International Political Market Values And Subsequent Free Trade Agreements

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

Contrastively, globalization itself has great damage to the environment. Due to developed countries going into developing countries to exploit their resources, the natural resources is depleting at a rapid speed, yet we are still not doing enough to stop it. As there are strict laws regarding the environment in developed countries, these companies turn their eyes onto developing countries whose environmental laws are more relaxed in comparison. As these developing countries also want to earn revenue and income that these companies bring, they open the door to them, but destroying Mother Earth at the same time.

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

Three years after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created the largest free trade area in the world, the debate rages on.

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.

Developing countries tend to have “the most fragile environments” (Baker 197) which is due to the flow of resources dictated by the core. The core, taking advantage of the developmental level developing countries are on, exploit their lack of laws restraining harm to the environment, setting up factories causing even more environmental damage. Thus when comparing the environmental status of a developed country to a developing country there are major differences. These differences are the interaction of the people with the environment, in terms of needs, and the number of factories profiteering from the use and exploitation of natural resources. When this difference is identified then it is easier to assess not only the source but also to create laws prohibiting this exploitation and constructing programs to reverse environmental damages to specific circumstances, helping developing countries to move forward on the developmental scale instead of backwards. If this is taken into account then why is the source causing environmental damage, the core, not stopped? This is due to the dominant ideology stating that with infinite economic growth, eventually the sustainability of the environment will be achieved. The developing countries reinforces this by inviting and encouraging organizations to base their factories in their country which has immediate results, creating a smoke screen

The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were failures. The North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the most controversial documents of the 20th century, beginning January 1st 1988.1 The reason it was so controversial was because it was loved in some ways yet hated in others. One of the reasons why the FTA and NAFTA were failures is due to the fact that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney lost a lot of votes caused by the amount of voters that disapproved of the FTA and NAFTA. Another reason the FTA and NAFTA were failures is because the agreement did not improve the amount of full time jobs in Canada, which was one of the reasons that the FTA and NAFTA was created in the first place. The final reason the deal failed was because the deal was supposed to improve productivity around Canada but really did nothing. The FTA and NAFTA were failures because it only helped a small handful of Canadians and hindered many more.

The article “Why Canada Needs Europe” discusses the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), [was signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barrosa on 18 October 2013] which establishes a commercial trade agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU). It describes how CETA could improve trade and economic conditions in Canada by reducing tariffs that limit profitability and international competitiveness, as well as updating regulations that impact areas such as intellectual property, labor mobility, and technical standards. Like NAFTA, CETA is in part intended to improve trade flow by reducing traditional barriers like tariffs. Hence, the article discusses about the trade regulations that Canada and European union had after signing the agreement.

While industrialization has been strongly associated with greenhouse gas emissions, it is premature, however, to conclude that economic growth is the independent factor responsible to climate change. Neumayer (1998) contended that there is no sound scientific evidence documenting consequences of economic development on the environmental degradation in the long term (p. 4). There is also no linear association between economic growth and environmental deterioration, as maintained by Ferguson et al. (1996, p. 28) that the existing evidence “cannot be used to justify a view that economic growth (…) will automatically be good or bad for the environment” (cited in Neumayer 1998, p. 16).

It is commonly believed that free trade between nations is a mutually beneficial arrangement for all parties involved; indeed, this is held to be an absolute truth. Though free trade is undoubtedly the most effective form of commerce between countries from a purely economic standpoint, increasingly we find that our so-called "free trade agreements" are horribly unbalanced. Indicative of these fiascoes is the North American

Since the mid-20th century, countries have progressively reduced barriers, subsidies to domestic industries and diverse restrictions on international commerce in order to promote specialization and greater efficiency in production. In theory, free trade allows nations to focus on their main comparative advantages and profit from cooperation and voluntary trade. This strategy is usually reinforced by treaties between two or more countries where commerce of goods and services can be handled across their common borders, without tariffs and other trade obstacles. As a key component of regional integration in the Americas, CAFTA-DR is one important example of this economic ideology.

One of the main goals of free trade agreements is globalization. Globalization, or global free trade, is the creation of trading connections between countries throughout the world ("Globalization"). Globalization stresses free trade. Free trade is when tariffs are reduced or eliminated on exports or imports. Tariff tax percentages added to US imported goods have dropped dramatically from about 60% in the 1930s, to lower than 10% in 2005 ("International"). With less money taxed on products, corporations can expand, increase trade, and generate more revenue. Focusing on just the US, the value of goods traded with Canada was about $562 billion, and Mexico was $347.3 billion, in 2007 ("International"). Although globalization sounds very beneficial to the US economy and other countries ' economies, there are concerns of globalization being 'one-side. ' Due to the increase of free trade between trading countries, globalization was supposed to cause economic growth and improve living conditions in underdeveloped countries ("International"). Yet local business and farmers in countries like Mexico, are not getting a lot of business due to so many imported goods from large foreign corporations entering the market (Globalization). All the profits go back to multi-national corporations in more developed countries like the US ("International"). On top of that, there is the fear that because these multinational corporations are growing wealthier, they will have more influence over

Globalization has become one of the most influential forces in the twentieth century. International integration of world views, products, trade and ideas has caused a variety of states to blur the lines of their borders and be open to an international perspective. The merger of the Europeans Union, the ASEAN group in the Pacific and NAFTA in North America is reflective of the notion of globalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement was the largest free trade zone in the world at its conception and set an example for the future of liberalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement is coming into it's twentieth anniversary on January 1st, 2014. 1 NAFTA not only sought to enhance the trade of goods and services across

The numerous trade agreements developed between different groups of countries reveal the success of developing such relationships. Countries these trade agreements have reported increased imports and

Globalization have some positive impacts on the environment to some extent but there are still some crucial negative impacts of globalization in play. The negative impacts are mainly export-orientated* destruction on the environment whilst the positive impacts are increase awareness and multinational corporations’ research into eco-friendly technology.