TPP gets praise from environmentalists, criticism from pharma and tobacco.

[DanTex]

Is TPP another instance of Obama outmaneuvering the GOP?

Krugman's early take:

I’ve described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don’t share the intense dislike of many progressives, I’ve seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that.

What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.

But it’s interesting that what we’re seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman’s work on the political economy of free trade agreements, in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that

An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful.

The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body

[GoneFishin]

1. Uh, no. I don't think so.

[Sisterwife15]

2. What??? Most Major Environmental Groups Oppose TPP

Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, 350.org, etc. have come out against TPP since it will encourage fossil fuel exports, among other things.

[djean111]

3. This is just "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down" crap.

And how can anyone say the TPP looks better than it did, if it has not been released.
I will wait and see what it really looks like, thanks anyway.

I will assume the leaks were valid, and this is just fake drama, designed to make it look like the president who worked WITH the GOP to get Fast Track is now the president who is "angering" the GOP. So far, looks like theater, pure and simple.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Well, looks like Krugman is being hurled under the bus among "Liberals" here on DU.

It would be funny were it not so tragic.

[Sisterwife15]

5. Here's some backlash from the left

"Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement Is A Disaster For Climate Change"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/05/3709061/tpp-agreement-reached-environmental-concerns-remain/

From the article:

"The White House seems intent on telling everyone environmentalists like this deal, but the truth is by handing even more power to Big Oil, letting massive corporations throw tantrum lawsuits at governments who dare to scale back emissions, and prolonging our reliance on fracked gas, there’s no question that the Transpacific Partnership is an absolute disaster for our climate,” - Karthik Ganapathy, 350.org

“The compromises that [were] struck will further enrage environmentalists and other progressive opposition, and threatens to undermine the razor thin majority that gave President Obama Fast Track trade authority,” Erich Pica, President of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. “Friends of the Earth urges our members and members of Congress to oppose this bad deal.”

[AzDar]

6. The White House LIES.

[pampango]

8. And Krugman believes. He can see through republican lies on a consistent basis but

can't see what Joe Wilson saw.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. The Krugman piece certainly does not cite praise from environmentalists and you provide none

yourself, making it rather impossible to discuss what Krugman actually wrote in this thread.

[rockfordfile]

9. No it doesn't