Environmental Implications of NAFTA on North America
Introduction
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 on all of North America, and if a country did not abide by these regulations they would be accountable to a multinational panel and receive a proper penalty. In theory the NAFTA would be entirely beneficial to Mexico, the US, and to Canada, but due to low enforcement of the regulations, the opening of foreign resource markets along with several other implications has proved the NAFTA is far from ideal.
Environmental Regulations of NAFTA and their Effects
Previous trade agreements with our southern trading partners have been solely based on economic growth, but with the inclusion of and environmental side agreement to the NAFTA, environmental restoration was now a key factor. Proponents of this side agreement praised the NAFTA for its sensitivity to the pressing environmental concerns shared by Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Environmental regulations would be
set in place for North America as a whole, eventually cleaning up our environment on a huge scale. Opponents of the NAFTA,...
... middle of paper ...
...Brian W., Jeanne M. Logsdon. “The Impact of NAFTA on Mexico’s Environmental Policy.”Growth & Change, Winter 1997, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p24-25.
Rugman, Alan M., John Kirton. “Multinational Enterprise Strategy and the NAFTA Trade and Environment Regime.”Journal of World Business, Winter 1998, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p438-517.
Fox, Annette Baker. “Environment and Trade: The NAFTA Case.”Political Science Quarterly, Spring 1995, Vol. 110 Issue 1, p49-69.
Charnovitz, Steve. “NAFTA’s Environmental Significance.”Environment, March 1994, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p42-46.
Camillo, Jay L. “North American Free Trade and the Environment.”Business America, 10/18/93, Vol. 114 Issue 21, p38-42.
Lundmark, Thomas. “The Environment and NAFTA: Understanding and Implementing the New Continental Law.”Journal of Environmental Law & Practice, Nov/Dec 1996, Vol.4 Issue 3, p60-65.
"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. .
In 2013, the European Union signed a trading pact with Canada in order both sides to increase their foreign market export and boost their economy sectors. This paper will examine the purpose of CETA and its impact on Canadian industry. The focus will be on food, drug, forestry, marine, and mining industries including water supplies in Canada.
Moreno-Brid, J. C. (2007). Economic development and industrial performance in mexico post-nafta. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from http://www.eclac.cl/celade/noticias/paginas/3/28353/JCMoreno.pdf
In this paper I will summarize the arguments for and against trade protection for United States industries. Among the measures that can be used to restrict foreign trade are tariffs and trade quotas. Industries can also get nontariff barriers, miscellaneous legislation which give domestic products an advantage. In general, experts agree that restricted foreign trade benefits workers and domestic businesses, while under free trade consumers have a greater quantity and quality of choices available to them. [1] I will also look at arguments for and against NAFTA, an important trade agreement between the countries of North America.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and United States which advocates free trade. If successful, the agreement promised to make the whole North American continent an economic zone. This was the agreement if the world’s largest free trade relationship. It was then passed in 1944 and brought many benefits to three countries, epically Canada. When NAFTA initiated it set out for free trade to North America but Canada Benefitted greatly. Frist being NAFTA made cheaper prices and variety of products for products for consumers. NAFTA also has had an effect on employment and wages. Finally, NAFTA has helped to benefit in Canadas economy. Canada has benefitted greatly with the initiation of NAFTA.
Prior to NAFTA (Inc. April 2006), “… tariffs of thirty percent or higher on export goods to Mexico were common, as were long delays caused by paperwork…. NAFTA addressed this imbalance by phasing out tariffs over 15 years. Approximately 50 percent of the tariffs were abolished immediately when the agreement took effect, and the remaining tariffs were targeted for gradual elimination.” According to Kimberly Amadeo (2015), article 102 of the NAFTA agreement outlines its purposes which is to “Grant the signatories Most Favored Nation status, eliminate barriers to trade and facilitate the cross-border movement of goods and services, promote conditions of fair competition, increase investment opportunities, provide protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, create procedures for the resolution of trade disputes, and establish a framework for further, trilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation to expand the trade agreement’s benefits.”. This quotation, condenses the agreement by stating that the intentions of NAFTA which was an agreement created to ease trade on imports and exports, by eliminating tariff barriers, in order to encourage competition and venture opportunities. Although, free trade is supposed to bring wealth, strength, and prosperity it should also
Such agreement provides both a theoretical and policy framework that promotes international environmental law. I believe that there were more pragmatic approaches to solve this problem from a culture and legal perspective. However, the establishment of an international environmental dispute tribunal created a new norm to legally resolve transboundary environmental problems. For example, Hess writes “In 1935, the countries signed and ratified a convention that referred the Trail Smelter dispute to an arbitral tribunal.9 in its interim decision in 1938, the tribunal concluded that the emissions from the Trail Smelter had harmed crops and trees in Washington and awarded the United States US$78,000 in compensation. In its final decision in 1941, the tribunal held that the Trail Smelter should avoid air emissions that harm Washington, that a detailed pollution control regime should be implemented at the smelter, and that Canada would be responsible for paying damages for harm in the United States from future smelter emissions”(Hess, 2005). It is important to note that international environmental law plays a leading role in environmental management worldwide, thus instituting and executing proper
NAFTA has also increased the traffic movement between borders. The pollution from caused from traffic, contributes to the rising temperatures of global warming. In addition, Canadians are getting disrupted such as by traffic jam. In terms of losing Canada’s own culture, Canada has imported a lot of products and a lot of companies moved to Canada. The Canada has been facing to big countries which are US and Mexico for a long time. Now Canada is losing own culture such as low and policy in a company which from another country among U.S or Mexico. Moreover, for years and years now, Canada has been trading other countries with their advantage of many natural resources. Now that NAFTA came into effects, USA also has the advantages with Canada's natural resources. This will cause more clear-cutting and natural areas to be destroyed. (Kimberly,
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement between America, Canada And Mexico that coincides a triune free trade economic bloc between the three countries. NAFTA was a necessary deal to be made between the North American Nations to compete in the “Economic World Order”. NAFTA was first designed and drafted by American president George Bush senior, Canadian Prime minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican president Carlos Salinas on December the 12th 1992 in San Antonio Texas. NAFTA’S original creators where not the men that finalized the triune trade bloc but instead NAFTA was redrafted to appease all recipients of the deal and its respectful citizens. NAFTA was finalized and singed on December the 8th 1993 by American president Bill Clinton, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. NAFTA came in to full effect on January the 1st 1994. The history of NAFTA and its negative and Positive effect and the necessity of NAFTA will all be explained in this paper.
In 1994, the most controversial alliance between nations took its affect. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) was the agreement to have free trade between Canada, United States and Mexico. According to the Institute for International Economics one million workers in 1995 would owe their jobs to U.S. exports to Mexico. Some 175,000 of those would be new jobs in higher paying sectors (Mohn 2007). Although it was suppose to drastically increase trade and create jobs, in many ways had the reverse affect. The environment took a backseat to the corporate greed. With the increase of trade, the pollution increased and the quality of goods decreased significantly. Our country lost more jobs than it gained. We have become increasingly dependent on other countries. The United States has sat by silently as the pollution from unregulated foreign low-wage manufacturing plants infiltrates our earth's rivers, air, and ground water. Our government has turned their heads on workers in other countries as well as our own, being exploited and forced to work in conditions not fit for and animal. NAFTA may have increased trade but at what cost? It looks like even the United States can be bought. The U. S. Government no longer controls our country, big business does.
...aswan, A. (2011). Reconciling justice and efficiency: integrating environmental justice into domestice cap-and-trade programs for controlling greenhouse gases. In A. Denis (Ed.), Ethics and Global Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roughly fifteen year ago the United States entered into an agreement with its neighboring countries Canada and Mexico. With the incarnation of this intercontinental free trade agreement; the United States acting as the conduit would not only increase trade productivity for itself but, allot its sister nations to the north and south the same advantages. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is beneficial to America because, it encourages the expansion of job opportunities, abolishes taxes and tariffs that can restrict the flow of imports and exports, and supplies the States with goods and services at lower costs causing profits to increase exponentially.
Canada is great economic superpower that has yet to reach its potential. As the second largest nation by area, we possess vast natural resources. We are a massive importer and exporter on the world stage, who a play a vital role in the stability of the northern hemisphere. Through Canada’s international trade, we export vast quantities of many different foods stuffs, minerals and manufactured goods like cars, while we tend to import lots of Iron, Aluminum and Steel. Our relations with neighbouring nations have been integral in the success of our trade. In 1994 Canada became a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA with the US and Mexico. NAFTA reorganized Canada’s and America’s trading systems to work as one. The trade issue of recent months is about the rising costs of energy in Canada and in the United States. Newly elected President George W. Bush now is proposing a North American energy initiative for a continental power grid. This proposal puts Canada in a very uncomfortable situation. On the one hand we would love to share our resources and appease our super-power to the south. But on the other we prefer to leave our pristine land alone. The growing trend nowadays is that politicians are the ones wanting to please the Americans by giving away our resources, while it is the activist who is concerned about the vast environmental damage this energy legislation could entail.
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 borders of Canada, US and Mexico but it fostered shared interest in investment, transportation, communication, border relations, as well as environmental and labour issues. The North American Free Trade Agreement was groundbreaking because it included Mexico in the arrangement.2 Mexico was a much poorer, culturally different and protective country in comparison to the likes of Canada and the United States. Many members of the U.S Congress were against the agreement because they did not want to enter into an agreement with a country that had an authoritarian regime, human rights violations and a flawed electoral system.3 Both Canadians and Americans alike, feared that Mexico's lower wages and lax human rights laws would generate massive job losses in their respected economies. Issues of sovereignty came into play throughout discussions of the North American Free Trade Agreement in Canada. Many found issue with the fact that bureaucrats and politicians from alien countries would be making deci...
Tietenberg, Thomas. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Addison Wesley: New York, 2003. pp. 561. ISBN 0-201-77027-X, pp. 7-11.