Wikileaks Releases TPP Environmental Chapter; Once Again Shows Why Negotiators Wanted Details Hidden
from the fuck-the-environment dept
Wikileaks, who had already leaked out the Intellectual Property chapter of the TPP has now leaked the Environment Chapter as well. And, as had been expected by many civil society groups, it is now clear that the USTR, in particular, has "retreated from previous demands of strong international environmental protections." The USTR likes to talk big about how things like the TPP would actually increase environmental protections, but it looks like (as many expected) this was just a negotiating position, to be traded away to get other benefits for big corporate donors (such as corporate sovereignty and intellectual property issues). As Wikileaks notes: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.It is clear that the US was pushing for some environmental controls, nearly all of which were opposed by various emerging nations in Asia, who fear that things like pollution controls will make it more difficult for them to develop their economies. Rather than figure out a way to still protect the environment, it appears that the USTR treated these as issues that can be bargained away in favor of other more important aspects of the deal, like exporting extreme copyright polices.
Once again, we see exactly why the USTR has flat out admitted that if the American public was fully aware of what was in the TPP all along that it would never get approved. And, once again, we're reminded that if the USTR can't get a transparent deal approved, then it shouldn't be supporting that deal in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: environmental chapter, environmental protections, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
if this is allowed to go through, instead of being stamped into the dust, just as ACTA was, those who pass it deserve all the crap they get, and that definitely includes the sheep in Congress!! it's about time that they grew some balls and stood up to be counted on the side of those who they are supposed to represent, the people of not just the USA but the people of the planet. fuck that up, as we seem to be so intent on doing, just for money, we will not get another chance! once it's gone, it's gone!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a pretty significant difference -- Snowden actually broke laws (took classified material without authorization), and Wikileaks did not.
But in terms of end benefit, you are right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What does or does not make the powers-that-be angry is of less importance than what they can prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The USA considers wikileaks to be a terrorist organisation just as bad as Snowden. That and wants the people in charge dead. Not to mention the site taken down. They tried hard already. It just didnt work too well when the site got mirrored thousands of times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent!
But the knowledge that this shit would be the first thing they'd tell the legislative to sign is likely to make those Congresscritters pause now that the Environmental chapter's added fuel to the fire.
Well, one would hope anyway. I'm probably overestimating the intelligence of US Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another one?
You can look at something as simple as automobile noise. Many EU countries have very strict laws on these things, but the US no so much. It's why many European high performance cars now have bundled centered exhausts, so that the sound is lower to the sides when testing. If a treaty says that the the standards of the manufacturing country would apply to it's products, then a noisy US car could be sent to Germany and they wouldn't be able to enforce their own laws.
Vagueness and a lack of solid absolute commitments is only an indication of how complex real trade deals are. They aren't like internet chat rooms, they actually have to conform to the will of the people and laws of the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder when will be the tipping point. When will those in power realize that ignoring the environment will lead to epic losses in the future. And those losses won't be merely financial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, but those epic losses are not a competitive disadvantage since they hit all. Actually, not even that: they hit harder in countries like Indonesia (which can drown for all we care), and they lead to industrial benefits for the large companies interested in mining and commerce in polar regions.
Canada has been falsifying a lot of climate change data simply because an ice-free passage will be worth a lot to them.
Big companies thrive on increasing problems and social differences: social differences make it possible to export weapons and mining, farming, and other technology intended to create the de facto caste systems making it possible to siphon off the rest of the available resources from the poor who lose ownership of their country and ultimately their life.
This is how slavery works when done properly: you don't bereave people of their rights and property yourself, you just create the conditions where they organize themselves to have a few hand over the rights and properties of the many.
Climate change is going in the right direction for those who are filthy rich already. If thousands work for you, you'll still have a nice standard of living and many to look down onto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. "Canada" does not produce climate data. Perhaps you meant to say there are Canadian researchers who are engaging in fraud?
If so, that's a heavy allegation in a field that has already seen a huge amount of false accusations of fraud. Do you have any evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It will be worth a lot to a lot more Countries than just Canada.
Climate change is inevitable. There will be another ice age. The change is not gradual with a steady change in one direction. It is more like a pendulum swinging back and forth that is trending one way or the other. Just like winter and summer here in Canada but on a much larger time scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every country has the right to manage its' own environmental laws.
"JUST KIDDING"
Multilateral Environmental Agreements.
Any corporations can write any environmental law in any one country and force that environmental law under Multilateral Environmental Agreements upon all other countries, failure to comply will result in economic penalties.
Any citizens who protest this provision will be considered an threat to the corporate high profit environment, labelled as terrorist and imprisoned indefinitely See GITMO for ideal conditions under which to detain anti corporate profit terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]