Global trade shouldn't undermine the environment

E-mail this article Print this article

Trade should be a force for progress. But the "fast track" trade legislation that Congress will vote on later this week will take two steps backward on environmental protection for every step forward on trade.

One key problem is an obscure provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) dealing with "investor" issues. NAFTA's investor rules were originally justified as prohibiting governments from seizing the property of foreign investors without compensation. A sensible goal. But NAFTA negotiators drafted the rules so broadly that foreign corporations can use them to challenge environmental laws simply for reducing expected corporate profits.

For example, the Methanex Corporation of Canada has sued U.S. taxpayers for nearly $1 billion claiming that California "expropriated" its expected profits by passing a recent water-pollution law. The law aims to phase out a toxic gasoline additive called MTBE that is polluting drinking water across the country. Even though the law was set in place by fully democratic procedures, the NAFTA tribunal that will rule on it operates behind closed doors, denying even state officials the right to defend their law in person.

We'd better watch out. Washington state just passed a similar MTBE phase-out, designed to keep our water safe for drinking. As goes California's law, so likely will go ours.

NAFTA investor tribunals have also ruled against the environment in Mexico and Canada. Mexico lost a case when it created an ecologically sensitive zone above an aquifer, preventing the operation of a toxic-waste dump. Local citizens were rightly concerned that the toxic chemicals would poison their drinking-water supplies. But the NAFTA tribunal waived the constitutionally protected rights of the local government to prevent operation of a dangerous facility within its jurisdiction.

Canada also lost a NAFTA investor lawsuit when it limited exports of PCBs — poisonous environmental pollutants — in order to comply with an international environmental agreement banning export of hazardous waste. A number of additional investor lawsuits are currently pending.

When NAFTA was passed, most people, including most members of Congress, did not understand that it would elevate the rights of foreign property holders over the public interest in a clean environment. No one even guessed the degree to which NAFTA could trump the constitutional prerogatives of state and local governments. Now that we know better, we need a new, more balanced approach to trade.

Unfortunately, rather than correcting the problem, some in the House Republican leadership want to pass the Thomas fast-track bill in order to expand NAFTA's aggressive investor lawsuit provisions to more countries.

In coming years, the world's governments face major challenges in preventing global warming, saving the Earth's protective ozone shield, cleaning up toxic waste, promoting smart growth and saving our ancient-forest heritage.

In light of these urgent needs, it would be an act of sheer folly for Congress to authorize fast-track legislation that would expand unbalanced trade rules that threaten core environmental protections here at home and around the world.

Both trade and environmental protection are critical to our quality of life in the Pacific Northwest. We can move forward with trade, but Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibility to ensure that future trade deals do not undermine the ability of governments worldwide to protect our environment.

Washington's representatives should reject the Thomas fast-track bill.

Kathleen Casey is Northwest regional representative for the Sierra Club.