Everybody’s going green, or so it seems these days. From San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to our state’s highest elected officials, from activist groups to our most “establishment” corporations, it seems almost everybody is talking about addressing global warming and reducing our impact on the planet. What a refreshing change from where we were just a few years ago.
But the best intentions in the world to “go green” will not get us far if we don’t ensure there are strong, consistent environmental policies that keep everybody honest. And in our globalized world, it is not enough to just have good laws here in California: We need to ensure similarly that our country’s international policies – including trade agreements – reinforce sustainable practices too.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where corporations increasingly outsource and offshore production, and where consumers are left in the dark not only about whether products are environmentally friendly, but even whether they are safe for their kids to use. Toys with lead paint, flowers doused in pesticides, high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, exporting our hazardous e-waste to developing countries and irreversible exploitation of natural resources are just some of the problems that have arisen from our current very un-green “free” trading system.
Think about a recent imported product you bought. Do you wonder: Was it made with an excessive use of fossil fuels (and thus promotes global warming?) Did the production facility poison its workers or release toxic chemicals into people’s drinking water during the production? (Not to mention: Was child labor used just to make a “cheaper” product?)
These types of questions – of fundamental importance to us when we think about “buying green” – are actually considered off-limits under the rules of the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. We can ask, but have no right to get an answer. The international trade rules even limit our government’s ability to investigate imported products when there is evidence of contamination, while simultaneously giving special rights to corporations to sue governments when environmental policies threaten their profits.
Does this make any sense? Of course not.
But what makes even less sense is that Congress, including some leading Democrats, are right on the verge – not of reforming this trading system – but instead extending it yet again.
Even though the public – from liberals to conservatives, from Democrats to Republicans – overwhelmingly supports trade policy reform, key Democratic leaders have decided to work with the Bush administration to pass a NAFTA-expansion deal with Peru. Similar deals with Panama, Colombia and Korea are in the pipeline.
Democratic leaders claim they got “major environmental concessions” from Bush in these latest deals. But these concessions barely changed the structure of the deals, and don’t fix the most glaring environmental problems. For example, a major Peruvian environmental association recently wrote to Congress asking for a vote against this trade agreement because it is expected to lead to massive oil and gas exploitation of the fragile Amazon Basin. And there is still no right to know if products are green or not.
The free trade agreement with Peru, like the other NAFTA-style deals, takes us in the wrong direction and won’t help us “be or buy green.” In order to assure that our emerging “green consciousness” is encouraged to thrive, we must insist on stronger pro-environment provisions in all new trade agreements, starting with the pact with Peru.
TED SMITH is founder of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and chair of the Computer TakeBack Campaign. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.
