So How Bad Is The Trans-Pacific Partnership?

It has come to attention that although I've raked Obama 'over the coals' for his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/obama-needs-to-tone-down-his-rhetoric.html

Few may actually understand why it is so bad and must be avoided at all costs. In this post I want to elaborate on multiple aspects of the TPP and why Obama needs to come to his senses and join the rank and file of REAL Democrats - as opposed to demo-Rats, Republicans (Mitch McConnell actually cheered Obama for standing with the repukes), Wall Street and the multinational corporations.

Let's examine the TPP via a number of questions in a kind of FAQ - or at least SAQ (sometimes asked questions) understanding from the outset that nearly all the information gleaned thus far has come from Wikileaks:

1. What nations are involved and how extensive is it?

Let's take the extensive part first. This is the largest trade deal ever negotiated by the U.S. - dwarfing even NAFTA. In fact, it's been referred to "NAFTA on steroids". There are 12 nations involved including: Canada, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Mexico, New Zealand, Chile and Peru - all of whose GDP collectively encompasses nearly 40 percent of global gross domestic product.

2. What would the TPP do, in a general sense?

If passed, the TPP would expand trade over the Asia-Pacific region - particularly removing tariffs and investment barriers. In particular, the deal would enormously increase exports of liquefied natural gas. (See my next blog post on the problems with storing natural gas even in the U.S. on account of methane leaks)


3. Who supports the TPP?

Obama and 99 percent of the Republicans and 100 percent of all Neoliberals who want the world ruled by markets in a New World Order where the 'dictator'  of the  marketplace exists everywhere. Specifically, it has the backing of big corporations such as:Halliburton (prime beneficiary of contracts farmed out during the Iraq War), Monsanto (prime producer of GMO seeds and foods, including those that generate their own pesticides), Apple, Facebook and Coca Cola, as well as agro-industry groups.

4. Who opposes the TPP and why?

Ninety-nine percent of REAL Democrats (as opposed to "wine and brie" Neolib dems), 100 percent of liberals and socialists, labor unions, environmental groups, as well as small and local food producers since it will weaken domestic environmental regulations while boosting corporate power. Also, it will pressure lower wages in the U.S. since workers here will have to directly compete against workers in Vietnam who may only earn 68 cents an hour. Thus, like NAFTA, the pressure will be on to expedite a rush to the bottom - with corporations using labor in the cheapest trade partners opposed to more costly home-grown.

5. What are the main opponents' complaints?

-  The Environmental chapter sets a terribly low bar with the measures falling way below U.S. standards for trade deals. Interested people can find out more at:

https://act.350.org/sign/congress-tpp/?gclid=CMiwvN6hssUCFZeDaQodlRgAHQ

And also send a message to congress critters.

In addition, the deals rely mostly on voluntary protections.

- We would face unlimited fracking, literally fracking on steroids with jet afterburners - and most of the U.S. turned into a moonscape without available water in 20 years. This would occur becausxe all oil from shale and natural gas would be automatically approved as "free trade goods".

- All local bans on fracking as well as New York's ban could conceivably be challenged since the TPP would allow foreign governments to sue if fracked oil or gas quotas were not met.  According to Jake Schmidt of the NDRC, "the threat of massive payouts to corporations would have stifling impacts on existing and future bans."

6. Loose labeling of fish, meats - other foods

Already, in a kind of stupendous joke, the FDA allows the labeling of 64 different fish species as Grouper - the 4th most prized fish served at restaurants in the U.S. This means, in effect, what you may be getting may not be real Grouper at all but a poor substitute for which you're still paying top money. Seems that just as the FDA sees no difference between normally grown crops and GMO crops, it sees no difference between real Grouper and 64 imitations!

But that's not all. The TPP would also undermine the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) which ensures packaged beef, pork and lamb is labeled with where it's really from. BUT - what if the beef seeps in (improperly labeled) from a nation where Mad cow disease is still prevalent, or the pork enters from a place where trichinosis is rife? (Bear in mind live animals could be allowed to be imported - bearing foreign parasites, bacteria or other infections.)

If country of origin labeling is compromised you wouldn't know the difference when you dig into that rib-eye or pork chop!


How close are we to this trade holocaust? Close! A fast track vote (which Obama is pushing for along with the Repukes) is already on the line.  Fast tracking means congress only needs to vote yes or no on the TPP once all nations finalize the pact. After this vote no further amendments are allowed. Already the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee have approved fast track legislation this week. The full chambers will be expected to vote in the next few weeks.

 Parasitic worms of the type that could well be introduced with imported foreign livestock if the TPP is passed.

Would you really want these beasties hanging around in your beef or pork?

If not - then barrage your congress critters and tell them in no uncertain terms you want this crap deal nixed....in the bud!


See also:

Excerpt:

Trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership protect corporate investors but lead to even more off-shoring of American jobs.They make it safer for firms to relocate abroad – the Cato Institute describes such investor protections as “lowering the risk premium” on offshoring – thereby reducing corporate incentives to keep jobs in America

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/62145/why-nike-is-the-problem-not-the-solution

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/62137/obama-to-visit-nike-to-promote-the-tpp-wait-nike-really

Frackers Continue To Run Amuck - Despoiling Soil, Air and Water

A frack rig goes up in Montana - ready to despoil more air, soil and water.

Where does it end? The relentless, unregulated fracking I mean, which continues to despoil the landscape of the nation,  rapidly converting it to a de facto moonscape.  But don't take my word. A recent NDRC investigation into the oil and gas industry has identified ExxonMobil and Shell as the two top fracking violators in Colorado, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.  These companies have been placed on the 'most wanted' list and charged by state environmental groups and authorities with violations and crimes that include: illegal dumping and spills, illegal pollution of air, and contamination of drinking water - as well as failure to conduct safety tests.

The full report on the nefarious acts, released in March by NDRC and the FracTracker Alliance, shines a harsh spotlight on a renegade industry shrouded in secrecy as it not only corrupts the locations its frack wells bore into, but distant ones through which its assorted 'bomb' trains pass - any one of which could explode at any time. See e,g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-train-explosion-another-reason.html

But is anyone paying attention? Don't count on the Neoliberal gov't which is ok with the industry being shrouded in secrecy and the difficulty of gaining any access to fracking operations. So long as the proles are kept in the dark they don't have to worry or fret about the pitchforks and protests. To give an idea of the extent of the secrecy - and btw, if these operations are so great as the pro-frack ads proclaim, why the need?- the public records on violations are available in only 3 of the 36 states where fracking occurs.

According to Amy Mall, an NDRC senior policy activist:

"You'd want to know if the company or companies operating in your backyard is a responsible corporate citizen or a serial violator. But as it stands now, it's nearly impossible to uncover a company's track record"

This isn't just blowing smoke as the Union of Concerned Scientists has also made clear. The public's need to know is more urgent than ever as a growing body of evidence points to the serious and far reaching health effects of fracking.  Leave out for the moment just the 4 million gallons on average it takes to frack one well - a disaster in dry states like Colorado. Many of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and they contaminate water resources when leaked or spilled. A report in a Denver Post investigation in May of last year found:

State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.


Thanks to a trio of diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette of Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, we now know the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry. We know, for example, the oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09.

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Which was rendered toothless for fracking by lobbyists) Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were:

Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer

- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.


 As we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers.

Apart from this, it has been found that the gas allowed to escape from frack wells can also leak into the ground into nearby water wells - presenting a different hazard because it is highly flammable. This was demonstrated by Josh Fox in his excellent documentary exposing the fracker criminals, 'Gasland':
 
Water catching on fire from methane having diffused into it.

While such documented flaming water from the tap has prompted numbskulls to get cheap jollies, the facts are a bit different. According to Food & Water Watch there are dozens of cases of methane leaks near drill sites that have caused houses and wells to explode.

Then there is the air pollution. According to NDRC senior scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman:

"The risks are not limited to what's in our drinking water. Oil and gas operations are also poisoning the air we breath."

A new analysis by NDRC pinpoints five major health threats from fracking-related air pollution, including: respiratory difficulty, nervous system impacts (brain blackouts, memory loss), blood disorders, birth defects, and cancer.

At least one state has acted on this information on behalf of its citizens. This occurred last December when Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York banned fracking in the state because of the lack of scientific evidence that it can be done safely. In doing this, Governor Cuomo broke from the Neoliberal imperative by invoking the precautionary principle.  To refresh reader memories, this entails placing the onus on the maker of the product or those performing the process to prove their product or process is safe. It is not the job of the consumer or citizens to prove they are unsafe, yet Neoliberal business has adopted this specious plank as noted by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in  Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

Think of it! By negating the precautionary principle the Neoliberal market is able to dump all manner of crap on unwary citizens and disarming them so that they can't fight back. "You have to prove to us there is cancer risk!" they shout. Turning the principle on its head.

But unless the rest of us fight for that principle we may all end up in early graves from some kind of cancer or other condition that shortens lifespan.   IN the 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' book, the PR industry backing the fertilizer manufacturers argued that the people were wrong because "toxic sludge was great for crops". And besides the complainers had no proof of ill effects.   Never mind the vomiting, breakouts in rashes, sexual dysfunction, brain anomalies and convulsions, which "were just in their minds."

Fracking will not go away in other states unless we the citizens demand it and fight for it. The Neoliberals are too invested in this crap  - which really has no business even leaving the ground. It's too degraded an energy source and also doesn't deliver on its energy promise no matter what its PR rats claim.   As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book, 'Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':

No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market.

Regarding the promises for kerogen or oil shale, he writes:

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. "