TTIP Leaked Documents Show Obama Demands Killing Paris Accord Against Climate Change

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

"248 pages of leaked Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiating texts” show that the American negotiating position, as Greenpeace put the matter, allows "No place for climate protection in TTIP,” and, though "We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse.”

Jorgo Riss, Director of Greenpeace EU, said, "The effects of TTIP would be initially subtle but ultimately devastating. It would lead to European laws being judged … disregarding environmental protection and public health concerns.”

A 70-year-old EU rule, which allows nations to restrict trade in order “to protect human, animal and plant life or health," or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources,” would end, if U.S. President Barack Obama gets what he wants.

Furthermore, the “Precautionary principle is forgotten”: it’s currently enshrined in the EU Treaty, but Obama wants it gone; it is stated in the EU Treaty as allowing "rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.” Obama wants there to be no ability for EU nations to withdraw from the market “products likely to be hazardous.” All products would be assumed safe, unless proven not to be.

Other TTIP developments in recent days:

Britain’s Independent headlined on April 29th, "TTIP could cause an NHS sell-off and UK Parliament would be powerless to stop it, says leading union”,  and reported that a labor union, “Unite,” was determined to block TTIP from going into effect in the UK: "Gail Cartmail, Unite assistant general secretary, said that it was 'a scandal' that MPs [Members of Parliament] may not have the democratic power to stop TTIP, which she said 'threatens the irreversible sell-off of our NHS [National Health Service]’.” Privatization of government assets is favorably viewed by Obama.

 

Tamara Hervey, a professor of EU law at the University of Sheffield, told the Independent, "The UK government could include a reservation in the agreement to say that it does not include the NHS. As far as I understand, that isn't on the table, even though several other EU countries have already put such reservations in the negotiating text.” British Prime Minister David Cameron, like Obama, is strongly in favor of privatization.

 

The Independent said, "Obama used a recent visit to the EU to push for the completion of TTIP, promising it would remove 'regulatory and bureaucratic irritants and blockages to trade’.” Now, we know that in his mind the EU’s existing regulations concerning environmental protection and product safety belong in that category: “bureaucratic irritants and blockages to trade.”

 

Britain’s Guardian banners on May 1st, “Leaked TTIP Documents Cast Doubt on EU-US Trade Deal”, and Arthur Nelson in Brussels, reports that, "Because of a European ban on animal testing, 'the EU and US approaches remain irreconcilable and EU market access problems will therefore remain’,” which is yet further indication of Obama’s free-market convictions: he doesn’t accept any ban on animal-testing of products. Presumably, he wants to allow corporations to determine what the cheapest way to determine a product’s safety or dangerousness is, regardless of whether the animal model that’s used tells anything reliable about the product’s safety on humans. If one nation’s testing procedure is less reliable than another’s, then Obama wants the two to compete as equals, so that the incentive will exist for all corporations to use the cheapest method, regardless of the method’s reliability, or even humaneness. Obama didn’t run for President as a libertarian, but he turns out to be remarkably libertarian in his policies. He’s pushing for a vigorous race to the bottom, in all sorts of regulations.

Polls show Obama to have extremely high approval-ratings in European countries, such as 62% in Germany (far higher than any German national politician). Polls also show TTIP to be extremely unpopular there. The contradiction apparently isn’t noticed by respondents — approval of a politician has no clear correlation with the politician’s policies. Obama is black, and he speaks well; and, perhaps that’s enough. Perhaps Europeans don’t really care very much about such things as global warming, product-safety, or humaneness toward animals. If that’s true, then EU Parliamentarians can likewise ignore such matters and simply vote to approve TTIP, notwithstanding the merely nominal opposition to it amongst the electorate. The percentage of voters who really care about such issues might actually be inconsequential. If that’s the situation, then corruption makes sense, because the money that a politician thereby obtains for his/her campaign will far outbalance the potential loss of voters’ support that results from violating their interests — only words will matter, a politician’s actual record won’t, in terms of the given politician’s support by voters. If that’s true, then the results of democracy might be no better than the results of dictatorship; there might be no real difference.

Certainly, the disabling of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change would have enormous impact; but, if a politician’s rhetoric has a bigger effect on his favorability-rating than his policies do, Obama might be highly regarded even when the planet is burning up as a consequence of his policies.

*  *  *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Looney's picture

I betcha, them Nobel folks are very proud right now! ;-)

Looney

DownWithYogaPants's picture

As a scientist and engineer I get the hives just seeing the terms "climate change" or "global warming".

It's the obvious hoax ever to anyone with any technical ability.  

Video: Walter Cronkite warns of new ice age in 1972:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hms8rggsMDQ

Da story keeps a changin!

Lumberjack's picture

It's cyclical. The green boondoggle is on its way out.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

If you downvote my comment you might as well take your STEM degree if you have one and put it in a shredder.  What ever you took might as well have been a womenz study degree at Social Justice University.

remain calm's picture

Why are we killing the Paris Accord, seems backwards to me.

Manthong's picture

No, it is in perfect accord with the cabal that owns him.

Barry, the un-natural born Choomster citizen of dubious extraction is owned by the corporations of dubious legal standings.

 

John Kich's picture

This is Donald Trump's most shocking statement yet,

However the mainstream media isn't saying a word about it!

What are they really trying to cover up?

www.legitorscamreview.com/the-final-bubble/

John Kich's picture

Obama will not finish his second term! Banned independent documentary reveals the truth. This will scare millions!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh1Fs98JOdI

Heavy's picture

Where's that ban hammer?

JRobby's picture

My name is Charles Hayek and I am a retired economics professor

My name is Charles Hack and I am an out of work actor

My name is Charles, you don't need to know my last name. I post to Zero Hedge as John Kich

My name is assfucked jackass and I post to Zero hedge as John Kich

My name is..............................

peddling-fiction's picture

His biography and shitty English is quite telling.

Biography (John Kich)

I love financial news, and zerohedge is one of websites that give me all info.

The best Sun's picture

The great "Climate change" con.

Theory:

1. Use captured religio-scienticians to CONvince eco-tards and SJW

that carbon dioxide etc leeds to dangerous warming and sea level rise.

2. Manipulate prices of fossil fuels production/mining up (also gets investment in new production) then quietly sell at the top.

(pump and dump). $$$$

3. Manipulate markets to create major demand slump and fear of future carbon tax gouging. Prices dive.

4. Bankrupt new owners of production and any unconnected competitors due to extreme debt exposure with economic collapse and war.

(Soon, very soon).

5. Buy up allsignificant fossil fuel/mining production for pennies on the dollar.

6. Fully expose global warming con as a hoax/terrible mistake.

7. Restabalize to multi-polar political scene.

8. Bring prices back up (manipulation) and benefit from sales to silk road nations in the greatest and most rapid expansion the world has yet experienced. $$$$$

This way TPTB/controllers who are instigating this great con turn their billion to trillions and trillions to shit loads by benefiting hugely on the way down and the way back up.

Didn't the Rockafellers sell 90% of their oil holdings at the top?

Look at which big companies and individuals have little to no debt and you'll know some of the instigators.

Of course itis all much more complicated than that but you get the gist.

 

 

Manthong's picture

OK... so when did you get their cheat sheet?

The best Sun's picture

Two science degrees told me it was a con.

A few years lurking on ZH before joining up told me the rest.

I took a while to watch before joining fight club.

Seemed prudent.

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

The planet is warming, Depends whether you think it is from the 3000% rise in CO2...or from something else. Could be cosmic rays, could be Leviticus 3:22, could be chemtrails. Sure...whatever. Green subsidies are 1/50th what the fossil fuel subsidies are, so I guess you prefer fanatical towelheads, coal strip mines, and oil wars to a bunch of silicon-based panels with no moving parts on the roof. Or maybe you like nuclear better...the last Chernobyl report said it will be toxic there until the year 4986. I know...let's dig out some of those "scientific" reports that say radioactivity is actually good for you. When your kid is born with two heads...he'll be twice as smart, right? Maybe he can author some "research" papers of his own (or should I say "their" own).

The best Sun's picture

Poorly constructed straw man arguements annoy me.

Please show me where I endorse the theory as good?

I simply describe reality, I don't condone it.

Anyway, I have solar cells for economic reasons.

In Australia they are highly efficient due to great sunny weather.

You are wrong about me and lots of other things,

including that 3000% increase in CO2?

Make shit up much?

Nuclear sucks. Brush up on your comprehension skills and drink less paint.

Check out some of my Fukushima rants and suck a taint boil.

not dead yet's picture

Most of those so called subsidies are tax breaks available to all businesses. More eco bullshit. At least the fossil companies, until the recent oil drop and Obama's war on coal, have paid plenty in taxes and fees while all those green outfits do is show massive losses.

PTR's picture

No, it is in perfect accord with the cabal that owns him.

 

 

Barry, the un-natural born Choomster citizen of dubious extraction is owned by the corporations of dubious legal standings...

 

...who is owned by a series of banks that are owned by an even narrower group of families who manipulate events to their own enrichment.

 

But that's old information. 

techpriest's picture

"Why are we killing the Paris Accord, seems backwards to me."

Because the perfect setup is to get tons of press about how awesome you are at the Paris accords, but not have to actually do anything. Jason Stapleton did a great job going through the Paris accords and showing how the accords themselves were high-sounding language with no substance, save for letting bureaucrats spend more money on themselves:

http://www.jasonstapleton.com/jason-breaks-down-the-paris-climate-deal/

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Maybe they Down-voted you, to see if those Yoga pants will come down.

Nope, I guess not.  Must be body-paint 'pants'.  ;-)

thatthingcanfly's picture

DWYP:

Yeah, I'm right there with ya. This makes me wonder of Obama didn't actually do something RIGHT for once.

Manthong's picture

Yes, but for all the wrong reasons.

Winston Churchill's picture

I was taught all about the coming ice age in school.At least they had the honesty to say it

was theory that needed proof. Academia has whored itself out to the highest grant giver.

Manthong's picture

Global cooling… nuclear winter..  greenhouse effect… oops.. global warming, now catastrophic New York and Miami under water climate change.

It is all about controlling the dialog and steering the sheep into the corporate globalist slaughter house.

Got mutton?

 

Bumpo's picture

Yup, Me too. Environmental Sciences 201, or some shit. At least the Prof called it a theory. As in, The Snow Blitz Theory. That all we need is one harsh Winter, where the snow doesn't completely melt, and some Albedo Effect could reflect the Sun's rays back into outerspace and lead to a cooling period. At least that makes more sense than a trace gas, CO2, comprising 0.038% of our atmosphere is responsibile for devastating Climate Change because Man contributes a meager 3% difference to that trace gas. That's a 3% increase from 0.035% to 0.038%. Shit, even if it did bring Warming, it would only improve conditions for most of us on this  planet, including plant life.

Manthong's picture

Heh heh…

Don’t breathe out and for God’s sake do not fart without being in an evacuation chamber that cycles your exhumations and excretions into the netherworld.

Cows and termites (mounds in the South American wild) and agri-culture produce more methane and CO2 that all the coal plants, automobiles and industrial generators on the globe.

Go do some research it you don’t believe this.

.. a hamburger equals a few hundred tons of methane and CO2 in it's processing to an eventual Big Mac.

thatthingcanfly's picture

So what you're saying is that we should ban cows and termites!

I read ya.

The best Sun's picture

I once nearly coughed up a lung

from laughing at a BBC

"documentary" on global warming where they took the PPM Carbon Dioxide readings whilst suspended in a hot air balloon.

(Setting up instruments next to the only exhaust outlet for gases from a massive burnt propane jet is not the most conducive place for accurate background readings of Carbon Dioxide don't you know. Don't worry if that did not occur to you. I had to explain it to my entire class of senior biology geniuses too.)

Science only works when the people conducting it are not credulous, educated fucking morons.

Bemused Observer's picture

I don't buy into the whole 'global warming' thing, but something you should consider is whether it is possible for us to fuck up our environment enough to knock out a couple of growing seasons. No, not the massive 'climate change' they talk about, but just a brief screw-up that results in no harvests for a year or two...

Because that is all it would take. Sure, eventually the Earth would settle down into a warmer trend, which would indeed be nice. Unfortunately we won't BE here to enjoy it, not in our current form. A single failed harvest occurring globally is the end of everything we take for granted as normal. To the Earth itself, it's less than nothing, the entirety of our existence doesn't even register. Within a few decades, most of what we built will be taken back, grown over, eroded.

WE can't destroy the Earth, that is true. But we don't have to. All we have to do is fuck up a small part of it for a short time. And that we CAN and ARE doing.

To me the whole left/right argument on this issue sounds stupid. You don't have to be a 'looney lefty' to understand that you don't shit where you eat, so to speak. To argue that your feces isn't going to cause the house to collapse may be factually true, but that isn't the point, is it? The point is that normal, decent human beings don't live that way, and if you insist on living like a fucking ANIMAL you should go pitch a tent in the backyard until you're house-trained...

And you don't have to be a right-wing capitalist pig to understand that we can't STOP the rest of the world from aspiring to our lifestyles. Even if we went back to candles, hand tools, and horses, everyone else will still want their McMansions, SUV's, and mega-cities. If the left hopes to appease the gods with an act of economic suicide to atone for past 'sins', they will find they've made a pointless gesture as the rest of the world tramples our 'green' bodies in their rush to get where we are. Especially since that left shows no signs of giving up any of the perks they get from living in our energy-hog nation. And the developing world vastly outnumbers us, so their resulting contributions to climate-change will more than make up for any of our sacrifices. Putting our coal miners out of business won't stop China's, or India's, from digging and burning...perhaps a better use for the left's energies would be to find ways to clean the shit up, or extract the energy from the coal without burning.

It would be nice for once to have people work on resolving an issue without dragging ideologies into it. Ideologies have a tendency to produce extremist, feel-good 'fixes' instead of solutions.

OverTheHedge's picture

If we forget about the politics of global warming for a moment (don't panic, it's just for a moment), my take on this article is "WTF are they planning to send to Europe to destroy the environment, murder all the fluffy bunnies and kill the population with scarily dangerous products / plants etc? Is this the Monsanto section? We want to do business with these deranged lunatics?

It seems to have the "comply or die" feel to it - I am baffled as to how this benefits European consumers. All the shit that US citizens have to put up with because of their captured legislature, coming to a European capital soon. What really puzzles me is how it would appear that the EU has been doing a good job by keeping this lunacy at bay up until now. Can't believe that I just wrote that.

Let's see if the state dept internet warriors are awake and ready to defend their national interests to the last European........

E.F. Mutton's picture

Yeah right, like you know more than Bill Nye the Bachelors Degree in.....something...Guy /s

InflammatoryResponse's picture

he's such a published researcher too...

 

 

Manthong's picture

A BS in BS?

..or was it a BS Sewing and Stitching? (not that there is anything wrong with being a fairy seamstress).

I would not let my grand-kids or little great nieces and nephews watch that bow-tied faggot charlatan.

 

The best Sun's picture

Habitual wearing of a bow tie is an indicator that one can no longer sustain an erection without someone taking a steaming shit on your chest.

Just sayin.

Manthong's picture

Gee,

at least there is a lot of white space on the chest.. for contrast?

Maybe that's why real men wear ties.

 

Now here is a real man that did not wear a bow tie with his tux...

and I am proud to say he is of a non-caucasian persuasion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekE9di2KSo&feature=youtu.be&t=

 

SelfGov's picture

Yeah those terms are silly and used to relay a complex issue to not-so-complex people.

To get it technically right they should call it, "atmospheric thermal capacity increase," and yes it is due to human behavior.

Most people are unaware of how dangerous it is to greatly increase the thermal capacity of a far-from-equilibrium system like our climate. Most people have no clue what thermal capacity is and even fewer people have any clue how it relates to climate.

thatthingcanfly's picture

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

"Not-so-complex people?" Wow.

SelfGov's picture

You are a great example of a not-so-complex person. :)

shovelhead's picture

Give him a break.

Everytime they think they're losing their grant money, they come up with a new name for the same old swindle.

Everybody's got to eat, right?

jus_lite_reading's picture

DownWithYogaPants------ Global Warming is very real as is Climate Change. With that said, HUMANS are NOT the culprit! NATURE IS.

#1 cause of climate change OUR FUCKING SUN. The sun has not only been warming up the earth for the past 10,000 years since the ICE AGE (think people why the last ICE AGE WAS 10,000 YEARS AGO! And going back 80k years the NORTH POLE WAS A TROPICAL FOREST!) but it creates a positive feedbak loop which cause ice to melt, and releases locked methane gas which itself is the #2 cause of climate change.

There is too much to say about this. In summary-- CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND A NATURAL PART OF THE EARTH'S CYCLE BUT CORRUPT POLITICIANS ARE USING IT AS AN EXCUSE TO TAX TAX TAX MORE!

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) jus_lite_reading May 2, 2016 1:06 PM

Exactly.  But if you don't blame people for Earth's naturally changing climate you can not write laws to control the people becasue they are "destroying" the planet - ACK!!!  It's all about larger governments and controlling people.

techpriest's picture

It's funny, but I just published an article on a 'climate change solution' put out by the American Chemical Society that would not require a carbon tax:

http://www.libertarian.tools/content/political-science-one-way-wipe-out-...

Basically, if enough farms skipped the modern Monsanto-style farming and went with traditional methods that enrich soils over time, an additional benefit would be the negation of all carbon emissions.

I'm a skeptic of the alarmists, but I find it interesting that even if its all true, it still doesn't justify the power grabs, global government, and new taxes because other solutions already exist, which people would want to do without being told to.

Every point in the alarmist argument can be disproven, and now we see in TTIP that the climate isn't the focus to begin with. The focus is to use environmentalists as useful idiots in order to install an unaccountable global government.

SelfGov's picture

Humans are nature. So yes you're right in some sense.

jus_lite_reading's picture

I said humans are not the main cause! Do human pollute and harm the environment? Does a bear shit in the woods? But our impact is MINISCULE compared to what the SUN does and what the natural cycle of the earth does to itself!

 

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) jus_lite_reading May 2, 2016 5:46 PM

You'll never convince the Sun Deniers.

Defecation's picture

We're technically in an ice age right now. =P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

Scientists are playing with Legos and you're still playing with Mega Blocks.

Shit's getting warmer, yo.