When discussing the environment, President Barack Obama’s final State of the Union sacrificed logic for applause.

During his hour-long speech before Congress last Tuesday, Obama spent much of his time urging for climate change action and rallying support for clean energy.  But the president surely misspoke when he claimed that passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership would “protect workers and the environment.” That, or he misunderstands the definition of “protect.”

Passing TPP, a free trade agreement among 12 countries, and environmental protection are not just lacking direct correlation — they are completely antithetical. If Obama truly wants to fight for the environment, he cannot simultaneously fight for TPP.

Despite labeling climate change the greatest threat to future generations and speaking urgently on the need to take action, the president has a mixed — if not outright lacking — environmental policy record. Increased natural gas and oil export allowances by his administration have left a bad taste in environmentalists’ mouths. Regardless of the economic growth that followed, these policies have only deepened global dependence on unsustainable energy.

The president has consistently spoken more forcefully than he’s acted, and among Obama’s top demands has been a call for collaboration with fellow nations. In December, he got his wish.

To combat climate change, world leaders met for a climate change convention in Paris and agreed to attempt restricting global warming to two degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. To do this, each country will establish emission reduction plans. After 2018, each country will have to submit new plans — plotting progressively increased reductions — every five years.

Unfortunately, participation in this framework is voluntary and there is no punishment for nations that don’t comply. It is a toothless commitment at best.

“The deal reached in Paris is weak, containing no concrete increase in the level of ambition to address climate change, and simply urges countries to do more over time,” said Richard Chatterton, the head of climate policy at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

TPP’s introduction would only increase the danger of defection. The goals of unbridled free trade — exorbitant consumption by corporations and transportation of goods using nonrenewable resources — directly oppose the regulatory goals of those focused on climate change.

Mainstream politicians — President Obama included — can’t embrace this fact.

We cannot successfully fight climate change without pushing for actual enforcement  — a 2015 analysis by Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment showed that it will require drastic change outside of carbon emission reductions to meet the two degree goal.

The global initiative might be too late to help certain parts of the world. Island nations, such as the Marshall Islands, are already disappearing, eroding because of rising sea levels.  Despite contributing very little to the climate change that is destroying their homes, they are already facing the consequences.

In a time when we need to hold corporate polluters more accountable, TPP would grant corporations more power than ever. Under the proposed agreement, corporations could sue the government when they interfere with their business’ bottom line — or, for oil companies, when governments enact carbon reduction goals or environmental legislation.

And, while scientists state that 80 percent of available fossil fuels need to remain untapped for us to reach the two degree goal, the TPP would guarantee the automatic approval of Liquid Natural Gas export permits to TPP countries. This freedom would increase natural gas export and production, which will likely lead to an increase in fracking. Major environmentalist organizations, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, sensibly expect this to lead to increased coal production in the United States, given that it pairs coal producers with new markets abroad.

If we are focused on fighting climate change, why are we pushing through an agreement that will only speed it up?

The disparity between these two treaties shows where our government’s true interests lie. A weak climate change deal is poised to usher in a strong, binding free trade agreement with harmful environmental impacts. Considering that the president counts both of these elements as goals,  addressing climate change is not truly his top concern.

For as confident as President Obama appeared during his State of the Union, there is a clear conflict of direction. He must choose free trade or a clean planet, and the first option cannot exist without the latter. Global cooperation means little if there is no globe left.

Alyssa primarily writes on social justice and political issues for The Pitt News.

Write to her at [email protected]