Can We Have Free Trade and Reduce Pollution of the Environment?

After analyzing the forestry problem described earlier, the problems are clearly linked domestic government policy and not only the giant multinational corporations as Ellwood has posited. The incentive for corporations to conduct cross-border trade is not the unperturbed environmental laws, it is the comparative advantage they would gain from cheap labor and resources. LeGrain advances the argument that approximately 80% of polluting industries are in industrial nations, such as America where Greenpeace affirms that oil corporations receive billions of dollars in subsidies for their production purposes which does the most environmental damage that affects the rest of the world with it. Initiatives should be started to reduce the Global South’s dependency on the Global North because it is their high debt-GDP ratios which keep the prices of natural resources (often tied to their currency) low enabling large consumption. There is a clear incentive for the international community to reduce the Global South’s dependency because it is widely agreed that as the GDP per capita of a nation increases the residents are able to afford environmental remediation products and

Prior to 1994, trade and the environment were two entirely separate issues. There were no environmental regulations found in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) or in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Upon the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) environmental concerns of North America as a whole were for the first time provided within a side agreement to the NAFTA. Finally there is a trade agreement that recognizes the concerns of North American citizens to maintain a healthy, sustainable environment, where the damaging effects of free trade could be minimized. The NAFTA entailed provisions for stricter environmental regulations

While it is ideal to have free trade, which is trade without any restrictions upon it, it is not that simple. Instead, there are tariffs and quotas that prevent free trade. Tariffs are taxes on imports, and quotas are a limit on the quantity of a good that can be imported during a given time period. Tariffs and quotas exist because governments may prefer that their products be sold nationally more than another country’s products to help their own economy. Their own economy is helped because more jobs can be given to that country’s workers instead of another country’s workers. While quotas and tariffs may help boost a country’s economy, free trade allows for reduced prices, less inefficiencies, and increased consumption worldwide. With tariffs, the supply curve remains level as the price level never changes due to the extra-tax upon imported items. It should be

10. NAFTA is a ‘prototype’ of new generation ‘trade’ agreements, which address investor rights to challenge government regulations. The Sierra Club’s 2009 article on the environmental consequences of NAFTA gives an excellent summary of the criticisms of NAFTA, including those pertaining to the investor rights provisions of the treaty, at

To cut costs, companies relocate their factories to areas with minimal pollution regulations to produce more with lower prices. Without tariffs, “trade without borders” become more much accessible and gratifying multibillion dollar corporations. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA and WTO do not consider the ecosystem and thus, endanger biodiversity and vital natural resources. Globalexchange.org states, the creation of free trade agreements imperil “global diversity by accelerating the spread of genetically engineered crops, … and erodes the public’s ability to protect our planet for future generations.” All in all, the absence of environmental regulations in free trade agreements severely damage the biosphere.

Not only does she highlight the trade organizations in general, but she cites specific examples of situations where trade agreements were used to prevent the establishment of environmentally friendly systems. In Ontario, a large solar plant operation was planned to move into the city. This included a factory in Ontario that would require the workforce to be made up of locals, to provide manufacturing jobs for the residents of the province, and a product that would help provide green power for a large amount of the province. The government also would establish a policy where “solar energy developers had to source at least 40-60 percent of their content from within the province” (Klein 67). This was to ensure the survival of a company that benefits the province as a whole, and Silfab did thrive under these regulations. Looking at the overall plan, it is difficult to find the victims of this business plan because the people, the business and the environment all benefit from the introduction of a system like this. The

I think that trade policies in a union view could fit into a sustainable approach. I can also see some problems as well with this approach. An example that is current is the Keystone pipeline in North Dakota. Here are some of the issues- 1. Will affect the animals and their habits. 2 May impact oil production. 3. What pipelines could mean for the climate. 4. How the pipelines will impact people. The BlueGreen Alliance is a partnership of union labor groups and environmental groups. Together they have created a plan for long and short term goals that help companies with finance, new technology, and improve new projects. We also have to take in to consideration the location and climate. For location we have to look at political and trade relationships.

Fair trade is vital to respect democracy, enrich communities, and preserve our natural environment. However free trade agreements have the opposite effect. In the past 6 years alone, over 350,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs have been lost mostly because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Canada has been sued by NAFTA 37 times. $160 million worth of fines have already been paid by Canada but we are already facing another $4-5-billion worth of NAFTA lawsuits. Quebec recently but a temporary ban on fracking in the St. Lawrence river and NAFTA is suing the Canadian government for $250,000,000 because of this. Free trade organizations will sue over any laws that get in the way of profits. In NAFTA’s investment chapter, there is

Hazards and pollutants are apparent in a variety of outcomes. Possible outcomes include asthma, cancer and chemical poisoning (Gee and Payne-Sturges 2004: 1647). Furthermore, “Although debated, the main hypothesis explaining these disparities is that disadvantaged communities encounter greater exposure to environmental toxins such as air pollution, pesticides, and lead” (Gee and Payne-Sturges 2004: 1647). Therefore, disadvantaged groups, such as people of color and the poor, experience greater environmental risks. Additionally, “Blacks in particular are exposed to a disproportionate amount of pollution and suffer the highest levels of lead and pesticide poisoning and other associated health problems” (Jones and Rainey 2006: 474). People of color, essentially, compete to live healthily. For example, African-Americans and Africans alike, struggle with the negative affects of oil refineries and unresponsive governments. The same can be said for Hispanics in California and the natives of Ecuador, who are forced to cope with the pollution of the Texaco oil refineries (Bullard 2001: 4). Environmental racism not only exploits natural resources, it abuses and profits from the communities involved. Governments and polluting facilities will continue to capitalize on the economic susceptibilities of poor communities, states, nations and regions for their “unsound” and hazardous operations (Bullard 2001: 23).

“Trade allows countries to specialize in what they do best and to enjoy a greater variety of goods and services” (Mankiw, 2012, p. 10). That being said many countries are in a difficult spot when it comes to oil and natural gas, and the U.S. is not in good shape when it comes to the

One of the greatest international economic debates of all time has been the issue of free trade versus protectionism. Proponents of free trade believe in opening the global market, with as few restrictions on trade as possible. Proponents of protectionism believe in concentrating on the welfare of the domestic economy by limiting the open-market policy of the United States. However, what effects does this policy have for the international market and the other respective countries in this market? The question is not as complex as it may seem. Both sides have strong opinions representing their respective viewpoints, and even the population of the United States is divided when it comes to taking a stand in

2009). This in itself shows the high standards of sustainability can be made from free trade (Gidney, M. 2009). Fair trade provides two key benefits that can help with the current world economic crisis. First it provides sustained benefits for producers that can help maintain their business through fluctuations of the world market (Gidney, M. 2009). Second, fair trade helps to maintain fair prices, additional social premium, and long-term partnerships that help provide better living standards for millions of people in over 60 countries (Gidney, M. 2009).

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, shows support for free trade and emphasises it as a trade policy which ought to be adopted. Krugman and Obstfeld back Smith's support by stating that the efficiency of trade is increased by free trade and accumulates the national income of countries. Free trade is a theory which suggests that each nation benefits in specialising in an economic activity from which it gains absolute advantage, enjoying absolute superiority over other nations in a specif economical activity (Peng). With free trade follows opportunity, replacing regulation and growth of economic activity. (Rugmann and Collinson).

Many economists today argue that the fewer tariffs and barriers there are to foreign trade, the better everyone fares. That view underlies the agreements that the United States and 152 other countries have made as members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Among other

Ever since the first involvement of government in international trade, many people have posed their opinion about what the role of government should be in it. Different factors are involved when it comes to deciding what this should be. It impacts a lot of people, so in order to do that, trade policy must be properly defined, identify what the roles of government currently are, and their involvement in it, and then analyse what should be their role. Trade policy is how a country carries out trade with other countries (Commercial Policy, n.d). Even though a lot of people support government intervention in international trade, countries would benefit a lot more if the government removes protectionism and promotes free trade instead.