THIS IS A USDA UNDER A CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL---NONE OF THIS IS DEMOCRATIC.
Below you see for whom the Maryland Assembly pols work---and you see these pols having worked on Trans Pacific Trade Pact under Ehrlich, O'Malley, and now Hogan. The only wins are the very few getting rich from owning these global corporations---the rest of Marylanders are deeply impoverished from this. As with China and Mexico having all small farmers thrown from their land of generations for BIG AG/MEAT to take over---this is killing US food markets and jobs as well.
As soon as your local meat/farm business is tied to the global market food for you becomes to expensive and quality drops.
Trans-Pacific PartnershipWhat’s at Stake for Maryland Agriculture?
February 2015 the U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, 202.720.7115 or LPA@fas.usda.gov
Maryland’s agricultural exports reached an estimated $808 million in 2013*, up from $605 million in 2009. Maryland’s exports help boost farm prices and income, while supporting about 6,100 jobs both on the farm and in related industries such as food processing, transportation, and manufacturing.Maryland’s top five agricultural exports in 2013 were:1. Broiler meat – $149 million2. Soybeans – $118 million3. Wheat – $85 million4. Dairy products – $34 million5. Soybean meal – $30 millionNationwide, U.S. food and agricultural exports reached a record $150 billion in 2014, supporting more than one million American jobs. Global demand for these products is growing but so is competition among suppliers
It is no secret that the mid-west states calling themselves Democrats are simply Republicans running as Democrats. These are the BIG AG/MEAT states that have elections captured by Clinton neo-liberals called moderates and center Democrats. IOWA and ARKANSAS are BIG AG/MEAT and we should know pols from these areas will be global pols---ergo, Clinton. Clinton ran as a progressive labor and justice just to advance his state's interests in global food. We know any Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberal will have Federal agency leaders who are corporate executives who use these agencies to send Federal money that should be protecting the American people with oversight and accountability and adherence to regulations---with people using the American people as human capital to maximize profits. Look to state assemblies in these states to see the same. THIS IS THE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY AND ALL LAWS PROTECT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS. The degradation of our environment will soar if TPP is allowed to be installed and the jobs brought by BIG AG and MEAT will be $2 a day as in developing nations. These policies go no where except third world.
If we allow chemical industries go wild as they have been--and then super-size this by bringing global corporations to the US with growing industrialization as Clinton neo-liberals are planning to do---all with TPP allowing all Constitutional laws and Federal protections be ignored---we will not be able to trust our food and water supply----and we will be forced to work over the most toxic of land.
This is why Obama's EPA is approving the building of high-rise office developments like Harbor Point in Baltimore that have been a toxic waste site that everyone knows is still dangerous----we can reverse all of this easy peasy----
STOP ALLOWING CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS TO CONTROL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. BE THE CANDIDATES IN ALL PRIMARY ELECTIONS. FOR BALTIMORE IT IS WORSE----JOHNS HOPKINS NEO-CONS ARE RUNNING AS DEMOCRATS!
How the FDA, USDA, and EPA Protect Chemical Industries, Not the Public
by Paul FassaPosted on July 3, 2014 Tweet
The United Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are probably the most well-known agencies which are supposed to protect us from harmful foods and chemicals. But as just one 500-page report bashing the FDA says, they don’t. They protect the industries from which you’re supposed to be protected. It’s not simply just government bureaucratic idiocy as most tend to assume. It’s mostly by design. Here’s a quote from former FDA commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley: The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day. You’ve probably surmised that the FDA is failing from several issues of what the organization bans and allows. But even the EPA, once an environmental watchdog feared and hated by corporations, has lost its teeth over the past few decades. And now with biotech GMO advocate, former Iowan governor Tom Vilsack in charge of the USDA, forget about protecting us from GMOs or agent orange-type pesticides. Yes, that agent orange one, 2, 4-D has been approved by the USDA. A Fatal Flaw in the Corporate Regulatory Agency Relationship But here’s the problem or fatal flaw. All these chemical companies have a proprietary trade secrets code where they are allowed to not disclose all the ingredients of any commercially produced chemical compounds. And yes, the regulatory agencies honor that! Regulatory agencies test only the active ingredients of pesticides and herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup while acquiescing to industry demands of “protecting trade secrets” for the inert ingredients used as adjuvants to increase glyphosate’s plant absorption. Thus glyphosate alone has been tested short term as less harmful environmentally as some other pesticides as long as it’s used within proper guidelines. of Course glyphosate is not at all safe, even in small amounts. Researchers at Caen University in France, the same people whose long term toxicity on Roundup resistant corn and Roundup produced those rats with gross tumors, had earlier broken the corporate code of secrecy using state of the art spectrometry equipment. They separated the ingredients of glyphosate-based herbicides, including Monsanto’s Roundup, to determine if those “inert” substances added to the toxicity of glyphosate. That study determined the most commonly used adjuvant, POE-15, was more toxic by itself than glyphosate. The researchers asserted that regulatory testing only active ingredients is useless, and the combination of all the ingredients need to be tested long term on mammals to determine human safety. Here’s that study. This proves that breaking the corporate code of preserving trade secrets is necessary with long term testing if public and environmental safety is to be protected.
Everyone knows the carbon market is filled with fraud as is all financial markets so if your pol, your corporate non-profit posing environmental is shouting out for carbon markets as Congressional Bush neo-cons and Clinton neo-liberals are----they are simply setting up the next Wall Street fraud. These pols know where these policies lead and they are AIDING AND ABETTING THESE CRIMES.
Know these fake environmental organizations that are created to promote these policies and do not listen to them. Look at pols that connect themselves to these fake environmental groups and know they are Clinton Wall Street global corporate pols. Just as with the women's organization NOW or the people of color organization NAACP-----these environmental groups are led by Clinton neo-liberals posing progressive and promoting policy that just moves money to corporate profit.
THIS IS HOW YOU KNOW YOU MUST BE THE CANDIDATE IN ALL DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AGAINST CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.
“crime of the century” CO2 trading scams - Carbon... http://carboncrooks.tv/danish-film-lifts-lid-on-crime-of-t…/
Sep 11, 2013 ... LONDON, Sept 11 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Thefts, fraud and money laundering in Europe's carbon market have cost European companies ...
Interpol warns of criminal focus on $176 billion carbon market
Last updated on 7 August 2013, 12:08 pm
Crime agency says lack of oversight and transparency threaten the environmental integrity of carbon markets
How VAT fraud is committed within the European emissions trading scheme (Pic: Europol)
By Ed King
Carbon trading schemes are at acute risk from criminal gangs and fraud, a new report from Interpol warns.
The police agency says uncertain regulations and a lack of oversight and transparency threaten the environmental and financial integrity of the world’s carbon markets, worth an estimated $176 billion.
And it says that there is a risk that if financial instruments related to carbon trading become too complex, the world’s carbon markets could spark a financial crisis on par with 2008.
The report says law enforcement agencies must be more aware of ‘carbon crimes’, improve communication between countries and impose tighter regulations on transactions and calculations of emissions reductions.
“Unlike traditional commodities, which at some time during the course of their market exchange must be physically delivered to someone, carbon credits do not represent a physical commodity but instead have been described as a legal fiction that is poorly understood by many sellers, buyers and traders,” Interpol says.
“This lack of understanding makes carbon trading particularly vulnerable to fraud and other illegal activity.”
Areas Interpol says criminals seek to exploit include over-claiming for credits, the sale of credits that do not exist, false claims relating to a project’s benefits, money laundering and online credit theft.
And it warns that even third party auditors, employed by schemes like the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to verify projects, may be susceptible to “bribes or collusion” to manipulate the results.
“The discrepancy between the objectives of the financial players in the market – to maximize profit – and the overall objective of the Kyoto Protocol – to ensure overall greenhouse gas emissions are reduced – places diverse pressures on the regulation of the market when drawn alongside other typical commodity markets,” says the report.
High profile criminal cases include a 2010 hacking attack on cement maker Holcim, resulting in the theft of 1.6 million credits worth €23.5million, while in 2011 hackers stole two million carbon credits from registries in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece and Poland.
In 2012 three men in the UK were sent to prison after running a £39 million tax fraud related to carbon trading. And earlier this year one of Britain’s most prolific money launderers Ian Macdonald was jailed for eight years for an £18 million carbon credits scam targeting vulnerable UK investors.
“It is imperative that the carbon trading markets remain secure from fraud, not just to protect financial investment, but also because the global environment depends upon it,” said Andrew Lauterback, Senior Criminal Enforcement Counsel at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
“This criminal activity risks seriously undermining the environmental integrity of the carbon markets globally,” added David Higgins from Interpol’s Environmental Crime Programme.
A statement from the UN body charged with monitoring carbon markets says Interpol’s guide highlights ‘potential risks’ to trading, but adds that “significant improvements” have been made to ensure projects under the CDM are thoroughly audited.
Jamal Gore, Deputy Chair of the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) welcomed Interpol’s drive to raise awareness of criminality in the sector, but told RTCC many of the issues raised in the report had already been resolved.
“ICROA’s Code of Practice, the governance mechanisms of the voluntary carbon credit standards and the emergence of professionally managed carbon credit registries together address many if not all of the issues related to the voluntary carbon market that the guide raises,” he said.
“The publication of the guide in its current form therefore represents a missed opportunity. By highlighting both the challenges facing the carbon markets and the work already being done to drive best practice, it could have better served its purpose of reducing carbon trading crime. Instead it risks sowing doubt just when we need to redouble our efforts to fight climate change.”
New carbon markets are ripe targets for criminal activity, PwC’s Jonathan Grant told RTCC, advising policymakers in China and South Korea to devote more attention to managing fraud risks.
He also recommended environment departments charged with implementing new mechanisms ensure they have sufficient experience of regulating financial instruments, citing this as a concern among analysts.
Carbon trading is the world’s fastest growing commodities market. In June, China launched the first of seven pilot projects, with an aim of developing a national emissions trading scheme (ETS) by the end of the decade.
The UN runs two schemes, the CDM and Joint Implementation (JI), which are targeted at improving low carbon investment in the developing world.
The EU ETS is worth an estimated $148 billion, the US-based Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) $249 million and New Zealand’s market $351 million.
If you didn't know Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals like Harry Reid worked for global corporations---you may think this article was about a policy fight between people working for the environment against those nasty polluters. It is a fight against Republicans which support carbon-based fuel sources like oil and coal and Clinton neo-liberals who support new industries calling themselves green but almost none of them are----they are simply new industries. Obama did indeed make this one of his first policy tries and as you saw in the articles above----he did it because of the level of fraud bringing profits overseas and Wall Street wanting that action-----and he did it for the fake green energy businesses who funded his campaign.
Nothing pollutes more than battery technology and electric cars-----nothing pollutes more than fracking and natural gas-----nothing pollutes more than 'CLEAN COAL'.
So, Republicans were not against it because they wanted to protect the American people from yet another source of Wall Street fraud against the Federal government and stock holders-----they are protecting big oil/coal. This was a tough one for Republicans who love policy giving Wall Street an avenue for profit!
Senate Halts Effort to Cap CO2 Emissions Democrats Forgo Centerpiece of President Obama's Energy Plan, as Cap-and-Trade Fails to Lure Broad Support in Congress
By Stephen Power Updated July 23, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET Wall Street Journal
Senate Democratic leaders Thursday shelved their effort to cap greenhouse-gas emissions as part of a broad energy bill, putting aside indefinitely a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's ambitious effort to transform the way Americans produce and consume energy.
The proposal would have allowed utilities to trade permits to pollute as they worked to shift away from coal—a concept commonly called "cap and trade."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that neither he nor the White House had managed to line up 60 senators to support even a limited proposal seeking to cap carbon-dioxide emissions from electric power companies.
Energy interests, from coal plants, to electric cars to solar panels will be affected.
Mr. Reid refused to declare the idea dead. But Thursday's decision called into question when or whether any legislated cap on greenhouse-gas emissions would reach Mr. Obama's desk.
Now, businesses, such as wind-turbine makers, that had bet on a greenhouse-gas provision to make alternatives to coal and oil more cost-competitive must recalculate how long it might take for that to happen.
But industries that opposed congressional action to limit greenhouse-gas emissions still have to reckon with uncertainty over how far the administration may push an effort to do the same thing via the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Advocates of the cap-and-trade approach say that making it more expensive to burn coal or oil would encourage investments in new technology that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions and energy consumption, resulting in lower energy costs overall and avoiding the potential long-term toll of climate disruptions on the economy. Some also argue putting a price on carbon can ahelp reduce reliance on foreign oil. Opponents of such legislation dispute this.
Opponents say compelling utilities to pay for emitting carbon dioxide would force them to pass along those costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. Republicans branded a House bill that proposed an economy-wide system for capping carbon dioxide emissions a "job-killing energy tax."
Senate Republicans closed ranks in opposition to even limited use of such mechanisms as the clock ticks down to the November elections.
But a limited cap-and-trade proposal backed by Mr. Reid and the White House also failed to win over a cadre of conservative Democrats from industrial and coal states, who opposed the idea of imposing caps and higher costs on the use of coal and other fossil fuels.
ENLARGE Sen. Harry Reid says he wasn't able to line up enough support for a cap-and-trade bill. Getty Images Some also worried that the measure would put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage to rivals in China, now the No. 1 consumer of energy according to the International Energy Agency.
China's role in the U.S. debate over climate change cuts both ways. Opponents of capping emissions say enacting such policies would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to China, which has refused to cap its emissions. Advocates of capping emissions say that unless the U.S. puts a price on carbon, it will lose out to China in the race to develop the energy technologies —and jobs—of the 21st century.
Mr. Reid said Democrats will push for more limited energy legislation, aimed at holding BP PLC accountable for the oil spill, providing incentives to the production and purchase of natural-gas vehicles and funding land and water conservation.
The Senate's inaction leaves Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson, in charge of setting federal limits on greenhouse gases. Ms. Jackson has already adopted rules limiting emissions from cars and requiring state regulators to account for such emissions when they issue air-quality permits to large refineries and manufacturing facilities.
The agency's authority to do so is under assault. Business groups have sued, challenging the legality of EPA proposals to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. And a group of Democrats is pushing legislation to bar the agency for two years from regulating emissions from stationary sources.
Utilities now will be forced to make long-term decisions without knowing how carbon dioxide will be treated, said Mike Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, Columbus, Ohio.
He said that for the next few years, utilities likely would build gas-fired power plants, which have about half the carbon emissions of plants burning coal. But the cost of nuclear energy will be relatively more costly without a penalty imposed on fossil-fuel use.
Uncertainty over the future price of carbon and what sorts of technology the EPA will require already is having a "chilling effect" on investment in the steel industry, said Thomas Gibson, a former EPA official who now heads the American Iron and Steel Institute.
But other business could be chilled if Washington abandons entirely the idea of raising the price of consuming fossil fuels. Companies trying to develop and sell solar and wind energy technology, energy-conservation systems or electric vehicles have hoped that caps on greenhouse gas emissions would jump-start demand.
These companies will now focus on certain states that have their own clean-energy mandates, such as California, Colorado and New Jersey, said Angiolo Laviziano, chief executive officer of REC Solar Inc., a provider of solar systems in San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Still, the solar industry is growing at the rate of about 40% a year in terms of electrical power installed and is likely to continue to grow, said Ron Kenedi, vice president of Sharp Corp.'s Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group in Huntington Beach, Calif.
Mr. Reid's decision to pull cap-and-trade from the energy bill could reverberate on Wall Street, where banks and brokerage firms had been anticipating climate legislation that would lead to widespread trading of carbon "credits."
There is already a global carbon-trading market, with the majority of the trading taking place in the regulated European markets. It amounted to $127 billion last year.
It isn't clear how many of the provisions Mr. Reid is promising to include in the narrower energy bill will survive a Senate floor debate. Republicans have objected to Democrats' proposals to eliminate the cap on oil companies' liability for damages related to spills, currently $75 million, saying the proposals, as written, would make offshore drilling unaffordable for all but the largest oil companies and foreign-owned nationalized oil giants. Some business groups are also rallying to defeat the provisions related to natural gas.