Leaked: European Union Trade Document, Translation: Climate Disaster
UPDATE! 7/24/2014: Today, more than 35 organizations including the Sierra Club sent a letter to the United States Trade Representative regarding this flawed proposal. In the letter, these groups call on the United States to oppose 1) the inclusion of a specific chapter dedicated to energy or 2) any provisions in the TTIP that could lead to automatic approval of export licenses for crude oil and natural gas. The groups argue that U.S. energy policy must be determined through democratic and transparent domestic processes—not through tradedeals that are negotiated behind closed doors. The U.S.'s role in tackling the climate crisis depends on this. To see the letter and the three dozen signatures, click here.
A leaked European Union trade document, published today by the Washington Post, reveals the dangers
of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for communities and our climate. The document, similar to a previously leaked EU proposal for a chapter on energy which I wrote about here, makes it clear that the EU is looking to use this secretly negotiated trade pact as a back-door channel to get automatic, unfettered access to U.S. fracked gas and oil. If this proposal moves forward, we would see more fracking for oil and gas in the United States, more climate-disrupting pollution globally, and increased dependence on fossil fuels in the EU. So, while oil and gas companies on both sides of the Atlantic rake in profits, everyone else is stuck paying the costs.
To understand the real implications of the proposal, let’s look at some key elements and translate what each means for communities, energy policy, and climate.
1. “The EU proposes to include a legally binding commitment in the TTIP guaranteeing the free export of crude oil and gas resources by transforming any mandatory and non-automatic export licensing procedure into a process by which licenses for exports to the EU are granted automatically and expeditiously. Such a specific commitment would, in the EU’s view, not require that the U.S. amend its existing legislation on oil and gas.”
Translation: The United States should scrap its process for reviewing the impacts of exporting natural gas and crude oil and automatically send the EU our gas and oil.
Here is the background. In the United States, companies must secure a license to export crude oil and natural gas. Exports of crude oil to the European Union are allowed only if the President determines they are consistent with the national interest and they pass an impact assessment. The EU proposal, however, would require the United States to “automatically and expeditiously” approve crude oil export licenses without even considering the national interest. That leaves no room to even examine how more dirty fracking and more dangerous exports will harm communities here at home. Exporting crude oil to the EU would mean windfall profits to Big Oil, more fracking, and more climate-disrupting pollution.
With respect to natural gas, the EU proposal would remove the U.S. Department of Energy’s requirement to review whether exports are in the public interest before approving any exports. The rubber-stamping of exports would lead to increased natural gas production—most of which will come from dangerous fracking. The natural gas would then be transported to export facilities and cooled and liquefied for overseas shipment--an extremely energy-intensive process that creates a dirty climate-disrupting fuel.
2.“EU and U.S. companies would be first beneficiaries.”
Translation: The oil and gas industries will be the first ones to benefit. Not much explaining to do here! Increased fracking for oil and gas and more exports means more profits for corporate polluters. The oil and gas industry may, in fact, be the only beneficiaries. Certainly American communities and our climate would lose out.
3. “Only a dedicated chapter [on energy] will allow for the necessary coherence and the required visibility to fulfill this role. Having energy and raw materials addressed in provisions dispersed throughout different chapters of a TTIP agreement would not result in the kind of integrated disciplines that are required to address the specificities of these products and the way in which they are traded.”
Translation: We can deal with energy trade issues through an energy chapter (the EU position) or by dispersing language throughout the TTIP. This text could indicate that the U.S. wants to do the latter—a sly approach, as it would be less visible to the public but would likely have the same harmful results.
The Sierra Club believes there must not be anything anywhere in trade deals that guarantees “free trade” in fossil fuels or otherwise hinders climate action, so scrapping this energy chapter is one place to start.
4. “In the future, an energy and raw materials chapter negotiated between the U.S. and the EU could serve as a platform for each party’s negotiations with energy and raw materials relevant partners such as Mexico for instance.”
Translation: Watch out world! This proposal isn’t just for sending unfettered exports of U.S. oil and gas to Europe. An energy chapter is also a dangerous precedent for agreements with other countries, such as Mexico. Every country must be able to manage its own energy sources, natural resources, and climate policies. Trade agreements can’t stand in the way.
5. “In conclusion, a clear signal from the U.S. at this stage that it is accepting the principle of negotiating a specific chapter including provisions on unrestricted access to U.S. natural resources would show our resolve while further encouraging investments in the upstream and downstream energy sectors.”
Translation: The EU wants the green light from the U.S. for an energy chapter in TTIP. Further translation: Let’s get mobilized! Trade agreements negotiated behind closed doors cannot put corporations before people and countries. The first step to ensuring that trade agreements actually protect communities and the public is to stop U.S. “fast-track” legislation that would facilitate the approval of harmful trade pacts without sufficient Congressional or public input. Please take action and tell your Member of Congress to oppose legislation that would limit the ability of Congress to ensure trade pacts protect our air, clean water, and climate.
--Ilana Solomon, Director, Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program