|
Broken
Promises: How the Clinton Administration is Trading Away Our Environment
Executive Summary
The Clinton Administration has frequently promised an environmentally sound trade
policy, and just as frequently failed to deliver on its promises. This report documents
three broken promises and the realities behind them.
Promise #1: Trade Rules Won’t Weaken Our Environmental Laws
Reality Check #1: Our protections for endangered sea turtles
were just ruled a "trade barrier" by a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel,
even though the law is fair, effective, and protects internationally recognized endangered
species.
Reality Check #2: Europe’s ban on hormone-treated beef, a
known cancer risk, was also ruled out of bounds by the WTO after a U.S. challenge. The
precedent could haunt US consumers since the WTO could force us to lower our standards to
weaker international levels.
Reality Check #3: Our clean gasoline regulations were weakened
by the EPA after another WTO ruling against an important program under the Clean Air Act.
EPA now expects increased smog in US cities as a result of the ruling.
Reality Check #4: America’s forests are under increased
risk from exotic pests that hitchhike into the country on imported logs. US pest control
authorities wrote weak regulations in order to comply with trade obligations, an important
example of the chilling effect of trade rules.
Reality Check #5: Maryland legislators rejected Nigeria
sanctions legislation aimed at protecting human rights and the environment. The State
Department had lobbied against the bill as a trade violation.
- Reality Check #6: Food safety is falling as imports rise under free trade
policies.
Promise #2: We’ll Do Better in the Future, as we continue to
negotiate trade rules.
Reality Check #7: The Committee on Trade and the Environment
(CTE), initiated by the United States to make WTO rules more environmentally sensitive,
achieved nothing in more than two years of existence.
Reality Check #8: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI), negotiated by the Clinton Administration, is the most anti-environmental trade
agreement yet conceived.
Promise #3: Trade and Growth Equals Environmental Protection, so there
is no need to worry.
Reality Check #9: There is no justification for complacency.
Evidence linking trade and growth to environmental protection is based on flawed
assumptions and weak evidence.
Reality Check #10: Short-sighted free trade policies promote
global warming by diffusing the car culture to emerging economies, such as China. More
rational trade policies would promote less fossil-fuel dependence.
Reality Check #11: Increased capital mobility increases
corporate bargaining power. As trade agreements liberate corporations to move operations
freely around the world, business gains leverage to press for weaker environmental
regulations.
Recommendations
Trade policy should promote a high quality of life for all, not just big profits for
large corporations. To move toward an environmentally responsible trade policy, the
Clinton Administration should:
Build domestic consensus for a green trade agenda. Such an agenda would
include environmental assessment of all new trade agreements, trade negotiating authority
that mandates environmental and labor protection in future trade agreements, increased
leverage for Congress to ensure that this mandate is fulfilled, and abolition of the
industry-dominated advisory system to the US Trade Representative.
Reform the World Trade Organization. WTO rules should be changed so that
they no longer threaten legitimate environmental laws. The WTO’s dispute settlement
mechanism must be open and accountable.
Establish a truly inclusive "Eminent Persons Group" to advise
the WTO on needed reforms. Such a group could build public support for WTO reform, but it
must be balanced between champions and critics of the current trade system.
Continue to next section
Up to Top
HOME |
Email Signup |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Terms of Use |
© 2008 Sierra Club
|
