5 October 2015, Truthdig, Here’s Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Is Just Plain Wrong. Republicans who now run Congress say they want to cooperate with President Obama, and point to the administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, as the model. The only problem is the TPP would be a disaster. If you haven’t heard much about the TPP, that’s part of the problem right there. It would be the largest trade deal in history — involving countries stretching from Chile to Japan, representing 792 million people and accounting for 40 percent of the world economy – yet it’s been devised in secret. Lobbyists from America’s biggest corporations and Wall Street’s biggest banks have been involved but not the American public. That’s a recipe for fatter profits and bigger paychecks at the top, but not a good deal for most of us, or even for most of the rest of the world. Read More here
Monthly Archives: October 2015
5 October 2015, Climate Progress, Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement Is A Disaster For Climate Change. After years of meetings, months of Congressional debates, and days of around-the-clock negotiations, the United States and 11 other countries reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Trade agreement (TPP) on Monday. If adopted, the TPP will eliminate or reduce tariffs between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. But while it specifically addresses some environmental concerns — such as trade of illegally harvested resources or wildlife trafficking — climate change activists saw Monday’s announcement as the culmination of a long-watched train wreck. “It’s still the same disaster for climate change it was three months ago,” 350.org’s Karthik Ganapathy told ThinkProgress. His organization, as well as many others, say the TPP protects multinational corporations that profit from fossil fuels. Some have argued that under the TPP — as with the North American Free Trade Agreement — companies will be able to sue countries that enact laws to limit fossil fuel extraction or carbon emissions, if it interferes with profits. The deal also will lead to the rubber-stamping of export facilities for natural gas from fracking and will prevent the U.S. Trade Representative from ever including climate change action in trade deals, Ganapathy said. But the White House has touted the deal’s potential for environmental conservation, calling it a “once-in-a-generation chance to protect our oceans, wildlife, and the environment.” Environmentalists aren’t buying it. Read More here
5 October 2015, Science Daily, Global climate agreements could be counterproductive. International climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol may discourage much-needed investment in renewable energy sources, and hence be counterproductive, according to new research. The climate formula. The world’s environmentalists are counting down to the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris. However, such climate agreements could be counterproductive. Bård Harstad is a professor of economics at the University of Oslo and has done research on climate agreements and international cooperation for many years. In the recent journal article “The Dynamics of Climate Agreements,” Harstad analyses the connections between emissions, negotiations, and the development of new technology. His findings reveal weaknesses of today’s system, but also show how international climate agreements should be designed in order to better stimulate the development of new technology. The bad news is that international climate agreements, like the Kyoto Protocol, may discourage much-needed investment in renewable energy sources. “The main problem with emission agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, is that they do not provide incentives to invest in green technology because they are too short-sighted. Read More here
3 October 2015, BIEN, SWITZERLAND: Parliament rejects basic income initiative, but poll shows popular support. Last week (Sept 23rd 2015) the Swiss Parliament voted for a motion calling on the Swiss people to reject the Popular Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income. After hours of debate, the National council (the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland) voted for a recommendation by the ruling party to reject the popular initiative for unconditional basic income after six hours of debate. The motion was passed with a large majority (146 votes), with only a minority of 14 MPs supporting the initiative and 12 abstentions (see the detailed vote report here). “The most dangerous and harmful initiative ever” Basic income was opposed by all political groups, but the harshest critics came from the Centre and Right-wing parties. Sebastian Frehner (Centrist) described the initiative as “the most dangerous and harmful initiative that has ever been submitted,” mentioning the risks of immigration, disincentive to work, and that the basic income proposed would not be financeable anyway. For similar reasons, the Liberal party spokesman Daniel Stolz described the initiative as “intellectually stimulating,” but that it is also a “cocked hand grenade that threatens to tear the whole system to pieces.” His party colleague Ausserrhoden Andrea Caroni spoke of basic income as a “bomb in the heart of our society and our economy.” The most noticeable supporter of basic income was probably the Socialist MP Silvia Schenker who argued that basic income was the answer to the complexity and loopholes of the current welfare system and a better way to integrate the people “who have no place in the world of work.” This was not enough however to convince the Greens and other Socialists. “The Greens support the objectives of the Popular Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income, but as it stands, it endangers our social system,” said Christian van Singer, spokesperson for the Greens. He argued that while one goal of the initiative is to simplify the social system, “it could level down the benefit system to the detriment of those who do not find work or cannot work.” Read More here