SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Trans-Canada Sue US Government for $15 Billion over Tar Sands Pipeline Cancellation
Jan 07, 2016
In a dramatic example of the powers assumed by the corporate world through trade deals, energy infrastructure corporation TransCanada commenced legal actions yesterday against the US president for cancelling the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
Keystone XL was designed to carry tar sands oil from Hardisty in Alberta to Steele City in Nebraska, thus increasing outlets for the most carbon-intensive oil currently produced, and reinforcing the dependency that industrialised countries like the US have on fossil fuels.
The legal case is being brought under the auspices of NAFTA, a predecessor of the current crop of free trade agreements such at TTIP, CETA and TPP. It poses four alarming propositions for us in the UK:
Firstly, the threat posed by CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) between Canada and the EU. This is a prime example of the Canadian corporate world bearing its teeth. As they can no longer build a hugely profitable pipeline to the US, they want to claim compensation from the US taxpayer instead. Never mind the environmental concerns of the project, the effects on our countryside and animal habitats, there's money to be made. Politicians need to be very conscious of this when making their minds up whether to support CETA or not when it comes up from ratification later this year.
Secondly, and following on from the first point is the potential environmental impact this could have in Europe. Firms involved in fracking, drilling, mining and other environmentally damaging practices also look to exploiting the provisions of various trade treaties to further their profit making at a cost to taxpayers across the world. This opens up some nice possibilities from the likes of Cuadrilla, which has investment from US corporation Riverstone LLC, and similar fracking companies.
Then there is the warning that despite politicians and the business world trying to allay concerns of the corporate court system that features in TTIP, CETA and the rest by saying "don't worry, it won't happen here". It is. It is happening where we were told it couldn't. Most trade deals with ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement), the secretive corporate court system, are between developing countries and the industrialised west. Of course investment will flow in one direction in these partnerships, meaning the UK or the EU are relatively immune from resulting court actions. Now with these mega deals between western trading blocks, it's open season. The attractions of suing rich governments for our tax money are too much for many corporations to resist. Expect more of this kind of action.
Finally, win or lose for TransCanada, the defending government in any ISDS case is in a lose-lose situation. It is impossible for compensation to be paid to a government in ISDS. Sixty percent of ISDS cases are won by the corporations, forty percent defended successfully by the government concerned. That is an excellent success rate for the businesses concerned (legal law firms are set to make tens of millions from this kind of action). Then there is the question of the costs of defending such a case. According to United Nations Conference Trade and Development legal costs for a government average at about US$8 million per suit and in complex cases that figure has been known to exceed US$30 million.
So, we ask again; why are our government so determined to put future governments and untold millions of pounds of taxpayer money at risk from corporate lawsuits of this type coming to our shores?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Guy Taylor
Guy Taylor is campaigner for Global Justice Now where he focuses on international trade, including opposition to the TTIP and similar deals. He previously worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of immigrants and before that for anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance.
In a dramatic example of the powers assumed by the corporate world through trade deals, energy infrastructure corporation TransCanada commenced legal actions yesterday against the US president for cancelling the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
Keystone XL was designed to carry tar sands oil from Hardisty in Alberta to Steele City in Nebraska, thus increasing outlets for the most carbon-intensive oil currently produced, and reinforcing the dependency that industrialised countries like the US have on fossil fuels.
The legal case is being brought under the auspices of NAFTA, a predecessor of the current crop of free trade agreements such at TTIP, CETA and TPP. It poses four alarming propositions for us in the UK:
Firstly, the threat posed by CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) between Canada and the EU. This is a prime example of the Canadian corporate world bearing its teeth. As they can no longer build a hugely profitable pipeline to the US, they want to claim compensation from the US taxpayer instead. Never mind the environmental concerns of the project, the effects on our countryside and animal habitats, there's money to be made. Politicians need to be very conscious of this when making their minds up whether to support CETA or not when it comes up from ratification later this year.
Secondly, and following on from the first point is the potential environmental impact this could have in Europe. Firms involved in fracking, drilling, mining and other environmentally damaging practices also look to exploiting the provisions of various trade treaties to further their profit making at a cost to taxpayers across the world. This opens up some nice possibilities from the likes of Cuadrilla, which has investment from US corporation Riverstone LLC, and similar fracking companies.
Then there is the warning that despite politicians and the business world trying to allay concerns of the corporate court system that features in TTIP, CETA and the rest by saying "don't worry, it won't happen here". It is. It is happening where we were told it couldn't. Most trade deals with ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement), the secretive corporate court system, are between developing countries and the industrialised west. Of course investment will flow in one direction in these partnerships, meaning the UK or the EU are relatively immune from resulting court actions. Now with these mega deals between western trading blocks, it's open season. The attractions of suing rich governments for our tax money are too much for many corporations to resist. Expect more of this kind of action.
Finally, win or lose for TransCanada, the defending government in any ISDS case is in a lose-lose situation. It is impossible for compensation to be paid to a government in ISDS. Sixty percent of ISDS cases are won by the corporations, forty percent defended successfully by the government concerned. That is an excellent success rate for the businesses concerned (legal law firms are set to make tens of millions from this kind of action). Then there is the question of the costs of defending such a case. According to United Nations Conference Trade and Development legal costs for a government average at about US$8 million per suit and in complex cases that figure has been known to exceed US$30 million.
So, we ask again; why are our government so determined to put future governments and untold millions of pounds of taxpayer money at risk from corporate lawsuits of this type coming to our shores?
Guy Taylor
Guy Taylor is campaigner for Global Justice Now where he focuses on international trade, including opposition to the TTIP and similar deals. He previously worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of immigrants and before that for anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance.
In a dramatic example of the powers assumed by the corporate world through trade deals, energy infrastructure corporation TransCanada commenced legal actions yesterday against the US president for cancelling the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
Keystone XL was designed to carry tar sands oil from Hardisty in Alberta to Steele City in Nebraska, thus increasing outlets for the most carbon-intensive oil currently produced, and reinforcing the dependency that industrialised countries like the US have on fossil fuels.
The legal case is being brought under the auspices of NAFTA, a predecessor of the current crop of free trade agreements such at TTIP, CETA and TPP. It poses four alarming propositions for us in the UK:
Firstly, the threat posed by CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) between Canada and the EU. This is a prime example of the Canadian corporate world bearing its teeth. As they can no longer build a hugely profitable pipeline to the US, they want to claim compensation from the US taxpayer instead. Never mind the environmental concerns of the project, the effects on our countryside and animal habitats, there's money to be made. Politicians need to be very conscious of this when making their minds up whether to support CETA or not when it comes up from ratification later this year.
Secondly, and following on from the first point is the potential environmental impact this could have in Europe. Firms involved in fracking, drilling, mining and other environmentally damaging practices also look to exploiting the provisions of various trade treaties to further their profit making at a cost to taxpayers across the world. This opens up some nice possibilities from the likes of Cuadrilla, which has investment from US corporation Riverstone LLC, and similar fracking companies.
Then there is the warning that despite politicians and the business world trying to allay concerns of the corporate court system that features in TTIP, CETA and the rest by saying "don't worry, it won't happen here". It is. It is happening where we were told it couldn't. Most trade deals with ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement), the secretive corporate court system, are between developing countries and the industrialised west. Of course investment will flow in one direction in these partnerships, meaning the UK or the EU are relatively immune from resulting court actions. Now with these mega deals between western trading blocks, it's open season. The attractions of suing rich governments for our tax money are too much for many corporations to resist. Expect more of this kind of action.
Finally, win or lose for TransCanada, the defending government in any ISDS case is in a lose-lose situation. It is impossible for compensation to be paid to a government in ISDS. Sixty percent of ISDS cases are won by the corporations, forty percent defended successfully by the government concerned. That is an excellent success rate for the businesses concerned (legal law firms are set to make tens of millions from this kind of action). Then there is the question of the costs of defending such a case. According to United Nations Conference Trade and Development legal costs for a government average at about US$8 million per suit and in complex cases that figure has been known to exceed US$30 million.
So, we ask again; why are our government so determined to put future governments and untold millions of pounds of taxpayer money at risk from corporate lawsuits of this type coming to our shores?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.