THE VERY idea that the TPP is good for the environment (Craig Foss, October 26) is arrant nonsense. Moreover, it is wilful distortion. While Mr Foss might have the privilege of knowing what clauses say in this secret deal "of the oligarchy for the oligarchy", he doesn't understand the environment, let alone resource economics and ethics.
Mr Foss thinks certification schemes will ensure environmental protection. They won't. There are two types of commerce - the ethical and connected to place and community, and the unethical and unconnected.
Small-c commerce contributes to our place; moral philosopher Adam Smith's village environment. The latter extract from place, colonise and privatise gain. They form oligarchies and unethically influence government policies. Adam Smith warned us against their influence.
Mr Foss' claim that certification schemes indicate a positive of the TPP lumps all commerce together. Schemes like the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) were accepted by ethical small-c companies and corporates who were ethically linked to their land and community, and who recognised labelling was essential to encourage the market position of their produce. However, the FSC was unpopular with mega-corporates, who focused on low-cost systems and dominance.
Mr Foss is also confused about what the environment is. It is not just our biodiversity; it is our water systems that are being mined, our soil systems, climate and carbon cycles, nutrient cycles, our acidifying ocean, and services that are gifted to us. He should research Stockholm Institute's Planetary Boundaries work before suggesting that a commercial deal will do any good. We are running close to many boundaries, and the root cause of much of it is short-term greed supported by big-c interests. Exactly the type of people who have access to the TPP details while we do not.