Trans-Pacific Partnership Extracts


This agreement would push down wages, flood our nation with unsafe imported food, raise the price of life-saving medicine” – Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.  From leaks, we knew quite a bit about the agreement, but in chapter after chapter the final text is worse than we expected with the demands of the 500 official U.S. trade advisers representing corporate interests satisfied to the detriment of the public interest, – Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen™s Global Trade Watch. While the text is full of handouts to the fossil fuel industry, it doesn™t mention the words climate change once. – Jason Kowalski HOWEVER – It does say this about the climate: fossil fuel companies the extraordinary ability to sue local governments that try and keep fossil fuels in the ground, Jason Kowalski continued. If a province puts a moratorium on fracking, corporations can sue; if a community tries to stop a coal mine, corporations can overrule them. In short, these rules undermine countries™ ability to do what scientists say is the single most important thing we can do to combat the climate crisis: keep fossil fuels in the ground. The agreement is designed to protect ˜free trade™ in dirty energy products such as tar sands oil, coal from the Powder River Basin, and liquefied natural gas shipped out of West Coast ports. The result would be more climate change from carbon emissions across the Pacific. corporate entities use the TPP to attack sensible food safety rules, weaken the inspection of imported food, and block efforts to strengthen U.S. food safety standards. – Friends Of Earth (FOE) agribusiness and biotech seed companies can now more easily use trade rules to challenge countries that ban GMO imports, test for GMO contamination, do not promptly approve new GMO crops or even require GMO labeling.

Section J

This section requires Internet Service Providers to play ˜copyright cops™ and assist in the enforcement of copyright takedown requests ” but it does not require countries to have a system for counter-notices, so a U.S company could order a website to be taken down in another country, and there would be no way for the person running that website to refute their claims if, say, it was a political criticism website using copyrighted content in a manner consistent with fair use.