

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
U.S. and EU negotiators recently began a new round of negotiations on the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement. Because the talks are happening behind closed doors, the public is left largely in the dark about the nature of the discussions over a deal also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
So what, exactly, do we know?
U.S. and EU negotiators recently began a new round of negotiations on the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement. Because the talks are happening behind closed doors, the public is left largely in the dark about the nature of the discussions over a deal also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
So what, exactly, do we know?
Officially, not much. But an EU negotiation position "on raw materials and energy" was leaked to the Huffington Post in May. The text amounts to a wish list of demands from Big Oil and Gas that would lock in any of their investments in fossil fuels in general, and shale gas and fracking in particular.
"Leaked details of the proposed deal show that civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been right all along to be suspicious about what's being negotiated behind closed doors."
Article C of the document states that no restrictions should apply to the "exports of energy goods" between the transatlantic trade partners. Any request, for example, for an export license to ship natural gas from the United States to the EU would be approved "automatically."
That means no questions asked, even if this arrangement could lead to environmental damage from widespread use of fracking, increased gas prices for U.S. consumers, increased import dependency, and other problems.
This trade deal would lock in our mutual dependence on unsustainable fossil fuels at the expense of our climate. While it would bode well for the quarterly profits oil and gas companies earn, this arrangement wouldn't serve the public interest.
Largely unregulated energy commerce between the United States and EU would also be a frontal assault on the possibility for governments to impose a "public service obligation." It could bar mandates for utility companies to deliver natural gas at certain prices to consumers, for example.
Any such public service obligation should be "clearly defined and of limited duration" and no "more burdensome than necessary," according to the leaked draft. With such vague wording, lawyers will have a field day attacking any price regulation in the energy sector.
This leak shows that civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been right all along to be suspicious about what's being negotiated behind closed doors. The expression "No news is good news" clearly doesn't apply to the transatlantic free trade deal. The more we learn about the ongoing negotiations, the less we like it.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
U.S. and EU negotiators recently began a new round of negotiations on the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement. Because the talks are happening behind closed doors, the public is left largely in the dark about the nature of the discussions over a deal also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
So what, exactly, do we know?
Officially, not much. But an EU negotiation position "on raw materials and energy" was leaked to the Huffington Post in May. The text amounts to a wish list of demands from Big Oil and Gas that would lock in any of their investments in fossil fuels in general, and shale gas and fracking in particular.
"Leaked details of the proposed deal show that civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been right all along to be suspicious about what's being negotiated behind closed doors."
Article C of the document states that no restrictions should apply to the "exports of energy goods" between the transatlantic trade partners. Any request, for example, for an export license to ship natural gas from the United States to the EU would be approved "automatically."
That means no questions asked, even if this arrangement could lead to environmental damage from widespread use of fracking, increased gas prices for U.S. consumers, increased import dependency, and other problems.
This trade deal would lock in our mutual dependence on unsustainable fossil fuels at the expense of our climate. While it would bode well for the quarterly profits oil and gas companies earn, this arrangement wouldn't serve the public interest.
Largely unregulated energy commerce between the United States and EU would also be a frontal assault on the possibility for governments to impose a "public service obligation." It could bar mandates for utility companies to deliver natural gas at certain prices to consumers, for example.
Any such public service obligation should be "clearly defined and of limited duration" and no "more burdensome than necessary," according to the leaked draft. With such vague wording, lawyers will have a field day attacking any price regulation in the energy sector.
This leak shows that civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been right all along to be suspicious about what's being negotiated behind closed doors. The expression "No news is good news" clearly doesn't apply to the transatlantic free trade deal. The more we learn about the ongoing negotiations, the less we like it.
U.S. and EU negotiators recently began a new round of negotiations on the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement. Because the talks are happening behind closed doors, the public is left largely in the dark about the nature of the discussions over a deal also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
So what, exactly, do we know?
Officially, not much. But an EU negotiation position "on raw materials and energy" was leaked to the Huffington Post in May. The text amounts to a wish list of demands from Big Oil and Gas that would lock in any of their investments in fossil fuels in general, and shale gas and fracking in particular.
"Leaked details of the proposed deal show that civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been right all along to be suspicious about what's being negotiated behind closed doors."
Article C of the document states that no restrictions should apply to the "exports of energy goods" between the transatlantic trade partners. Any request, for example, for an export license to ship natural gas from the United States to the EU would be approved "automatically."
That means no questions asked, even if this arrangement could lead to environmental damage from widespread use of fracking, increased gas prices for U.S. consumers, increased import dependency, and other problems.
This trade deal would lock in our mutual dependence on unsustainable fossil fuels at the expense of our climate. While it would bode well for the quarterly profits oil and gas companies earn, this arrangement wouldn't serve the public interest.
Largely unregulated energy commerce between the United States and EU would also be a frontal assault on the possibility for governments to impose a "public service obligation." It could bar mandates for utility companies to deliver natural gas at certain prices to consumers, for example.
Any such public service obligation should be "clearly defined and of limited duration" and no "more burdensome than necessary," according to the leaked draft. With such vague wording, lawyers will have a field day attacking any price regulation in the energy sector.
This leak shows that civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been right all along to be suspicious about what's being negotiated behind closed doors. The expression "No news is good news" clearly doesn't apply to the transatlantic free trade deal. The more we learn about the ongoing negotiations, the less we like it.