I trust the corporations, Chamber and Republicans to do

the right thing with the environment and workers.

[Fred Sanders]

13. I trust Obama, also at the table, with experts, to do the right thing...why do you not? And a draft is a draft is a strawman.

Enjoy your recs from the lurkers and new "members".

Then listen to your President explain it to you in his weekly address. Listen.

What now? Now you do not believe Obama?

Really? Obama is lying to you, is he??

[LiberalArkie]

15. Once everything is approved, they will fix all the problems like they fixed

the all the problems with the Patriot act.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Not trusting your own President, defending the mistrust by ignoring the point...and with strawmen? The weakness in logic is obvious.

[Fuddnik]

19. How much does it take for people to figure out they've been played for patsies?

You see it all the time in cults, Amway, pyramid schemes, religion, and especially politics.

Then the poor mark always sobs, "we wuz lied to".

[Fred Sanders]

21. Wow, four strawmen-in-one...never seen that before.

[Fuddnik]

23. Do you know the meaning of the word?

[Fred Sanders]

24. Trust? Yes, I know the meaning I think President Obama has earned plenty from his own party.

Why do you not? The trust Democrats should have with Obama is NOT the trust equivalent of Amway?!

Which was my original comment in response to "trust" in the original comment I replied to...... I was looking for an answer to the trust issue, not strawmen deflections.

But if that is what it takes to ignore the fact that what it boils down to for some folks is these folks do not trust their own leader and President, that is what it takes...but such illogical folks should not try to fool anyone with the deflections.

[marym625]

41. Fred, I have a serious question

I don't want to get into all the personality stuff being thrown around on DU.

The politicians that are for the TPP are mostly Republican. Republicans that swore to block President Obama at every turn. Yet, with the TPP, they are with him.

Many of the politicians that are against it, or minimally, against fast track, are Democrats. Democrats that worked not just once, but twice, to get President Obama elected.
Corporations have carte blanche view and input into the treaty. Rather than repost everything I already linked to, here's an early reply I put together about this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6565201

Considering the above, why should should we blindly trust that this document is good for the average American?

[fasttense]

42. I stopped trusting president Obama when he renewed the uber rich bush administration tax give away.

And that was with a lame duck Democratic congress. And they only had to do NOTHING for it to fade away.

I have never trusted a word he said after that.

[cali]

26. The poster has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not know the meaning of the

word strawman.

[cali]

28. YOU advocate nothing but blind trust yet have the gall to accuse others of lack of logic?

ouch, my head hurts from the astounding cognitive dissonance you display.

[L0oniX]

34. ^^^this^^^

[Doctor_J]

38. I trust the other 150+ democrats who don't like it. don't you?

[SusanCalvin]

43. No, I don't trust my own president, and furthermore

I don't trust any politician (or person) blindly, not even Elizabeth and Bernie.

Last I heard, I was entitled to observe what's going on and draw my own conclusions. If my president (or anyone) wants to influence my conclusions, just saying "trust me" is not the way to do it.

(Implying things that aren't true, such as that TTP documents are open as air, isn't the way to do it either.)

[cali]

17. It's primarily not about trust

for me. Trusting a politician on vital issues, and relying only on trust, is an abdication of the obligation to be informed and to use critical thinking skills. There's nothing wrong with trust being a component in the decision making process, but relying solely on it is a very bad way to come to a decision. It's not only less than intelligent, it's downright dangerous. Just because someone trusts a politician, doesn't make it a fact that said politician is trustworthy on every issue. President Obama has made promises he hasn't kept. His economic policy record is mixed.

[cali]

25. you are a new member.

And most of us long time poster's are against mindlessly trusting the President on this. And yes, that is what you advocate; blind trust.

I've heard him on this. I think his rhetoric leaves much to be desired. Yes, I think he's being less than honest. No, I don't trust him on it. You choose blind trust. I choose research, critical thinking and lastly, trust; trust in the analysis of organizations like the Sierra Club, NRDC, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Human Rights Groups, Public Interest and labor organizations and people like Senators Sanders, Warren and Brown, trade experts like Joseph Stiglitz.

Does it trouble you at all that the President s allies in this are repukes, the Koch brothers, the Chamber of Commerce and corporations like Monsanto?

You are flat wrong about the leaked chapters. You clearly have no idea what a strawman is, and other leaked documents
portray the goals and priorities of the USTR negotiators.

You haven't bothered to do any research. Your entire argument is founded on blind trust in the President- something you are actually proud of.

[neverforget]

29. When most Democrats, unions and environmental groups are

against something, I tend to believe them because they're looking out for me especially the unions and environmental groups.

One more thing, I've been here since 2001 so I'm not a newbie and I don't give a rat's ass about recs. I care about the future of this country and it's workers and the TPP sucks.

[cali]

31. oddly enough, it's my understandind

that that poster lives in Great Britain and is not a US citizen

[marym625]

4. K&R

[SamKnause]

7. K&R

[think]

8. "This draft chapter falls flat on every single one of our issues"

"This draft chapter falls flat on every single one of our issues - oceans, fish, wildlife, and forest protections - and in fact, rolls back on the progress made in past free trade pacts."

Says the Sierra Club executive director.

So we should trust that the new and improved TPP is going to be so much better because, well because , well....

[cali]

12. The best we can hope for are minor tweaks or revisions

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

The USTR has said that they are very close to finalizing the agreement. Revision, after 20 negotiating rounds with twelve nations is complicated and time consuming

[Novara]

9. Because corporations always voluntarily spend their own money preventing environmental fuckups

[Enthusiast]

11. Kicked

and recommended!

[shaayecanaan]

14. But corporations will be able to sure governments that change their laws

on IP and other issues. Yet governments will have no power over corporations. Quite a remarkable inversion of power.

[Fred Sanders]

22. What is remarkable is how inaccurate your generality without substance is.

[cali]

27. mine aren't. my links aren't

And your advocacy of blind trust and lack of even the most basic knowledge on this, make your comment highly ironic.

[Fuddnik]

18. Haven't you learned anything yet?

They'll fix it AFTER they pass it!

Look at ACA as an example. It started out as a give-a-way to the pharmaceutical industry and providers, now it's a smooth running single payer system that's envied by the world!

[aspirant]

20. If the people

should be content to trust blindly, why isn't blind trust good enough for corporations?

Start from scratch, remove the corporate influence and let a cross section of real professional AMERICANS become the trade negotiators

What do you think the multinationals will say?

[SusanCalvin]

44. Thank you!

I appreciate the way you just demolished the "trust" argument (if it can be called an argument).

A proposal to turn the tables often sheds a lot of light, doesn't it?!

[HereSince1628]

30. Of course enforcement of compliance is voluntary...the driving philosophy behing the agreements

seeks free (from regulation) trade.

So we can't expect a framework that imposes costs required to meet regulations that would threaten the exploitable asymmetry between cost and sales value that results in profit.

[riderinthestorm]

32. Here's a current environmental case under NAFTA with lead poisoning and children

Its also emblematic of the investor state problems and litigation that is currently also incorporated into the latest version of the TPP.

Read it and weep. Those who think this sort of shit should go global should be ashamed of themselves.

This is a prominent case in Peru where investor-state treaties have provided an avenue for companies to delay or reverse agreements which had been enforceable in courts:

...Renco Group Inc., a company owned by one of the richest men in America, invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. The site has been designated as in the top 10 most polluted in the world. The firm has been sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Sulfur dioxide concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards, with sulfur dioxide levels doubled in the years after Renco’s acquisition of the complex. Renco’s Peruvian subsidiary promised to install sulfur plants by 2007 as part of an environmental remediation program. Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations, the company sought (and Peru granted) two extraordinary extensions to complete the project.

In December 2010, Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging that Peru’s failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firm’s FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration.

Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen, the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism.

Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state court’s remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...

read more: http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf

[cali]

33. yeah, the renco case is horrific

[riderinthestorm]

35. I was sure you were aware of it but wanted to get it out there for DUers

who have (willfully?) missed it.

It's just the textbook picture of a whole raft of problems with these trade agreements.

I guess I'm hoping it reaches those DUers who may still want facts and education.

Thanks for all of your hard work on this issue. You've been fantastic.

[cali]

36. absolutely. you should do an opportunity on it

[L0oniX]

37. ^^^this ^^^ is the future that TPP will guarantee.

Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state court’s remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...