Before our nation was aware of the hazards of fracking and
shale gas development the drilling industry was working quietly behind the
scenes with Vice President Cheney and others to craft a series of loopholes and
to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that would help the industry evade the
oversight of U.S. federal environmental protection laws. The same is happening today – but this time the
focus is on undermining U.S. laws as well as the laws of 12 other nations, and
this time we have a chance to stop them.
Not only are the gas drillers hard at work behind the scenes
crafting new protections for themselves, but so are other major corporate
interests. And when all is said and
done, if we let them, bans on fracking, made in America labels, protections
from the importation of contaminated foods or products made abroad in violation
of child labor laws are among the many protections and rights our communities
and country now have that will fall when industry demands.
What body of enforceable law could so solidly strip our
communities from these vital protections?
A new trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership that
is being negotiated in secret between the United States and 12 nations from the
Pacific Rim including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. While China is not currently party to this
secret dealmaking, it is believed that they and others will eventually become a
part of the pact.
The deal is so secret that not only is the public prohibited
from reading its terms, but so too are the members of Congress. Thankfully there have been some leaks to give
us a glimpse behind the curtain (e.g. WikiLeaks secured and released the Intellectual
Property Rights Chapter http://wikileaks.org/tpp/). It is also reported that there are 29
Chapters to this supposed trade agreement many of which have nothing to do with
regulating trade but instead focus on limiting environmental, food safety,
health and other community protections. Overall,
there is enough information to know that the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade
Agreement (TPP) is a bad deal for the people
of the United States and it should be rejected by Congress when it finally has
a chance to give it an up or down vote.
The TPP is certain to include an Investor-State Dispute Resolution
provision which will allow corporate entities and investors to bring claims for
significant monetary payouts against any signatory-nation who they feel have
interfered with their corporate/investor benefits under the treaty – that
includes the United States. So if there
is a law that prevents a corporation from pursuing a toxic waste facility,
dangerous development, water and cyanide intensive mining, or a fracking and
drilling project, under the TPP that corporation/investor could bring a claim
against the signatory-nation before an international arbitration tribunal and
have millions of dollars in damages leveled against them (for specific stories
go to: http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf)
– not only does this pose an unfair burden on a country where the government is
trying to protect its residents, but it will also motivate that country to go
after the state or municipality impeding the corporate project and force it to
revoke its environmentally protective laws or regulations.
So, for example, if a foreign corporation or investor is
prevented from drilling in a New York community that has legally passed a ban
on fracking and shale gas development, that corporation can bring an
Investor-State Dispute action against the United States and receive millions in
damages, with the United States government likely to then bring a legal action
against the New York community and force them to remove their protective ban.
This is happening already, under another trade agreement
with a similar provision – North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- a
private drilling company is about to sue Canada for $250 million because of a
ban on fracking passed by the Province of Quebec which was enacted to allow
them to study the dangerous process. (To
see a copy of the Nov 8 Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbritration: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/lone-01.pdf)
It is easy to see similar suits being filed based on local bans in New York,
Colorado and elsewhere.
Allowing
foreign interests to capitalize off the destruction of the U.S. environment for
their own economic gain is economic colonization. Unless the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement includes an explicit provision that preserves the
environmental legal authorities of our federal, state, local and regional
governments to ensure foreign industrial and/or corporate activities do not
harm the quality and health of our environment it would result in nothing short
of the economic colonization of the United States.
What can you do?
Contact your Congressional Representatives, both in the House and the
Senate, and tell them you want three things:
For them to ….
- oppose the passage of fast track legislation which would allow the President to negotiate and sign this agreement before coming to Congress for a vote, would allow the President to write the implementing legislation for the agreement, and allows the President to seek passage of his unilaterally drafted legislation in an up or down floor vote which would forbid any and all amendments and greatly limit any debate -- for helping sending your letter go to http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/act-now/urgent-details.aspx?Id=157;
- take action to force public disclosure of the TPP negotiating documents immediately, now, while there is still time for elected official and public review, comment and input;
- ensure the TPP includes a provision that explicitly preserves the environmental legal authorities of our federal, state and local governments as well as the legal authority of commissions like the Delaware River Basin Commission that are the result of congressionally approved interstate compacts; and
- oppose the TPP when it
comes up for a vote unless the reservation of environmental legal
authority is included – no tinkering with terms, although it is likely the
approval process won’t even allow that if a process called Fast Track is
applied – but a straight, across the board NO.
Watch as the Delaware Riverkeeper asks the Delaware River Basin Commission to step up and send its own letter:
Originally written by me, Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, as guest blogger for Maria Rodale, CEO of Rodale, posted at
