Corporations Over Democracy?

Corporations over democracy?
I’m writing to let you know about a secret trade deal that would threaten our democracy and help giant mega-corporations become even more powerful. This agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), would allow companies to sue and overturn democratically created laws if they hurt those companies’ profits. For example, cities that vote to ban fracking could then be sued by greedy gas companies over lost profits — totally undermining local laws and the democratic process itself.
The scariest part? Only a few members of Congress have even seen the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while about 600 corporations have weighed in on the ins and outs of this deal.
The TPP would include 12 countries that border the Pacific, making it the largest free trade deal ever considered by the U.S., and also probably the biggest corporate power grab in history. This trade deal threatens everything we fight for. And to make matters worse, President Obama wants to approve this plan himself — without the input of the American public or Congress.
Take action today to protect the rights of Americans to decide what laws they want to live under. Sign the petition to stop the fast track of the Trans-Pacific Partnership!
Thanks for taking action,
Sarah Alexander
Food & Water Watch
act(at)fwwatch(dot)org

I havent read the law but I’m just wondering if the real debate here is between federal rights vs states rights ( or local govt rights). If we decide as a country to allow fracking and its part of an overall energy policy but we then allow local governments to create a patchwork of laws across the country they could in theory derail a policy that might benefit the nation. The same argument could apply to laws that permit cell phone companies to install towers and limits the rights of local governments to stop them.
In some cases a law like this seems essential to allow the country to get things done that need to be done despite local opposition. I’m sure there is a more ominous side to this but again I didn’t read the law so feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking here.

“Secret trade deal” - really Lois, I never took you to be a conspiracy nut. How could this be secret if there’s a very public site for it: http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

Hey, Cuthbert, it is a secret because the site is currently undergoing maintenance. :wink:

"Secret trade deal" - really Lois, I never took you to be a conspiracy nut. How could this be secret if there's a very public site for it: http://www.ustr.gov/tpp
Don't shoot the messenger! I just passed it on as an interesting idea. I don't accept conspiracies. But maybe this will get some people to focus on something other than space aliens, Americans bringing down the World Trade Center and that Obama was born in Kenya. Lois

The government site is back online. I browsed the information available and it seems pretty innocuous. Government reps, industry reps, NGO reps, academic reps from all over the world in a long series of negotiations working to codify international trade regulations including commerce, copyright and other routine stuff. I went to foodandwaterwatch.org and found absolutely nothing about these negotiations. Seems the email may be an urban legend.

The government site is back online. I browsed the information available and it seems pretty innocuous. Government reps, industry reps, NGO reps, academic reps from all over the world in a long series of negotiations working to codify international trade regulations including commerce, copyright and other routine stuff. I went to foodandwaterwatch.org and found absolutely nothing about these negotiations. Seems the email may be an urban legend.
That's always a possibility. Thanks for the research. Lois
I havent read the law but I'm just wondering if the real debate here is between federal rights vs states rights ( or local govt rights). If we decide as a country to allow fracking and its part of an overall energy policy but we then allow local governments to create a patchwork of laws across the country they could in theory derail a policy that might benefit the nation. The same argument could apply to laws that permit cell phone companies to install towers and limits the rights of local governments to stop them. In some cases a law like this seems essential to allow the country to get things done that need to be done despite local opposition. I'm sure there is a more ominous side to this but again I didn't read the law so feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking here.
Its said that one of the reasons why nuclear power in the US hasn't taken off is that there's so many different state regulations of nuclear power plants, that each unit has to be custom built, thus adding tremendously to the cost.
I havent read the law but I'm just wondering if the real debate here is between federal rights vs states rights ( or local govt rights). If we decide as a country to allow fracking and its part of an overall energy policy but we then allow local governments to create a patchwork of laws across the country they could in theory derail a policy that might benefit the nation. The same argument could apply to laws that permit cell phone companies to install towers and limits the rights of local governments to stop them. In some cases a law like this seems essential to allow the country to get things done that need to be done despite local opposition. I'm sure there is a more ominous side to this but again I didn't read the law so feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking here.
Its said that one of the reasons why nuclear power in the US hasn't taken off is that there's so many different state regulations of nuclear power plants, that each unit has to be custom built, thus adding tremendously to the cost. Most likely it's because nuclear power is so dangerous to the environment and all the earth's creatures. I'm not sure it can ever be made safe. Lois

Personally, I love nuclear power. I just want to keep it where it is functioning very well, on the sun. :lol:
Occam

Personally, I love nuclear power. I just want to keep it where it is functioning very well, on the sun. :lol: Occam
Yesssir!! Occam....yessir!! How 'bout that Fukashima ehh? :lol: That's a tempest in a teapot! What would happen if an earthquake hit there right now? Ohhh..those temporary waste coolant tanks! The cracked reactor vessels hanging precariously by a thread.... edited to add "waste" in front of coolant tanks.
Most likely it's because nuclear power is so dangerous to the environment and all the earth's creatures. I'm not sure it can ever be made safe. Lois
It is "made safe" in most reactors in the world. We just hear about the problem ones.
Most likely it's because nuclear power is so dangerous to the environment and all the earth's creatures. I'm not sure it can ever be made safe. Lois
It is "made safe" in most reactors in the world. We just hear about the problem ones. Year like Three Mile Island

OK, just to clarify my post for anyone who didn’t get it. The energy put out by the sun and all stars is the result of nuclear fusion. As such, when we use solar panels or wind power, it’s from the sun and therefore, ultimately, nuclear. So I was merely being a wise-ass and saying I’m in favor of it, but keep it on the sun. I wasn’t arguing for nuclear here. Geez.
Occam

OK, just to clarify my post for anyone who didn't get it. The energy put out by the sun and all stars is the result of nuclear fusion. As such, when we use solar panels or wind power, it's from the sun and therefore, ultimately, nuclear. So I was merely being a wise-ass and saying I'm in favor of it, but keep it on the sun. I wasn't arguing for nuclear here. Geez. Occam
I got that Occam. Maybe you took the extension of my comments as a counter, but it was merely re-inforcement.
Most likely it's because nuclear power is so dangerous to the environment and all the earth's creatures. I'm not sure it can ever be made safe. Lois
It is "made safe" in most reactors in the world. We just hear about the problem ones. What makes you think one of the "problem ones" isn't going to affect you or your loved ones? Got any guarantees for us?
OK, just to clarify my post for anyone who didn't get it. The energy put out by the sun and all stars is the result of nuclear fusion. As such, when we use solar panels or wind power, it's from the sun and therefore, ultimately, nuclear. So I was merely being a wise-ass and saying I'm in favor of it, but keep it on the sun. I wasn't arguing for nuclear here. Geez. Occam
I have no problem with nuclear power as long as it's 90 million miles away and no human is in charge of it. :)
It is "made safe" in most reactors in the world. We just hear about the problem ones.
So, Fukashima would have been one of the "safe ones" just 3 years ago? "Cause we didn't hear about it yet? All of this is to say nothing of the magical way in which nuclear waste is disposed of. What do we do with it? Shoot into space? Bury it under a mountain? Dump it deep in the ocean? Try to recycle it? Wow..sounds like a real well thought out system... {Parody-not based on facts, yet probably similar scenarios have played out multiple times and will continue in the future.} Meanwhile...."here's another fresh 30 tons of waste..., where do you want it?" "Uhhh, hmmnn,....put it in that ditch for now. I'm going to call up Moldovia or some country and see if they want to take it." "What will they do with it?" "Oh they're safe, they have been certified by the world community to dispose of it." Actually they just pay some Somali Pirates and they dump it in the sea. The acquisition of scientific knowledge outpaces wisdom. Nuclear energy is the perfect example of expediency for growth, outweighing sensible plans for the future.

Since we’ve gotten off topic anyway and are discussing energy I think its important to avoid the artificial dichotomy of “good” energy and “bad” energy or green and not green or safe and unsafe. Nothing is that simple.
Obviously nuclear energy has some problems which you have outlined above but so do many other types of energy. All carbon energy sources are dangerous for other reasons but wind, solar and geothermal have shortcomings as well in that they are not universally available especially when they are most needed. They can also have harmful environmental effects through the carbon footprint required to mine the materials as well as manufacture and maintain the equipment. They can be unsightly and they are expensive as well.
Since there is no single energy source or category of energy source that it likely to be the solution to our energy requirements it seems like it would make much more sense to discuss when and where each type of energy ( including nuclear) fits into the overall plan rather than simply labeling some sources as good and others as bad and trying to solve our needs with only the “good” sources.

Until recently, I agreed with you about nuclear energy being a necessary, if temporary, solution to our needs, Macgyver. However, from a number of articles on current research on improving solar energy recovery, I think by the time we get people to recognize the damage that coal and petroleum do, we may be able to switch over without needing nuclear.
Occam