Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:17 AM Dec 2015

Why Fast-Track Trade Deals, But Not Climate Agreements?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/04/why-fast-track-trade-deals-not-climate-agreements

But as the conference opens, I cannot help thinking that, while countries rush to sign trade deals such as CETA and the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, they cannot seem to get a binding climate change agreement. Very little at the UN or in previous climate conferences has been binding. But somehow, for trade agreements, this doesn't seem to happen. Countries pull all their resources into them, rushing around the world from Maui to Atlanta to Guam, desperate for agreements that gives corporations more rights. Provisions for the environment, human rights and labour rights may be not be enforceable, and we may never be able to control tax shelters or regulate global financial markets. However, trade agreements allow corporations to have binding rights through the Investor State Dispute Settlement process, involving a private arbitration process that allows corporations to sue states over laws or decisions that get in the way of profits. The message is: you have a right to profits but no rights to clean air or a decent wage, no rights to have clean drinking water.

CETA and TPP are both major trade deals that must be fought. They matter because they set the new rules for the next corporate century. They take power away from elected parliaments and into the hands of corporations. They deregulate our social standards. They encourage unsustainable large-scale farming. They add to our pharmaceutical costs. And much more. Hashed out in secret between trade lawyers and lobbyists, these trade agreements have little to do with "eliminating trade barriers" and increasing trade and much to do with carving up the world between different national and corporate interests. But surely TPP is more important than CETA? The list of TPP countries with low wages and low social standards is certainly cause for alarm. But as Maude Barlow says, just because the EU seems "cool" and their standards seem higher than ours doesn't mean we're going to get a better trade deal. It is the same process, with corporations on both sides of the Atlantic getting their way. European companies would love to get their hands on our mainly public municipal services, which could be run by private companies with the motive trumping public service. Our petroleum companies have done their part to lower environmental standards in Europe and to seek potential energy markets, at the expense of advanced European environmental policies. In other words, it is a race to the bottom for us all.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Fast-Track Trade Deals, But Not Climate Agreements? (Original Post) eridani Dec 2015 OP
We get the most democracy that Wall St will allow. raouldukelives Dec 2015 #1
A fast-track climate deal would just be blocked by the Republicans muriel_volestrangler Dec 2015 #2
Given what the republican congress will do to any Obama-negotiated climate agreement, pampango Dec 2015 #3
Do we even have to ask? phantom power Dec 2015 #4

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
1. We get the most democracy that Wall St will allow.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:39 AM
Dec 2015

There is nobody, no one, with money in Wall St who can honestly say they care about democracy for all people.

And yet, they claim too. Vociferously.

It helps me understand how people in the past could own other human beings and still consider themselves abolitionists.

They are cut form the same cloth.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,318 posts)
2. A fast-track climate deal would just be blocked by the Republicans
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:08 AM
Dec 2015

I know the article is almost entirely about the trade deals, but the idea of a fast track process is to present a complete deal to Congress that they'll decide is worth it overall, so they have to let through the aspects they're not so keen on. The Republicans want to reject nearly everything that any climate negotiations can come up with, so they'd be overjoyed at a fast-track process that allowed them to do it all in one go.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
3. Given what the republican congress will do to any Obama-negotiated climate agreement,
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:55 AM
Dec 2015

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

taking that ability out of the their hands is a great idea (though of questionable legality/constitutionality).

Very little at the UN or in previous climate conferences has been binding.

Of course, "binding" implies 'enforceable'. Who or what does the 'enforcing'? Does the US get to be the arbitrator? Probably not a good idea (nor acceptable to other countries) with republicans lurking in the government. If we Paris were to create some international panel to handle enforcement, many (mainly but not solely on the right) would take it as a threat to 'national sovereignty'.

The possibility that a republican congress would give Obama 'fast-track' authority for a climate agreement (to deal with climate change that they deny exists) is not too likely, to say the least.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Fast-Track Trade Deal...