World leaders were at the New York headquarters of the United Nations (UN) on September 25, when they unanimously adopted the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). These are important targets, as the globe moves toward sustainability and global practices regarding everything from transportation and manufacturing to health and agriculture.

There are 17 major goals, and a total of 69 targets, and overall the goals show that the world leaders, at least in theory, are willing to say that these goals should be pursued. The goals are all laudable and have been in the radar of many humanitarian organizations for decades. The first goal, for instance, is to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere;” the second is to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.”

At the same time world leaders were adopting these goals, trade representatives from 12 Pacific Rim countries were working to finalize an agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would set new economic and trading rules for 12 countries, including the United States, representing about 40% of the world economy, and would make it difficult, if not impossible, for countries to achieve the agreed-upon UN goals.

Take the goal of supporting sustainable agriculture. If a country decided that genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food, and the pesticides that are intended to be used with them, were not sustainable and decided to ban them, that country might be the subject of a lawsuit from companies such as Monsanto, who produce the GMOs and pesticides. Monsanto could argue the ban negatively impacts its “expected future profits,” and under the “Investor State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS) included in the TPP, the company could sue the country in a corporate tribunal. The judges in these tribunals would be highly paid corporate lawyers who are known to switch back and forth between being judges and representing either countries or companies.

As Sam Cossar-Gilbert of Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) wrote in an October 2 online article (tinyurl.com/ogb4648), “The TPP would drive a race to the bottom in environmental protection. The TPP chapters on technical barriers to trade will threaten regulators’ access to the tools needed to effectively regulate the roughly 85,000 chemicals in commerce needed to protect human health and our environment.”

He added, “Even very simple consumer sustainability measures like efficiency rating and food labeling on imported goods could be impossible under TPP, because labeling regulation can be deemed a barrier to trade.”

It is not an alarmist view to think that this sort of lawsuit will increase if TPP passes, because such suits are already happening under previously negotiated agreements. As the FOEI article pointed out, “In 2009 Vattenfall, the Swedish energy giant, launched a $1.9 billion ISDS case against Germany for its decision to delay a coal-fired power station and impose stricter environmental standards. To avoid the potentially massive fine looming under ISDS, the government reached a settlement that involved removing additional environmental requirements, enabling the coal plant to begin operating in 2014. With the highest carbon content among fossil fuels, coal is a profound threat to the climate.”

Passage of TPP would likely mean that new laws adopted by municipalities, states and countries meant to protect the environment and human health would become the targets of ISDS lawsuits, and New York towns that passed drilling bans could be vulnerable. It is not an exaggeration to say that while world leaders are acting clearly for the common good in adopting the UN goals on the one hand, on the other they are at the same time working to block that good in favor of maximized corporate profits through the TPP.

The ISDS element of TPP is not the only objectionable one. Another is the extreme secrecy under which it has been negotiated. Much of the agreement has been leaked through the press, but negotiators intended details to be kept secret for five years after the TPP is passed or abandoned.

While the 12 Pacific Rim countries announced on October 5 that a deal had been reached, the details must be finalized and the governments of these countries must sign on to the specifics. Because Congress approved fast-track authority, when members vote on it, perhaps next spring, there will be no opportunity to offer amendments.

We agree with Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump on the right and Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on the left that TPP is a bad deal and, if you agree, you should contact your representatives in Washington, DC.