Forums

Trans-Pacific-partership a political buzzword. Good or bad for the environment??

Trans-Pacific-partership a political buzzword. Good or bad for the environment??

Trans-Pacific partnership is strongly supported by Obama and Pence, opposed by Trump, Bernie. Hillary and Kaine supported it but now oppose it. I have always supported globalization. I think we need to understand the pros and cons because this is an important election issue. Could also affect the environment and obviously the sale of Teslas worldwide. I post this link as a start. Let's try have an honest objective debate.
https://netivist.org/debate/tpp-pros-and-cons

fgaliegue | 28 July 2016

As a rule of thumb and as it is currently defined, to my eyes, it's a NO.

The reason is simple: as it currently stands, this agreement is mostly a product of powerful, multinational countries. And we all know what interests they have in mind, right?

If it is not clear, here is a simple schematic: first, themselves; second, everything else; regardless of the consequences.

So, no. Definitely no. Any agreement, whether it be nationwide or worldwide, should be drafted with the _general interest in mind_. And the current T*PP drafts just don't account for that.

fgaliegue | 28 July 2016

Sorry, I meant "multinational corporations". While I suspect that most readers will have "fixed that for me", I just wanted to add that correction.

mirio | 28 July 2016

Multinational corporations designed the text of these agreements (participating countries just provided the platform). GATT, WTO, NAFTA, EFTA similar, watch what will happen to GB, they will NOT be able to self-regulate large part of their Gov., but will have to autonomously apply EU regulations in order to participate in EU market (Happens to Switzerland & Norway already).

so once sufficient global trade is run in this manner, who knows whether these private(!) courts will be deciding in favor of the common good, and not shift their decisions towards Corporations (these are private corporate lawyers ruling).

see law suits Philip Morris vs Uruguay, see Trans Canada vs USA (current trade agreements)

a.) establish Trade Deals
b.) expand Trade Deals to critical mass, forcing none participating countries to autonomously implement the rules to participate in global trade
c.) no countries will be able to exit without complete economic melt down (see Greece)
d.) corporations set their rules at will diminishing local government regulation/influence (private arbitration courts)

Federalism, more local production, more vertical integrated productions is the way to go, globalization has produced some wealth at huge cost for the environment. the amount of transportation products undergo until it reaches shelf's in our store is INSANE.

http://www.wsjDOTcom/articles/SB122304950601802565

MitchP85D | 28 July 2016

TPP will have no effect on the environment. Supporting or opposing it should be based on economics, and what is best for America.

JayATL | 28 July 2016

If you want to stop china's rise and influence, if you want to promote sound trade, more jobs for the U.S. The TTP is 95% perfect. It involves 12 countries: the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru.

The pact aims to deepen economic ties between these nations, slashing tariffs and fostering trade to boost growth.
Member countries are also hoping to foster a closer relationship on economic policies and regulation.
The agreement could create a new single market something like that of the EU.

stevenmaifert | 28 July 2016
fgaliegue | 28 July 2016

@MitchP85D you say that "TPP will have no effect on the environment". We are talking about corporations here, so, no, I disagree. Corporations, as I said earlier, only care about their well being, and everything else be damned, the environment included.

SCCRENDO | 28 July 2016

Very enlightening comments. Having grown up in South Africa I saw what protectionism tariffs did. Helps preserve local jobs. However electronics for example were very expensive. Cars had 110% tax so no or few American cars. All our cars were Japanese or European but were assembled locally. That was the way to not pay tariffs. From that standpoint I believe in globalization so we can still import cheap overseas products. Yes it will cost some jobs but we need to create different new age jobs.

The environmental angle puts a whole new face on this for me. It seems we may be better off negotiating bilateral agreements with countries ensuring that they obey our environmental laws and decent living conditions for their workers.

Mitch sorry. Love you man. But your opinion is worthless here. You are a climate change denier.

MitchP85D | 28 July 2016

So fgaliegue, what are corporations? Are they intangible entities with evil intent? Or, are they simply organizations of people who engage in commerce domestically and internationally; providing goods and services for those who demand them. And creating jobs in the process. You know, a job isn't a bad thing. It allows one to make an income and pay for their necessities of life, and then some. Personally, I much prefer a job to just roughing it out in the wild. I get the impression from some here that is what they want humanity reduced to.

I stand by my statement TPP will have no effect on the climate. SCCRENDO, when my round of night shifts are over, I'll take a shot of whiskey on your behalf!

MitchP85D | 28 July 2016

Make that, "round of night shifts is over..." before Brian H corrects me.

fgaliegue | 28 July 2016

@MitchP85D corporations are big entities whose avowed goal is to make money, money, and money again regardless of the consequences.

And that is my pet peeve. I am no communist at all, but making money at any cost, in many cases, means taking the "easy way out", that is, produce with litte regards, if any, as to the consequences of that production.

US corporations are not the only culprits in this regards; in France, just look at the all new shiny Engie: since 2010, the amount of electricity which they sell worldwide due to coal has _increased by more than 20%_. This is what I mean by "producing at any cost". They don't give a f* about us, the people, nor do they give a f* about what scientists have hammered over time and time again (ie climate change).

Before such x-lateral trade agreements can even be considered, each party needs to clean its own backyard; and that includes EU, too. The CO2 credits are a vast farce, as has been amply demonstrated by Cash Investigation here in France.

In the US the problem is different. The amount of CO2 emissions from passenger cars is nothing short of alarming, even compared to the industry. US love their SUVs too much, even though not even 10% of SUV users actually have a need for them. This also needs fixing.

Regardless, we all live on the same planet, and by "we", I mean us 6 billion, not this closed 200+ million sphere of people working for big corporations whose sole purpose in "life" is amassing riches with no regards at all to the rest of us.

You can make money and be respectful with regards to your customers and this little piece of land we live in called the Earth.. Tesla is such a company. But Tesla is an exception, noit the norm. If it means that we have to pay the price, then so be it. But agreements tending on lowering the prices of goods produced by corporations only interested in sell figures regardless of the consequences? No thanks.

mirio | 28 July 2016

Sustainable decentralized local production, for own local market, would increase jobs not reduce them, the current system just shifts jobs to the cheapest production location to maximize profits, which in turn creates social, economical and environmental imbalances.

If Apple would produce their products locally, for local market, they would have less profit, but create jobs and reduce environmental impact. The price of the product would reflect the local social, economical & environmental cost. it worked in the past why can't it work in the future?

fgaliegue | 28 July 2016

@mirio "decentralized local"? I'm afraid I don't follow you here...

MitchP85D | 28 July 2016

Hey fgaliegue, do you have any kind of retirement plan? 401K, IRA, 403B, labor union pension, etc.? If you do, then I think it is a pretty good bet that you own some S&P 500 stock. Would it not be in your best interest for corporations to make money, money, and money as you put it? That is how your retirement plan appreciates in value over the years. This is something I've always noticed about liberals. They always demand money to be made for them, but not for somebody else!

mirio | 28 July 2016

@fagliegue, spread production closer to consumers, this will help reduce overproduction & waste since production would react better to local consumer demand. shift to local micro industries.

grega | 28 July 2016

Globalisation makes things cheaper. Apple produces hardware where it's cheapest. They could move US iPhone production to US, and Australian iPhone production to Australia (decentralised local?) and increase costs as required in each country, but it would make quality control hard plus the increase cost would get people buying an alternative in some markets.

I have 2 problems with the TPP.
1) it allows corporations to sue governments that put in a law that reduces their profits.

2) negotiations were far too secret. That implies hidden clauses to me. Anything this big should be negotiated with openness and critique.

A Hong Kong arm of a cigarette multinational is suing the Australian government for making them use plain paper boxes, saying it reduces sales. Which was the POINT, the government was successful.

So what if one of the governments wants to encourage lower fossil fuel use, will we see a multinational sue them?

SCCRENDO | 28 July 2016

Mitch. You suffer from the typical right wing syndrome. Label us all as extremists. None of us are anti-corporation. It's just that you believe that they should carry out business unfettered and as ling as they make money we should not care how much they harm society. We believe that corporations should be allowed freedoms but not when it harms others. I was for TPP until I researched it this morning and the environmental concerns are real. So I now think we should re-evaluate all these deals and renegotiate them with environmental safeguards.

I am afraid that you are a climate change denier. Not because you are too stupid to understand like many on these forums. I believe that if you admit we are right you are going to have to support some corporate regulation

mirio | 28 July 2016

@grega, is not globalization which makes products cheaper, is the successful exploitation of labor, environment and externalized cost of energy which does. the cost of production in china would NOT be cheaper if living conditions would be up to par with Europe and USA, on the contrary it would be very expensive to produce 8000 miles away.
in other words is just modern slavery.

warren_tran | 28 July 2016

I"m a capitalist so I would vote yes.

Let the free market dictate and allow business function. As long there isn't monopoly then it's free for all to play on global scale. Competition drive innovation and drive price cheaper for consumer.

Mel. | 28 July 2016

SCCRENDO,
You should try to cool it. Your constant criticism of Tesla enthusiasts paints you as being on the wrong side.

carlk | 28 July 2016

I agree with @jayhome that the purpose of TPP is to balance China's dominance in the region that is fast becoming the largest economy of the world. It's always good from every point of view including environmental when there is a balance.

SCCRENDO | 28 July 2016

@Mel. Nothing to cool. This is frank debate on climate change and the economy. This is Elon's mission. Many of us are Tesla enthusiaists because of our commitment to the economy. Others have their own reasons. I am not here as a Tesla salesman per se but am excited to support the car on 2 fronts. I engage in the Model S and Model forums to discuss my excitement with my Model S and future Model 3s. This is a forum to discuss other issues and as per Elon's mission is critical. I am learning myself. As we have no moderators it is important that we try be as honest as possible. I try support my views with links. I think it is important taht contrary views be heard but they need to be supported by facts. I am therefore pretty blunt but honest. If the truth hurts well .....

mirio | 28 July 2016

SCCRENDO, bilateral maybe better, currently how it works is that trade barriers fall, then they try to enforce the social/environmental aspects. very hard to enforce, once barriers are down and corporations are vested in the particular trade, commerce becomes too powerful.

reversing the process might be more efficient, first meet social/environmental aspects, then trade barriers start fall gradually, keeping momentum and incentive to continuously address social/environmental aspects.

other option would be to hold US corporations accountable for their supply chain to meet said standards, similar to FCPA process which has been a success. Suppliers get black listed if out of compliance and US corporations fined.

dansplans | 1 August 2016

@grega

"1) it allows corporations to sue governments that put in a law that reduces their profits."

This statement is simply hogwash! Governments are not restricted in applying laws for the good of their citizens, even if those laws place restrictions on corporations and thereby affect their profits. However, such laws cannot benefit one company or nation over another. If the laws are not applied equally to all players, then they will be rejected by the international trade tribunals. Local governments will be forced to amend or retract laws that violate their national commitments.

This is the heart of the anti-traders issues. These multinational agreements can limit local governments ability to pass laws which run counter to the trade agreements. Brexit is the perfect example of this notion. Many Brits find it offensive that decisions regarding their daily lives might be made in some far off court or legislature.

However the sentiment is rooted in the very real facts about these supranational trade agreements. Depending on how much control multinational corporations have over their respective governments, the prospect for the tail wagging the dog does exist.

Personally, I don't believe that corporations have absolute control over our various governments. It is incumbent upon all of us to become politically active, and make sure that strong civilian oversight is maintained over all government activities. These types of trade agreements must not be allowed to happen behind closed doors. Transparency is the only way to be sure that we have not all been sold down the river in the name of trade.

*Note Perhaps will will become witness to the repercussions of a country withdrawing from international trade agreements, over the next 4 years? Most trade naysayers don't believe that it is possible to withdraw from these types of agreements once the ink is dry.

SCCRENDO | 1 August 2016

@dansplans. In theory what you say is correct. Realistically how do you have public oversight of every trade deal? Laws are passed every day without true informed public oversight. Are we to have a referendum on every important trade deal? Even if we did this, my experience with referenda in California for example is that they are so ambiguously written that you often think you are voting for the opposite of what you are truly voting for. We have elections to vote for the representatives that we trust and we need to trust them. When they do us wrong we need to call them out.

dansplans | 1 August 2016

All true.

Trade agreements are necessary. It's far too late to start trying isolationist strategies. Our fate is in the hands of elected officials, right or wrong.

Trust is the key word. Truth and integrity are a couple others I like the sound of. Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer examples of these from public officials, and the population becomes more jaded and distrusting by the day.

Then you have morons like Trump, who say words people believe they want to hear, or resonate with some truth for them. So they follow him believing that he can "save the country". There is a reason Trump admires people like Putin and Hussein. He is an aspiring tin pot dictator himself. If the American people don't wake up soon, they could well find themselves on the verge of voting democracy into the trash bin of history ala Germany in 1933.

EmpiricalAudio | 5 August 2016

Trade deals are like all other politics, there are winners and losers and compromise is essential. These deals typically beat isolationism and high tariffs and prevent unfair practices. If one can can have honest partners, these deals can act to regulate free trade in global markets. Republicans claim that free trade is all that is needed, but just like in every country, the businessmen figure out how to game the sysstem to their advantage. This is why it is essential to have governmental controls to regulate free trade. These international deals act like these governmental controls, only on a global scale, since there is no global government body to regulate free trade.

SCCRENDO | 5 August 2016

I think we need a global economy and at face value I did initially support it. The issue though it allows other countries to skirt our environmental and labor laws. Examples are the Keystone pipeline. Under Nafta Canada is suing us because we have not permitted it. I believe Mexican trucks can cross into California with "unsafe" vehicles and can ignore California's environmental laws. We need trade agreements but need to ensure that these agreements do not circumvent our laws. Take the time to listen to Elizabeth Warren. Yes I know she is a bigger liberal than me. But I think she is worth listening to

https://youtu.be/YmLHwZkonwY