TPP Part 2: The Secrecy Problem, Fast-Track, and Selling Out


The terms of the TPP have been negotiated over many years, presumably in ill-lit hotel ballrooms and dungeon-like conference rooms. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) and various advisory committees have hammered this agreement out with 11 other nations over what has to be, like, 11,000 pots of weak coffee? And it’s finally ready to go. Now, each member nation wants to make sure that nothing they’ve bargained for gets altered when it goes for approval before the US Congress. When you’ve arm-wrestled the representative from New Zealand into submission at 3 am in a hotel bar over what percentage of yeast in marmite has to originate within New Zealand before it passes customs with no tariffs, you want that provision to stick. So, President Obama has asked for “fast-track” authority, also known as trade promotion authority.

With this authority, the USTR and the advisory committee would author and submit the terms of the trade agreement to Congress, and Congress would simply vote up or down on the deal; that’s it. No committees, no public input or response, no filibustering, nothing: just a forced up-or-down vote on a bill that’s authored by the executive branch. That way, Congress wouldn’t be able to alter any of the provisions so painstakingly brokered over the last several years. This same trade promotion authority has been renewed many times in the past to cover negotiations of dozens of trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT.

Resistance to granting this authority, such as that coming from Senators Warren and Manchin, is grounded in concerns about public access to the agreement. The bill they proposed to get that transparency failed, and I think I can explain some of this. Continue reading

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Part 1: What’s all this, then?


In Part 1, I’ll outline the broad framework and some key provisions of the TPP. In Part 2, I’ll address the secrecy issue, the  corporate make-up of the advisory committees, and offer some brilliant thoughts.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an international trade agreement under negotiation among 12 member countries/Parties: the US, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. This agreement, if approved, would encompass 40% of world GDP, one-third of all global exports, and almost half of the world’s foreign direct investment. If it goes through, it will end up covering about 60% of our own foreign trade. Due to this enormous scope, what’s agreed upon here will have impacts on trade rules for decades to come. I’m going to explain what I know about the major provisions of the TPP, and give you a rundown of points of interest and/or controversy.

But before I do that, you need to know this: I can’t read the official text of the TPP. It’s secret. Not classified, exactly, but secret from the general public. In fact, those who are cleared to read it have to agree that they won’t talk about it. So, as Michael Wessel explains, this presents a hilarious Catch-22: you can’t criticize what you can’t read. If you’re cleared to read it, you can’t talk about the specifics of what you’ve read. If you can’t talk about the specifics, President Obama can slam you for not being specific in your criticisms. BAM. SUCK IT, CRITICS Continue reading

Why we can’t have nice things, Part 532: Our electricity situation


One question I’m often asked is why low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuel energy haven’t taken off here to the extent that they have in other countries. Clearly, there isn’t just one reason. We have LOTS of ways to avoid progress! Today I’d like to explain one reason among many, because I think it illuminates a fundamental philosophical mistake in how we think about energy. We will be talking today about demand response resources. 

If you’re planning out how to meet energy needs for a given region over the next few years, you’re working out a balance between supply and demand. In the electricity game, generation resources are suppliers who generate megawatt-hours of electricity; e.g., power plants, wind farms, etc. You need to know how much electricity can be reliably generated, when, and where. But you also need to be able to predict and (to an extent) control demand. Enter demand response resources. DRRs are ways to reduce demand from the consumer end. This can be done a number of ways: reducing use during critical times, increasing efficiency of delivery, shutting the goddamn door, for crying out loud, were you born in a fucking barn, etc.

Here are some examples of demand response resources: Continue reading

Jen Reads: the REINS Act… so you don’t have to!


I made an announcement last year to the effect of “Don’t get me started on the REINS Act, man,”  but Rand Paul did not heed my warning. So this is what you get: me, started on this bill. You need to know about it because it already passed the House last year and has a decent shot of passing the Senate. That’s probably because the author of the Senate version is Rand Paul, who recently announced his candidacy for president. I’ll summarize it and give you my take (hint: no).

What is it? The REINS (Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny) Act proposes that major federal rules must be approved by both chambers of Congress. Congress would have 70 legislative days to approve a major rule via joint resolution, or it’s considered disapproved. Each rule submission would have to include a cost-benefit analysis, including a jobs report. Continue reading

Jen Reads the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act… so you don’t have to!


Indiana’s governor signed the state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law this week, and if you get your information solely from memes, you either think this means the jack-booted government thugs have once more been driven back from the doorsteps of God-fearing Americans, OR that “Straights Only” lunch counters will be popping up on every corner. What is it actually about?

I’m going to argue that this law does not open up any new paths for Indiana businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You careful readers will note that this implies Indiana businesses can already discriminate on this basis. That is correct. It’s my contention that this law was passed as groundwork for a much larger, much more evil project. Let’s get to it, shall we? Continue reading

Jenergy: It’s not that they hate science, it’s that they love money.


Last week, you may have noticed that the House passed a flurry of bills slamming the EPA. Why does the House hate science and nature so hard? I’ll give you my take on what’s going on here.

As far as I can tell, this all begins with air quality standards set by the EPA. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants that affect public health. One of those pollutants is ground-level ozone (smog), which presents a number of public health issues, including decreased lung function, severe respiratory problems, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and, I want to emphasize this, death.

The Scientific Advisory Board reviews available scientific data in order to recommend a standard for air quality– the threshold of ozone that produces the optimal number of deaths per year. The optimal number of deaths isn’t zero, of course. Consider that most people whose deaths are related to ozone are particularly susceptible–the old and infirm, the young and infirm, those with other respiratory insufficiencies, etc. But when you begin adding deaths of otherwise not-so-unhealthy people, that’s when public health officials frown. So, you have to find that sweet spot where mostly healthy people can hack it.

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that when the EPA sets the standards for ozone, it must not take into consideration how much it might cost to implement the standard. It must only look at what protects the public health. The limit they’ve been recommending is between 60-70 ppb. In 2008, the Bush administration went with 75 ppb, despite the EPA recommendation. In 2010, the EPA said, in a slightly louder voice, that 60-70 ppb would be better, health-wise, and maybe the lower end of that. Congress sneered, and the Obama administration caved. But the EPA has been under court order to settle on the standards, so on Nov. 25, they rolled out a slightly more relaxed limit of 65-70 ppb.

What causes all the hand-wringing is that, should this be enacted, many metropolitan areas would immediately be out of compliance. When an area is considered to be out of compliance, more strenuous guidelines are put into place for new manufacturing projects, and sometimes industry has to pay to offset its pollution. So, the new rule would immediately cost a bunch of money… but remember: the EPA can’t consider that when it sets the standards.

So if you can’t get the EPA to change the standards recommendation because of what the science says, you have to go after the science. Why is 60-70 ppb a good number, and not 75? One of the foundational studies used by the EPA to get this number is a landmark study, Bell et al. (2004). That study shows that between 1987 and 2000, we’ve averaged 20 deaths per day per city due to ozone. For every increase last week of 10 parts per billion of ozone, daily mortality rates due to ozone this week go up .52%. Just a little jump of 5 ppb doesn’t seem like much until you measure it in deaths.

If I wanted to look into the Bell study, I’d need to look at patient mortality information. That’s based on health records, which are confidential. I’d have to be content with the anonymized, compiled data. But the Bell study was funded by the EPA. So, if I’m a Congressperson, tasked with accepting or rejecting the EPA recommendation, should I be able to look at the confidential data in order to check out the study? That’s the sticky bit.

And what if I’m one of the scientists who co-authored the Bell study? Arguably, that would make me a really good person to ask about air quality and mortality. But if I’m on the Science Advisory Board, and I got a grant from the EPA to do this study, and I co-authored the study, is it a conflict of interest for me to help recommend air quality standards to the EPA?

I would say of course not. Public health research requires public grants, and scientists who know what they’re talking about are the people who did these studies. However, to Republicans, this looks like “stacking the deck” with EPA cronies. And matters are not helped at all when the SAB won’t turn over the health records upon which the studies are based. I understand why they’re not turning them over, but you can see why the policymakers are frustrated.

This is not to say that they’re right. They do not care about the public health aspect of this, make no mistake about it. They’re worried about the cost, and nothing else.

Jen reads the Secret Science bill so you don’t have to


President Obama is inking up his ‘veto’ stamp and practicing his WTF face this week. Some of that was for the utterly useless Keystone XL bill, of course, but he’s also staying in veto-ready shape for the three EPA bills currently making their way through the House. One has passed the House already, HR 4012, also known as the “Secret Science” bill.

What it does: Prevents the EPA from taking any action without making “all” of the scientific and technical data it uses to justify its activities publicly available online. They would also be required to provide enough information for people to be able to conduct an independent review of the data. However, the bill says that shouldn’t be construed as requiring them to disclose confidential information that’s currently illegal to disclose.

What’s the point? Presumably, to make the EPA be “transparent” about how it scientifically justifies its assessments and regulations.

What’s behind this? Here’s the real story: Over the past few years, the EPA has set more stringent penalties for certain kinds of air pollution. They used two landmark studies, among others, that link air pollution to lung cancer to justify the regulations. The House Science Committee, under Lamar Smith, was unhappy about the new regulations, in part, I suspect, because, as ruled by the Supreme Court, greenhouse gases now count as air pollution. That means fossil fuel emissions can be regulated by the EPA in terms of public health.

So, Smith wanted to see the data on those two studies that justified the new regulations, and subpoenaed the EPA for it. The problem is, the EPA didn’t do those studies. They were conducted by independent researchers at Harvard and the American Cancer Society. So the researchers have the data, not the EPA. The studies involve confidential patient information, which is illegal to disclose. The studies, however, are published and peer-reviewed, and the patient data kept anonymous. Like the law says. But Smith threw a fit because he couldn’t have ALL the data, regardless of who had the authority to give it to whom. He blamed the EPA and got this bill started.

Why this bill sucks: Look, the EPA is using peer-reviewed studies. It’s not like this stuff was being done in secret to begin with. So, calling something “secret” makes it sound like it’s secret when it’s not secret. What’s that called again?

Even if this bill had been in effect when Smith subpoenaed the EPA, they still couldn’t have given him the information–the bill specifically doesn’t require disclosure of information that’s currently illegal to disclose. So this bill is useless. It’s worse than useless, because it would make the EPA responsible for requesting, compiling, reading, and curating all data associated with every peer-reviewed study it reads. That would not only add an enormous amount of time and financial burden to all regulatory activity, it would make the EPA, effectively, another layer of peer-review to already peer-reviewed studies. Further, it would force scientists to comply–not only a bureaucratic nightmare, but yet another show of distrust in scientists.