Freely trading environment for profit

and Megan Garcia

Most environmentalists see the upcoming presidential ballot as an easy choice. It is expected that Kerry will carry on the Clintonian legacy of protecting the environment, as he has already touted 'green and clean communities.' Bush, on the other hand, offers Healthy Forests (a.k.a. Leave No Tree Left Behind) legislation and a well-documented history of favoring corporate interests over environmental protection.

However, few environmentalists, or members of the public, are aware that environmental protections are threatened by international economic rules that are often termed 'free trade.' In this realm of international agreements, Kerry and Bush do not seem so ideologically distant. After all, it was Clinton who left us with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), two of the most dangerous policies facing the domestic environmental agenda.

Take for example NAFTA's Chapter 11. This section of NAFTA provides sweeping property rights (protections) for foreign corporations and allows them to challenge our hard-won conservation victories. The case of California v. the Methanex Corp. provides a clear example of how dangerous international rules can be for our local fights. After seven years of analysis and debate, experts at the University of California at Davis came to the conclusion that the fuel additive methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)-originally introduced to reduce vehicle emissions-was contaminating California's groundwater supply. In the hope of preventing serious harm to humans and the environment, then-governor Gray Davis announced in 1999 that California would phase out use of the fuel additive by 2002. The Environmental Protection Agency has also placed MBTE on its Candidate Contaminant List and since 2001 has required most communities to monitor their groundwater supplies for its presence.

Three months after Davis' action, the real intention of NAFTA's Chapter 11 became clear-to challenge legitimate environmental and labor laws as 'barriers to trade.'

A Canadian manufacturer of MTBE, Methanex Corp., filed suit under NAFTA's Chapter 11 seeking to remove California's public health and environmental law as equivalent to expropriation. Because free trade gives economic interests greater priority than human rights and environmental concerns, Methanex could win the nearly $1 billion it is seeking for 'future loss of profits.' They are not even claiming outright expropriations, but rather a 'future loss of profit.'

Under NAFTA law, California will be represented by lawyers from the federal government-many of whom originally negotiated the NAFTA agreement-in a trade court that is closed to the public. No experts on hydrology, water contamination, or public health will be called in this case. Our democratic process and judicial system have no part to play. Only trade lawyers and economic experts will decide the fate of our ground water.

Other cases-ranging from challenges to Europe's ban on beef contaminated with artificial hormone residues to the dolphin-tuna case that weakened the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow the sale of tuna caught with dolphin-unsafe nets in U.S. markets-are setting ominous precedents by overturning environmental standards. International trade agreements, like the WTO and NAFTA, have created an alarming legal hierarchy where transnational corporations are able to challenge any law, environmental or otherwise, that impedes potential for profits.

For this reason, some environmental groups are beginning to do some serious thinking about international free trade rules and what they mean for the domestic environmental agenda. The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Center for International Environmental Law have staff devoted to trade issues, and have partnered with labor, immigrants rights, faith and women's groups to officially oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the next major free trade agreement up for a vote in the House and Senate.

While NAFTA was hailed by proponents as the most far-reaching trade agreement in history, CAFTA, occasionally called NAFTA on steroids, is pushing the limits again. CAFTA not only includes rules equivalent of NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allows business to overturn environmental protections as 'barriers to trade,' but actually expands the rule, increasing the type of business that can bring suit against a U.S. environmental law.

The good news is that international pressure for a responsible and balanced form of trade has emerged as a powerful force. The WTO and NAFTA have proven that no one's interests are safe in the face of transnational corporate power. These agreements have therefore acted as a force to unite civil society groups from both developed and developing nations. Due to global protests in Seattle, Cancún, India, Bolivia, and more, the WTO has postponed new talks for two years. Similarly, the passage of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a NAFTA-like agreement whose jurisdiction would encompass the entire western hemisphere (Alaska to Argentina), has been steadily scaled back and now rests on the success of CAFTA.

The press all too often distills the issue of trade into an oversimplified choice between free trade and economic isolationism. The real question is not whether or not to trade, but rather how to trade-under what terms designed to meet which goals.

Experts and Washington, DC, insiders report that the defeat of CAFTA would represent a major step toward developing the solutions that environmentalists, labor unions, immigrants, and family farmers have been seeking since the globalization experiment began after World War II.

TAKE ACTION

Long-term solutions require long-term thinking. Free trade is not the answer. Call Sen. Dianne Feinstein and your representative today and urge them to take a public position against CAFTA. Let them know that you expect them to reject NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO and to help lead a fair and responsible trade movement.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: 310-914-7300 or 619-231-9712

Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask the operator to transfer you to your representative's office.

Jesse Swanhuyser is director at California Coalition for Fair Trade and Human Rights. Megan Garcia is program assistant at Public Citizen California.