How the TPP will gut environmental protection


#1

[Permalink]


#4

There is another TPP area that I hope we get to. Food Safety. The TPP will force the US to accept the food safety guidelines of the signature countries. That means that shrimp from a Chinese front group can sell to the US via Vietnam and not have that Shrimp meet USDA guidelines for wholesomeness and purity. And we all know how great China’s food safety record is.

Currently the US has rules about incoming food. If the TPP passes those rules are subservient to TPP rules which are arbitrated by an un-elected tribunal of UN lawyers who work for the corporations who set up the TPP. And if you are a US company that wants to sell USDA protected food and reject Chinese/ Vietnamese shrimp? The Chinese/Vietnamese companies can sue the US taxpayers for failing to pay the lost profit they would have made selling foreign shrimp. This has already happened with NAFTA and is one of the reason they call TPP “NAFTA on steroids”

All this takes away sovereign control of our food supply and puts it in the hands of people who have a profit motive to sell the cheapest food from the scariest countries. And if they don’t actually sell it, they can STILL make money by claiming the US didn’t follow the agreement and the tax payers need to pay.

Finally, good luck finding the source of the tainted food, with longer and longer supply lines and no country of origin labels the source of illness outbreaks will take longer and make more people sick.

How do I know this is what is going on in the TPP food rules. I don’t know exactly because NOBODY can see it! Something as important as our food supply is taken away from OUR government inspectors and we the people can’t even see what will happen? That is crazy. How many would have to die for these to change after the implantation? I’m guessing more than 5,000 (current food deaths) or a handful of children of the white powerful men who run the lobbying/media complex in DC.
When 6 Britney and Jasons get food poisoning from Chinese/Vietnamese shrimp and die something might change.

If Shamika and Tryron get sick and die, oh well, people should be responsible for testing their own food and cooking and handling it correctly.


#5

“Surely if you spout that shit enough someone will believe you.”

Try nearly half of the American Meteorological Association, according to this year’s survey (Dr. Judith Curry, head of climatology at Georgia Tech: “Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.”)

Try nearly all conservatives in Western nations.

You’re still like some bloke pushing the government’s old carbohydrate bomb Food Pyramid, an exact political analogy to the Carbon Footprint Counter!

Hey Cory, how’s that Atkins diet coming along? Pretty well, eh.

Calling me a (Holocaust) “denier” is the treat of my day, since now I can naturally link to Jim Hansen’s right hand man above Tom’s Diner, two blocks from me here in the Columbia University area, begging you proud name callers to STOP IT because it renders you ridiculous:
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2lsehp2&s=5


#7

I like how you have 38 posts, and every single one of them is pushing this laughable agenda. Do you get paid for astroturfing or is this just a hobby?


#8

Facts are not slander. There’s no hockey stick in the input data that mathematician Mann promoted to the media. Anybody can see it. You even tried to argue there was a hockey stick in there, beyond the noise. Where is the slander in pointing this out? Why don’t you admit there is a problem with Mann’s actions in 2013? Do you support scientific fraud being used to promote policy extremes?


#9

Just a reminder:
• Please don’t make the same comment in more than one thread or repeat yourself (or anyone else) in the same thread. If you accidentally double-post, don’t worry, our moderators routinely try to tidy up those sorts of errors.


#10

I don’t understand at all what this has to do with hipsters. I really hate how once the hipster meme went mainstream, there’s lots of people who apply that label to any social group they don’t like.


#11

Where have I repeated myself? I wrote my post spontaneously. If the only way you can avoid debate losses is censorship instead of opposing facts? You want to shut up an alternative view using censorship. Ah…you want to censor my repeated opinion but of course this applies in exactly the same fashion to the same old boilerplate “denier” calls, does it not? Yes, it does.


#12

It was flagged, I looked back at posts from other threads and you are repeating yourself in multiple threads. Maybe not cut and paste but still repetition.


#14

Man, the crazy astroturfers LOVE BB recently…

On another note, TPP sucks. What can I do about it right now?


#15

In my mind, it’s the old divide that accurately describes geeks as wannabee nerds who have actual advanced technical degrees. That means they are not actually very scientifically savvy in a street smart sense and so have been extremely slow to actually confront the Space Age satellite data that show utterly no continued warming for two decades (!) compared to the original Jim Hansen claims to reporters in the 1980s that the highly speculative hypothesis of a water vapor amplified greenhouse effect would have led to several degrees extra warming in that time. He has changed his own tune, but activists ignore him:

“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.” - Jim Hansen, 2012

Early Hansen (1986): “Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen’s findings. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.”
[Reference: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=m90eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x2kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6732,129845&dq=hansen+sea+level+rise&hl=en ]


#16

It’s called having an opinion, Falcor. Get over it.


#17

And my opinion was that the person who flagged it was right.

I can please some of the flaggers some of the time and some of the posters some of the time but not all of the flaggers and posters all of the time.


#18

Claiming scientific fraud is slander, which you have done repeatedly based only on your own inability to understand statistics and not, you know, evidence of fraud. Or I suppose it might be libel - I’m open to correction.

Mann more than anyone else I know of in science has been called out for wrong-doing again and again, investigated again and again, and exonerated again and again. Vultures like Watt who casually accuse him have been caught lying again and again, but Mann is the one who gets death threats. And the slander continues, because assholes would rather see someone honest disgraced than admit that when nearly all climate scientists agree on something, it might have merit. It’s infuriating.

Not hosting someone on your blog is not the same thing as censoring them; they can always find their own platform. BoingBoing has an admirable don’t-spam-talking-points rule that I think they’ve been very generous on, and if they do decide someone has violated it, it’s their prerogative.

You didn’t give a link for this one. It’s available here from NASA (pdf), for those interested in looking at the significance of the apparent lack of warming, what might have been learned since the 1980s, or who generally prefer to see quotes in context rather than mined.


#19

1). I don’t think that accurately describes hipsters. They are not “wannabe nerds.”
2). I don’t see how being anti-fracking is
a). indicative of lack scientific savvy
b). the exclusive domain of hipsters

I do think, however, that you are revealing yourself to be a sloppy arguer and prone to overgeneralization and histrionics.

I also don’t see what announcing your PhD in “Carbon Chemistry” does for your argument. What does your degree have to do with the relevant debate? (Honest question; I just don’t tend to see people announcing their credentials, except on reddit, so whenever I see someone do so, it makes me quite skeptical of their claims.)


#20

Here’s a nice article from the Atlantic.

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. - J. Hansen

From the intro to the paper you cited. Continual warming, conclusively associated. And “Nearly all conservatives in Western nations” dispute global warming do they? I’ll add that to my “reasons for not being a conservative” list just above Big Business Good, Any Government Bad and just below Texas, The Wand of Shame State.


#21

No, it’s not. It’s called whistleblowing. I back it up with facts, in the above link to a thread on Phys.org in which the whole Hockey Stick Team narrative is set down.

Be careful what you define as mere “talking points” as you repeat yourself, declaring the same opinion, again and again.


#22

Oh come on. This is just silly. An ivy league degree in carbon chemistry has no merit in a debate about carbon dioxide? That’s your counter argument to my original post revealing brazen scientific fraud directly from this year’s major headline news announcements? Really? The referee of public opinion is holding my hand up now.


#23

It’s called being a stooge, witting or otherwise.

Here’s my opinion: it’s past time to take up arms against this scumbag elite waging war on us all.


#24

Yeah, damn straight. Organic chem has sweet fuck-all to do with climate science. Disingenuous troll.