Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president.
TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments. The House and Senate gave up their rights to amend TPP, but they can still vote it down when it comes up for up-or-down votes in both chambers next year.
Although many people still labor under the delusion that TPP is a free trade agreement, the 5,544 page TPP regulates trade, the environment, immigration, patents, copyrights, and labor laws among the 12 countries that are participants and the additional countries that are expected to join. Consequently, in a post-TPP world, U.S. presidents could force almost any alteration in U.S. law simply by achieving support in the TPP commission for a U.S. specific modification to the TPP. Case in point today, Obama’s climate ambitions.
Environmentalists are not happy. Republicans are not happy. Only Obama seems happy. Why is he the only one happy with the climate change agreement that he is currently negotiating in Paris? Because that agreement, when combined with the already-negotiated Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), would complete his fundamental transformation of U.S. politics and the U.S. economy.
We don’t yet know the terms of the climate change agreement, but we do know that each country will be held to different carbon emission standards. President Obama released the likely U.S. and Chinese standards in a November 11, 2014, White House press release:
The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030….
Apparently, less developed countries, including China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, will be allowed unlimited increases in their carbon emissions, while developed countries, including the United States, will be subjected to draconian reductions.
Obviously, the deal will do little to reduce worldwide carbon emissions. It will mainly move carbon-emitting factories from the developed countries to the developing countries.
To add insult to injury, the developed countries will be required to pay about $1 trillion in reparations to the underdeveloped countries. The amount of these reparations is still being negotiated, but we know that they will be immense.
How will the developed countries pay immense reparations at the same time that they are losing exporting industries? The last agreement to impose this burden was the Versailles Treaty after World War I, which doomed Germany to hyperinflation and political instability, as economist John Maynard Keynes predicted in his 1919 book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (pdf).
It is just now dawning on Republicans leaders in Washington that, if they vote to pass TPP, the carbon emission reductions and reparations that Obama agrees to in Paris won’t be voluntary for the United States. They didn’t see this coming last spring when they gave Obama fast-track power to negotiate TPP.
Republicans are now beginning to realize that Obama will use TPP to enforce his climate agreement. Manning continues:
There can be little doubt that Obama plans on using the Trans-Pacific Partnership governance as the means to enforce whatever he agrees to in Paris on the U.S. all the while our trade partners will ignore it, with the threat of international trade sanctions imposed against the United States should Congress or a future president roll back his agenda.
TPP is a “living agreement” which means that its terms can be changed simply by votes of its governing body. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission has been given almost unlimited powers. Article 27.2, Functions of the Commission, states:
Most likely, the terms of the climate agreement will be added to TPP at the first meeting of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. According to Article 27.4, Rules of Procedure of the Commission, that meeting will take place within a year after TPP goes into effect, most likely while Obama is still president. Specifically:
If both the House and Senate approve TPP, neither body will have any say over how the U.S. votes when the climate agreement comes up before the Commission. Article 27.1 specifies:
Once the Commission incorporates the climate agreement into TPP, its terms would be enforced by TPP’s arbitration panels. Any country that is party of the agreement could charge any other country with violating the agreement. After evidence is presented to the panel and after due deliberations, the panel would issue a final report which would determine whether the charged country was out of compliance. Article 28.18 specifies:
TPP adds a whole new supra-national level of regulation to the American economy. American businesses already must comply with the rules of their state EPAs and those of the federal EPA. TPP adds a third level. Under the threat of massive fines, Congress would have no choice but to subject American businesses to the rules of the new international EPA, known as TPP.
Climate change is a hallmark cause for President Barack Obama., evidenced by his relentless drive to convince the world that global warming is a bigger threat than ISIS. The question is why? The answer is in plain sight. One need only apply the old journalistic axiom: "Follow the money."
Why did former Vice-President Al Gore repeatedly declare that he was going to become "the first global warming billionaire" -- did that not pique any journalist's curiosity as to what was behind the curtain? After losing his bid for the presidency, becoming the first global warming billionaire was Gore's road not only to extraordinary wealth, but a guarantee of his return to global influence.
Set up to unfold was a "golden parachute" scheme that would line the pockets of a cadre of elitists and global-warming advocates long after they were displaced from their seats of power. This scheme used deceptive means to a profitable end.
Few realize that the “green movement” is about building large personal fortunes for an elite few. President Barack Obama laid out his threat to bypass Congress and ignore the American people during his 2013 State of the Union address by exerting his authority under Executive Orders:
“I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
Obama's green energy plan put the coal industry on life-support, targeted oil and gas as the enemy and sought to impose restrictions on power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses. What the president reportedly hides behind the curtain is his alliances with international green elites, a select group of political and Wall Street cronies, and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that would put billions of dollars into their own pockets. A regulatory structure is being assembled through federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publicized reversals by such global-warming heavyweights as the United Nation’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s James Hansen now state that global temperatures have not substantially risen for nearly two decades.
Yet, Obama gears up to invest billions of America’s tax dollars in the green abyss, even while other countries across the globe are backing away. European nations have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative blowback from their citizens.
Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his assemblage of global elitists prefer that you not know come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40 countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: “The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.”
Based on scientific data, “Not only are worms contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” Contoski further notes that, “volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.
Contosky then queries, “Termites emit ten time more CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?
You control the world's energy distribution, you control the world. Now, if only they can get the little people to "believe" that global warming is a bigger threat than ISIS, the global elites of the future will have the ultimate golden parachute
Post a Comment