|
Since it was established in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has promoted international trade at the expense of a safe and clean environment. The WTO could acquire more powers that undermine environmental health and safety standards at its upcoming summit in Seattle from Nov. 30 to Dec. 3, 1999. Instead, citizen groups are challenging the Clinton administration to take executive action to fix trade rules that increase the risks to our families’ health and safety. Clean Air Sacrificed The World Trade Organization has already proven that it is a threat to clean air. In January 1996, a WTO dispute panel ruled against standards under the US Clean Air Act designed to clean up gasoline and reduce smog pollution from cars and trucks. To comply with the decision, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new standards for the program that even it admitted would "...result...in dirtier U.S. air." The WTO ruled against the clean gasoline program after Venezuela and Brazil, which produce dirtier gasoline, complained that the standards violated their trade rights. The WTO panel declared that goods should not be subjected "to variable treatment according to extraneous factors." The Sierra Club believes that air pollution is under no circumstances an "extraneous factor." America’s children will now have to breath dirtier air, even though the EPA believes we must do more to reduce the smog pollution that is contributing to a steep rise in asthma attacks. Polluters are Protected The WTO summit may also be used to give polluters greater protections. The European Union wants to use the summit to launch talks that could insert corporate polluter rights into the WTO. The Clinton administration may cut a deal to go along with this risky idea in exchange for concessions on other trade priorities. A polluter rights agreement in the WTO could stifle environmental progress worldwide as corporations sue governments for damages any time an environmental law hurts their bottom line. Existing polluter protections in trade agreements have already raised serious concerns. A Canadian corporation filed suit against the United States for nearly $1 billion in damages last spring after California banned a cancer-causing gasoline additive. The additive, MTBE, is leaking from fuel tanks and polluting the state's drinking water. Methanex Corporation, which makes a key ingredient in MTBE, is demanding taxpayer compensation because the value of its stock took a dip after California put the ban in place. The complaint will be judged by a secretive international investors' tribunal under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). If Methanex wins, the United States could be forced to pay compensation. To prevent such an embarrassing outcome, California Gov. Gray Davis could be compelled to weaken the standards. In a strikingly similar case, Ethyl Corporation of Virginia sued Canada under these same NAFTA provisions for banning a gasoline additive that reduces engine knock but is also suspected of poisoning the nervous system. Rather than face huge financial penalties, Canada rolled back its law. These cases could establish a terrible precedent in which taxpayers are forced to pay foreign corporations for the privilege of a clean environment, or avoid making laws that prevent pollution. If similar polluter rights are included in the WTO, things could get much worse. Electronics and Toxic Waste In 1999, at the request of the American Electronics Association, the Clinton administration threatened to use the WTO to challenge proposed new European standards for reducing toxic pollution from computers. Computer manufacturing generates enormous amounts of toxic gases and heavy metals. When computers are junked, tons of hazardous materials and recyclable plastic are discarded into the environment. To reduce pollution from computers, the proposed European standards would reduce the amount of toxic materials used in the manufacture of computers, require recycled plastic content in the computer's shell, and require manufacturers to recycle junked computers rather than throw them into a landfill. Adoption of the new standards in Europe would help protect America's environment because US companies would have to reduce their use of toxic materials in order to sell computers in Europe. Instead, the administration charged that the standards were a trade barrier that would hurt US computer companies. Silicon Valley and other high-tech centers are now toxic hot spots because of pollution from the computer industry. Instead of attacking Europe's effort to solve the problem of computer waste, we should use our trade partnership to develop joint solutions. As President Clinton said, "we should be leveling up, not leveling down." Pollution at the Border In 1995, 27 families in Brownsville, Texas sued the US-owned factories operating just across the border in Mexico for illegal toxic air pollution. These families had suffered the heartbreak of babies born with severe birth defects -- including malformed brains and crippling spinal conditions -- possibly due to air pollution that had drifted across the border. Despite public assurances by the companies that they obeyed Mexican and US pollution control laws, the suit uncovered rampant violations. Internal documents from one automaker revealed emissions of air toxics known to cause birth defects that would "not [have been] allowed in Dayton." The polluted US-Mexico border zone illustrates a global problem caused by unregulated free trade. As trade barriers fall, companies move operations to countries where labor is cheap with full knowledge that their products can be exported to the rich consumers back home. Globally, foreign investment in factories, mines and other physical assets is growing at twice the rate of trade. More and more of this investment is going into poor countries. For instance, since NAFTA took effect in 1994, the number of foreign-owned factories making cars, computers and other products across the border in Mexico has grown from 2,000 to 3,000. Such foreign investment can give poor
countries a badly needed economic boost. But without
proper controls, industrial pollution will increase. For
instance, along Mexico’s border with the United
States less than one in ten companies even bother to
report their hazardous wastes as required by law. Some say that economic growth will eventually create public demand to clean up pollution. Meanwhile, toxic dumping in poor countries continues unabated because governments fear that tough law enforcement will drive away the footloose foreign investors. Make Trade Clean, Green, and Fair! A responsible trade policy would open markets and protect the environment -- not put our families’ health and safety at risk. To make trade clean, green, and fair, Sierra Club is urging the Clinton administration to take executive action to:
Get involved!
Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
