If you had an account on forum.suprbay.org with at least one post, you do not need to re-register. Your account is still active and your Suprbay username and password will work.

Wikileaks Releases TPP Environmental Chapter; Once Again Shows Why Negotiators ...
#1
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:

Quote: 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.

Source
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Risk of hospitalization 64% higher with British variant, Danish study shows Resurgence 0 288 Feb 26, 2021, 01:32 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  Covid-19 was in Italy in late November 2019, Report shows Resurgence 0 626 Dec 10, 2020, 01:16 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  Why Covid-19 vaccines can’t be silver bullet: immunity explained Resurgence 0 757 Nov 19, 2020, 22:27 pm
Last Post: Resurgence
  US: Trump administration continues its environmental slash and burn Resurgence 0 590 Nov 19, 2020, 03:14 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  Warning of famine, UN releases $100M to seven countries Resurgence 0 521 Nov 19, 2020, 02:58 am
Last Post: Resurgence



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)