Summary From TPP Text - Countries & Companies Should Voluntarily Protect Environment

[hatrack]

EDIT

In the summary of the environmental section posted by the US government it doesn’t mention the climate but does mention the “energy revolution” under the heading of “Transition to a Low-Emissions Economy”: TPP countries recognize that the world is in the midst of an energy revolution. The agreement includes commitments to cooperate to address issues such as energy efficiency; the development of cost-effective, green technologies; and alternative, clean and renewable energy sources.

And when it comes to Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) the language promises “reinforcements” to these commitments even though they “may lack binding enforcement regimes": TPP countries are signatories to many MEAs covering a wide range of environmental issues. However, these agreements may lack binding enforcement regimes. By requiring MEA implementation, TPP provides valuable reinforcements to these commitments.

And, of course, there is the part about encouraging companies to volunteer to protect the environment: The Environment chapter includes commitments to encourage companies to voluntarily adopt corporate social responsibility policies, and to use mechanisms, such as public-private partnerships, to help to protect the environment and natural resources.

So, it appears that the TPP doesn’t consider climate change an important issue but as the world continues its “energy revolution” that countries can volunteer to protect the environment.

EDIT

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/05/breaking-trans-pacific-partnership-ignores-climate-asks-countries-volunteer-protect-environment

[Hoyt]

1. Not sure that's how I'd characterize it, but it's clearly better than doing nothing.

[djean111]

2. Nothing will get done, IMO. And most likely anything a country tries to do will be

challenged in court if it affects current or future profits.

[Hoyt]

5. I don't think so. That's not the way ISDS works.

[hatrack]

4. Well, certainly, urging companies to voluntarily adopt social responsibility policies is . . .

. . . better than urging them outright to blast, dam, and clear-cut without regard for anything but profit, I guess.

Not that blasting, damming and clear-cutting with fleeting lip service to social responsibility is much better, but what's a biosphere among profit-minded friends, right?

[Hoyt]

8. Actually the agreement is encouraging COUNTRIES to improve labor standards, allow unionization, etc.

[Nihil]

6. Actually no, it's not "clearly better than doing nothing" because ...

1) It doesn't require anything (i.e., still allows them to do nothing, just asks them to "voluntarily help"
whether or not they have already been "voluntarily helping", "voluntarily ignoring" or "voluntarily
worsening" the situation).

and

2) It provides a green-washed hand-wave to suggest that the environment really is a consideration
when the only actual, real consideration that is written into the law is the overwhelming importance
of profit.

The only "clear" thing is that the TPP supporters (and, more generically, the corporate profit supporters)
will continue to lie & dissemble because *they* don't care about the environment.

[Hoyt]

9. It's actually more than than, but, whatever, it is better than doing nothing.

Although I know you won't read and/or acknowledge it, here is just one example:

"The side agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership calls for Vietnam to pass legislation that would legalize independent unions, allow them to strike and let them seek help from foreign labor organizations like the A.F.L.-C.I.O."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/international/vietnam-tpp-trade-agreement-labor-reaction.html?_r=0


Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would do you and poor countries a service if they would begin mentioning things like this, assuming they have even looked deeply enough into it, which I doubt.

[Nihil]

11. Nice distraction and redirection but this is the E/E group, not GDP ...

... so even if the TPP does ask countries very nicely to pass some legislation at some point
that might undo some of their human rights abuses/restrictions in the indefinite future,
that still has SFA to do with the concern of this thread: the environmental impact of the TPP
is *negative* and, rather than imposing or demanding environmental protection, the series
of hand-waves and "should"s amount to a green light for (further) pollution, exploitation
and habitat destruction.

Allowing such corporate sycophancy to replace regulations is precisely why you can't drink
river water or ground water in so many places in your own country now. Yay dollar$!

[Hoyt]

13. Sorry, thought we were in GD. Still believe TPP - with deficiencies - is better than doing nothing.

Having trade relationships with countries that have not adopted environmental standards can only help.

Besides, it does not seem fair for the USA to pollute the world for decades while amassing much of the world's wealth, and then tell poor countries -- at least one of whom we nearly bombed into oblivion -- that they have to give up the idea of economic progress because their environmental laws are not up to the standards we demand (that doesn't mean we can't ask for improvements, which is what we have done in this agreement).

[GoneFishin]

3. U.S. citizens are required to pay taxes, not just encouraged. But many still don't. The kumbaya

language in TPP with no concrete obligations nor mechanisms for enforcement are a farce and are there only to fool the gullible and naive. It is meaningless blather, except that it does serve one single important purpose which is to puff up and add ineffectual bulk to the pile of horseshit that is TPP so that the really scary stinky turd nuggets can be hidden inside.

[djean111]

7. Well and truly put.

The TPP and other "trade" agreements of this ilk will determine my voting and support from this time on.
No votes for enablers, whether they be in or out of office at this time.

And that "New Democrat Coalition" (Third Way advised DINO tools) membership will get no votes or support from me, either.
That is a useful thing, because part of Pelosi's job is to arrange things so that DINOs in liberal districts can vote yea (or nay) without fear of reprisal, because there enough yea (or nay) votes in total, so that vote really won't count. I doubt that many politicians actually vote with their constituents in mind any more - except, of course, when it does not interfere with what the party tells them to do.

Kabuki theater.

[phantom power]

10. “may lack binding enforcement regimes"

Man, that is some next-level bureaucrat-speak right there.

[phantom power]

12. TPP: The longest, most inefficient re-statement of hatrack's principle in human history?

[Nihil]

14. +1 (n/t)