The past couple of decades of globalization have been a disaster for planetary ecosystems, indigenous peoples, and most middle-class citizens, but a gravy train for big investors, investment bankers, and managers of transnational corporations. This unprecedented expansion of international trade was driven by the convergence of key resources, developments, and inventions: cheap oil, satellite communications, container ships, computerized monitoring of inventories, the flourishing of multinational corporations, the proliferation of liberal trade treaties (including NAFTA), and the emergence of transnational bodies such as the World Trade Organization.

Economists said everyone would eventually benefit, but casualties quickly mounted. Inflation-adjusted wages for American workers stagnated. Manufacturing towns throughout the Northeast and Midwest withered. Meanwhile, China began burning immense amounts of coal to make mountains of toys, furniture, clothing, tools, appliances, and consumer electronics, cloaking its cities in a pall of toxic fumes and driving its greenhouse gas emissions to world record-setting levels. In effect, the United States has been importing cheap consumer goods while exporting jobs and polluting industries. In both China and the US, levels of economic inequality have soared.

Now comes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a new trade deal among 11 nations, negotiated in secret (only corporations get to contribute to, and look at, the draft language).TPP’s environment chapter was leaked today by Wikileaks. The point of the Treaty: to double down on globalization at precisely the moment in time when the entire enterprise is beginning to fail as a result of stubbornly high oil prices, worsening climate change impacts (floods, droughts, wildfires), debt deflation, and middle-class fears of losing even more ground.

The entire text of TPP is vast—thousands of pages—and it contains little-known provisions that would give companies sweeping powers to sue local governments or entire countries over any law a company deems an impediment to reaping maximum profits. For example, if a city, county, or state were to ban fracking within its jurisdiction, oil companies could overturn the ban and sue for millions of dollars in lost profits. Want to label GM foods? Sorry, that’s a barrier to trade. Want local schools to buy healthy food from local farmers? Nope, that might violate the rights of Big Ag. Want to protect a forest? Stand aside, you’re in the way of profits.

Congress is about to vote on whether to fast-track TPP. If approved, fast tracking would mean an up-or-down vote with no possibility for Representatives or Senators to reject or amend any provision within the Treaty. If fast track fails, the Treaty will immediately bog down in legislative limbo, so this vote effectively seals TPP’s fate. Who’s for fast track? Pro-big-business Republicans and pro-big-business Democrats. Who’s against it? Rabid-right Republicans who want to deny President Obama any legislative achievement whatever, and pro-labor, pro-environment Democrats. The latter groups, contradictory as their interests may otherwise be, just might control enough votes to kill TPP.

10 Comments on "Richard Heinberg: Trans-Pacific Partnership is Poison for Community Resilience"

Paulo on Thu, 16th Jan 2014 10:18 pm 



I am beginning to think the only solution to these initiatives is to drop out from the mainstream as much as possible. Sure, render to Caeser, but work for cash and barter as much as possible. Live simply. Resist buying.

This is somewhat akin to Ibons post the other day on advice to young people. At the time I disagreed, but now I wonder if he wasn’t on to something? More and more I feel that each of us, if not hoodwinked, is getting the shaft. The scales seem rigged, the rules are skewed, and Govt works only for corporations. Awhile ago I tried to find sources for goods made in NA as opposed to China. I would have paid more. Alas, I couldn’t. I guess they are all out of business. Almost everything will say assembled or made in China…in very small print. It’s maddening.

Paulo

J-Gav on Thu, 16th Jan 2014 10:45 pm 



Check out the fact sheet too (it’s only a page and a half). The mega-corps haven’t lost sight of their objectives by a long shot. And it’s not only governments which will be rendered almost powerless against the juggernaut – it’ll get(even)worse for individuals who try to produce anything of value independently as well. The squeeze is on, from the distribution of food to that of information and beyond. Can non-violent activism stop the steamroller?

Makati1 on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 12:56 am 



So far, the Philippines has been smart enough to resist pressure from Washington to join. It would be disastrous for them to do so. As for the uS, it is already skewered on the fires of Capitalism or is it Corporatism?

I hope one or more of those black swans land soon and start the collapse before the Empire gets anymore power.

Twin Performance on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 1:32 am 



And the point of this is? Yawn…. Makati, you do realise the Philippines is equally, how should I put this simply ( a bad place to be ) if Empire collapses. It will Collapse at the same time as a total liquids Collapse. Chaos will roam. Yes even in the Philippines.

rollin on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 2:31 am 



Looks like BAU wants to go on steroids.
Time to head for the hills.

Makati1 on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 5:55 am 



Twin, I prefer to live among people who still have some independence and are also still able to live without the ‘modern’ facilities of Western civilization. The chaos will be far less here than in any Western country. I will not have to worry about freezing to death, or food availability. We can raise and grow anything we need here. I will even have coffee and chocolate long after you have forgotten what they are. Those trees are growing quite well on the farm.

SteveO on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 2:25 pm 



Paulo wrote “Resist buying.”

That is the most effective thing we can do to help end the “consumerism” scourge. Buy only what you need, and buy quality items that can be repaired and repair them when they break. More “stuff” will not make you happy or solve your problems.

Ghung on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 4:17 pm 



@ Paulo: Right you are. Just keep it small, local, and fly under their radar.

@StevO: I would add (as Paulo hinted at) limit your taxable income; operate in an alternate economy such as ‘www.timebanks.org’, etc..

Not only has my consumption dropped dramatically, but the (taxable) income required to support that consumption isn’t as necessary; Greer’s voluntary poverty meme, even though it doesn’t seem like poverty to me. Chasing the almighty dollar for dollars’ sake never made sense to me anyway. While our family income is about 40% of what it was 10 years ago, our quality of life is much better. It’s getting to that point, while avoiding BAU traps, that’s the hard part.

We all still feed the Beast to some extent, but most folks do so willingly and without reservation. That needs to change. They don’t realize that they’re what’s being devoured.

Almost no one discussing the economics of home solar calculates that every watt produced is un-taxable income at some point. The 20+ kW average we produce daily is income we didn’t need to make, taxes we didn’t have to pay => 35%-40% off the top? Adds up quickly; our gain; their loss. Didn’t someone say that our unsustainable system will “die a death of a thousand cuts”? This is how it’s done.

GregT on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 4:48 pm 



Identify your NEEDS, research availability, save your money, buy the best that you can afford, and take care of it.

If you can’t pay for it with cash, wait until you can.

george on Fri, 17th Jan 2014 6:52 pm 



I just contacted both my senators and house representative to urge them to vote NO .